To Revise United State Policy on Iraq--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

TO REVISE UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - March 14, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the question is: What is our duty? We know what the duty of our soldiers will be when they raise their hand and take an oath to serve our country. They agree to risk their lives for America. They follow orders. They follow the lead of their commanders. They march into battle. Some come home and some do not. But what is the duty of the Congress? What is our responsibility when it comes to war?

First, of course, was the authorization for the use of force. President Bush came to us and said, I want to have the authority to invade Iraq for three reasons: No. 1, to get rid of the dictator Saddam Hussein; No. 2, to destroy weapons of mass destruction; and No. 3, to make sure the country lives up to the requirements of the United Nations resolutions.

Many of us felt at the time that America was being misled about the real danger in Iraq. Some of us, some 23 Senators, voted against the authorization of force back in October of 2002. But as we take a look at that scene in Iraq today, we realize that all three of those things have been accomplished. Saddam Hussein no longer exists, weapons of mass destruction never existed, and there is no question about complying with the United Nations resolutions.

So the obvious question is: By what authority is America still there? By what authority do 150,000 Americans now risk their lives while we stand in the safety of this Chamber?

This resolution seeks to define our mission today in realistic terms. If the President had come to Congress 4 years ago and said, I want the authority to send American troops into the middle of a civil war in Iraq, a war that has been brewing for 14 centuries between warring Islamic factions; I want American soldiers on the street risking their lives every day until the Iraqis resolve this age-old dispute, do you think we would have approved that authorization of the use of American force? Of course not. It would have been pure folly.

Sadly, the situation today has no clear mission, and that is the reason for this resolution. This resolution makes it clear the Iraq Study Group, Democrats and Republicans, men and women who served our country so well in public service, would have a chance to step forward and come up with a plan that makes sense for America to start coming home, and that is what this resolution says.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.

Mr. DURBIN. Who wants America to come home at this point? The American people do. The Iraqi people want us to leave. In fact, the Iraqi leadership has said it is time for us to start withdrawing our troops. The resistance to bringing our troops home comes from the other side of the aisle and from the White House. They believe we need more troops.

How often will America respond when the Iraqis pick up the phone and dial 9-1-1 to send another 20,000 of our best and bravest to go into battle? It is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own country. It is time for the American forces to start to come home. It is time for us to acknowledge that they have done their job and done it well. We have lost almost 3,200 American lives; 24,000 have been injured. We know among those injured many have not been greeted as they should have been. They have been sent to flophouse rooms at Walter Reed's Building 18. They have been pushed through the bureaucracy of the Veterans' Administration. For those who say they support our troops, they will have a chance to prove it soon, as we start trying to put the resources we need into the military and VA, to help our troops as they return.

This resolution is an opportunity for this Congress to speak to the reality of what is going on in Iraq today, and the reality suggests that it is time for American forces to start to come home; not more forces in harm's way but more forces coming home to be greeted by us, as Americans, for the fine job they have done. We cannot blame them if the mission has been lost over the last 4 years. They had nothing to do with that. But we can make it clear that our future mission is going to be one we can define precisely: to stop terrorism, to train the Iraqis so they can defend themselves, and to protect our own troops. Those are clear missions.

For those who resist this resolution, the obvious question is this: What do you think our mission is today? Is it simply to send more and more troops into harm's way, that they would risk their lives? I think not.

For those who argue that we are micromanaging the war, I guess my question for them is, isn't it time that somebody managed this war? Isn't it time, when it came to troops and mission and equipment, that we clearly had a management plan that our troops deserve?

For those who argue that we are cutting off funding, they have not read the resolution. We are not cutting a penny from the troops and the money that they need to come home safely. But we are saying that our mission has to be clear and our troops have to come home.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support what the American people want, the redeployment of our fine troops back to America.

Source