United States Policy in Iraq Resolution of 2007--S. J. Res.9

Floor Speech

UNITES STATES POLICY IN IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2007--S. J. RES. 9 -- (Senate - March 15, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I rise to express my strong opposition to the Reid resolution, S.J. Res. 9.

This is a dangerous piece of legislation. It is constitutionally dubious, and it would authorize a scattered band of Senators to literally tie the hands of the Commander in Chief at a moment of decisive importance in the fight
against terrorism in Iraq. I would never doubt the patriotism of my colleagues across the aisle, but I have become increasingly troubled over the last few weeks as this debate has taken shape.

When the President prepared a solution to the growing violence in Baghdad, he had good reason to expect the support of at least some of our friends on the other side of the aisle. The democratic whip, Senator Durbin, said in late December:

If we need initially some troops in Baghdad to quiet the situation, to make it more peaceful so that our soldiers start coming home, then I would accept it.

That is the assistant Democratic leader not years ago but 3 months ago. Yet as details of the President's proposal to do so became clear, our friends on the other side circled the wagons, and Senator Durbin got in line. Just 2 weeks--2 weeks--after saying he would support reinforcements as a way of stabilizing Iraq, the Senator from Illinois said:

The proposed surge in troops is a sad, ominous echo of something we have lived through in this country.

Then later on that day he added:

I don't believe that a surge is the answer to our challenge in Iraq.

That is 2 weeks after announcing that it might be a good idea. Would our friend from Illinois have felt the same way if one of his Democratic colleagues had proposed the surge? Increasingly, the troubling answer to this question appears to be yes. Indeed, it is increasingly clear that the only principle guiding our colleagues on the other side is this: If the President proposed it, we oppose it. This is a bad principle in good times. It is an outrageous principle in times of war.

Two months after many Democrats said they would support a surge in troops if it meant stabilizing Baghdad, and incredibly 1 month after sending General Petraeus on his mission to do so, Democrats are now calling for the very thing they have consistently opposed: setting a timetable for withdrawal. This is beyond silly. It is a chaotic embarrassment that threatens to shake the confidence of our commanders and of our troops, and to embolden an enemy that predicted and longed for nothing less. Of course, at some point it is not enough to simply say: If the President proposed it, we oppose it. The principle begs for a counterproposal: What would the Democrats propose instead? We all saw the answer: Seventeen different proposals, many of which contradicting the last, and then finally this, a proposal everyone could get behind, a proposal that sets a date certain for America's withdrawal from Iraq.

This resolution is a clear statement of retreat from the support that the Senate recently gave to General Petraeus; as I have said, its passage would be absolutely fatal to our mission in Iraq.

Senator Clinton put it well. She said:

I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don't think you should ever--ever--telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you.

That was Senator Clinton. Well, ``ever'' is here, and our friends on the other side of the aisle apparently now think it is a good idea to telegraph our intentions to the enemy. Osama bin Laden and his followers have repeatedly said that the United States does not have the stomach for a long fight. Passage of this resolution will prove Osama bin Laden, regretfully, was right. This is the vote he has been waiting for.

Setting a date certain for withdrawal will please a vocal group of Democratic Presidential primary voters, but it would discourage many others, including many Democrats, who agree that timetables are foolish and dangerous. More importantly, it would discourage our own troops--and this is the most important part about this--who wonder whether we truly support their mission, and it will discourage our allies and the millions of brave Iraqi men and women who have dared to stand with America in this fight.

I will proudly vote against a resolution that sets a timetable that actually announces the date for our withdrawal from Iraq. I will do so for the same reason that many prominent Democrats opposed it up until the day President Bush announced his plan for securing Baghdad 2 months ago.

Republicans have a message for our allies and for our troops, and it is this: We will continue to fight a timetable for withdrawal that has no connection to events or circumstances on the ground. We will give General Petraeus's mission a chance to succeed. We are proud of the work the general has done, and we stand with him until the job is done. We will send this message today when we vote in favor of the Gregg resolution. This resolution pledges us to support the troops and their mission. The Republicans proposed a month ago that we be allowed a vote on this resolution, but we were denied. We are being allowed that vote today, and just as proudly as we will vote against S.J. Res. 9, we will vote in favor of the Gregg resolution.

In one sense, this debate has been academic. Senators will have a chance to show their support for the mission in Iraq when we vote on the supplemental appropriations bill later this month. That is the bill that matters. That is the one that funds the operation in Iraq. But in another sense, this debate was worthwhile because it exposed the principle that appears to guide the opposition: If the President proposed it, we will oppose it. This is no principle at all; it is pure politics. It is unworthy in good times. It is shameful at a time of war.

Meanwhile, the fighting in Iraq continues, and General Petraeus's mission is showing early signs of success. We are told that bomb deaths are down one-third in Baghdad since the new plan took effect last month. Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half. Traffic has returned to the once empty Baghdad streets.

No one is foolish enough to say this will last. This is not a prediction, but it is a sign of hope, the kind of sign that everyone in this country--Democrat and Republican--has been waiting for. We in this Chamber have a choice: We can fan this flame or we can smother it. By voting on a timetable for withdrawal, we are very decidedly doing the latter. Republicans take the hopeful path today.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 15 seconds remaining.

Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Source