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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today Senate Republicans will agree to move to debate on an important question, and that question is this: Should a majority of Senators direct activities in the war in Iraq? Republicans are eager to engage in this debate on the Reid resolution because it is different in kind from any of the previous Democratic proposals--very, very different.

It is unprecedented in the powers it would arrogate to Congress in a time of war. It is a clear statement of retreat--a clear statement of retreat from the support that the Senate only recently gave to GEN David Petraeus, and its passage would be absolutely fatal to our mission in Iraq.

Previous resolutions proposed by the Democrats were a mere statement of opinion or of sentiment. This one has a binding quality. It would interfere with the President and General Petraeus's operational authority to conduct the war in Iraq as he and his commanders see fit. It would substitute for their judgment the judgment of 535 Members of Congress.

The judgment they have made in this, that Iraq is simply a distraction on the Global War on terror and that U.S. troops should begin to withdraw in months, with all combat forces leaving within a year--that is the judgment that the Reid proposal makes. This is the memo that our enemies have been waiting for. Osama bin Laden and his followers have repeatedly said that the United States does not have the stomach for a long fight with the terrorists. Passage of the Reid joint resolution will be the first concrete sign since September 11, 2001, that he was right on target.

Timetables are bad, but don't just take my word for it. Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, my good friend, the majority leader himself, said this:

As for setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that's not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do that.

Six months after the majority leader made that observation, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, said this:

A deadline for pulling out ..... will only encourage our enemies to wait us out. ..... [It would be] a Lebanon in 1985, and God knows where it would go from there.

That was our friend, JOE BIDEN, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Shortly after Senator Biden's observation, Senator Clinton made the same point, just 3 months after that:

I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal.

Said Senator Clinton:

I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you.

That is the majority leader, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and a prominent Democratic candidate for President, all on the wisdom of what this Reid proposal proposes to do, just a short time back.

Surely Senators REID, BIDEN, and CLINTON have not changed their minds about who would benefit the most--who would benefit the most if we set a date certain for withdrawal. They know just as well as I do that this is just what the terrorists have been waiting for and just what our allies in Iraq and the entire region of the world have feared.

Setting a date certain for withdrawal will send a chill up the spine of every Iraqi who has dared to stand with America. Millions of good men and women have helped us in this fight. Since we arrived in Iraq, nearly 120,000 Iraqis have volunteered to serve in their Army. More than 8,000 Iraqis have died in uniform to defend the fledgling democracy over there. And, recently, in Anbar Province, we are told that roughly 1,000 Sunnis volunteered for a police force over a couple of weeks.

These brave men and women are watching what we do. They know, as we do, that chaos will engulf Iraq and the rest of the region on that day. They know they and their families will likely face a firing squad soon after we leave. The message we send them with this resolution is this: Good luck.

General Petraeus understands the importance of the mission in Iraq and his new mission to secure Baghdad. In a recent letter to the soldiers under his command, he wrote as follows--General Petraeus said:

The enemies of Iraq will shrink at no act, however barbaric. They will do all they can to shake the confidence of the people and to convince the world that this effort is doomed. We must not underestimate them. Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who oppose the new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murderers to hold the initiative. We must strike them relentlessly. We and our Iraqi partners must set the terms of the struggle, not our enemies. And together, we must prevail.

That is General Petraeus just recently. These are the words of the man this body sent to Iraq unanimously. They are the words of a military commander, confident yet realistic and committed above all to victory. This is the voice of courage and resolve in the face of danger. We do best to listen to voices such as this, which speak of victory rather than defeat and withdrawal. We owe it to him, his soldiers, our allies and the world.

Republicans are ready for this debate.

Source