Dwell Time

Floor Speech

DWELL TIME

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if this amendment sounds familiar, it is because I offered this amendment roughly 10 days ago. In response to my colleague from Illinois, this is virtually the same amendment I offered during the consideration of the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, to which the other side of the aisle raised a point of order, and it was judged not germane.

I respect that ruling on that bill, but we are back here today, 10 days later, on the Defense authorization bill--a bill to which this amendment is clearly germane. I want to make a few points.

First of all, for my colleagues' recollection, I have in the Chamber a copy of the ad that ran on September 9, 2007, immediately before GEN David Petraeus came to testify before the Congress, along with Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the Ambassador to Iraq from the United States.

It is important for colleagues to recognize that this ad ran before the general came to testify, even though it had been well known the general would come back in September 2007 and report on progress on the fight in Iraq, both from a military as well as a diplomatic perspective.

So it is clear, at least to me, the purpose of this ad was to smear the good name of this four-star U.S. Army general, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq, before he even had a chance to make his report to the Congress and to the American people on the progress of the surge of forces and of operations in Iraq.

As the amendment, which has been read, indicates, General Petraeus is the senior commander on the ground for the United States and coalition forces in Iraq. Before the general testified, this ad placed in the New York Times--apparently at a discounted rate below the $167,000 ad rate which ordinarily would be charged for a full-page ad in the Sunday New York Times--this ad, which was sold at a discount by the New York Times to MoveOn.Org, asks the question: ``General Petraeus or General Betray Us?'' and accused this professional soldier of ``Cooking the Books for the White House.''

It goes on--and all of us can read--to further disparage the good reputation of this professional soldier and someone who is responsible for roughly 170,000 American men and women wearing the uniform of the United States military in Iraq.

The reason why MoveOn.org bought this false ad was because they were afraid of what General Petraeus would indeed report when he testified before Congress a week or so ago.

In fact, General Petraeus testified that ``the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met.''

He told us the ``overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in 8 of the past 12 weeks,'' preceding his testimony.

He said: ``Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to Al Qaeda-Iraq.''

He said: ``We have also disrupted Shia militia extremists.''

He went on to testify that ``Coalition and Iraqi operations have helped reduce ethno-sectarian violence, as well [as] bringing down the number of ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last December.''

He said: ``The number of civilian deaths has also declined during this [same] period.''

If that sounds familiar, it is because General Petraeus's testimony was preceded by the issuance of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, issued just the preceding month, which basically came to the same conclusions as General Petraeus.

The National Intelligence Estimate, of course, represents the considered opinion of the intelligence community of the U.S. Government. It is delivered by the Director of National Intelligence pursuant to requirements of Congress in law.

The National Intelligence Estimate, issued just last month by the U.S. intelligence community, found there have been ``measurable improvements'' in Iraq's security situation since last January before General Petraeus's implementation of the new strategy.

The NIE, or National Intelligence Estimate, found that if our troops continue to execute the current strategy, Iraq's security environment will continue to improve over the next 6 to 12 months; and that changing the U.S. mission in Iraq would erode security gains achieved thus far.

Well, it is not just General Petraeus's testimony. It is not just the National Intelligence Estimate that was rendered last month. We had a commission created by the Congress, headed by former Marine GEN James Jones, and with a group of commissioners whose cumulative military experience exceeds 500 years. Also on this commission were a number of police chiefs and other law enforcement personnel with more than 150 years of law enforcement experience.

So it is clear by virtue of their experience they have a solid basis for the judgment they rendered. Well, it is important to note that not only did General Petraeus testify, as I have indicated, not only has the National Intelligence Estimate said what I quoted, the Jones Commission also found that the Iraqi Armed Forces--the Army, Special Forces, Navy, and Air Force--are increasingly effective and are capable of assuming greater responsibility for the internal security of Iraq.

The commission--we were told before a hearing in the Armed Services Committee, on which I sit--thinks that over the next 12 to 18 months the Iraqi forces will continue to improve their readiness and capability.

I noted during the testimony of General Petraeus that this is one of the first times I can think of where the messenger was shot for delivering good news. In other words, this ad run in the New York Times before the general testified is contradicted by not only his testimony but by the National Intelligence Estimate I mentioned and the Jones Commission, representing more than 500 years of military experience.

It is sad to say but true that this ad represents what I would consider to be a sign of the times.

Now, I know the distinguished majority whip is on the floor, and I recall that when I offered this bill on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, we had a colloquy talking about: Well, everybody makes mistakes. Occasionally, people will misspeak and not accurately say what they intend to convey. But since this ad ran, since the time the distinguished majority whip and I had this colloquy, MoveOn.Org has expressed its pride at running this ad. In other words, they said they were glad for what this ad conveys. They are not ashamed of it. They didn't say it was a mistake or they misspoke; they continue to stand behind this slur on the good name of General Petraeus, a man who is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and to do everything in his professional ability to win the conflict in Iraq.

So even before Congress received the Petraeus-Crocker reports, we know some critics had already declared the surge to be a failure. There are those who said they didn't care what General Petraeus had to say.

Now, after General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have reported, some of these same people are, such as MoveOn.Org, questioning their judgment--which is their right--but also their motivation, which I think if they are agreeing with the motivation that is expressed in this ad, I respectfully disagree with them.

It is puzzling why some of my colleagues insist on moving the goalpost for our military. In fact, I think what they experience is what happens when anybody bets against the U.S. military. It is dangerous to do because they are going to lose if they are betting against the men and women of the U.S. military. I cannot fathom how the success of our troops in improving the security situation in Iraq could possibly be construed as a bad thing for our Nation, but some apparently, including MoveOn.Org, seem to think it is.

I refuse to stand by while a group such as MoveOn.Org demeans the good name of an American soldier who represents, in turn, 170,000 American soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and Coast Guard. I refuse to stand by while this group demeans the good name of our men and women in the U.S. military who have given so much for our country. The military service of General Petraeus alone is spotless, and he has proven time and time again, with his blood, his sweat and his tears, his patriotism and his love for our country. As a matter of fact, one would be hard-pressed to find another military officer with the qualifications that are as impressive as General Petraeus. Currently serving his third combat tour in Iraq, he has literally been there and done that, and he has done it with dignity, with honor, and devotion to service.

Today, I offer all my colleagues a chance to clear the air and set the record straight. For some of them, voting for this amendment may represent a chance to show true moral courage and true political courage as well. My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that GEN David Petraeus and all the members of our Armed Forces are to be supported and honored and that any effort to attack their honor and their integrity should be condemned; particularly before the general was able to even deliver his testimony, where MoveOn.Org and these critics could not have known what he was going to say, and that clearly the goal of this ad and MoveOn.Org was to undermine public confidence in the messenger before the messenger even had a chance to deliver that message. My amendment expresses a sense of the Senate that General Petraeus and all the members of our Armed Forces should be protected and defended against an attack on their honor and integrity.

By introducing this amendment, I call on all Senators to tell America they do not condone such character assassination of those who are sworn to protect the very freedom we enjoy and the very system of government in which we all serve. Our military servicemembers simply deserve better. I hope all Members of the Senate would join with me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. I yield for a question.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in the 2004 Presidential campaign, I might ask the Senator from Texas, there was a group from Texas that attacked Senator John Kerry and said he was undeserving of the commendations and decorations he received for his courage in fighting in Vietnam and raised questions about others who served in the military who were part of his swift boat operation. One would have to say, by any stretch, that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were attacking the honor and integrity of one of our colleagues who served with honor in the Vietnam war.

I would like to ask the Senator from Texas if he is prepared to remain consistent and if he is also prepared to amend his amendment to repudiate the activities, actions, and statements of the Texas-based Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization with their unwarranted attacks on our colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, during the 2004 campaign.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am not willing to amend my amendment, as the distinguished majority whip requests. He keeps emphasizing this is a Texas-based group. I have no idea whether it is. But let me tell my colleague what the differences are between this ad and what MoveOn.Org tried to do to this good soldier and the difference between that and a political campaign.

Senator Kerry chose to run for President of the United States. You and I and others may disagree with the tactics employed by third parties in the course of a Presidential campaign, but this is not a Presidential campaign. General Petraeus did not volunteer to run for political office and subject himself to the spears we all sometimes catch as part of the political process. All this general has sworn to do is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and to protect this country from attacks from our enemies.

So I would say it is apples and oranges to compare what happens in a political campaign with the attack on this general in such a premeditated and vicious way as MoveOn.Org did before he was to deliver his testimony before the Congress.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source