[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 155 (Tuesday, December 6, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2456-E2457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE THAT DEPLOYMENT OF FORCES IN IRAQ BE 
                         TERMINATED IMMEDIATELY

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, November 18, 2005

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
resolution. I have no doubt that the majority of the House will oppose 
it, so it will be voted down.
  And by voting down this resolution, we are responding to the 
Republican leadership's desire to have us say what we're against.
  But that's the easy part. The hard part--the part that should be 
under discussion--is to say exactly what we are for, what policy we 
think our country should follow regarding our military involvement in 
Iraq.
  The Republicans don't want to have that discussion. They would rather 
put forward a politicized, petty, irresponsible resolution that is 
intended to score political points. Like the Bush Administration, they 
are adopting the tactics of a political campaign, and like the 
Administration, their greatest success will only be to further divide 
Americans. How does this honor our men and women in uniform who are 
even now risking their lives in Iraq?
  It's clear that the Republican leadership is concerned that 
Representative Jack Murtha's call for the rapid redeployment of 
American forces and reducing our military presence in Iraq is already 
carrying significant weight in Congress. Why else would the Republicans 
seek to trivialize and play politics with this proposal from a man who 
is not only a decorated veteran, but one of the most respected voices 
in our country on military and national security policy?
  Like Mr. Murtha, I believe the Bush administration has largely failed 
in Iraq because the civilian direction of the war has not matched the 
skill and sacrifice of our soldiers. Going to war the way we did was a 
strategic mistake, and the aftermath has been a failure because of the 
president's refusal to plan and refusal to listen.
  I voted against the resolution authorizing the president to rush to 
war in the first place. I did so because I had concerns about the 
president's refusal to consider more aggressive inspections of WMD 
before going to war, his inability to secure international support, his 
obvious failure to develop a plan for securing peace after ousting 
Saddam, and his reckless disregard of experienced military advice.
  Although I was an outspoken opponent of going to war in Iraq, I have 
supported our brave soldiers because it has seemed to me that our 
national security is now linked, like it or not, to a credible plan for 
stabilizing Iraq and preventing a catastrophic civil war in the region.
  I do not think supporting our troops is a partisan matter. In fact, I 
know everyone on both sides of the aisle does support them. So, it is 
disappointing--but, unfortunately, not surprising--that some have 
alleged otherwise.
  And, some have suggested the resolution we are voting on today is a 
Democratic resolution, even though it was introduced by the gentleman 
from California, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, 
who of course is a Republican.
  The resolution we are voting on today isn't Jack Murtha's 
resolution--it is a cheap ripoff of a well-intended effort on the part 
of a respected veteran and long-serving Member. Jack Murtha's 
resolution calls for the immediate termination of the deployment of our 
forces, but it also says that the redeployment of forces should happen 
at the earliest practicable date, not right away. Jack Murtha's 
resolution includes important safeguards such as a quick-reaction U.S. 
force and a presence of U.S. Marines outside of Iraq who could respond 
as necessary if events in Iraq were spiral out of control.
  I remain concerned about setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal 
because how we leave is as important as when we leave. That's why I 
cannot support Mr. Murtha's resolution and why I certainly cannot vote 
for this resolution proposed by Mr. Hunter.
  Nevertheless, the fact of today's debate, coupled with the 
evaporation of public confidence in the president's management of the 
war, should be a wake-up call to the president to develop a withdrawal 
strategy that can garner bipartisan support and set an unmistakable 
path toward exiting Iraq expeditiously and with our interests and 
security intact.
  This country cannot have 535 commanders-in-chief. There can only be 
one commander-in-chief and we need him to address the country, explain 
his withdrawal strategy, and to be honest with the American people 
about the costs and timetable for withdrawal.

[[Page E2457]]

  We were led into war as a divided nation and today we are even more 
divided. A successful withdrawal from Iraq can only be helped if 
Congress and the Bush Administration work to bring unity at home. In a 
hopeful sign, that kind of unity was on display when the Senate passed 
with overwhelming bipartisan support a resolution requiring 
accountability by the president in Iraq, and the House should, at a 
minimum, do the same.

                          ____________________