[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 133 (Wednesday, December 6, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H8883-H8887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well of the House today to 
address America's predicament in Iraq and I do so with the thoughts of 
my neighbor's son who tonight is serving in Baghdad as many of our 
proud men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and wives are 
serving. I am going to have his future in mind during my comments 
today. I know my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, share 
these views. They have their own kin and neighbors.
  My neighbor was one who is the young man I watched growing up playing 
peewee football in Bainbridge Island, Washington. He was called to 
service in Iraq. He went. He served proudly for a year. He was ready to 
return. He was literally on the plane to return when he was called back 
to go back into Baghdad in the President's effort to send more troops 
into Baghdad. He has suffered two IED explosions, just about lost his 
ear in one of them. He is now in continual firefights in Baghdad. And I 
think of his 1-year-old son who is being raised by his grandparents 
since the mother is also serving in the United States Army in Iraq at 
this time. Their lives are in my mind, and Iraq is not an abstraction 
nor a partisan issue, it is a very personal one for many of us. And 
those are what my thoughts will be and I would like them to infuse some 
of my comments tonight.
  The reason I have come, of course, is we have had this Iraq Study 
Group report. It is an amazing document. I hope people who are 
interested in Iraq will take some time to look at it. It is both 
accurate in some places and woefully short in others, and I would like 
to address both places where it is stunningly accurate and amazingly 
candid and refreshingly real and the places where it falls short in 
what we really have to do to accomplish our true national interests in 
Iraq.
  Before I do that, though, I think it is appropriate in talking about 
Iraq and our obligation to our soldiers there, like my neighbor's son, 
just for a moment to ask how we got in this current predicament in 
Iraq. We went into Iraq with two goals: One goal was to remove Saddam 
Hussein, a brutal dictator, from power, to give the Iraqi people the 
chance to restore some dignity and freedom to their country. That 
mission was accomplished through the incredible, efficient and 
courageous act of our military men and women in fairly short order. It 
was accomplished. It has been now accomplished for over 3 years. That 
is mission accomplished, truly.
  The second reason we went into Iraq was to make sure that there were 
no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Despite scouring Iraq with a 
fine-toothed comb and literally billions of dollars trying to find any 
scent, any hint, any fingerprint, any dust of WMDs, that has been 
eliminated as a threat because it did not exist in the first place. Our 
two national missions in Iraq have been complete now for some time.
  We have had a third national mission in Iraq that comes not out of 
our self-interest as a Nation but out of our obligation as a fair 
country to lead the world in caring for our neighbors, and that is to 
give the Iraqis a fair opportunity to form a government and take 
control of their own destiny. We now have been at that mission for 
longer than we were fighting World War II. That mission is 
accomplished. We have given the Iraqi people every opportunity to form 
a meaningful government in Iraq at this time. Yet our sons and 
daughters are still there tonight with the administration still tonight 
committed to staying as long as the Iraqis decide we are going to stay.
  The President has said that our people are going to stay there 
indefinitely unless conditions that are under control of the Iraqis 
will allow him to bring them home. I am here tonight to say we should 
not allow the Iraqis to control when our sons and daughters come home. 
That should be a decision of the United States of America. That 
position finds substantial support in the report I will allude to as 
well as our common sense as Americans.
  Now, first I want to say I am glad this report has been issued. 
Before the election, we heard a President who was bound and determined 
to stay the course. He was bound and determined to never take off rose-
colored glasses. He was bound and determined to stay with his Secretary 
of Defense, despite the fact that every living human being who had 
looked at Iraq has seen nothing but a continued evidence of failure of 
leadership in the civilian ranks in the Secretary of Defense. He was 
bound and determined to have his Vice President say that we were 
dealing with dead-enders and that this was just a matter of a short 
period of time to roll up the opposition in Iraq. Every single one of 
those statements by the President of the United States was flat wrong.
  Then we had Tuesday, November 7 came along and the American people 
gave a very strong verdict to the President's stay-the-course position. 
We hope that has been a sobering influence on the White House. 
Secondly, we had this Iraqi Study Group report come out. We hope that 
the combination of those two events will knock the White House off its 
pedestal into a position where it will work with the U.S. Congress to 
get our troops home. It remains to be seen whether or not those two 
events have that desired effect.
  I would like to allude to this report now. There are things in this 
report that I think have not been in the news that I have reviewed, 
that I think it is important to realize in substantial detail, and the 
reason is that this report is the most categorical, clear, objective, 
bipartisan and well-reasoned rejection of President George Bush's 
assessment of the conditions in Iraq that you will find. It was 
bipartisan, as people know. It had people, I don't think any of whom 
had been against the Iraq war when it started, I don't believe, wiser 
heads who had been around policy for many years in this country, and 
unanimously they rejected the hallucinations of the White House that 
things were going okay in Iraq. And it is long overdue to have had a 
pronouncement from Washington, D.C. to that effect.
  So, if I can, let me allude to what their conclusions have been. 
Number one, and I will quote:
  ``The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. The government is 
not adequately advancing national reconciliation, providing basic 
security, or delivering essential services.''
  Iraqis have no electricity, they have no functioning police, they 
have no employment, they have no means to run their army, they have no 
functioning control over their borders. They have no functioning 
government. This is a government in name only.
  Number two: ``Iraqis have not been convinced that they must take 
responsibility for their own future. Iraq's neighbors and much of the 
international community have not been persuaded to play an active and 
constructive role.'' I want to just focus on that for a moment. Iraqis 
have not been convinced that they must take responsibility for their 
own future. Why is that? Why have the Iraqi politicians refused to make 
an agreement about disposition of oil? Why have they refused to make a 
disposition about employment practices in the Iraqi government? Why 
have they refused to make an agreement about how the ministries will be 
handled?

[[Page H8884]]

  Well, there is one reason. President George Bush has told them that 
troops will stay indefinitely in Iraqi. They do not have a real-life 
incentive to form a true government in Iraq because we have given them 
a crutch to lean on forever, according to this President. We have got 
to change that message dramatically, immediately, and I think this 
report makes that clear.
  Quoting: ``The United Nations estimates that 1.6 million Iraqis are 
displaced within Iraq, and up to 1.8 million Iraqis have fled the 
country.'' The Iraqis are voting with their feet.
  ``Iraqis may become so sobered by the prospect of an unfolding civil 
war and intervention by their regional neighbors that they take the 
steps necessary to avert catastrophe. But at the moment, such a 
scenario seems implausible because the Iraqi people and their leaders 
have been slow to demonstrate the capacity or will to act.''
  We have not focused their intention on the necessity of reaching 
agreements to form a true national government in Iraq. We have given 
them a security blanket at the cost of over 2,800 lives, over 20,000 
seriously injured Americans, over 400 billion American taxpayer 
dollars, and probably over $2 trillion in the long-term costs of this 
war with no end in sight, with no guarantee to the American people that 
this war is going to end, and with no requirement by the Iraqis that 
they act.
  For some time I have been bothered by this. I have been bothered that 
the President has stood on the sidelines and allowed this situation to 
deteriorate, with rose-colored glasses on cruise control. I picked up 
the phone a few weeks ago to call one of the administration officials 
to talk to them about that. I said it was my perception that there is 
no Iraqi government essentially because there is no agreement about 
oil. The oil in Iraq is located under the Shiites' territory and the 
Kurds' territory. It is not located where most of the Sunnis live. And 
the Shiites to date have been insisting at least on the new oil fields 
remaining in the regional areas, meaning, bottom line, Shiites get the 
oil. Sunnis who have run the country for 75 years, if not more, are 
left out. Therefore, they have had continuing sectarian violence.
  So I asked this official, is that assessment a fair assessment of 
this situation? And he said, yes. And it is interesting because his 
assessment is the same one as this report as we will talk to in depth.
  I said, well, then, I hope to believe that the President has given an 
ultimatum, at least privately, to Mr. Maliki and all of the other Iraqi 
officials that we are leaving if they do not form an agreement about 
oil. And the answer stunned me. He said, no, we have not done that. We 
haven't put that pressure on the Iraqis. And I said, why not? He said, 
well, we don't think that's our place.
  So while our sons and daughters are dying tonight, and my neighbor's 
son is in Baghdad when he should be home with his 1-year-old son, the 
White House doesn't think it is its place to put pressure on the Iraqis 
to reach an agreement about oil so that they can form a government and 
we can get our troops home. This is the most callously indifferent, 
negligent attitude of this administration and it is costing our country 
dearly and it is wrong. And this report on a bipartisan basis has said 
it is wrong. It has said very clearly that we need to make a statement.
  It goes on to say, ``There is no action the American military can 
take that by itself can bring about success in Iraq.'' This requires a 
political resolution. Yet our President has not insisted on a political 
resolution. He has essentially told the politicians they can diddle, 
they can squabble, they can bicker, they can disagree, they can create 
these little deals where the Shiite radicals, al-Sadr gets three 
ministries and maybe the Sunnis get half a one, and the sectarian 
violence goes out of control and our kids get killed, with no threat 
whatsoever that we are bringing our troops home.

                              {time}  2230

  That is one of the reasons that we are in the pickle we are in. The 
report goes on to say, ``The United States must not make an open-ended 
commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.''
  That is exactly what the President has done. He has made a commitment 
to keep these troops there indefinitely. As long as we have been in 
Japan or Germany, and apparently people still think that this is like 
World War II, when the Vice President and Mr. Wolfowitz and the whole 
group of them essentially said we would be welcomed like we were in the 
streets of Paris in World War II. They still have that image of what 
this is all about in Iraq.
  As a result, our policy is failing, because they still are 
essentially saying, we are going to stay there for 50 years like we 
have in Europe, and that is a policy inconsistent with our national 
security goals.
  Next statement, ``While it is clear that the presence of U.S. troops 
in Iraq is moderating the violence, there is little evidence that the 
long-term deployment of U.S. troops by itself has led or will lead to 
fundamental improvements in the security situation.''
  Now, that is a profound statement. We believe, because we are truly 
the greatest Nation on Earth, and we are, we have done remarkable 
things. We have the most efficient, most capable, most dedicated 
military force the world has ever seen. We have the best soldiers, Air 
Force and sailors the world has ever seen. They are great people. I 
know I visited two of them in a military hospital in Landstuhl, 
Germany, two young men from Bremerton, Washington, on my return trip 
from Iraq about a year and a half ago.
  These two young men had very, very serious leg injuries, and I went 
and saw them in their hospital beds and they had their legs propped up 
and tubes and pins and everything in their legs, and they had only been 
out of Iraq 2 or 3 days. I asked them how they were doing, and both of 
them said, sir, I just want to get back to my unit as fast as I can, 
sir.
  That was a pretty impressive moment for me that these young men who 
had such bad injuries, the first thing they could say is they wanted to 
get back to their unit. Anyone who has dealt with the people, Americans 
serving in Iraq, you would be so proud of their service and what they 
are doing. We have incredible talent and dedication there. They have 
been amazingly dedicated through a very difficult 3 years, many of them 
serving on their second, third, fourth rotation throughout Iraq, 
without complaint. It is really pretty amazing.
  So we have got the best people, we have got the best equipment, but 
we do not have the best policy, and a policy that essentially allows 
the Iraqi government to dawdle and not form an agreement is one doomed 
for failure. That is the policy of the President tonight unless 
something changes, and we are calling for strong changes in that 
regard. There is a real clear reality in Iraq. No deal on oil, no 
peace. No deal on petroleum, no way for us out, and we have got to 
insist on that, and that has not happened.
  The report goes on to say, the composition of the Iraqi government is 
basically sectarian, and key players within the government too often 
act in their sectarian interest.
  Now, we are all thrilled when there was voting going on in Iraq. We 
would like to think that they, in Iraq, were as committed to their 
government when they voted as we are to ours. We know how government 
works. We have had a peaceful transition of power here in the United 
States Congress. The people were dissatisfied with the course of the 
Nation this November 7, and they spoke, and I think they spoke very 
clearly that they wanted a change of course in Iraq.
  But the fact of the matter is, this is more like sort of a gangs 
dealing up turf in Iraq than it is a working government. Right now 
three of the ministries are controlled by Mr. al-Sadr, who runs this 
brigade of perhaps 60,000 people in a personal militia, and those three 
ministries of the government we are supposed to be helping and allied 
with, will not even work with Americans. Three of the major ministries, 
might be 40 percent of the government in Iraq, won't even talk to us, 
and these are the people we are trying to help.
  This is not a working situation. And have we basically said to the 
Iraqis, to Mr. Maliki, you must disarm that Sadr militia? You must get 
access to those agencies of the government? No, we haven't said that. 
We haven't said that at all. We have said we will just stay there 
forever if it takes that long. You

[[Page H8885]]

can just play whatever difficult games you have in the sectarian 
tensions in Iraq, and we will stay forever. That is the wrong message 
to Iraq.
  We have got to tell them they are going to stand on their own feet 
very quickly, or they will fall, and only the Iraqis can make that 
decision ultimately, and we have made a decision, a commitment, and I 
know a lot of people who are against this war, myself among them.
  I was very vocally opposed to this war when we started. I thought 
that we did not receive proper intelligence. I thought the intelligence 
was cherry picked. I thought that the threat was vastly overstated. 
Even though it was popular to be for the war at the time and the war 
drums were beating, I and 164 other Members of the House voted against 
the war.
  Many of my constituents felt the same way I did. But even though they 
were very, very strongly against the war, they felt there was some 
national obligation on our part to give the Iraqis some reasonable 
chance to form a government. We had destroyed a government, we had some 
obligation to give them a chance to reestablish security and a 
government in Iraq.
  But that cannot be a never-ending responsibility of the United 
States, and we have now spent longer in and given the Iraqis longer 
than the greatest generation took to win World War II. We have to 
realize that even though that period of time has gone on, the situation 
according to this bipartisan report isn't getting better, it is getting 
worse, and we have to recognize that reality. We have to have a major 
change in Iraq.
  It goes on to say the security situation cannot improve unless 
leaders act in support of national reconciliation. Shiite leaders must 
make the decision to demobilize militias. Sunni Arabs must make the 
decision to seek their aims through a peaceful political process, not 
through violent revolt. The Iraqi government and Sunni Arab tribes must 
aggressively pursue al Qaeda. None of those things are happening, and 
we have not insisted on any of those things happening. We have been the 
patsy while this sectarian conflict has gone on, and we have not 
insisted that it stop, or we are removing our troops tomorrow.
  As a result, these folks have refused to make the very difficult 
compromises it takes to form a government. I have got to tell you, I 
know how difficult it is. It is difficult enough around here in peace 
time, and I know it is difficult for leaders in Iraq. But American sons 
and daughters cannot be expected to be sent to the streets of Baghdad 
when Iraqis will not go.
  You know what happened when we decided to pull troops out of Al Anbar 
Province where the insurgency is essentially taking over to send into 
Baghdad, and we called for six groups to come of the Iraqi forces? Only 
two of them showed up. We still don't have the troops the plan called 
for months ago to get security into Baghdad. Why didn't they show up? 
They didn't show up because they don't have a government to stand up 
for yet, because the politicians will not make the compromises 
necessary to do so, because we haven't required it. We have got to have 
a tough position in Iraq, and the tough position is one of tough love. 
Tough love is you tell the Iraqis they have got to fish or cut bait, 
because our ability to sustain this is not unlimited.

  This goes on to say the problems of the Iraqi police and the criminal 
justice system are profound. Significant questions remain about the 
ethnic composition of some Iraqi units. Specifically they will carry 
out missions on behalf of sectarian goals instead of agenda. Units lack 
leadership, equipment, personnel, logistics and support.
  I want to take a moment, if I can, to talk about what this 
administration has not done in the pursuit of its own policy. You know, 
for 3 years now, the President has said we will stand down as the Iraqi 
military stands up. But this administration has always wanted to fight 
this war on the cheap. It has never been willing to commit the 
resources to what a successful pursuit of this mission would require, 
and a successful pursuit of this mission, for the last 3 years, would 
be to equip, arm and train an Iraqi military as rapidly as possible, 
and we haven't done 40 percent of that effort.
  The reason I know that--I went to Iraq, and I talked to the Iraqi 
forces, and they say we don't have any equipment, we don't have any 
communications, we don't have any payroll system, we don't have any 
recruitment system, we don't have any logistics system, we don't have 
any medical evacuation system, we don't have any communication system 
with the public. We are some people with AK-47s in pickup trucks who 
have been given a very short training period by the United States 
Government.
  As a consequence, a difficult situation where you had extremely low 
motivation anyway to stand up for the government has been made worse. 
In fact, it was so bad that a year and a half ago, my friends the 
Republicans limited the amount we were going to spend training the 
Iraqi army. They wanted to reduce it. I said if the way out of Iraq is 
to stand up an Iraqi army, it seems to me we should do this as quickly 
as possible.
  So I offered an amendment to the military appropriations bill that 
was accepted that at least didn't cut the training for the Iraqi army, 
but the fact of the matter is, any military assessment of the Iraqi 
army is they can't fight. They don't have the wherewithal to fight. We 
go into battle with armor, communications, Medevac, howitzers, 
gunships, F-16s.
  We tell the Iraqis to go out with some pickups and AK-47s and no 
communications equipment. Why is that? Well, it is because the 
administration has never been willing to ask the sacrifices that are 
necessary of the American people to complete this mission successfully. 
It has tried to fight the war on the cheap, and the people paid dearly 
with both our losses of 2,800 people, 20,000 people who are seriously 
injured, and goodness knows how many Iraqis who have lost their lives.
  You know, maybe we would have a different attitude if we had a chief 
executive who was committed to this commission enough to ask for 
sacrifices of the American people, but we don't have that. We have a 
situation where for 3 years this has been essentially a half-hearted 
effort, an unwillingness to get tough with the Iraqis and an 
unwillingness to commit the resources necessary to do the job, and a 
debacle has unfolded. Probably the largest foreign policy debacle has 
unfolded in the last of America's history.
  So this is a stunningly disturbing report, and I note that it 
contains many of criticisms that I and my colleagues and what's called 
the Iraq Watch have been making on the floor of the House now for 2 
years. We have come to the floor of the House in the evening. Many, if 
not all of these criticisms we have espoused. I think they have more 
reliabilities now that a bipartisan group has essentially been saying 
what we have been saying about the failure of this administration 
policy in Iraq. So the question now becomes what should be the change?
  Well, the first thing is there has to be a change in the Iraqi 
government. I will quote this report, the composition of the Iraqi 
government is basically sectarian, and key players within the 
government too often act in their sectarian interest. The security 
situation cannot improve unless leaders act in support of national 
reconciliation. Shiite leaders must make the decision to demobilize 
militias. Sunni Arabs must make the decision to seek their aims through 
a peaceful political process, not through violent revolt. We must 
insist on this. We must require. We must compel it. Today we have not 
done so.
  Now, what conclusions has this report drawn? It gets a little bit 
murky reading the report. It is not entirely clear what this group 
actually said. It is a committee of individuals who signed a report, 
and most people know the old saying that a camel is a horse designed by 
a committee, and what this group really recommends is a little bit 
ambiguous in part. But I would suggest there is one thing that is 
important and one thing that has a little lacking in this report.

                              {time}  2245

  The first thing is it demands a change in our policy, it demands a 
realistic assessment of our policy, and it demands that we get tough 
with the Iraqis to demand a political solution in Iraq, because that is 
a central prerequisite to any progress being made in Iraq. And that is 
a very import offering of this report, that we have to do that.

[[Page H8886]]

  Now, the question then becomes, what do we do as far as troop levels 
and our military mission in Iraq? Their report is a bit of weak tea in 
that regard. It essentially alludes, and you will hear news reports 
that this calls for essentially removing our major combat missions by 
the end of next year, by 2008, by the first quarter of 2008.
  The report isn't quite that clear. It says that by the first quarter 
of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation 
on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection 
could be out of Iraq. ``Could be.''
  At the time U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in 
units embedded with Iraqi forces in rapid reaction and special 
operations teams and search and rescue. ``Could.''
  ``Could'' is not a strong enough word for what this situation demands 
of American leadership. The word ``must'' must be in our response from 
Congress about Iraq. It is time to talk turkey with the Iraqi 
government. We cannot shade it. We can use polite language, but we 
cannot use language that is susceptible to multiple interpretations.
  We must tell the Iraqi government that their training wheels have to 
come off, they have to strike the political deals on oil that have to 
be made, because our troops are coming home at a date, if not certain, 
that is at least within certain parameters. There is no reason that 
that process should not start now in a way that is militarily 
defensible. We have to send that strong message to the Iraqis, and only 
our actions will do so.
  Frankly, language like ``could be'' I don't think is going to 
register on the streets of Baghdad, where 100 to 200 bodies are being 
found every couple of days. We need to send a stronger message.
  The question is, how do we do that? I would like to think the 
President of the United States would have an epiphany reading this 
report. I would like to think that he will shed those rose-colored 
glasses that he has worn for 3 years. I would like to think that he 
will decide not to heed the advice of his vice president, who has been 
wrong on virtually every single thing in Iraq policy.
  I would like to think that he will then come to the U.S. Congress and 
say, ``I am totally changing my statement on Iraq. I now believe we 
have to start bringing our troops home, because nothing less will 
result in the Iraqi government having an incentive to form a real 
government.''
  If those things happen, Congress will be able in short order to reach 
an agreement to end this war in Iraq and give the Iraqis what they 
need, which is an incentive for action on the political front.
  I am not all that hopeful that will happen. The President since the 
election has said some gracious things. The day after the election he 
said that he wanted to work on a bipartisan basis, and those words were 
greeted happily by us and we would like to believe that was the case.
  Two weeks later, the President sent up six judges that he knew would 
be rejected by the U.S. Senate because of their entirely right-wing 
beliefs. Last week he appointed an individual to take care of the 
contraceptive program of the United States, to give women control over 
their destiny, and he appointed a person who thinks contraception 
somehow should be illegal, or at least inappropriate.
  So the signs have not been entirely favorable that the President 
received the message from the American people given him on November 7. 
Some of my colleagues have. In the earlier discussion here, we had some 
of my colleagues, Republicans, quite a number of them, doing a 
valedictorian speech tonight who had come out on the short end in the 
election. I think they received the message. Many of them I consider 
friends, and they are good people, and they are credible people and 
hard-working people, and I know the taste of defeat, so I have some 
empathy for them.
  But the American people have spoken, and we need the President to 
listen to them, and we need the President to listen to this report, and 
we need the President to listen to his troops, and those messages are 
we need a radical rethinking of Iraq policy.
  Now, I have a message I would hope my colleagues will also consider 
tonight, and that is if the President does not heed that message of the 
American people, we here in the House of House of Representatives have 
a responsibility to act. We cannot just be folks who give speeches 
about Iraq, all though that is what I am doing here tonight. We cannot 
be people who just issue press releases about Iraq. We cannot be 
Congressmen and women who simply send letters to the White House.
  If the President of the United States refuses to change course in 
Iraq in a meaningful way, this Congress has to use the ability granted 
to it by the United States Constitution to assure that there will be a 
change in Iraq, and we have an opportunity to do so through the 
appropriations process.
  This war cannot be fought and the President cannot continue to put 
these troops in harm's way without funding. The geniuses in 
Philadelphia established the People's House and gave as its first 
obligation responsibility for the fiscal condition of the Nation.
  No President can continue a war without funding. If the funding stops 
for the Iraq war, our troops will come home, and this Congress has to 
have the gumption to take such action if the President does not heed 
the will of the American people.
  Now, people say, oh, isn't that fraught with political risk? You 
know, it might be. And that is why people in Vietnam waited 3 to 4 
years after it became obvious that our policy was wrong, of not 
removing our sons and daughters at that time, and my friends at that 
time and my colleagues at that time, from harm's way in Vietnam.

  Iraq is not Vietnam. It is dangerous to draw comparisons between 
Vietnam and Iraq. They are manifestly different in many, many ways, 
including our national interests and the nature of the threat and the 
extent of the losses that we have suffered.
  But it is similar in this way: If we follow the failure of the 
Congresses in the early 1970s who refused to stand up to a chief 
executive to demand a change in course, we will have fallen victim to 
what they did during the Vietnam years. We have at least 15,000 names 
on the Vietnam Memorial wall as a result of Congress' refusal to be 
willing to use the appropriation mechanism to bring our troops home.
  That is not a failure of will or courage or backbone that we should 
suffer. We have an obligation to these kids and not-so-kids in Baghdad 
tonight, and we should know, we should be willing to do so, and we 
should say we should be willing to do so, so that the President of the 
United States knows that we are serious in our discussions.
  I am hopeful that is not necessary. I am hopeful we can forge a 
bipartisan agreement with the President to heed the recommendations of 
this report and the will of the American people from November 7. But we 
have to be prepared to do our duty here, and I think that is important 
for us to say early in this discussion, so that we can move forward.
  I want to, if I can, say another thing that I think would be 
important for the President to do. He can do this tomorrow and he 
hasn't done it. He can have a statement to the people of Iraq that the 
United States of America does not intend to have permanent military 
bases in Iraq. This is a statement that the Iraqi people need to hear.
  In polls, 75 percent of the Iraqi people believe we are not a 
positive influence in Iraq. Sixty percent of the Iraqi people in a poll 
believe it is appropriate to attack Americans in Iraq. Think about 
this. These are people that the war was started out, at least in its 
later chapters, to try to give Iraqis a chance at democracy. We have 
spent $400 billion, 2,000 lives, 20,000 injured, the honor of the 
Nation to help Iraqis, and 60 percent of them believe it is okay to 
attack Americans.
  This is not a situation where we are capable of helping them 
militarily. Our presence there is a reason, at least one of the 
reasons, for violence in that country. And we lost 10 of our best 
yesterday and 24 in the last 2 days. It is a recognition that we have 
to come to grips with.
  One of the reasons for that antipathy is a conviction, as much as we 
don't share it, that the Bush administration wants to have permanent 
bases in Iraq. But because of stubbornness and willfulness and refusal 
to show any flexibility to reality, this administration has refused to 
say that. That would be

[[Page H8887]]

helpful. That would be a first start, and we hope that that happens.
  So we now have an obligation to follow one conclusion of this, and 
the first phase of this report, if I can in conclusion read, ``Current 
U.S. policy is not working.'' That is the most powerful statement in 
the whole report. And we need radical changes, the ``radical changes'' 
is my language, not the report.
  Quoting the report, ``Current U.S. policy is not working as the level 
of violence in Iraq is rising and the government is not advancing 
reconciliation. Making no changes in policy would simply delay the day 
of reckoning at a high cost. Nearly 100 Americans are dying every 
month. The United States is spending $2 billion a week. Our ability to 
respond to other international crises is constrained. The majority of 
the American people are soured on the war. The level of expense is not 
sustainable over an extended period, especially when progress is not 
being made. The longer the United States remains in Iraq without 
progress, the resentment will grow among Iraqis who believe they are 
subjects of a repressive American occupation.''
  We need a change, and we need it now, and we cannot dither or dally 
or wait or have debates amongst ourselves. We have to take action now. 
And I hope my colleagues will join me in a willingness to do that.
  That will be difficult. While we have troops in the field, it is 
always difficult to talk about the mission. But I am here tonight, 
proud of my neighbor's son who is tonight in Baghdad. I am proud of the 
mission he has done and is doing, and I am caring about he and his 1-
year-old son.
  I believe the U.S. Congress owes an obligation to him and his own to 
insist that this President come to grips with the reality of Iraq, send 
a message that our troops are coming home; that this is something the 
Iraqis have to deal with quickly because they are going to be on their 
own. We can no longer keep training wheels forever on Iraq at the 
expense of our sons and daughters.
  That statement, I believe, in the long run will be best, with the 
least possible damage to all concerned. And I don't offer a panacea. I 
don't offer a silver wand in Iraq. But I can say that the current 
situation is not acceptable, and we will change it one way or another, 
and the sooner the better.

                          ____________________