[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 6 (Thursday, January 11, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S410-S411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of the time 
controlled by the majority.
  Last night, President Bush asked the American people to support a 
surge of military troops in Iraq. Many are using the term ``surge,'' 
though the President didn't. Make no mistake, this is a dramatic 
escalation of our troop presence in Iraq. In the debate leading into 
the President's speech, the term ``surge'' was used, which implied 
something that was limited and temporary. An escalation is where we are 
heading, which means a long-term commitment with no end in sight.
  We are in a hole in Iraq, and the President says the way to dig out 
of this hole is to dig deeper. Does that make sense? When you are in a 
hole, do you get out by digging deeper? This is a reckless plan; it is 
about saving the Bush Presidency, it is not about saving Iraq.
  Before Congress can act on this plan--and act we must--there are 
several questions that need to be answered. I need those answers, you 
need those answers, the American people need those answers and, more 
importantly, our troops and their families need those answers. Is this 
policy achievable? Is it sustainable? What is the President's objective 
in calling for this escalation of troops? Who is the enemy? Does the 
Bush administration even know anymore? When our troops are embedded 
with Iraqi forces, are they going to shoot Sunnis or Shiites? Are we 
taking sides in a civil war? I don't think we know. What is the Iraqi 
Government going to do for itself? We suddenly have something called 
benchmarks. Where have those benchmarks been for the last several 
years? What is going to be the political solution that only the Iraqis 
can do to resolve the power sharing with Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds? 
Where are the oil revenues that were talked about to pay for this war? 
When is the Iraqi Government going to end the corruption in their own 
ministries so that they can come to grips with services, security, and 
power sharing and oil revenue sharing?

  Who is going to disarm the militias and insurgents and, more 
importantly, who is going to keep them disarmed? Are we going to be in 
those neighborhoods forever? Where are the troops going to come from 
for this escalation? Our military, our wonderful military is worn thin. 
Also, how are we going to pay for it? While China builds up its 
reserves, we build up our debt.
  Make no mistake, though. U.S. troops cannot do what the Iraqi 
Government will not do for itself. Iraq needs a functioning government 
that produces security and services for its own people. It needs a 
government of reconciliation that will function on behalf of the Iraqi 
people. Iraq needs its own security forces up and running. No matter 
what training we give them, they have to have the will to fight. They 
need to put an end to the sectarian violence, and they need to end

[[Page S411]]

this corruption in their own ministries to get oil production moving 
and a way to share those oil revenues.
  There are those who say: Well, what about supporting our troops? I 
absolutely do support our troops. And for those troops who are in Iraq, 
let me say this: Your Congress will not abandon you.
  But the best way to support the troops is not to send them on this 
reckless mission. The best way to support our troops is to bring them 
home safely and swiftly. That is why I voted against this preemptive 
war in the first place. In my speech when I was 1 of the 23, I said: We 
don't know if we will be greeted with flowers or landmines. I said: We 
shouldn't go to Iraq on our own. We need to go with the world if, in 
fact, the weapons are there.
  Well, from the very beginning, everything the Congress and the 
American people have been told by this administration has proven not to 
be so. It has either been an outright lie or dangerously incompetent. 
The President asked the Congress to vote for a preemptive war because 
Iraq was supposed to have weapons of mass destruction that posed an 
imminent danger to the United States. Well, the Congress gave the 
preemptive authority. However, the weapons of mass destruction were not 
there.
  I say to my colleagues, after all of those troops we sent, weren't 
you filled with shock and awe to find out there were no weapons?
  Then, the administration sent Colin Powell to the United Nations to 
make the case for war. He is one of the most esteemed Americans in the 
world, and the Bush administration set him up. Then--CIA Director Tenet 
said it was going to be a slam dunk. To this day, Colin Powell cries 
foul about what happened to him at the U.N. How can we trust the data 
or judgment of an administration that continually gives us this fiasco?
  Now, what about President Bush's good friend, Prime Minister Maliki? 
I listened to my colleague from Texas. He said: Are we giving up on 
Maliki? The question is, is Maliki giving up on Iraq. Are we cutting 
the legs out from Maliki? I say no, Maliki's government has no legs. 
They are not involved in dealing with the corruption, with power 
sharing. It is the same Maliki who told our U.S. marines they couldn't 
go into a neighborhood to go after a Shiite cleric called al-Sadr, who 
bankrolls attacks on American soldiers. Is Maliki an honest broker in 
Iraq or is he someone who represents the Shiites?
  I don't have confidence in what we have been told by this 
administration, and I have very serious doubts about the will of the 
administration of Prime Minister Maliki. Make no mistake--and I feel so 
deeply about this--a great American military cannot be a substitute for 
a weak Iraqi Government. The stronger we are, the more permission we 
give the Iraqis to be weak.
  We were challenged a few minutes ago to say: Well, what is the 
alternative? I say let's use the ideas that have come from our 
commanders, which have now been put aside, the Iraq Study Group, and 
others within the region. Let's use Baker-Hamilton as a starting point. 
Let's send in the diplomats before we send in the troops. I don't 
embrace all of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, but it is a 
bipartisan way of going forward. It was not reckless. Once we send in 
those troops, it is irrevocable. I think we need a new policy, and I 
think we need a new direction. I think Baker-Hamilton gave us a good 
direction to pull us together to go in, and I think that is where we 
need to go.
  Let me conclude by saying this: To our outstanding men and women in 
uniform who are already in Iraq, you have a tough job, and we are proud 
of you. Neither the Congress nor the American people will ever abandon 
you. But to those troops who are waiting to head to Iraq, the best way 
to support you is to say no to the President's reckless, flawed 
escalation of this war in Iraq.
  Again, let's send in the diplomats, not the troops.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Colorado is recognized for 15 minutes.

                          ____________________