[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1589-S1596]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        WORLDWIDE WAR ON TERROR

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise to speak about one of the most 
important issues of our time: the worldwide war on terror.
  I have to say I was disappointed to read in this morning's Roll Call 
that many of my Democratic colleagues are using this debate for the 
2008 elections rather than focusing on the real damage that the 
resolution we have been discussing will do to our national security.
  One of our greatest Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, once said, ``It 
is not the critic who counts. The credit,'' he said, ``belongs to the 
man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and 
sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, who comes short again 
and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming.
  ``The credit,'' Roosevelt said, belongs to the man ``who spends 
himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph 
of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails 
while daring greatly.''
  At this very moment, our Commander in Chief and those he commands are 
daring greatly.
  Our men and women in uniform are paying with blood, sweat, and tears. 
Yet many in this body prefer to sit in the stands and offer criticism 
rather than support.
  For the past 50 years, the Middle East has been a cauldron of 
brutality, war, and despair. The region's instability has threatened 
the entire globe and reached our shores on 9/11 with a stark awakening.
  This is why we are involved in the Middle East. The future security 
of our homeland is tied directly to a successful outcome not only in 
Iraq but in Afghanistan, Lebanon, the Palestinian territory, and a 
number of Middle East countries that harbor evil men who foment hate 
through a perverted version of Islam.
  Yet as our efforts in Iraq encounter fierce resistance from a 
determined and evil enemy, support for our efforts has waned here in 
Congress. Instead, many of my colleagues prefer to support a nonbinding 
resolution that would express disapproval of the President's plan to 
reinforce our troops in Iraq.
  Voting for this resolution is not leadership, it is criticism--
criticism without the courage of offering real solutions. While this 
resolution may be toothless by force of law, its symbolism is 
dangerous. Voting to condemn the President's plan is a vote of no 
confidence in the mission we have told our troops to fight and die for. 
But it is also a slap in the face to General Petraeus just days after 
we voted unanimously to support his leadership of our troops in Iraq.
  ``Godspeed, General,'' was what one of my colleagues said before 
introducing the very resolution that would undermine the general's 
authority and his plan for victory.
  This is not leadership. We were elected to make tough decisions and 
that requires understanding our choices, selecting the best choice, and 
then following through. But I am afraid the critics in this body do not 
acknowledge the real choices before us. There are only three:
  First, to continue the unworkable status quo; second, to admit defeat 
and withdraw; third, to renew our strength until we win.
  I respect my colleagues who disagree with the President's strategy in 
Iraq, but only if they exercise leadership and support an alternative 
solution, one that proposes a serious path to victory, or announces 
defeat and ends our involvement immediately, not only in Iraq but 
throughout the Middle East, because America will no longer have any 
credibility to carry out our work in any part of the world.
  If my colleagues do not support sending reinforcements to Iraq, they 
should introduce legislation blocking that action. While I believe this 
is shortsighted and wrong, it would at least be genuine leadership.
  My hope is we will stop trying to second guess past decisions in 
order to lay blame and instead remember we are locked in a struggle 
much larger than Iraq. It is a struggle of security, hope, and freedom 
versus hate, despair, and fear. The battlefield is the entire world.
  We must understand the stakes and demonstrate real leadership. This 
is not the President's war, it is freedom's war, and we all share the 
responsibility for the outcome.
  A century later, Teddy Roosevelt is still correct. The critic ``who 
points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds 
could have done them better'' is destined to be relegated to that 
terrible place ``with those cold and timid souls who neither know 
victory nor defeat.''
  There is only one policy worthy of the blood and sweat of our troops: 
a policy that completes our mission with dignity, honor, and victory.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the 
floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have not come to the floor, except once, 
in the 2 years I have been here to discuss the war in Iraq. I have been 
to Iraq and had experience in Iraq as a medical missionary during the 
first gulf war.
  I am very much concerned as to how the world will read us. What we 
know is that enemies try to defeat us not by trying to defeat us on the 
battlefield or in Iraq; they try to defeat our will, try to defeat the 
will of the American public.
  Senator DeMint talked about leadership. Leadership is laying out the 
real consequences of our action. What are those consequences? What 
next? What is going to happen next? What is going to happen? We heard 
this morning that we are trying to delay this resolution. We are not 
trying to delay it. As a matter of fact, they are saying we would not 
debate it. We are debating it right now. The fact is, we believe you 
ought to have a resolution that says we support our troops in this 
group of resolutions. Unless we get some semblance of saying we want to 
send a signal to our troops that we support them, we should not have a 
rule that precludes that.
  So politics aside, and the next election aside, and the Presidential 
election aside, what does it mean to the American people about what we 
end up doing in Iraq? That is the question we should be asking. We 
should be making sure that the mistake we do not make is to have an 
ill-informed American public about what the consequences will be.
  Regardless of whether we should be in Iraq, we are there. We cannot 
change that. The question comes, what does the Iraq Study Group say? 
They said we needed to secure Baghdad; they said we needed 
reinforcements to be able to do that; they said we needed more funds to 
make a difference in people's lives. These are the funds that go to the 
generals to actually approve things.
  Can we accomplish something in Iraq or do we walk away? Here is what 
happens when we walk away. No. 1, there will be a genocide in Iraq. The 
minority Sunni population will scatter out of Iraq, and those who don't 
will be killed.
  The northern Iraqis, the Kurds--what will happen to them? If we are 
gone and full-blown civil war breaks out, what will happen to the 
Kurds? This is a group of 36 million people who have not had a homeland 
since the Ottoman Empire. Genocide was committed against them by 
Saddam. What will happen to them? They will be seen as a risk to 
Turkey. Turkey already has problems with its Kurdish population.
  What will happen in Lebanon? Probably civil war.
  What will happen in Jordan?
  What will happen to the Sunni gulf states, as they now fear Iran and 
its dominance?
  This is a war Iran wants us to leave. Why? Because they want to 
empower themselves to be the dominant force in the Middle East. We can 
talk about all of the resolutions and how we disagree; that is 
basically political posturing, and you can disagree. But as the Senator 
from South Carolina said, unless

[[Page S1590]]

you put something into force of action, it is criticism, not 
leadership. We need to calculate whatever we do in this body, based on 
what the outcome of that calculation is going to be, not by giving 
bellicose speeches that set up false choices that are not there. The 
fact is we have an obligation to the very people--the innocent people--
in Iraq today.
  We can walk away from that, but history will judge us harshly. The 
estimates are there will be 5 million people displaced out of Iraq. 
There will be between 700,000 and 1 million additional Iraqis who will 
die. Do we not have an obligation to make that not happen? Do we not 
have an obligation to do what is in the best long-term interests of 
this country? Is it in our best interest for this country to get out of 
Iraq? Is it? How does that fit with the war on terror and our ability 
to conduct that war when we create in Iraq, by withdrawing, a new state 
that is run by al-Qaida and by the Shia, which will in fact have the 
funding to dominate in the international arena with terrorism and 
hatefulness and murder and pillaging of innocent people?
  It is not as simple as everybody here wants to make it seem. It 
certainly should not be political. But that is where we are going. The 
very comment that we cannot have a debate on supporting the policy, 
that we will not allow a resolution that says we are going to support 
our troops--why don't they want that? It is because that will get the 
highest number of votes. That will become the story--not the story that 
somebody postured in a position that is well-intended and well-meaning, 
that they don't think a surge or a reinforcement in Iraq is correct.
  America is at a crossroads. The crossroads is whether we will fulfill 
and carry out the responsibilities, some of which we added to ourselves 
by our very position, but whether we will fulfill that. We will be 
judged by history.
  To undermine many of the steps that the Iraq Study Group said, which 
is in the President's plan, nobody knows if this will work, but I 
guarantee it will not work if we send a signal to those who oppose us 
that this is it. All they do is sit and wait. More of Iran's influence 
and more dollars from Iran coming into Iraq--more to defeat us. If you 
defeat the will of the American people--and, by doing that, that is our 
problem--if we allow that to happen as leaders in this country, then we 
will be responsible for that 5 million displacement, for those million 
deaths, and the millions that will follow when you have a Middle East 
dominated by Iran with a nuclear weapon.
  We should think long and hard. The American people should not respond 
just to the urge to get out of Iraq but respond to the well-thought-out 
consequences of what happens next. And what happens next is a disaster, 
not only for the people of Iraq, for the people of the Middle East, but 
also for the national security of this country and our ability to carry 
out our foreign policy in the future.
  I earnestly pray that we will consider the actions here and the words 
here in light of what comes next, not in terms of politics but what 
happens to our country.
  Denying the heritage we have of sacrifice for freedom and liberty and 
denying that it costs something and walking away from that, we will 
reap that which we sow as we walk away from it. Caution to us as we do 
that.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 12:30 p.m. shall be divided between the majority and the 
minority.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, this is a disappointing day for the 
Senate and for the United States of America because the debate we 
should be having on this floor, which is taking place around procedural 
issues, should really be a debate about what is happening in Iraq and 
the new direction we should be heading in Iraq.
  It is disappointing as well that it has been postured somehow as a 
political debate from the other side. The fact is that what happens in 
Iraq today and what happens in Iraq in the months and years ahead is, 
in fact, perhaps the most important issue we can face in the United 
States of America and in the world, and it is important that this body, 
elected by 300 million Americans in each of our respective States, 
grapple with the fundamental defining issue of our time.
  It is also important, as we grapple with this issue of the future of 
Iraq and the involvement of the United States, that we try to move 
forward in a manner that is bipartisan. At the end of the day, the only 
way in which we are going to achieve stability in the Middle East and 
we are going to bring our troops home--which I believe is a goal that 
is shared by the 100 Members of this body--is if we develop a 
bipartisan approach to getting it done. Yet, at the end of the day, we 
can't even seem to get beyond a procedural obstacle to get to a debate 
on the central issue that was presented by a bipartisan resolution, led 
by some of the most distinguished Members of this Senate, including 
Senator Warner, Senator Levin, and others. We cannot even get past the 
procedural problem for us to end up having a discussion and a vote on 
that very simple issue.
  I ask our brethren on the other side that they join us in getting 
through this procedural roadblock so that we can have an effective 
debate and a vote on a question that is before us concerning the future 
of Iraq and the President's plan on how we move forward.
  I am disappointed as one Senator that today we are not on this floor 
debating the alternative resolutions that were submitted in the last 
week, which are bipartisan in nature, and then deciding how to move 
forward as a Senate. I am very disappointed that we have not been able 
to get there.
  Let me also say that for those who have said the political posturing 
is taking place on this side, I don't believe that is at all the case. 
The fact is, what we have been trying to do on this side is to have an 
open and honest debate, and again underscoring the reality that if we 
are going to find our way out of the quagmire in which we find 
ourselves in Iraq, it is going to take a true bipartisan effort to get 
us to a place where we can say we have peace and stability in the 
Middle East and we have brought our troops home. I hope as we move 
forward in this discussion that we will be able to find some of that 
bipartisan consensus.
  At the end of the day, when we look at what is happening in Iraq, we 
need to recognize the realities. We need to know and remember the 3,100 
men and women who have given their lives on behalf of the mission the 
President assigned to them in that country. We need to remember the 
23,000 men and women in uniform who today are wounded and who are 
carrying the scars of the war with them day by day and for many of them 
for the rest of their lives. We need to remember the 137,000 men and 
women who are on the ground in Iraq today. The bipartisan resolution we 
put forward with Senator Warner, Senator Nelson, Senator Collins, and 
others recognizes that. We recognize the bravery of the men and women 
who have given so much of their time and their life in Iraq, and we 
recognize the need for us to support our men and women on the ground in 
Iraq.
  But we also recognize that what the American people are asking us to 
do is to chart a new direction for Iraq. I have heard some of my 
colleagues on the other side--as there is criticism on this side--that 
all we are doing is being critical and not offering alternatives. The 
fact is that we are attempting to come up with a new direction in Iraq, 
and that is what is embodied in the Warner-Levin resolution. It is, in 
fact, a new direction and new strategy in Iraq.
  Mr. President, I ask the Members of this body and I ask the people of 
the United States of America to consider what are the options before 
us. In my view, there are three options. There is plan A. Plan A is a 
plan--which was put forth by the President after several months of 
deliberation in which he concluded what we had to do in order to be 
successful in Iraq--to send 21,500 additional troops. In real terms, 
that is about 48,000 additional troops assigned, mostly in Baghdad. 
Some people have called it an escalation. Some people have called it a 
surge. That is the heart of the plan. It is a plan he announced in 
early January, a plan he reiterated at the State of the Union, that we 
assign 21,500 troops to Baghdad.

[[Page S1591]]

  The question we all ought to be asking ourselves is whether that will 
work. Will plan A work? I believe those who have studied the issue in 
great depth would answer the question no--no, it will not work; no, it 
will not work because Operation Going Forward in June of 2006, just 7 
months ago, showed that it does not work. And when that didn't work, we 
went in with a surge of some 7,000 troops in August in Operation Going 
Forward Together No. 2, and again that did not work. If today we go in 
with 21,500 additional troops, plus all the support for the troops that 
is going to be necessary, what is going to be the result of that 
endeavor? In my view, we have been there, we have done that, and it 
hasn't worked. So we have to look forward to a new direction. So I 
believe plan A, the President's plan, is not a plan that is going to 
work.

  Then there is plan B. Plan B is being advocated by many, including 
some who have demonstrated in Washington and have called our offices 
every day, and that is to just bring our troops home today; it is over; 
it is a precipitous withdrawal; let's get out of there and get out of 
there right now. The mistakes of the past have compounded the problems 
in the Middle East and Iraq to the point that we can't put Humpty 
Dumpty together. Not all the king's men or all the king's horses could 
ever put Humpty Dumpty together again, some people would say, because 
the problems in Iraq today are so severe.
  I, as one Senator, reject plan B as well. I don't believe we can 
afford to move forward with that kind of precipitous withdrawal.
  There is plan C, and plan C is really the plan of trying to move 
forward in a bipartisan way so that we can achieve success in Iraq--
success, again, being defined by stability in Iraq and in the region 
and by bringing our troops home.
  I know there are lots of people in this body who have much more 
experience than I, and I know there are lots of people who have studied 
this issue extensively over a very long period of time, and yet it is 
amazing to me that when we have a group of people in a bipartisan way 
coming forward with a new direction, we have the President and others 
of the minority party essentially rejecting that plan of going forward 
together in a new direction.
  When I look at the Iraq study report and I look at names such as 
former Secretary of State James Baker, former Attorney General Ed 
Meese, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, former U.S. 
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former U.S. Senator Alan 
Simpson, I see all of these Republicans who are saying we need a new 
direction going forward together. I believe that is what we ought to be 
doing, and I believe that new direction going forward together is what 
is embodied in the bipartisan resolution which was put together by 
Senator Warner, Senator Levin, and others. It is that kind of new 
direction which we ought to be debating and discussing on the floor of 
the Senate today.
  When one looks at this group of elder statesmen, which includes not 
only the Republicans whose names I mentioned, but they include esteemed 
elder statesmen who are also Democrats, such as Lee Hamilton, Vernon 
Jordan, Leon Panetta, William Perry, and Charles Robb, when we see 
those kinds of elder statesmen who have taken a year to try to figure 
out how we deal with this quagmire in Iraq, we have to say those 
recommendations should be paid very serious attention. The 
recommendations are many, but they are important because they show the 
depth of thinking that commission went through in coming up with those 
recommendations.
  In essence, what that bipartisan group of elder statesmen said to the 
people of America is that the way forward requires a new approach. The 
way forward requires a new approach. They talk about the external 
approach, which is to build an international consensus on how we move 
forward in Iraq. They talk about a new diplomatic offensive which is 
important if we are to succeed because there are too many nations in 
that part of the world and around the world who have been sitting on 
their hands letting America do it alone. They have to stop sitting on 
their hands if ultimately we are going to achieve stability in the 
Middle East.
  They talk about the Iraq International Support Group, and that kind 
of a group would be a group that would make sure the efforts on 
reconstruction and building the peace and security in Iraq are, in 
fact, successful. Where is that group? It hasn't been there. It has 
been the United States alone moving forward on this effort. We need to 
have the international community involved.
  It talks about dealing with Iran and dealing with Syria. They are 
part of that region, like it or not. This group of elder statesmen has 
said we need to deal with those countries. We know the limitations. We 
know the threats they also embody and present to the United States of 
America, but we need to bring them into the dialog if ultimately we are 
going to bring stability to that region.
  The study group goes on with a whole host of other recommendations on 
the internal approach, helping the Iraqis help themselves. It says that 
we must require the Iraqis to have performance on milestones, that we 
need to push them hard on national reconciliation, that we need to make 
sure the Iraqi Government takes responsibility for security and for 
their military forces, that they establish a functioning police force, 
and that they establish a criminal justice system that does, in fact, 
work. And the list goes on with 79 recommendations on the way forward, 
a new approach.

  That is what we ought to be talking about, Mr. President, on the 
floor of the Senate today--how we move forward.
  I look at this resolution which was put together by some of my 
esteemed colleagues, of which I am a proud original cosponsor, and I 
say at least we have tried on a bipartisan basis to figure out a 
roadmap for how we ought to move forward together as Democrats and 
Republicans, as Americans, on this issue, which is the defining issue 
of our times. I see the names of people such as Senator Warner, I see 
Senator Collins, I see Senator Levin, I see Senator Nelson of Nebraska, 
and others who have been involved in this effort. What we are trying to 
do as a group is to say we ought to figure out a way of charting a new 
direction forward together, much like the elder statesmen did in coming 
up with the Iraq Study Group recommendations. Yet we are being refused 
the opportunity to even engage in a debate on a resolution that 
essentially says this is a direction we propose to the President in how 
we move forward together.
  I hope that at the end of the day, with the discussions that are 
going on between the leadership, we are able to come to some agreement. 
I believe there is too much at stake. I believe there is too much at 
stake not only in the Middle East, but there is too much at stake for 
the United States of America and for the free world. At the end of the 
day, it is going to take Republicans and Democrats working together to 
try to chart this new and successful direction for how we move forward 
in Iraq.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that I will be 
recognized for 10 minutes in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time 
consumed in any quorum call today be equally divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Feinstein of 
California, this weekend made a point that I think is very important. 
She, on a television program, said that Iraq is being debated virtually 
everywhere in our country: debated at kitchen tables, business places, 
workplaces, and schools. The only place in America that Iraq is not 
being debated is in the Senate. Here we are debating whether we should 
debate.
  That was what went on yesterday, and it is what is going on today, a 
debate about whether the debate on Iraq should occur in the Senate. It 
is unbelievable. We have a cloture vote on a motion to proceed to the 
debate, and the minority party in the Senate voted nearly unanimously 
to say, no, we shouldn't be debating. I don't understand that at all, 
Mr. President.

[[Page S1592]]

  Why would we not want to engage in this national discussion about 
what is happening in Iraq; what are our obligations, and what are our 
national interests with respect to these issues? This is not a war 
against terrorists in the main. It is sectarian violence that is 
occurring in Iraq. Yes, there are some terrorists in Iraq, I understand 
that, but it is largely sectarian violence, Shia on Sunni, Sunni on 
Shia.
  Let me make a point about Iraq that I think is important. The 
dictator who used to exist in Iraq no longer exists. Yes, he was a 
madman and a dictator. We have unearthed mass graves in Iraq to show 
that nearly a half million people were murdered by the man who ran that 
country. But he has been executed, and the people of Iraq have had the 
opportunity to vote for a new constitution.
  The people of Iraq have had the opportunity to vote for a new 
government. Things have changed in Iraq. We now have in Iraq what is 
largely a civil war, sectarian violence. Things have changed.
  What is the role, then--given that Saddam Hussein has been executed, 
given that there is a new constitution, given that there is a new 
government--what is the role for the United States and its soldiers? Is 
the role to continue to be in the middle of a civil war in Iraq, to 
surge additional troops, as the President suggests? That is what was to 
be debated this week in the Senate. But at this point we still cannot 
debate that because we are debating whether we will be able to debate 
it. It is unbelievable to me. Only here on this small piece of real 
estate, one of the wonderful places on this Earth, the United States 
Senate, do we have a serious debate about whether we should debate.
  We should have moved very quickly past this issue of a motion to 
proceed and been to the substance of this issue on behalf of this great 
country of ours. There is a majority in this Congress for a bipartisan 
resolution. And I emphasize bipartisan resolution. Senator Warner, a 
very distinguished American, a Republican, and former chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, and Senator Levin, a Democrat, the same. 
Warner-Levin. When we get to a vote on the Warner-Levin resolution, 
which disapproves of surging additional American troops to Iraq and 
deepening our involvement in Iraq, a majority of the Senate will 
support that resolution. There is a clear majority for that resolution. 
The question is, Can we get to that point?
  I hope in the coming hours that the minority will relent and give us 
the opportunity, the opportunity the American people would expect to 
exist in the United States to debate one of the most important 
questions of our time. This is about obstruction and it is about 
political maneuvering and about protecting the White House. It is about 
a lot of things, unfortunately. It ought to be about this country's 
national interest, this country's best interest. It ought to be about 
the soldiers we have asked to don America's uniforms and go fight for 
this country and what is best for them as well.
  Two months ago, General Abizaid said this in open testimony in the 
Senate:

       I met with every divisional commander. I said, in your 
     professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American 
     troops now--he is talking about Iraq--does it add 
     considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And 
     they all said no.

  That is what the commanding general said 2 months ago in testimony 
before the Senate. Why did they all say no? Here is what General 
Abizaid said the reason is:

       We want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to 
     rely upon us to do more. I believe more forces prevents the 
     Iraqis from doing more and taking responsibility for their 
     own future.

  Finally, Mr. President, a week ago, the head of our intelligence 
services came to the Senate and testified in open public hearings. Here 
is what he said:

       Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization that poses the 
     greatest threat to U.S. interests, including the homeland.

  That is from the top intelligence chief of our country. Here is what 
he said:

       Al-Qaeda continues to plot attacks against our homeland and 
     other targets with the objective of inflicting mass 
     casualties. They continue to maintain active connections and 
     relationships radiating outward from their leaders' secure 
     hideout in Pakistan.

  Let me say that again. Our top intelligence person says that al-Qaida 
is the greatest terrorist threat to our country; that they direct their 
operations from a secure hideout in Pakistan.
  Mr. President, a question: If al-Qaida is the greatest terrorist 
threat to America, and our intelligence chief says it is directed from 
their secure hideout in Pakistan, and we know that Osama bin Laden 
continues to talk to us in his missives that they send out; if we have 
21,000 additional soldiers to surge anywhere, why on Earth would we not 
use those 21,000 soldiers to eliminate the greatest terrorist threat to 
our country, which would be to eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida?
  No, that is not what the President recommends. He recommends we send 
21,000 additional soldiers into the neighborhoods of Baghdad where 
sectarian violence is occurring in massive quantities and a civil war 
exists. With all due respect, and I do respect the President, he is 
wrong, and I believe the majority of this Senate would say he is wrong 
by voting for the Warner-Levin resolution.
  In a Byzantine twist, however, on this Tuesday morning, we find 
ourselves debating the question of whether we should debate one of the 
central questions of our time.

  That is unworthy of the Senate. What is worthy of this Senate, and I 
am proud to be a part of it what is worthy of us is to have on the 
floor of the United States Senate the great questions before this 
country, the questions the American people ask this morning and discuss 
this morning all across this country: What is our role here? What is 
happening here? How have things changed in Iraq? What is the greatest 
threat to our country? How do we deal with that threat? What about Mr. 
Negroponte pointing out that the greatest terrorist threat is al-Qaida? 
What about the fact he says they are in a secure hideaway in Pakistan? 
What about the fact that no one has done anything about it? What about 
the fact that if 21,000 soldiers are available to be surged, that the 
President says let's send them to Baghdad, in the middle of a civil war 
in Iraq, rather than going to Pakistan after the leadership of the 
greatest terrorist threat to this country, according to our 
intelligence chief?
  I simply do not understand this logic. There is a lot to be said 
about these issues. All of us in this Chamber want the same thing for 
our country. All of us love this country. All of us respect our 
soldiers and will do everything to make sure we support them. All of us 
want this country to do well and to make the right decisions. In the 
last 5 years, however, we have been involved in a war that has lasted 
longer than the Second World War. We have been in a war that has cost 
us far too many lives and too much of America's treasure. We have been 
put in a situation in which there has been dramatic change. Yet the 
policy has not changed. This is not the circumstance for which we went 
to war in Iraq. All of that intelligence, it turns out, was wrong.
  Colonel Wilkerson, who served as Secretary of State Colin Powell's 
aide for 17 years and was present when the information was compiled 
that led to the presentation at the United Nations, testified before 
the Senate, and he said publicly that it was the perpetration of a hoax 
on the American people. That is not me speaking. That is someone who 
had a distinguished record and who served 17 years with Colin Powell. 
He was a Republican and proud of his service to this country, but he 
said all of the intelligence that was basketed together and presented 
was the perpetration of a hoax on the American people.
  Whatever happened, happened. We went to Iraq. Saddam Hussein has now 
been executed. Iraq has a new constitution and a government. It is 
time, long past time for this country to say this to the country of 
Iraq: Saddam Hussein is gone. You have a new constitution. You have a 
new government. The question is this: Do you have the will to provide 
for your own security? Because if you don't, no one in the world can do 
it for you. Do you have the will to take your country back? This is 
your country, not ours. This country belongs to you, not us. Do you 
have the will to provide the security for a free Iraq? Because if you 
do not, I say to the people of Iraq, American soldiers cannot, for any 
indefinite period, provide order and

[[Page S1593]]

security in Iraq for you. You have to make that judgment, and you have 
to understand that it is your responsibility to provide security in 
Iraq.
  This is not a circumstance where we are trying to embarrass anybody. 
We are not trying to say to the President: You have an awful situation 
you have created, shame on you. That is not what this debate is about. 
All of us understand that things have changed. This debate is about 
what do we do at this point. Do we agree with the President that we 
should send 21,000 more American troops into Baghdad and surge and 
deepen America's involvement in this war?
  Quite clearly, if we are allowed to get to this debate and have a 
vote on Warner-Levin, a bipartisan resolution, this Senate will say, 
no, we believe it is the wrong thing, and that will be the first step 
in beginning to change policy. It will say to the President, we believe 
you must change the policy, and then use our energies and our efforts 
to go after the leadership of al-Qaida. They are the ones who murdered 
Americans on 9/11, and they still exist in secure hideaways, according 
to our intelligence chief. Let's deal with the greatest terrorist 
threat to this country, according to Mr. Negroponte, the head of 
American intelligence. The greatest threat to our country. They exist. 
They live today, he says, in Pakistan. Let's deal with those issues.
  As I indicated earlier, all of us want the same thing for our 
country. This is not about politics. It cannot be about politics. It is 
about policy and what works for America's future, what strengthens our 
country, what keeps our promise to our soldiers, and what keeps our 
commitment to ourselves as one of the great symbols of freedom in the 
world. That is why I hope we will get past this issue that has now 
impaled this Senate, a debate about whether we should debate. The 
answer clearly ought to be, yes, we ought to get to the debate that is 
significant and important to the future of this great country of ours.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The absence of a quorum has been 
suggested.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, for the last few weeks, a bipartisan 
group of Senators has worked to bring to the floor a resolution 
expressing opposition to the President's proposal to increase American 
troops in Iraq. In an effort to have an honest, thoughtful, and 
productive debate, they put aside their differences, only to be run 
over by partisan politics. I support the bipartisan resolution opposing 
the escalation. I support an honest and open debate on a policy that 
clearly needs to change. But I do not support what I saw take place in 
this Chamber yesterday.
  Our soldiers and their families have sacrificed too much to accept 
the political obstructionism that is keeping this body from having a 
debate on a most critical issue. Our troops have given so much, and 
they deserve much more than what they got from the U.S. Senate 
yesterday. The least we can do is to have this debate, and the best we 
can do is to get this policy right for our troops.
  I would like to thank those who worked on this resolution: Senators 
Levin and Warner and Senators Biden and Hagel and others. Throughout 
their careers, they have shown how much they care for the men and women 
in uniform. In crafting these resolutions, they showed us that when 
principled individuals from opposing parties care strongly about an 
issue, politics doesn't always have to win out.
  Unfortunately, some in this body still don't want to have a debate 
about Iraq. It is long past time to have this debate. The American 
people have called for it, our troops have earned it, and we should be 
big enough to have it.
  Over 3,000 American soldiers are dead, more than 20,000 have been 
wounded in combat, over 2,000 have lost their limbs, and more than $350 
billion of taxpayer money has gone to Iraq. Scores of Iraqis are killed 
every day in what has essentially devolved into a civil war.
  All across my State, I have heard a strong and clear message from 
Minnesotans: Change the course in Iraq and push for the strategy and 
solutions that will bring our troops home. We need a surge in 
diplomacy, Mr. President, not a surge in troops. It is a message that 
was echoed all across this country from Montana to Minnesota, from 
Pennsylvania to Virginia. Unfortunately, there were those in this 
Chamber yesterday who did not listen to that message, who would prefer 
no debate. This bipartisan resolution expresses the strong opposition 
of this body to the President's decision to stay the course and send an 
additional 21,000 American troops to Iraq. I strongly support this 
bipartisan resolution and implore my colleagues to allow this 
resolution its due course.
  The people of Minnesota, like their fellow citizens around the 
country, recognize what is at stake in Iraq. Of the 22,000 troops 
involved in the surge, nearly 3,000 are from Minnesota. As I have 
traveled throughout our State, I have spoken with many families who 
have paid a personal price in this war, and I think of them often.
  I think of Claremont Anderson from Hoffman, MN, who would drive 
hundreds of miles to attend public events in the last 2 years. I just 
saw him and his wife Nancy this weekend; they braved 7-degree below-
zero wind chills to come to an event in Glenwood, MN. When I see 
Claremont, any time anyone even talks about the war, he starts to cry. 
That is because his son Stuart, an Army Reserve major, was killed in a 
helicopter crash in Iraq.
  I think of Kathleen Wosika from St. Paul, MN. Just last month, her 
son, James Wosika, Jr., was killed while he was patrolling on foot in 
an area near Fallujah. He was a sergeant with the Army National Guard 
1st Brigade, whose current duty will be extended under the President's 
escalation. Sergeant Wosika was the third member of his unit to die 
within a 6-month period. He was the seventh member of the brigade to be 
killed since their deployment last spring.
  I also think of Becky Lourey of Kerrick, MN. That is near Duluth. She 
is a mother of 12 and a former State senator. Her son Matt was killed 
when the Army helicopter he was piloting went down north of Baghdad. I 
watched this Gold Star mother, a woman who has adopted eight children, 
comfort her grandchildren, hold her shaking husband, and stand tall for 
hours in a high school gym in Finlayson, MN, where hundreds of people 
came to gather for her son's memorial service.
  Claremont Anderson, Kathleen Wosika, and Becky Lourey are parents 
whose children made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country, 
and they are among the many Minnesotans who told me without apology 
they want to see a change of course in Iraq. They pray others will not 
have to experience their pain.
  Although I opposed this war from the beginning, I recognized that 
many did support it. But 4 years later, we are now dealing with a 
dramatically different situation. What we know now about the events and 
facts leading up to this war has changed dramatically. The conditions 
inside Iraq have changed dramatically. Our role there has changed 
dramatically.
  Last November, citizens in Minnesota and across the country voted for 
a new direction in Washington. Americans made clear at the ballot box 
they were tired of the politics-as-usual partisan bickering and that 
they wanted a meaningful and bipartisan change of course in Iraq. To 
the country's bewilderment, the President responded with a plan to 
escalate the number of American troops in Iraq. That is not the change 
in course the American people voted for. It is not the change in course 
the Iraq Study Group recommended. It is not the change in course Iraq 
needs to halt its civil war. It is not the change in course our 
military forces deserve.
  Distinguished Senators from both sides of the aisle are seeking ways 
for this body to bring about the right kind of change. The bipartisan 
resolution proposes a strategy that recognizes the facts on the ground 
in Iraq. It incorporates many of the recommendations of the Iraq Study 
Group.
  For years, we have heard from administration officials, from military

[[Page S1594]]

officials, and from the Iraqis themselves that there can be no military 
solution in Iraq. Stability can only be achieved through diplomatic and 
political solutions. This resolution calls on the administration to 
engage other nations in the region to create conditions for the 
compromises between Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds that will be 
necessary for peace. Furthermore, the resolution calls on the 
administration to apply pressures on the Iraqis themselves to stand up 
and take responsibility for their country. By following the 
recommendations of this resolution, the President would send a much 
stronger signal to the Iraqis that we are not going to be staying 
there indefinitely.

  As of last Thanksgiving, this war has now lasted longer than World 
War II, and after nearly 4 years of intensive military involvement in 
Iraq, including more than 3,000 American deaths, we have to be focused 
on reducing our troop presence in Iraq instead of putting even more 
American service men and women in harm's way. Haven't we asked our men 
and women to sacrifice enough?
  Recently, at the funeral for a fallen soldier, I heard a local priest 
say that our leaders have an obligation to do right by our children 
when we send them to war. He said that our children may be over 6 feet 
tall when we send them to war, but they are still our children. ``If 
the kids we are sending to Iraq are 6 feet tall,'' he said, ``then our 
leaders must be 8 feet tall.'' I would add that if these soldiers are 
willing to stand up and risk their lives for our country, then those of 
us in the Congress must be brave enough to stand up and ask the tough 
questions and push for the tough solutions.
  Claremont Anderson, Kathleen Wosika, and Becky Lourey are standing 
tall. The parents I met with this weekend whose kids are supposed to be 
coming home this month but are now staying much longer, they are now 
doing everything to be brave and stand tall. The 400 members of the Air 
Minnesota National Guard whose deployment ceremony I attended Sunday, 
in Duluth, MN, they are standing tall. The teenage brother and sister 
who will see not only their dad but also their mom be deployed in the 
next 2 weeks, those two kids are standing tall. My friend Senator Webb, 
who will speak with us momentarily and whose son is serving bravely, he 
is over there and he is not afraid. He is standing tall. The injured 
soldiers in the VA hospital in Minnesota recovering from traumatic 
brain injuries and in their wheelchairs with their strength and their 
spirit, they too are standing tall.
  I would say to my friends across the aisle, by having an honest and 
open debate on this war and on this resolution, we in Congress can also 
and finally stand tall.
  Our Constitution says that Congress should be a responsible check and 
balance on Presidential power. Congressional oversight for Iraq policy 
is long overdue. We have seen this bipartisan resolution and bipartisan 
work challenging the President's proposal for an escalation of American 
troop levels in Iraq. Even as Commander In Chief, our President does 
not enjoy unlimited power. On behalf of the public, Members of this 
body have a responsibility to exercise our own constitutional power in 
a fairminded, bipartisan way, to insist on accountability, and to 
demand a change of course. Ultimately, the best way to help our 
soldiers and their families is not only to give them the respect they 
deserve but also to get this policy right.
  I hope that my friends across the aisle will see the merits of this 
resolution and the urgency of having an open and honest debate on this 
issue; our troops and their families deserve nothing less.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the Senator from 
Minnesota, for her kind remarks about the people who have served.
  I emphasize my support for the resolution--actually, the 
resolutions--that were so painstakingly put together by a number of 
senior Senators from both sides of the aisle, only to be denied a full 
debate and an open vote through the procedural motions yesterday 
evening.
  Winston Churchill once wrote about watching good ideas getting 
nibbled to death by ducks. Last night, we saw this phenomenon in 
action. We had before the Senate a measure that would allow this 
Congress to speak clearly of concerns regarding the woeful lack of 
leadership by the President on an issue that affects our Nation and our 
military people such as no other. And the other side--including some 
Senators who had helped to draft the resolutions and had their names on 
it--punted the ball down field rather than giving the people of this 
country the debate they not only need but are calling for in every 
opinion poll.
  Quite simply, there is no way, other than through a strong resolution 
or restrictive language in an appropriations bill, for this Senate to 
communicate to this administration that its so-called new strategy is 
lacking in the most crucial elements that might actually lead to a 
solution in Iraq. This is not a strategy. It is a one-dimensional 
tactical adjustment that avoids the elements of a true overarching 
national strategy. It relies too heavily on our military, while 
ignoring the overwhelming advice of those with long experience in this 
region that we must pursue robust diplomacy in order to bring this 
misguided effort to a conclusion.
  There have been allegations by those on the other side that we who 
take this position are not supporting the troops. I submit that the 
best way to support the troops would be for this administration to 
outline and pursue a comprehensive strategy that includes the 
diplomatic measures that will be essential to ending our involvement.
  Mr. President, a reminder: During the Vietnam war our military killed 
more than a million enemy soldiers--enemy soldiers--by official count 
of the present Hanoi Government. Actually, that count is 1.4 million 
enemy soldiers. But without a clear strategy and without adept 
diplomacy, that simply was not enough. From the very beginning in Iraq, 
this administration has consciously neglected its proper diplomatic 
duties. It has attempted to frame the debate over Iraq's future as one 
of military action on the one hand and a set of vague guidelines to the 
Iraqi Government on the other, as if the rest of the region were 
somehow not crucial to the eventual outcome. This, in and of itself, is 
a recipe for continued violence and for American failure in Iraq.
  It is widely known that the Iraqi Government lacks the power to 
control the myriad of factions that are causing chaos. The latest 
National Intelligence Estimate not only confirms this, it indicates 
that these factions have been broken into so many different components 
that it is not even fair to call this problem one of sectarian violence 
any longer. The administration knows this. Most of the administration's 
strongest supporters know this. Their reaction has been to increase the 
pressure on an impotent government and to go to the well, again and 
again, asking for even greater sacrifices from the military, while 
ignoring their most basic responsibility, which is to put together a 
clear diplomatic effort that will bring full context to the issues that 
face us and, in short order, end our involvement. This is not 
supporting the troops. This is misusing the troops.
  With respect to the troops, I would caution any political leader who 
claims to speak on behalf of the political views of our men and women 
in uniform. Our military people are largely a mirror of our society, 
particularly in the enlisted ranks, and their political views are as 
diverse as our own.
  As one example, last year, a survey of those in Iraq indicated that 
more than 70 percent believed that the United States should exit Iraq 
within a year. That was a year ago. As I have said before, it is 
inverted logic to claim we should continue to fight this war on behalf 
of the troops. The fact is, they are fighting this war on behalf of the 
political process. They deserve political leadership that is 
knowledgeable and that proceeds from an assumption that our national 
goals are equal to the sacrifices we are asking them to make.
  For the last 5 years, from before this invasion, this administration 
and its supporters have refused to admit the most fundamental truth of 
the entire war. It is a truth that was echoed over and over again last 
month by expert

[[Page S1595]]

witnesses during more than a dozen hearings before the Foreign 
Relations Committee and the Committee on Armed Services, both of which 
I am privileged to serve upon. It is a truth that this administration 
and the architects of this war too often refuse to recognize, perhaps 
because they fear it might potentially embarrass them in the eyes of 
history.
  The unavoidable truth is that this war will never be brought to a 
proper conclusion without the active participation of the other 
countries in the region--all of them.
  We hear stories of the Saudis helping the Sunni insurgency. We are 
told by this administration Iran is equipping and training portions of 
the Shia militias. We hear Turkey and Iran are quietly cooperating to 
limit the influence of Kurds. We hear Syria is the favorite starting 
point for many al-Qaida guerillas who infiltrate into Al Anbar 
Province. We know the entire region is being flooded with refugees from 
the violence in Iraq, including, especially, Jordan and Syria.
  None of this is surprising. Indeed, all of it was predictable and 
predicted, even before the invasion of Iraq. I recall many of the 
speeches by the Presiding Officer on those points. What is truly 
surprising and unsettling is that this administration has not developed 
an overt diplomatic effort to bring order out of this chaos in a way 
that might allow us to dramatically decrease our presence in Iraq and, 
at the same time, increase the stability of the region, increase our 
ability to fight terrorism, and allow us to address strategic 
challenges elsewhere in the world.
  These countries have historic, political, and cultural ties to Iraq. 
They are going to be involved in Iraq's affairs in the future, long 
after the United States departs the region. It is in our national 
interests and, as a great nation, it is our obligation to take the lead 
in causing each of these countries to deal responsibly with Iraq's 
chaos and with its future. We did exactly this in 2001, after the 
invasion of Afghanistan, bringing the major players to the table, 
including India, Pakistan, and Iran, and we should do so now.

  This approach would have additional benefits beyond Iraq. It would 
begin to loosen the unnatural alliance between Iran and Syria which 
could, in turn, increase the potential for greater stability in 
Lebanon, Israel, and the surrounding territories. It would begin to 
bring countries such as Iran to a proper role of responsibility inside 
the international community.
  On this point, I cite an important historical reference. In 1971, 
China, similar to Iran today, was considered a rogue Nation. China, in 
those days, was already a nuclear power. It had an American war on its 
borders in Vietnam, a war it was actively assisting. We, the United 
States, took the initiative, aggressively opening China through 
diplomatic energy and, over time, helped to bring China into the 
international community. We should not be afraid of taking similar 
actions with Iran and also, by the way, with Syria.
  The bottom line of all this is this administration and its supporters 
must understand the realities that are causing us as a Congress to 
finally say ``enough is enough;'' that the time has come for a new 
approach; that the answer in Iraq and to our fight against 
international terrorism and to our diminished posture around the world 
is for us to show not only our prowess on the battlefield but also our 
leadership in the diplomatic arena; that, indeed, we have an obligation 
to the men and women who have served so selflessly on our behalf, to 
match their proficiency and their loyalties with the kind of thoughtful 
leadership that will bring this effort to a proper conclusion.
  If there were other ways to convince this administration to change 
its ineffective one-dimensional approach to the situation in Iraq, I 
would welcome them, but after 5 years of political disarray, I do not 
believe it is so. I support this resolution as a first step in 
reclaiming America's strategic purpose and international reputation. I 
urge my fellow Senators to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I came to the Senate to talk about the loss 
of a great soldier and dear friend of mine, but before I do that, I 
will comment on a few things we have heard discussed this morning.
  First, our efforts on this side are to get an opportunity to debate 
and vote on the Gregg amendment. The Gregg amendment, very simply 
stated--I don't have the full text in front of me--supports our troops. 
It says we should support our troops and not cut off funding. That is a 
valid viewpoint. We are at war. Traditionally, this Senate has 
supported our troops. That used to be the absolute baseline which 
everyone accepted. The main resolution that has been referred to, I 
fear, goes in the wrong direction.
  We, in time of war, ought to debate, and we will debate fully, and 
everyone will have an opportunity to express their views--but I think 
it is very important we not only have an opportunity to vote on the two 
resolutions which have been discussed but also to vote on the Gregg 
amendment. As soon as we can get agreement to do that, I am confident 
the leaders can move forward.
  I have also heard in the Senate a number of comments from Members who 
do not support a cut-and-run policy. I have addressed previously the 
disaster of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In open testimony, the 
intelligence community--the Director of National Intelligence--the 
Director of CIA, the Director of Military Intelligence, said chaos 
would reign in Iraq if we withdrew precipitously. It would fall into 
chaos. The primary beneficiary of that chaos would be al-Qaida. Osama 
bin Laden and Al-Jazeera have said how important it was for them to 
establish Iraq as their main base of operations.
  Second, there would be chaos and slaughter of innocent civilians, 
both Shia and Sunni. There would be a tremendous increase in the deaths 
of civilians. But even more frightening, the neighboring states would 
likely be brought in. The Sunni states would likely come to the aid of 
their Sunni brethren, and if that had not already triggered the 
entrance of Iran into it on behalf of the Shia, it surely would, and we 
could potentially be facing a major Middle East conflict with many 
states involved.
  I have heard it said that the Levin-Warner resolution asks we chart a 
new direction. We have charted a new direction. And the way forward is 
a new direction. The President has the agreement of Prime Minister al-
Maliki and the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish government of Iraq that they 
will take control and they will assume responsibility. They need help 
in training particularly their police, but they will take control. That 
is where we need to be.
  We can help pick off the al-Qaida and the other committed 
international terrorists, the radical Islamists. But we need them to 
resolve this civil strife between Shia and Sunni, and do so in a fair 
way, including the Kurds and the Sunnis.
  This happens to be the military plan the Baker-Hamilton group 
supported. They said to enable the Iraqi security, military, and police 
to take over, we should send in some troops temporarily. That is what 
the President is doing, adding another 21,000 to support them.
  Is this going to work? Well, again, with the release of the National 
Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and the open testimony of the leaders of 
the intelligence community, they said it is an open question. It is a 
tough decision. But it is the best option we have.
  Yes, they think there is a chance it will work. And the Iraqi 
Government knows this is their last best chance. They had best make it 
work. And they best get their police trained and their military 
trained.
  Many people have called for bringing in other nations in the Middle 
East. That is what the President and Secretary Rice have done, to bring 
in other nations that will help rebuild the Sunni areas and help 
provide support to the Iraqis.
  There are some people who say we should not have an unlimited 
commitment. Well, the President has told not only this Nation but Prime 
Minister al-Maliki there is a time deadline. We are committed to them 
but not indefinitely. And if they do not take advantage of this 
opportunity, it will be their country which will fall into chaos

[[Page S1596]]

and be the battleground, perhaps embroiling the entire region, but 
certainly wiping out and causing great death and destruction in their 
own country. So we do have a new direction.
  Now, some are pushing a resolution that challenges the President's 
implementation of the plan. We are trying to be generals and say 
General Petraeus--whom we just confirmed unanimously because he is such 
a great general, who said we should have those 21,000 troops--they are 
challenging his military judgment in the implementation of the plan.
  I know many of my colleagues have followed military policy for many 
years, but I do not think we in this body can determine for the 
generals what the proper level of troop commitments is. They are the 
ones who take responsibility for the lives of their men and women. To 
send a message by adopting a resolution that says we oppose the 
President's plan, implementation of his plan, is not going to change 
sending more American troops there.
  But it will tell al-Qaida: Good news, boys, the Congress is opposing 
the President. Our chances look better to take over the country.
  And it will send a message to friendly countries that are trying to 
help the Iraqis telling them: Sorry guys, we are not interested in 
winning this, so you probably would not want to waste your effort 
helping us.
  Finally, what does it send as a message to our troops: We do not 
support the military plan they are being asked to carry out, the men 
and women who are risking their lives? Does that make any sense? I fear 
not.
  I hope we can reject very soundly the Levin-Warner amendment and 
adopt the Gregg amendment and also the McCain amendment.

                          ____________________