[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 29 (Thursday, February 15, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1992-S1993]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier today there was a lot of discussion 
here about whether and how we should have a debate on the Iraq war. I 
cannot think of any issue more important to the Senate.
  I have said many times that the 100 men and women who serve here are 
privileged to do so. Someday, someone from our State will replace us. 
That is the genius of the Founders of this country. However, there are 
only 100 Members. There are 300 million Americans. The 300 million 
Americans expect the 100 Senators to speak for them. They do not have 
that opportunity themselves.
  I consider it a great privilege to be here. I used to sit up in the 
gallery when I was a law student and watch the Senate, and I thought 
then as I do today that the Senate should be and often is the 
conscience of the Nation.
  I heard the debates during the time of the Vietnam war. I became the 
only Vermonter to actually vote on whether to continue that war. Today, 
we have a different war but many people in this country are as 
concerned. Those for the war in Iraq, those against the war in Iraq.
  I go to my State of Vermont and everywhere I go, whether I am in 
buying groceries and people come talk to me or I am at the gas station 
or if I am shoveling snow--and yesterday we had 2\1/2\ feet of snow at 
my home in Vermont--people stop and want to talk about the war in Iraq. 
My guess is it is no different in any other State.
  These are very patriotic, very honest, very concerned people, and 
they have legitimate questions. They always ask: Why isn't the Senate 
debating the war in Iraq?
  A week ago, Senator Reid, the distinguished majority leader, tried 
every which way to provide the Senate with an opportunity to debate a 
bipartisan resolution on Iraq. That effort failed, and it failed again 
earlier today. It was blocked by some in the Republican Party who 
insisted on a separate vote that was nothing more than a political 
ploy. Instead of a debate on the President's policy, they wanted the 
debate to be about who supports the troops. We all support the troops, 
but we have some very different views about the President's policy that 
put brave American men and women in harm's way.
  As so often is the case when anyone asked a question, expressed 
reservations or outright opposed the President's policy in Iraq, the 
President's defenders accuse his detractors of not being patriotic or 
of not supporting the troops. What blatant balderdash that is.
  For years I have fought for veterans' benefits, for fair treatment 
for the National Guard, for armor for our troops who were sent by this 
administration into battle unprepared--and still, 5 years later don't 
have the armor their vehicles need to withstand the roadside bomb 
blasts. I have fought to replace the depleted stocks of equipment that 
our troops need and depend upon so their families do not have to send 
to them what the Government should be providing. The absurd accusation 
that it is unpatriotic to disagree with a policy that has resulted in 
the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and created a terrorists' 
haven in a country that, before our invasion, posed no threat to the 
United States, has worn thin.
  It reminds me of my days as a prosecutor, when a defendant was caught 
red-handed. What would they do? They would usually attack the accuser. 
They could not say ``You caught me breaking and entering.'' Rather, 
their defense was ``I was set up.'' Or ``He made me do it.'' That is 
what has been going on since President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and 
former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ignored all advice to the contrary 
and led us into this costly fiasco.
  These are the people who, when they had a chance to get Osama bin 
Laden--and we all want to see Osama bin Laden brought to justice for 
the attacks on September 11--when they had him cornered in Afghanistan, 
they decided instead to invade Iraq. Iraq did not pose a threat. Iraq 
did not have weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence was as 
equivocal as it was distorted and manipulated. But the President was 
fixated on Iraq, and he has remained so ever since.
  Remember how the Vice President confidently said we would be welcomed 
as liberators? Some welcome. Remember the President, dressed up in a 
flight suit on an aircraft carrier so he could make a rousing speech 
under the sign ``Mission Accomplished.'' Thousands of Americans have 
been killed or injured in Iraq in the years since that phony photo op.
  The flawed policies of this administration have thrust our troops 
into the maw of a bloody civil war. Our troops are not responsible for 
the mistaken policies they have been asked to implement. Policymakers 
in Washington are responsible for that and only we can change those 
policies.
  My youngest son was a member of the Marine Corps. He was called up 
during the first Gulf War. He saluted and was ready to do his duty, as 
are all the loyal men and women in our armed services. That was a 
different war. Thank God it was over so quickly. Neither he nor many 
others called up were in harm's way.
  But the policymakers made this policy and only they can change it, 
not the troops on the ground. The polls show, unmistakably, that a 
majority of the American people want the Congress to debate and vote on 
the Iraq war. They know it is the key issue of the day. They see it is 
a widening civil war. They want their sons and daughters to come home 
pursuant to as sensible a plan as we can muster.
  It is that simple. We ought to be debating that. If there are 
Senators who feel the troops should be there longer, that more of them 
should be sent there, then come to the Senate and say so. But also, 
there are those who feel we have to do all we can to bring our men and 
women home. We should have the opportunity to debate and vote on it.

  The costs of this misadventure have not just been onerous, they have 
been catastrophic. More than 3,000 Americans killed, more than 20,000 
wounded. My wife and I have visited some of the wounded. These are 
devastating wounds, crippling wounds, blinding wounds, wounds that 
disable people for the rest of their lives. And tens of thousands of 
innocent Iraqis have lost their lives.
  In material terms, we are fast approaching the $1 trillion mark. We 
are throwing money out the door at a rate of more than $2 billion per 
week to fund this war. We are told about the things we cannot afford in 
America because we have to fund the war in Iraq. We are cutting funds 
for law enforcement, for police on our streets so we can pay for police 
in Iraq. We can't upgrade our hospitals. And on and on.
  And the international reputation of America, which has brought us 
great influence, has now been tarnished, especially among our allies, 
tarnished and diminished.
  Where are we in Iraq? We are in the midst of a civil war among 
religious and ethnic factions, an insurgency that

[[Page S1993]]

shows no signs of diminishing and out-of-control organized crime. It is 
hard to say we have made any real progress toward the larger objective 
of bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East.
  It is time we face this grim reality. Our soldiers' lives are in the 
balance. America's reputation is in the balance. America's ability to 
set an example for the rest of the world is in the balance.
  I made a brief statement on Tuesday about a column in last Sunday's 
Washington Post by retired LTG William Odom. I know General Odom. I 
worked with him on some of the most significant intelligence matters in 
this country. He has one of the most distinguished military 
intelligence careers. He continues to provide powerful insights on 
national security. In his piece entitled ``Victory Is Not An Option,'' 
he outlines how this administration's entire policy in Iraq, including 
the so-called surge strategy, is based on a self-defeating inability to 
face reality.
  The reality, according to the general, is that we are not going to 
make Iraq a democracy. The longer we stay, the more likely Iraq will be 
anti-American at the end of our intervention. Think of that, after $1 
trillion.
  Our invasion made civil war and increased Iranian influence 
inevitable. No amount of military force will prevent those outcomes. 
Meanwhile, our presence is only stoking al-Qaida's involvement in Iraq.
  The reality is that supporting our troops does not mean keeping them 
there to carry out a failed strategy. It means pursuing a course that 
protects the country's interests and prevents more Americans from dying 
in pursuit of an ill-defined, open-ended strategy that cannot succeed.
  General Odom knows we need to begin an orderly withdrawal from Iraq. 
He argues we should join with other countries in the region, those 
whose input this administration has often ignored, and seek to 
stabilize the region through sustained, high-level diplomacy. These 
views are in line with those of some of our senior military officers, 
national security experts and many in Congress, and I might say a 
majority of the American people. The people we are here to represent.
  Look at what the administration and defenders of the Republican Party 
offer instead: We get filibusters when it is time to debate the 
President's Iraq policy, we get the same old rhetoric about not 
supporting the troops, and we get a bill from the President for another 
$100 billion to send 20,000 more troops and continue the war. If the 
President cannot face the reality that even some Members of his own 
party increasingly have come to accept, then it is our responsibility--
I would also say our patriotic duty and our moral duty--to act.

  A nonbinding resolution that sends a clear message in opposition to 
an escalation of troops is far better than the years of silence of a 
rubberstamp Congress. But we know the President will ignore it. He has 
already said so. We know it is only a first step.
  I will support binding legislation by Senators Obama and Feingold to 
begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. It is not our 
role to choose sides in this civil war, and it is a prescription for 
disaster. It is not our troops' role to die trying to force these 
warring factions to settle their age-old differences.
  We need to continue to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan. 
We need to deploy sufficient forces and intelligence assets to track 
down international terrorists around the world. We need to do a lot 
better job of policing our borders, without denying entry to innocent 
people who are fleeing persecution.
  General Odom is right, keeping our troops in Iraq is not making us 
safer. We should be bringing our troops home. We should be bringing 
them home with the thanks of a nation for doing their duty. Congress 
has the power to force the President to change course. That is what the 
American people want. That is what we should be debating.

                          ____________________