[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 30 (Friday, February 16, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2122-S2125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first let me thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts for his moving and sobering words but even more 
importantly for his leadership and tremendous clarity on this issue 
over these last few critical years.
  Mr. President, we are approaching the 4-year anniversary of one of 
the greatest foreign policy mistakes in our country's history. In March 
2003, with the prior authorization of Congress, the President took this 
country to war in Iraq. Almost 4 years later, virtually every objective 
observer and, more importantly, the American people as a whole agree 
that the President's policy has failed. Even the President acknowledges 
that his plan has not worked, though his solution is not a new plan but 
a troop escalation. Of course, sending more troops to implement what is 
essentially the same flawed strategy makes no sense. The American 
people agree that it makes no sense, and most of my colleagues agree 
that it makes no sense.
  So the question becomes, with a President unable or unwilling to fix 
a flawed policy that is jeopardizing our national security and our 
military readiness, what should we in Congress do about our country's 
involvement in this disastrous war? Do we do nothing and hope the 
President will put things right, when he has shown time and time again 
that he is incapable of doing so? Do we simply tell the President that 
we are unhappy with the way the war is going and that we hope he will 
change course or do we take strong, decisive action to fix the 
President's mistaken, self-defeating policies?
  It is pretty clear which course of action I support. I think it is a 
course of action the American people called for in the November 
elections. It is the course of action our national security needs, so 
we do not continue to neglect global threats and challenges while we 
focus so much of our resources and our efforts on Iraq. It is the 
course of action that will support--that will actually support--our 
brave troops and their families.
  We must end our involvement in this tragic and misguided war. The 
President will not do so; therefore, Congress must act. So far, 
Congress has not lived up to that responsibility. Instead of taking 
strong action in the Senate, instead of considering binding legislation 
that fixes the President's flawed Iraq strategy, we tied ourselves into 
knots last week in a convoluted and misguided effort to achieve a 
consensus that would have essentially reaffirmed congressional 
authorization for continuing our military involvement in Iraq. Of 
course, here I am referring to the resolution proposed by the senior 
Senator from Virginia. This resolution was portrayed, at least at 
first, by members of both parties as an important symbolic rebuke of 
the President's Iraq policy. In fact, it really was not a rebuke at 
all. In parts, it reads like a reauthorization of the war, rejecting 
troop redeployment and specifically authorizing ``vigorous operations'' 
in a critical region in Iraq.
  Now, when debate on the Warner resolution was blocked, we had a 
chance

[[Page S2123]]

to get things right. And I am glad our majority leader, Senator Reid, 
has chosen to bring up the resolution being debated in the House today 
expressing support for the troops and, simply, opposition to the so-
called surge. Now, this body--the Senate--should go on record in 
opposition to, or support of, the President's plan.
  I will vote to allow the debate on the resolution to take place. And 
I hope I will have the opportunity to actually vote for the resolution.
  I have yet to hear any convincing argument that sending 21,500 more 
troops to Iraq will bring about the political solution that is needed 
to end violence in that country.
  The President's decision to send more troops is based on two flawed 
assumptions. It assumes, first, that the presence of even more of our 
servicemembers will help Iraqi troops improve security in Baghdad and, 
second, that with improved security, Iraqi politicians can then achieve 
national reconciliation. The recent declassified NIE, or National 
Intelligence Estimate, shot holes in both of those assumptions. It said 
that Iraqi security forces ``will be hard pressed in the next 12-18 
months to execute significantly increased security responsibilities'' 
and ``even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all 
attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi 
leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political 
reconciliation in the time frame of this Estimate.''
  Obviously, those were direct quotes, not me characterizing the NIE. 
In other words, in the best case scenario, U.S. forces provide a little 
security that Iraqi forces can't sustain on their own and that Iraqi 
politicians won't use to settle their entrenched differences. That 
doesn't sound to me like a plan for success.
  Some of my colleagues, even those who don't support sending more 
troops to Baghdad, have spoken in favor of continued and even increased 
U.S. military operations in Al Anbar Province. Some of them even 
suggest that our troops should be directly combating an insurgency 
there. This, apart from everything else, is a recipe for disaster. Al 
Anbar Province is where a majority of U.S. troops have been killed in 
Iraq. The insurgency there, as well as general opposition to the U.S. 
presence and to the Shiite-dominated Government in Baghdad, is fueled 
by the Sunnis' political and economic grievances. Conducting targeted 
missions to take out terrorists makes sense, but using U.S. troops to 
put down an insurgency doesn't. Maintaining or, worse yet, increasing a 
substantial U.S. presence in a primarily Sunni area without a political 
solution means nothing less than a continuation of unending and self-
defeating policies in Iraq. Clearly, the President's decision to send 
more troops makes no sense. But I have to say that simply passing a 
nonbinding resolution criticizing it makes no sense, either, if we just 
stop there. So we need to go further, and we need to do it soon.
  Let me remind my colleagues, when the voters rejected the President's 
Iraq policy in November, they weren't rejecting an escalation. That 
option wasn't even on the table then. Who was talking about an 
escalation during that campaign? Certainly, the Presiding Officer knows 
well what was being discussed. They were rejecting the President's 
policy of trying to achieve a political solution in Iraq with a massive 
and unlimited military presence. After delaying action for a couple of 
months, the President just plain ignored overwhelming public sentiment, 
the advice of Members of both parties, and the views of the military 
and foreign policy experts when he proposed an escalation. The 
administration turned its back on the American people.
  We in Congress should not follow suit. We have a responsibility to 
our constituents and to our men and women in uniform. If no one will 
listen to and act on the will of the American people, then there is 
something seriously wrong with our political system. After almost 4 
years of a disastrous policy, we must bring our troops out of Iraq. To 
do otherwise is to ignore public outrage over the war and to ignore the 
many other pressing national security priorities we are neglecting in 
favor of a myopic focus on Iraq. The American people recognize there is 
no U.S. military solution to Iraq's civil war. And as long as we focus 
disproportionate attention and resources on Iraq, we will not be able 
to counter the full range of threats we face in places such as 
Afghanistan and Somalia and many other places around the world. So 
Congress must use its power. It must use its power of the purse to 
safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.
  Let's not be intimidated by the intentionally misleading rhetoric of 
the White House and its allies when they try to prevent any discussion 
at all of real action by the Congress to end the war. This isn't about 
cutting off funds for troops; it is about cutting off funds for the 
war. Every Member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support 
our troops and give them the resources and the support they need. By 
setting a date after which funding for the war will be terminated, as I 
have proposed, Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way. 
That is how you get them out of harm's way, by getting them out of 
there.
  There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its 
constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict. 
Last month, I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing entitled 
``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End the War.'' Without 
exception, every witness, those called by the majority and the 
minority, those who have had a career more focused on the executive 
branch than the legislative branch--all of them did not challenge the 
constitutionality of Congress's authority to end the war.

  Lou Fisher of the Library of Congress is acclaimed as one of the 
foremost experts on the President's war powers. In fact, he literally 
wrote the book on this topic. He testified that Congress does not 
simply have the power, he said it has the responsibility to exercise 
it, when needed.
  He said:

       . . . is the continued use of military force and a military 
     commitment in the Nation's interest? That is the core 
     question. Once you decide that, if you decide it is not in 
     the national interest, you certainly do not want to continue 
     putting U.S. troops in harm's way.

  The argument that cutting off funding for a flawed policy would hurt 
the troops and that continuing to put U.S. troops in harm's way 
supports the troops makes no sense. By ending funding for the war, we 
can bring our troops safely out of Iraq.
  Walter Dellinger of Duke Law School made this point when he testified 
about my proposal. He said:

       There would not be one penny less for the salary of the 
     troops. There would not be one penny less for the benefit of 
     the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or 
     ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or 
     support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other 
     areas where the armed forces are utilized.

  Instead of allowing the President's failed policy to continue, 
Congress can and should use its power of the purse to end our 
involvement in the Iraq war, safely redeploying the troops while 
ensuring, as do I in my bill, that important counterterrorism and 
training missions are still carried out. We should be coming up with a 
strategy for a postredeployment Iraq and the region that is squarely 
within the context of the global fight against al-Qaida. That means 
replacing a massive and unsustainable and unlimited military mission 
with a long-term strategy for mitigating the mess left behind by this 
war. With such a strategy, we can redirect substantially more resources 
and attention to the fight against al-Qaida and other affiliated or 
sympathetic international terrorist organizations.
  As long as this President goes unchecked by Congress, our troops will 
remain needlessly at risk and our national security will be 
compromised.
  Let me tell my colleagues, regardless of what happens with this 
resolution, this is just a first step--worthwhile but just a first 
step. And the first step must be followed by stronger steps, and it 
must be done quickly. I intend to keep pushing until the Senate votes 
to end our involvement in the Iraq war, and eventually this will happen 
because this is what a strong majority of the American people want. 
Congress may be able to put off its day of reckoning temporarily, the 
administration can continue down the same failed path a while longer, 
but all of us ignore the will of the American people at our peril. So 
let's have this debate. Let's do it openly and honestly. Let's not 
pretend anyone wants to deny our troops

[[Page S2124]]

the equipment and resources they need. Let's not suggest that opposing 
the President's strategy is unpatriotic and that it would give aid and 
comfort to the enemy, that it would somehow weaken the resolve of our 
troops. Those claims are outrageous. They are offensive, and they are 
untrue. Do my colleagues believe the American people gave aid and 
comfort to the enemy when they rejected the President's Iraq policy in 
November? Are the overwhelming majority of our constituents who oppose 
this war trying to undermine our troops? Of course not. So how could 
anyone suggest that Congress actually acting on the will of the 
American people undermines the troops or emboldens the enemy?
  Our troops are undermined by a policy that places them in harm's way 
unnecessarily. And our enemy, our true enemy, al-Qaida and its allies, 
is emboldened by a U.S. strategy that neglects global challenges and 
instead focuses on a single country. It is unfortunate that those who 
wish to defend this strategy would resort to these kinds of charges.
  Let's do the job of the Senate and have full, open debate and votes 
on fixing our Iraq policy. Let's not pretend that such a debate would 
harm our national security. Let's not tell ourselves that it is up to 
just the President to fix the horrible situation his failed policies 
have created. It is our responsibility to act, too. Congress made the 
tragic mistake of authorizing this war over 4 years ago. Now Congress 
also has the job of bringing it to a close so we can refocus on the 
terrorists and other global threats that have been neglected way too 
much over the past 4 years.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, when the roll is called tomorrow on the 
motion for cloture with regard to the resolution the House is expected 
to pass tonight on Iraq, I will vote no. I will vote against cloture. I 
will do so not because I wish to stifle debate. The fact is that debate 
has occurred, it is occurring now, and it will continue to occur on our 
policy in Iraq.
  I will vote against cloture because I feel so strongly against the 
resolution. It condemns the new plan for success in Iraq. I support 
that plan. It does something that, from all of the research my staff 
and I have done, including asking the Library of Congress, we have 
found no case in American history where Congress has done what this 
resolution does, which is, in a nonbinding resolution, oppose a plan 
our military is implementing right now. Congress has expressed 
nonbinding resolutions of disapproval before a plan of military action 
has been carried out.
  Congress has obviously taken much more direct steps, authorized to do 
so by the Constitution, to cut off funds for a military action or a war 
in progress. But never before has the Congress of the United States 
passed a nonbinding resolution of disapproval of a military plan that 
is already being carried out by American military personnel. I believe 
it is a bad precedent, and that is why I will do everything I can to 
oppose it. In the immediate context, that means I will vote against 
cloture.
  Mr. President, more broadly, we are approaching an important moment 
in the history of this institution and of our Republic, a moment I fear 
future historians will look back to and see the beginning of a cycle 
that not only damaged the remaining possibilities for success America 
has in Iraq but, more broadly, established political precedents that 
weaken the power of the Presidency to protect the American people over 
the long term.
  The nonbinding resolution before us today, we all know, is only a 
prologue. That is why the fight over it, procedural and substantive, 
over these past weeks has been so intense. It is the first skirmish in 
an escalating battle that threatens to consume our Government over many 
months ahead, a battle that will neither solve the sprawling challenges 
we face in Iraq nor strengthen our Nation to defeat the challenges to 
our security throughout the world from Islamist extremists--that is to 
say, in our war against the terrorists who attacked us.
  We still have a choice not to go down this path. It is a choice that 
goes beyond the immediate resolution that will be before the Senate, a 
chance to step back from the brink and find better ways to express and 
arbitrate our differences of opinion. I hope we will seize the moment 
and take those steps.
  Mr. President, as we meet in this Chamber today, the battle for 
Baghdad has already begun. One of our most decorated generals, David 
Petraeus, whom this Senate confirmed 81 to 0 a few weeks ago, has now 
taken command in Baghdad.
  Thousands of American soldiers have moved out across the Iraqi 
capital putting their lives on the line as they put a new strategy into 
effect. We can now see for ourselves on the ground in Iraq, in Baghdad, 
where it matters what this new strategy looks like. And we can see why 
it is different from all that preceded it.
  For the first time in Baghdad, our primary focus is no longer on 
training Iraqi forces or chasing down insurgents or providing for our 
own force protection, though those remain objectives. Our primary focus 
is on ensuring basic security for the Iraqi people working side by side 
with Iraqi security forces, exactly what classic counterinsurgency 
doctrine tells us must be our first goal now.
  Where previously there were not enough troops to hold the 
neighborhoods cleared of insurgents, now more troops are either in 
place or on the way. Where previously American soldiers were based on 
the outskirts of Baghdad unable to secure the city, now they are living 
and working side by side with their Iraqi counterparts on small bases 
that are being set up right now throughout the Iraqi capital.
  At least six of these new joint bases have already been established 
in the Sunni neighborhoods in west Baghdad, the same neighborhoods 
where a few weeks ago jihadists and death squads held sway. In the 
Shiite neighborhoods of east Baghdad, American troops are also moving 
in with their Iraqi counterparts, and Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi 
Army are moving out.
  We do not know if this new strategy for success in Iraq will work 
over the long term, and we probably will not know for some time. The 
Mahdi Army may be in retreat for the moment, but they are not defeated. 
They have gone to ground, and they are watching. Our hope, of course, 
is that our determination and that of the Iraqi Government will lead 
them now to devote themselves to politics instead of death squads, but 
only time will tell.
  The fact is any realistic assessment of the situation in Iraq tells 
us we must expect there will be more attacks and there will be more 
casualties in the months ahead as the enemies of a free and independent 
Iraq see the progress we are making and adapt to try to destroy it with 
more violence.
  The question they will pose to us, which is the question that is 
posed every time a fanatic suicide bomb goes off and that person 
expresses their hatred of everyone else more than love of their own 
life by ending their own life, is: Will we yield Baghdad, Iraq, the 
Middle East, our own future to those fanatical suicide bombers?
  We must also recognize we are in a different place in Iraq from where 
we were a month ago because of the implementation of this new strategy. 
We are in a stronger position today to provide basic security in 
Baghdad, and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize 
the extremists and strengthen the moderates, a stronger position to 
foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and the 
militias of their public support, a stronger position to press the 
Iraqi leaders to make the political compromises that everyone 
acknowledges are necessary.
  John Maynard Keynes famously said:

       When the facts change, I change my mind.

  In the real world, in the past month, the facts in Iraq have changed, 
and they are changing still. I ask my colleagues to allow themselves to 
wait and consider changing their minds as further facts unfold in Iraq. 
The nonbinding resolution before us is not about stopping a 
hypothetical plan. It is about disapproving a plan that is being 
carried out now by our fellow

[[Page S2125]]

Americans in uniform in the field. In that sense, as I have said, it is 
unprecedented in congressional history, in American history.
  This resolution is about shouting into the wind. It is about ignoring 
the realities of what is happening on the ground in Baghdad. It 
proposes nothing. It contains no plan for victory or retreat. It is a 
strategy of ``no,'' while our soldiers are saying ``yes, sir,'' to 
their commanding officers as they go forward into battle. And that is 
why I will vote against the resolution by voting against cloture.
  I understand the frustration, the anger, and the exhaustion that so 
many Americans, so many Members of this Congress feel about Iraq, the 
desire to throw up one's hands and simply say ``enough.'' And I am 
painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life and of 
the mistakes that have been made in the war's conduct. But let us now 
not make another mistake. In the midst of a fluid and uncertain 
situation in Iraq, we should not be so bound up in our own arguments 
and disagreements, so committed to the positions we have staked out 
that the political battle over here takes precedence over the real 
battle over there.
  Whatever the passions of the moment, the point of reference for our 
decisionmaking should be military movements on the battlefields of 
Iraq, not political maneuverings in the Halls of Congress.
  Even as our troops have begun to take Baghdad back step by step, 
there are many in this Congress who have, nevertheless, already reached 
a conclusion about the futility of America's cause there and declared 
their intention to put an end to this mission, not with one direct 
attempt to cut off funds but step by political step.
  No matter what the rhetoric of this resolution, that is the reality 
of this moment. This nonbinding measure before us is a first step 
toward a constitutional crisis that we can and must avoid. Let me 
explain what I mean by ``a constitutional crisis.'' Let us be clear 
about the likely consequences if we go down this path beyond this 
nonbinding resolution.
  Congress has been given constitutional responsibilities, but the 
micromanagement of wars is not one of them. The appropriation of funds 
for war is. I appreciate that each of us has our own ideas about the 
best way forward in Iraq. I respect those who take a different position 
than I. I understand many feel strongly that the President's strategy 
is the wrong one, but the Constitution, which has served us now for 
more than two great centuries of our history, creates not 535 
Commanders in Chief but 1, the President of the United States, who is 
authorized to lead the day-to-day conduct of war.
  Whatever our preponderance of this war or its conduct, it is in no 
one's interest to stumble into a debilitating confrontation between our 
two great branches of Government over war powers. The potential for a 
constitutional crisis here and now is real, with congressional 
interventions, Presidential vetoes, and Supreme Court decisions.
  If there was ever a moment for nonpartisan cooperation to agree on a 
process that will respect both our personal opinions about this war and 
our Nation's interests over the long term, this is it.
  We need to step back from the brink and reason together, as Scripture 
urges us to do, about how we will proceed to express our disagreements 
about this war. We must recognize that while the decisions we are 
making today and we are about to make seem irretrievably bound up in 
the immediacy of this moment, and the particular people now holding 
positions of power in our Government, these decisions will set 
constitutional precedents that will go far beyond the moment and these 
people.
  President Bush has less than 2 years left in office, and a Democrat 
may well succeed him. If we do not act thoughtfully in the weeks and 
months ahead, we will establish precedents that future Congresses, 
future Presidents, and future generations of Americans will regret.
  Right now, as the battle for Baghdad begins, this institution is 
obviously deeply divided. However, we should not allow our divisions to 
lead us to a constitutional crisis in which no one wins and our 
national security is greatly damaged.
  We are engaged, as all my colleagues know, in a larger war against a 
totalitarian enemy, Islamist extremism, and terrorism that seeks to 
vanquish all the democratic values that is our national purpose to 
protect and defend.
  Whatever our differences in this Chamber about this war, let us never 
forget those great values of freedom and democracy that unite us and 
for which our troops have given, and today give, the last full measure 
of their devotion.
  Yes, we should vigorously debate and deliberate. That is not only our 
right, it is our responsibility. But at this difficult junction, at 
this moment when a real battle, a critical battle is being waged in 
Baghdad, as we face a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and wants to 
do it again, let us not shout at one another but let us reach out to 
one another to find that measure of unity that can look beyond today's 
disagreements and secure the Nation's future and the future of all who 
will follow us as Americans.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am so honored to be on the floor with 
Senator Joe Lieberman today and to listen to his remarks, frankly, to 
stand in the shadow of his leadership on this issue because he has been 
that, a bipartisan leader, recognizing, as he so appropriately has 
spoken, the leadership role that a Congress should take at this time in 
our Nation's history. And he has said it well. It is not one of 
micromanagement. It is not one of 535 generals all thinking we can act 
and think strategically about the engagement currently underway in 
Baghdad.
  It is our job, I would hope, to stand united in behalf of the men and 
women we send there in uniform to accomplish what we so hope and wish 
they will be able to accomplish, and that is the stability of Iraq, the 
allowing of the Iraqi people to once again lead their country and to 
take from it the kind of radical Islamic fascism that is well underway 
and dominating the region.
  Let me make a few comments this afternoon that clearly coincide with 
what Senator Lieberman has spoken to. This is not, nor should it ever 
become, a partisan issue. I think his presence on the floor this 
afternoon speaks volumes to that. This is not a partisan issue. This is 
a phenomenally important national and international issue for our 
country to be engaged in that, frankly, few countries can engage in the 
way we have and with the kind of energy and strength we have brought to 
it.
  The majority leader has put us in a very precarious situation, one 
that is clearly divisive. Frankly, I can say things as a Republican 
that maybe my colleague cannot say.

                          ____________________