[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 28, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2291-S2292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, in approximately half an hour we begin 
proceeding to debate on the 9/11 bill. Saturday a week ago we concluded 
without resolution a debate on an Iraq resolution. I come to the floor 
of the Senate this morning to share with my colleagues my thoughts on 
Iraq and where we are, and to do so in the context of 9/11.
  When I collected my thoughts about what I would say this morning, I 
thought back to a lot of lessons I learned from a great Georgian. In 
fact, on Saturday of last week, the day we had that debate, it was the 
75th birthday of former Senator Zell Bryan Miller of Towns County, GA. 
I learned a lot from Zell Miller in my lifetime. I learned humility 
when he beat me for Governor of Georgia in 1990. I learned respect for 
class in 1996 when he came back and asked me to chair the State Board 
of Education after he taught me a lesson in humility 6 years earlier. 
When I read his book, ``Corps Values: Everything You Need to Know I 
Learned in the Marines,'' I learned about commitment.
  Also in the final debate I had with Zell Miller in 1990, I learned 
about how you snatch victory when somebody else thought they had it. In 
the closing debate, 48 hours before the general election when the 
cameras went on each of us for our last 60 seconds, Zell Miller's 
closing remarks were simply this. He said:

       You know, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to have a race 
     for governor in 2 days and it's all up to you. But I want you 
     to remember something. Zell Miller knows one thing. If you 
     ever walk down a country road and you see a turtle sitting on 
     a fence post, there is one thing you know for sure. He did 
     not get there by himself.

  In taking that remark, I would remind my colleagues we didn't get to 
where we are by ourselves. We got here together at least in terms of 
Iraq. After 9/11 happened, within days, the United States of America 
changed and the President announced to the Congress we would no longer 
as a nation have a defense policy based on reaction. We would have a 
defense policy based on preemption. We learned on 9/11 you can't wait 
to find the smoking gun in terrorism to react, because if you do, it is 
too late. In the case of 9/11, there were 3,000 dead citizens of this 
world because we didn't preempt. The United Nations, 171 countries, 
voted unanimously in favor of resolution 1441 which authorized or 
threatened military action against Saddam Hussein if he didn't 
cooperate with the disclosures and the inspectors that the U.N. was 
prompting. When the U.N. failed to act and this President, George W. 
Bush, wanted to act, he came to this Congress and we voted 
overwhelmingly to support using force to hold Saddam Hussein 
accountable and to go after weapons of mass destruction and to go after 
those sanctuaries of terrorism.
  One would think, in listening to the debate in the Senate in the last 
few weeks, that some people have bad memories. They forgot about those 
votes. They forgot about the fact that George Bush didn't get there by 
himself. He got there with us. Now, are we disappointed in some of the 
things that have happened? Yes. Do we want to change some things? Yes. 
Do we differ? Yes, and the Senate is the place we differ. But while we 
differ, we should not discourage our troops. We should not discourage 
the people who are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the 
world in terms of our resolve.
  So I would suggest as we go to the debate on the 9/11 bill, we 
consider it as a wonderful opportunity to make a simple statement, a 
statement that while we may differ, there is one thing we don't differ 
on: We don't differ on the fact that we will give our troops the 
support and the finances and everything they need to carry out the 
mission to which they are assigned. That is precisely what Senator Judd 
Gregg of New Hampshire wanted to do in his resolution that never could 
come to the floor in that 2 weeks of debate on the Iraq resolution that 
failed to get enough votes to get a final vote. It is time, with a bill 
as relevant as this 
9/11, which is the genesis of all we deal with today, that we send that 
clear message. While we may differ on some policies, we do not differ 
on the financial support and the absolute commitment to our men and 
women in harm's way.
  I wish to put one other thing into perspective. As much bad news as 
we always talk about, a lot of good things happen. While some people 
may differ with the President's commitment to a surge in Iraq, even in 
the anticipation of that surge, there are some good things that have 
happened. Moqtada al-Sadr left Sadr City. He saw what was coming. Prime 
Minister al-Maliki already called for--and there are now talks about 
it--a regional conference on Iraq, including all the neighbors in the 
region--something many in here have called for, and I support, 
including getting the Iranians and Syrians into dialog.
  Last week, the Iraqi council approved the foundation of a hydrocarbon 
bill, oil revenue sharing with the people and provinces of Iraq. That 
is soon to go to that assembly. Think of something; the people of Iraq 
are on the doorstep of having equity for the very first time in their 
history.
  There are also disappointing things that have happened. Yes, we wish 
we were home with a victory already. But we have accomplished a lot, 
and we are this close to accomplishing the ultimate goal, which is a 
peaceful democracy in Iraq, terrorism without a sanctuary, and a 
statement that people are more important than power and dictators and 
terror.
  The United States is the country that has, in history, led and today 
needs to lead as well. I encourage our colleagues, as we get into this 
9/11 debate, let's not forget about the debate we had on Iraq. We ought 
to send a clear message of support to our troops, understanding that we 
may differ on the policy. It should be clear and precise that this 
Congress and this country will see to it that our men and women have 
the finances and resources to carry out the orders to which they are 
responsible and they take on without any reservation.
  I began my remarks by acknowledging my friend, Zell Miller, and his 
75th birthday and all of the lessons I have learned from him. He 
preceded me in this Senate, and I extend to him a belated birthday wish 
today in this speech. I also want us to be reminded of Zell Miller's 
many speeches on the U.S. Marine Corps, service to our country, 
patriotism, and commitment. Zell Miller knew as a soldier, he knew as 
the Governor of a State commanding the National Guard, and as a member 
of the Senate that while there may be political differences on the end 
result, there should be no difference in the support for the men and 
women who defend us and fight for freedom every day.

[[Page S2292]]

  As this debate unfolds, it is my hope we will have the opportunity to 
bring the Gregg amendment to the floor and vote to send a clear message 
to our men and women in harm's way that we support them, the funding 
will be there, and we will stay with them as they pursue the cause on 
behalf of peace, liberty, freedom, and democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
and around the world.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. 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. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I recently came to the Senate floor to 
express my views relative to the deliberations this body was 
undertaking approving and disapproving of the President's way forward 
in Iraq. I am strongly in favor of this body debating the U.S. policy 
relative to Iraq and believe all my colleagues are as well.
  However, as I stated in my earlier speech, it is not appropriate to 
allow the majority party to completely dictate the terms of that 
debate, as they have tried to do over the last several weeks. That is 
why I voted against cloture on the motion to proceed to the Reid 
resolution on February 17, along with a vast majority of my Republican 
colleagues.
  Mr. President, since that time, a new strategy relative to this 
debate has come forward. The strategy is essentially an attempt to 
deauthorize or restrict U.S. military action in Iraq by revoking or 
altering the Iraq war resolution, which passed this body by a vote of 
77 to 23 on October 11, 2002. I don't agree with this tactic.
  On January 26, the Senate unanimously approved GEN David Petraeus for 
his fourth star and to be commander of the multinational forces, Iraq. 
No Senator opposed his nomination. General Petraeus supports President 
Bush's plan and new strategy in Iraq and has embarked on the mission 
for which President Bush chose him and for which this body unanimously 
confirmed him. Once again, now we are being asked to disapprove and 
deauthorize the very mission we have unanimously confirmed him to 
execute. Hopefully, my colleagues can see the irony, as well as the 
inconsistency, in the choice they are presenting before this body.
  As I have said before, we need to give the new strategy in Iraq a 
chance to work. If General Petraeus comes and says it is not working, 
then I am prepared to change course. President Bush's current strategy 
is not guaranteed to work. However, no approach I have seen or heard 
discussed in the past several months has any greater chance of success 
than the course we are now taking. Therefore, this strategy deserves a 
chance.
  In talking with some of my colleagues, on the Republican side as well 
as the Democratic side, who recently returned from Iraq, I am very 
hopeful that based on the comments they have made, per their visual 
inspection of what is going on in Iraq today, based upon their 
conversations with General Petraeus, we are seeing some successes, even 
though they are minimal at this point. But there is now hope and 
encouragement that this strategy is going to work.
  If Members of Congress truly don't support our efforts in Iraq and 
believe we should withdraw troops, they should vote to cut off funds 
for the war, which is the primary authority Congress has in this area. 
However, having refused to allow the Senate to vote on protecting 
funding for our troops serving in harm's way, the Democrats are now 
proposing another symbolic resolution.
  This is the fourth resolution that the Senate Democratic leadership 
has backed to address the troop increase, and the Democrats still 
insist on avoiding the fundamental issue of whether they will cut off 
funds for troops serving in Iraq.
  As the Wall Street Journal wrote in an editorial:

       Democrats don't want to leave their fingerprints on defeat 
     in Iraq by actually voting to bring the troops home. So 
     instead, they're hoping to put restrictions on troop 
     deployments that will make it impossible for the Iraq 
     commander, General David Petraeus, to fulfill his mission.

  This is essentially an attempt to ensure the policy does not succeed. 
Logically, the Senate should be giving General Petraeus everything he 
needs to succeed, both in terms of financial as well as political 
support. But that is not what the majority party is trying to do.
  Democrats in the House of Representatives have undertaken a plan that 
would tie war funding in a supplemental spending bill to strict new 
standards for resetting, equipping, and training troops. This strategy 
to choke off resources and the Senate plan to revise the use of force 
authorization are attempts to make the war in Iraq unwinnable while 
avoiding political responsibility.
  As Charles Krauthammer has said:

       Slowly bleeding our forces by defunding what our commanders 
     think they need to win or rewording the authorization of the 
     use of force so that lawyers decide what operations are to be 
     launched is no way to fight a war. It is no way to end a war. 
     It is a way to complicate the war and make it inherently 
     unwinnable--and to shirk the political responsibility for 
     doing so.

  There is nothing easy or pretty about war, and this war is no 
exception. Not a day passes that I don't consider the human cost of our 
attempt to defeat the terrorists and eradicate extremism in Iraq and 
replace it with a self-reliant and representative government.
  The debate, as we move forward, should focus on how we can most 
quickly and effectively achieve the victory that all of us desire. It 
is not about political posturing. It is about what Congress can do to 
support our young men and women in Iraq and help them accomplish this 
critical mission.
  Losing the global war on terrorism is not an option. Failure in Iraq 
would be devastating to our national security, entangling the Middle 
East in a web of chaos that breeds terror and extremism. The Iraq Study 
Group and countless expert witnesses have testified that simply leaving 
Iraq, without stabilizing the country, would be disastrous.
  As the senior Senator from my State, my support of our mission and 
our troops includes a responsibility to examine the tactics and 
question the steps that we take to reach our goal. I will continue to 
do that in a very deliberate way, but I intend to be constructive in my 
approach and criticism in order to do everything we can to ensure that 
our troops and our mission succeed, rather than doing whatever I can to 
make sure they fail.
  When this motion to deauthorize or micromanage the war in Iraq comes 
to the floor of the Senate, I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________