[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12526-12527]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        IRAQ RECONCILIATION PLAN

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, here is the lead sentence from an article in 
this day's New York Times. This headline also appeared in other 
newspapers around the country. It ran under the headline of ``U.S. 
General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts.''
  Mr. President, I think this first paragraph says most of it:

       The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that 
     projects sharp reductions in the United States military 
     presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming 
     this September, American officials say.

  This, of course, we have learned came from General Casey. This 
announcement from our military was one piece of good news for those of 
us who believe we need a new course in Iraq. But it was not the only 
good news we received this weekend regarding Iraq.
  Another encouraging sign came from Baghdad itself where the Prime 
Minister believes it is also the time to start thinking about the 
withdrawal of United States troops. Together, these reports--one from 
General Casey, the one on the chart, and the other from Prime Minister 
Maliki--provided a glimmer of hope for those of us who have been 
demanding a new direction in the war in Iraq, a change of course.
  This afternoon, I want to note the similarity between General Casey's 
apparent plan to withdraw U.S. forces and the plan put forth by Senate 
Democrats on this floor last week with the Defense authorization bill. 
Our plan, designed by Senators Levin and Reed, is very much like this 
program shown on the chart. That is by our commanding general in Iraq. 
It said much the same thing as our military leaders are saying all over 
the country, specifically through General Casey, specifically, that it 
is time for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security 
and government so that the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq 
can begin by year's end.
  As we all know, I think the Republican majority rejected the Levin-
Reed proposal on a straight party-line vote. One courageous Republican 
voted with us. The rest were all no votes. Even though it represents 
our best chance at making sure our troops succeed in Iraq, and Iraq as 
a country succeeds, and, secondly, even though it is consistent with 
the plan of our top military commander in Iraq, on a straight party-
line on the floor last week the Republicans voted against the Levin-
Reed proposal, even though it was very much like General Casey's 
proposal.
  By rejecting this amendment--the Democratic amendment--the 
Republicans made clear that they were content to stay the course and to 
stay forever in Iraq. I wonder how the majority feels today now that 
General Casey's plan is in the open, now that it is clear that the 
congressional Republicans stand alone in opposition to troop 
redeployment, apart from the American people, even though their stand 
is contrary, I repeat, to the American people, even though the 
Republican stand is contrary to the military commanders, those who are 
in the battlefield in Iraq, and even though the Republican majority 
vote last week was contrary to the Iraqi Government.
  Did they disagree with General Casey? Do they disagree that we need 
to begin ending the open-ended commitment in Iraq? Do they, the 
Republican Senators, believe a plan for reducing our troop levels, as 
they said last week with the Levin-Reed proposal--do they believe that 
what General Casey suggests is defeatist and that he is unpatriotic? Do 
they have a plan now of their own--the Republican

[[Page 12527]]

majority--or do they still want to stay the course?
  These are questions the American people are going to demand that the 
Republican majority answer.
  The open-ended commitment the majority advocates is simply not 
sustainable, as seen through the eyes of General Casey, as seen through 
the eyes of the Iraqi Prime Minister. We must transform the United 
States mission in Iraq and begin the responsible redeployment of U.S. 
forces this year. That is what the Levin-Reed amendment said last week 
that the Republicans defeated.
  The war is now costing the American people about $2.5 billion each 
week. Our military has been stretched thin, with every available combat 
unit in the Army and Marine Corps serving multiple tours in Iraq, and 
our equipment needing $50 billion or $60 billion to be in the shape it 
was when we went to war in Iraq. We have lost more than 2,500 American 
lives, 15 just last week. We have seen more than 18,000 wounded and a 
third to a half of them grievously wounded. Iraq, according to a new 
report in Sunday's L.A. Times, has lost at least 50,000 of its citizens 
since 2003.
  We cannot continue to pay these costs, nor can we continue to try to 
engage growing threats such as North Korea, Iran, and Somalia with 
engagements in Iraq tying one hand behind us.
  The phased redeployment this year will put Iraqis in charge of their 
own security and allow many of our troops to be redeployed. Some will 
come home and some will be available to deal with other crises, such as 
Afghanistan, where the resurgent Taliban threat must be eliminated, and 
where those responsible for attacks on this Nation still roam free 
basically.
  It is time for a new direction. General Casey realizes this. The 
American people realize this. The Iraqi Government realizes this. And 
it is time for the Republican majority in the Congress to realize this 
as well.
  We don't need a September or October surprise with the President and 
Republicans proclaiming victory and announcing troop redeployment just 
in time for the mid-term elections. We need a nonpartisan approach that 
provides Iraqis and our troops with the best chance for success now, in 
June, 2006.
  We are in the fourth year of this war. It is time that the direction 
is changed. It is time to end this game of partisan politics, of 
blindly rubber-stamping the White House, and of publicly rejecting 
ideas that are being embraced in private, and now in public, by our 
military leaders. Our troops in Iraq are too important to fall victim 
to these political games.
  This leads me to another important subject the Senate must consider, 
which has also fallen victim to partisan politics--amnesty for 
terrorists who have killed our troops.
  I have come to the floor many times in recent weeks to discuss Iraq 
granting amnesty to terrorists. Rumors are no longer valid. These are 
not rumors. The Prime Minister himself has submitted an amnesty plan. 
So it has turned into fact. But I still have very serious concerns.
  According to the news reports out of Baghdad over the weekend, the 
Prime Minister will pardon those who engaged in legitimate acts of 
resistance. Against who, Mr. President? What does that mean? Does it 
mean that these are legitimate acts of resistance when we have soldiers 
trying to free someone who is being detained by a kidnapper? What are 
legitimate acts of resistance? Against a Nation that liberated that 
nation from a brutal dictator? Is it a sniper who shoots at a soldier 
who is trying to restore power and electricity to a Baghdad 
neighborhood? Is it placing a roadside bomb next to a convoy that was 
trying to repair a road in the Sunni triangle or fix a school? Is it 
detonating an improvised explosive device against a team of U.S. 
soldiers who are attempting to build a hospital in Iraq? I think not.
  Just who is this resistance? What are they resisting? Are they 
resisting freedom or democracy? Why should they be given immunity for 
acts that have been perpetrated against the United States and against 
coalition forces? Why? The concept, I believe, is outrageous and an 
insult to all of the brave American soldiers who serve with distinction 
every day.
  President Bush needs to forcibly tell the Iraqi Prime Minister that 
his amnesty plan, as reported, is not welcome. The Senate had the 
chance to send this message last week. The majority strenuously 
resisted the attempt of us Democrats to send a clear message to Iraq. 
In spite of the attempts to minimize our amendment, it passed. We 
carried the day.
  I hope Republicans will revisit their opposition in light of the 
latest developments, and I hope President Bush will stand up for our 
troops by demanding the Iraqis drop any intentions they may have to let 
the terrorists go.
  I support reconciliation in Iraq; however, not at the expense of our 
American troops, those who have sacrificed and those who are there now. 
They have sacrificed too much to see their service dishonored or their 
safety put at risk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.

                          ____________________