[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1513-1514]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                IRAQ WAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, we did not need to invade 
Iraq. From the beginning, I found President Bush's stated reasons for 
the

[[Page 1514]]

Iraq war unconvincing. Now we know they were also untrue.
  At the time the decision was being sold to Congress, I was unable to 
get any level of assurance that there was a workable plan for victory. 
There weren't answers to questions like, ``What is the strategy for 
stabilization after the military victory?'' or, ``What is the exit 
plan?''
  The American forces were to be greeted by grateful Iraqis bearing 
flowers, but I was never able to learn what plan B was if this rosy 
scenario did not prove out. Now we know there was no plan B.
  I voted against the war in Iraq, but even though I opposed the 
invasion, I never dreamed that the President's policies and course of 
action would be as disastrous as they have been for Iraq, for the Gulf 
region and for America.
  I think the real question America now faces is what is the least 
catastrophic end to this debacle, and how can we obtain it. Answering 
such a question would include options of utilizing diplomacy in the 
region as recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. It would 
include America calling upon neighboring States to take strong measures 
to avoid a spread of the conflict beyond Iraq as that nation 
disintegrates into tribal and sectarian violence. The Saudis are aware 
of the peril and Iran is aware of the prospects.
  But President Bush has once again offered a proposal based on wishful 
thinking instead of the unpleasant reality. Having been the cause of 
the destabilization of Iraq, America has a moral obligation to take 
what steps are possible to obtain new stability. But wanting to create 
stability within Iraq and being able to accomplish that goal with U.S. 
military forces is not the same thing. That is why I have decided to 
cosponsor Representative John Murtha's resolution directing the 
redeployment of our troops at the earliest practicable date while 
maintaining a quick reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon 
presence of U.S. Marines in the region. Like Representative Murtha, I 
feel like the solution to the war in Iraq is a diplomatic one.
  America is a country that doesn't take disappointment well. Our 
culture is one where the phrase ``failure is not an option'' just makes 
sense. That attitude has served us well historically in science, 
industry and war. But it can also lead to problems and to decisions 
based on wishful thinking instead of on facts.
  Political leaders don't want to be the ones to bring the bad news to 
an American public raised on the phrase ``failure is not an option.'' 
Some even suspect that the President's escalation plan may have as a 
goal running out the clock so the next President will be the one who 
has to deliver the bad news.
  Right now I think another American phrase is better for this 
situation: When you are in the hole, the first thing to do is stop 
digging.
  It is time to stop digging. Sending in more troops is not going to 
bring stability to Iraq because the primary problem between the Iraqis 
is political, not military.
  We are not going to be met with flowers by the Iraqis today, or 
probably ever. More than 60 percent of the Iraqi public believes it is 
a good thing to attack and kill Americans stationed in Iraq. We have to 
accept that we are part of the problem in Iraq, not part of the 
solution.
  Real leadership deals with the world as it is, not as we wish it to 
be. And here is something to keep in mind: The American public already 
knows it is time to stop digging. Now they are ready to hear Congress 
say it out loud.

                          ____________________