[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[House]
[Page 605]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         IRAQ TROOP ESCALATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night President Bush will go on prime 
time television to present to the Nation the results of, quite frankly, 
what I call his listening tour on what to do about Iraq.
  After 4 years since the war began, the President has suddenly taken 
an interest in listening. But he certainly is not hearing the American 
people.
  Nearly 4 years ago, this unnecessary war in Iraq began, and it has 
cost our Nation so much. Over 3,000 brave American men and women have 
given their lives. We have spent close to $400 billion on this war, and 
the President is poised to ask for another $100 billion in the fiscal 
2006 supplemental next month.
  And this war has greatly undermined our standing in the world and our 
national security.
  Each additional day that our troops remain on the ground in Iraq, the 
longer the target remains on their backs. Instead of doing something 
immediately to remove these targets from our troops, the President is 
expected to propose escalating the number of our troops in Iraq by 
20,000.
  Now, regardless of how you spin this, either as a surge or a bump, it 
amounts to an escalation of the war at precisely the time we should be 
seeking to bring the Iraq war to an end. It is like the man who finds 
himself in a hole and decides that the best way out is to keep digging.
  An escalation in troops won't change a thing on the ground. Iraq is 
still in a civil war, and we are still occupiers.
  As reported yesterday, nearly 23,000 Iraqis died in 2006. This is 
just in 1 year. And even worse, over 17,000 of these deaths came in the 
second half of the year.
  In escalating the number of troops, the President fails to address 
exactly how U.S. troops will referee this civil war. Are we to pick 
sides and support ethnic cleansing of one group over another? Adding 
more U.S. troops to this mess will prove not only ineffective, it is 
just plain foolish.
  But this tactic is nothing new. The President has added troops in the 
past. There have been escalations during the Iraqi elections in 2005 
and 2006 to shore up Baghdad security. The violence may have quelled 
for a moment but only to return with a vengeance, as we have seen.
  Finally, the President's plan is futile. Some of the President's own 
advisors and experts have questioned the utility of a troop escalation. 
Their reasons range from the Iraqi government's inability to capitalize 
on new troops to the sheer folly of adding more troops to an already 
incendiary situation.
  No such luck. In fact, a senior military official was quoted last 
month as saying adding more troops would be like adding kerosene to a 
fire.
  General Abizaid, the top military commander in Iraq, testified before 
the Senate Armed Services Committee in November 2006. He posed the 
question of his commanders and generals. He said, If we were to bring 
in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to 
achieve success in Iraq? General Abizaid reported that they all said 
no.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's own press secretary, Tony Snow, said 
yesterday that the President still wants to hear what Members of 
Congress have to say. Well, I tell you, we have listened to the 
American people. Over 60 percent oppose the idea of increased troop 
levels. We have listened to the President's own commanders. Escalating 
the number of troops won't change the facts on the ground. I think it 
is time for the President to listen.
  Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, bring our troops home 
and make sure that we have no permanent military bases in Iraq.

                          ____________________