[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25192-25193]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, a few days ago, Congress and the American 
public were treated to a sales job on Iraq that would have made any 
used car salesman proud. We heard the half-truths and rosy visions put 
forth by authoritative diplomats in dark suits and ribboned and starred 
generals in uniform, topped off by the pomp and circumstance of a well-
rehearsed Oval Office speech. Visions were painted for us of a peaceful 
and prosperous oasis of democracy and stability in the turbulent 
geography of the Middle East, if only--and only if--our gallant 
soldiers stayed for just a little while longer to bring the dream to 
reality. Such a grand vision, of course, produced yet another new Bush 
administration slogan, ``return on success,'' which fits very nicely on 
a bumper sticker for the back of the lemon this team of salesmen is 
trying to peddle.
  Like any good used car salesman, the President insists that we take 
him up on his once-in-a-lifetime good deal, just as he has insisted, 
each and every time, that he needs a little more time for his war in 
Iraq. If we don't buy in once again, Iraq will descend into chaos, 
militias will commence with ethnic cleansing, terrorists will set up 
complexes from which to launch attacks on the United States, and Iran 
or Syria, or both, will develop nuclear weapons and invade Iraq on 
their way to Israel.
  Mr. President, I suggest that we stop and take a little time to 
consider this offer, consider what was said and what was not said. It 
is long past time to lift the hood and kick the tires.
  President Bush said in his speech that things were going so well in 
Iraq that the extra troops needed for the surge could begin returning 
home, as long as conditions continued to improve. In the only time line 
that he laid out, the President suggested that, subject to his fine 
print, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq might be reduced to 137,000 by 
July 2008. While that is certainly welcome news, it carefully neglects 
to mention that this reduction would still leave 7,000 more troops in 
Iraq than were present before the so-called ``temporary surge'' began 
in February 2007. Frankly, that is not much of a drawdown, given all 
the so-called ``progress'' in Iraq cited by the President.
  The President said in 2003, ``Mission accomplished.'' Now the 
President says that in December, it will be time to ``transition to the 
next phase of our strategy in Iraq.'' The President said, and I quote, 
``As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and the Iraqis 
assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will 
evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to 
partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those 
forces.''
  In 2003, over 4 years ago, when U.S. forces overthrew the regime of 
Saddam Hussein, there was supposed to be a rapid transition to a new 
civil government in Iraq. In all the years since the invasion, civil 
society has not yet put down strong roots despite our efforts. By every 
assessment and every benchmark, it is not happening now, either. The 
Iraqi central government is nowhere near achievng reconciliation, and 
equitable arrangements for the sharing of oil revenue or holding 
elections are but dim and distant visions. Iraqis have not assumed 
control over their own security. Indeed, independent assessments of 
Iraq have suggested that Iraqi security forces are riddled with 
sectarian corruption and will not be capable of providing security for 
some time to come, if ever.
  U.S. troops have been ``partnering'' with Iraqi troops for years now, 
and U.S. troops have been training, equipping and supporting Iraqi 
forces to the tune of billions of dollars. U.S. troops have been 
conducting counterterrorism operations, as the President also noted in 
his speech. So what, pray tell, is new or different about this 
strategy? I can see nothing by which to judge success so that our 
troops may ``return on success.'' It is just a nice paint job slathered 
across the same old junk car.
  The warranties on this new speech and this new sales job expire as 
soon as the car is driven off the lot. The only timeline offered by 
President Bush or General Petraeus ran out of time after July 2008. The 
pretty six-colored chart that General Petraeus used to show the troop 
drawdown associated with the transition had no dates on it past July 
2008, though it was pretty clear that U.S. troops would be in Iraq for 
a very long time to come. President Bush explicitly said that if he has 
his way, U.S. troops would be in Iraq long past

[[Page 25193]]

his exit from the White House. He boldly asserts that he will leave his 
staggering foreign policy calamity for someone else to clean up. Talk 
about passing the buck.
  Mr. President, we simply cannot afford another slick White House 
sales job. Too many young men and women have died or have been maimed 
in this horrific war. We owe it to them to take a good hard look at the 
facts. General Petraeus, in his testimony, suggested that because of 
the ``surge,'' the number of Iraqi deaths have decreased, indicating 
``progress.'' That may or may not be true--I do not know--but I do know 
that General Petraeus carefully did not note that the number of U.S. 
deaths in Iraq actually increased during the surge period, compared to 
the same periods in prior years. General Petraeus also did not note 
that the U.S. military death rate in Iraq, that is, the average number 
of deaths per month, also continues to climb from prior years.
  General Petraeus pointed to the decrease in the number of improvised 
explosive device, or IED, attacks during the surge period of June 
through August as another sign of progress. It is true that the number 
of attacks dropped--as it does every year during the very hottest 
months of June, July, and August. But what General Petraeus did not say 
is that the number of U.S. deaths from IEDs increased during the surge 
period, compared to the same period in prior years. That, as they say, 
is the rest of the story. That is the whole truth, not carefully 
cherry-picked statistics designed to bolster the President's pitch for 
progress.
  The President and his men also did not talk about the price tag of 
this shiny little war sedan. No need to discuss that before they have 
hooked us into writing the check. But the cost of this war should be 
uppermost in our minds, as the Senate addresses the Defense 
authorization bill, and certainly before the Senate considers yet 
another war funding supplemental appropriations bill--the largest one 
ever.
  Congress has already appropriated over $450 billion for the war in 
Iraq, and if Congress approves the President's latest request for 
supplemental funds, that figure will grow to over $600 billion during 
fiscal year 2008. That is a price tag with nine zeroes in it, folks. 
These direct costs do not cover the many hidden, indirect costs of this 
war, such as higher Veterans Administration costs, more veterans' 
disability payments, the considerable interest on the additional debt, 
higher oil and gasoline prices, increased security costs here at home, 
and the incalculable damage done to our image and reputation in the 
world because of this war. The combined direct and indirect costs and 
obligations of this war will exceed $1 trillion by the most 
conservative estimates. Many economists believe that the costs are much 
higher.
  That $600 billion or $1 trillion pricetag also does not begin to 
cover the lost opportunity costs--all the ways in which money now spent 
on Iraq could have been used to make our bridges safer, secure our 
border, improve education, or to prepare for and rebuild after natural 
disasters and weather-related farming failures. That money could have 
been used to develop safe, clean, alternative energy sources so that 
the United States would not have to rely so much on oil from the Middle 
East or other volatile regions of the world.
  Nor does that $600 billion or $1 trillion cover the costs of keeping 
upwards of 130,000 troops in Iraq for the many additional years the 
President and his men suggest will be necessary to achieve their vision 
of progress and success. It boggles the mind to consider the long-term 
costs of buying this war.
  We all say that we support the troops. These brave men and women have 
been given a near impossible task, which they have performed with 
dedication, professionalism, courage, and honor. The Congress has 
provided everything the generals have asked for, and more. The 
President has taken that support for our men and women in uniform to 
imply support and even validation of his policy. He wants to keep the 
U.S. military tied down in Iraq indefinitely, trying to bargain for a 
little more time, a little more time, time and time again, never 
grasping that his policy is fatally flawed. History shows the fallacy 
of thinking that democracy can be force-fed at the point of a gun.
  In the fifth year of this misguided, infernal war, I am convinced 
that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home--home, 
sweet home--and the only way to get them home may be to somehow 
restrict the funds for this disastrous, awful war. We have tried this 
before and the President, the President, vetoed the bill. I am here 
today to insist that we must try again. Strings must be attached to 
this money. This Senator will support no more blank checks for Iraq.
  On October 11, 2002, I was one of only 23 Senators who voted against 
the authorization that led to this awful, infernal war. I call on my 
colleagues, for the sake of our soldiers and for the sake of our 
Nation, to remember that half-truths and misleading claims are what led 
to this war. We can all recall that on February 5, 2003, the President 
sent Colin Powell, both a ribboned and starred general and a respected 
diplomat, to the United Nations to sell this war to the UN and to the 
Nation. Secretary Powell painted frightening visions of anthrax, truck 
and rail car-mounted mobile weapons laboratories, and nuclear weapons--
none of it was accurate. The Nation was led to believe that our troops 
would be greeted as liberators, and that oil money would pay for Iraq's 
reconstruction. Now while the half-truths have changed, the strategy of 
misleading the Nation remains the same.
  Iraq may descend further into chaos if U.S. troops leave now, or it 
may descend into chaos whenever they leave. As long as the United 
States keeps the peace in Iraq, there is no incentive for Iraqis to 
maintain the peace on their own. After nearly 5 years of this awful, 
terrible war, more than 3,800 deaths, over 27,000 wounded, and no end 
in sight, we must change course. This war, this draining, desultory, 
dreadful occupation of Iraq must end.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.

                          ____________________