[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3307-3313]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, last Friday I had the privilege of 
attending and speaking before a ``Farewell Dinner'' in honor of LTG 
David Petraeus at the Command and Staff College of the U.S. Army at 
Fort Leavenworth, KS.
  To say the least, it was quite an evening of tribute in behalf of the 
general and his wife, who has become admired and beloved serving as the 
Commanding General of the Army's Intellectual Center. I estimate there 
were around 250 officers and their wives and many from the Leavenworth 
community to pay tribute to General and Mrs. Petraeus, to wish them 
well, and to express pride and confidence in the general's immediate 
mission. He left for Iraq this past Monday, 2 days ago.
  Throughout the evening I had the opportunity to again visit with 
David Petraeus, his feelings about his new mission, his impressive 
knowledge with regard to the war in Iraq, the history of the region, 
and his understanding with regard to the nature of past wars of 
insurgency and the insurgency we face in Iraq. While at the Command and 
Staff school, he wrote the Army's new manual on counterterrorism. Let 
me say as a former marine who helped write a similar manual years ago 
for the U.S. Marine Corps, I find this man unique in his knowledge and 
his command ability.
  I made a few remarks at the dinner, and being a Senator, why, the 
remarks turned into a speech with some additional strongly held beliefs 
that I had penciled out in addition to my prepared remarks in behalf of 
General and Mrs. Petraeus. I thought twice about saying some very frank 
and candid views, but as everybody knows, marines don't hold back. So 
concluding my comments, I was glad I said what I said in that virtually 
everybody in the room--all 250--told me that I had said what they could 
not say. Those who wear their officer rank on their shoulders or their 
enlisted stripes on their sleeves in most cases do not comment on 
policy decisions or politics no matter how strongly they feel. They 
follow orders and they serve their country.
  I feel somewhat the same trepidation today. However, I believe my 
remarks to the general, his officer corps, veterans of previous wars, 
are dead on to the issue we face in this debate that we have been 
talking about here on the floor of the Senate.
  Before I express my views, I would stress I regret that we are at a 
stalemate in this body allegedly debating the issue of vital national 
security, and I think most in the Senate wish we could do just that and 
do it with comity, cooperation and, yes, in bipartisan fashion. The 
American people, who are concerned and frustrated and angry about the 
war, would certainly appreciate that, but that is not the case.
  This issue is wrapped around a partisan and political axle procedure. 
My friends across the aisle insist that we debate and vote on one of 
the three nonbinding resolutions regarding the war in Iraq, and only 
that resolution. They wanted to debate and vote on the Warner 
resolution and call it a day. The Warner resolution supports the troops 
but not the mission. Let me repeat that: It supports the troops but not 
the mission. That is a most unique position, to say the least, and that 
is about as far as my colleagues across the aisle wish to wade in the 
waters of withdrawal at this particular time.
  I also mention it might be helpful if we could consider the Feingold 
resolution. Senator Feingold's resolution actually does something and 
should be considered in the Senate, as well. Others wish to debate and 
vote upon the McCain resolution and the Gregg resolution, but we are 
being denied that opportunity.
  Now, to those in the press--of which I see none--those covering this 
debate within the media, how on Earth can you describe this situation 
by writing headlines in 15-second news sound bites, stating Republicans 
had voted to stifle debate on the war? Yes, let's debate and vote on 
the Warner resolution. That is entirely proper and right. But let's 
also debate and vote on resolutions offered by Senators McCain and 
Gregg and, perhaps, Feingold. By the way, I intend to vote for McCain 
and Gregg if I get the chance. I do not share the resolution in regard 
to Senator Feingold, but I defend his honor to introduce it and to 
debate it.
  We are not stifling or shutting down debate. They are. Hello up 
there. Is there any way you can discern that? I can help you. I majored 
in journalism. I used to be a newspaper editor. This is like playing 
baseball with one strike and you are out. What happened to my other two 
strikes? Well, sorry, back to the dugout. We are going to go to the 
continuing resolution. We run this ball game.
  In any case, in my remarks last Friday at Fort Leavenworth, I said to 
General Petreaus and the crowd that was assembled in his honor:


[[Page 3308]]

       Throughout our history as a Nation there have been numerous 
     times when a Commander in Chief badly needed a Commanding 
     General with keen intellect and raw courage. However, I do 
     not think that it is a slight exaggeration to suggest the 
     last time one was this badly needed was 144 years ago, the 
     year 1853, when President Lincoln covered General Grant.
       There are other historical allegories of tremendous 
     consequence. General Washington selected Nathaniel Green at a 
     crucial time in our Revolutionary War. Mr. Green was a 
     blacksmith's assistant. There was no understanding of rank at 
     this time. And he reputedly stuttered badly. He must have led 
     by example.
       As most military historians know, Grant was discharged from 
     the Army for drinking. He went back home to Illinois. He 
     failed in farming. And he failed in running a mercantile 
     store. Four months into the war, he joined the Illinois 
     Volunteer Regiment, was reinstalled as an officer. Lincoln 
     chose Grant over many, many others.
       As an aside, Sherman was a good friend of Grant and was 
     discharged for ``insanity.'' When he came back to the Army, 
     he made a famous remark about his friend: ``He was with me 
     when I was insane and I was with him when he was drunk.''
       Then, of course, there was Ike. Selected by General 
     Marshall and agreed to by Franklin Roosevelt, he was picked 
     due to his particular talent of getting people, some with 
     tremendous egos, to come together in common cause. Eisenhower 
     was picked over 30 to 40 senior officers.
       Then, just as now, our Nation stands at a critical 
     crossroads. Now, just as then, the freedom of many thousands 
     of people is at stake. Also at stake is the safety and 
     security of the United States of America.

  Now, remember, these remarks came at a dinner for General Petreaus at 
the U.S. Army Command and Staff College at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. 
So I said to the general: General Petreaus, you and I have not been 
personally acquainted over a long period of years. Yet in our 
relatively short span of time I have come to know you well. I have had 
many stimulating and enjoyable conversations with you over a wide range 
of issues--Lawrence of Arabia, the British experience in Iraq--so I 
know full well you are exactly the right man for the job at the right 
time.
  Our brave young men and women in uniform deserve nothing but the very 
best leadership, and they are getting it with General Petreaus.
  I told him: You have captured America's imagination and enter this 
job with an enormous reservoir of goodwill.
  However, it is a paradox of enormous irony that the Senate confirmed 
General Petreaus without a dissenting vote--not one--a vote of 
confidence unique given today's controversy, turmoil, and times.
  Yet, at the same time, the same Senators who give you their vote of 
confidence are now in the business of proposing what I call ``confetti 
resolutions,'' supporting you and the troops but not the mission you 
are about to undertake. That, to me, is unprecedented for the Senate 
and, to me, it is astounding. These resolutions are nonbinding. They 
have no legislative impact. They are the so-called sense-of-the-Senate 
resolutions--meaningless except for the message you wish to send to the 
Executive and the folks back home or for whatever purpose you might 
have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. With all due respect, we have 
crossed the Rubicon with regard to sending mixed messages to our 
allies, our troops, the American people, the media, and, yes, our 
adversaries. Don't forget our adversaries.
  Words have consequences. Rest assured, unlike some of my colleagues, 
our adversaries will read every word and try to figure out and analyze 
each sentence of these resolutions. And I suspect they will scratch 
their heads and try to discern the sense and the reading of a 
resolution that states support for the troops and our new commander 
with new rules of engagement with a limited timeframe for achieving and 
reporting benchmarks of progress but that opposes the mission. That 
mixed message should cause quite a bit of head scratching among the 
estimated 31 terrorist organizations we have planning various attacks 
around the world.
  However, my real concern is that the Senate is not considering or 
even talking about the probable consequences of these actions, let 
alone our responsibilities should they happen. I make it clear, I don't 
question the intent, purpose, or patriotism of any Senator, regardless 
of the resolution, but I do question judgment and the law of unintended 
effects. Bluntly put, with all of this debate with regard to nonbinding 
resolutions, we appear like lemmings, splashing in a sea of public 
concern, frustration, and anger over the war in Iraq. I understand 
that.
  In this regard, I should stress, I do not know of anybody in this 
Senate or the House of Representatives or anyone in America who does 
not want our troops home at the earliest possible date, and stability 
in Iraq, if possible. That is not the issue.
  When all of this confetti settles--and it is settling, apparently, 
because we are going to a continuing resolution and we will not have a 
vote on any of the resolutions--the end result of all this frenzy will 
be: General, you and the troops have our solid support, but we don't 
support your mission. However, press on, and good luck.
  What kind of message is that? This is not a profile in courage. This 
is not the Senate's finest hour. If we are going to debate and vote on 
nonbinding resolutions, let's at least consider resolutions that will 
send a clear message or that can be of useful purpose. In that regard, 
we should consider the McCain resolution that lists benchmarks of 
progress, that General Petreaus has told me would be useful in his 
discussions with Prime Minister Maliki, certainly the Gregg resolution 
that supports funding for our troops in harm's way. But that is the 
killer in this debate because my colleagues across the aisle do not 
want to vote on the Gregg resolution. Now we are not going to vote on 
any resolution. The only thing we voted on was cloture.
  As a matter of fact, I think we should vote on a resolution, as I 
said before, proposed by Senator Feingold, a resolution that certainly 
does something. I do not agree with his resolution, but he is at least 
forthright and has the courage and sends a clear message.
  As the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, 
let me stress what has not happened in the Congress or the media and 
has received very little public discussion regarding this challenge 
that we face in Iraq. No one is talking about the consequences of what 
will happen if we simply withdraw. And we may just do that because I do 
not believe this war can or should be sustained if we do not see 
progress in the next 6 months.
  I would also like to point out that most of the time deadlines for 
withdrawal that have been proposed or are in the nonbinding resolutions 
mirror exactly the same time period that General Petreaus told the 
Committee on Armed Services he would follow in reporting whether this 
new effort is making measurable progress along the lines of the 
benchmarks within the McCain resolution. The obvious question is, Who 
can make a better judgment? Who can better make that judgment, General 
Petreaus, in theater, or Senators conducting theater?
  We have not discussed the difficult policy decisions that will 
confront us if it becomes necessary to withdraw or even how to 
withdraw. The reality is, what will we do when certain consequences 
take place? These are the possible, if not probable, consequences we 
should be confronting, debating, and explaining to the American people 
and the media, even if some have a deaf ear. First, a dramatic increase 
in sectarian violence quickly escalating to a civil war, not the civil 
war that people say exists today but a real civil war and a 
humanitarian disaster far more devastating than what is happening now; 
Shia versus Shia, Sunni versus Sunni, Shia versus Sunni. What do we do?
  Second, given a civil war and a struggle for control, we can expect 
an incursion of Sunni troops from other Middle Eastern countries to 
prevent an Iranian takeover of Iraq and the very real possibility of an 
Iraq led by Muqtada al-Sadr whose street appeal will endanger their own 
governments. When that happens, the war becomes regional. What do we 
do?
  Third, we can expect an Iraq dominated by Iran, thus completing a 
Shia crescent with Iran and Iraq and Syria and Lebanon--and Lebanon is 
going

[[Page 3309]]

through its own problems, to say the least. Today, countries such as 
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are talking about building their own 
nuclear programs, given Iran's nuclear ambitions and their progress. 
Iran just refused inspectors from the IAEA. With the possibility of 
Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims each working to achieve nuclear 
capability and weapons, what does Israel do? What do we do?
  Fourth, Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists. This time, it 
is for real. No, not the 2002 NIE, National Intelligence Estimate, that 
we all agree was an egregious error. What do we do?
  Fifth, in their eyes, with defeat of the ``Great Satan'' only months 
away--a clear signal by this body and perhaps inevitable--terrorists 
around the world are already emboldened, waiting us out and planning 
more attacks. That is, of course, if you believe what they say. So what 
do we do?
  Sixth, we can expect a perceived, if not real, lack of American 
resolve in the eyes of adversaries and potential adversaries around the 
world, resulting in additional national security threats. Read Putin 
and Belarus; Kim Jong Il, with his penchant for missile launches on the 
Fourth of July; read Hugo Chavez--the Southern Hemisphere's new 
Castro--nationalizing his oil production and directly involved in five 
different countries. What about American resolve? What do we do?
  I realize in today's climate the obvious answer to ``What do we do?'' 
is simply to blame President Bush. But the point is that globally and 
over the long term, this is not a Bush issue or a Democratic or 
Republican issue or even how you feel about Iraq or the views of the 
so-called international community.
  Even as we argue about whether we debate and vote on one resolution 
or three--or apparently just have a vote on cloture and say that is the 
end of it--terrorist organizations and their second-generation 
affiliates--guided and inspired--are plotting attacks against the 
United States and throughout the world, even as I speak. It is obvious 
we cannot really sustain the status quo in Iraq. But while we debate 
how to proceed, they are not giving up.
  Now, given the fact there were at least five successful attacks 
killing Americans--and others that, thank God, were not successful--
before President Bush came to office and before military action in Iraq 
and given the fact that this threat will face the next President--yes, 
the next President--and future world leaders, surely, surely we can 
figure out it makes no sense to fight each other when the terrorists, 
then and now and in the future, do not kill according to party 
affiliation, nationality, race, age, or gender. If you were on one of 
those planes the terrorists were planning to send--nine of them--over 
the Atlantic to American cities, and they went down and exploded in an 
American city or simply went down in the ocean, it would not make any 
difference if you were Democratic, Republican, liberal, conservative, 
or anything--you would be dead. It would not make any difference.
  We do not need a Republican approach to national security and the 
war. We do not need a Democratic approach to national security and the 
war. We need an American approach to our national security and the war 
and our individual freedoms.
  This is a time to engage in honest dialog to work together and think 
through and agree on strategy that will defeat our enemies and make the 
American people safe--look at those consequences of our actions that we 
have not even discussed on what may happen--and, yes, bring our troops 
home but in a way that we do not have to send them back.
  My colleagues, I started my remarks by saying the majority of these 
comments came from a speech I gave at the dinner honoring GEN David 
Petraeus and his wife Holly at our Leavenworth Command and Staff 
College in Kansas last Friday prior to David Petraeus leaving for Iraq 
this Monday. I closed those remarks by saying I was confident that 
under his leadership, this new mission with new rules of engagement, 
our chances of success were greater because failure is not in David 
Petraeus. It never has and it never will be. So America's destiny and 
God's blessings are riding on the shoulders of GEN David Petraeus. And 
I closed by saying I was proud to offer him my full support and to call 
him a friend.
  So I say to the leadership, with all due respect, and to all of my 
colleagues, let us end this business of nonbinding resolutions and get 
these confetti resolutions behind us. Vote on all four. Vote on all 
three. But let's not have the headlines that Republicans are trying to 
shut down debate on Iraq. That is just not the case. We should vote in 
regard to the Warner resolution, the McCain resolution, the Gregg 
resolution, and as far as I am concerned the Feingold resolution, if we 
must. We have all had a chance now to discuss the war. We need to vote 
on the three resolutions--maybe four--and come together with bipartisan 
commitment--a difficult and perhaps impossible task but a task that 
must be undertaken for the sake of our national security.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 10 minutes 23 
seconds.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield the 10 minutes 23 seconds to my 
colleague and my friend, Senator Thune.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kansas for yielding and 
commend him on an incredibly eloquent and insightful explanation of the 
events of the day, why what we are doing in Iraq is so important. He is 
someone who has 10 years of experience on the Armed Services Committee. 
Has served as chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He has a great 
depth of knowledge when it comes to national security matters, foreign 
policy, and particularly with respect to the current debate about the 
Middle East. So I thank him for his great comments.
  I just want to point out that with respect to this debate, I had 
watched, as everyone else did, I think, yesterday what unfolded on the 
floor. I believe what happened in the last 24 hours has demonstrated 
what a charade this whole Iraqi resolution process has been.
  This is serious business. This is the most serious business we will 
deal with in the Senate. Young Americans are fighting and dying in 
Iraq. I would say, having been to Iraq on three different occasions--
most recently about 6 weeks ago--things in Baghdad are not going well. 
There are other parts of Iraq where we have made much better progress, 
even in some parts of western Iraq where we have gotten some buy-in 
from some of the local sheiks who have decided to participate in the 
democratic process and support the effort to provide security in that 
region of Iraq. But the fact is, things in Baghdad are not good.
  What that has prompted is a change in strategy. We have undertaken a 
new strategy. That strategy, of course, is something where the 
Democrats in the Senate--less Senator Lieberman--and a handful of 
Republicans have decided to put together a resolution to oppose. That 
resolution, in my view, is an absolutely wrong way to approach what we 
are trying to accomplish in Iraq today, but it is obviously their 
prerogative to be able to do that. I think they ought to get a vote on 
it. I will not vote with them. I disagree, as I said, intensely with 
that resolution and its message. I know many of my colleagues on the 
other side intend that message to be different than it is perceived by 
our troops and by our enemies, but I think what we have to contend with 
here when we send a message like that is, how is that perceived by 
those audiences that are going to be impacted by it and, namely, our 
troops, the young men and women who wear the uniform, and, of course, 
obviously, the enemy they are trying to fight? It is the absolute wrong 
message to send at the very time our troops are embarking on a new 
mission.
  This may be our last shot at success in Iraq. We have a new 
commander, GEN David Petraeus, whom my colleague from Kansas just 
mentioned. We have new rules of engagement on the

[[Page 3310]]

ground in Baghdad, and we have new conditions for the Iraqis to meet. 
They have to take on the militias. There are military benchmarks they 
have to meet. There are economic benchmarks. They have to figure out a 
way to divide the oil revenues. They have agreed to invest $10 billion 
in infrastructure. There are political benchmarks they have to meet, 
holding provincial elections.
  There have been resolutions offered on the floor that address those 
benchmarks but at the same time express support for this mission. 
Everyone agrees on the consequences of failure. As, again, my colleague 
from Kansas so very eloquently pointed out, it would be a humanitarian 
disaster in Iraq--possible genocide, possible full-blown civil war at a 
minimum regional instability, Shiite versus Shiite, Sunni versus 
Shiite; an increase in Iranian power on the Arabian peninsula. I do not 
know if this new strategy is going to work, but I do know this: We owe 
it to those who have sacrificed so much to achieve success in that 
mission already to make sure we give this strategy an opportunity to 
work.
  I mentioned yesterday that I attended a couple of National Guard 
welcoming-home ceremonies over the weekend in my home State of South 
Dakota, one of which was Charlie Battery, a unit which was deployed to 
Iraq for over a year and a unit which was hit incredibly hard. They 
were in a very dangerous area in Baghdad going about the mission of 
trying to train the Iraqi security police in that area. Because of some 
IEDs, we lost four of those young men. And their families--as I visit 
with them--cannot help but show the pain they are experiencing and yet 
the incredible sense of loyalty and duty they feel to their country and 
to the missions and what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. Two 
others of those were soldiers, one seriously injured, another also 
injured, both recovering from those injuries. But the point, very 
simply, is there is a cost to what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. 
Many of our troops have already borne that cost. The point, very 
simply, is their sacrifice should not be in vain.
  The troops we are sending now into this region are going whether we 
like it or not and irrespective of what the Senate does. The Senate 
will be sending them a vote of no confidence if we adopt a resolution 
saying: We support you, but we do not believe you can achieve victory, 
we do not believe you can accomplish your mission there in Iraq, we do 
not believe you can win.
  On the substance, that resolution is a bad idea, but, more 
importantly, it seems to me it was designed more as a political 
statement. That came into full view yesterday when the Republican 
leader gave the Democratic leader exactly what they had wanted, which 
was a debate here on the floor of the Senate on two resolutions. We 
insisted on more resolutions. As my colleague from Kansas said, we 
wanted to have a debate on the Warner resolution, on the McCain 
resolution, on the Gregg resolution, even on the Feingold resolution. 
As I said, we could all decide how we are going to vote, but we would 
enter into that debate. And there ought to be, if there is going to be 
a debate in the Senate, a full debate. But, frankly, the Democrats 
objected to even debating two resolutions, the Warner resolution and 
the alternative Gregg resolution, because that would have forced them 
to vote on funding, a vote they did not want to have.
  The American people deserve a full debate, not a one-sided debate, 
not a debate in which one side dictates the terms. This ought to be a 
debate about the full range of options that are available, the full 
views of the Members of this body who represent their constituencies 
across this country.
  I heard one of my colleagues say--last week, I think it was, on the 
Democratic side--they wanted a full-throated debate. Well, we saw what 
a hoax that was yesterday. The agenda was exposed, and the charade 
about a full-throated debate came to a crashing halt.
  The American people and the Members of this body deserve a debate. 
This is the most important issue of our time. As I said earlier, young 
Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq. But if we are going to debate 
this issue in the Senate, let's make this debate about substance, not 
about political statements. Let's make sure all the views in this body 
are heard.
  We tried to do that yesterday by essentially agreeing to what the 
Democratic leadership had asked for; that is, two resolutions, the 
Warner resolution, which I happen to disagree with and would vote 
against, and an alternative resolution that would address the issue of 
funding. The Democrats objected to that. I hope that if this issue 
reemerges on the floor of the Senate that it not be a one-sided debate, 
it be a full debate, so the American people and those families who have 
sacrificed so much for this cause get the debate they deserve and an 
opportunity to have their views heard on the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I thank you and yield back the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the question that should be before the 
Senate is: Do you support the President's escalation of the war? Don't 
confuse it. Don't obfuscate it. Let's have a clean vote. The only 
charade that is being played is by those who do not want to have a 
clean vote on this most fundamental question.
  As a Senator, John F. Kennedy wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning book 
titled ``Profiles in Courage.'' His book told the stories of eight 
Senators from both sides of the aisle who took a stand based on 
principle and risked their careers to do so. Today, almost 50 years 
later, I believe we, too, must take a stand based on principle. Today, 
I believe all of us who walk on the same floor where Senator John 
Kennedy once stood should heed his words when he said:

       The true democracy, living and growing and inspiring . . . 
     will not condemn those whose devotion to principles leads 
     them to unpopular courses, but will reward courage, respect 
     honor, and ultimately recognize right.

  Today is an opportunity for every Member of the Senate to be a 
profile in courage. Frankly, I am disappointed in my Senate colleagues 
who voted against debating Senator Warner's resolution on Iraq. With 
their vote, all they have done is delay honest debate on a failed 
foreign policy that has been misguided since the beginning. I don't 
believe this Senate should turn its back on the American people and 
cast their lot with the President in his escalation of the war in Iraq. 
I believe those who support the President's ill- advised plan should be 
willing to stand behind that principle and go on record, rather than 
hide behind parliamentary maneuvers to avoid a vote.
  Our colleagues should not be running interference for the President 
on the floor of the Senate. In fact, I never supported the 
administration's war--a war of choice, not of necessity; a war based on 
fiction, not on fact; a war fought without enough troops from the very 
beginning and designed with no plan to win the peace. I didn't vote for 
the war, and I certainly would not vote for an escalation of the war.
  I was in the minority when I voted against the war in 2002. I was in 
the minority, again, when I voted last year to transition and bring our 
troops home over a period of time. But the majority of the American 
people sent a clear message this last November. They said the 
President's plan for the Iraq war has failed. The American people 
elected the Senate and this Congress to change the course in Iraq. It 
is about time we started listening because it is clear the President 
has not. He didn't listen to his generals. He didn't listen to the Iraq 
Study Group. He didn't listen to anyone who disagreed with him. And he 
certainly has not listened to the American people. That is the only 
explanation for an Iraq plan that is simply more of the same.
  As one of the witnesses before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
said:

       When you're in a hole, stop digging.

  The President's escalation plan will not work. Look at the news over 
the past few days as the first wave of the new escalation troops has 
arrived. At least 130 people were killed and over 300

[[Page 3311]]

wounded on Sunday, in the deadliest single bomb blast since the U.S. 
invasion almost 4 years ago. The U.S. military tells us that the four 
U.S. helicopters that have crashed in the past 2 weeks were actually 
shot down, with a fifth one down today. And Iraqi insurgents are using 
new tactics to shoot down our helicopters. The Brookings Institute says 
the number of daily attacks by insurgents and militias has gone from 
approximately 32 in November of 2003 to 185 in November of 2006, with 
Iraqi civilian deaths going from 1,250 to 4,000 in that same period.
  Michael O'Hanlon, an expert from Brookings, said that Iraq has become 
``one of the 3 or 4 most violent places on earth.'' And this escalation 
and violence has happened while U.S. troops were there and in spite of 
previous U.S. troop surges. You only have to look to the past to see 
that the President's escalation plan will not work. In fact, this 
escalation plan is based on false assumptions and failed ideas.
  To quote one of the witnesses who testified before the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee recently:

       This plan is just stay-the-course plus 20,000 troops.

  The escalation plan will not work because it depends on Prime 
Minister Maliki to do the right thing. The Associated Press reported 
today that the ``long-awaited security drive'' is underway. ``The 
implementation of the prime minister's plan has already begun,'' said a 
military spokesman. Yet even the architect of the escalation plan for 
the administration, General Keane, told the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee that he doesn't know if we can count on the Prime Minister, 
and he admits that Prime Minister Maliki is an unknown quantity.
  I don't know and certainly don't believe that we should put the lives 
of the sons and daughters of America on the line based on the hope--the 
hope--that Maliki will do the right thing. The escalation plan will not 
work because it depends upon Iraqis, we are told by the administration, 
to take the lead. The administration keeps saying that is an Iraqi 
plan, with the Iraqis taking the lead. But the truth is, everyone 
doubts that the Iraqi troops will actually show up.
  Many of the troops Prime Minister Maliki promised will be Kurds. Yet 
an NPR story quotes General Dennis Chapman, who is commander of a team 
of American military advisers in Iraqi Kurdistan, saying that there 
have already been desertions from Kurdish troops and that out of the 
battalion of 1,600 Kurdish soldiers going to Baghdad, he only expects a 
few hundred to report for duty.
  Over and over again, we heard from experts testifying before the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there simply aren't enough 
Iraqi troops who are loyal to Iraq as a nation and to Maliki as Prime 
Minister.
  A recent New York Times article painted a frightening picture of what 
a joint American-Iraqi patrol looks like. The article highlights the 
lack of troop strength and training of Iraqi forces and the confusion 
that comes with having underprepared Iraqi troops take the lead. To 
quote from the article:

        . . . As the sun rose, many of the Iraqi Army units who 
     were supposed to do the actual searches of the buildings did 
     not arrive on time, forcing the Americans to start the job on 
     their own. When the Iraqi units finally did show up, it was 
     with the air of a class outing, cheering and laughing as the 
     Americans blew locks off doors with shotguns . . .
       Many of the Iraqi units who showed up late never seemed to 
     take the task seriously, searching haphazardly, rifling 
     through personal CD collections in the apartments.

  In the article, a lieutenant colonel of the Third Stryker Brigade 
Combat Team talked about the difficulty of conducting such operations. 
He said:

       This was an Iraqi-led effort and with that come challenges 
     and risks. It can be organized chaos.

  The escalation plan will not work because similar escalation plans 
have already failed in Iraq, when the enemy simply waited us out. We 
tried a troop escalation and it didn't work, when we sent 12,000 troops 
to Baghdad last summer and death and violence on the streets of Baghdad 
actually increased. The escalation plan will not work because it has 
benchmarks but no consequences. And benchmarks without consequences are 
just aspirations. The plan doesn't hold the Iraqis accountable. We have 
seen countless plans from this administration with benchmarks after 
benchmarks that are never met.
  The Iraq Study Group said, in recommendation 21, that if the Iraqi 
Government doesn't make progress toward milestones, ``the United States 
should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the 
Iraqi government.''
  Yet when I asked Secretary Rice what would happen if the Iraqis 
failed to meet the much-heralded benchmarks, she didn't list any 
consequences. Instead she told me:

       I don't think you go to Plan B. You work with Plan A.

  Plan A hasn't been working. I will say it again: Benchmarks without 
consequences are just aspirations. And they are aspirations that have 
failed time and time again. The escalation plan, as a consequence, will 
break the back of our National Guard and Reserves.
  Let me be clear: The President's escalation plan cannot be 
implemented without using the National Guard and Reserves far beyond 
what they already have been used. There simply aren't enough troops. We 
have already seen the tours of National Guard troops extended. A week 
ago, I was informed that the New Jersey Army National Guard troops 
currently stationed in Iraq will see their tours extended by 125 days 
as result of President Bush's policy. I fully expect to see more 
extended deployments in the future.
  The escalation is going to hurt our security at home by keeping those 
National Guard and Reserve troops away in Iraq. Those who return home 
leave their equipment in Iraq, resulting in severe equipment shortages 
for our National Guard at home. In fact, Larry Korb, an expert from the 
Center for American Progress, says the units returned home so depleted 
that the Marines have been referring to this phase as ``the 
postdeployment death spiral.'' That is why it is time to transition our 
mission and set a timeframe to get our troops out of Iraq.
  Staying in Iraq isn't in the national interest or national security 
interest of the United States. Our troops are caught in the middle of a 
civil war they can't solve. Increasing troops will only put more of 
them directly into a sectarian Iraqi fight. Keeping our troops there or 
adding more troops is trying to solve a political problem with a 
military solution.
  In one briefing, General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
said: We need to get the Iraqis to love their children more than they 
hate their neighbors.
  That is a powerful truism. The problem is, you don't get Iraqis to 
love their children more than they hate their neighbors through 
military might. That is about reconciliation. It is about confidence 
building. It is about power sharing. It is about revenue sharing. It is 
about a host of other things, things that cannot be accomplished 
through military might.
  Staying would only continue to empower and embolden Iran, a country 
that has turned out to be the biggest winner in our war with Iraq. Dr. 
Paul Pillar pointed out recently:

       Among the neighbors, the largest winner has been Iran. The 
     war has not only toppled the dictator who initiated an 
     earlier war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians; it 
     has also crippled what had been the larger regional 
     counterweight to Iranian influence. Meanwhile, the all-
     consuming preoccupation that the Iraq war has become for the 
     United States, along with the growing unpopularity of the war 
     among Americans, probably has made Iranian leaders less 
     fearful than they otherwise might have been about forceful 
     U.S. action, including military action, against Iran.

  Our presence in Iraq only continues to serve as a battle cry for 
terrorists around the world. According to last year's National 
Intelligence Estimate on international terrorism, the war in Iraq has 
become ``a cause celebre'' for jihadists'' and is ``shaping a new 
generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.''
  Let me be clear, because of how this war was entered into--weapons of 
mass

[[Page 3312]]

destruction that never existed--because of how it was executed, there 
are now no good options left for us in Iraq. But I do believe the first 
steps toward stabilizing Iraq is to set a date certain for troops to 
leave. It is only by setting a date certain for our troops to leave 
that Iraqis will have to take responsibility for security in their own 
country and work out their political power struggles. Right now as much 
as they dislike us being there, we still bear the true burden for 
trying to stop the violence. The Iraqis have little incentive to work 
out their turf wars over political power as long as we are in the 
country. Iraq's political leadership will never make the hard choices, 
compromises, and negotiations necessary to achieve a government of 
national unity, as long as they believe we will stay in an endless 
occupation, in which the lives of Americans will be shed and national 
treasure will be expended.
  It is only by setting a date certain for our troops to leave that 
Iraq's neighbors will start to take responsibility for ending the chaos 
inside Iraq. Right now the violence has not reached the tipping point 
to get Iraq's neighbors involved. Ultimately, it is not in their 
national security interest to have the conflict spill across their 
borders and to have Iraq disintegrate. But by setting a date certain to 
leave, we create a new incentive for Iraq's neighbors to help quell the 
violence. It is only by setting a date certain for our troops to leave 
that the international community will take a responsible role in Iraq. 
Right now the international community sees this as America's war. Once 
we make clear we will not be there permanently, they, too, will have an 
incentive to get involved and help preserve stability in a region much 
closer to Europe than the United States.
  So by setting a date certain for our troops to leave, we actually 
motivate the Iraqis, Iraq's neighbors, and the international community 
to take the necessary steps to stabilize Iraq.
  But setting a date certain and getting our troops out of Iraq in a 
safe and orderly way is not enough. I believe we must do more.
  What we need now is a surge in diplomacy. That will involve much more 
than a few trips to the region. We must actively engage with Iraq's 
neighbors in the international community.
  But I cannot close without discussing the cost of this war in Iraq. 
Some say they want to have a talk about, or votes, not about the 
escalation but about whether there are resources for the troops. I 
think we should have a real, honest debate that will come in the budget 
process about what this war is costing. Let's have a real, honest 
debate about the administration's lack of honesty in telling the 
American people what this war costs.
  Our expenditures in Iraq will saddle our Nation's finances and our 
children's future. We spend over $8 billion a month in Iraq; we spend 
$2 billion a week in Iraq; we spend $280 million every day in Iraq; we 
spend $11.5 million an hour in Iraq.
  The Congress has already appropriated $379 billion for Iraq, and 
President Bush is now asking for an additional $179 billion. Yet the 
Secretary of Defense announced to the Budget Committee, on which I 
serve, that he is not going to come before the committee to justify 
this spending. To me, that is simply outrageous.
  The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction released a new 
report saying the Bush administration cannot account for critical 
defense materiel, including over $36 million in weapons. Hearings in 
the other body revealed that the administration cannot account for over 
$8 billion that was sent in cash bundles of $400,000 into a war region, 
without any controls. They cannot account for over $8 billion. Now the 
administration wants the Congress to hand over another blank check.
  Let me put our Iraq spending into perspective.
  For what we spend in less than 2 months for operations in Iraq, we 
could fully fund No Child Left Behind next year, ensuring that every 
school district in the United States has the funds promised to them to 
meet the goals of the law.
  For what we spend in less than 2 months in Iraq, we could make up the 
shortfall in the SCHIP program to help cover children who would 
otherwise be uninsured.
  For what we spend in 4 days in Iraq, we could substantially improve 
security at our Nation's ports with an additional billion dollars, 
including increased scanning of cargo containers.
  For what we spend in 2\1/2\ months in Iraq, we could pay the $21 
billion cost of implementing all of the remaining 9/11 Commission 
recommendations to secure our homeland.
  Yet we need to look beyond the economic costs of this war at its true 
cost: 3,099 American lives, to date. That is invaluable. It is 
priceless. More will die in the days ahead if we do not change the 
course in Iraq. We now have more than 23,000 sons and daughters of 
America who are wounded in ways that will affect their lives forever. 
We have a real obligation to all of those who are wounded and their 
families, and to the survivors of those who suffered the ultimate 
sacrifice. Yet we look at a budget that does not meet that 
responsibility.
  Today, we should be debating the President's escalation plan, 
particularly since we recently learned from the CBO that the escalation 
proposed by President Bush would easily cost more than triple what the 
administration has told us.
  Let me be clear for those who may have not heard about the 
Congressional Budget Office report. That report says the President's 
escalation plan of 21,000 troops actually only includes combat troops 
and not all of the other troops necessary for force operations. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates this could mean an additional 
28,000 support personnel, and that the cost could go as high as $29 
billion. Now, to deviate from that would be to deviate from every 
standard operating procedure the Defense Department has had to support 
the men and women in the theater; it would be to deviate from every 
historical perspective. Yet that is not what they included in the 
budget sent to the Congress.
  I am also deeply concerned that the administration has left open the 
possibility of yet another emergency supplemental to fund this war in 
fiscal year 2008. All that means is we are putting it upon the next 
generation of Americans, which is how most of the costs of this war 
have taken place--we are putting it on the backs of the next generation 
of Americans and not even being responsible for paying for it. We do 
all of this while we have the greatest tax cuts for some of the 
wealthiest people in the Nation, and at a time when the Nation is at 
war. That has never been seen before in the Nation's history.
  The administration has never been honest with the American people 
about the cost of the war. It is time for that to end. This Senate must 
demand an honest accounting before we hand this administration any more 
money or, even more importantly, any more troops.
  In the end, it is in honor of those men and women who have given the 
greatest sacrifice in the line of duty that we must change the course 
in Iraq. It is in honor of their courage we must ensure their comrades 
are not sent off to carry out a failing plan designed by their civilian 
leadership.
  I ask each of my colleagues: Are you willing to look a young soldier 
in the eye and tell them you are sending them off to Iraq based upon a 
failed policy and a recycled plan and based upon the hope that Prime 
Minister Maliki will get it right? How many more American lives will we 
lose before we realize this plan will not work? And if it were your son 
or daughter, how long would you be willing to wait? How long would you 
be willing to listen to the counsel of patience, of delay, of only one 
more chance, of stay the course?
  I know I certainly am not willing to wait any longer.
  I believe there is a difference between deference to the Commander in 
Chief and blind loyalty. I cannot support blind loyalty that sends more 
of America's sons and daughters to die for a war of choice, to die for 
a continuing failed policy. In my mind, that is irresponsible and I 
believe the very essence of the constitutional framework this country 
was founded on requires us to

[[Page 3313]]

act. That is what the majority leader wants to do. It is time for some 
real profiles in courage. I urge my colleagues to allow us to have an 
up-or-down vote on the President's escalation, and to support the 
Warner-Levin resolution. I hope, beyond that, at a later time, to 
support future binding actions to stop the failed policy in Iraq.
  I started today by reminding all of us of the words of John F. 
Kennedy and the profiles in courage he detailed in this Senate. He 
said:

       In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of 
     courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he 
     follows his conscience--the loss of his friends, his fortune, 
     his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow man--each man 
     [and I add each woman] must decide for himself the course he 
     will follow. The stories of past courage can define that 
     ingredient--they can teach, they can offer hope, they can 
     provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself. 
     For this, each man must look into his own soul.

  I ask each Member of the Senate to look into your own soul and your 
own conscience, allow us to move to the Warner-Levin resolution, allow 
us to have a vote against the escalation of troops in Iraq. The Nation 
is waiting and they are watching, and there is accountability to be 
had.
  With that, 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________