[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10912-10914]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise today to address the war 
supplemental which was vetoed last night at 10 minutes after 6 by the 
President. It is my understanding that today leaders from both sides of 
the Senate will go to the White House, this afternoon, to begin talking 
about where we go next.
  I rise today to talk a little bit about what has got us to where we 
are, why we are where we are, and what, in my judgment, as one Member 
of the Senate, we need to be focused on.
  I am glad the President vetoed the war supplemental with timelines 
for withdrawal. It is absolutely wrong to tie the money to support our 
troops to arbitrary timetables that have nothing to do with success or 
failure but only to do with the declaration of a cause being lost. We 
should never declare, as Members of the Senate, our cause to have been 
lost. And we should never hold hostage the money for our troops based 
on arbitrary deadlines or thresholds.
  It is, however, important for us to debate the war on the floor of 
the Senate. I hope when the next supplemental comes, it will be a 
supplemental that goes to support our men and women who have been 
deployed in defense of freedom, to give them everything they deserve 
and everything they need without strings and complication. To do so 
will not keep us in the Senate from debating the war, but it will 
clearly separate the money to support our troops from whatever the 
course that debate may take.
  We have a long history in this country of many great Americans taking 
exactly the same position. One of those great Americans, Walter George, 
a Member of the Senate, from Georgia, a Democrat, in 1955--when Dwight 
Eisenhower was President of the United States of America and Adlai 
Stevenson had been his first opponent, and would be his second opponent 
in the 1956 Presidential election--the big issue of the day was the 
issue of Quemoy and Matsu and Red China's attempt to expand its 
influence on those islands and the policy of the United States of 
America and our President, Dwight Eisenhower. In Time magazine, April's 
issue, 1955, Walter George, Senator, Democrat from Georgia, a man in 
whose legacy and in whose shadow I now serve, said the following:

       If it would advance the cause of peace, I would be happy 
     for the President to declare his policy. But how would it 
     advance the cause of peace to inform the enemy of what we 
     intend to do?
       I know one thing--

  George said, and I continue to quote--

     if we do fulfill our high mission and our high destiny, it 
     will be because we have resolved to do our dead level best to 
     advance peace, to advance security, to shore up a shaky 
     world. Only by doing that can we vindicate the sacrifice of 
     those who died on land and at sea, and fulfill the hopes of 
     men and women in every free land.

  It has been 52 years since that statement was made, but it could 
never ring more true than it rings today. Walter George was absolutely 
right, and Walter George, a Democrat, came to the defense of Dwight 
Eisenhower, a Republican who was President, when Dwight Eisenhower was 
being forced to play our hand in a critical issue of the day. We should 
never force our chief executive officer, nor should we force our 
generals, nor our troops in the field, by declaring our hand before the 
cards are dealt.
  There are a few other quotes I wish to share with my colleagues as I 
lead up to the point I want to make this morning, and these are 
contemporary quotes and these are quotes about Iraq. These are quotes 
about the supplemental. These are quotes about our brave men and women 
in harm's way. The first is by General Lynch, the commanding officer of 
the third ID. When asked about whether funding should be tied to an 
arbitrary timetable for withdrawal, he said:

       Ultimately, a precipitous withdrawal would increase the 
     probability that American troops would one day have to return 
     to Iraq and confront an enemy that is even more dangerous 
     than today.

  He is absolutely correct. Every time this country waited or every 
time it determined to withdraw from a conflict or looked the other way 
from a challenge of evil, it only had to muster itself in greater 
numbers and fight with greater losses at a greater day in the future.
  General Lynch continued:

       No matter how frustrating the fight can be and no matter 
     how much we wish the war was over, the security of our 
     country depends directly on the outcome in Iraq. The price of 
     giving up there would be paid in American lives for years to 
     come. It would be an unforgivable mistake for leaders in 
     Washington to allow policies and impatience to stand in the 
     way of protecting the people of the United States of America.

  I could not say it better myself.
  Lastly, for quotes from contemporaries, Gary Kurpius, commander of 
the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said the following:

       The time to debate the war is not in front of a microphone 
     making irresponsible statements, and it's certainly not in 
     the funding bill that keeps our troops alive. If our troops 
     need funds, it is the responsibility of Congress to provide 
     them the money. Debate the war elsewhere.

  My last quote is from an e-mail I got from Captain Schratt, on the 
ground with the U.S. Army in Baghdad right now, a couple of weeks ago 
when this debate was going on. He e-mailed me and said: I see they are 
debating whether or not they can not support the war and still support 
me. He said: Please tell them I am the war.
  That is the truth. Our troops are the war. They are deployed and they 
are fighting and their funding should not be restrained or constrained 
or in any way hinged on political gymnastics. Those gymnastics belong 
in the speeches on this floor and the dialogue we have with our 
administration.
  Now, it is my understanding there are some who are talking about a 
second supplemental to come, to be an incremental supplemental, maybe 
60 days at a time. I would implore the Senate to consider not doing 
that because that brings uncertainty to our troops in the field and 
only partial funding on a daily or on a 60-day basis, which is wrong. 
There are others who are talking about maybe benchmarks--not timetables 
for withdrawal but benchmarks for the achievement of the Iraqi people. 
That may or may not be wise, depending on what those are, and I will 
reserve judgment, but I will tell my colleagues one thing. A lot of us 
around here have selective memories and have forgotten the fact that we 
have had some benchmarks.
  In fact, when we went into Iraq, the President of the United States, 
George W. Bush, declared three succinct benchmarks. He said: When we 
deploy our troops, we will do the following: A, we will search and find 
the weapons of mass destruction that the U.N. and the entire world 
believed were there, and in fact we found the remnants and the 
evidence, although never the smoking gun. Then, second, he said: We are 
going to give the Iraqi people a chance to hold free elections and 
determine a new Constitution and self-determine their future. The 
Iraqis have held three elections. They have a parliament. They have 
established a self-determined democracy in their way of doing so, and 
it is functioning. Then the President said: Our third goal will be to 
train the Iraqi Army so that it can protect and defend that fledgling 
Government and we will come home.
  Those are three benchmarks. Two of the benchmarks have been achieved. 
The third benchmark is what the surge is intended to accomplish.
  Today in downtown Baghdad and in Anbar Province, American troops are 
sleeping and eating and deployed in the neighborhoods--not in bases--
side by side with Iraqi troops. The securing of neighborhoods is taking 
place, the

[[Page 10913]]

holding of neighborhoods is taking place, and the rebuilding of those 
neighborhoods is soon to follow. In the months ahead, if we remain 
committed to the cause, if we fund our troops, we have the opportunity 
to reduce the violence, to allow the reconciliation that is so 
necessary.
  So as people debate whether we ought to put benchmarks in 
supplemental appropriations for our men and women in harm's way, I hope 
they will recognize we have benchmarks, three that we established when 
almost every Member of the Congress voted to go into Iraq, two of which 
have been completely met and satisfied and a third is partially there 
and will ultimately be achieved if we don't pull the plug and we 
continue to fund our troops.
  War is never fun and it is always controversial. There is not a one 
of us in this room who does not wish war was ever necessary. But we 
know as we look back upon history, as Walter George, the Senator from 
Georgia, said: We have to honor the lives of those who were lost on 
land and sea to preserve freedom and liberty and democracy for the 
people of the United States of America. We are at such a day today with 
our battle in Iraq and in the overall war on terror. Iraq is but a 
battle in that war. We don't need to send signals that we will quit; we 
don't need to declare that we have lost. We need to declare the resolve 
to see the mission through. There are 140,000 brave men and women 
deployed in Iraq right now committed to the cause. When they come home 
and I talk to them, to the man and to the woman, they all say: We are 
there for the right reason. We are making progress. Continue to support 
me, and we will do the job.
  So as the leaders go to the White House today to discuss with the 
President where we go next, as we look to what we do in this 
supplemental, let's resolve to fund our troops. Let's resolve to do it 
without condition on our troops. Let's resolve to do it without 
declaring defeat but instead in the interest of and with a commitment 
to victory. Then, if we have debate--and we should and we must--let's 
have it on the floor, unattached to funding, not restricting our troops 
but deciding what our course will be and the absolute objective to be, 
rather than a conditional debate that only sends a message to our enemy 
that our resolve may be lost and we may be turning the other way. As 
Walter F. George said in 1955, an American Democratic Senator from 
Georgia, in support of a Republican President, we should honor the 
lives that have been lost and stay true to our commitment, and it will 
never be in our interests to declare to our enemies what our intentions 
might be.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 3 months ago, the President of the United 
States asked Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would 
provide our brave men and women in uniform with the funds and the 
flexibility they need to succeed in what has been called the central 
front on the war against al-Qaida in Iraq. Instead, this body helped 
pass a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the 
judgment of our military commanders. The bill Congress passed was, in 
my view, unacceptable, and late. Eighty-five days after the President 
had requested the funds on an emergency basis, Speaker Pelosi finally 
forwarded the bill to the President yesterday. It was no surprise that 
the President vetoed the bill within hours because he had said he 
would, and so the outcome was predictable.
  The President, in his address to the Nation last night, made it very 
clear that it remains his desire to work with Congress to resolve this 
matter as quickly and expeditiously as possible. Today, he is holding a 
bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders at the White House for 
that purpose.
  We have known for weeks that this legislation was flawed and that we 
would find ourselves in this place--a bill that included a surrender 
date, when we tell our enemies we would simply give up, and one larded 
with porkbarrel spending in order to secure the votes of recalcitrant 
Members who were unwilling to vote for this flawed bill on its merits.
  The President outlined these shortcomings last night.
  First, he said the bill would mandate an artificial deadline for 
troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. The withdrawal could start as 
early as July 1 and would have to start no later than October 1 
regardless of the situation on the ground. The language in the bill 
defies sound military logic and, I would say, common sense itself. It 
makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. 
Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and it 
would be irresponsible. As the President made very clear last night, 
setting this deadline for withdrawal would also demoralize the Iraqi 
people and encourage the killers across the broader Middle East, such 
as al-Qaida, and send a signal that America will not keep its 
commitments.
  Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders 
in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would 
dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could 
engage the enemy. American commanders in the middle of a combat zone 
would have to take fighting directions from politicians thousands of 
miles away in Washington, DC.
  Third, as I mentioned, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars of 
nonemergency porkbarrel spending that has nothing to do with fighting 
the war on terror and which demeans the importance of this particular 
legislation, designed as it is to support our troops who are literally 
in harm's way.
  Democratic leaders know that many of us in Congress disagree with 
their approach and their desire to use this bill as an opportunity to 
make a political statement about their opposition to the war. Yet we 
know there are not enough votes to override a veto. It is time to put 
politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need. 
Some have confused the need to debate, which I agree with, with cause 
for delay, which I disagree with. There should be no cause for delay in 
getting these emergency funds to our troops, and the debate will indeed 
continue.
  In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements that 
General Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, requested. Not all of 
these reinforcements have arrived; roughly half of them have. As 
General Petraeus said just last week, it will be at least the end of 
the summer before we can assess the impact of this new operation, the 
Baghdad security plan, or surge. We ought to give General Petraeus's 
plan a chance to work.
  In the months since our military has been implementing this plan, we 
have actually begun to see some important results. General Petraeus 
noted that one of the most important indicators of progress is the 
level of sectarian violence in Baghdad. He reported that, since 
January, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially. 
Spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering in Iraq 
continue because these attacks are largely the work of al-Qaida, the 
Sunni extremists--the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting, 
or at least some say we should be fighting. At the same time, they 
would impose arbitrary deadlines, imposing a surrender date on our 
troops.
  The objective of these al-Qaida attacks is to reignite the sectarian 
violence in Baghdad and breaking support for the war here at home. That 
was the goal of al-Zarqawi, whom we were fortunate to be able to take 
out of the fight, and that is the fight now of the remaining al-Qaida 
extremists in Iraq. General Petraeus explained it this way:

       Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al-Qaida's global 
     campaign.

  It just boggles my mind, Mr. President, for some of us to stand here 
on the floor and say we ought to withdraw our troops from Iraq when, in 
fact, al-

[[Page 10914]]

Qaida--the enemy that hit innocent Americans and killed 3,000 of them 
on September 11, 2001--considers Iraq to be the central front in their 
campaign against the West. Al-Qaida's role makes the conflict in Iraq 
far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis. Many also belong 
to the same terrorist network, as I said, that attacked us on September 
11, 2001. Were we to leave prematurely, were we to leave a power vacuum 
in Iraq, al-Qaida would no doubt, as they did in Afghanistan earlier, 
use that power vacuum as an opportunity to regroup, to plan, to train, 
to recruit, and then to export additional terrorist attacks against the 
United States here on this continent.
  We need to give our troops all of the equipment and training and 
protection they need to prevail. Without a war funding bill, the 
military has to take money from some other account--notably, the Air 
Force or Navy--just in order to make sure the Army has the resources 
they need, so the troops can have the equipment they need, so they can 
rotate back on a timely basis and come home to the loving arms of their 
families, to repair existing equipment. And worst of all, in one sense, 
failing to send this money on a timely basis to the military hurts the 
military families who are waiting behind, anxious, as we all 
understand, for the welfare and safety of their loved ones. Our troops 
and their families deserve better.
  So I hope that after the last 86 days, which have been characterized 
by political theater and gamesmanship, where some have been more 
focused on the 2008 election and trying to find ways to gain political 
advantage, I hope Republicans and Democrats, the legislative branch and 
executive branch, can come together and do what we should have done 
months ago--get the funds to the troops as soon as possible, without 
the surrender deadline, without tying the hands of our military 
commanders and making their opportunity for success impossible, and 
without the porkbarrel spending that demeans the noble sacrifice of 
these brave men and women.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back our remaining time.
  I 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we yield back all morning business time.

                          ____________________