Senate Floor Speech
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
June 21, 2006 -- Page: S6216

MRS. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to start my remarks in opposition to this resolution by sharing the story of Marine First Lieutenant David Lewis from Spring, TX. Following participation in the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M; University, he was commissioned on August 10, 2001. He wanted to serve his country, and he found very quickly after he graduated that he would have that opportunity.

Lieutenant Lewis has served two terms in Iraq, two tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom I and II. During his second tour, on August 5, 2004, Lieutenant Lewis was badly wounded in Najaf, while leading his platoon of 35 Marines into conflict against a group of insurgents. A rocket-propelled grenade grazed off his helmet and exploded, leaving him blinded and severely wounded. He survived the blast, and following numerous surgeries after returning home, he has regained partial vision in one eye. He was awarded the Purple Heart, and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with V for his service.

But he still wanted to serve his country. He was frustrated by the negative image of the war portrayed by the media. So Lieutenant Lewis came to Washington and applied for a job on my staff. And I am very pleased to report that he is sitting with me on the floor today, a valuable member of my staff.

Lieutenant Lewis, like so many of his brothers and sisters in the Armed Forces, has sacrificed for our country, none more than the three who were ambushed just last week and have given the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Private First Class Menchaca from Houston, TX, Private First Class Tucker from Madras, OR, and Specialist David Babineau from Springfield, MA. We are horrified by what we have heard of the deaths of Private First Class Menchaca and Private First Class Tucker. My thoughts and prayers go out to them and their families. But I cannot imagine anything worse than what has already happened to those two people and their families, along with Specialist Babineau and Lieutenant Lewis, I cannot imagine anything worse than for us to pass a resolution that says we are going to stop our commitment because we just can't take it anymore. It is like saying, the cause for which they have paid such a price really wasn't worth sticking with it.

This war on terror must be won at all costs. If we step back and say we are willing to walk away because times are too tough, we have jeopardized the 2,502 who have given the ultimate sacrifice in this war on terror. Furthermore, we are giving away the security of future generations. We are saying that we are not going to protect freedom because it might be too tough.

If we did this, the terrorists would surely be emboldened. They attacked us, according to Osama bin Laden, on 9/11 because of our reaction to previous attacks: The USS Cole, the bombings of our embassies in East Africa, Somalia, the bombing of Khobar Towers, and the first attacks on the World Trade Center. We treated it like this was going to be a criminal case, and we had to have justice in court. The terrorists got the message that America's attention span wouldn't last very long, not long enough certainly to see through an entire war on these people who would take away the freedom of our children.

I cannot imagine telling the terrorists that if times get too tough, if you are too horrible, if you do things that we cannot even imagine because we are a civilized society, we are going to turn around and run away. I cannot imagine saying that America will not have the stamina to stand up and fight and win a war at all costs for the freedom of future generations.

That is the message we would send to our enemies. What about the message we would send to our allies? You know, this resolution and previous resolutions have called on President Bush to get more international involvement in the war on terror. I know President Bush has tried to get international involvement, and we have international involvement. But what country would ever step up to the plate and be by the side of the United States of America in the future if we say: We are going to set a timetable, and if it gets too tough we are going to leave, but we sure appreciate your coming and being with us, until it gets too hard? That cannot be the role of the greatest country on Earth. If we show that kind of weakness, we will no longer have allies, and we will certainly have plenty of enemies.

If we establish a timetable for redeploying our troops from Iraq by the end of the year or by July of next year, we are handing the enemy our playbook. We would be saying that in 194 days our commitment is going to end. Why they picked 194 days to say that our attention span would last, I don't know. But it would be 194 days for the Government of Iraq to get up and going, for the security forces to be trained, 194 days to root out the insurgency, and 194 days to stand beside our allies and by the Government that is forming in Iraq. That is not the role of the United States of America.

It has been mentioned on the floor that there is an opinion piece in the Washington Post yesterday from an Iraqi adviser saying Iraq needs to learn from its mistakes and Iraq needs to stand on its own. No one wants Iraq to be able to stand on its own more than the United States of America. We have shown that. But does anyone in this body believe that Iraq is totally in control of Iraqis today? Does anyone believe there are not insurgents and agitators from other parts of the world? Al-Qaida? Iran? Other terrorist organizations that have come into Iraq for the specific purpose of destabilizing that country?

If you do believe it is just Iraqis who are there and if everyone else leaves they will be able to settle their differences, then this resolution would be just fine. But that is just a fantasy. Of course there are insurgents from other parts of the world. Of course there is al-Qaida right in the middle of Iraq. The last thing the terrorists want is a stabilized Iraq. That is why they are fighting so hard. So we would say to this fledgling Government that has just been able to get on its feet but is still struggling, that has trained soldiers but not nearly enough because the insurgents continue to bomb their police headquarters and recruiting headquarters, we would say to them: We are going to leave you on your own and hope for the best.

Can you imagine what would happen in Iraq if America says we are leaving at the end of this year, we are going to start to pull out troops, and then we are going to finish by July of next year or whatever date would be determined by the authors of this amendment? Who would be in control of Iraq? Anybody who believes that it would be Iraqis, with the condition they are in, is just not looking at the reality. So I cannot think of anything worse that I could say to the family of Private Menchaca, from Houston, TX, or his 18-year-old wife who is with her family, than--the very week that this young man paid a terrible price for a cause he believed in--that we are not really committed to the cause. I cannot imagine anything more disheartening to Lieutenant Lewis, who has already served twice in Iraq and wanted to come and do more for his country, than to say: I am glad you are committed, but the Senate just isn't there with you.

No. No. The United States of America and the Senate representing the 50 States of this Nation must not pass a resolution that would walk away from our commitment to the cause of freedom for the citizens of the United States, because that is what is at stake here. It is not the Iraqi people alone in this fight. We are fighting terrorists on their turf. We have not had an attack in the United States of America because we have been vigilant in keeping them on their turf, containing them on their turf, and building up our homeland security at the same time. We must keep the word and the commitment of the greatest Nation on Earth, and we must keep the trust of the people that we are going to keep the will to fight for freedom for their children and their children's children. That is what is at stake in this resolution.

I urge my colleagues to think of the consequences of cutting and running from a fight that is much bigger than the stabilization of Iraq. It is for the freedom and the way of life of Americans and our allies throughout the world.