|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
MILLER REMARKS ON DEMOCRATS' IRAQ RESOLUTION
|
| February 14th, 2007 |
| |
Washington, DC (February 14, 2007) - "Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of victory in Iraq and in support of our troops.
I rise to oppose the Democratic defeatist resolution and I hope to provide some historical perspective to help the American people understand what the Democrats plan to do this year.
Make no mistake about it- this resolution is about polls. National polling before November’s elections showed a majority of Americans were opposed to cutting off funds for the war but were generally unhappy with events on the ground. This polling data led the Democratic message machine create a “we support the troops, don’t support the war but won’t cut off funding” position. Much like Majority Leader Hoyer’s empty promises to allow a Republican alternative to this defeatist resolution, the Democrats are now following polls and slowly, piece by piece, bit by bit, revising their stance on defunding the war.
Due to their majority status, this resolution will pass and soon after the passage, I suspect Congressman Murtha and others will move to defund the war in the same way the Democratic controlled congress defunded the Vietnam war over a several year period. They will do so in a piecemeal fashion with various amendments to appropriations bills and avoid the term “defunding” at all costs. Before we have even concluded this debate, our Speaker has already said “A vote of disapproval will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation, which will be coming to the House floor." I say to Speaker Pelosi- what is your additional Iraq legislation?
This immoral approach will slowly squeeze off funding and support and become a self fulfilling prophecy for the Democratic party- a party fixated on the 2008 election and intoxicated by their new majority status.
The only difference between what the Democrats will soon attempt to do and what they did in the late 60’s and early 70’s is they will continue to say publicly they support the troops, instead of speaking, as Senator Kerry did in front of a congressional committee, of the atrocities of the so-called “baby-killers.” The poisonous atmosphere of those times resulted in the military prohibiting all military personnel in the Metropolitan Washington area from wearing their uniforms in public out of safety concerns.
Two of the most crippling amendments of the Vietnam war were passed in 1969 and 1973.
In 1969, Senator John Sherman Cooper(R-Ky.) cosponsored an amendment prohibiting the use of ground troops in Laos and Thailand. In August 1973 the Congress passed the Fulbright-Aiken amendment which cutoff all funding for US military forces in or over or from the shore of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia.
President Nixon’s approval ratings in 1973 were dismally low and he was close to resigning as a result of the Watergate scandal. His weakened position emboldened Democrats to take extreme actions. Some of their actions may have bordered on treasonous but have never been judicially challenged. Our current President has an approval rating nearly as low and now, as it did then, Democrats are feeling emboldened to challenge our Commander-in-Chief during a time of war for political gain.
Last week the Democratic-controlled United States Senate attempted to debate various non-binding resolutions about the Iraq war. I must admit I found it interesting to hear Majority Leader Reid say voting on a non-binding resolution would show the American people where they stood on the war. Senator Reid and the Democratic leadership of both the House and Senate have made it very clear where they stand on the war -- they are opposed to winning the war, claim they were tricked into supporting it and will do anything in their power to cut off all funding to the war.
I encourage Democrats to put forth a bill that eliminates all funding for the Iraq war along with an accompanying statement of non-support for the deployed troops. This would show their true colors and allow the Democrats to be intellectually honest.
It has been said this will not affect troop morale. If so, why not amend this nonbinding resolution to send every man and woman fighting in Iraq a copy of it, along with the recorded vote.
Oh- that’s right, no amendments.
This would also stand in stark contrast to their most recent act of hypocrisy-- voting to confirm General David Patraeus, wishing him luck and then moving to undercut his efforts soon after he left the Capitol to begin his journey to Iraq.
More importantly, we need to achieve real progress in Iraq. We have come to a critical juncture and must make sure the price that has been paid -- the blood of our young men and women -- results in victory. To ensure a real and enduring victory, our Commander-in-Chief is moving forward with a new plan. Some in Congress and the media are debating whether it is a new strategy, a new set of tactics or no change at all. This political posturing is unimportant to the Specialist or Corporal walking point in Baghdad or Al-Anbar province.
What is important are the President's words and his actions. He has ordered more combat forces to Iraq and has extended the tours of some forces already in country. Their mission is to restore order to the 4 provinces in Iraq that remain volatile. Let’s be perfectly clear, 14 of the 18 provinces are secure. These additional forces will help restore overall order and provide a stable environment for the political process within to work.
Today we have received reports from various sources that the radical cleric Al-Sadr may have fled to Iran as a result of the American and Iraqi forces cracking down on his militias and top aides. Iraqi forces are showing up to their appointed duty locations in excess of 70% of the time. The Iraqi government is taking the politically difficult step of forcing some Baghdad residents to vacate homes they unlawfully moved into during the war. There is also talk of stricter curfews and closing the borders with Syria and Iran for thirty days- all of this talk coming from the Iraqis.
I cannot assure my constituents these recent developments will result in a quick or certain victory in Iraq. I can assure my constituents and my colleagues that Democrats cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no military solution to Iraq. I also must point out several other recent Democratic statements I take issue with.
One Senator with Presidential ambitions claimed the more than 3000 lives lost in the war had been wasted- he then immediately clarified his remarks because he had forgotten the secret Democrat memo that this isn’t the 70’s and trashing the military is no longer acceptable. This reminds me of a former presidential candidate’s comments alleging only stupid people end up in the Army and in Iraq- of course another “clarification” was issued soon after these comments since 2-3 days of polling indicated the remarks were not well received.
Back to polls- only 15% of the public expressed initial support for the first President Bush to invade Iraq in 1991. Many in my own Republican party vehemently opposed FDR in World War II and during the Civil War there was a congressional committee that met officially, and unofficially, on a regular basis to critique President Lincoln’s performance in nearly ever battle the Union waged.
Does history now reflect that these three conflicts were wrong for America to engage in? I think not. Resolute leaders bucked short term public opinion for the good of the country in the long term. That is why we elect President’s and that is what we should demand of them.
To date, mistakes have been made and the President has acknowledged them. We must, however, win this war. I believe immediate withdrawal will destabilize the region and cause us to return there in the future, as we have had to do in many regions throughout our history. We cannot fight a war based on polls and emotions. We must take actions that will preserve and enhance our national security now and beyond the next election, the next news cycle or the next opinion poll.”
|
| |
|
|
There are no Floor Speechess to be displayed for this month.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
