Funding for Troops, Not Timelines for Retreat
March 15, 2007
‘Republicans have a message for our allies and for our troops, and it is this: we will continue to fight a timetable for withdrawal that has no connection to events or circumstances on the ground.’
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell spoke on the Senate floor Thursday regarding S. J. Res. 9, the latest Democrat proposal to set a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The following are his remarks from the floor.
“I rise to express my strong opposition to the Reid Resolution, S.J., Resolution 9.
“This legislation is dangerous. It is constitutionally dubious. And it would authorize a scattered band of U.S. Senators to tie the hands of the Commander in Chief at a moment of decisive importance in the fight against terrorism in Iraq.
“I would never doubt the patriotism of my colleagues across the aisle. But I’ve become increasingly troubled over the last few weeks as this debate has taken shape.
“When the President prepared a solution to the growing violence in Baghdad, he had good reason to expect the support of some Democrats. The party’s own Whip, Senator Durbin, said in late December, and I quote, that:
“‘If we need initially some troops in Baghdad, to quiet the situation, to make it more peaceful so that our soldiers start coming home, then I would accept it.’
“That was the assistant Democratic Leader, not years ago, 3 months ago.
“Yet as details of the President’s proposal to do just that became clear, our friends on the other side circled the wagons, and Senator Durbin got in line. Just two weeks — two weeks— after saying he’d support reinforcements as a way of stabilizing Iraq, the Senator from Illinois said, and I quote:
“The proposed surge in troops ‘is a sad, ominous echo of something we've lived through in this country.’ And then later on that day, he added, ‘I don’t believe that [a surge] is the answer to our challenge in Iraq.’
“Would our friend from Illinois have felt the same way if one of his Democratic colleague’s had proposed the surge? Increasingly, the troubling answer to this question appears to be ‘yes.’
“Indeed, it is increasingly clear that the only principle guiding our colleagues on the other side is this: if the President proposed it, we oppose it. This is a bad principle in good times. It’s outrageous at a time of war.
“Two months after many Democrats said they would support a surge in troops if it meant stabilizing Baghdad — and, incredibly, just one month after sending General David Petraeus on his mission to do so — Democrats are now calling for the very thing they have consistently opposed: setting a timetable for withdrawal.
“This is beyond silly: it’s a chaotic embarrassment that threatens to shake the confidence of our commanders and our troops, and to embolden an enemy that predicted and longed for nothing less.
“Of course at some point, it is not enough to simply say, ‘If the President proposed it, we oppose it.’ The principle begs for a counter-proposal: What would the Democrats propose instead? And we all saw the answer: 17 different proposals, many of which contradicting the last, and then finally, this, a proposal everyone could get behind: a proposal that sets a date certain for America’s withdrawal from Iraq.
“This resolution is a clear statement of retreat from the support that the Senate recently gave to General Petraeus; and, as I’ve said, its passage would be absolutely fatal to our mission in Iraq.
“Senator Clinton put it well. She said: ‘I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don’t think you should ever — ever — telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you.’
“Well, ever is here, and our friends on the other side of the aisle apparently now think it’s a good idea to telegraph our intentions to the enemy. Osama Bin Laden and his followers have repeatedly said that the U.S. does not have the stomach for a long fight. Passage of this resolution will prove Osama Bin Laden, regretfully, was right. This is the vote he’s been waiting for.
“Setting a date certain for withdrawal will please a vocal group of presidential primary Democratic voters. But it would discourage many others, including many Democrats, who agree that timetables are foolish and dangerous. More importantly, it would discourage our troops, who wonder whether we truly support their mission. And it will discourage our allies, and the millions of brave Iraqi men and women who have dared to stand with America in this fight.
“I will proudly vote against a resolution that sets a timetable — that actually announces the date — for our withdrawal from Iraq. And I’ll do so for the same reason that many prominent Democrats opposed it up until the day that President Bush announced his plan for securing Baghdad just two months ago.
“Republicans have a message for our allies and for our troops, and it is this: we will continue to fight a timetable for withdrawal that has no connection to events or circumstances on the ground. We will give General Petraeus’s mission a chance. We are proud of the work the General has done. And we stand with him until the job is done.
“And we’ll send that message today, when we vote in favor of the Gregg Amendment. This amendment pledges us to support the troops in their mission. Republicans proposed a month ago that we be allowed a vote on this amendment, but we were denied. We’re being allowed that vote today, and just as proudly as we’ll vote against S.J. Res. 9, we’ll vote in favor of the Gregg Amendment.
“In one sense, this debate has been academic. Senators will have a chance to show their support for the mission in Iraq when we vote on the Supplemental Appropriations bill later this month. That’s the bill that matters, the one that funds the operation in Iraq.
“But in another sense, this debate was worthwhile, because it exposed the principle that appears to be quite the opposite: ‘If the President proposed it, we oppose it.’ And this is no principle at all. It’s pure politics. It’s unworthy in good times. It’s shameful at a time of war.
“Meanwhile, the fighting in Iraq continues. And General Petraeus’s mission is showing early signs of success: we’re told that bomb deaths are down by one third in Baghdad since the new plan took effect last month. Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half. Traffic has returned to the once-empty Baghdad streets.
“No one’s foolish enough to say this will last, and it is not a prediction. But it a sign of hope, the kind of sign that everyone in this country — Democrat, Republican — has been waiting for.
“And we in this chamber have a choice: we can fan this flame or we can smother it.
“By voting on a timetable for withdrawal we are decidedly doing the latter.
“Republicans take the hopeful path today.”
###
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell spoke on the Senate floor Thursday regarding S. J. Res. 9, the latest Democrat proposal to set a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The following are his remarks from the floor.
“I rise to express my strong opposition to the Reid Resolution, S.J., Resolution 9.
“This legislation is dangerous. It is constitutionally dubious. And it would authorize a scattered band of U.S. Senators to tie the hands of the Commander in Chief at a moment of decisive importance in the fight against terrorism in Iraq.
“I would never doubt the patriotism of my colleagues across the aisle. But I’ve become increasingly troubled over the last few weeks as this debate has taken shape.
“When the President prepared a solution to the growing violence in Baghdad, he had good reason to expect the support of some Democrats. The party’s own Whip, Senator Durbin, said in late December, and I quote, that:
“‘If we need initially some troops in Baghdad, to quiet the situation, to make it more peaceful so that our soldiers start coming home, then I would accept it.’
“That was the assistant Democratic Leader, not years ago, 3 months ago.
“Yet as details of the President’s proposal to do just that became clear, our friends on the other side circled the wagons, and Senator Durbin got in line. Just two weeks — two weeks— after saying he’d support reinforcements as a way of stabilizing Iraq, the Senator from Illinois said, and I quote:
“The proposed surge in troops ‘is a sad, ominous echo of something we've lived through in this country.’ And then later on that day, he added, ‘I don’t believe that [a surge] is the answer to our challenge in Iraq.’
“Would our friend from Illinois have felt the same way if one of his Democratic colleague’s had proposed the surge? Increasingly, the troubling answer to this question appears to be ‘yes.’
“Indeed, it is increasingly clear that the only principle guiding our colleagues on the other side is this: if the President proposed it, we oppose it. This is a bad principle in good times. It’s outrageous at a time of war.
“Two months after many Democrats said they would support a surge in troops if it meant stabilizing Baghdad — and, incredibly, just one month after sending General David Petraeus on his mission to do so — Democrats are now calling for the very thing they have consistently opposed: setting a timetable for withdrawal.
“This is beyond silly: it’s a chaotic embarrassment that threatens to shake the confidence of our commanders and our troops, and to embolden an enemy that predicted and longed for nothing less.
“Of course at some point, it is not enough to simply say, ‘If the President proposed it, we oppose it.’ The principle begs for a counter-proposal: What would the Democrats propose instead? And we all saw the answer: 17 different proposals, many of which contradicting the last, and then finally, this, a proposal everyone could get behind: a proposal that sets a date certain for America’s withdrawal from Iraq.
“This resolution is a clear statement of retreat from the support that the Senate recently gave to General Petraeus; and, as I’ve said, its passage would be absolutely fatal to our mission in Iraq.
“Senator Clinton put it well. She said: ‘I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don’t think you should ever — ever — telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you.’
“Well, ever is here, and our friends on the other side of the aisle apparently now think it’s a good idea to telegraph our intentions to the enemy. Osama Bin Laden and his followers have repeatedly said that the U.S. does not have the stomach for a long fight. Passage of this resolution will prove Osama Bin Laden, regretfully, was right. This is the vote he’s been waiting for.
“Setting a date certain for withdrawal will please a vocal group of presidential primary Democratic voters. But it would discourage many others, including many Democrats, who agree that timetables are foolish and dangerous. More importantly, it would discourage our troops, who wonder whether we truly support their mission. And it will discourage our allies, and the millions of brave Iraqi men and women who have dared to stand with America in this fight.
“I will proudly vote against a resolution that sets a timetable — that actually announces the date — for our withdrawal from Iraq. And I’ll do so for the same reason that many prominent Democrats opposed it up until the day that President Bush announced his plan for securing Baghdad just two months ago.
“Republicans have a message for our allies and for our troops, and it is this: we will continue to fight a timetable for withdrawal that has no connection to events or circumstances on the ground. We will give General Petraeus’s mission a chance. We are proud of the work the General has done. And we stand with him until the job is done.
“And we’ll send that message today, when we vote in favor of the Gregg Amendment. This amendment pledges us to support the troops in their mission. Republicans proposed a month ago that we be allowed a vote on this amendment, but we were denied. We’re being allowed that vote today, and just as proudly as we’ll vote against S.J. Res. 9, we’ll vote in favor of the Gregg Amendment.
“In one sense, this debate has been academic. Senators will have a chance to show their support for the mission in Iraq when we vote on the Supplemental Appropriations bill later this month. That’s the bill that matters, the one that funds the operation in Iraq.
“But in another sense, this debate was worthwhile, because it exposed the principle that appears to be quite the opposite: ‘If the President proposed it, we oppose it.’ And this is no principle at all. It’s pure politics. It’s unworthy in good times. It’s shameful at a time of war.
“Meanwhile, the fighting in Iraq continues. And General Petraeus’s mission is showing early signs of success: we’re told that bomb deaths are down by one third in Baghdad since the new plan took effect last month. Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half. Traffic has returned to the once-empty Baghdad streets.
“No one’s foolish enough to say this will last, and it is not a prediction. But it a sign of hope, the kind of sign that everyone in this country — Democrat, Republican — has been waiting for.
“And we in this chamber have a choice: we can fan this flame or we can smother it.
“By voting on a timetable for withdrawal we are decidedly doing the latter.
“Republicans take the hopeful path today.”
###