SC RES 2 Sen Res opposing Bush policy in Iraq (FULL TEXT)

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2--EXPRESSING THE BIPARTISAN RESOLUTION ON IRAQ -- (Senate - January 17, 2007)

[Page: S703] GPO's PDF --- Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Levin, and Ms. Snowe) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

Whereas the United States strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and bipartisan support from Congress;

Whereas maximizing chances of success in Iraq should be our goal, and the best chance

[Page: S704] GPO's PDFof success requires a change in current strategy; Whereas the situation in Iraq is damaging the standing, influence, and interests of the United States in Iraq, the Middle East, and around the world;

Whereas more than 137,000 United States military personnel are bravely and honorably serving in Iraq and deserve the support of all Americans;

Whereas more than 3,000 United States military personnel have already lost their lives in Iraq, and more than 22,500 have been wounded in Iraq;

Whereas on January 10, 2007, President George W. Bush announced his plan to deepen the United States military involvement in Iraq by deploying approximately 21,000 additional United States combat forces to Iraq;

Whereas Iraqis must reach a political settlement if there is going to be a reconciliation in Iraq, and the failure of the Iraqis to achieve such a settlement has led to the increase in violence in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated on November 27, 2006, that ``[t]he crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the politicians.'';

Whereas an open-ended commitment of United States forces in Iraq is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis making the political compromises and providing the personnel and resources that are needed for violence to end and for stability and security to be achieved in Iraq;

Whereas the responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq must rest primarily with the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces;

Whereas there have been repeated promises by the Government of Iraq to assume a greater share of security responsibilities, disband militias, consider amendments to the Iraq constitution, enact laws to reconcile sectarian differences, and improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people, but those promises have not been kept;

Whereas a successful strategy in Iraq is dependent upon the Iraqi leaders fulfilling their promises;

Whereas the commander of the United States Central Command, General John Abizaid, testified to Congress on November 15, 2006, that ``[i]t's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future'';

Whereas the Iraq Study Group suggested a comprehensive strategy to ``enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly'' based on ``new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region'';

Whereas the United States Army and Marine Corps, including their Reserves and the Army National Guard, their personnel, and their families, are under enormous strain from multiple, extended deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas the majority of nondeployed Army and Marine Corps units are no longer combat ready due to a lack of equipment and insufficient time to train; and

Whereas the United States strategy in Iraq must not compromise the ability of the United States to address other vital national security priorities, in particular global terror networks, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional stability in the Middle East, the nuclear program of Iran, the nuclear weapons of North Korea, and stability and security in Afghanistan: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--

(1) it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq;

(2) the primary objective of United States strategy in Iraq should be to have the Iraqi political leaders make the political compromises necessary to end the violence in Iraq;

(3) greater concerted regional, and international support would assist the Iraqis in achieving a political solution and national reconciliation;

(4) main elements of the mission of United States forces in Iraq should transition to helping ensure the territorial integrity of Iraq, conduct counterterrorism activities, reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq, and accelerate training of Iraqi troops;

(5) the United States should transfer, under an appropriately expedited timeline, responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq to the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces; and

(6) the United States should engage nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally-sponsored peace and reconciliation process for Iraq.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, Senator Hagel, Senator Levin, and I are submitting a bipartisan resolution that opposes the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq.

This resolution says what we and many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, are against: deepening America's military involvement in Iraq by escalating our troop presence.

Just as important, it says what we and many of our colleagues are for: a strategy that can produce a political settlement in Iraq.

That's the only way to stop Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other and allow our troops to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.

Last week, when Secretary of State Rice presented the President's plan to escalate our troop presence in Iraq to the Foreign Relations Committee, the reaction from Democrats and Republicans alike ranged from profound skepticism to outright opposition.

This resolution will give every Senator a chance to say where he or she stands on the President's plan.

I believe that when a President goes way off course on something as important as Iraq, the single most effective way to get him to change course is to demonstrate that his policy has waning or no support--from both parties.

The more we make Iraq a partisan issue, the more the President is likely to dig in. The more we show that Americans across the board don't want to go down the path of escalation, the better our chance to stop it.

The very first sentence of our resolution says something the three of us believe profoundly: ``U.S. strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and the bipartisan support of Congress.''

This resolution will demonstrate that, right now, the support is not there for the President's policy in Iraq. The sooner he recognizes that reality and acts on it, the better off all of us will be.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, we have before us one of the most important issues that has ever faced our country, certainly in modern times. The future of Iraq will affect the United States, the Middle East, and the world for decades to come.

No one in Congress and no one in the United States wants to see America humiliated, defeated, or in any way lose its purpose. The issue of Iraq involves all of us. The Congress of the United States must have a role to play.

Our responsibility is to join together in a bipartisan effort to work to develop a consensus to deal with the great challenges of our time. I know of no challenge that is greater today, before this country, than Iraq. When a Nation commits its men and women to war, it is the greatest challenge that any of us will ever deal with in our time in the Congress.

We owe it to the American people to help find a bipartisan consensus of purpose, to help develop a policy worthy of our men and women in uniform. The American people not only deserve but they expect a consensus. This resolution is not about trying to assign blame on the Administration. It is not about replaying past mistakes. This resolution is about moving forward. It is difficult but it is our responsibility.

Some of us believe that the course that the President announced Wednesday was not the appropriate course. I do not believe that the United States should be sending more American troops into the middle of the tribal, sectarian civil war that is occurring in Iraq.

Senators BIDEN, LEVIN, and I have focused personally on writing this resolution because we felt it must reflect a responsible, forward-looking, and constructive approach. We must remain focused on a strategy which seeks to advance America's national interests and allow America to leave Iraq honorably.

The American people look to its government for responsible policy. A policy that can be sustained. A policy that reflects a clear consensus of purpose regarding our objectives, our strategy and our policies. This is what our resolution seeks to achieve.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the primary objective of the bipartisan resolution my colleagues and I are introducing today is to convince a bipartisan majority of Senators to oppose deeper military involvement in Iraq by the United States and to get the Iraqis to reach a political settlement among themselves as the only way to end the violence in Iraq.

The resolution would send a clear message that Congress does not support the plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq because it is based on the false premise that there is a

[Page: S705] GPO's PDFmilitary solution to the violence and instability in Iraq, when what is needed is a political solution among the Iraqi leaders and factions. Iraq's own Prime Minister Maliki acknowledged recently that ``The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the politicians.''

The resolution states that it is not in the national security interests of the United States to deepen our military involvement in Iraq by increasing the number of U.S. troops.

The resolution calls for the transition of our military mission in Iraq to a more limited one of training, counterterrorism, and protecting the territorial integrity of Iraq. It also calls for greater engagement of other countries in the region in the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq.

Last week the President said that he had made clear to Iraq's leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. I welcome these words. But the reality behind the President's new rhetoric is that the open-ended commitment continues--more American military men and women would be sent into the chaos of Iraq's sectarian violence without condition or limitation.

President Bush also indicated that the Iraqi government needs ``breathing space'' to make political progress. The opposite is true. The Iraqi leaders don't need breathing space--they must feel real pressure to reach a political settlement. Increasing our military presence in Iraq takes more pressure off. The Iraq Study Group put it this way last month: ``An open-ended commitment of American forces would not provide the Iraqi government the incentive it needs to take the political actions that give Iraq its best chance of quelling sectarian violence.''

President Bush also said that the Iraqis have set benchmarks for themselves. But look at the track record of the Iraqi government in meeting some of its past benchmarks and promises: Iraqi President Talibani said in August 2006 that Iraqi forces would ``take over security in all Iraqi provinces by the end of 2006.'' That pledge has not been kept. Prime Minister Maliki said last June that he would disband the militias and illegal armed groups as part of his national reconciliation plan, and in October he set the timetable for disbanding the militias as the end of 2006. That commitment has not been kept. The Iraqi Constitutional Review Commission was to present its recommendations for changes in the Constitution to the Council of Representatives within four months of the formation of the Government last May. The Commission has yet to formulate any recommendations. Prime Minister Maliki put forward a series of reconciliation milestones to be completed by the end of 2006 or early 2007, including approval of the Provincial Election Law, the Petroleum Law, a new De-Baathification Law, and the Militia Law. Not one of these laws has been enacted. The Iraqi army pledged six battalions in support of American and Coalition efforts during Operation Forward Together last summer. In fact, Iraqis provided only two battalions.

This is not a track record that inspires confidence in Iraqi pledges and commitments.

The President said that ``America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.'' How did the President say we are going to do that? What will the consequences be if the Iraqis continue to fail to meet these benchmarks, particularly since some of them have been established and missed in the past? The President said ``If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people ..... '' That is an empty threat given the fact that the Iraqi Government has already lost the support of the American people, and it hasn't affected their behavior. The President's most recent plan, like previous ones, includes no mechanism to hold the Iraqis to their commitments.

Just two months ago General Abizaid testified before our Committee against increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. He told us: ``I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.''

Deepening our involvement in Iraq would be a mistake. Deepening our involvement in Iraq on the assumption that the Iraqis will meet future benchmarks and commitments given their track record would compound the mistake.

For America to supply more troops while the Iraqi leaders simply supply more promises is not a recipe for success in Iraq. Telling the Iraqis that we will increase our troops to give them yet more breathing space will only postpone the day when Iraqis take their future into their own hands and decide whether they want to continue to fight a civil war or make peace among themselves.

This resolution does not limit any future course of action that Congress may decide to take. What it would do is send a powerful message to the President and the Iraqis that Congress does not support an escalation of our military presence in Iraq.

Please read it to appreciate the full viciousness and treasonous attitude.

They clearly want to demonstrate they consider President Bush the real enemy, not the terrorists.

Why can't the Republicans stop the vote on this?! The Democrats stopped votes on all kinds of things, when they were in the minority.

It will be a total disgrace and a victory for terrorists, if this resolution passes.

THIS is what we get with the Dems in power. Don't forget that. While it's a disgrace that a couple of RINOs signed up with the Dems, but the real moving force are the Dems.

And to appreciate the work that's going on behind the scenes to keep and expand the Dem power, I highly recommend reading these two articles:

Leftists in Search of Permanent Democrat Majority (IMPORTANT Read -- Soros and leftists org)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1769370/posts

AND:

Tracking Down A Fifth Column Front

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3181

If Mr. BIDEN or Mr. HAGEL wish to serve as Commander-in-Chief, perhaps one or the other should get himself ELECTED to the Office of President first. In the meantime, their subversive theatrics are simply providing aid and comfort to the enemy and no doubt many good men will lose their lives to an emboldened enemy because of their criminal stupidity. Yes, this is high treason and all involved should be forced from office in disgrace.

"Yes, this is high treason and all involved should be forced from office in disgrace."

Absolutely.

It is amazing that they were able to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people to support their treasonous actions.

A FoxNews poll showed that almost half the people consider Iraq as the biggest issue and are against troop increases and only 7% consider terrorism a big issue. How soon they forget and the next "reminder" may be a devastation on an unimagined scale.

As I said: "While it's a disgrace that a couple of RINOs signed up with the Dems, but the real moving force are the Dems."

Get rid of the Dems FIRST, get and consolidate Republican power, THEN work on replacing RINOs with conservatives.

Replacing RINOs with leftist anti-American Democrats is NOT the answer -- as their actions painfully demonstrate and this is only the beginning.

I missed that however, it would be best to clean our own house of
RINO Crap and then with a True Conservative Force go after the Dems as if it is Holy War.

And it doesn't come as a surprise that Pelosi is planning to support this resolution:

House to echo criticism of troop surge

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070119-121557-7480r.htm

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that House Democrats will support a Senate resolution denouncing President Bush's proposal to increase the number of troops in Iraq.

"It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the U.S. troop presence in Iraq," she said at a press conference yesterday, reading with approval from the nonbinding Senate resolution.

"Introduced in a bipartisan way in the United States Senate, that resolution will be supported in the House by the Democrats," Mrs. Pelosi said. "We do not support the escalation of the war. We do not think it is in our national interest. We will engage the public in that debate."

"it would be best to clean our own house of
RINO Crap"

Hello! That's what got us the Dems in power. I can't believe any conservative believing that Dems in power is better than Republicans in power.

Without a Clear and Concise delineation between Democrats and Republicans we will continue to have RINO's in power. Clear them out and the choice will be clear to the vast majority of voters.

I guess you don't consider a "clear deliniation" that Republicans want to fight the terrorists to ensure our survival, while the Democrats want to help the terrorists kill us?

I wonder what the Dems will do if they are found to be responsible for a terrorist attack on US soil, because they have backed down the President's take-no-prisoners approach? Stupid fools.

The RINO's that now stand with the Democrats against the War provide the Democrat's Anti War Stance with Legitimacy.

Get rid of the RINOs and led the Dem stand alone against the War.

Th problem with the "Clean our house" crowd is that it is never clean enough for them. There will always be something that they disagree with.

They are part of the PC crowd. Either something is Perfection or it is Crap. Trying to reason with them is futile.

Look America as we remember it is over and has been for decades, even Reagan was mostly pretense. Western civilization is out of steam, it's dead on it's feet just waiting for some pipsqeek to tip it over. That this is going to be achieved by some backwardass nomads is grating but it's still just an objection of style. The will that used to power the Western peoples has been sapped. The Left will win it's phyrric victory, inheriting a broken shell of America. The problem is they're too stupid to care.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.