Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lieberman Warns of Potential Constitutional Crisis over Iraq
Joe Lieberman ^ | 2/16/07 | Joe Lieberman

Posted on 02/16/2007 2:37:46 PM PST by bnelson44

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 16, 2007

Contact:

Marshall Wittmann, 202-224-4041

Lieberman Warns of Potential Constitutional Crisis over Iraq

Urges Unity in War Against Islamist Extremism

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In a statement on the Senate floor today concerning the non-binding Iraq resolution, Senator Lieberman stated:

"The non-binding resolution before us today, we all know, is only a prologue. That is why the fight over it - procedural and substantive - over these past weeks has been so intense. It is the first skirmish in an escalating battle that threatens to consume our government over many months ahead, a battle that will neither solve the sprawling challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation to defeat the enemies of our security throughout the world from Islamist extremists. That is to say, in our war against the terrorists that attacked us.

We still have a choice not to go down this path - it's a choice that goes beyond the immediate resolution before the Senate - a chance to step back from the brink and find a better way to express and arbitrate our opinion, and I hope we will seize the moment and take that chance."

Senator Lieberman called for nonpartisan cooperation:

"Whatever our opinion of this war or its conduct, it is in no one's interest to stumble into a debilitating confrontation between our two great branches of government over war powers. The potential for a constitutional crisis here and now is real, with congressional interventions, presidential vetoes, and Supreme Court decisions. If there was ever a moment for nonpartisan cooperation to agree on a process that will respect both our personal opinions about this war and our nation's interests over the long term, this is it.

We need to step back from the brink and reason together, as Scripture urges us to do, about how we will proceed to express our disagreements about this war."

Senator Lieberman argued that the non binding resolution, "proposes nothing. It contains no plan for victory or retreat... It is a strategy of "no," while our soldiers are saying, "yes, sir" to their commanding officers as they go forward into battle."

Senator Lieberman closed with a call for unity, "Whatever our differences here in this chamber, about this war, let us never forget the values of freedom and democracy that unite us and for which our troops have given and today give the last full measure of their devotion. Yes, we should vigorously debate and deliberate. That is not only our right, it is our responsibility. But at this difficult juncture, at this moment when a real battle, a critical battle is being waged in Baghdad, as we face a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and wants to do it again, let us not just shout at one another, but let us reach out to one another to find that measure of unity that can look beyond today's disagreements and secure the nation's future and the future of all who will follow us as Americans."

Below is the entire text of the speech as prepared for delivery -

Mr. President, when the roll is called tomorrow on the motion for cloture with regard to the resolution that the House is expected to pass tonight on Iraq, I will vote no. I will vote against cloture. I will do so not because I wish to stifle debate - the fact is that debate has occurred, is occurring now, and will continue to occur, on our policy in Iraq. I will vote against cloture because I feel so strongly against the resolution. It condemns the new plan for success in Iraq, I support that plan.

From all of the research my staff and I have done, including asking the Library of Congress to do, we have found no case in American history where Congress has done what this resolution does. That is, in a non-binding resolution, oppose a plan that our military is implementing right now. Congress has expressed non-binding resolutions of disapproval before a plan of military action has been carried out. Congress has taken much more direct steps, authorized to do so by the Constitution, to cut off funds for military action or a war in progress.

But never before has the Congress of the United States passed a non-binding resolution of disapproval of a military plan that is already being carried out by American military personnel. I believe it's a bad precedent and that's why I will do everything I can to oppose it. And in the immediate context, that means that I will vote against cloture.

Mr. President, more broadly, we are approaching an important moment in the history of this institution and of our republic—a moment, I fear, that future historians will look back to and see the beginning of a cycle that not only damaged the remaining possibilities for success in Iraq, but established political precedents that weakened the power of the presidency to protect the American people over the long term.

The non-binding resolution before us today, we all know, is only a prologue. That is why the fight over it - procedural and substantive - over these past weeks has been so intense. It is the first skirmish in an escalating battle that threatens to consume our government over many months ahead, a battle that will neither solve the sprawling challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation to defeat the enemies of our security throughout the world from Islamist extremists. That is to say, in our war against the terrorist that attacked us.

We still have a choice not to go down this path— it's a choice that goes beyond the immediate resolution before the Senate - a chance to step back from the brink and find a better way to express and arbitrate our opinion, and I hope we will seize the moment and take that chance.

As we meet in this chamber today, the battle for Baghdad has already begun. One of our most decorated generals, David Petreaus —whom this Senate confirmed eighty-one to nothing—has taken command in Baghdad. And thousands of American soldiers have moved out across the Iraqi capital, putting their lives on the line as they put a new strategy into action.

We can now see for ourselves, on the ground in Iraq and Baghdad, where it matters, what this new strategy looks like—and we can see why it is different from all that preceded it.

For the first time in Baghdad, our primary focus is no longer on training Iraqi forces or chasing down insurgents or providing for our own force protection, though those remain objectives. Our primary focus is on ensuring basic security for the Iraqi people, working side by side with Iraqi security forces—exactly what classic counterinsurgency doctrine tells us must be our first goal now.

Where previously there were not enough troops to hold the neighborhoods cleared of insurgents, now more troops are either in place or on the way.

Where previously American soldiers were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable to secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with their Iraqi counterparts on small bases that are being set up right now throughout the Iraqi capital.

At least six of these new joint bases have already been established in the Sunni neighborhoods in west Baghdad—the same neighborhoods where just a few weeks ago, jihadists and death squads held sway. In the Shiite neighborhoods of east Baghdad, American troops are also moving in, with their Iraqi counterparts—and Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army are moving out.

We do not know if this new strategy for success in Iraq will work over the long term—and we probably will not know for some time. The Mahdi Army may be in retreat for the moment, but they are not defeated. They have gone to ground, and they are watching. Our hope is that our determination and that of the Iraqi government will lead them now to devote themselves to politics instead of death squads. But that, only time will tell.

The fact is, any realistic assessment of the situation in Iraq tells us that we must expect that we must expect that there will be more attacks, and there will be more casualties in the months ahead, as the enemies of a free and independent Iraq see the progress we are making and adapt to try to destroy it with more violence.

The question they will try to pose to us - which is the question that is posed every time a fanatic suicide bomb goes off and that person expresses their hatred of everyone else more than their love of their own life by ending their own life - the question is: Will we yield Baghdad, Iraq, the Middle East, our own future, to those fanatical suicide bombers?

But we must also recognize that we are in a different place in Iraq from where we were just a month ago, because of the implementation of this new strategy.

We are in a stronger position today to provide basic security in Baghdad—and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and the militias of their public support; a stronger position to press the Iraqi leaders to make the political compromises that everyone acknowledges are necessary.

John Maynard Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind."

Mr. President, in the real world, in just the past month, the facts in Iraq have changed—and they are changing still. And I would ask my colleagues to allow themselves to wait and consider changing their minds as further facts unfold in Iraq.

The non-binding resolution before us is not about stopping a hypothetical plan. It is about disapproving a plan that is being carried out now by our fellow Americans in uniform, in the field. In that sense, as I have said, it is unprecedented in Congressional history, in American history. This resolution is about shouting into the wind. It is about ignoring realities of what's happening on the ground in Baghdad.

It proposes nothing. It contains no plan for victory or retreat. It proposes nothing. It is a strategy of "no," while our soldiers are saying, "yes, sir" to their commanding officers as they go forward into battle.

And that is why I will vote against the resolution by voting against cloture.

I understand the frustration, anger, and exhaustion that so many Americans, so many members of Congress, feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up one's hands and simply say, "Enough." And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life—and of the mistakes that have been made in the war's conduct.

But let us now not make another mistake. In the midst of a fluid and uncertain situation in Iraq, we should not be so bound up in our own arguments and disagreements, so committed to the positions we have staked out, that the political battle over here takes precedence over the real battle over there. Whatever the passions of the moment, the point of reference for our decision-making should be military movements on the battlefields of Iraq, not political maneuverings in the halls of Congress.

Even as our troops have begun to take Baghdad back step-by-step, there are many in this Congress who have nevertheless already reached a conclusion about the futility of America's cause there, and declared their intention to put an end to this mission not with one direct attempt to cutoff funds, but step by political step. No matter what the rhetoric of this resolution, that is the reality of the moment. This non-binding measure before us is a first step toward a constitutional crisis that we can and must avoid.

Let me explain what I mean by a constitutional crisis.

Let us be clear about the likely consequences if we go down this path beyond this non-binding resolution. Congress has been given constitutional responsibilities. But the micro-management of war is not one of them. The appropriation of funds for war is.

I appreciate that each of us here has our own ideas about the best way forward in Iraq, I respect those that take a different position than I, and I understand that many feel strongly that the President's strategy is the wrong one. But the Constitution, which has served us now for more than two great centuries of our history, creates not 535 commanders-in-chief, but one—the President of the United States, who is authorized to lead the day to day conduct of war.

Whatever our opinion of this war or its conduct, it is in no one's interest to stumble into a debilitating confrontation between our two great branches of government over war powers. The potential for a constitutional crisis here and now is real, with congressional interventions, presidential vetoes, and Supreme Court decisions. If there was ever a moment for nonpartisan cooperation to agree on a process that will respect both our personal opinions about this war and our nation's interests over the long term, this is it.

We need to step back from the brink and reason together, as Scripture urges us to do, about how we will proceed to express our disagreements about this war.

We must recognize that, while the decisions we are making today and we are about to make seem irretrievably bound up in the immediacy of the moment and the particular people now holding positions of power in our government, these decisions will set constitutional precedents that will go far beyond this moment and these people. President Bush has less than two years left in office, and a Democrat may well succeed him. If we do not act thoughtfully in the weeks and months ahead, we will create precedents that future Congresses, future Presidents, and future generations of Americans will regret.

Right now, as the battle for Baghdad begins, this institution is deeply divided. However, we should not allow our divisions to lead us to a constitutional crisis in which no one wins and our national security is greatly damaged. We are engaged, as all my colleagues know, in a larger war against a totalitarian enemy - Islamist extremism and terrorism - that seeks to vanquish all of the democratic values that it is our national purpose to protect and defend.

Whatever our differences here in this chamber about this war, let us never forget the values of freedom and democracy that unite us and for which our troops have given and today give the last full measure of their devotion. Yes, we should vigorously debate and deliberate. That is not only our right, it is our responsibility. But at this difficult juncture, at this moment when a real battle, a critical battle is being waged in Baghdad, as we face a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and wants to do it again, let us not just shout at one another, but let us reach out to one another to find that measure of unity that can look beyond today's disagreements and secure the nation's future and the future of all who will follow us as Americans.

I thank the chair and I yield the floor.

-30-

Senator Joe Lieberman's Homepage


TOPICS: Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iraq; lieberman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

1 posted on 02/16/2007 2:37:49 PM PST by bnelson44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

Vote Dem

Vote Retreat


2 posted on 02/16/2007 2:38:58 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
A storm is coming that will rip the fabric of this nation apart. This is very dangerous territory the Congress is wandering into....its called sedition.
3 posted on 02/16/2007 2:42:37 PM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
senator, the only form of nonpartisan cooperation acceptable to you democRATs is when Republicans agree with the democRATs.

So shove it where the sun doesn't shine
4 posted on 02/16/2007 2:42:43 PM PST by geo40xyz (Born a democRAT, Dad set me free in 1952: He said that I was not required to be a MF'ing democRAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
Lieberman is right about a Constitutional crisis coming down the pike, but he's wrong about it being between two branches of government.

Rather, it's going to be a rather bloody civil war, and if we're lucky, this time we'll come out of it without any more Democrats.

5 posted on 02/16/2007 2:43:02 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

Bravo, and every democrat would say the same if they had not become a party of filthy me first left wing partisan trash.


6 posted on 02/16/2007 2:45:24 PM PST by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
No Norm this is more serious...this goes to what the founders wrote.

I don't think they ever thought we would have a political party in power who has become so deranged by hatred for one man.... George W. Bush....that they would risk a full blown Constitutional Crisis....to teach that one man a lesson that could harm generations yet unborn.

7 posted on 02/16/2007 2:45:47 PM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

We get what we deserve... I just hope I'm not there when they attack us everywhere.


8 posted on 02/16/2007 2:45:57 PM PST by Porterville (Huh? You're stupid.... yeah, I knew that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Porterville


9 posted on 02/16/2007 2:47:29 PM PST by Porterville (Bullies love Peace and the Peaceful fight Wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

All those Walk on Water Republicans have really taught our troops a lesson!

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters


10 posted on 02/16/2007 2:47:42 PM PST by bray (Redeploy our Troops to Tehran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

If we are unable to complete this war, it is unlikely we can undertake any successful war in the future. Our enemies will have tagged us correctly as having no stomach for battle. We will become a bigger target than ever before.


11 posted on 02/16/2007 2:48:07 PM PST by TravisBickle (Are you talkin' to me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog
A storm is coming that will rip the fabric of this nation apart. This is very dangerous territory the Congress is wandering into....its called sedition.

Arm your self. It might be getting close to that time (as wacky as that sounds, I know)

12 posted on 02/16/2007 2:48:38 PM PST by llevrok ("“Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.” - Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dog

I hear ya.

Even the Founding Fathers knew that when push came to shove , it would be Patriots that would stand on their side, and not on the side of scoundrels.

It is a despicable act if nothing else, and if the War Powers debate is allowed to happen in all its gory glory, God forbid anything else befall us. There would and should be Hell to pay.


13 posted on 02/16/2007 2:49:37 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TravisBickle

We will be able to... but before we have to fight again we will lose a whole lot of material, lives, and international capital.

All for the sake of democrat power.


14 posted on 02/16/2007 2:49:53 PM PST by Porterville (Bullies love Peace and the Peaceful fight Wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

Senator Lieberman's error is in thinking that Democrats care about inadvertently damaging our soldiers' morale and unintentionally assisting the enemy forces. He is mistaken. It is neither inadvertent nor unintentional. They want us to lose. Many members of our Congress, our elected officials want us to lose. Damn them.


15 posted on 02/16/2007 2:50:05 PM PST by andy58-in-nh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

I commend Senator Lieberman to have the courage that almost all other democrats lack-- standing with country over party.


16 posted on 02/16/2007 2:51:24 PM PST by lonestar67 (Its time to withdraw from the War on Bush-- your side is hopelessly lost in a quagmire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog

Another 9/11 is almost sure to happen. However, at a level that will make the first one look like pin prick in comparison.

With the Democrats in control, it will happen sooner than later.


17 posted on 02/16/2007 2:52:35 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

Bless his heart. A true statesman.


18 posted on 02/16/2007 2:53:26 PM PST by zook (America going insane - "Do you read Sutter Caine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

I am prepared to defend the US and our constitution - as I have already sworn to do - and that is what it may take. If the Dems want to rewrite the Constitution without the authority of the people, I say, "bring it on".
I hope President Bush does not cave to the Dims and 17 Republican traitors. This is the time for partisanship. Nonpartisanship got us here. NO MORE COMPROMISE!!


19 posted on 02/16/2007 2:54:01 PM PST by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

But, where have all the Patriots gone? Are there many left?

When we first founded this Republic, the majority were Patriots.


20 posted on 02/16/2007 2:54:55 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson