Posted on 02/16/2007 5:37:40 PM PST by Timmy
Mr. Speaker,
On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln rose on the platform at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, following a two-hour oration by Edward Everett, and gave a brief but eloquent discourse that has become a prominent part of our country's heritage. At the dedication of the Gettysburg National cemetery, he acknowledged: "The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is, for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced."
Can we find poignancy today in those simple words uttered seven score and four years ago? What is the "unfinished work" confronting our body politic? And, more to the point, does this resolution promulgated unilaterally by the majority, advance the cause of freedom for which 3,000 of our countrymen have "given the last full measure of devotion?"
For all the rhetorical meanderings that have occurred — lo, these many hours — the responsibility for the current state of affairs in Iraq rests squarely with a majority of members who serve this Congress of the United States. In the Second Session of the 105th Congress, this body considered on December 17, 1998, House resolution 612, which declared, in pertinent part: "Resolved, by the House of representatives that ...the Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United states to sup-port efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." (Emphasis added.) The resolution passed overwhelmingly 417-5 and over 200 current members serving in this Congress unequivocally affirmed that to be the policy of the United States.
Thereafter, in October, 2002, Congress — both House and Senate — approved the resolution authorizing the use of force and military action necessary to effectuate the policy of regime change.
Let us review the facts as they were before us in October of 2002. Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq as a brutal despot for 24 years. During his reign, he used rape, murder and torture as the means to stifle democratic dissent and maintain absolute control over Iraq's populace. He also had a long history of aggression against his neighbors in the Middle East. In addition to fighting an eight-year war with Iran, he invaded and attempted to annex the sovereign nation of Kuwait. Not only did he aggressively pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction, he demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons — even against his own citizens. The mass graves discovered at al-Mahawil contain the bodies of more than two thousand persons; documented chemical attacks by the Saddam Hussein regime from 1983 to 1988 resulted in over 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths; and the Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurdish people killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The U.S. Department of State under both the Clinton Administration and the current Administration cited Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Prior to the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to condemn Iraq for its failure to abide by the terms and conditions of the cease fire that ended the first Gulf War and for failing to fully cooperate with international weapons inspectors. In October 2002, both the House and Senate approved H. J. Res. 114, a joint resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. This resolution, which was authored by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO), was approved by broad bipartisan majorities in both the U.S. House (296-133 margin) and the U.S. Senate (77-23 margin).
Deposing the former dictator was, in relative terms, the easier part. Yanking him from his hiding place — a hole in the ground — he eventually stood in the dock as a common accused, was afforded the presumption of innocence, was judged by his countrymen according to the rule of law, and held to account for the brutality of his many crimes.
The second policy objective promoting a democratic government-has been the harder part but, though difficult, is it no less important? Or is it indeed more critical that we succeed?
As my friend and colleague, my classmate from New Mexico (Ms. Wilson), so passionately and persuasively enunciated yesterday, America has vital, national interests in Iraq. Does anyone argue the contrary? Can we not all agree that we must defeat Al Qaeda and deny them sanctuary in Iraq? Do we not further agree that Iraq must not be a source of instability in the region? If we can agree on these points, can the majority make a legitimate case that this resolution accomplishes either of those important interests?
Some of my friends on the majority side of the aisle have suggested in the press that this resolution is but the first step in an effort to use the power of the purse to force a withdrawal by denying our fighting troops the funding needed to complete missions assigned them by commanders in the field. I believe this to be a terribly misguided approach. In recent briefings we've learned that progress continues to be made. But currently the Iraqi security forces are currently incapable of standing without combat and logistical reinforcement from American and coalition forces. Immediate or unconditional withdrawal would lead, in my and the Iraq Study Group's opinion, to a massive bloodletting in Iraq. The country could quickly become the battlefield for an all-out regional conflict where Iran intervenes to protect and strengthen the Shiites in Iraq; Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states find themselves drawn in to defend Sunni interests; and Turkey intervenes to quell Kurdish nationalism. Terrorists would capitalize on the chaos and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out future at-tacks on American interests. What a significant victory for our declared enemies! If we withdraw prematurely and these probabilities become reality, the United States would be forced to reengage militarily in a situation that is more volatile than the difficult one we face today.
Putting the Iraqi government on a stable footing so that it is capable of dealing with both internal and external security threats is not only in the best interests of both our nations, it is the quickest path out of Iraq. A temporary increase in the number of U.S. troops is the first step on the path that will bring our troops home.
My support for a temporary increase in the number of troops in Iraq is neither unconditional nor open-ended. I need to see benchmarks that truly measure whether or not the Iraqis are on the road to stability. These benchmarks should be measurements of real change in Iraq and hold the Iraqi government accountable for its role in achieving success. We must see solid proof that the Iraqis them-selves are taking an active effort to combat violence in their own country.
President Bush recently nominated General David Patraeus as the new Commander of Multinational Force in Iraq. Widely known as a brilliant tactician in the area of counter-insurgency, General Patraeus was unanimously confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 81-0. Three days ago, during the transfer of command ceremony, the four-star general said, "the rucksack of responsibility is very heavy. In truth, it is too heavy for any one person to bear, and we will all have to share the burdens and move forward together. If we can do that and if we can help the people of Iraq do likewise, then the prospects for success are good. Failing that, Iraq will be doomed to continuing violence and civil strife and surely that is a prospect all must strive to avoid. The stakes are very high.
Today, however, the majority desires to deny this extremely capable commander in the field the means to accomplish his objective. Isn't it incumbent upon us — as Lincoln urged — to remain "dedicated to the great task remaining before us?"
Haven't many in this body expressed frustration that the Iraqi government has placed limitations on the rules of engagement on our troops in the field? Not allowing our military to hunt down the enemy because they had escaped to a safe haven in a region deemed "off-limits" by the Iraqi government? Isn't the majority party doing exactly the same thing half a world away with this resolution? Isn't denying our military additional reinforcements, deemed necessary by our generals in the field, hampering our last, best chance for success?
Finally, I was moved by the quiet eloquence of the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) when he made this simple observation: At no time in this nation's history has this House considered a public rebuke of a sitting Commander-In-Chief for the manner in which a war has been conducted that Congress itself, in an earlier session, expressly endorsed. On that score alone, I find this resolution breathtaking in its audacity.
If I may be allowed to paraphrase the Great Emancipator: It is true; "The world will little note nor long remember what we say here," but the world will never forget what we do here. I urge rejection of this resolution.
Roger that! We could use more like Kenny Hulsof.
Awesome. I'll vote for him again.
If we run away, the enemy will run after us. Bush was right to take the fight to the enemy. Clinton chose to run from Somalia and do nothing when Al Qaeda attacked us in the late 90's. We paid the price on 9/11. If we return to the failed policies of the DemonRats, we may pay a worse price in the future.
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.