Replies

All I saw was this... general:

“Finally, bipartisanship must include Iraq and the war on terror. Protecting the American people is our first responsibility. We all want the troops home as soon as possible, but our military strategy in Iraq must be based on clear national security considerations. We owe it to all Americans to establish a strategy for victory, and to support it—with one voice.”

http://cornyn.senate.gov/index.asp?f=record&lid=1&rid=237280

The added U.S. troops are also expected to be linked to a requirement that the Baghdad government commit more money toward reconstruction and send more of its own troops into the fight, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said yesterday. Cornyn, a Bush loyalist who recently met with the president to discuss Iraq, said he believes these conditions were suggested by the Iraqi government.

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=17692890&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6

Bush is expected to link the troop increase to promised steps by the Iraqi government to build up its own military, ease the country's murderous sectarian tensions, increase reconstruction and enact a plan to distribute oil revenues among the country's religious sects.

Texas Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, who were among 30 senators who received a preliminary briefing on Bush's Iraq plan earlier this week, have both indicated they plan to be supportive.

"When he comes out with his plan, I think we have to give it a chance to work," Hutchison said Tuesday at a round-table interview with Texas reporters. Cornyn said that Iraq will become "a failed state" and a "launching pad" for terrorists if the United States and its allies withdraw.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/16425900.htm

Welcome to you all.

Senator Cornyn, do you support the broad outlines of what's been reported to be this proposal, sending roughly 20,000 additional troops to Iraq?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), Texas: Well, the most significant thing about the proposal that I heard was that it really represents an Iraqi surge, with additional American and coalition forces to support them.

So that, in addition to clearing some of the most worrisome trouble spots in Baghdad, we can actually hold them, rather than relinquish them to sectarian violence or to al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations. That's something we haven't been able to do because we simply haven't had enough forces there on the ground to hold areas we've actually cleared to allow the political process to move forward.

(Non bonus, Heather Wilson on the transcript as well as Lieberman and others... PBS warning 12/08)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june07/troops_01-08.html