[Peace-discuss] Durbin and Obama: Senate speeches

[Morton K. Brussel]

This is taken from

  http://www.clw.org/iraq/archives/2006/06/senatorsa_state.html

where you can find the statements of all the US Senators on the  
question of the Kerry amendment to bring the troops home. Durbin has  
another statement that I have not copied, but you can find at the  
address above.

Draw your own conclusions. I find Obama bathetic. We should let him  
know what we feel about his position and his caricatures. --mkb

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for managing
this fine amendment.

In October of 2002, I delivered a speech opposing the war in Iraq.
I said that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless man, but that he posed no  
imminent
and direct threat to the United States. I said that a war in Iraq  
would take
our focus away from our efforts to defeat al-Qaida. And, with a  
volatile mix of ethnic
groups and a complicated history, I said that the invasion and  
occupation
of Iraq would require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at  
undetermined
cost, with undetermined consequences. In short, I felt the decision  
unfolding
then to invade Iraq was being made without a clear rationale, based more
on ideology and politics than fact and reason.

It is with no great pleasure that I recall this now. Too many young men
and women have died. Too many have been maimed. Too many hearts have
been broken. I fervently wish I had been wrong about this war; that my
concerns had been unfounded. America and the American people
have paid a high price for the decision to invade Iraq and myriad  
mistakes
that followed. I believe that history will not judge the authors of  
this war
kindly.

For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the
Kerry amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and
spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.
But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous  
withdrawal
of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities
on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration.
It could compound them. It could compound them by plunging
Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.
We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum
filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that  
could engulf
large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both
moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a  
responsible way.
I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry amendment. We should  
send
a clear message to the Iraqis that we won’t be there forever, and  
that by
next year our primary role should be to conduct counterinsurgency  
actions,
train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support.
Moreover, I share the frustration with an administration whose policies
with respect to Iraq seem to simply repeat the simple-minded refrains  
of ‘‘we
know best’’ and ‘‘stay the course.’’ It’s not acceptable to conduct a  
war where
our goals and strategies drift aimlessly regardless of the cost in  
lives or dollars
spent, and where we end up with arbitrary, poll-driven troop  
reductions by
the administration—the worst of all possible outcomes.

As one who strongly opposed the decision to go to war and who has met
with servicemen and women injured in this conflict and seen the pain  
of the
parents and loved ones of those who have died in Iraq, I would like  
nothing
more than for our military involvement to end. But I do not believe  
that setting a
date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best  
approach to
achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals  
that
should drive our Iraq policy: that is, (1) stabilizing Iraq and  
giving the factions
within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; (2)  
containing
and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and (3) bringing our
troops safely home.

What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit  
from
Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our  
commanders
in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient  
flexibility to
implement that strategy.

For example, let’s say that a phased withdrawal results in 50,000  
troops in
Iraq by July 19, 2007. If, at that point, our generals and the Iraqi  
Government
tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an additional 3 or 6  
months would
enhance stability and security in the region, this amendment would  
potentially
prevent us from pursuing the optimal policy.

It is for this reason that I cannot support the Kerry amendment.  
Instead,
I am a cosponsor of the Levin amendment, which gives us the best  
opportunity
to find this balance between our need to begin a phase-down and our
need to help stabilize Iraq. It tells the Iraqis that we won’t be  
there forever so
that they need to move forward on uniting and securing their country. I
agree with Senator WARNER that the message should be ‘‘we really mean
business, Iraqis, get on with it.’’ At the same time, the amendment  
also provides
the Iraqis the time and the opportunity to accomplish this critical  
goal.
Essential to a successful policy is the administration listening to  
its generals
and diplomats and members of Congress especially those who disagree
with their policies and believe it is time to start bringing our  
troops home.
The overwhelming majority of the Senate is already on record voting for
an amendment stating that calendar year 2006 should be a period of  
significant
transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces
taking the lead for the security, creating the conditions for the  
phased redeployment
of United States forces from Iraq.

The Levin amendment builds on this approach. The White House should  
follow this
principle as well. Visiting Iraq for a few hours cannot resuscitate  
or justify
a failed policy. No amount of spin or photo opportunities can change the
bottom line: this war has been poorly conceived and poorly managed by  
the
White House, and that is why it has been so poorly received by the  
American
people..

And it is troubling to already see Karl Rove in New Hampshire, treating
this as a political attack opportunity instead of a major national  
challenge
around which to rally the country. There are no easy answers to this
war. I understand that many Americans want to see our troops come
home. The chaos, violence, and horrors in Iraq are gut-wrenching  
reminders of
what our men and women in uniform, some just months out of high school,
must confront on a daily basis. They are doing this heroically, they are
doing this selflessly, and more than 2,500 of them have now made the  
ultimate
sacrifice for our country.

Not one of us wants to see our servicemen and women in harm’s way a day
longer than they have to be. And that’s why we must find the most  
responsible
way to bring them home as quickly as possible, while still leaving  
the foundation
of a secure Iraq that will not endanger the free world.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized. The
Senator has 14 minutes 47 seconds remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is time for American troops to come
home. That was the judgment of the Senate last year. Last year, by a  
vote
of 79 to 19, we adopted on a bipartisan basis an amendment written  
largely by
the Senator from Michigan but amended and then cosponsored by the  
Senator
from Virginia. It was a bipartisan amendment. By 79 to 19, we said  
last year that
this year would be different. This just would not be another year, it  
would be
a year of significant transition, and we were specific about what  
that transition
meant. It meant that the Iraqis would be moving toward control of
their own nation. It meant that their forces would take the lead.  
Those were
our words—‘‘take the lead’’—in defending their country. It meant that we
would create the condition for phased redeployment—that is,  
withdrawal of
U.S. forces. That is how we voted last year, 79 to 19.

Today, we are now debating again whether American forces can start to
come home. I thought we already decided that last year, that this  
would be
the year when they start to come home.

Senator LEVIN brings an amendment to the Senate and says again, as we  
did
last year, we will start redeploying or withdrawing American forces  
this year.
What do we hear from the other side of the aisle? The same  
Republicans, many
of whom voted to start bringing troops ho e this year, now resist the  
idea.
Is that because Iraq is stronger today? Unfortunately, the statistics do
not suggest it. The news reports from the New York Times tells us in May
2003, there were five recorded incidents of sectarian violence. In  
May of 2004,
10; in May of 2005, 20; in May of 2006, 250.

To suggest that Iraq is stronger this year, a year later, is at least  
subject to
debate. But this much we do know: We know we are paying a price every  
single
day. The heartbreaking newscasts we listen to are of our men and women,
our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters who continue to die  
in Iraq,
as they simply drive their vehicles down the road or stand and guard  
a security
installation, 2,508 of our best and bravest who have died.

The obvious question is, When will this end? The Bush administration,
what plan do they have? No end in sight for the way they view it. I  
listened
to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say the Iraqis will take
control in the future. This is the fourth year we have been told that  
the Iraqis
will stand up and defend their own country. We are told they have  
260,000
soldiers and police prepared to defend their own country, ready to  
fight.

You know when I will believe that? When the first American soldier comes
home, replaced by an Iraqi soldier. That has not happened yet. We are
about to send 21,000 more American soldiers over to fight in rotation to
keep 130,000 on the ground. If these Iraqi forces are so well trained  
and so
well prepared, why are we sending another 21,000? I don’t think we  
can explain
that.

I think we know what this is about. We are facing a situation in Iraq  
today
where the Iraqis have the wrong message from America. The Iraqis believe
that they can wait, patiently wait, until the day comes when they defend
their own country. And why not? They have the best
military in the world, the American military, in place defending  
their country.
They have the American taxpayers paying for that defense. They  
understand
we are prepared to invest those resources, and they think it will be  
indefinite.

Nothing we are going to do on the floor of this U.S. Senate will
change that point of view, unless we adopt the Levin amendment which  
says
we will begin to withdraw the forces, redeploy the forces, this year.
There has been a lot of criticism on the floor that the party on the  
other
side of the aisle, the Republicans, is all unified and the Democrats  
cannot seem
to all agree on anything. I do not know what the vote will be on the  
Levin
amendment. I think it will be a substantial vote within the Democratic
caucus. But our critics are wrong. Mr. President, 100 percent of the
Democratic caucus believes it is time for change. And 100 percent of  
the Republican
caucus believes it is time to stay the course, not change. They
stand unified for the premise that we will not demand accountability.  
They
stand unified for the premise that we will not have any change.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired.

Mr. DURBIN. I think the American people understand, as we do, that it is
time for us to say to the Iraqis: Stand and defend your own nation.  
Let American
soldiers start coming home.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20060627/7975b07b/attachment.htm