Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island gave the Democratic response to the President’s speech.
Good evening.
I’m Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island, and I was privileged to serve in the United States Army for 12 years.
I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. It was a flawed strategy that diverted attention and resources away from hunting down Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network.
Okay, this is a pretty good start, but invading Iraq can’t really be called a strategy. A strategy for what? It might have been a strategy for ending the sanctions on Iraq so we could go in there and pump some oil, but it wasn’t a strategy in any normal military sense of the word. Reed shouldn’t call it a strategy, flawed or otherwise.
And since then, too often, the President’s Iraq policies have worsened America’s security. Hundreds of billions have been spent. Our military is strained. Over 27,000 Americans have been wounded, and over 3,700 of our best and brightest have been killed.
Tonight, a nation eager for change in Iraq heard the President speak about his plans for the future. But once again, the President failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it.
So true. But that doesn’t mean that he won’t get his money…does it?
The President rightfully invoked the valor of our troops in his speech, but his plan does not amount to real change. Soldiers take a solemn oath to protect our nation, and we have a solemn responsibility to send them into battle only with clear and achievable missions.
And, I presume, you have a solemn duty to take them out of battle for the same reasons.
Tonight, the President provided neither.
As a former Army officer, I know the great sacrifices our soldiers and their families make. Our military can defeat any foe on the battlefield. Yet, as General Petraeus has repeatedly stated, Iraq’s fundamental problems are not military, they are political. The only way to create a lasting peace in Iraq is for Iraqi leaders to negotiate a settlement of their long-standing differences.
Invoking General Petraeus for added credibility is a dubious exercise. We’d all like to respect our generals, but even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs thinks Petraeus is a “an ass-kissing little chickensh*t“, and he added, “I hate people like that”. Petraeus is a lobbyist for more war…not a credible source for what is going on in Iraq.
When the President launched the “surge” in January, he told us that its purpose was to provide Iraqi leaders with the time to make that political progress. But now, nine months into the surge, the President’s own advisers tell us that Iraq’s leaders have not, and are not likely to do so. Meanwhile, thousands of brave Americans remain in the crossfire of another country’s civil war.
So, this means you will refuse to fund the war?
So tonight, we find ourselves at a critical moment.
Do we continue to heed the President’s call that all Iraq needs is more time, more money, and the indefinite presence of 130,000 American troops — the same number as nine months ago? Or do we follow what is in our nation’s best interest and redefine our mission in Iraq?
Redefining the mission must mean a plan to get out? Right?
Democrats believe it is time to change course. We think it’s wrong that the President tells us there’s not enough money for our veterans and children’s health care because he is spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. We have put forth a plan to responsibly and rapidly begin a reduction of our troops. Our proposal can not erase the mistakes of the last four and a half years, but we can chart a better way forward.
Beginning a reduction of the troops doesn’t sound like anything more than the President has proposed.
That is why our plan focuses on counter-terrorism and training the Iraqi army. It engages in diplomacy to bring warring factions to the table and addresses regional issues that inflame the situation. It begins a responsible and rapid redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. And it returns our focus to those who seek to do us harm: Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
Oooh. You meant the Baker-Hamilton report all along. Why didn’t you say that at the outset? That is not a plan for getting out of Iraq.
An endless and unlimited military presence in Iraq is not an option. Democrats and Republicans in Congress and throughout the nation can not and must not stand idly by while our interests throughout the world are undermined and our Armed Forces are stretched toward the breaking point.
If an endless military presence in Iraq is not an option then why are you going to pay for it?
We intend to exercise our Constitutional duties and profoundly change our military involvement in Iraq. We ask Americans of good will of whatever party to join with us in this historic effort to restore the strength and security of the United States. I urge the President to listen to the American people and work with Congress to start bringing our troops home and develop a new policy that is truly worthy of their sacrifices.
Thank you.
I really wish you would exercise your constitutional duties and impeach and convict the President and the Vice-President. But you have no intention of doing anything but passing some toothless amendments to a war supplemental bill that will not end this war and compel the President to do anything substantively different than he’s done since the last supplemental funding bill. You know it, I know it, and a smattering of people that actually pay attention know it.
Overall, I thought Reed’s speech was forceful and excellently presented. But it doesn’t change the fact that there is only one way to end this war and that is to refuse to pay for it. You have the votes if you don’t vote.
