Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
On The FY2007
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill
March 27, 2007
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this emergency
supplemental bill has been long anticipated as the best opportunity to
finally begin the belated process of extracting our military forces from
the quagmire of Iraq.
As one of the 23 Senators who opposed the
authorization of the use of military force, I have supported every
credible proposal to end this debacle and bring our troops home.
This war was not about September 11th.
It was not about al Qaeda. It was not about making our nation safer.
While no one can prove a negative, I believe that the damage this war
has done to our national security, our national interests and our
international standing has been incalculable. The injustices
perpetrated at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have tarnished our national
reputation and leadership, and the way that Iraq has become a rallying
cry for religious extremists has made our country and the American
people less safe. I believe historians and future generations will look
back on this war as among the most reckless, costly mistakes made by any
President in our Nation’s history.
This Supplemental contains another $96 billion to
support U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I supported
the use of military force to remove the Taliban from power, and I
support the continued efforts of our military and NATO forces against
the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But I did not, do not, and
will not agree with the use of the U.S. military in a fruitless effort
to end a civil war in Iraq.
This bill also contains money to help the people of
Lebanon rebuild after the devastating war between Hezbollah and Israel
last year, aid for refugees in Darfur, the Congo, Uganda, and other
humanitarian crises, and to prevent the spread of avian influenza. It
contains resources to help Kosovo as it moves toward independence, for
Liberia to rebuild after the civil war, and to support the peace process
in Nepal which finally has the chance to shed its feudal past. It
contains a provision I sponsored, with the support of both Republicans
and Democrats, to fix the illogical and unfair provisions in the
Immigration and Nationalization Act that have been used to prevent
victims of terrorist groups or members of groups who fought along side
the United States from admission as refugees or from obtaining asylum.
As the chair of the Senate’s Subcommittee on State,
Foreign Operations and Related Programs, I am also pleased to report
that this bill includes, for the first time, benchmarks on
reconstruction assistance for Iraq. After billions of dollars spent on
no bid contracts plagued by rampant fraud and shoddy workmanship, it is
about time that we put an end to the practice of handing out money with
no strings attached. These benchmarks reflect what the Iraqi Government
itself has pledged, and what even President Bush has acknowledged is
necessary if the Iraq Government is to succeed in bringing stability to
that country.
There is much in this bill that I support. Despite
that, I do not support the funding to continue the military operations
in Iraq, and I will vote against this bill unless it contains the
provision setting a date for the withdrawal of our forces. This
provision is similar to legislation that narrowly lost in the Senate
last week. I voted for it then and I will vote for it again.
The withdrawal provision in this bill is not, in
some respects, as definitive as what passed the House by the slimmest of
margins last Friday. Had it been up to me I would have written it
differently. I wanted a deadline not only for commencing the withdrawal
of our forces but also for completing it, rather than a target date. I
have cosponsored legislation that contains such a deadline. But this
provision represents a ninety-degree change of course from the
President’s policy of escalation. It is our best hope of obtaining the
50 votes needed to begin that process. I am confident that once the
withdrawal of our troops is underway there will be no turning back.
We must remove our troops from Iraq’s civil war.
The arguments for doing so have been made eloquently, including by
former senior military officers whose credibility is unimpeachable.
Retired Lieutenant General William Odom, in an op-ed piece in the
February 11th edition of the Washington Post, said it
better than I ever could. It is the only way that the Iraqis will make
the difficult political compromises that could save their country from
further destruction.
The President has threatened to veto this bill if
the troop withdrawal provision is included. That is not surprising for
a White House that has stubbornly refused to change course even in the
face of dwindling support from the American people whose sons and
daughters are dying.
For more than four years, President Bush, Vice
President Cheney, and former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, backed by a
rubberstamp Congress, made one incompetent decision after another,
arrogantly insisting that they knew best and dismissing anyone who so
much as questioned their policy for “not supporting the troops.” It has
been reminiscent of the old “soft on Communism” or “soft on drugs”
refrains that were used and still are used for political purposes to
justify failed policies.
None of us should be intimidated by those bankrupt
and worn out arguments. None of us should have confidence in a failed
war effort that has already wrought an enormous toll in American blood,
treasure and credibility. Not after the fiasco this White House has
wrought. It is time for the Congress to act as the voices and the
conscience of the American people.
# # # # #
