February 05, 2007

Full Text of Powerful Lieberman Speech that Helped Stop the Senate Anti-Surge Resolution

The Senate resolution repudiating the surge appears to have failed:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan resolution repudiating President George W. Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq failed to advance in the U.S. Senate on Monday, dealing a serious setback to critics of the war.

The resolution needed 60 votes before the 100-member Senate could begin debate, but it got 49, with 47 voting against. Although it would not have been binding on the president, the measure was the first serious effort in Congress to confront Bush over the unpopular Iraq war.

Notice how Reuters characterizes the Senate's action: "partisan wrangling over the limits and terms of the Iraq war debate:" 

The proposal, sponsored by Virginia Republican John Warner and Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, fell victim to partisan wrangling over the limits and terms of the Iraq war debate. The measure could still be revived, but the way ahead was unclear.

They describe it as "partisan wrangling." Yet the very next line in the Reuters piece is a typical MSM CYA sentence, acknowledging that very important issues were discussed. 

Opponents said the resolution was a thinly disguised political slap at Bush that would dishearten U.S. troops and signal American disunity.

A speech against the resolution, powerfully expressing these tremendously important issues, was given by Sen. Joe Lieberman. It was forwarded to this site by Cheryl Felicia Rhoads, under the heading,  "God Bless Joe Lieberman!" (No link yet.)

A Critical Crossroad

Senator Joseph Lieberman (D., Conn.) delivered this speech on the  Senate floor on the evening of Monday, February 5.

Mr. President, our nation has reached a critical crossroad in the war in Iraq. More than four years ago, this chamber voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein, a tyrant who slaughtered his own people, attacked his neighbors, and threatened our security. Thanks to the courageous service of the men and women of our military, that evil regime was overthrown. And in its place came hopes of democracy in the heart of the Middle East and a victory in the war for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.

As of today, those hopes have not been realized. Because of the ruthless conduct of our enemies, as well as our own failures, we instead today find ourselves on a knife’s edge in Iraq.

Now, a new course has been chosen. A new commander is in place in Iraq, confirmed by this Senate. A new Secretary of Defense is in place at the Pentagon, confirmed by this Senate. And a new strategy has begun to be put into action on the ground in Iraq by our troops.

It is altogether proper that we debate our policy in Iraq. It should be a debate that is as serious as the situation in Iraq and that reflects the powers the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war.

But that, sadly, is not the debate that the Warner-Levin resolution invites us to have. I am going to speak strongly against this resolution because I feel strongly about it. I do so with respect for my colleagues who have offered it, but I believe its passage would so compromise America’s security, present and future, that I will say so in the clearest terms I can.

The resolution before us, its sponsors concede, will not stop the new strategy from going forward. As we speak, thousands of troops are already in Baghdad, with thousands more moving into position to carry out their Commander’s orders. This resolution does nothing to alter these facts.

Instead, its sponsors say it will send a message of rebuke from the Senate to the president, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. But there is a world beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is watching and listening.

What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America’s will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.

This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.

For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.

If you believe that General Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then you should resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead. On the other hand, if you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless in Iraq, then you should vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for American withdrawal. If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution.

The non-binding measure before us, by contrast, is an accumulation of ambiguities and inconsistencies. It is at once for the war but also against the war. It pledges its support to the troops in the field but also washes its hands of what they are doing. It approves more troops for Anbar but not for Baghdad.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief.

Cynics may say this kind of thing happens all of the time in Congress. In this case, however, they are wrong. If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week and was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm’s way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.

I ask each of my colleagues to stop for a moment and consider this history carefully. Even during Vietnam, even after the Tet Offensive, even after the invasion of Cambodia, Congress did not take up a resolution like this one.

Past Congresses certainly debated wars. They argued heatedly about them. And they clashed directly with the Executive Branch over their execution. But in doing so they accepted the consequences of their convictions.

This resolution does no such thing. It is simply an expression of opinion. It does not pretend to have any substantive effect on policy on the ground in Iraq.

But again, I ask you: what will this resolution say to our soldiers? What will it say to our allies? And what will it say to our enemies?

We heard from General Petraeus during his confirmation hearing that war is a battle of wills. Our enemies believe that they are winning in Iraq today. They believe that they can outlast us; that, sooner or later, we will tire of this grinding conflict and go home. That is the lesson that Osama bin Laden took from our retreats from Lebanon and Somalia in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a belief at the core of the insurgency in Iraq, and at the core of radical Islam worldwide. And this resolution—by codifying our disunity, by disavowing the mission our troops are about to undertake—confirms our enemies’ belief in American weakness.

This resolution also sends a terrible message to our allies. I agree that we must hold the Iraqi government to account. That is exactly what the resolution Senator McCain and I have offered would do. But I ask you: Imagine for a moment that you are a Sunni or Shia politician in Baghdad who wants the violence to end—and ask yourself how the Warner-Levin resolution will affect your thinking, your calculations of risk, your willingness to stand against the forces of extremism. Every day, you are threatened by enemies who want nothing but to inflict the most brutal imaginable horrors on you and your loved ones. Will this resolution empower you, or will it undermine you? Will it make you feel safer, or will it make you feel you should hedge your bets, or go over to the extremists, or leave the country?

And finally, what is the message this resolution sends to our soldiers? I know that everyone here supports our troops—but actions have consequences, often unintended. When we send a message of irresolution, it does not support our troops. When we renounce their mission, it does not support our troops.

We heard recently in the Senate Armed Services Committee from General Jack Keane, who said of this resolution. “It’s just not helpful… What the enemy sees is an erosion of the political and moral will of the American people… Our soldiers are Americans first. They clearly understand there’s a political process in this country that they clearly support… But at the end of the day, they are going to go out and do a tough mission, and I certainly would like to see them supported in that mission as opposed to declaring non-support....”

Everyone here knows that the American people are frustrated about the lack of progress in Iraq. Everyone here shares that frustration. And as elected representatives of the people, everyone here feels pressure to give expression to that frustration.

This is not a new challenge. It is one that every democracy in every long, difficult war has had to confront.

Nearly a century and a half ago, at a site not far from here, an American president wrestled with just this problem. It was in the midst of a terrible war—a civil war—in which hundreds of thousands of Americans were fighting and dying to secure the freedom of millions long and cruelly denied it.

“We here highly resolve…”—that was Lincoln’s message at Gettysburg. It was a message of resolution, of conviction against adversity, of hope against despair, and of confidence in the cause of freedom, which is America’s cause.

Today, in the depths of a terrible war, on the brink of a decisive battle for Baghdad, let us have a serious debate about where we stand and where we must go in Iraq. That is the debate we should have—but it is not the debate that this resolution would bring.

The sixty vote requirement to close debate was put in place by our predecessors as a way to stop the passions of the moment from sweeping across our country and through Congress in a way that will jeopardize our future. Because I believe this resolution, if passed, would have such an effect, I will respectfully oppose the motion for cloture.

I thank the President and yield the floor.

433 Foreigners Arrested in Saudi Arabia for Partying - 20 Get Jail Time

"20 Face Lash for Dancing in Saudi Arabia:"

Saudi Court Orders Lashing, Jail for 20 Foreigners for Drinking and Dancing at Mixed Party

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia Feb 4, 2007 (AP)— A Saudi Arabian judge sentenced 20 foreigners to receive lashes and spend several months in prison after convicting them of attending a party where alcohol was served and men and women danced, a newspaper reported Sunday.

The defendants were among 433 foreigners, including some 240 women, arrested by the kingdom's religious police for attending the party in Jiddah, the state-guided newspaper Okaz said. It did not identify the foreigners, give their nationalities or say when the party took place.

Judge Saud al-Boushi sentenced the 20 to prison terms of three to four months and ordered them to receive an unspecified number of lashes, the newspaper said. They have the right to appeal, it added.

That's right -- Saudi Arabia has "religious police" who arrest you for breaking Sharia law. Isn't it great that the Saudis are financing so many schools here in the U.S., teaching Muslim kids about Sharia law?

From Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer's web site:

At Judiciary Hearing, Schumer details how top officials in the Saudi government help finance schools and mosques in the US and Middle East that spread militant teachings

From Reza F. Safa, author of "Inside Islam:"

Of the more than 1,200 mosques in America, more than 80 percent have been built within the last 20 years - thanks in large part to Saudi money, according to Reza F. Safa, author of "Inside Islam."

"Saudi Arabia alone has spent $87 billion since 1973 to spread Islam throughout the United States and the Western hemisphere," Safa said.

From the 60+ Congressional sponsors and co-sponsors who introduced H.R. 2037: Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2005:

To halt Saudi support for institutions that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism, and to secure full Saudi cooperation in the investigation of terrorist incidents, and for other purposes.

...(5) A report released on January 28, 2005 by Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom found that Saudi Arabia is the state most responsible for the propagation of material promoting hatred, intolerance, and violence within United States mosques and Islamic centers, and that these publications are often official publications of a Saudi ministry or distributed by the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, D.C.

From counterterrorism expert Harvey Kushner, author of "Holy War on the The Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States:"

In 1997, there were over a hundred Islamic day schools and more than a thousand Sunday or weekend schools in the United States, many of them affiliated with mosques, all expanding the reach of Wahhabi doctrine.

For years, mainstream America wasn't watching what was taught in Islamic religious schools, but 9/11 put these learning institutions in the spotlight. The USA Patriot Act allowed the government to look into mosques for the first time. What investigators found was very disturbing. The Saudis, either directly or through intermediary groups such as the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), are pouring "truckloads" of money into American mosques and schools, New York Senator Charles Schumer told a congressional subcommittee." In exchange, they demand that these mosques and schools toe the Wahhabi line. Saudi textbooks that preach violence against infidels can be found in some American Muslim schools."

In February 2003, the American Jewish Committee and the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace released an analysis of ninety-three textbooks published by the Saudi Ministry of Education and used between 1999 and 2002. The books, American Jewish Committee Executive Director David A. Harris told a congressional committee, "reveal a widespread presence of contempt towards Western civilization and followers of other religions.

According to the study the teachings include:

• Islam is the only true religion.
• Saudi Arabia is the leader of the Muslim world.
• Christians and Jews are infidels.
• The West is a "decaying society" and the source of Muslim misfortunes.
• There can be no peace between Muslims and non-Muslims.
• Jews are wicked
• Israel does not exist on world maps.

...It is of little comfort that, in defense of the books, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal told CBS's 60 Minutes that "85 percent of what was being taught in the schools was not hateful."

Oh, only 15 percent of what is being taught in Islamic day schools in the U.S. is hateful, per the Saudi Foreign Minister. What a great relief that is.