And it is the Democrat party, led by Sen Schumer. How anyone can get up on the Senate floor and call our troops incompetent boobs in so many words, is beyond me. This is what treason is. What has happen to the Democrat party?
Schumer is a liar.
Chuck Schumer has to be one of, if not the most despicable politician in Washington. Senate floor quote September 5, 2007 ...
Absolutely despicable.
How can you hate your country this much? The Democrats are so invested in the defeat of their own country they have no choice but "all-in". You have to wonder, what level of deranged hate must you sink to find yourself in this position. These people voted to approve this new general, every one of them. They voted to promote him to a four star. They voted to fully fund the operation. Now a few short months into the operation, they pronounce it failed and call our troops incompetent and the reason for failure. The level of disgust for these people is beyond words.
Hate is blind, and all consuming, it truly is.
The only thing that counts is Gen Petraeus' report, and of course Katie Couric's analysis :^)
Full Text: Schumer's Remarks on Senate Floor, September 5, 2007
[Page: S11090]
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing efforts of this administration to paint a rosy picture and to cling to straws when the situation on the ground and common sense suggest just the opposite.
Some have argued that the surge in Iraq is working, but all you have to do is look at the facts to know that is not the case. The President went to Anbar Province, which at the moment he is touting as a place of success, but we all know what is happening in Iraq. Many other provinces are in terrible shape. In Iraq, in a certain sense, when you push on one end of the balloon and make things a little better, something pops out at another end.
The fallacy of the President's new policy is amazing. Are we placing our faith in the future of Iraq in the hands of some warlords, some tribal leaders who at the moment dislike al-Qaida more than they dislike us? Make no mistake about it: They are no friends of Americans. Is this the vaunted clarion cry for democracy in the Middle East that the President announced when he started the buildup in Iraq? Obviously not. This is a policy of last resort. This is a policy of desperation. To say at the moment that some warlords in one province in Iraq happen to be shooting at al-Qaida when 6 months from now they could easily turn around and resume shooting at Americans, which they did in the past, is nothing to base a policy on. What kind of policy is it? What are the odds that 6 months from now, the fragile and perilous situation in Anbar will reverse itself and collapse? We have heard of success stories every 6 or 8 months: This province, this town, this city--they are clear, they are safe. Then, because of the basic facts on the ground, we revert to the old situation.
Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al-Qaida said to these tribes: we have to fight al-Qaida ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here; it was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here, and that is because there was no one else there protecting them.
As I said, we have heard about successes in the past. They are temporary. They are not based on any permanent structural change or any permanent change in the views of Iraqi citizens. We have heard about success in Baghdad. We have heard about success in Fallujah. We have heard about success in this province and that province, and it vanishes like the wind. So now, at a time when the people of America are crying out for a change in course, are some going to base a temporary situation in one province--Anbar--based on a few warlords who don't believe in democracy and who don't like America, as a way to continue the present misguided policy? It makes no sense.
It makes no sense because the fundamentals in Iraq stay the same. There is no central government that has any viability. The Shiites, the Kurds, and the Sunnis dislike one another far more than they like or want any central government, and these two facts doom the administration's policy to failure. Only 7 or 8 months ago when the President began the surge, he said it was to give the present Government breathing room, to strengthen the Maliki government. Today, we have more troops, more military patrols, more death, and the Iraqi Government grows weaker. How can we regard the Bush-Petraeus surge as a success when its central goal--to strengthen the Government--has failed? Again, more troops, more American deaths this summer than any other, and yet the Government is weaker, when the very purpose of the surge was to strengthen the Government and, in the President's words, to give it breathing room. By the President's own words, the Government is suffocating while the surge goes on. It doesn't have breathing room.
Why isn't it apparent to the President? Why isn't it apparent to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the stated goal of the surge is failing? Strengthening the central government has not happened. As the surge and the number of troops goes up, the strength of the central government goes down. That equation says failure in the Bush-Petraeus surge.
The goal is not a military goal. In the President's own words, it is to give the Government of Iraq greater stability, greater breathing room, and that Government, by just about every standard, is worse off than it was before. Again, because a few warlords and tribal leaders are now temporarily on our side for the moment, even though they are not loyal to us, they don't like us and they dislike the central government, that is why we should continue the present course in Iraq? It makes no sense.
Then those on the other side of the President say, give us a chance; you are already declaring defeat. If this were 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or maybe even 2006, maybe those words would have some resonance with the American people. But there has been new plan after new plan, new hope after new hope, and they all are dashed within months. Why? Why? Again, because the fundamentals on the ground don't change. The Kurds, the Shiites, the Sunnis dislike one another more than they like any central government.
If you look at the benchmarks, they show that. The independent GAO report showed little progress being made in meeting the 18 military and political benchmarks set out by Congress. The draft report from last week showed only three of the benchmarks had been met. However, over the weekend, the Pentagon revised the report and now miraculously an additional four benchmarks were ``partially met.'' Despite the apparent efforts by the Pentagon to edit this independent report, it will sadly take much more than a red pen to correct the failures of the President's Iraq policy.
So the surge, by the President's own stated goal, has failed. The central government is weaker. The fundamentals on the ground continue to deteriorate. There continues to be no loyalty to a central government in Iraq and no loyalty to Maliki, who seems to almost revel in his incompetence. The bottom line is very simple: We are worse off, not better off, not even the same, in Iraq today than we were 6 months ago. The position of America, the position of democracy, the position of stability, continues to erode.
If there was ever a need for a change of course in Iraq, it is now. I plead with my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. You know we have to change course. The President has thrown you this magical sort of temporary solution--Anbar Province. Don't be fooled. It is no different than Fallujah was a few years ago, or Baghdad, or all of these other ``successes.'' They are not successes because the facts on the ground are the same.
The American people--three-quarters--cry out for a change of course in Iraq. The President doesn't hear them. The President doesn't look at the facts on the ground. The very same fallacies that led us into this war--that there were weapons of mass destruction and Iraq was at the center of a nexus of terrorism--are now blinding my colleagues on the other side of the aisle from changing course in Iraq--the same types of false statements and pretenses. It is time to change course for the sake of the soldiers who are valiantly defending us; for the sake of moving on and having America focus on other international problems and not have them be exacerbated by the war in Iraq; for the sake of the $500 billion to $600 billion we spent that could be spent here on education and health care and infrastructure; for the sake, ultimately, of the greatness of this great country of ours, we must change course in Iraq. We must do it now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
