We are in a War Against a Hostile and Ferocious Enemy that will Stop at Nothing
By Congressman Roy Blunt Posted in Congressional Contributors | War — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Author's Note: This is a speech I gave today on the House floor during the opening minutes of debate on the Democrats’ non-binding resolution on Iraq. You can also watch the video at my youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RepRoyBlunt
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution. General Petraeus said a resolution like this would discourage the troops, and the Secretary of Defense said a resolution like this would embolden the enemy. This Congress should be doing neither of these things.
What this resolution will not do is take a position on what we should do as we face the challenge of our generation.
Read on below the fold.
President Johnson was criticized a generation ago and still today for choosing bombing sites in Vietnam. He was the Commander in Chief; yet he should have left those tactical choices to the military. But his actions made infinitely more sense than this. It’s hard to imagine a group less capable of making tactical decisions about specific troop deployment than 535 Members of Congress.
The resolution today is about the exact number of troops. Will the one tomorrow or next week be a vote on which block in Baghdad to target or which car to stop?
And, of course, today what we debate is a tactic in the greater fight we are in. The new Commanding General has determined this surge is the right course of action. The Iraq Study Group was supportive of "a short term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective."
Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that the current situation in Iraq cannot continue. That is why the president has advanced a new way forward.
Actions do have consequences. But the resolution the Democrats advance today is a vote for the status quo. It’s a vote for the current strategy because it’s a vote not to change strategy.
The current strategy isn’t working, and as a Southwest Missourian told me yesterday: "We are there." He went on to say, "It really doesn’t matter how we got there or what we thought. We are in a fight that won’t stop if we leave."
The fact of the matter is that Congress does have the power to end the war – if it has the political will to do so.
Almost twenty-four years ago, in November 1983, the Congress voted for withdrawal from Lebanon by March of 1984. Many of the proponents of today’s resolution voted then to leave. They lost 153 to 274, but the message was sent, and we left anyway, and when we left, the myth of American weakness began to take hold in al Qaeda.
The language of this non-binding resolution doesn’t tackle the tough issues of war. It tries to have it both ways: disapproving the tactics but supporting the troops. It doesn’t say we will fund the troops in the future or not fund the troops. It doesn’t say we will supply troops in the future or not supply the troops. This resolution says just enough to not say anything at all.
Americans should see this move for what it really is – a political first step to cutting off funding for the dangerous mission our troops face.
The truth is we are in a war against a hostile and ferocious enemy that will stop at nothing. Imagine how this debate this week bolsters these radical terrorists whose sole goal is to destroy America because we disprove, as no society ever has, the dogma of religious totalitarianism that they use every day to recruit followers and funders and suicide bombers.
Our diversity, our ability to live together, and the prosperity and vitality that are the result have produced the enemies we face today. As long as we live as we do, they must be wrong.
This week, this Congress will send the signal to those enemies, and to those who fight to protect us from them, that America has the will and indeed the courage to continue fighting these Islamic totalitarians --- or that we do not take the consequences of failure seriously.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
I am not sure whether you are talking about the insurgents or how far the Democrats will go to empower themselves at our nation's expense.
Either way, I am glad that you stand up for what is right rather than what is politically expedient.
Thank you Congressman
__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
There is one paragraph that struck me as off-key, however.
Our diversity, our ability to live together, and the prosperity and vitality that are the result have produced the enemies we face today. As long as we live as we do, they must be wrong.
I do not think that our diversity has caused our prosperity and vitality; rather, our intentional, premeditated will to be a nation of individuals has led to diversity and vitality, and vitality to prosperity. The friction caused by diversity is merely the price we pay for freedom. But it is true that the enemy hates our diversity, which he would homogenize.
I believe that diversity is not a worthy goal in and of itself; rather the most American goal is the avoidance of enforced sameness.
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
Freedom to allow people to allocate their own resources with very little government regulation and interference is what has resulted in our properity. Government is the single greatest obstacle to prosperity. In general, the more freedom that people have to decide how they will spend their time, efforts, and resources (i.e., the fewer government regulations that prevent this), the more efficient and prosperous society will be.
One of the things that often seems to perplex liberals is why poor rural people tend to vote overwhelmingly for Republicans. After all, they are poor and liberals are 100% in favor of wealth redistribution. The answer is that most rural people want freedom much more than they want money. They want less government in their lives.
The bottom line is that the liberal believes the government needs to step in and make decisions for people because most people are too stupid to make them for themselves. The conservative believes in giving people freedom to make their own decisions, even if in some situations those decisions are bad. Collectively, society is better off when people are free.
What was Hillary doing during this speech...?
Filing her claws... um, I mean, nails?
Were ANY of the Democrats even listening?
"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."
Republican who thinks there will be no political cost if he/she supports this classic piece of political posturing by the Democrats is sadly mistaken.
We elephants have excellent memories and act on them.
We are in a War Against a Hostile and Ferocious Enemy that will Stop at Nothing
I completely agree with you! However, is it wise for a sitting Representative to call the Democrats "the enemy?"
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
When the Khmer Rouge was approaching Phnom Penh to bring it the "peace" that Sen. Dodd thought they should have, the US Ambassador wrote to a Cambodia official, Sirik Matak, to offer to take him with them when the US personnel departed. Matak declined, and wrote this letter:
Dear Excellency and Friend, I thank you very sincerely for your letter and your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people, which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it. You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is too bad, because we are all born and must die one day. I have committed this mistake of believing in you, the Americans.
The Khmer Rouge shot Matak in the stomach. He took three days to die. How many Sirik Mataks will we leave behind in Iraq if we cut and run?
in front of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 22 Apr 1971, John Kerry stated:
" But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assassination or something else. But my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country-""
From Free Vietnam article: the site for the death toll killed by the Communists is at the end of this Free Vietnam article.
http://www.matus1976.com/politics/vietnam/free_vietnam.htm
"The North Vietnamese communist governments and its proxies killed 7.5 million people since 1975. In the four year period starting at the fall of Saigon, more people were killed in Indochina then Americans have been killed in all their wars combined. "
The 2000 or 3000 figure that John Kerry stated was a joke.
John Kerry nor any of his antiAmerican supporters, cared how many people; that America has promised protection to, died in Indochina.
The same callous indifference to what happens to our allies, the people who will die because they believed our promises, in Iraq and the Middle East is evident in every word and action of the American left today.
The 2000 or 3000 figure that John Kerry stated was a joke.
What is it with Kerry and his jokes?
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
these two particular paragraphs for just a moment:
Actions do have consequences. But the resolution the Democrats advance today is a vote for the status quo. It’s a vote for the current strategy because it’s a vote not to change strategy.
The current strategy isn’t working, and as a Southwest Missourian told me yesterday: "We are there." He went on to say, "It really doesn’t matter how we got there or what we thought. We are in a fight that won’t stop if we leave."
It should be clear to even a casual observer of the current Iraq debate that the left, what appears to be a sizeable majority of congressional Democrats, and a handful of congressional Republicans are now heavily invested in our defeat. However, the "status quo" will not produce the failure they seek.
To this "more-than-casual-observer" of the Iraq debate, it's obvious they are terrified that The Surge™ may actually produce tangible results the American people could perceive as “a-path-to-victory,” or at least, could be considered as being “on-the-right-track.”
Which leads me to my next point:
The current strategy is actually working, albeit, not up to the unrealistic expectations generated by the 24hr news cycle and the Partisan Press.
The president's decision to forcefully secure Bagdad, modest changes in the Rules of Engagement, and the recent decision to openly confront Iran's involvement in Iraq appear to be tactical adjustments that were made in response to changing conditions on the ground, rather than any substantial changes made to the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.
And following that in vein, the Democrats’ favorite TalkingPoint™ regarding Iraq, “the current strategy has failed,” is a critical point that must not be conceded during this crucial debate, because....“it just isn’t so.”
It's true, "Actions do have consequences." But, it's also true, "Words have meaning." Please, don't lend credibility to their KnownFacts™ during this most important national security debate.
***
On a lighter note:
"It really doesn’t matter how we got there or what we thought. We are in a fight that won’t stop if we leave."
I know you must be very proud of the Southwest Missourian that said this, and I’m assuming he/she is one of your constituents and someone you can call a friend.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Congressman Blunt, good to see you on RedState. I'm one of your constituents, and a loyal voter. I'm also the guy who published the NewsLeader editorial a couple of weeks ago saying more or less what you've said on this topic. Keep up the good work, and fight the good fight.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
With a speech like that, I have never been more proud that you are my representative in Congress.
You, seem to understand Iraq, the resolution being debated and its real world impact (see Lebonese pull out).
I hope to see more follow suit.
I pray that this resolution will not pass with "bipartisan support" but will be seen for what it is.
Thank you.