' William F. Buckley echoes these sentiments. Just last month he wrote, and I quote, "The day has to come and the advent of that day has to be heralded when we say that our part of the job is done as well as it can be done. It is an Iraqi responsibility to move on to wherever Iraq intends to go." '
Followed by Q&A. http://snurl.com/bipartiraqnwsconf
Date: 6/16/2005 Publication: Washington Transcript Service
SPEAKERS: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE WALTER JONES (R-NC) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (R-TX) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NEIL ABERCROMBIE (D-HI)
[*]
ABERCROMBIE: Aloha, everybody. I'm Neil Abercrombie from Hawaii, the 1st district in Hawaii. Those of you would want to interview me on Waikiki (ph), you can raise your hands and we'll see if we can get that arranged.
I'm here with Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, Walter Jones of North Carolina and Ron Paul of Texas. And we'll begin with Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
JONES: Thank you, Neil. I want to thank everyone standing up here today for coming together on this important resolution. As you see, the four of us here today represent the whole political spectrum, from a liberal to a conservative, and a moderate to a libertarian. Though each of my friends here today brings a different perspective to the table, we all have reached the same conclusion on the importance of this resolution. What we all agree on is that it is time for a public discussion of our goals and the future of our military involvement in Iraq. This resolution does no more than call on the president to set a plan and a date to begin reducing the number of troops we have in Iraq. It does not set a date certain for complete withdrawal, but rather calls on the president to begin drawing down our military involvement by October 1 of 2006. The exact number of troops that come home at that time are left to the commander in chief's discretion. This approach gives the president the flexibility he needs to reduce our presence in a way that protects U.S. troops and allows Iraqis to defend their country. No one is talking about cutting and running.
This is the appropriate action to take for our troops, for our national security, and for the Iraqi people. America faces many other threats that can easily escalate into conflicts that require military action. Iraq's neighbor Iran is a constant nuclear threat. A madman ruling North Korea has openly admitted to having nuclear weapons. The American economy is constantly losing jobs to communist China, which is using its booming economy to rapidly expand its military and threaten Taiwan and other Asian allies. We also need more protection at our own borders, where every week over 16,000 illegal aliens cross the Mexican-American border. Any one of those 16,000 could be a terrorist prepared to attack us on our own soil.
These concerns and threats are reasons why we need a gradual reduction of our presence in Iraq so that our military, which is the most potent fighting force in the world, is ready to address these other threats.
Our military has done an magnificent job accomplishing our goals in Iraq. They have eliminated an evil man known as Saddam Hussein. They have given the Iraqis an opportunity for a democracy, and they are now in the process of training the Iraqis to defend themselves and their country.
When this third goal is completed, we should be able to turn over the control to the Iraqi people and let them defend their country. As Brigadier General Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, "This insurgency is not going to be settled through military options or military operation. It's going to be settled in the political process." With that political process now reaching its maturity, and with the number of trained Iraqi security forces increasing daily, it is perfectly reasonable for the American military presence in Iraq to at some point begin to decrease.
William F. Buckley echoes these sentiments. Just last month he wrote, and I quote, "The day has to come and the advent of that day has to be heralded when we say that our part of the job is done as well as it can be done. It is an Iraqi responsibility to move on to wherever Iraq intends to go."
JONES: Clearly, we are giving the Iraqis every reasonable chance for democracy. But at some time in the near future, the ultimate fact of Iraq will and should rest in the hands of the Iraqis. We will continue to support them in their efforts, but they cannot forever be dependent upon America as the primary defense force in Iraq.
After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and this discussion on this resolution.
Thank you very much.
ABERCROMBIE: When Dennis Kucinich and I began discussing what we needed to do to bring a sober and serious reflection to the nation through the Congress on the issue of the returning of troops from Iraq, there were about 1,600 deaths. As Walter just said, now there are over 1,700. We've brought this on a bipartisan basis before the Congress and before the American people today in order to assure that that discussion can take place in a context that can have real consequences. We're not here to assess blame, get involved in recriminations or accusations. <more> http://snurl.com/bipartiraqnwsconf
Leigh http://www.leighm.net
-- Zero Surprises: No virus found in this outgoing message // lcm Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.8/22 - Release Date: 6/17/2005