The Official Truth Squad

THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD -- (House of Representatives - March 13, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. I want to thank you, Congressman Price, for continuing to make sure that the Official Truth Squad is represented here in Special Orders and that we continue to hold the majority accountable for telling the truth. They forget that a good part of the time; so I am very pleased to continue to be a member of the Official Truth Squad.

My colleague has shared some of the concerns that I have already with this legislation that we are talking about that nobody has actually seen, the supplemental war funding bill that we think that the Democrats are going to unveil this week. We believe that it is laden with a great deal of unnecessary pork which is being used to buy votes on behalf of the Democrats to try to get the legislation passed. It is also, I think, out there to try to make us look bad if we vote against it.

But the worst part about this bill is that it is a reckless attempt to curtail the President's power to wage a congressionally approved war.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply need to understand that this misguided proposal will serve only to hamstring our generals as they work to bring peace and democracy to this tumultuous region. And again my colleague that has spoken before me, Congressman Kline, I think has done a great job of talking about what the generals have said and what they need, and we know that the Democrats very selectively take quotes out of what General Petraeus has said.

And I agree with you, Congressman Price, we have both a military and a political war to win in the Middle East, and we are going to do that. I have every conviction that we are going to do that. But I think it is very interesting, as Congressman Kline pointed out, that even the very liberal mainstream media understands that this slow-bleed strategy on the part of the Democrats is absolutely wrong. It is such a cynical thing that they are proposing to do. And I think that the L.A. Times editorial, ``Do we Really Need a General Pelosi?' is so appropriate. These people promised so much to get elected last fall, and the kinds of things they are doing are so far away from what they promised to do. And getting involved in micromanaging the war is absolutely the opposite of what they should do.

I am going to quote some of what nobody else has quoted from the editorial. It went on to call the bill ``an unruly mess, bad public policy, bad precedent, and bad politics ..... It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval. It's quite another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the continuation of the conflict.'

And we saw this morning a replay of a press conference where even the Democrats couldn't agree on what the timetables are that they are setting up. They talk about 2007, they talk about August, they talk about April. Even they are very, very confused about it. But the L.A. Times article goes on to say: ``This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy. If Congress accepts Bush's argument that there is still hope, then lawmakers have a duty to let the President try this`'surge and leverage' strategy.

``By interfering with the discretion of the Commander in Chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome. It's absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to try to micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.'

I mean even when the liberal press comes out against you, you have got to know that something is wrong with what you are planning to do.

The Washington Post has described the Democrats' slow-bleed strategy as leading ``not toward a responsible withdrawal from Iraq but to a constitutional power struggle with Mr. Bush, who has already said he will veto the legislation. Such a struggle would serve the interests of neither the Democrats nor the country.'

I think these people are so detached, they are so focused on what they see as their power, one they think through an overwhelming majority, which was not an overwhelming majority in the fall, but they think that they now have all power. They don't want to just be Members of Congress. They want to be the President. And I think that it is ridiculous that they want to do that.

Like my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I want to see America's troops come home as soon as possible. But the best way to do that is to achieve victory in Iraq.

Somebody pointed out in the last few days that we never hear the word ``victory' out of the mouths of any Democrat, and I started listening for that and I think the American people need to listen for that. The Democrats want us to lose in Iraq. They want to be able to prove that this was not a good war. I think for their own political purposes they would like to see us lose. They never mention victory.

If we don't secure Iraq before we leave, we will be encouraging the terrorists and insurgents by convincing them that their war of attrition has been successful.

I want to emphasize again what has been said before. There are very good reasons why our founders set up congressional oversight and accountability for presidential war powers, but micromanaging legitimate wars on the basis of political considerations was never one of them. This Congress needs to focus on our constitutional duty to provide long-term oversight. Not enough of that has been done. We need to do more of that. But to set a precedent of micromanaging a war is short-sighted and extremely dangerous. We need to get back to doing what Congress should be doing and leaving the execution of this war to the President and the generals who are there to do it, and let us do our job. We don't do well enough as it is.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov