Cost of the Iraq War

Floor Speech

COST OF THE IRAQ WAR -- (Senate - December 05, 2007)

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, for more than 4 years now, President Bush has been declaring victory or progress in Iraq. The thousands of soldiers who have lost their legs, gone blind or suffered horrible nightmares might be finding it hard to celebrate. The families of those men and women might not be cheering very loud about the President's view of success. Thousands more whose children, whose mothers and fathers are lost forever might be finding it hard to share in the latest cries of victory.

Yes, the number killed last month dropped to 37, and we certainly rejoice in the fact that fewer soldiers are dying. That is still another 37 families who have no reason to rejoice. More American troops have died this year than any other year.

No matter how much military progress has been made in Iraq, that kind of security can only go so far. No amount of troops will force Iraqi politicians to agree on a fair distribution of oil revenues. No Abrams tank can build trust between Shiites and Sunnis.

The whole point of this surge was to create the conditions necessary for Iraqis to make political progress. But 2 weeks ago, the Washington Post ran a headline that said: ``Iraqis Wasting an Opportunity, U.S. Officers Say.''

Iraqi security forces are still unable to operate on their own. Any cease-fire between factions could evaporate in minutes. We started drawing down troops to pre-surge levels, but we have to wonder whether we are going to be told again we have to re-surge, do it all over again because the Iraqi Government and security forces are largely still at square one.

Our generals in Iraq have been the first to admit that a solution to the country's conflict has to be more than a military solution; it has to be a political solution. A political solution is up to Iraqi leaders. Right now there has been practically zero progress on the core critical issues necessary to bring a lasting peace.

The administration set 18 benchmarks for the Iraqi Government to meet. They have barely met three. So is it time to turn up the pressure or let them keep squabbling while Americans pay and Americans die?

There is more corruption in Iraq than almost anywhere else on the face of the Earth. We simply don't know where our money is going. It is a pit of quicksand when it comes to money. Some estimates say that as much as a third of the money we spend on Iraqi contracts and grants winds up unaccounted for or stolen--a third of billions of dollars, with a lot of it going straight to Shiite or Sunni militias.

Let me repeat that: $1 out of every $3 we pay gets either lost or stolen--lost or stolen. Even after billions and billions and billions of dollars in funding, Iraqi society is still dysfunctional.

American money went toward improving, for example, municipal water systems in Iraq. The Iraqis now break open the pipes and steal the water. American money went toward books for schools. Iraqis steal them from the Ministry of Education and sell them on the street at three times the price. Government officials have sold the furniture right out of their offices. That is what the American taxpayers are funding.

So is it time to change our strategy, or do we ignore the corruption while Americans pay and Americans die? Here is the message we send to Iraqi politicians by sending them a blank check with no expiration date: Continue your squabbles. We will continue to see the loss of American life and continue to empty our treasury for you for as long as you like. That message is: You can sit back while Americans pay and Americans die. I think it is time for a different message, Mr. President.

After seeing a surge in the military that has lasted for months do nothing about a splurge of corruption that has lasted for years, the conclusion we have to draw from that is clear: The only way Iraqis will take charge of their own country and make the tough compromises necessary to form a functional society is when they believe we won't be there forever. That is the only way. It is long past time for the Iraqi Government to take charge, and the only way they are going to step up is if we begin to transition out. A reduction in fighting is not an excuse for a reduction in planning for our involvement to end.

The fact is, the violence has not stopped and the costs of this war have only gone up. The war is costing us $10 billion or so per month. The debt our Government is taking on, and that taxpayers are going to be responsible for, is exploding at the rate of $1 million a minute. I heard our colleagues earlier today, when I was Presiding Officer, talk about fiscal responsibility and what we bequeath to the next generation. Well, we are bequeathing them $1 million a minute of debt, because none of the money the President asked for is paid for--none of it. Yet when we try to invest in America, we are told there is no money for it. But it is okay to continue to saddle the next generation of Americans with a huge debt, $1 million a minute.

When the numbers are that high, every American taxpayer has to ask him or herself a basic question: How does the President plan to pay for the war?

Well, last week, we got a small part of that answer. He wants to cut funding for counterterrorism at home. According to a leaked administration document, President Bush wants to cut counterterrorism funding for cities by more than half. When I saw that article, I had to do a double-take. When I read that, I thought the report had to be wrong. It had to be wrong. Coming from the State of New Jersey, which lost 700 people--700 of my fellow citizens on that fateful day, and coming from a nation that lost 3,000 fellow Americans--to hear that we are going to continue to pump money into this war, a blank check, unpaid for, but that we will not take care of our security here at home, that had to be wrong.

His reported budget would slash funding for police, firefighters, and rescue workers. It could mean fewer security guards at ports, less reliable detection of explosives, and less training for security personnel. Basically, it would undermine the entire effort to prevent terrorism that our Nation realized that September day, one of the most urgent challenges we have ever faced. Cutting counterterrorism funding is simply outrageous.

Now I certainly hope the Congress is not going to stand for it, and the people who live in those cities definitely will not stand for it. But is it necessary to remind the President how important it is to protect our homes and families from terrorist attacks? Do we have to say that we must do everything within the bounds of possibility and the law to prevent a terrorist attack from happening again? And this suggestion that we are ultimately spending our efforts and lives and national treasure there so we don't have to spend it here is a falsehood. That is a falsehood.

Is anyone here in America going to feel safer at the end of the day when counterterrorism funding is cut for their hometown security, which as we found out on that fateful day on September 11 is how we responded--with local police, local firefighters, local emergency management? It was not the Federal Government but the local public safety entities. Is that a risk President Bush wants to take, to cut what amounts to .06 percent of the Federal budget, especially when the war in Iraq has eaten up $455 billion and counting; when the amount he wants to take away from police and firefighters, the people who respond, should, God forbid we have an attack, is an amount we spend in Iraq every 5 days? The money we are talking about for protecting us here at home in America is what we spend every 5 days in Iraq. What are our values? What are our priorities, Mr. President?

The President has requested $1 billion for the Iraqi police, but he wants to cut funding for the community-oriented policing program that fights crime in America's communities. So he will spend anything on the streets of Baghdad, but he suddenly thinks we should be stingy when it comes to security on the streets of our hometowns. The President wants a blank check for Iraq, but nothing for America.

That ties into what you have been seeing on the floor over the last several days. The reason we can't get appropriations bills out is because Republicans object to the type of domestic priorities

the American people elected a new majority to achieve. He wants a blank check for Iraq, but nothing for America. From children's health to cancer research to crucial water resources, the President has vetoed what is most essential: our health, our safety, and in essence, our liberty. He has repeatedly said it is all too expensive. Meanwhile, he is requesting $200 billion more to fight a war in Iraq that has achieved nothing for any of us; that has ultimately seen the deaths of thousands of Americans and has left us more disliked around the world as a nation than at any other point in recent history. He wants a blank check for Iraq, but nothing for America. If he submits a budget that cuts funding for counterterrorism, I think he will truly be laying a final brick in the Department of Homeland Hypocrisy.

In high school many of us read George Orwell's book ``1984,'' which was about a nightmare world where words mean the exact opposite of what they should mean. America is starting to understand what the word ``security'' means to the President. He apparently thinks funding firefighters, police officers, and emergency responders is excessive, but he wants to spy on Americans without warrants, he wants to tap people's phones without any oversight, he condones procedures even the U.S. Army itself considers torture, he wants to throw people in jail without trials, and he basically ignores the most basic tenets of the justice system of the United States since the Constitution came into effect in 1789.

President Bush wants to cut funding to stop terrorism in order to fund a war that has created terrorists. We didn't have al-Qaida in Iraq before we invaded Iraq. We have al-Qaida in Iraq after we invaded Iraq.

America isn't just ready to turn the page on this administration; we are ready for a whole new book. I hope, as we move forward, we can get some of these domestic priorities that the Nation wants to see. I cannot believe we would spend $200 billion for Iraq but not a fraction of that to be able to ensure that millions of American children can have health care. I cannot believe we would spend $200 billion more for Iraq but not enough to handle police, firefighters, and emergency management in our communities across the landscape of this country. I cannot imagine approving $200 billion for Iraq but not being able to deal with the alternative minimum tax relief, a measure Senator Reid has tried to bring to the floor.

On issue after issue, the obstructionism, the roadblocks, the coordination between the White House and our colleagues here in the Senate to impede the progress the American people want to see is incredible, as it is equally incredible to continue this course by asking for a blank check for Iraq, but nothing for America.

END

Source