BREAKING NEWS: Congressman Jerry McNerney will deliver a speech tonight on the floor of the House of Representatives outlining his opposition to President Bush’s plans for escalating the war in Iraq. The speech will take place sometime between 6-9 p.m. PST tonight (Tuesday, Feb. 13) and will be available live on C-SPAN. The text of his remarks will be available soon.
If you would like to share your thoughts with the Congressman on his speech, please post your comments below.
UPDATE: Congressman McNerney's full remarks are below, as prepared for delivery:
“The young men and women who joined the Armed Forces after 9/11 out of a sense of duty and love for our country are just like my son, Michael, who joined the military because of those terrible attacks.
“I’m proud and heartened by their commitment to service and patriotism – just as I am of my own son’s commitment.
“And I’m concerned about their safety and well being – just as I was about Michael’s when he was in the service.
“When I talk about supporting the troops, it’s not rhetorical, it’s personal.
“It is with great sadness and steely resolve that I stand up tonight on the issue of the Iraq and the President’s plan to escalate the conflict.
“I’m saddened because the misguided and mismanaged conflict has become a tragic disaster and a genuine threat to Middle East stability and global security.
“The escalation will cause more violence in the Middle East and will weaken our nation.
“I’m resolved because it’s our duty as the Congress of this great nation to check and balance the power of the President on any issue we believe harmful to our country.
“This Administration insists on finding a military answer rather than changing this failed approach and pursuing the diplomatic and political solutions necessary to bring an end to the violence.
“Unfortunately, the President’s plan to escalate the war in Iraq will not bring success there or make the United States more secure. In fact, the proposal means a further distraction from the mission in Afghanistan and the need for a tougher, smarter approach to the global war on terrorism.“The President’s proposal puts more U.S. lives at risk, further stretching the readiness of our ground forces and increasing the drain on our Treasury.
“President Bush’s plan is opposed by military experts, by Republicans and Democrats in both chambers of Congress, and by the vast majority of our country.
“That’s why I rise in strong support of the resolution under consideration in this body.
“The resolution has two straightforward provisions:
1. Continuing support for those American soldiers who have served or are currently serving in Iraq, and
2. Disagreeing with the President’s plan to escalate the conflict and deploy an additional 21,500 combat troops to Iraq .
“Supporting our troops is my top priority, not just because it is our duty and responsibility, but because it is personal for me and my family.
“Recently the Washington Post reported that the Marine Corps and Army brigades that would be sent to Iraq under the President’s plan are short body armor, vehicles and other important equipment. This shows just how desperate the President’s misguided plan is. Military action should never be executed in desperation.
“We must transfer the responsibility for establishing and maintaining law and order on the streets in Iraq to the Iraqis. Training of those Iraqi units must be done outside of Iraq. This will mean more troops trained more quickly, and will lessen the likelihood that Iraqi army and police recruits turn to dangerous militias and death squads.
“The members of our Armed Forces who have served in Iraq have done so bravely and honorably.
“Unfortunately, the President’s strategy in Iraq has not matched the commitment with which our troops have served in that country.“We must begin a responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq on a public timeline that makes sense – while pursuing a political and diplomatic solution.
“Yet the President has steadfastly refused to engage in the political and diplomatic efforts necessary to bring resolution to the violence in Iraq .
“Both Republicans and Democrats agree that we need a new direction in Iraq . I will continue to push for that new direction while always putting our troops first. This resolution is an important first step, but there is much more to be done.
“I stand with resolve in opposing President Bush’s plan for an escalation in Iraq.”
Immigration reform -
The new Congress should decide which committees will be the focus of population policy, asking the question: How large should the US population grow out to, and by what year? Closely related, how crowded do future Americans want to live, how much privacy do they want, and is continued use of personal transportation desired? (100 years out)
Let's approach immigration policy with foresight and intelligence for a change.
Posted by: Pierre Bierre | February 13, 2007 at 05:50 PM
I wish I could watch tonight, but I don't have cable.
Jerry, can we PLEASE cut off funding and bring the troops home? Pelosi's saying that we 'won't cut off funds because it will harm our troops' makes no logical sense. If we are worried about our troops being harmed, obviously we need to bring them home from this illegal war. THEN we can figure out how best to help the Iraqis. But as long as the troops are saying they should leave (as I saw two of them say on the nightly news last night), and the Iraqis want us to leave (as polls show they do), we should cut off funding and leave.
If this is the gist of your floor speech, forgive me!
Thanks,
Leah
Posted by: Leah diTullio | February 13, 2007 at 06:18 PM
Great job, Jerry! You spoke about resolve WITH resolve. Jim and I are so very proud of you and of all you represent. THANK YOU!
Posted by: Cindy Ware | February 13, 2007 at 06:43 PM
I listened to Jerry on C-Span, he was right on the money, short and to the point. He did an excellent job.
Posted by: Florence Vincent | February 13, 2007 at 06:43 PM
During the historic rise of parliamentary government in England, from whom so many of our political traditions have sprung, members early learned that their power came from control of the purse. Has Congress so forgotten this lesson that they are willing to rely on "pleadings" to a President who has already said he would ignore them on Iraq? "Resolutions" are valueless unless backed with power. Rein him in!
Posted by: Robert D. Wheeler | February 13, 2007 at 07:02 PM
Give 'em hell, Jerry.
NO MORE FUNDING. If you want to stop a war, you just supply no more money, as we did with Vietnam.
From the other comments, I guess I missed you on CSPAN.
Posted by: Lois Robin | February 13, 2007 at 07:09 PM
Leah,
IMHO Jerry's colleagues Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters (all from California) have the "plan" covered. Rep. Woolsey authored (IIRC), and Lee and Waters (among others) have co-sponsored, HR 508, the Bring the Troops Hope and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007. I hope Jerry will support it, and I hope other readers of this blog will do the same and pass the word.
Bill text is at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.508.IH:
Key points of the bill in Rep. Woolsey's news release:
http://woolsey.house.gov/latestnews.asp?ARTICLE5110=67683
Posted by: Joel Siegel | February 13, 2007 at 07:13 PM
I'm so proud of the work you're doing. America needs leadership out of global warming, out of foreign energy dependence, out of this horrific unending cycle of violence and war.
We need better schools, better health care, better transportation alternatives, better jobs.
This country is great but it must be protected from the looting, corruption and venality of the last six years.
I welcome these new beginnings with our great new House of Representatives. Thank you.
Posted by: Fred Dodsworth | February 13, 2007 at 07:16 PM
Dear Mr. McNerney,
While I live in Nevada City, and put most of my efforts into trying to get Charlie Brown elected ( alas, he wasn't!), I also stumped for you in Lodi where my sweetheart lives. I cannot tell you how pleased I am with how you conduct yourself, and how relieved I am to see what you're doing. I wish we were looking at 50% of our energy supplies mandated as being renewable, but I guess it takes more than a dreamer like me to be realistic.
I am concerned that you have to divert your energies to getting elected, especially since I know that entails raising money, which I firmly believe should NOT be what you should have to be doing. How about a bill mandating that in order for all radio and TV stations to renew their FCC licenses they must devote a certain number of hours or a percentage of their air time to debates between ALL the political candidates, and that a strict limit be placed on how money any candidate can spend on their campaigns? I will work for in the next election, and I won't cost you anything.
Len Brackett
Posted by: Len Brackett | February 13, 2007 at 07:22 PM
I just watched your speech on C-Span. I think you did a wonderful job. You spoke forcefully as well as from the heart. A wonderful winning combination. Thank you for speaking up for us, Karen Weinstein
Posted by: Karen Weinstein | February 13, 2007 at 07:30 PM