I want to take a few brief moments to explain why I supported the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment this morning, and why I opposed the other two amendments offered before this body. While I would have preferred a stand-alone vote on the Feingold-Reid-Dodd bill, as I think we owe the American people and our brave men and women in uniform unequivocal support for changing our mission in Iraq, I am nonetheless still pleased that we at least had a cloture vote on this amendment. As my colleagues know, the language in this amendment was almost identical to the language in the stand-alone Feingold-Reid-Dodd bill, which I strongly endorsed. This amendment would have mandated that the phased redeployment of U.S. combat forces from Iraq begin within 120 days, and set a deadline of March 31, 2008 for the completion of that redeployment. It allowed for continued counter-terrorism operations, force protection, and training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. Reid-Feingold represented the only responsible way to force the President to change his flawed policy in Iraq.
Chris Dodd: “I want to take a few brief moments to explain why I supported the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment this morning, and why I…”
Editor's note · Context
Explaining support for the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment regarding U.S. military policy in Iraq.
Share
More from Chris Dodd
I have frequently been confronted with the extremely difficult necessity of voting for legislation that, while deeply flawed, includes provisions that are incredibly important for the well-being of the American people. Today is no…
I believe that the new government of Dilma Rousseff will be less anxious to solidify a relationship with Iran.
I rise today to say thank you to the wonderful staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Earlier this week I had the privilege of chairing my final hearing in that committee, and I want to take a moment to extend my thanks and…
President Clinton, to his eternal credit in my view, just does not quit on this issue.





