I do not believe, however, support of what is truly a ``stay the course,'' ``status quo resolution'' will be a constructive outcome of the debate. It sends the wrong message to our troops, to the Iraqis, to our allies throughout the world, and, in particular, to our enemies. Is it the American way to attack another country, disassemble its entire security forces--military, border patrol and police--and then leave before this broken country is capable to rebuild its security forces and stand on its own? The shame of this possibility haunts me. And how can this resolution possibly help our troops on the battlefield who are there already who still have to carry out their mission? We, the Congress, are in effect telling our troops, we support you, but we do not want you to have the reinforcements you need to carry out your mission, and we do not trust the judgment of your new commanding officer, General David Petraeus. How destructive is that? Our troops deserve to know we have a plan to win.
Christopher Shays: “I do not believe, however, support of what is truly a ``stay the course,'' ``status quo resolution'' will be a…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the resolution regarding the U.S. military strategy in Iraq during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Christopher Shays
We have to draft legislation that we think is as accurate as can be, and then we present it to those who would be impacted: Employers, government individuals, and say tell us how it impacts your life. I have committee meetings, and I had…
Twenty thousand shells in Russia, chemical weapons, no bigger than this, they were put in, they almost looked like wine bottles stacked up, building after building.
And the exciting part, I think, or the very sensible part of what we have as Federal employees, because as Congressmen, we have that same plan that all Federal employees have, is that we can choose to upgrade our plan and spend 28 percent…





