I would suggest that the lives of our troops are in the hands of General Petraeus, and his credibility is undermined by this resolution. It is simply not possible to claim that you support the troops while completely disavowing their mission. Our troops in Iraq put their mission first, above all else, even their own safety. How can we even consider passing a resolution stating that we do not support providing them the manpower that they need to accomplish their mission? How does this support the morale? How does this show them that we have confidence in their abilities? As we all know, this resolution has no real legal authority, it is preemptive, purely political, without taking the difficult step of offering an alternative proposal. At first I thought this debate was simply political theater, 3 days of speeches and sound bites. But now we are learning this resolution is simply the first step.
Peter King: “I would suggest that the lives of our troops are in the hands of General Petraeus, and his credibility is undermined by…”
On the recordFebruary 14, 2007
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Addressing a resolution regarding support for troops during a debate.
Share
More from Peter King
Mar 2, 2020
I want to thank you for your appearance here today, and thank you for doing a good job under very tough circumstances.
Oct 16, 2019
The President's 2018 National Biodefense Strategy states that biological threats are, 'among the most serious threats facing the United States and the international community.'
Jan 8, 2020
the problem we have here is the administrations look upon this as a budget issue and they look at it as being static.
Feb 25, 2020
we are tremendously pleased that Representatives Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ) and Peter King (R-NY) are spearheading a House funding request letter this week to increase the fiscal year 2021 appropriations for NSGP to $360 million.





