On the recordDecember 18, 2007
What does all of this mean if this language passes? The bill will get vetoed. And when you read the language, what is so bad about it? I know the intent of the author is to try to make Iraq a better place, and he said for as long--I do not want to misquote him--as long as you have this many troops in Iraq, they are not going to do what they need to do politically. They use the troops as a crutch. I think that is the general theme, that we need to somehow let the Iraqi Government know we are not going to be there forever with this number of troops. You need to step up to the plate, generally speaking. My view is that the lack of security has been the biggest impediment to reconciliation, and the security changes in Iraq give us the best hope we have had in 4 years of finding a way forward politically in Iraq. If we change by word or deed or perception our commitment to the military strategy that is currently working, we would be undercutting our best chance for reconciliation. This amendment, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment, does not do anything positive.
Source
govinfo.gov




