*EPF108 04/26/2004
Text: Senator Lieberman Urges Greater Bipartisan Cooperation on Iraq
(Calls for creating bipartisan congressional advisory commission) (2480)

Joseph Lieberman, Democratic senator from Connecticut and his party's candidate for vice president in 2000, has called for a bipartisan "truce" in the debate over Iraq and has urged the formation of a special bipartisan advisory commission to provide President Bush with congressional input on developments in that country.

Speaking April 26 at the Brookings Institution in Washington, Lieberman said, "The outcome of the current conflict will have an enormous effect on the security of the American people, the freedom of the Iraqis, and the stability and peace of the Middle East and the world."

"I am pleading with leaders of both political parties, with the administration and the Congress, to stop the bickering, to overcome the mistrust, to appreciate how congruent are our current aspirations in Iraq, and to work together to achieve them," Lieberman said.

"There is a real but overlooked bipartisan American consensus. We agree on the goal, if not always on the way to get there," the senator said, "The question is no longer why we got in, but how we can win in Iraq. We must quickly acknowledge that consensus and then find ways to work together to advance it."

"We must separate the conduct of the new war in Iraq from the normal politics of Washington and the hyper-politics of a presidential campaign," Lieberman said.

"One option would be for the president and the Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress to agree to create a Bipartisan Congressional Consultation and Cooperation Council on Iraq," he said, "which would meet weekly with members of the president's war cabinet and frequently with the president himself to discuss the latest developments and decisions in Iraq."

Lieberman suggested that "members of this bipartisan council would also travel together to allied capitals throughout the region and the world to give public expression to America's unity of purpose on the new war in Iraq.

"Ultimately, the bipartisan council could help achieve consensus on policy decisions before they become open domestic political wounds with international consequences," he said.

The senator said, "More than ever, our politics have profound consequences for security within our borders as well as beyond our shores. That is the urgent challenge we face today -- as Democrats, as Republicans, as Americans. It is a challenge we must and will best meet together."

Following is the text of Senator Lieberman's remarks, as prepared for delivery:

(begin text)

WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ ON THE BATTLEFRONT AND THE HOMEFRONT
Senator Joe Lieberman
The Brookings Institution

(As Prepared For Delivery)

We meet at a most important, dangerous, and difficult moment in Iraq. Americans, Iraqis, and other nationals are dying in increasing numbers. The outcome of the current conflict will have an enormous effect on the security of the American people, the freedom of the Iraqis, and the stability and peace of the Middle East and the world. The days and weeks immediately ahead are fateful and perilous.

Yet, here at home, it is mostly politics as usual. Today, I am pleading with leaders of both political parties, with the Administration and the Congress, in the name of the hundreds of Americans who have fallen in Iraq, and the thousands who continue to serve us there, in the interest of our nation's security, and in pursuit of our nation's highest ideals, to stop the bickering, to overcome the mistrust, to appreciate how congruent are our current aspirations in Iraq, and to work together to achieve them.

In short, I am calling for a bipartisan political truce on the homefront that will greatly help us achieve the victory we all desire on the battlefront.

From the beginning, I was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq against Saddam Hussein. He was a dictator, a warmonger, a terrorist, an outlaw, a murderer, a torturer, a thief, and a thug. As long as he remained in power, Saddam was a clear and present danger to the United States, the Iraqi people, the Middle East and the world. By his evil, inhumane actions and his decade of defiance of UN resolutions, he proved that he could only be dealt with and defeated by force. He was a ticking time bomb that had to be stopped before the next explosion. That is why we went to war last year in Iraq -- to end Saddam Hussein's regime of terror, and to build in its place a better, freer future for the Iraqi people.

Thanks to the brilliance and bravery of American and allied forces, we won that war. But the final test of war is the quality of the peace that follows. Today we are engaged in a new war in Iraq. From the day of Saddam's fall, the Iraqi people's hopes and the Coalition force's lives have been attacked by an evil alliance of remnants of Saddam's regime who refuse to accept defeat and of fanatical foreign and Iraqi terrorists who are part of the same jihadist movement that mercilessly attacked us on September 11, 2001.

I repeat, the outcome of this new war in Iraq will have enormous consequences for the people of America, Iraq and the world. If our enemies prevail and America retreats, Iraqis will face chaos, or a new dictatorship, or both. The Iraqi domino could fall backwards as easily as it could fall forwards, and topple hopes for democracy throughout the Middle East. The region would be profoundly destabilized, which will gravely endanger American security, and the fanatical Islamic terrorists will be emboldened to take more aggressive actions against people in America, Europe and the Islamic world. The safety of our children's future world would be greatly endangered.

On the other hand, if the Coalition prevails over the terrorists in Iraq, and a stable, democratizing, modernizing Iraq emerges, we will have dealt a significant blow to the worldwide jihadist forces and thereby improved the security of the American people, created a new hopeful model for a better future throughout the Islamic world, stabilized the Middle East, and advanced America's historic mission of bringing the blessings of liberty, which we believe are the endowment of our Creator, to the Iraqi people.

With the consequences of victory or defeat in the new war in Iraq so clear, it should come as no surprise that there is almost no one here at home calling for an American withdrawal. No matter whether they supported the war against Saddam, as I did, or opposed it ... or whether they criticized some of the Bush Administration's policies before and after that war, as I did, or supported them ... just about all of American's elected leadership understand why we must win what I have called the new war in Iraq.

There is a real but overlooked bipartisan American consensus in favor of this new war. We agree on the goal, if not always on the way to get there. Unfortunately, you would not know that if you just listened to the rhetoric about Iraq in this great capital city whose prevailing tone ranges from partisan to poisonous, or if you just followed the media, which reflexively stress conflict, not consensus. But the reality behind the rhetoric is that a bipartisan consensus is there. The question is no longer why we got in, but how we can win in Iraq. We must quickly acknowledge that consensus and then find ways to work together to advance it.

Listen to these two statements, one by President Bush, the other by Senator Kerry, and tell me if you know who said what:

First: "We have to succeed in Iraq. We simply can't allow it to become a failed state. That would mean a victory for extremism, new dangers in the Middle East and a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism. To succeed, we are going to need more forces."

Second: "America's commitment to freedom in Iraq is consistent with our ideals and required by our interests. Iraq will either be a peaceful, democratic country or it will again be a source of violence, a haven for terror and a threat to America and to the world."

The first is from Senator Kerry. The second is from President Bush. These statements., and many others by both men, show there is now a broad and growing bipartisan agreement on our basic purpose in Iraq.

Both parties and both Presidential candidates agree that America cannot cut and run from Iraq.

Both parties and both Presidential candidates agree that we should send more troops.

Both parties and both Presidential candidates agree that we must seek and welcome greater involvement in Iraq from the international community.

Of course, there remain many important tactical and policy questions on which debate continues. These include:

Is our goal in Iraq stability or democracy?

Should we negotiate a truce with our enemies in places like Fallujah for Iraqi political reasons, or use our power to take full control of these places?

Should we rehire some of the Baathist military and government people?

Should the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis occur on June 30, and what should be the authority of the new Iraqi government?

What is the role we desire for NATO and the UN?

Should the Administration send to Congress a supplemental appropriations request for the cost of the war in Iraq as soon as possible, or wait until later this year or next?

Should we be allowed by the Pentagon to see the flag-draped coffins of Americans who have fallen in service to our nation in Iraq?

The answers to each of these questions -- many of which I hope you will ask me this morning -- can conceal the fundamental bipartisan consensus over how critical and worthy our purpose in Iraq is today -- if we allow them to.

In the normal course of contemporary American political conduct, these policy questions become further occasion to create partisan, public disagreement and division. Campaign pressures can provoke and intensify it -- and the media often perpetuates and exploits it. Each side grows increasingly distant from, and suspicious of, the other. The political debates last week surrounding the cost of the war, and the limited powers that could be transferred to the Iraqis on June 30, highlight our challenge.

The homefront affects the battlefront. Partisan politics as usual has consequences. It encourages our enemies to believe they are succeeding in their attempts to influence our policy. They clearly seek by their hostage taking, by their desecration of the bodies of our dead, and by their terrorism to break the will of the people of America. And although we all say repeatedly that we support the 135,000 Americans who are serving in uniform in Iraq today, the more our troops hear the partisan division at home, the more they will, at best, be confused, or at worse, be demoralized.

The world is also watching our political debate on Iraq, and gauging the depth of our resolve and the strength of our leadership.

I am not suggesting that for these reasons robust debate be stifled or that healthy questioning be stopped. But that instead we find a way to continue the debate and questioning without doing damage to our shared national values and goals. We must separate the conduct of the new war in Iraq from the normal politics of Washington and the hyper-politics of a Presidential campaign. Because what is happening in Iraq today is that important to the security of the American people and the lives of the American military.

In some nations, a unity government would be formed at such a time of crisis. That is not American tradition or practice. But our history does contain many proud moments when American leaders have put politics aside to work together to protect the nation's security. One of the most famous examples is the bipartisan cooperation in the Cold War that began with the collaboration between Democratic President Truman and Republican Senator Vandenberg.

During the 1990's, the Clinton Administration worked with Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress to create the NATO Observers Group, a bipartisan body that met regularly with the President and high-ranking Administration officials to discuss the enlargement of the alliance. This Group was critical in forging a strong consensus in Congress that resulted in an overwhelming Senate vote in favor of expanding NATO.

During the Iraq wars, last year and this year, the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have regularly briefed Congress, but we need more than that now to cut through the distrust and stop the political sniping. One option would be for the President and the Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress to agree to create a Bipartisan Congressional Consultation and Cooperation Council on Iraq, which would meet weekly with members of the President's war cabinet, and frequently with the President himself to discuss the latest developments and decisions in Iraq.

Ideally, members of this bipartisan Council would also travel together to allied capitals throughout the region and the world to give public expression to America's unity of purpose on the new war in Iraq.

Ultimately, the bipartisan Council could help achieve consensus on policy decisions before they become open domestic political wounds with international consequences. The distrust that increasingly separates us would be overcome.

I recall here the words of Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War during the Second World War, who said that sometimes the only way to make a person trustworthy is to trust him.

On the costs of the war, for example, many Democrats are convinced that the Administration refuses to ask for the appropriations needed to fund the war until later in the year for purely political reasons. On the other hand, the Republican Administration resents this suspicion, sees it as partisan, and argues that it will obviously not allow the military to run out of funds. The distrust grows. My estimation is that if the Administration and the bipartisan Congressional leadership discussed and agreed on an early request for the money in a Council such as the one I am suggesting, it would reveal exactly the strong bipartisan support that is there for the new war in Iraq.

Our troops on the battlefront deserve and require such support and solidarity from the homefront. Our enemies deserve to be shaken by it. Our allies need to be encouraged by it. And our founding ideals of freedom and opportunity will be so much better served by it at home and in Iraq.

Now, more than ever, politics must stop at the water's edge, because now, more than ever, our politics have profound consequences for security within our borders as well as beyond our shores. That is the urgent challenge we face today -- as Democrats, as Republicans, as Americans. It is a challenge we must and will best meet together.

Thank you.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents