Text 4362, 434 rader
Skriven 2007-04-13 23:30:56 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0704132) for Fri, 2007 Apr 13
====================================================

===========================================================================
Vice President's Remarks to the Heritage Foundation
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Vice President April 13, 2007

Vice President's Remarks to the Heritage Foundation Ritz-Carlton Chicago
Chicago, Illinois



10:42 A.M. CDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's quite a welcome. Well, thank you very much. Ed,
I appreciate the introduction, and the opportunity to come speak with all
of you today. You've chosen one of America's truly great cities for your
meeting. I'm delighted to be in Chicago once again, to have the opportunity
to speak about some important issues facing the country. I used to come to
Chicago a lot, because our oldest daughter and her husband lived here while
she went to law school at the University of Chicago, and I brought her back
with me today. My daughter, Liz, is traveling with us today. (Applause.)

I've attended many Heritage events over the years. I've benefited greatly
from the scholarly work that Heritage does. And one of the things I like
about the Heritage Foundation is that it resides in the city of Washington,
but it's not of the city of Washington. Rather, it reflects the wisdom, the
traditions, and the common sense of the nation as a whole. For more than
three decades, policy makers have looked to Heritage as a clear and an
honest voice for the cause of freedom at home and abroad, limited
government as envisioned by the Founders, and a healthy free enterprise
system, and the value of personal responsibility.

The whole enterprise has been strengthened, of course, by the leadership of
Dr. Ed Feulner. President Bush once observed that in Washington, presidents
come and go -- except at the Heritage Foundation. (Laughter.) There's good
reason for this. Ed is a man of ideas, energy, incredible talent; he's won
the admiration of us all. I also want to recognize another "lifer" at
Heritage, your vice president, Phil Truluck, and your trustee chairman,
David Brown. It's a pleasure to be in their company once again. (Applause.)

My most recent visit to Heritage was last September, when David and Ed
hosted a dinner honoring Lady Thatcher and naming the Thatcher Center.
Since that time, a good many events have unfolded in the political world.
The American people spoke in the mid-term elections, the 110th Congress has
arrived in Washington, D.C., and for the first time since 1995 the
Democratic Party now controls both the House and the Senate. It was, in
retrospect, a narrow victory. A shift of only 3,600 votes would have kept
the Senate in Republican hands, and a shift of fewer than 100,000 votes
would have maintained Republican control of the House of Representatives.

This weekend marks the 100th day of this Congress, and it's not too soon to
assess the direction in which the new majority is attempting to move the
country. The Democrats, as all of us remember, came in with high
expectations, many pledges to bring change, and a promise of something new.
What we've seen, however, is not really that new -- in fact, it's kind of
familiar to those of us who've been around a while and can remember the
early 1970s.

Thirty-five years ago, the standard-bearer for the Democrats, of course,
was Senator George McGovern, who campaigned on a far-left platform of heavy
taxation, a greatly expanded role for government in the daily lives of
Americans, and a major retreat from America's commitments in the Cold War.
Senator McGovern was, and is, an honest and a straightforward man. He said
what he believed and he told people where he stood. And on Election Day,
Senator McGovern lost every state but one, and collected just over 3
percent of the electoral vote.

That was the last time the national Democratic Party took a hard left turn.
But in 2007, it looks like history is repeating itself. Today, on some of
the most critical issues facing the country, the new Democratic majority
resembles nothing so much as that old Party of the early 1970s.

On taxes, the Democratic leadership has made clear its opposition to the
Bush tax cuts that have fueled this economy and helped to create nearly 8
million new jobs. The budget passed by the House assumes that all of the
Bush tax reductions will be swept from the books within just a few years.
The result would be a staggering tax increase on the middle class, on
families and small businesses, and a return of the federal death tax from
zero back up to a confiscatory 55 percent. This would constitute the
largest tax increase in American history.

On the spending side of the ledger, it's enough, I think, to offer this
example: Last month, in response to President Bush's request for an
emergency war supplemental, the House and Senate tacked on billions of
dollars to cover items on their wish list -- from fighting crickets to
spinach subsidies. Even though it's still early in the session, when it
comes to the appetite for tax dollars, the new Congress has already earned
a place in the big-spending hall of fame.

But the Democrats' return to old patterns is most dramatic, and most
consequential, in the field of national security. This will be the focus of
my remarks today. In the early 1970s, the far left wing turned the
Democratic Party away from the confident Cold War stance of President
Truman, President Kennedy, and Senator Scoop Jackson. The result, as we
know, was not merely defeat at the polls, but the beginning of a long
period in which the American people largely declined to trust the
Democratic Party in matters of national security. In fact, that period
ended only when the Cold War itself came to an end, during the
administration of former President Gerald Bush -- George Bush.

Today, as the United States faces a new kind of enemy and a new kind of
war, the far left is again taking hold of the Democratic Party's agenda.
The prevailing mindset, combined with a series of ill-considered actions in
the House and Senate over the last several months, causes me to wonder
whether today's Democratic leaders fully appreciate the nature of the
danger this country faces in the war on terror -- a war that was declared
against us by jihadists, a war in which the United States went on offense
after 9/11, a war whose central front, in the opinion and actions of the
enemy, is Iraq.

An early sign of unseriousness was the comment by Howard Dean, now the
party chairman, that the capture of Saddam Hussein did nothing to make
America safer. He made that statement several years ago while running for
president, and a number of his fellow Democrats sharply criticized him. Yet
now we hear almost daily the claim that the fight in Iraq has nothing to do
with the war on terror. Opponents of our military action there have called
Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of
fighting and defeating Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We hear
this over and over again, not as an argument, but as an assertion meant to
close off argument.

Yet the evidence is flatly to the contrary. And the critics conveniently
disregard the words of bin Laden himself. "The most serious issue today for
the whole world," he said, "is this third world war [that is] raging in
[Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He
said, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in
"victory and glory or misery and humiliation." And in words directed at the
American people, bin Laden declares, "The war is for you or for us to win.
If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."

This leader of al-Qaeda has referred to Baghdad as the capital of the
caliphate. He has also said, "Success in Baghdad will be success for the
United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their
defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars."

Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the
struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from
their war against the United States. They know it is a vital front in that
war, and it's where they have chosen to make a stand. Our Marines are
fighting al Qaeda terrorists in Anbar province. U.S. and Iraqi forces
recently killed al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad, who were responsible for
numerous bomb attacks. Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could
not be more plain. Here at home, that makes one thing, above all, very
clear: If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to
support it where the terrorists are fighting us. (Applause.)

The Democratic leadership has assured us that, in any event, they support
the troops in the field. They did vote to confirm General Dave Petraeus
unanimously in the United States Senate -- and for good reason. General
Petraeus is one of the finest military officers of his generation, an
expert in counterinsurgency, a leader committed to victory, and with a
strategy to achieve it.

The senators knew something else about General Petraeus. They knew he had
told the Armed Services Committee that he could not do his job without
reinforcements. Yet within days of his confirmation a large group of
senators tried to pass a resolution opposing those very reinforcements,
thereby undermining the General's mission. Over in the House of
Representatives, such a resolution actually passed on the floor. As
President Bush said, this may be the first time in history that a Congress
"voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose the
plan he said was necessary to win that battle."

In the weeks since that vote, the actions of the Democratic leadership have
moved from the merely inconsistent to the irresponsible. It's now been 67
days since the President submitted the emergency supplemental request. As
most Americans know by now, the House of Representatives has voted to
provide the funding, but also to require that we cut the number of troops
below the level that our commanders in Iraq say is necessary for victory,
and further require that American forces begin withdrawing from Iraq
according to a set timetable, and be gone next year regardless of
circumstances on the ground.

Not before that vote had the Democrats ever managed to find enough members
of the House to support a planned retreat from Iraq. So how did they manage
to pass it this time? They did it by horse-trading -- by adding in all that
pork-barrel spending we've heard about. And when they had the votes they
needed, they stopped adding the pork, and they held the vote.

Such an outcome raises more than a little concern about the future of
fiscal discipline on Capitol Hill. The implications for national security
are equally obvious, and far more critical to the future of the country. An
editorial by The Washington Post aptly termed the House bill an
"unconditional retreat ". The legislation that passed in the Senate is no
better, and that bill, also, calls for the withdrawal of American troops
according to a pre-set timetable determined by members of Congress.

So this is where things stand today. The Democratic Congress has approved
appropriations for a war, and attached detailed provisions for the timing
and the movement of American troops. It is unacceptable, of course, from an
institutional standpoint. Under the Constitution, Congress has the purse
strings and the power to confirm officers. But military operations are to
be directed by the President of the United States, period. (Applause.) By
the wisdom of the framers, that power rests in the hands of one
Commander-in-Chief, not 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill.

I might add that we don't need 535 secretaries of state, either. (Laughter
and applause.) It didn't help matters when the Speaker of the House showed
up in Damascus for a sit-down with Syrian president Bashar Assad. Here
again, we have an instance of the new congressional leadership making a bad
move and sending mixed signals about the policies and the intentions of the
United States.

It is strange enough that the Speaker should do anything to anything to
undermine America's careful, and successful, multilateral effort to isolate
the Syrian regime. But at least one member of the Speaker's delegation saw
the trip in even grander terms. He said the delegation was offering, quote,
"an alternative Democratic foreign policy." Once again, we must return to a
basic constitutional principle. No member of Congress, Democrat or
Republican, has any business jetting around the world with a diplomatic
agenda contrary to that of the President and the Secretary of State. It is
for the executive branch, not the Congress, to conduct the foreign policy
of the United States of America. (Applause.)

In America, above all, the Democrats -- excuse me, in Iraq, above all, the
Democrats' attempt to micromanage our commanders is an unwise and perilous
endeavor. It is impossible to argue that an unconditional timetable for
retreat could serve the security interests of the United States or our
friends in the region. Instead, it sends a message to our enemies that the
calendar is their friend, that all they have to do is wait us out -- wait
for the date certain, and then claim victory the day after.

This notion of a timetable for withdrawal has been specifically rejected by
virtually every mainstream analysis. The report of the Baker-Hamilton
commission recommended against it. The National Intelligence Estimate
produced by the intelligence community said a rapid withdrawal would be
ill-advised. Our military commanders believe a rigid timetable is not a
good strategy. It does, perhaps, appeal to the folks at MoveOn.org.

Recently the National Commander of the American Legion said, "You cannot
support the troops if you want them to cut and run. It's time for the
President to veto this surrender bill and for Congress to pass a serious
war-funding bill, which would provide the money without the
micromanagement." (Applause.) Standing here today, I can assure the
American Legion, and the VFW, and all the veterans organizations, and all
the men and women serving at this very hour, that the President of the
United States will, indeed, veto this irresponsible legislation.
(Applause.)

Rarely in history has an elected branch of government engaged in so
pointless an exercise as Congress is now doing. And yet the exercise
continues. Three days ago the President invited the Democratic leaders to
meet with him next week to discuss the supplemental. The majority leader,
Senator Harry Reid, at first declined to do so. When Nancy Pelosi flies
nearly 6,000 miles to meet with the president of Syria, but Harry Reid
hesitates to drive a mile and half to meet with the President of the United
States, there's a serious problem in the leadership of the Democratic
Party.

Senator Reid has threatened that if the President vetoes the timetable
legislation, he will send up Senator Russ Feingold's bill to de-fund Iraqi
operations altogether. Yet only last November, Senator Reid said there
would be no cutoff of funds for the military in Iraq. So in less than six
months' time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the
military, and then full funding, but with a timetable, and then a cutoff of
funding. Three positions in five months, on the most important foreign
policy question facing our country and our troops.

Senator Reid, of course, was one of the many Democrats who voted for the
use of force in Iraq. They are entitled, if they want now, to oppose this
war. Yet Americans are entitled to question whether the endlessly shifting
positions that he and others are taking are reflections of principle, or of
partisanship and blind opposition to the President.

In their move to the left, many leading Democrats have turned not just
against the military operation in Iraq, but against its supporters, as
well. I think of the case of Senator Joe Lieberman. I've known Joe since I
was secretary of defense, and we debated each other when he was Al Gore's
running mate in 2000. I've run for office eight times in my career, and I
have to say that Joe is the toughest opponent I've ever faced, and also the
one I've most admired.

Joe and I see many issues differently. He's a center-left Democrat, and he
has been throughout his career. Yet last year Joe was targeted for
political extinction by his fellow Democrats. Al Gore himself, who famously
endorsed Howard Dean in 2004, refused to help his former running mate, Joe
Lieberman, on grounds that he doesn't get involved in primaries. Senator
Lieberman's Connecticut colleague and best friend in the Senate, Chris
Dodd, campaigned against him. In a tough political fight, Joe Lieberman was
abandoned simply because of his firm stand on the war -- a stand he has
consistently held regardless of whether the news was good or bad, or
whether snapshot polls agreed or disagreed with him.

Not surprisingly, Joe Lieberman was re-elected, winning more votes than the
Democratic and Republican candidates combined. The campaign against him was
the political equivalent of street theater, and the voters of Connecticut
showed little interest. It is tempting, I suppose, to view the current
situation on Capitol Hill in the same way -- as mere posturing by a liberal
element that has no chance of prevailing. But it's far more serious than
that. We're talking about a congressional majority with real power and a
liberal agenda that, if followed, would have serious consequences for the
country.

In light of recent events, it's worth asking how things would be different
if the current Democratic leadership had controlled Congress during the
last five years. Would we have the terrorist surveillance program? Or the
Patriot Act? Or military commissions to try unlawful combatants? All these
measures have been essential to protecting the American people against
enemies who are absolutely determined to cause another 9/11, or something
far worse. And it's an open question, I think, whether the current
Democratic leadership would have put these protections in place.

They've even created controversy over the words we use to describe the
challenges now facing America. According to news accounts, one committee in
the House has decided to stop using the phrase, "Global War on Terrorism."
I'm left to wonder -- which part of that phrase is the problem? Do they
deny the struggle is global, after the enemy has declared the ambition of
building a totalitarian empire that stretches from Europe around to
Indonesia? Do they deny this is a war, in which one side will win and the
other will lose? Do they deny that it's terror that we're fighting, with
unlawful combatants who wear no uniform, who reject the rules of warfare,
and who target the innocent for indiscriminate slaughter?

That's the nature of the fight we're in. We can't wish it away, or define
it away. In Iraq, while extremists are trying to stir an endless cycle of
violence, where al Qaeda is operating and trying to open new fronts, where
an elected government is going about the hard work of political
reconciliation, the United States has interests at stake, and promises to
keep.

The ultimate solution in that country will be a political solution, but
reconciliation cannot be reached in an atmosphere of violence and
instability. So we are there, alongside Iraqi forces, to bring security to
Baghdad. Together our forces have carried out thousands of patrols. We have
set up joint security stations and combat posts in the capital city, we've
seized hundreds of weapons caches, found and cleared hundreds of improvised
explosive devices, detained suspected killers and bomb makers, and found
and destroyed car bomb factories.

Our new strategy in Iraq is still in its early stages of implementation.
Roughly half of the reinforcements have arrived, and as General Petraeus
has said , it'll be a while before we can fully assess how well it's
working. But there's one thing the American people already know: The men
and women we've sent to carry out this mission are brave and decent. They
and their families represent the best in the American character, and we are
proud of each and every one of them. (Applause.)

The good men and women serving in the war on terror, on every front, are
staring evil in the face. Some of them will not make it home. They can
never be sure what the next day will bring. But they're giving it all they
have, and we owe them the same. Both political parties, both elected
branches, both houses of Congress need to unite and back up our military
100 percent, leaving no uncertainty about whether this country supports
them and what they're doing. (Applause.) They deserve this support so they
can finish the job and get it done right, and return home to an America
made safer by their courage.

The United States is keeping its commitments, and persevering despite
difficulty, because we understand the consequences of getting out before
the job is done. History provides its own lessons, and none perhaps is
better than the example of Afghanistan in the 1980s. During those years,
Afghanistan was a major front in the Cold War. The strategic significance
was clear to all, and the United States was heavily engaged in the area,
supporting the Mujahedin against the Soviets. But when the Soviet Union
collapsed, everybody walked away from Afghanistan. From that point on,
extremist factions began to vie for power. Civil war broke out. By the end
of the 1990s, the Taliban had an iron grip on the country, and was hosting
Osama bin Laden and the training camps for terrorists that led directly to
the attacks of September 11th, 2001.

The consequences of walking away from Afghanistan were severe, but perhaps
hard to foresee prior to 9/11. But no one could plead ignorance of the
potential consequences of walking away from Iraq now, withdrawing coalition
forces before Iraqis could defend themselves. Moderates would be crushed.
Shiite extremists backed by Iran could be in an all-out war with Sunni
extremists led by al Qaeda and remnants of the old Saddam Hussein regime.

As this battle unfolded, Sunni governments might feel compelled to back
Sunni extremists in order to counter growing Iranian influence, widening
the conflict into a regional war. If Sunni extremists prevailed, al Qaeda
and its allies could recreate the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan,
except now with the oil wealth to pursue weapons of mass destruction and
they could underwrite their own designs, including against our friends in
the region. If Iran's allies prevailed, the regime in Teheran's own designs
for the Middle East would be advanced, and the threat to our friends in the
region would only be magnified.

We must consider, as well, just what a precipitous withdrawal would mean to
our efforts in the war on terror, and to our interests in the broader
Middle East. Having tasted victory in Iraq, jihadists would look about for
new missions. Many would head for Afghanistan to fight alongside the
Taliban. Others would set out for capitals across the Middle East,
spreading more discord as they eliminate dissenters and work to undermine
moderate governments, in what the terrorist Zawahiri has called a "jihad
wave." Still others would find their targets and victims in other countries
on other continents.

What would it say to the world if we left high and dry those millions of
people who have counted on the United States to keep its commitments? And
what would it say to leaders like President Karzai in Afghanistan and
President Musharraf in Pakistan, who risk their lives every day as fearless
allies in the war on terror? Critics enjoy pointing out mistakes through
the perceptive power of hindsight. But the biggest mistake of all can be
seen in advance: A sudden withdrawal of our Coalition would dissipate much
of the effort that's gone into fighting the global war on terror, and
result in chaos and mounting danger. And for the sake of our own security,
we will not stand by and let it happen. (Applause.)

This nation has chosen a better course. Instead of allowing problems to
simmer, instead of allowing threats to gather thousands of miles away and
assume they won't find us at home, we've decided to face our challenges
squarely. We offer a vision of freedom, justice, and self government as a
superior alternative to ideologies of violence, anger, and resentment. We
believe, and we know, that free institutions and human liberty provide the
best long-term hope of progress for nations, and peace for the world.

The course we have chosen is not an easy one for America. But it will be
far easier on the conscience of America when we see it through, sparing
millions from suffering, and leaving behind a free and democratic Iraq.
Although the current political environment in our country carries echoes of
the hard left in the early '70s, America will not again play out those old
scenes of abandonment, and retreat, and regret. Thirty-five years is time
enough to have learned the lessons of that sad era. When the United States
turns away from our friends, only tragedy can follow, and the lives and
hopes of millions are lost forever.

Ladies and gentlemen: not this time. Not on our watch. (Applause.) This
cause is bigger than the quarrels of party and the agendas of politicians.
At this hour in our history, it is the cause of America -- and the best
among us are fighting and sacrificing for its success. And if we in
Washington, all of us, can only see our way clear to work together, then
the outcome is not in doubt. We will press on in this mission, and we will
turn events towards victory.

Thank you very much.

END 11:13 A.M. CDT

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070413-2.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)