Peter Roskams floor speech regarding the troop surge

[LSK]

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to Mr. PETER ROSKAM from Illinois.

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, we are here to debate a House Concurrent Resolution, and the root verb of ``resolution'' is resolute. I

just want to challenge the House today to consider the resolution of our enemies. I would like to read three quotes to

you.

Resolved, by Osama bin Laden. The whole world is watching this war, and the two adversaries, the Islamic nation on the

one hand and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.

Or how about this? Resolved, in the al Queda charter: There will be continuing enmity until everyone believes in

Allah. We will not meet the enemy halfway, and there will be no room for dialogue with them.

Or how about this, and I am paraphrasing: Resolved, from Osama bin Ladens deputy, who said that the plan is to extend

the jihad wave; to expel the Americans from Iraq and extend the jihad wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash

with Israel and establish an Islamic authority.

Is there anybody among us who doubts the resolve and clarity with which our opponents are speaking? I don't.

I think what is lacking today in our conversation is the consequences of failure. The previous speaker used the words

``victory'' and ``success.'' He had a very low view of them, and I understand his characterization of those words. He said

we have heard those words before. That is what the gentleman from New Jersey said.

But, do you know what? We will hear the word ``failure'' when it is used in the context of this challenge that is

before us.

There is no question that there has been great difficulty that has gone before us in this fight. There is no question

that there have been great mistakes that have been made, and I am wholeheartedly in favor of us acting as a coequal branch

of government and calling for benchmarks and demarcation and holding the administration accountable for its decisions.

But if we fail in this, if we pull out, if we retreat, if we yield, what will happen? Is there anybody really who

thinks that Iran, for example, will be less provocative? Is there anybody who thinks that al Queda will be less

provocative?

If we fail, extremism in this world, will it be ascendant or will it be descendant?

Madam Speaker, I close with a simple question, and that is, we need to ask, What is it about this resolution that will

do one of two things? Does this encourage our troops, or does this discourage our enemies? I would suggest that this

resolution, while it is serious, oh, it is very serious, it is not substantive. This is the ultimate expression of

legislative passive aggression. It offers no substantive alternative.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition, and ask my colleagues to do the same.

---------------------------------

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION -- (House of Representatives - February 15, 2007)

H.CON.RES.63
Title: Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional

United States combat troops to Iraq.


Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United

States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States

Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy

more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Passed the House of Representatives February 16, 2007.

Roll Call 99