Senator Durbin questioned on Clinton’s Iraq Plan, Fighting Al Qaeda, and Military Action against Iran
Jeff Berkowitz: If Al Qaeda were to establish, after the U. S. left Iraq, a safe haven for terrorist camps, as existed in Afghanistan [in 2001], would you then recommend that the U. S. go in and do what they did in Afghanistan?
Senator Dick Durbin [D-IL]: I am not going to get involved in conjecture about potential invasions in the future. We have seen one invasion that was made over four years ago that has gone terribly bad. We have lost...
****************************
Although almost all, if not all, Democratic Members of Congress support a quick exit from Iraq, the Democratic Leadership does speak of leaving “some” American troops in Iraq with a continued, but sharply constrained, mission. However, how many troops are to be left and what exactly that mission will entail, as well as other aspects of the Democrats’ post Iraq-withdrawal plan, seem not to be clearly articulated for the American public.
The Democrats have argued, with much support, that the Bush administration did not have a sufficient plan to win the peace in Iraq after the initial invasion that led to the defeat of Saddam Hussein’s regime. However, now the question might be: do the Democratic Congressional Leaders or the top tier Democratic Presidential Candidates [Clinton, Obama and Edwards] have a well defined plan for how they will continue to fight terrorists in Iraq if they get their wish, i.e., the bulk of troops in Iraq are removed within the next year.
Further, what would the Democrats do if a safe haven and training camps for Al Qaeda in Iraq were established? And, what would the Democrats do if diplomacy and other efforts to persuade Iran not to go nuclear failed? Senator Durbin is asked, below, about some of these issues, as was Speaker Pelosi last Friday in Chicago. [Go here] to read Q/A with Speaker Pelosi on the subject [“the Iraqis will take care of Al Qaeda,” in Iraq], as well as some additional questions to ask Speaker Pelosi when the opportunity next presents itself.
Go here for a discussion of Chris Matthews' statement that Senator Clinton “is talking about keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely,” and how that statement differs, if at all, from the U. S. having a permanent base in Iraq. And, see here, for Democratic Presidential Candidate Bill Richardson’s request that Senator Clinton support his call “for a complete withdrawal of US forces [from Iraq] with no residual troops.”
****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Senator Clinton has now proposed that the Senate de-authorize the authority that they gave the President to go into Iraq and do that by October of this year. Do you have an understanding of how many troops would be left in Iraq if they follow Senator Clinton’s plan to remove troops by October of 2007?
Senator Dick Durbin [D-IL]: I haven’t read her bill. I want to make it clear that I voted against this War and I think our troops should start coming home. I supported the legislation that President Bush just vetoed this last week. We’re still going to push this forward so that our troops start returning very soon. I want this War to come to an end. Senator Clinton’s proposal with Senator Byrd would de-authorize the War. I think it is an important debate. I want to be part of it. And, I would support it. But, I’ll tell you the chances of passage are very slim. It would take sixty votes in the United States Senate to pass it. Currently, there are forty-nine Democratic senators who are voting to bring this war to an end. So, we need strong support from the Republican side of the aisle. And, if we are fortunate enough to pass it in the House and the Senate, it would be subject to the President’s signature. He’ll veto that, which means it takes 67 votes to override it. It’s an important debate, but it’s not a bill that is likely to bring this War to an end.
Jeff Berkowitz: As a leader in the Senate, is there a number of troops that you would envision leaving in Iraq after the bulk of them are removed.
Senator Durbin: We have three missions that would remain as our troops leave. The first mission is to continue to train the Iraqi soldiers. The second mission is, of course, to protect our soldiers as they are leaving. And, the third is to hunt out Al Qaeda terrorists. That should have been our goal from the start. If we had focused on it, Osama Bin Laden would have been captured by now. But, we have diverted into Iraq. We have minimized our effort in Afghanistan. And, as a consequence, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have grown in influence, rather than diminished. So, we would have to retain enough soldiers to deal with the remaining vestiges of Al Qaeda that came to Iraq after we invaded.
Jeff Berkowitz: Ballpark, what do you think that figure would be.
Senator Durbin: I can’t-can’t come up with a number.
******************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: If Al Qaeda were to establish, after the U. S. left Iraq, a safe haven for terrorist camps, as existed in Afghanistan [in 2001], would you then recommend that the U. S. go in and do what they did in Afghanistan?
Senator Durbin: I am not going to get involved in conjecture about potential invasions in the future. We have seen one invasion that was made over four years ago that has gone terribly bad. We have lost over three thousand, three hundred American soldiers, spent over five hundred billion dollars, have many injured soldiers coming home and many still in the field. This war is far from over. That was an invasion that was supposed to be quick. In the words of this Administration, they were going to greet us like liberators, with flowers in the street. Before we start talking about the next invasion, the next circumstance, we ought to step back and see if there is an alternative—short of military force—to bring real security to America.
***************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: The top tier Republican Presidential candidates are fond of saying that the only thing more dangerous than taking military action against Iran would be an Iran that is armed with a nuclear capability. Do you agree with them on that?
Senator Durbin: Before we reach the point of even thinking about the next military invasion—some people have a voracious appetite to keep our military in the field invading countries. I am not one of them. That is the last thing that we want to do, after we-- after having exhausted every non-military means of stopping the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons or stopping the spread of terrorism. This idea that we’ll just mount up and ride to the battle—I think we’ve learned a bitter lesson in Iraq. It is a much more complicated undertaking than some people make it.
************************************************
Senator Dick Durbin, Speaking at a Press Conference on Balbo and Columbus in Chicago’s Grant Park, just prior to his participation in a Polish Constitution Day Parade on May 5, 2007.
********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************
.
Senator Dick Durbin [D-IL]: I am not going to get involved in conjecture about potential invasions in the future. We have seen one invasion that was made over four years ago that has gone terribly bad. We have lost...
****************************
Although almost all, if not all, Democratic Members of Congress support a quick exit from Iraq, the Democratic Leadership does speak of leaving “some” American troops in Iraq with a continued, but sharply constrained, mission. However, how many troops are to be left and what exactly that mission will entail, as well as other aspects of the Democrats’ post Iraq-withdrawal plan, seem not to be clearly articulated for the American public.
The Democrats have argued, with much support, that the Bush administration did not have a sufficient plan to win the peace in Iraq after the initial invasion that led to the defeat of Saddam Hussein’s regime. However, now the question might be: do the Democratic Congressional Leaders or the top tier Democratic Presidential Candidates [Clinton, Obama and Edwards] have a well defined plan for how they will continue to fight terrorists in Iraq if they get their wish, i.e., the bulk of troops in Iraq are removed within the next year.
Further, what would the Democrats do if a safe haven and training camps for Al Qaeda in Iraq were established? And, what would the Democrats do if diplomacy and other efforts to persuade Iran not to go nuclear failed? Senator Durbin is asked, below, about some of these issues, as was Speaker Pelosi last Friday in Chicago. [Go here] to read Q/A with Speaker Pelosi on the subject [“the Iraqis will take care of Al Qaeda,” in Iraq], as well as some additional questions to ask Speaker Pelosi when the opportunity next presents itself.
Go here for a discussion of Chris Matthews' statement that Senator Clinton “is talking about keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely,” and how that statement differs, if at all, from the U. S. having a permanent base in Iraq. And, see here, for Democratic Presidential Candidate Bill Richardson’s request that Senator Clinton support his call “for a complete withdrawal of US forces [from Iraq] with no residual troops.”
****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Senator Clinton has now proposed that the Senate de-authorize the authority that they gave the President to go into Iraq and do that by October of this year. Do you have an understanding of how many troops would be left in Iraq if they follow Senator Clinton’s plan to remove troops by October of 2007?
Senator Dick Durbin [D-IL]: I haven’t read her bill. I want to make it clear that I voted against this War and I think our troops should start coming home. I supported the legislation that President Bush just vetoed this last week. We’re still going to push this forward so that our troops start returning very soon. I want this War to come to an end. Senator Clinton’s proposal with Senator Byrd would de-authorize the War. I think it is an important debate. I want to be part of it. And, I would support it. But, I’ll tell you the chances of passage are very slim. It would take sixty votes in the United States Senate to pass it. Currently, there are forty-nine Democratic senators who are voting to bring this war to an end. So, we need strong support from the Republican side of the aisle. And, if we are fortunate enough to pass it in the House and the Senate, it would be subject to the President’s signature. He’ll veto that, which means it takes 67 votes to override it. It’s an important debate, but it’s not a bill that is likely to bring this War to an end.
Jeff Berkowitz: As a leader in the Senate, is there a number of troops that you would envision leaving in Iraq after the bulk of them are removed.
Senator Durbin: We have three missions that would remain as our troops leave. The first mission is to continue to train the Iraqi soldiers. The second mission is, of course, to protect our soldiers as they are leaving. And, the third is to hunt out Al Qaeda terrorists. That should have been our goal from the start. If we had focused on it, Osama Bin Laden would have been captured by now. But, we have diverted into Iraq. We have minimized our effort in Afghanistan. And, as a consequence, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have grown in influence, rather than diminished. So, we would have to retain enough soldiers to deal with the remaining vestiges of Al Qaeda that came to Iraq after we invaded.
Jeff Berkowitz: Ballpark, what do you think that figure would be.
Senator Durbin: I can’t-can’t come up with a number.
******************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: If Al Qaeda were to establish, after the U. S. left Iraq, a safe haven for terrorist camps, as existed in Afghanistan [in 2001], would you then recommend that the U. S. go in and do what they did in Afghanistan?
Senator Durbin: I am not going to get involved in conjecture about potential invasions in the future. We have seen one invasion that was made over four years ago that has gone terribly bad. We have lost over three thousand, three hundred American soldiers, spent over five hundred billion dollars, have many injured soldiers coming home and many still in the field. This war is far from over. That was an invasion that was supposed to be quick. In the words of this Administration, they were going to greet us like liberators, with flowers in the street. Before we start talking about the next invasion, the next circumstance, we ought to step back and see if there is an alternative—short of military force—to bring real security to America.
***************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: The top tier Republican Presidential candidates are fond of saying that the only thing more dangerous than taking military action against Iran would be an Iran that is armed with a nuclear capability. Do you agree with them on that?
Senator Durbin: Before we reach the point of even thinking about the next military invasion—some people have a voracious appetite to keep our military in the field invading countries. I am not one of them. That is the last thing that we want to do, after we-- after having exhausted every non-military means of stopping the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons or stopping the spread of terrorism. This idea that we’ll just mount up and ride to the battle—I think we’ve learned a bitter lesson in Iraq. It is a much more complicated undertaking than some people make it.
************************************************
Senator Dick Durbin, Speaking at a Press Conference on Balbo and Columbus in Chicago’s Grant Park, just prior to his participation in a Polish Constitution Day Parade on May 5, 2007.
********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************
.
<< Home