Foreign Policy

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) continued her criticism of the Bush administration's management of the Iraq War in her questioning of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday.

Clinton questioned whether the FY07 supplemental budget and the FY08 budget would sufficiently fund U.S. troops in Iraq. She also called on Iraqi government to step up its efforts, saying "the era of carrots has got to end," referring what she called the "blank check" the U.S. have given the Iraqi government.

At the end of her remarks, Clinton questioned the administration plan for Darfur. She asked if the administration has considered implementing a no fly zone over the region and launching punitive strikes on Sudanese planes.

Below is a video of Clinton's remarks.

Like all Americans, I want our troops to come home, and this new strategy is the best way to achieve victory. With my step-son and daughter-in-law having just returned from Iraq, and my daughter-in-law about to redeploy to Afghanistan, I know the anxiety many service families are enduring. I reject any suggestion - popular among some in Congress - that cutting off funds to our brave fighting men and women is an appropriate policy alternative to winning in Iraq.

As this process unfolds, we must always remember that it is not occurring in a cocoon. Those who are plotting our destruction in Iraq and around the world will be watching our debate on TV and drawing up their plans accordingly.

No credible person can doubt that, however we might try to disguise it, a withdrawal while Iraq is still in chaos would be regarded around the world as a victory by our enemies.  For we will have demonstrated that we will abandon allies, that we can in fact be forced to accept defeat and its consequences, however grave they may be. We may devise some fig leaf to hide our actions, but the world will not be fooled, our friends will not be fooled, and our enemies will not be fooled. Read more...

As elected public officials, Members of Congress have an obligation to debate war strategy, exercise Congressional oversight, and attend to the interests of their constituents. If by conscience they disagree with the President's direction, they have a responsibility to put forth an alternative plan. To that end, Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) has introduced legislation eliminating funding for the war. While I fundamentally disagree with Senator Feingold's conclusions about Iraq and the way forward, at least he is honest about his true position.

In the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stated that we owe our troops "better policy...better initiatives." Yet, her party has produced no constructive plan. Instead, House Democrats are preparing to bring to the floor a nonbinding resolution opposing an increase in troops while vowing to uphold funding. This type of political posturing brings nothing to the debate regarding the protection of American families.

President Bush has proposed a plan that increases the number of American troops in Baghdad and al-Anbar province to serve in conjunction with Iraqi security forces. I believe that the President’s plan is the best opportunity to reach the political compromise necessary to unify the country and end sectarian violence.

While the situation in Iraq is grave, it would turn dire if we prematurely withdraw our forces and withdraw the funding that is necessary to move Iraq forward. During the last two weeks of hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, every expert witness testified – without exception – that if the U.S. retreats or redeploys our troops, there would be thousands of lives lost and the potential for a regional conflict in the Middle East would increase dramatically.

At such a critical time, when our country is committed to a major battle in the overall Global War on Terror, the words of Congress should not send a mixed message to our troops, the Iraqi people or our enemies. Our men and women in the military watch what we say, and what we say on this floor is important. We must make it clear that while we may have differences in policy or politics we do not have any difference in our support for our men and women in uniform. Read more...

As Democrats continue their oversight of the Iraq War, reconstruction spending has become a focal point (see Calif. Dem. Rep. Henry Waxman's 2/7 post on the topic). In this clip, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, former Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq, answers questions about reconstruction contractors before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Bremer responds to Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) on the CPA's hiring practices. Many critics of the reconstruction process have accused the CPA's contractors of inefficiency and waste; here Bremer defends the competence of high level reconstruction contractors, while stating that the Pentagon, not the CPA, was responsible for hiring them.

There are a lot of reasons for concern about the billions of dollars we’re spending in Iraq reconstruction. Yesterday we heard from Ambassador Bremer and Special Inspector General Bowen about the fact that 8 to 20 billion dollars cash were sent to Iraq and there’s not a clear accounting for where that money went…it’s disturbing to me. Today we’re looking at the issue of contractors who subcontract and their subcontractors who subcontract again, and whether the subcontractor who actually does the work is providing what’s required under the contract, and also whether there’s any padding of the bill by one subcontractor putting in his overhead and another subcontractor and the general contractor adding their charges as well.

As Iraq becomes a focal point in the Senate, Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has positioned himself to the left of other Democrats. At the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting last Friday, Dodd condemned the possibility of a non-binding resolution on the war, saying, "Frankly I am disappointed that we can't find a way to do more than send a meaningless message to the White House."

Resolution S. 470 is a compromise between two proposals made by Senators John Warner (R-Va.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.). The resolution expresses the Senate's disagreement with White House policy in Iraq.

Dodd, who wants to withdraw troops if elected, says he doesn't think the measure is strong enough. "I don't believe spending a week debating a non-binding resolution is the change that America voted for" in the November elections, Dodd said.

Below is a video of Dodd's speech.

After Chavez was granted sweeping powers to rule by decree, Thomas Shannon, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, stated in an interview with the Associated Press, "The enabling law isn't anything new in Venezuela. It's something valid under the constitution. As with any tool of democracy, it depends how it is used. At the end of the day, it's not a question for the United States or for other countries, but for Venezuela."

Hugo Chavez is the most dangerous man in the Western Hemisphere. I am astonished and dismayed that the State Department is once again failing to take him seriously.

Since he has been in power, Chavez has moved to put Venezuela on a rapid path toward dictatorship. This law gives Chavez nearly unlimited power - power to rule with an iron fist by nationalizing private industries, snuffing out political dissent and abolishing freedom of the press, as most recently evidenced by the revocation of Radio Caracas Television's operating license.

Hugo Chavez is a clear and present danger to the people of Venezuela and indeed the entire Western Hemisphere. We cannot continue to let his actions go unnoticed.

As the Senate gets set to consider non-binding resolutions I feel strongly that it’s premature to be addressing something that will have no impact on what we’re trying to achieve over there. I’m not against the debate – we’re certainly free to debate any of the issues. But I expect we’ll be hearing plenty in the coming weeks as we consider a supplemental budget request for the War in Iraq. It seems counterproductive to me that, just on the heels of confirming General Petraeus to get started on our new strategy, the Senate feels compelled to take up non-binding resolutions that I feel are pure political posturing. The resolutions will only serve to highlight our differences and undermine our efforts to achieve a positive end for Iraq.

In looking back, things have not gone well. We have discounted our previous strategy. The President has agreed that mistakes were made, but he has installed new leadership and a new strategy. I believe the Senate needs to make decisions from where we are now – this point in the fight. I don’t see how any more positive results can be achieved from any of the non-binding resolutions before us.

The organizations that took Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev captive in June and July have showed their true character. Withholding doctors, withholding Red Cross or Red Crescent visits, withholding basic communication with their families; these choices show what kind of men run Hamas and Hezbollah: They're religious but they're deeply immoral. They're self-righteous but they're profoundly cruel. They're blustery and proud but they're sneaky and manipulative. Decent human beings don't act this way.

Decency doesn't depend on international law or multilateral agreements, nor does it depend on nationality. And I'm not aware that withholding medical care or basic contact with the outside world is a requirement of either Shia or Sunni Islam, or any of the world's great religions. Read more...