The resolution is very straightforward, very clear, and very brief.  It first says that we emphatically support our troops and their mission-nowhere does it mention retreat.  Second, it says that we think that the addition of 20,000 troops to be asked to pursue the same policies that haven't worked is inadvisable.

Our service members deserve a government that confronts reality rather than simply hoping for the best.  And the reality is that somewhere between those who believe that we can stay the course in Iraq indefinitely and those who believe that we should leave Iraq tomorrow is the painful truth. The truth is that neither of these options will work.

Now, if you agree with me that this is the painful reality, then you are left with a hard choice: add 20,000 troops to continue the administration's ineffective plan, or try something different. Should we send 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, or should we rebuild our readiness here at home to deal with the growing challenges of Iran or naval expansion in China or genocide in Darfur or the other dangers in the world?  Should we hold the Iraqi Government accountable for accelerating the training of their troops or should we continue hoping for the best while putting the burden on the backs of 20,000 more U.S. troops?

The days of debate that we've had on this resolution are important and I'd like to make a point about some of the characterizations to which we have been listening. As a Democrat, I know that there is not a single Republican who wakes up in the morning wanting this war to last for one day longer than it has to last. And in the same spirit, I am offended by anyone who would suggest that there is a Democrat who gives aid and comfort to the enemy, who wants us to be defeated, who wants us to lose. That is not what we are about.  We need to end the sound bites and the partisanship and the war rooms off the floor of the House that tell people what to say, and instead, begin formulating effective policy for the troops that are listening to us.