Tuesday, February 26, 2008

U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Floor Statement on Iraq
Remarks as Delivered on the Senate Floor

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I rise for just a few minutes. I know the distinguished Senator from Michigan wants to speak, and I will not be long, but I feel compelled to come to the floor today to speak about S. 2634, to require a report back to the people of the United States and to the Congress on our country's plan to address al-Qaida and its affiliates on a worldwide basis. It is very disappointing to me that we would put something on the floor like that when, in fact, it is those who have objec ted to the plan we have who are causing all of the problems we are experiencing today. I wish to go through it for a moment because there is a plan.

Nine days after 9/11, when the United States of America was attacked and New York City was attacked and the world saw the evil of al-Qaida and the evil of terrorism, the President of the United States went to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, and he made a speech in which he declared a change in U.S. policy--a change from one of reaction to one of preemption.

So, first of all, we don't need a 60-day report back to the people of the United States on what our policy is. Our policy is one of preemption. Now, if you want to argue whether that is right or wrong, it is fine with me, but don't pretend as though we don't have a plan.

Secondly, in terms of preemption, it is a proposition where you don't want to see what happened on 9/11 happen again, so you are proactive rather than reactive. We were attacked as a country in the late 1990s and ear ly 2000 seven different times in which we reacted after the fact. In most cases, those reactions were benign. In one case, we sent one missile into an aspirin factory, but it was too late for the diplomats who had died, for the soldiers and sailors on the Cole who had died, and for others who had died tragically under terrorist attack.

So, first and foremost, I would submit that we have a policy called preemption.

Thirdly, I would submit it has been a pretty good policy because since the President of the United States established it in that speech on the floor of the House in September of 2001, there has not been a single executed attack on the United States of America on our homeland. I think that is pretty good evidence that we have a plan, and a plan that is working in the interest of the safety of the American people.

Fourth, recommendations regarding the distribution and deployment of U.S. military, intelligence, diplomatic, and other assets to meet the relative regional and country-specific threats described in paragraph 1. The people who want to pass this bill are the very people who 2 weeks ago would not allow us, in the House of Representatives, to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Here we are asking what our plan is going to be. Yet people are voting against the United States having the intelligence to conduct the worldwide program against al-Qaida and its affiliates. You just can't have it both ways.

I respect anybody being opposed to our deployment in Iraq. I re spect anybody's opinion in this body--or any other body, for that matter--on the policy of the United States. But do not on the one hand assume we have no policy and then on the other hand vote against every meaningful contribution to the policy we do have, and the absolute prima facie evidence of that is FISA. Go look at the votes in the Senate on who voted against the extension of FISA, and you will find the same people who are supporting and furthering S. 2634. It is on its face patently unacceptable.

Lastly, it requires recommendations to ensure that the global deployment of the U.S. military of personnel and equipment best meets threats identified and described in paragraph 1; and, A, doesn't undermine the military readiness; B, requires the deployment of Reserve units more than twice, once every 4 years; and C, requires further extension of deployment s of members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Let me interpret what that means. In 60 days, they want us to report to our enemies exactly what our military deployments are going to be in the future. One thing you don't do when your sons and daughters are engaged in harm's way around the world is tell your enemy what your game plan is. Sure, you should have one, and it should be one we all listen to on the fourth floor in our secured briefing rooms, but don't require it to be advertised to the world.

We liv e in the greatest, freest, most liberty-loving country in the world. We fight in this body every day to protect the Bill of Rights. But we have to recognize something: The terrorists don't want what we have. They don't want us to have what we have. They don't want us to have a first amendment to protect speech or for me to be able to stand up here and express myself. They don't want a law-abiding citizen to be able to carry a firearm or own a firearm. They don't want you to be able to worship on Sunday or w orship on Friday or worship on Saturday or worship five times a day if you are a Muslim. They want to be able to dictate how you worship and whom you worship. We have to remember that, as we talk about the individual liberties and freedom we protect, those are the very liberties al-Qaida and its affiliates, as this bill portends, want to take away from us. The last thing we want to do is pass legislation requiring us to give them our game plan.

I welcome debate on these issues anytime we want to come to the floor. I take pride in the accomplishments of the young men and women who stand today in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in other places around the world furthering the interests of the United States of America and protecting us against al-Qaida and its operatives. We have a policy, and it is called preemption. We have a plan, and it is our plan, and it doesn't need to be advertised to them. Most importantly of all, we have the finest men and women in the world executing that plan today around the world on b ehalf of the people of the United States of America. But let's not require disclosure of our plan, and let's not pretend we don't have a way to attack al-Qaida and its affiliates. We do. It is called preemption. As of yet, they haven't hit us on our territory, in our country since the day we established that as the policy of the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam Presiden t, will the Senator from Georgia yield for a question?

Mr. ISAKSON. Absolutely.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I wish to ask the Senator through the Chair--he indicated that our strategy vis-a-vis al-Qaida after 9/11 has to do with the doctrine of preemption. I am intrigued by that. I know that was a justification for going into Iraq, but I wonder if the Senator could explain how the doctrine of preemption is going to help us against an organization that is existing in some 80 countries in the world. Are we going to invade and preempt 80 different nations?

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, after seeing what al-Qaida wants to do to us and has done to us, I don't think we should minimize what the effort might be that we have to take.

I say to the Senator from Wisconsin, it is one of preemption, and the No. 1 way to preempt is to know in advance what the enemy is going to do, and the No. 1 way to do that is to be able to surveil known enemies. That is why we have the FISA bill. You can preempt when you have the knowledge. If you don't have the knowledge and you strip your intelligence agency of the business, yes, they are going to grow in 80 countries, and yes, they are going to hit us. So we have a policy of preemption. The best way to preempt is to have good intelligence, and the best way to get their attention is to let them realize we will go after them wherever they are as long as they declare war on the United States of Amer ica.

Mr. FEINGOLD. So you are not referring here to the doctrine of preemption to use as a justification for invading Iraq; you are talking about the need for intelligence, is that correct?

Mr. ISAKSON. The President of the United States--I believe it was 9 days after 9/11--announced the change of U.S. policy to be one of preemption. That is what I addressed in my remarks. The FISA reference I made was to say that I found it a little unusual for the people who were supporting the bill of the Senator from Wisconsin--whom I completely respect--to be most of the same people who voted against us having the intelligence to be able to preempt them. And then to have a bill that portends we don't have a policy? I just didn't think it made good sense.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, if the Senator will further yield for a question, I understand what he is saying in terms of the need for intelligence, but the doctr ine of preemption that was announced by the President 9 days after 9/11 and through that period was not about intelligence. It had to do with the notion of where we could intervene in various nations. So I am just a little bit confused about that and trying to understand the connection.

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, responding through the Chair, I appreciate the clarification. My point is you can't intervene if you don't know where it is going to happen.

Let me just mak e a point, if I can. I live in the great State of Georgia, and I live in a suburb of Atlanta. There will be a trial in April of two students at Georgia Institute of Technology--Georgia Tech. Because of the PATRIOT Act and the FISA law, our intelligence agencies tracked communications from Islamabad, Pakistan, into Atlanta, GA, to the library at Georgia Tech to two students, Islamic students who were then communicating to Toronto, Canada, to establish a cell in Atlanta. Days before they were to activate the p lan of that cell, our authorities moved in and put them under arrest, and they are going to trial. The cell was never activated. No lives were lost. That is how you preempt. You preempt through intelligence, you preempt from knowing what the enemy is going to do before they do it, and you preempt by having the strong intelligence and military forces to make it work.