Sen. Dick Durbin made a passioned plea in Congress on the Iraq war. He called out the Republicans obstructionism on the war and Mitch McConnell's 60 vote straw-man argument. Also, CNN called it a "theatrical" event by the Democratic Party. We're talking about war and hell and these idiots are bringing in Broadway.
Download | play 
Download | play
Durbin: Once again I would ask the minority leader from KY, please look at the record. What you said earlier on the floor is not accurate....One of the critics of this recently called it a stunt. A stunt! A stunt that we would stay in session. A stunt that we would have a sleepless night for Senators. I don't think it's a stunt. I think it reflects the reality of this war. How many sleepless night have our soldiers and their families spent?
(Full rough transcript below the fold.)
MR. DURBIN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. AND I WANT TO THANK THE
SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND FOR HIS HARD WORK WITH THE SENATOR
FROM MICHIGAN IN PREPARING THIS BILL ON DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE REPUBLICAN MINORITY LEADER, THE
STATEMENT THAT HE MADE EARLIER ON THE FLOOR IS NOT ACCURATE.
THE REPUBLICAN MINORITY LEADER SAID THAT ON ISSUES RELATING TO
IRAQ, WE HAVE REQUIRED 60 VOTES. I'D LIKE TO REMIND THE
REPUBLICAN MINORITY LEADER THAT THE VOTE ON THE TIMETABLE, ON
THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BILL WAS A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.
IT WAS NOT A 60-VOTE THRESHOLD. THE MOST IMPORTANT IRAQ VOTE OF
THE YEAR DID NOT REQUIRE 60 VOTES ON THE FLOOR OF THE SE
SENATE. IT PASSED THE SENATE WITH A BIPARTISAN ROLL CALL 51 OR
52 MEMBERS SUPPORTING IT AND IT WAS SENT TO PRESIDENT BUSH FOR
ONE OF HIS ONLY THREE VETOES SINCE HE'S BEEN ELECTED PRESIDENT.
I'M SURE THAT THE MINORITY LEADER FROM KENTUCKY REMEMBERS IT
WAS NOT A 60-VOTE REQUIREMENT. NOW LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL HERE. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL. ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD ASK THE MINORITY LEADER FROM KENTUCKY, PLEASE LOOK AT THE RECORD. WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER ON THE FLOOR IS NOT ACCURATE. IN THE LAST DEBATE ON THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL, THERE WERE TWO IRAQ AMENDMENTS OFFERED. ONE BY SENATORS LEVIN AND REED, ANOTHER BY SENATOR KERRY. BOTH RELATED TO THE WAR IN IRAQ AND
BOTH REQUIRED ONLY A MAJORITY VOTE. THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY HAS NOT ACCURATELY PORTRAYED WHAT OCCURRED ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE EITHER WITH OUR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL OR THE PREVIOUS DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL. NOW, FOR THOSE WHO ARE FOLLOWING THIS DEBATE WONDERING WHY ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT HOW MANY VOTES ARE REQUIRED, THIS IS WHAT THE SENATE IS ALL ABOUT. THE QUESTION IS, WILL THIS SENATE SPEAK ON THE ISSUE OF THE POLICY IN THE WAR IN IRAQ. THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY
UNDERSTANDS, BECAUSE HE'S BEEN A VETERAN OF THIS BODY, THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS SUPPORTING HIS POSITION OR THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT BUSH. AND SO HE STARTED THIS DEBATE BY SAYING, WE WON'T ALLOW A MAJORITY VOTE T. WILL TAKE 60 VOTES -- VOTE. IT WILL TAKE 60 VOTES, 60% OF THE SENATE TO CHANGE THE POLICY ON THE WAR IN IRAQ. THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY IS BETTING THAT HE CAN HOLD ENOUGH REPUBLICAN SENATORS BACK FROM VOTING FOR A CHANGE IN POLICY ON THE WAR IN IRAQ TO
DEFEAT OUR EFFORTS TO START BRINGING OUR SOLDIERS HOME. THAT IS HIS PROCEDURAL APPROACH TO THIS. HE HAS STOOD BY IT. BUT HE SHOULD CONFESS IT FOR WHAT IT IS. IT IS A DEPARTURE FROM WHERE WE HAVE BEEN ON THE DEBATE ON IRAQ, BOTH ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL AND ON THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL. AND, MR. PRESIDENT, IT'S UNFORTUNATE AND IT'S WRONG. IT IS WRONG TO REQUIRE 60% OF THIS BODY TO VOTE THIS WAY IF TRADITIONALLY ON THIS WAR IN IRAQ WE'VE REQUIRED ONLY A SIMPLE MAJORITY. I
SUPPOSE IT'S ENCOURAGING TO US THAT MORE THAN 60% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET IT. THEY UNDERSTAND HOW FAILED THIS POLICY HAS BEEN OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, THE POLICY THAT'S BEING SUPPORTED BY THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. THEY UNDERSTAND IT. THEY WANT US TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. BUT THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY HAS THROWN THIS OBSTACLE IN OUR PATH. HE HAS CREATED THIS PROCEDURAL ROADBLOCK. HE HAS FILIBUSTERED -- STARTING A FILIBUSTER TO STOP THE DEBATE ON THE WAR IN IRAQ.
NOW, I'VE BEEN HERE FOR FOR A FEW YEARS AND I HAVEN'T -- NOW, I'VE BEEN HERE FOR A FEW YEARS, AND I HAVEN'T SEEN A FULL-THROATED, FULLY IMPLEMENTED FILIBUSTER, THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE RECALLED FROM "MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON," WHEN JIMMY STEWART STOOD AT HIS DESK UNTIL HE CRUMPLED IN EXHAUSTION, FILIBUSTERING A BILL TO STOP IT. OVER THE YEARS, OUR GENTILITY HAS LED TO US A DIFFERENT KIND OF FILIBUSTER. IT'S A FILIBUSTER IN NAME ONLY, WHERE ONE SIDE SAYS, WELL, WE'RE JUST GOING TO KEEP THIS DEBATE GOING ON INDEFINITELY AND THE OTHER SIDE SAYS,
WE'LL BRING THE DEBATE TO A CLOSE, A MOTION FOR CLOTURE, BRINGING IT TO A CLOSE AND WE'LL SEE YOU IN 30 HOURS. HAVE A GOOD TIME. NEIGHBOR YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND HAVE A NICE DINNER WITH YOUR FRIENDS. WE'LL SEE YOU TOMORROW MORNING. WELL, WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THAT PROCEDURE THIS WEEK. SINCE THE REPUBLICAN SIDE HAS DECIDED THAT THEY WANT TO FILIBUSTER OUR EFFORT TO DEBATE THE WAR POLICY ON IRAQ, WE HAVE DECIDED ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A REAL FILIBUSTER. ONE OF THE CRITICS OF THIS RECENTLY CALLED IT A STUNT, A STUNT THAT WE
WOULD STAY IN SESSION, A STUNT THAT WE WOULD HAVE A SLEEPLESS NIGHT FOR SENATORS, A STUNT THAT WE WOULD INCONVENIENCE SENATORS AND STAFF AND PRESS AND THOSE WHO FOLLOW THE PROCEEDINGS. I DON'T THINK IT'S A STUNT. I THINK IT REFLECTS THE REALITY OF THIS WAR. HOW MANY SLEEPLESSNESS OF NIGHTS HAVE OUR SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILIES SPENT WAITING TO FIND OUT WHETHER THEY'LL COME HOME ALIVE. HOW MANY SLEEPLESS NIGHTS HAVE THEY SPENT PRAYING THAT AFTER THE SCPEKD THIRD REDEPLOYMENT
THAT THEIR SOLDIER WILL STILL HAVE THE COURAGE AND SENG TO BEAT BACK THE ENEMY AND COME HOME TO HIS FAMILY? IT'S ABOUT TIME FOR THE SEND TO SPEND AT LEAST ONE SLEEPLESS NIGHT. MAYBE IT'S ONLY A SYMBOL BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT SYMBOL FOR THE SOLDIERS AND FAMILY T. REALLY GOES TO THE NATURE OF -- FAMILY. IT REALLY GOES TO THE NATURE OF SACRIFICE. I GUESS I WAS RAISED AS A LITTLE BOY READING ABOUT WORLD WAR II AND REMEMBERING THE KOREAN WAR WHEN MY TWO BROTHERS SERVED. THERE WAS A SENSE OF NATIONAL COMMITMENT IN THOSE WARS. PEOPLE BACK
HOME AS WELL AS THOSE ON THE FRONT FELT THEY WERE IN IT TOGETHER. SACRIFICES HAD TO BE MADE IN YOUR DAILY LIVING HABITS AND THE KINDS OF THINGS YOU COULD BUY AND RATION CARDS AND BUYING U.S. SAVINGS BONDS. AMERICA WAS REALLY ONE UNITED NATION IN THOSE WARS. WE ACCEPTED THAT SHARED SACRIFICE. WE WERE BETTER FOR THAT SHARED SACRIFICE. BUT THIS WAR, SAD TO SAY THIS PRESIDENT HAS NOT SUMMONED THAT SAME SPIRIT OF SACRIFICE. HE'S BASICALLY TOLD US THAT THIS WAR CAN BE WAGED WITHOUT INCONVENIENCING THE LIVES OF MOST AMERICANS. OUR SOLDIERS GO
THROUGH MORE THAN INCONVENIENCE. THEY GO THROUGH HARDSHIP AND DEPRIVATION. MANY OF THEM FACE INJURY AND DEATH IN SERVING OUR COUNTRY. BUT FOR MOST OF US, LIFE GOES ON AS NORMAL. THIS PRESIDENT HAS NOT ASKED GREAT SACRIFICE FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO EVEN SUPPORT THESE TROOPS. WHEN I VISITED IRAQ, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE A MARINE OR SOLDIER OVER LUNCH SAY TO ME, "SENATOR, DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO OVER HERE?" "DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST?" IT'S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION. WE FOCUS ON THESE SUPERFICIAL STORIES IN THE PRESS
THAT DON'T MEAN A THING AND FORGET THE OBVIOUS. AND THE OBVIOUS IS THIS, MR. PRESIDENT. EVERY MONTH -- EVERY MONTH WE ARE LOSING AMERICAN LIVES. ABOUT 100 AMERICAN SOLDIERS DIE EACH MONTH IN THIS WAR IN IRAQ. 1,000 ARE SERIOUSLY INJURED. WE SPEND $12 BILLION EACH MONTH. THAT'S THE REALITY. I KNOW THAT THERE'S FRUSTRATION BY THESE SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILIES THAT WE AREN'T PAYING CLOSE ENOUGH ATTENTION. BUT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT THIS FAILED POLICY FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS TO -- THAT THIS FAILED POLICY FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS TO COME TO AN END. WASN'T IT INTERESTING OVER THE WEEKEND WHEN THE PRIME MINISTER OF IRAQ INVITED US TO LEAVE AND SAID, YOU CAN TAKE OFF ANY TIME YOU'D LIKE, AMERICA; WE'LL TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN PROBLEMS? PRIME MINISTER AL MALAKI, THE MAN WE HOPE -- HELPED TO BRING TO OFFICE, THE ONE WE'RE HOPING WILL SHOW THE LEADERSHIP IN IRAQ FOR ITS FUTURE HAS ASKED AMERICA TO PICK UP AND GO WHENEVER THEY'D LIKE TO. WHAT DO THE AMERICAN -- WHAT DO THE IRAQI PEOPLE THINK ABOUT OUR PRESENCE?
69% OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE SAY OUR PRESENCE IN IRAQ TODAY WITH OUR TROOPS MAKES IT MORE DANGEROUS TO LIVE THERE. MORE THAN 2 MILLION OF THOSE SOLDIERS -- OF THOSE IRAQIS HAVE LEFT THAT COUNTRY AS REFUGEES. MILLIONS HAVE BEEN DISPLACED FROM THEIR HOMES. THOUSANDS -- WE DON'T EVEN KNOW THE NUMBER -- HAVE BEEN INJURED AND KILLED. AND THEY WANT US TO LEAVE, THIS OCCUPATION ARMY OF AMERICANS. WHAT DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THIS OCCUPATION IN IRAQ?
THEY WANT IT TO END AS WELL. THEY DON'T SEE ANY END IN SIGHT. THEY DON'T HEAR FROM THIS PRESIDENT THE KIND OF STRATEGY OR DIRECTION THAT LEADS THEM TO BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL END WELL OR END SOON. AND THEY WANT OUR TROOPS TO START COMING HOME AND I AGREE WITH THEM. I DON'T BELIEVE THE IRAQIS WILL STAND UP AND ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN COUNTRY UNTIL WE START LEAVING. IF THE IRAQIS KNOW THAT EVERY TIME THERE'S A PROBLEM IN THEIR COUNTRY, THEY CAN DIAL 911 AND BRING ON 20,000 OF OUR BEST AND BRAVEST SOLDIERS TO QUELL THE VIOLENCE IN THEIR STREETS, WHAT KIND OF INCENTIVE IS THAT FOR THEM TO PROTECT
THEIR OWN COUNTRY? WHAT KIND OF INCENTIVE IS THAT FOR THEM TO MAKE THE CRITICAL POLITICAL DECISIONS WHICH MAY LEAD ONE DAY TO STABILITY? I LOOK AT THIS CORNYN AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS JUST FILED, AND I RESPECT MY COLLEAGUE FROM TEXAS. BUT I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING. HE'S ASKING FOR TOO MUCH. HE'S ASKING THE UNITED STATES TO STAY IN IRAQ TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT IT SUCCEEDS. NOW, HOW LONG IS THAT GOING TO BE? HOW LONG WILL THAT GO ON?