Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, in just several days, America will be celebrating her birthday. As we enjoy the 4th of July, we recall the brave patriots who stood up to the biggest military power in the world and defended basic principles that they were willing to lay their lives down for. Their wives and their children suffered as well.

As they had a chance to develop a systematic form of government and to lay out the very most important things that they had suffered so hard for. The very first amendment to the Constitution was about free speech. The Founders believed that it was critical to protect property, and of all forms of property. The thing that issues from a man's heart is the most precious. For a person to be able to have a belief and to be able to speak that freely is a precious thing not only to our Founders but to all who have been defenders of the first amendment.

I thank our colleagues who have issued this fantastic amendment. I think we should support it with the last drop of our blood and the last farthing of our treasure.

Mr. Speaker, congressional Democrats are looking to fund $190 billion in spending projects. However, they don't have $190 billion. So the Democrats seem to be disguising the truth from the American people by playing hide and seek. They are hiding $190 billion by claiming it's in a reserve fund. But there isn't any reserve fund.

So where will $190 billion come from? Well, the Democrats have voted to terminate the Republican tax cuts of 2001 through 2003. The money will come from the American taxpayers.

As much as I strongly disagree with tax increases, the least the Democrats can do is to level with the American people.

Rather than playing hide and seek, the Democrats should have the political courage to admit that they are

taxing and spending. The American people deserve to know the truth. After all, it's their money.

Thank you, Congressman Kline. And thank you for providing this opportunity for a number of us to make several points.

The first that I would make would be to show a respect for General Pace for his 40 years of service. I have two sons who are graduates of the Naval Academy, one who is returning from his second visit to the Middle East as an officer and as a Marine, and another who is just going off to his basic school this July. And I have a third son at the Naval Academy who hopefully will be graduating in another couple of years, and he might also choose the Marines as well. So I have a respect for the Marines just from what I have learned from my own sons, and particularly as a Congressman, having watched and had a chance to observe General Pace's leadership.

We are here partly this evening, in talking on this subject, because General Pace is not being renominated by Secretary Gates and the President. And he is not being renominated primarily because of concerns about his political correctness. In fact, a certain prominent Democrat in the other body has criticized Pace because he is ``not in touch.'' Now, that is a significant concern to me.

My own personal background, while I was in the Army some, has been more in the business world. But any organization can atrophy if the organization makes an effort to fill the organization with yes-men, with people who don't have the courage to speak up and to speak their opinions.

Now, throughout America's history, we have had generals, some who don't even speak up very delicately, but do express their opinion and have had to pay a political price. And I think that history in many cases has shown that while what these men may have said may not have been popular in their day, yet it was accurate. I think particularly of people like General Patton, who, when he had finished his business of crushing Naziism, said, Let me after the communists and the Russians and the Soviets because they are no different than the Nazis. Well, looking back historically, we realize what he said was absolutely right, but he was not politically correct. He wasn't a yes-man.

But it's my opinion that the reason the First Amendment is the first amendment is because Americans appreciate somebody who will speak in a forthright, straightforward manner and

can give their opinion respectfully, but still with some level of force.

I think that General Pace has done that and is now going to pay the price politically for not being a ``yes'' man or lining up with somebody's preconceived political notions. I think it is a sad day in America's history where we don't have more respect for the first amendment and have way too much respect for political correctness and trying to go along and get along and just be a ``yes'' man and keep everybody happy.

I think that one of the great things about our generals is that they do take a look at the details, they analyze the situation, and they say what is right, what is wrong, and what their opinion is. I think it is a shame that this general should be penalized for that particular situation.

I would be happy to yield back to my good friend, Congressman Kline. I appreciate your giving me a chance to say that I think that our organizations need to have room for people who don't always necessarily agree. I think we are better Americans, we are stronger Americans, when we can look each other in the eye and say, I love you, brother, but this is my opinion on this subject.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Madam Speaker, the rule that we are considering does not allow a very critical amendment which we voted on in committee. Several of the votes that were most important in committee were not done in a bipartisan way. They were strict party-line votes. This was one of those. One was missile defense; the other is the modernization program for the Army.

The modernization program for the Army that I am talking about was cut by 25 percent, a massive slash in that particular program. What that program does is, it provides the first major modernization program in the last 40 years for the Army. What the program does is, it provides real-time online information, networking, a whole group of different sensors, satellites and individuals on the field, tanks, unmanned aerial vehicles, pulling all that information together to give us accurate and timely information in the battlefield.

Now, anybody who's studied military warfare will tell you that if you just had this piece of information or that piece of information, the tide of battle would have shifted, and so this whole system is designed to provide that information for our warfighters. It has been slashed 25 percent. It is called Future Combat Systems.

Why is that important? First of all, it means you've got to go all the way back to the drawing board with this program, changing all the time schedules. It is tremendously complex.

The second thing is that this program really is the forerunner for things that will be used by the Marines and the Navy. The Navy calls it more network centric warfare, but the concept, the software, will be the same.

Now, we are denied an opportunity to try to restore some funding to the Army's first major modernization program in 40 years. The result is that our sons and daughters will have to pay the price. My own sons will have to pay the price because we have not gotten the information that is absolutely critical to our warfighter there at the time that we need to do it.

Madam Chair, one of the things that you can be only an amateur student of are various battles, or military history, and it becomes immediately obvious, the importance of information. Just randomly, you can think of Pearl Harbor, knowing whether the Japanese are coming. Or, particularly, the Battle of Midway, where you have the Japanese force, far superior to the American force, but the Americans knew where the Japanese aircraft carriers were and the Japanese only knew where one of the American aircraft carriers was. As a result, America won that significant Battle of Midway, even though we had an inferior force, based on information.

Now, I have heard discussion about how proud we are of Future Combat Systems, which is a fancy word for a computerized system to help our warfighters have the information that they need in order to do their job. That program is the first major Army modernization program in 40 years, and under this bill, it is being cut by 25 percent.

This was not a feel good kind of vote. This was a strict party-line vote, the Democrats voting to cut it by 25 percent, the Republicans trying to restore funds and being turned down in that request.

Now, when you cut a program by 25 percent, particularly as complicated as this is with all the computers that are talking to each other, the software, the communications disciplines and the platforms involved, that is a significant change and a significant slowdown to a very important part of our future, and that is the ability to have real-time, online information for our warfighters.

This is not just important to the Army, as important as it is to the Army, because the Marines and the Navy are going to be waiting also for perhaps a lot of this software to be the prototype for their systems that they develop later. So what we are doing is basically pushing back, slowing and delaying and cutting down 25 percent, or $867 million, from this program. We have tried to replace those funds some, with some things that are completely not necessary, such as a high speed boat for the Army, which hasn't even been designed, and have been turned down and not even allowed to offer that amendment here on the floor.

Now, who is it who is going to pay for this degradation of the modernization of our Army? It is going to be our sons and daughters, my own sons that are involved, and this is not a good thing. This is not a good trade-off. We must advance the modernization. Information has always throughout history been critical to warfare. It is all the more so now.

And so I am strongly opposed to this significant cut and the hurting of our ability to get information to our warfighter.

Recently, congressional Democrats cut funding that was planned for modernization of our military. And while we've heard statements that the Democrats are supporting our troops, their actions speak louder than words.

In a strict party-line vote, Democrats slashed the Army modernization program with a 25 percent cut, casting a cloud over the first major modernization program in four decades. Future combat systems are designed to create a real-time battlefield information system. It promises increased safety and efficiency for our troops. This is nothing new. In the 1970s, the Democrats slashed military spending, and our servicemen and -women were forced to apply for food stamps just to survive. Again, in the 1990s, the Democrat Congress caused our Nation's forces to lose their technological edge. From future combat systems to missile defense, Democrats demonstrate a shortsightedness that will cost our sons and daughters the tools they need for a safe mission. My children and our children will pay the price.

The Democrats' supplemental bill was a crafty way to quit in Iraq. Now, certainly each of us individually, and even as leaders and nations, is tempted at various times in the face of overwhelming odds to quit and to give up; and yet greatness in leaders and greatness in nations is frequently measured by a stubborn and cussed determination to carry on.

We think, of course, immediately of George Washington at Valley Forge, we think of Winston Churchill challenging the people of England to rise up and to be strong against the Nazis; he loved to mispronounce it to bait Hitler. But we also recall in our own history how we were in Vietnam, how we bombed North Vietnam, and in the observation of Jeremiah Denton, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, how we were just very close to victory. North Vietnam was about to capitulate because of the bombing, and then we cut and run.

The test before us today is for the courage and the heart of not just the Iraqi people, but the American people. What are the measurements we should be looking at? It is not the day for the sunshine patriot, but for the cussed and the strong and the brave.

Mr. Chairman, our concern, and this could have been clarified, but the majority party has chosen not to clarify it, our problem is the question about the fact that somebody could be compensated multiple times for the same damage. That just is plain old double dipping. That is something that could have been simplified with an amendment.

So I oppose the bill.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the protection of life, and this ruling affirms Congress's role in guarding and protecting that special gift of life. As Justice Kennedy stated, Congress determined that the abortion methods it prescribed had a disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant.

In the past 30 years or so, our Nation has seen an appalling rise in the disrespect for the dignity of human life. And when a culture of life is not respected, a culture of death rises to fill the void. This culture of death has been eating away at our Nation's character, at America's soul. It seems that day after day we are inundated with new stories of senseless acts of violence and death carried out on innocent victims. It would be easy to try to turn and look away; it would be easy to pretend that that crisis does not exist, but it would not be right. Who is it who will defend the innocent that is led off to slaughter? Who will stand for the right to life in America?

I am reminded of William Wilberforce, the recent movie about his life's efforts to end the practice of slavery. The moving movie ``Amazing Grace'' demonstrates the value of this cause and the tireless efforts that Wilberforce went through year after year, constant criticism and rejection, until he collected the votes to finally send slavery in the British empire to the dust bin of history. We as Members of Congress could learn from his great example. Will we show our own Nation the same love and respect for the dignity of human beings?

If there is one thing we should take away from this 5-4 decision, it is this, that when human life is threatened by such a gruesome procedure as partial birth abortion, all true sons and daughters of liberty, all true patriots, all true people who respect those rights that have been passed on to us by our Forefathers will take a stand for that precious, precious idea that God gives us life. And it is my sincere hope at this time that we can continue to build on this important victory and to create a new culture of life in our land.

There was a time years ago, many years ago, when America was just a dark forest almost on the horizon, when a young man in 1630 was aboard the Lion. He became, as we know Winthrop, Winthrop, the Governor of Boston, known as the George Washington of the Puritans. And as he was coming along the coast of Maine in the Lion and the wind was blowing across the pine forests out to sea and he smelled the smell of the pine and the balsam on the breeze and he put pen to paper and he started writing, ``A Model of Christian Charity.'' And in there, he held a vision for America that America could be as a shining city on a hill, a light to people all over the world. And today, Mr. Speaker, that vision of a shining city seems just a little bit closer and a little bit less dim and a little closer to a reality that one day, one day that shining city on a hill, a vision of hope for all people of the world, a vision of a city where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are truly enshrined in every law and precept of this great Nation; may that vision come to reality even within our own days. Thank you. God bless you all.

Mr. Speaker, my concern with this supplemental is that it is designed to fail.

In section 1904, funding for the Iraqi security forces will be cut if the new government does not pass a constitutional amendment to ``promote reconciliation,'' whatever that is, to ethnic groups, I suppose. In short, to amend the Constitution in a way that is not defined in a period that cannot be completed.

Now, earlier on this floor, Representative Conyers stated that it would take 10 years to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect D.C. voting rights, and yet we expect Iraqis to pass a constitutional amendment to fix ethnic tensions in 6 months, not to mention the other tough challenges imposed by this bill.

This supplemental is like a promise written in disappearing ink: it is designed to fail.

During World War II, the Japanese stole blueprints of some U.S. submarines. They built a submarine, but when it launched, it turned upside down and sunk because it was designed to fail.

This substitute is designed to fail. It is designed to fail because it is going to defund the Iraqi security forces which are our best hope of success. Of all of the blood and the sweat and the tears that has been spilled in the desert of Iraq, is this how it is going to end, by a bill that is designed to fail by not funding the Iraqi security forces?

The trouble with the submarine, Mr. Speaker, is that my son and the sons and daughters of Americans across this Nation are inside. We cannot allow this substitute to pass because it is designed inherently to fail.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss and to support the Enumerated Powers Act introduced by Congressman Shadegg. The Enumerated Powers Act is most important to protect the tenth amendment. We understand that with the word ``federalism.''

People perhaps, though, are not so aware of where the concept of federalism originally came from. They think some brilliant founders got together in Philadelphia in 1789 and came up with the idea of federalism, but, in fact, that is not quite true.

The concept of federalism dates way, way back to 18 years after the arrival of the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Colony. It goes to the time when the State of Connecticut was being founded and a great preacher by the name of Hooker preached a series of sermons outlining how the government in Connecticut should be structured. Those sermons resulted in what was called then the ``Fundamental Orders of Connecticut.'' And what it said was that Hartford had certain enumerated powers and of anything not specifically enumerated for Hartford to handle, the other towns would have those powers.

So it was that we started with the idea of federalism, that is, that there is only specific power granted to the central organizing authority, in this case the U.S. Constitution.

Now, the Enumerated Powers Act requires that all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted. It would, of course, enforce, then, the reexamination of the proper role of the national government and it will fundamentally alter the ever- expanding reach of the Federal Government. The Enumerated Powers Act requires scrutiny of the Federal Government to slow this reach, particularly in the sense that it will require that there be a properly cited constitutional authority to precede the legislation proposed.

Now, the Constitution gives the Federal Government only 18 specific enumerated powers. But ignoring the principles of Federalism in the Constitution, starting with FDR and continuing through LBJ's Great Society right down to the modern day, Congresses have displayed a willingness to ignore the 10th Amendment in order to greatly expand the Federal Government.

The size and scope of the national government has exploded over the last seven decades. Congress has created ineffective costly programs, incredible annual deficits and a huge debt exceeding $7 trillion that will be passed only to our children and grandchildren. State and local governments are now dependent upon the Federal Government for funding, and the Feds now tamper with issues that are best understood by States and localities, with education and welfare reform being two cases in point.

I believe that Ronald Reagan had it right: ``I have always felt that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'''

We need to uphold the entire Constitution, not just the parts we choose to use for our own ends.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the resolution that is before the House. It is a resolution in two parts. The first part says we support the troops. The second part says we are not going to reinforce the troops. That is kind of curious in a way, I suppose, isn't it? That we would support them with up-armored Humvees, with body armor, with tanks, but oh, no, we are not going to allow other troops to help the troops that we have there. It seems like you can't have it both ways. It is self-contradictory.

You picture Davey Crockett at the Alamo, and he is there and Santa Anna's army has got him back to the wall, and he gets his BlackBerry out and he checks with the Congress, and the Congress says, yeah, Davey Crockett, we support you, but we're not going to send anybody to help. I don't think you can have it both ways.

When I was a legislator in the State of Missouri, I kept track of some of what I considered to be the silliest legislation I had seen. One of them was this lady who got so enthused about volunteering, that she created a bill called ``Mandatory Volunteerism.'' That was odd. And here we go, we are saying support, but don't support. This is curious, and it undermines people like my son, who has served in Fallujah.

Mr. Speaker, we rise today to discuss this resolution that is in two parts before us. The first part says that we support our troops. The second part says that we are not going to send them reinforcements. This seems to be kind of a curious proposition, almost a nonsensical proposition. How do you say you support and then say, but we don't want to send them any reinforcing troops? Certainly we say that we want to give them body armor, we want to give them up-armored Humvees, we want to send them tanks; but the most important thing that you need sometimes as troops is some other troops to support you. So we are saying, oh, we want support, but we don't want to support you.

Picture Davy Crockett at the Alamo. He has his back to the wall. Santa Ana has got thousands of troops. So he gets his BlackBerry out. He checks with Congress. Congress says, Hey, Davy, we really support you but we're not going to send you any troops. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Now, as I said, this resolution has two parts. It says, We support you but we're not really going to send any troops over.

The third part is what concerns me the most. As Congressmen, we have the responsibility to listen, to pay attention. If somebody has a better idea, that is just fine. Send your better idea forward. We are ready to be taught or to learn. If there is a better way to approach Iraq and the situation there, good. But this proposal has no positive suggestion whatsoever. It just says we support and we don't support. All that does is to encourage our enemies. And without any positive recommendation, this can only be viewed as something which strengthens our opponents' hands. They say, Goody, we've got the Americans all confused. They're saying support and don't support at the same time, with no positive recommendations whatsoever.

Now, I have heard people say that this is a civil war. It is not really a civil war yet. If we pull all the troops out immediately, it will turn into a civil war, no doubt about that. But what we do have is, we do know this, that the terrorists have been involved in setting one group of people against another. They blow up a holy place of the Shias and the Shias start fighting the Sunnis. And so, yes, they have sparked a whole lot of unrest, particularly in Baghdad. It is not a civil war yet. But do we think that the terrorists aren't going to do the same thing in other countries where you have the one leadership with a majority of people in the other tribe.

So I don't think it is much of an escape to say, oh, well, this is a civil war. What it is, it is a war against terrorists. Regardless of how you want to speculate what might happen if we leave all of a sudden, at least I would respect the Democrats more if you

would just simply say, we need to cut and run, or we need to stay where we are. But don't just leave a blank piece of paper and say we support and don't support. It doesn't make any sense. All it does is help the enemy.

It seems to me that we need to as Americans one more time as we have in the past take a good, serious gut check. I have a chance to speak to American audiences everywhere and lots of little kids and I always ask the same question. I ask the question, If you were to take America that you love and condense it down as to what do you really believe about this country, what is the heart and core of America? The answer that I almost always get is the word ``freedom.''

But freedom needs a little bit more definition. The Tiananmen Square Chinese students wanted freedom and they greased the tank treads with their bodies. But they didn't get freedom. Just because you want freedom doesn't mean you can have it.

So what is the heart of what we believe as Americans? Well, I will tell you. The first time we went to war we stated that and we had quite an argument and discussion about it. And it was put in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the job of government is to protect those basic, fundamental, God-given rights. That is what they believed and they had to decide: Are we going to fight the British or not? Those are the things that I taught to my children.

This is a picture of the Marine Club with my 9-year-old son standing here, saluting the flag as it is going up. We taught him that there are some things in this world that are worth dying for and that one of those things is the fact that God gives us basic inalienable rights. That little Marine Club kid has grown up.

There he is in Fallujah in 2005. That is the cache of terrorist weapons that they found in Fallujah. He has grown up. He understands the risk to his life. He almost died in Fallujah. He believes, as I do, that there are some things in this world that are worth defending. This is not a war about a civil war. This is head to head with terrorists.

And is it surprising that we find ourselves fighting terrorists? Terrorists believe, we blow up innocent people to make a political statement. We believe that the right to life comes from God, that it is an inalienable right. The terrorists terrorize people to compel you to take your liberty away and we believe that liberty is a gift that comes from God. We are going head to head with people that have always been the enemies of America, and I am concerned that if we do not stand up and show that we not only think that it is a nice idea in our Declaration but it is a conviction that we will defend with our lives, that we will be fighting the terrorists here.

Mr. Speaker, we come here today, we have spent most of the day on this, to discuss a resolution. It has two parts. The first says that we support our troops, and the second says that we are opposed to the mission that the troops are sent on.

Now, the problem with the resolution is that it is self-contradictory right up front. If we were going to say we are supporting our troops, we would give them body armor. We would give them up-armored Humvees. We would give them tanks. But would we withhold the most important in our arsenal and that is other American fighting men and women? So to say that we are going to support our troops, but we are not

going to send them any reinforcements is on the face of it contradictory. Could you picture Davy Crockett at the Alamo looking at his BlackBerry, getting a message from Congress: Davy Crockett, we support you. The only thing is we are not going to send any troops. I am sure that would really be impressive to Davy Crockett.

The second problem with this resolution is that it really misses the job of what Congressmen should be doing. Look, I am an engineer by training. If we are about to make a mistake or we are doing something wrong, I am open minded to my Democrat colleagues saying to me, Todd, we are going down the wrong path. That is a bad idea. You should do it this way instead. I was always trained that if you are ready to criticize somebody, you at least offer an alternative. But the problem with this nifty little resolution is that it says we support the troops, but we are not going to give them any reinforcements, and then it is blank. There is no recommendation. There is no leadership. They are just saying we are going to stand on the sidelines and say, It won't work. But don't we owe our soldiers something positive, something specific, a positive recommendation?

The Democrats have been elected to majority. That means leadership. That means if you have got a better idea, put it on the table; but if you don't, shut up and don't undermine the morale of our troops and encourage our enemies. That isn't very helpful.

Now, I have heard people talking about the fact that this is a civil war. This isn't a civil war. If we leave, it will be what is a real civil war. Right now there is a lot of ethnic clashing and violence, and what is that caused by? Guess what, terrorists. They said they are doing it intentionally. They blow up a holy place of the Shias, and the Shias react and they go shoot up a bunch of Sunnis, and so, yes. But who started all of this? Well, of course, it is the terrorists. It is their intention. And do we think if they can destabilize Iraq by fomenting strife between racial groups that they won't take the same strategy to the other barely stable nations in the Middle East, nations where you have a Sunni leadership and a Shia majority? Are they not going to do the same? Or are you going to say, oh, but it is a civil war, so we can wash our hands of it, it is nothing to worry about?

Now, we had the ambassadors to Egypt and to Jordan, and they pleaded with us today, do not rapidly withdraw your troops. So we started to ask, well, what would happen if we were to do this? Well, nobody knows. But there is one thing we can kind of assume. All the way through history, the history of mankind, whenever there is anarchy, it lasts but a short time; and it is immediately filled with some kind of very strong dictator. Now, do we think that the dictator is going to be a moderate, reasonable sort of guy, or if we pull out of Iraq immediately, is it not likely that we are going to get an Islamoterrorist dictator? I think that that makes at least some sense. So then now what do we have? Now we have Iraq with the oil money supporting it, with this crazy dictator spreading this same kind of radical Islam all over the Middle East. That is a minimum for the scenario of what we are potentially looking at if we rapidly withdraw.

Now, it seems to me that all of us, as Americans, need a little bit of a direction check. And I think sometimes when we need direction, it is helpful to look at the people who came and founded this great Nation before us. And so I go back to a question that I ask audiences, not only school kids but adults. I ask them, What is it that makes America so unique and so precious? If you take America like an onion and take all the outer layers off, when you get down to the heart, what makes us who we are as a people? And invariably I hear the word ``freedom.'' But that is not quite sufficient because it isn't quite complete. You see, the people at Tiananmen Square, those little kids in college, wanted freedom, but they greased the treads of Chinese tanks. Just because you want freedom doesn't mean you can have it.

There was more to what our Founders understood, and they set it forth before we embarked on our first war as a Nation eloquently in our Declaration of Independence. It says: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident.'' Rather flowery language. Any idiot should know this: ``That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these is Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'' And our job in government is to protect those God-given rights. It is not just an idea; it was a conviction. People say ideas have consequences. Many idiots have ideas, but an idea that you die for has consequences. And this idea was powerful. It is the engine that has driven America. It has guided us in times of war because we will say, yes, we believe there are certain fundamental God-given rights that all people are given.

And that is what I taught my son when he was a little kid. Here he is with the Marine Club, just a little guy, saluting Old Glory with a whole bunch of little kids in some motley uniforms they bought from the used equipment store for military services. Here he is posing just as proud as can be. Founder of the Marine Club, taught, taught that there are some things in this world that are worth dying for, and those convictions are the fact that God gives us life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I believe America still believes that.

There is the little marine. He has grown up now. That is the cache of terrorist arms that was found in Fallujah. That is the gang that he had the proud opportunity to lead as a second lieutenant in Fallujah because he believes that there is nothing particularly strange for us to be fighting terrorists.

Why would it be so odd for us to fight terrorists? What do terrorists believe? They believe that you blow up innocent people. What do we believe? That life is a gift from God.

What do terrorists do terrorism for? To take your liberty away, to compel you to do something you don't want to do, to make women into slaves, to take away people's freedom, to take away your liberty. That is what terrorism is for, and that is fundamentally against the idea that God made people to be free. That is why he fights.

That is why America has always fought. There is nothing weird or unusual about this. Is it worth fighting terrorists? Is it worth risking your life for freedom? I taught my son yes. When I went over to visit him, together we reaffirmed what we were doing in Iraq.

What? Is it so unusual that we have a debate about whether we should be going to war or not? That very first war was over the Declaration of Independence. There was a gentleman from Virginia who said, What has there been in the conduct? But perhaps maybe we could adjust his words.

What has there been in the conduct of the terrorists that gives us any room for hope? The terrorists say the only good Jew is a dead Jew, the only good Christian is a dead Christian. That doesn't leave you a lot of room for negotiation.

If we want to stay free, we must fight. Millions of Americans that are armed in the holy cause of liberty are invincible by any force which the terrorists may send against us. A just God presides over the destinies of nations. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of the terrorists running the world? Forbid it, Almighty God.

I know not what course others may take, but as for me, and as for my son, we will choose liberty.