Madam President, last week, as the Administration was trying to convince us to stay the latest course in Iraq, it made very little mention of the fact that in every month this year, January through August, substantially more U.S. troops have died in Iraq than in the corresponding month in 2006. It also had little to say about a British survey released last week which found that nearly one in two Baghdad households have lost at least one member to war-related violence, and that 22 percent of surveyed households across the nation have endured at least one death. Based on the number of households in Iraq, Madam President, this could mean upwards of 1 million civilian deaths have occurred as a result of the war in Iraq.

Despite these facts, this administration assures us that violence is decreasing and that the security situation in Iraq is getting better. They tell us success is within reach and that we are closer to attaining our objectives, even though those objectives keep changing – most recently from supporting a strong central government to a more “bottom-up” and local approach. Just give us more time, they say, just like they said in 2004, and 2005, and 2006. The slogan may be different – we’ve had “Mission Accomplished,” and “Stay the Course”, and “The New Way Forward” and now “Return on Success” – but each time we are told we are on the right road. Until, that is, we reach another dead end, and a new slogan is invented to justify our open-ended presence in Iraq.

As the administration blunders from one mistake to another, brave American troops are being injured and killed in Iraq, our military is being over-stretched, countless billions of dollars are being spent, the American people are growing more and more frustrated and outraged, and our national security, quite frankly, is being undermined.

Our top national security priority should be going after al Qaeda and its affiliates. They are waging a global campaign, from North Africa to Southeast Asia, and we cannot afford to continue focusing so much of our resources on one single country without a legitimate strategy for dealing with the threats posed by al Qaeda’s global reach.

Instead of seeing the big picture – instead of placing Iraq in the context of a comprehensive and global campaign against a ruthless enemy – this administration persists in the tragic mistake it made over four years ago when it took the country to war in Iraq. That war has led to the deaths of more than 3,700 Americans and perhaps as many as one million Iraqi civilians. It has deepened instability throughout the Middle East, jeopardized our credibility, and alienated our friends and allies.

This summer’s declassified National Intelligent Estimate confirms that al Qaeda remains the most serious threat to the United States. Indeed, key elements of that threat have been regenerated and even enhanced.

While we have been distracted by the war in Iraq, al Qaeda has protected, rebuilt, and strengthened its safe haven in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan and has increased its collaboration with regional terrorist groups in other parts of the world. With its safe haven, al Qaeda is working to expand its network and therefore its ability to strike Western targets, including ones right here in the United States.

The administration has much to say about al Qaeda in Iraq. They won’t tell you that al Qaeda in Iraq is an al Qaeda affiliate which was spawned by this disastrous war, however, and they would rather not talk about al Qaeda’s safe haven in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region or even recognize the serious global threat that continues to exist and that has even been strengthened while our troops are dying in Iraq. That, Madam President, tells you all you need to know about the administration’s painfully narrow focus on Iraq.

The war in Iraq is not making us safer; it is making us more vulnerable. It is stretching our military to the breaking point and inflaming tensions and anti-American sentiment in an important and volatile part of the world. It is playing into the hands of our enemies, as even the State Department recognized when it said that the war in Iraq is “used as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity in neighboring countries.”

It would be easy to put all the blame on the administration, but I’m afraid Congress is complicit, too. Congress authorized the war and Congress has so far allowed it to continue, despite strong efforts from the new Democratic leadership. Now, once again, it is up to us here in Congress to reverse this President’s intractable policy, to listen to the American people, to save American lives, and to protect our nation's security by redeploying our troops from Iraq. We have the power and the responsibility to act and we must act now.

I am not suggesting that we abandon the people of Iraq, or that we ignore the political stalemate there and the rapidly unfolding humanitarian crisis which has displaced more than 4 million Iraqis from their homes.

These critical issues require the attention and constructive engagement of U.S. policymakers, key regional players, and the international community. But Madam President, such turbulence can not, and will not, be resolved by a massive military engagement. The administration’s surge is another dead end. The surge was supposedly aimed at created the space necessary for political compromise, but the Iraqi government is no more reconciled than it was when the surge began, and American troops are dying in greater numbers than last year, or the year before.

That is why I am again offering an amendment with Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senators Leahy, Boxer, Whitehouse, Harkin, Sanders, Schumer, Dodd, Durbin and Menendez. Our amendment, which is similar to legislation we introduced earlier this year, would require the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days of enactment, and would require redeployment to be completed by June 30, 2008.

At that point, with our troops safely out of Iraq, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions: providing security for U.S. government personnel and infrastructure; training the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF); providing training and equipment to U.S. servicemen and women to ensure their safety and security; and, conducting “targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other affiliated international terrorist organizations.”

By enacting Feingold-Reid, we can finally focus on what should be our top national security priority – waging a global campaign against al Qaeda and its affiliates. Our bill will allow targeted missions against al Qaeda in Iraq but it won’t allow the administration to maintain substantial numbers of U.S. troops in that country.

The bill will also allow training of Iraqis, but we have taken steps to address serious concerns about the loyalties of the ISF. The Government Accountability Office has found that the ISF have been infiltrated by Shia militia, and General Jones’ recent report indicated that the ISF are compromised by militias and sectarian alliances. In addition, there have been several reports of ISF attacks upon U.S. troops. That is why we do not allow training for Iraqis who have been involved in sectarian violence or attacks upon Americans.

We also prevent the “training” exception from being used as a loophole to keep tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq. We do this by stipulating that U.S. troops providing training can not be embedded or take part in combat operations with the ISF. Training should be training – not a ruse for keeping American troops on the front lines of the Iraqi civil war. Of course, U.S. troops can take part in combat operations specifically against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Some of my colleagues will oppose this amendment. That is their right. But I hope none of them will suggest that Feingold-Reid would hurt the troops by denying them equipment or support. There is no truth to that argument – none. This is an absolutely phony argument used time and again to try to get away from what this amendment actually does. Passing this legislation would result in our troops being safely redeployed by the deadline we set. At that point, with the troops safely out of Iraq, funding for the war would end, with the narrow exceptions I listed. That is what Congress did in 1993 when it voted overwhelmingly to bring our military mission in Somalia to an end by setting a deadline after which funding for that mission would end. And that is what Congress must do again to terminate the President’s unending mission in Iraq.

In order to make clear that our legislation will protect the troops, we have added language requiring that redeployment “shall be carried out in a manner that protects the safety and security of United States troops.” And we have specified that nothing in this amendment will prevent U.S. troops from receiving the training or equipment they need “to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security.” I hope we won’t be hearing any more phony arguments about troops on the battlefield somehow not getting the supplies they need.

Madam President, other amendments may set goals for redeployment or merely call for a change in mission. Those proposals do not go far enough. Nor is it sufficient to pass legislation that allows substantial numbers of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely. As the President's Iraq policy continues unchecked, we need to invoke the power and responsibility bestowed upon us by the Constitution and bring it to a close.

This war doesn't make sense. It is hurting our country, our military, and our credibility. It is time for this war to end. The American people know this and they are looking for us to act. I hope we will not let them down again.