FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Isakson: Iraq Resolution ‘Sends Dangerous Signal’ as America Wages Battle in Global War on Terror
Offers Amendment Declaring It Is Not in National Interest to Cut Funding or Cap Troop Levels

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) today criticized and opposed an Iraq resolution for sending “a dangerous signal” at a time when the United States is committed in the global war on terror. Isakson voted against the non-binding resolution, which expressed opposition to sending additional troops to Iraq, during a meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The resolution passed the committee by a vote of 12 to 9.

President Bush recently proposed sending more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq as part of a strategy to help the Iraqi government assume more control and more accountability for securing the country. Isakson supports the President’s plan, calling it the best opportunity for the Iraqi government to create a stable foundation for political reconciliation.

The resolution that Isakson opposed in the Foreign Relations Committee stated that “it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq.”

“This resolution sends a dangerous signal. We must make it clear that while we may have differences in policy or politics we do not have any difference in our support for our men and women in uniform,” Isakson said. “I believe it sends a mixed message at a time when our country is committed in a major battle in the overall global war on terror.”

Isakson offered an amendment to the resolution that stated: “It is not in the national interest of the United States for Congress to cut off funding for members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom or to cap the number of troops available to our military commanders to be deployed to Iraq.” Isakson’s amendment failed by a vote of 8 to 13.

“Resolutions expressing the sense of the Senate are important in what they say, but they are equally important in what they do not say,” Isakson said. “The unintended consequences and misinterpretations of non-binding resolutions can be disastrous.”  

###