A pre-emptive strike…

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, issued this statement today, hours before President Bush is scheduled to make a televised address to the nation in which he’s expected to announce a rollback of troop levels in Iraq to pre-surge levels by next July:

“Tonight the President will make his case for more of the same stay-the-course strategy that puts us on a path for at least 10 years of occupation in Iraq.

“It is time to call this what it is — an exit strategy for President Bush at the expense of our troops. It’s the President’s plan to run out the clock on his failed policy, to move the goalposts once again, so that he can sneak out the backdoor and leave the American people holding the bag.

“Well, let me ask you: how many of our troops should die so the President can save face? How many billions of our tax dollars should we spend so the President can avoid admitting his policy has failed?

“It is clear he won’t take responsibility to end his failed policy, which means that members of Congress are going to have a choice to make.

“Are they going to stand with the President, and an open-ended occupation that sacrifices our troops’ lives so he can save face? Or are they going to act to bring his disastrous policy to a responsible and long overdue–conclusion?

“The choice is simple. Congress should not provide another dime for the President’s failed policy. Instead, we should provide the money necessary to fully fund the safe, timely and responsible redeployment of troops and contractors from Iraq.”

Read some just-released excerpts from the President’s speech, after the jump…

Per the White House’s press release…

On keeping us safe here at home:

In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home.

This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future – and also threaten ours.

On the success of the surge:

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress… The goal of the surge is to provide that security – and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.

On political progress:

Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks – and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.

Yet Iraq’s national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They are sharing oil revenues with the provinces… And local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.

On the principle of “Return on Success”:

The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is “return on success.” The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.

On coming together as a Nation to support this mission:

Americans want our country to be safe, and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.

The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.

On an enduring relationship with Iraq that requires many fewer American troops:

This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my Presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship – in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.

On why we must succeed:

The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States.

Realizing this vision will be difficult – but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.

Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.

So tonight I want to speak to Members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made, and the troop levels he has asked for.

On the gains we are making in Iraq:

Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.

Josh Richman

Josh Richman covers state and national politics for the Bay Area News Group. A New York City native, he earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri and reported for the Express-Times of Easton, Pa. for five years before coming to the Oakland Tribune and ANG Newspapers in 1997. He is a frequent guest on KQED Channel 9’s “This Week in Northern California;” a proud father; an Eagle Scout; a somewhat skilled player of low-stakes poker; a rather good cook; a firm believer in the use of semicolons; and an unabashed political junkie who will never, EVER seek elected office.