Wes Hickman (202) 224-5972 or Kevin Bishop (864) 250-1417

When Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress tomorrow, he will step into an American political landscape dramatically different from the one he faced when he last spoke on Capitol Hill seven months ago.

This time Gen. Petraeus returns to Washington having led one of the most remarkably successful military operations in American history. His antiwar critics, meanwhile, face a crisis of credibility – having confidently predicted the failure of the surge, and been proven decidedly wrong.

As late as last September, advocates of retreat insisted that the surge would fail to bring about any meaningful reduction in violence in Iraq . MoveOn.org accused Gen. Petraeus of "cooking the books," while others claimed that his testimony, offering evidence of early progress, required "the willing suspension of disbelief."

Gen. Petraeus will be the first to acknowledge that the gains in Iraq have come at a heavy price in blood and treasure. We mourn the loss and pain of the civilians and service members who have been killed and wounded in Iraq , but adamantly believe these losses have served a noble cause.

No one can deny the dramatic improvements in security in Iraq achieved by Gen. Petraeus, the brave troops under his command, and the Iraqi Security Forces. From June 2007 through February 2008, deaths from ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad have fallen approximately 90%. American casualties have also fallen sharply, down by 70%.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has been swept from its former strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad . The liberation of these areas was made possible by the surge, which empowered Iraqi Muslims to reject the Islamist extremists who had previously terrorized them into submission. Any time Muslims take up arms against Osama bin Laden, his agents and sympathizers, the world is a safer place.

In the past seven months, the other main argument offered by critics of the Petraeus strategy has also begun to collapse: namely, the alleged lack of Iraqi political progress.

Antiwar forces last September latched onto the Iraqi government's failure to pass "benchmark" legislation, relentlessly hammering Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as hopelessly sectarian and unwilling to confront Iranian-backed Shiite militias. Here as well, however, the critics in Washington have been proven wrong.

In recent months, the Iraqi government, encouraged by our Ambassador in Iraq , Ryan Crocker, has passed benchmark legislation on such politically difficult issues as de-Baathification, amnesty, the budget and provincial elections. After boycotting the last round of elections, Sunnis now stand ready to vote by the millions in the provincial elections this autumn. The Iraqi economy is growing at a brisk 7% and inflation is down dramatically.

And, in launching the recent offensive in Basra , Mr. Maliki has demonstrated that he has the political will to take on the Shiite militias and criminal gangs, which he recently condemned as "worse than al Qaeda."

Of course, while the gains we have achieved in Iraq are meaningful and undeniable, so are the challenges ahead. Iraqi Security Forces have grown in number and shown significant improvement, but the Basra operation showed they still have a way to go. Al Qaeda has been badly weakened by the surge, but it still retains a significant foothold in the northern city of Mosul , where Iraqi and coalition forces are involved in a campaign to destroy it.

Most importantly, Iran also continues to wage a vicious and escalating proxy war against the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. The Iranians have American blood on their hands. They are responsible, through the extremist agents they have trained and equipped, for the deaths of hundreds of our men and women in uniform. Increasingly, our fight in Iraq cannot be separated from our larger struggle to prevent the emergence of an Iranian-dominated Middle East .

These continuing threats from Iran and al Qaeda underscore why we believe that decisions about the next steps in Iraq should be determined by the recommendations of Gen. Petraeus, based on conditions on the ground.

It is also why it is imperative to be cautious about the speed and scope of any troop withdrawals in the months ahead, rather than imposing a political timeline for troop withdrawal against the recommendation of our military.

Unable to make the case that the surge has failed, antiwar forces have adopted a new set of talking points, emphasizing the "costs" of our involvement in Iraq , hoping to exploit Americans' current economic anxieties.

Today's antiwar politicians have effectively turned John F. Kennedy's inaugural address on its head, urging Americans to refuse to pay any price, or bear any burden, to assure the survival of liberty. This is wrong. The fact is that America 's prosperity at home and security abroad are bound together. We will not fare well in a world in which al Qaeda and Iran can claim that they have defeated us in Iraq and are ascendant.

There is no question the war in Iraq – like the Cold War, World War II and every other conflict we have fought in our history – costs money. But as great as the costs of this struggle have been, so too are the dividends to our national security from a successful outcome, with a functioning, representative Iraqi government and a stabilized Middle East . The costs of abandoning Iraq to our enemies, conversely, would be enormous, not only in dollars, but in human lives and in the security and freedom of our nation.

Indeed, had we followed the path proposed by antiwar groups and retreated in defeat, the war would have been lost, emboldening and empowering violent jihadists for generations to come.

The success we are now achieving also has consequences far beyond Iraq 's borders in the larger, global struggle against Islamist extremism. Thanks to the surge, Iraq today is looking increasingly like Osama bin Laden's worst nightmare: an Arab country, in the heart of the Middle East , in which hundreds of thousands of Muslims – both Sunni and Shiite – are rising up and fighting, shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers, against al Qaeda and its hateful ideology.

It is unfortunate that so many opponents of the surge still refuse to acknowledge the gains we have achieved in Iraq . When Gen. Petraeus testifies this week, however, the American people will have a clear choice as we weigh the future of our fight there: between the general who is leading us to victory, and the critics who spent the past year predicting defeat.

The following oped by Senators Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman first appeared in the Wall Street Journal on April 7, 2008.

Wes HIckman (202) 224-5972 or Kevin Bishop (864) 250-1417

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement in response to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s warning to General David Petraeus “not to put a shine on recent events” in Iraq.

Graham said:

“Speaker Pelosi’s warning to General Petraeus about his testimony being ‘too shiny’ says more about her than it does about him. 

“General Petraeus has been forward-deployed for over four years since 9/11 and is one of the most talented, respected military commanders in our nation’s history.  I’m confident he will tell us about the gains that have been achieved and the challenges which lie ahead.  That is his duty to his country and the troops under his command.

“I have no confidence Speaker Pelosi will ever accept anything coming out of Iraq other than a loss.  She and other Democratic leaders long ago declared the war lost and have built a political model for the next election around that outcome.  It’s sad the accomplishments made by our men and women serving in Iraq cannot be acknowledged.

“Speaker Pelosi seems to be more concerned about the outcome of the next election than receiving accurate information from a distinguished military leader like General Petraeus.”

######

Wes HIckman (202) 224-5972 or Kevin Bishop (864) 250-1417

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement in response to news the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G) and Santee Cooper have submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to build and operate up to two new nuclear electric generating units. 

Graham said:

“I’m very pleased and excited to hear SCE&G and Santee Cooper have applied to construct and operate two new nuclear power plants in South Carolina .

“The additional use of nuclear power is one of the major steps we must take to become more energy independent as a nation.

“The benefits of nuclear power are clear: It is reliable, efficient, and safe.  It helps lessen our dependence on foreign oil.    It is an environmentally-friendly energy source which does not pollute our air or produce carbon emissions.

“I strongly support this application.  Construction and operation of new nuclear power plants will provide South Carolina with abundant, affordable power for decades to come.” 

#####

Wes Hickman (202-224-5972) or Kevin Bishop (864-250-1417)

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) signed on to an amicus curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court in the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller.  Oral arguments in the case were heard in the Supreme Court earlier today.

The brief was signed by Vice President Dick Cheney, 55 U.S. Senators, and 250 members of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Graham made these comments on District of Columbia v. Heller.

“This case involves nothing more than the right of law abiding persons to keep common handguns and usable firearms for lawful self-defense in the home. 

“Congress has historically viewed the Second Amendment as protecting from infringement the right of the people at large to keep and bear arms.  It has further regarded ordinary, commonly-possessed rifles, handguns, and shotguns to be constitutionally protected firearms.  It has also passed regulations for engaging in firearms businesses and to require background checks on firearms transferees, and has restricted certain dangerous categories of persons from possession of firearms.  None of these laws is called into question by the lower court’s limited holding.

“The Court should affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.”

#####

BACKGROUND

The Supreme Court’s consideration of the case marks the first time since 1939 that the Court will rule on a Second Amendment challenge to a firearm law.  The Court’s decision is expected to have broad and long-lasting ramifications on gun ownership and Second Amendment rights.

The District of Columbia has some of the most restrictive gun laws of any city in the United States.  In 1976, the City Council banned handguns and required rifles and shotguns to be registered, stored unloaded and either locked or unassembled. 

Six District of Columbia residents sued the city over this firearms prohibition. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in March 2007 that the District of Columbia’s gun control laws violate individual Second Amendment rights.  The majority opinion stated, “Section 7-2507.02, like the bar of carrying a pistol within a home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense.  As such we hold it is unconstitutional.”