John Kerry speech

[Nancy Waterman]

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0930a.html

What does it gain America to win a war and lose a peace? Last Spring, our fighting men and women bravely swept across the battlefields of Iraq. But now as Summer turns to Fall, the Bush Administration’s lack of courageous leadership, its scorn for shared sacrifice, its stubborn dogmatism has put our troops at risk, creating a potential new sanctuary for terrorism and weakening America’s leadership in the world. Today, our soldiers lives, the future of Iraq, and the solidarity of free nations are being threatened not by a tin-horn dictator, but by a tin-eared Administration which insists that it is always right, refuses to admit when it is wrong, and over and over again misleads the American people.

Our country is paying a high price for the Bush failures. The clearest symbol of that price is the target on the back of young Americans serving in a distant desert. Today a soldier in Iraq fears getting shot while getting a drink of water. A squad at a checkpoint has to worry whether the old station wagon driving toward them is a mobile bomb. And the price is paid not only in their security and too often their lives, but in the erosion of American’s international standing, the prospect of new dangers down the road, and an endless drain on our national treasury.

[papau]

1. Kerry has a great web site up:Kerry Votes "No" on Iraq Supplemental

John Kerry Votes "No" on Iraq Supplemental.
Statement from John Kerry:

The best way to support our troops and take the target off their backs is with a real strategy to win the peace in Iraq - not by throwing $87 billion at George Bush's failed policies. I am voting 'no' on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq.

The Administration has wasted every opportunity to build an international coalition in Iraq.

With our soldiers dying on a daily basis, the President needs to change course. But rather than putting in place a real plan, he has spent months drifting and zigzagging. Rather than immediately building a real coalition, he has fought to keep unilateral control over reconstruction and governance. Rather than asking for shared sacrifice from Americans - as Senator Biden and I have proposed, he has refused to repeal any of his tax cut for the wealthiest to pay for rebuilding Iraq. Our troops are paying the highest price - and America's hard working families shouldn't have to subsidize President Bush’s failure or line the pockets of corporations like Halliburton trying to make a fast buck in Iraq.

America's national security requires a muscular strategy that brings freedom and prosperity to post-war Iraq, stability to the region, and advances our basic values and ideals. And I will gladly and proudly vote for any proposal this President offers that protects the troops and provides an effective plan to win the peace.

But I oppose spending $87 billion - at the expense of health care, education and domestic priorities here at home - on a strategy that does not protect the troops, and does not make America safer.


WHY DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE BUSH APPROACH?
I disagree with the Bush approach because it simply doesn’t share the burden with other countries- it doesn’t show the humility necessary to build our friendships and bring people to us. It doesn’t do all that we can do to protect our troops. The question here is not whether or not the president MIGHT be able to succeed at all that he is doing, over a long period of time, the question is are we doing the most we can do, to MOST effectively protect our troops and most rapidly secure our goals. I believe that by having more countries share the burden and share our risks, by willing to move to get the international community more involved, we will fastest reduce the sense of American occupation, reduce the targeting of American troops, and advance our capacity to be successful.

HOW DO WE WIN PEACE IN IRAQ?
I think we win the peace in Iraq by internationalizing this effort. We have to have the UN be responsible for the civil transformation, the governance, and the infrastructure and humanitarian. And we have to be prepared to transfer authority to the UN to bring other people to us and get them invested in this. I believe that it is critical to the US to end the sense of American occupation as fast as possible, and to transfer authority to the Iraqis as fast as possible, and that can only happen when we begin to bring the international community in to a greater degree.

HOW DO WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS?
I believe the best way to support the troops is to make sure we take the target off them as fast as possible. The best way to support the troops, is get the international community in to help us, so we can have other troops on the ground share the burden and share the risks, and begin to bring them home as fast as we possibly can.

WHY IS YOUR PLAN BETTER THAN SPENDING $87 BILLION?
I’m prepared to spend money; I’m prepared to spend whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq. But I want to spend the money smart. I don’t want to spend 87 billion when it comes from the average American, when it ought to come from the wealthiest Americans instead of President Bush’s tax cut, which is unfair and unaffordable. Senator Biden and I tried to reduce that tax cut from $690 billion over the next ten years; we wanted to reduce it to $600 billion over the ten years. That’s not bad, for the wealthiest people – 600 billion dollars. But the Republicans voted against even that. I think that’s wrong. Particularly when we need to be investing in education, in health care, in our communities at home, in housing and children. And instead this administration wants to put all of the money in the hands of the wealthiest people, and ask the American people to spend 87 billion dollars in Iraq.

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?
I know there’s a better plan for how we deal with Iraq, and here it is, very simply:

Number 1: You've got to go the UN completely, not in this phony way that the President’s getting them to sign off just because of the games they play, but in a real transfers of authority to the UN for the civil development, for the governance, and for the humanitarian programs. Then it’s possible to have a broader, multination force come onto the ground, relieve the pressure from the American force, reduce the sense of American occupation and take the target off of American soldiers. Once you do both of those things, you can train the Iraqi military and police faster, and you can set a date for the transfer of full authority for Iraq back to the Iraqis. If all of that were done simultaneously, you’d have a much faster transition of authority in Iraq and you’d make the ground much safer for American forces, and you begin to reduce the number of American forces who are overcommitted and overextended, and you could bring them back to the United States much more rapidly.