|
KERRY: Senator, thank you. First of all, thank you for bringing this to the point where we have an opportunity to vote on any number of different things.
I was listening to Senator Hagel, who, together with Senator Webb, comes from a special place on this. And I really would ask my colleagues to, sort of, stop and try to really grab on to the reality check that ought to hit every one of us in the gut here.
In 1971, when I came back from Vietnam, I engaged in what remains a controversial effort. I spoke out, as a young veteran, against the war. And some people disagreed with that, including Senator Webb, who's here.
But I spoke the truth and I spoke my heart. And history has underscored that everything I said then -- even the training manuals of the Army were changed to reflect what happened there. It was true.
And in recent months, I've met with increasing numbers of Iraqi veterans who come to my office, very different in, sort of, deportment and make-up from folks 35 years ago or more, but equally earnest and equally concerned about what's happening over there.
Senator Dodd and I met a young man in Iraq a number of weeks ago, Brian Freeman (ph). Chris has mentioned him on "Meet the Press" and elsewhere. He came up to us at the landing spot -- the landing zone (inaudible) there, in the Green Zone, in the night. He was about to ship out to go home for leave. And he was seeking us out and he gave us his card and Chris had communicated with him.
KERRY: And he told us about his opposition to what was going on there, the missions that he was on, what he was being asked to do, what his troops were being asked to do.
He came back here and he visited his 14-month-old daughter, his four-year-old son, and then he went back to Iraq and he was killed, just the other day.
Now that's being repeated for families all across this country.
And I have to tell you, the question that I asked back in 1971, which some people have asked me a few times about, as I travel around the country -- and is as relevant today as it was then -- how do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?
Now, how many of you here at this table believe what's happening here is a mistake today?
How many of you here believe that there are just not enough troops, with 21,000 or more, to pacify Iraq?
If the answer to that question is there are not enough troops to pacify Iraq, then the question is, "What are we doing? What are we asking those troops to do?"
That's the question.
KERRY: If that were your son or daughter -- and it is Senator Webb's. We're asking them to serve their country, and they do so with honor and with courage. They're remarkable young people, the best we've ever had, in my judgment, best trained, most capable, unbelievably patriotic, putting their lives on the line.
But, folks, we're responsible here. We sent them there. We authorized it. A mistake, in my judgment. I take responsibility for that.
But the responsibility is even greater now to get this right.
Senator Sununu, you said, you know, we got to have a debate. We don't have to have a debate. We got to get it right. That's our obligation: get it right for those troops.
And if you believe in your heart and in your gut that this president is not getting it right and this administration is not getting it right, then we have an obligation to do so.
It really is that simple. You got to take away the politics and take away the niceties and take away all this, sort of, folderol of Washington.
I'm uncomfortable with this resolution for the simple reason that it is nonbinding. But I also recognize what the chairman said. We're not going to get a cutoff date or another policy in the next week, and we have an obligation to try to register something.
There's a part of me that'd like to vote against it because of the symbolizes, but it's the first step. And the chairman has agreed, we're going to come back here.
In my judgment, you know, it's a message, and the message will be heard, but that floats away very fast, because we have an obligation to come back immediately after that with what are we really going to do.
KERRY: Now, I have one amendment here that seeks to do something real -- further. And I've another I'm going to offer that I'm not going to offer today. I'm circulating it.
But let me ask my colleagues: You've got to deal with reality here. Almost every judgment that we have been given for the last month has been wrong. Almost every judgment given us over three years has been wrong.
Do we just sit here and ignore that and tell the troops, "Go out there," despite how wrong it's been?
Senator Lugar said a little while ago that he's not confident the president's plan will work. I tell you what: I'm confident it will not work. I am confident it will not work, unless -- here's the big unless -- unless the Iraqis themselves make the decisions necessary to resolve the politics.
You know, this goes back -- Vali Nasr was sitting there, who wrote about it. This is about Karbala in 682 C.E., when a guy named Hussein, who was the grandson of Ali, a caliphate who got murdered, killed. And the result was -- and he was with 72 defenders.
Does that number ring a bell as to why there are now 72 virgins talked about in the context of martyrdom? Because that was the original martyrdom, 682.
And they cut off all their heads and they left all their bodies in the desert when they killed them. And they took their heads to Najaf and put them on a post. Then they took them to Damascus. And that was the great divide between Shia-ism and Sunni-ism.
And you can look at Ashurah, which is the great, sort of, holy celebration of Shia-ism, which takes place in a few days, and you can see the distinction between Shia and Sunni that is 1,500 years or more old.
We're trying to step into the middle of that. Our troops are going to go in there and take on Shia who are viewed as the protectors of Shia against Sunni in the militias -- because that's where they get their protection -- and we're going to start taking them out? What do you think the message is in the streets of Iraq when that happens?
KERRY: Folks, this is wrong-headed.
We are doing what Secretary Rumsfeld said we would not do. He said we would not put our troops in the middle of a civil war. But they are.
Now, I don't -- you know, I heard Senator Hagel talk about no senator here wanting us to fail. Of course we don't. I want success. I've been talking about the road to success, as has Senator Biden and others, for over three years.
Senator Lugar just talked about the need for the diplomatic effort. Where is the diplomatic effort? Where is it?
Is it a fly-by diplomacy by our secretary of state; spends a few days and gone?
Where's the special envoy who is there each day, working to leverage what we need to do to make this happen and show we're dedicated to it?
You know, Secretary Albright had a saying about diplomacy in the Middle East.
She said it's like riding a bicycle, you know. As long as you're riding, even if you're going around in circles, you're OK. You don't fall off. But if you stop riding, you fall off.
We're not riding. We're not making the kind of concerted effort to pressure the Sunnis.
You know, Sunni are killing our folks. And every one of those neighboring states is Sunni. And they have a stake in supporting the Sunni, who they feel are oppressed, currently, by the current arrangement.
We're not going to stop that with 21,000 military troops. Not going to happen.
So we have to get real here, my colleagues. We have to get real here.
What I am going to circulate and ask colleagues to support at the appropriate time -- I had a resolution last year to set a date. The date I sought is actually similar the one put forth by the Iraq Study Group. It also happens to coincide with what the president himself said. He thought we could begin having the troops out and the authority transferred to the Iraqis. So there's no arbitrariness to it.
Now, I know my colleagues' discomfort with us setting a date, so I changed that. I'm still for it, but I want to try to see if we can get something all together. And I will circulate and ask colleagues to support a combined reauthorization.
And the reason for the reauthorization is very simple, folks. We gave the president the authorization for use of military force in Iraq, pursuant to Public Law 107, specifically, number one, to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
That was specifically WMD and threat with respect to terror.
Two, to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
KERRY: Well, we have a new Iraq, an entirely new government, an entirely new situation. What I believe we ought to do is take our responsibilities seriously with respect to the authorization of our troops to go to war.
And that means reauthorize it in some form, whatever you think is appropriate. What I think is appropriate is what the Iraq Study Group suggested and what, ultimately, the president said can happen if we transfer authority and the Iraqis assume it.
So I would say that what we ought to do, rather than us being specific about the timetable, rather than sitting here and suffering the accusations for being arbitrary, rather than us getting into a contest with the president over his authority, we make the authorization contingent on how those troops are going to be used: to represent America's interests in the region; to represent our security interests with respect to Iran; to represent our interests with respect to chasing Al Qaida; to represent our interests with respect to protecting our facilities and forces as they come out.
But we also require the president to negotiate that timetable, together with the government of Iraq. So we require the president; he negotiates; we put a time frame on the period within which he must negotiate it; and we represent our clear interests in the region with respect to terror, reconstruction and what the deployment of our forces would be.
KERRY: Now, I heard the word "micromanage" here earlier. Folks, how many families do we have to sit down with and listen to a mom or a pop tell us, "You can't know how deeply I'm opposed to this war. And my son was opposed to this war." I've talked to those families who say that to me.
KERRY: How many times are we going to repeat that before we accept our responsibility to get it right, where this administration doesn't know or isn't willing to get it right? That's what this is about.
So I will vote for this resolution.
Now, with respect to Senator Dodd's number, I mean, come on, folks. Look at the numbers here.
Throughout the entire year of '06, you had a range of troops month to month: 131,000, 136,000, 151,000 in October, 142,000, 143,000, 133,000, 127,000, 130,000, 132,000, 132,00, 133,000, 139,000.
Are you telling me we're not -- you think a 2,000 or 3,000 troops variable is the difference in what's going to happen in Iraq?
If you're against this escalation, you ought to be voting to hold the level at what it was in mid-January because that's how you prevent escalation.
And I think we're responsible to do that.
The Iraq Study Group said in recommendation number 22, page 61 -- 21, "If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones of national reconciliation, security and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military or economic support to the Iraqi government."
We need to get as serious as they were. And that included two former Republican secretaries of state, one former Republican chief of staff and attorney general, one former member of the leadership of the United States Senate, Alan Simpson, and a host of other people who are known for their moderation and thoughtfulness with respect to security issues of our country.
This is our moment and our time. And we need to be serious about it.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
