SFRC hearing 10/19/05 Some testimony excerpts

[TayTay]

Let me call now on Senator Kerry.

Now I'll ask members to please observe, as Senator Allen did, the 10-minute situation so that we are able to get to all of our senators.

Senator Kerry?

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madame Secretary, I apologize for not being here for your testimony. I was up in Massachusetts looking at our dam that, for the moment, is holding together, and we hope will.

The president has repeatedly summarized his Iraq plan in the following way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. And in a speech to the nation two weeks ago, he again didn't lay out any kind of specific political or new diplomatic initiative. Certainly what he really said was, quote, " sacrifice, time, resolve." He went on to describe those who questioned his handling of the war as self-defeating pessimists.

Now, writing in next month's Foreign Affairs, Melvin Laird, the former secretary of Defense under Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War, says, quote: "Recent polls showing waning support for the war are a sign to the president that he needs to level with the American people."

Quote, "His West-Texas cowboy approach -- shoot first and ask questions later, or do the job and the let results speak for themselves -- is not working." As we learned in Vietnam, Laird writes, quote, "When troops are dying, the commander in chief cannot be coy, vague or secretive." He goes on to suggest that you, Madame Secretary, are in the best position to perhaps help set the record straight.

So let me ask you, do you think the president needs to do a better job to address -- what I don't think anybody would agree is a self-defeating pessimist in Melvin Laird and in his suggestion as well as those and many other observers, Republican, Democrat alike -- about the level of support and understanding of the American people, and the specificity of how you are going to deal with the political solution to Iraq?

SEC. RICE: Well, Senator, I'm quite certain that we can all -- and I count myself first and foremost among them -- be out and do to address concerns or to address any ambiguities that people may feel that there are about how we're going to proceed to victory in this war. That's what I've tried to lay out today in talking about --

SEN. KERRY: Victory? How do you define victory? What is victory?

SEC. RICE: I think that, Senator, when we have laid the foundation for an Iraqi government that is clearly moving along its political path -- and they are well along that political path -- that now a permanent government that has begun to really deal with its sectarian differences as they are trying to do through this constitution and their process. When we see that there is an insurgency -- and I'm a firm believer that this insurgency may be able for quite a long time to commit -- let me call them cowardly, violent acts against innocent people; that is, to blow up children standing at a school bus --

SEN. KERRY: We all understand what it is, and they will do that for a long time.

SEC. RICE: And so -- and they will do that. But if I could look at the way other insurgencies have died, if you will, it is when they are clearly no longer a threat to the political path and the political stability of the country. I think that you could suggest, for instance, that in Colombia there was a time when the insurgency there -- people questioned whether or not the Colombian government would survive. Nobody questions that today, even though there's still an insurgency that from time to time has kidnappings and the like. The Algerian is another case.

And so when there is clearly a political path that has been followed to a stable political system, even with its problems -- I mean, Senator, you'd be the first to agree, I'm sure, with me that we continued for a long time in our own history to have political tensions and political problems in --

SEN. KERRY: I understand, Madame Secretary, but let me -- let's get to this definition within the context of what you're saying for this government.

SEC. RICE: Yes.

SEN. KERRY: What you're saying begs a political solution, not a military solution.

SEC. RICE: That's correct.

SEN. KERRY: But mostly, what we've been pursuing up until recently has been, until, perhaps, Ambassador Khalilzad -- who, I think most of us would agree, is doing an outstanding job under difficult circumstances, but with limited ability, because he's basically trying to resolve a fundamental difference between Shi'a and Sunni -- Shi'a, who are dominant in numbers and will dominate the government; Sunni, who want to return to power.

Now there's nothing in the political equation and nothing in the constitution that resolves that fundamental divide. How do you do that? What are your plans to do that?

SEC. RICE: Senator, I actually don't agree that that there's nothing in the constitution that addresses that fundamental divide. What addresses that fundamental divide is that it allows people, first of all, to have the vote as individuals, not as groups. And we have seen, in the time that really started to the referendum until -- as people are getting ready for December, cross-cutting coalitions now developing in Iraq between some Kurds and some Shi'a who -- I'll use the terms in quotes -- " secular" Shi'a; some Sunnis who -- for instance, the Iraqi Islamic Party that supported the constitution.

I think you're starting to see cross-cutting cleavages, and that's a very good thing, because what it will mean is that within those institutions, the National Assembly, the presidency, they will have to use compromise and politics to reconcile their differences.

SEN. KERRY: But the fundamental differences, by any acknowledgment, were postponed. They came together, they agreed to have a committee that had the right to raise the fundamental issues, but they haven't resolved the fundamental issues.

SEC. RICE: Senator, to ask them to resolve it within a -- within several months, I think, would have been superhuman. Ask them --

SEN. KERRY: Well, you're the ones that set the date for the constitution with them.

SEC. RICE: No, but to ask them to get to a framework in which they can work in an evolutionary way to the resolution of differences that are centuries old, I think, is completely --

SEN. KERRY: Well, that is exactly the problem, that -- well, let me get to that with a question. I see the light's already on. It's incredible how fast it goes.

But many of our military leaders, Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people themselves are now saying, in effect, that our military presence is as much a part of the problem as it is the solution.

General Casey, our top commander, recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee that our military presence, quote, "feeds the notion of occupation" and, quote, "extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant."

The Iraq Sovereignty Committee, made up of elected members of the Iraqi National Assembly, released a report in September stating that the presence of U.S. troops prevents Iraq from becoming fully sovereign.

A recent summary of numerous Iraqi public opinion surveys concluded that a majority of Iraqis, quote, "oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq and those who strongly oppose it greatly outnumber those who strongly support it."

So what do you say to this growing sense in our military leaders, who've told it to us when we visit Iraq, to the general sort of input of people who have spent a lifetime studying the region, that the presence is adding to the numbers of terrorists, adding to the perception of occupation, adding to the problem, and that it doesn't deal with the real problem, which is the political solution needed between Shi'a and Sunni?

SEC. RICE: Well, first of all, Senator, when you come to the political solution, I think you have to see that these people have come a long way in two and a half years.

SEN. KERRY: I --

SEC. RICE: But it is very important because -- you ask about a political solution. A political solution was not going to be born overnight in Iraq.

SEN. KERRY: That's not what you told America and that's not what you told this committee.

SEC. RICE: Senator, as I've said before, we've had a long political evolution in the United States. We didn't even have it easy in Birmingham, let alone in Iraq. And so I really do ask --

SEN. KERRY: It's not what you told America, Madame Secretary.

SEC. RICE: -- I ask us to focus on the political process that was laid out in the -- as a matter of fact, it was laid out as a two- year political process in the Transitional Administrative Law, and they have been walking along in that political process.

Now, is there a fundamental difference between Shi'a and Sunni? The Iraqis -- many Iraqis will tell you that there is, in fact, not a fundamental difference; what there is is that there are different interests that have to be reconciled and that have to be dealt with, both about the past and about the future.

You're right, they have left to a national assembly that will be representative the writing of certain rules about how certain aspects of the constitution will be carried out. That's a political process. There's nothing wrong with carrying out a political process in that way.

As to our military presence, our military presence there is requested under U.N. mandate now by the Iraqi government itself. And it requests it because it knows that, whatever people's views of our military presence there, our military presence is needed until Iraqi forces are able to be responsible for their own security. It is --

SEN. KERRY: Madame Secretary, if I can just say to you, President Talabani when he was here in Washington had an interview with The Washington Post in which he said we could withdraw 45(000) to 50,000 troops the end of the year. He visited the White House, and he changed his tune. General Casey went to the Armed Services Committee and said we could withdraw troops by Christmas. Then the president said, well, I think that's rumor or speculation.

So it seems as if you and the administration have a point of view about withdrawing that is quite different from Iraqis and quite different from our own military.

SEC. RICE: Senator, we have a joint process with the Iraqis to determine specifically what conditions can be met by what forces. We want to be out of Iraq with our forces as soon as possible. We have no desire to stay in Iraq. But we also don't want to create a condition, a situation in which we withdraw prematurely and leave Iraqi forces incapable of dealing with the insurgency that is made up of terrorists and Ba'athists, essentially, who would try and overthrow their government.

Now, I laid out today earlier a set of steps that we're trying to take that demonstrate that political stability, political control rests with the Iraqi government. It means that you go into areas, it means that you establish -- first of all, you kick the insurgents out and you create a secure environment, and then you create political and civil and economic development in that region so that that area can be held.

SEN. KERRY: Well, my --

SEC. RICE: That is the political-military strategy, and -- by the way, most of the country is, of course, stable. We're talking largely about the Sunni area.

SEN. KERRY: You're talking largely about Sunni. I understand that.

Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up.

If -- you know, I just think that realistically, when you assess what you've just said, it really doesn't deal with that fundamental difference that I just described, which is -- from every leader and every person you talk to in the region, they are all worried about Iran and Iran's influence with respect to the Shi'a. And the Shi'a have been adamant about the Islamic component of the state and about the federalization. The Sunni are adamant about the strong center and not being fundamentally defined in Islamic terms. That is the fundamental difference here. And it seems to me that no amount of troops and no amount of talk about the insurgency --

And the insurgency, every expert we -- all of our CIA briefings and everything tell us, is fundamentally Sunni. Fundamentally. Maybe 2 percent, slightly larger, foreign fighters. The Iraqis don't want foreign fighters in there. In the end, the Shi'a and the Kurds will never tolerate them being there. So if you can resolve the Sunni- Shi'a issue, which I think most people feel has not been addressed significantly, that's the way you're going to end violence.

SEC. RICE: Senator, it's going to be -- it's not conceivable that the Sunnis and the Shi'as are going to overcome hundreds of years of differences within a matter of a couple of years. But we believe -- and I would hope we all believe enough in democratic processes -- to believe that that is really the only way that people resolve their ethnic and other differences. It has certainly been the case in much of the world that democratic institutions allow people to resolve their differences.

By the way, the only other answer is that you repress one or the other. The only other answer to don't let them work it out through a democratic process is that the Sunni continue to repress the Shi'a. I think that's not acceptable to American values --

SEN. KERRY: Of course it's not.

SEC. RICE: -- and it's ultimately not acceptable to stability in the Middle East. So -- so there are really only two --

SEN. KERRY: I would suggest to you that's not the only other answer. With all due respect, that's not the only other answer. The other answer is that you, the administration, and the Sunni neighbors -- they're mostly Sunni -- get together.

Why are they so absent? The Sunni neighbors ought to be involved in getting a compromise which the Kurds and Shi'a give up than they've been willing to give up. And if you don't do that, this insurgency is not going to end.

SEC. RICE: Senator, that's precisely what's happening. That's what Ambassador Khalilzad was in Saudi Arabia --

SEN. KERRY: It's stunningly late in the happening, Madame Secretary.

SEC. RICE: Well, it is -- Senator, for something that's been going on a couple hundred years, they are actually doing pretty well. But again, they have never --

SEN. KERRY: Our presence there has not been for a couple hundred years.

SEC. RICE: But -- but, Senator, if I may just say, what it is we're replacing, we're replacing a situation in which this was done by repression, so that the Sunnis repressed the Shi'a majority and the Kurdish minority.

SEN. KERRY: Correct.

SEC. RICE: That's not an acceptable outcome. And so, the placement of political institutions, a constitution, an assembly that will be elected with better Sunni representation in December is the way to give these people a framework in which to resolve their differences.

I agree with you. Their neighbors need to be fundamentally involved in helping to close that divide. And that's why we're reaching out to the Saudis and reaching out to the UAE and to others to ask their support -- and they were very supportive in helping on the referendum -- to do precisely that. But it's not as if Iraq and the Middle East was stable along the Shi'a-Sunni divide before the liberation of Iraq.

SEN. KERRY: Of course not. I realize that. (Pause.)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your indulgence. Thank you.

SEN. LUGAR: All right. I did not interrupt the dialogue. It was important. But it was 15 minutes --

SEC. RICE: Sorry. (Laughs.)

SEN. LUGAR: And let me just say, please, if we're to have fairness to all of our senators, we need to try to stay within the 10 minutes.

SEN. KERRY: Mr. Chairman, could I just say something about that, quickly?

SEN. LUGAR: Yes, of course.

SEN. KERRY: The reason it's so difficult is, this is the first hearing we've had since, I think, March.

SEN. LUGAR: I appreciate that. Point has been made now several times, and we are having a hearing, and we're trying to stay within the rules.

[TayTay]

1. Bonus footage from the extended DVD set: Sen. Feingold

Sen. Feingold: Madame Secretary, we owe our service members some clarity and leadership. And we owe this country some serious thinking about how we can get our Iraq policy on track -- on track so that it helps rather than hinders us in the broader fight against terrorism.

And in that regard, Madame Secretary, I want to return to this subject that Senator Biden and Senator Kerry were talking about, which has to do with whether to withdraw the troops, should we withdraw -- start withdrawing the troops. I want to hone it to the issue of whether it would be a good idea to have a public, flexible time table that we would suggest to finish the mission, achieve our goals, and bring the troops home. Notice, I said "a flexible time table", not a drop-dead date, not a deadline, not cut and run. So that's what my questions are about.

And it's interesting that Senator Kerry quoted a very Republican former Wisconsin congressman who was Defense secretary under Richard Nixon: Melvin Laird. Let me quote something else from that same article that Senator Kerry mentioned. Melvin Laird said, "We owe it to the rest of the people back home to let them know that there is an exit strategy. And important, we owe it to the Iraqi people. Our presence is what feeds the insurgency. And our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency." I'd like your reaction to Melvin Laird's remarks.

SEC. RICE: Well, Senator, I simply don't agree that it is our presence that is feeding the insurgency. I think that the insurgents have a couple of aims. One is to return -- for some of them, it's to return to a day when high-ranking Ba'athists were in power who repressed by force Shi'a and Kurds -- and by the way, a fair number of Sunnis, too, who were in political opposition. That's one goal for some of them. For others -- and that means, yes, the fact that we liberated Iraq is an irritant, from their point of view, because they have a different view. They would prefer the Iraq that we were dealing with under Saddam Hussein.

For the Zarqawi element of this, however, I would return to what Senator Voinovich said. These people were not just pacific people somewhere sitting around, and then we liberated Iraq and they decided there was a jihad to fight. This jihad, this violent, extremist ideology has been developing in the heart of the Middle East out of the absence of freedom and the absence of hope for a very long time. It reached its full bloom -- after several initial starts it reached its full bloom on September 11th when they flew those airplanes into those buildings.

Now, we are fighting the global war on terrorism because, of course, we are tracking down and fighting the al Qaeda network. And I was just in Afghanistan, which used to be their home base and is now --

[karynnj]

2. What's interesting is that she is admitting

things they've not been honest about in the past. She's very open that we wanted to change the government.

She's obviously still lying to some degree or she wouldn't have first stated (as fact) that there were no fundamental differences between S'hia and Sunni. Then when Kerry concisely talked about the Sunnis not wanting an Islamic govenment versus the Iran/Islamic forces playing on the S'hia. She quickly talked about the thousand years of trouble between them.

That she came close to accusing Kerry of being ok with Saddam dominating the Kurds and S'hia (both in speaking to him and later) was a pretty nasty ploy. Do you think Kerry's suggestion of pulling in the Sunni neighbors is an attempt to get some concessions that lead to a more moderate secular government (that might not be a true democracy) versus an Iranian dominated secular state - that could be voted in democraticly but which would not sufficiently protect the rights of the minority?

[TayTay]

5. I think this is the most intersting exchange

SEN. KERRY: What you're saying begs a political solution, not a military solution.

SEC. RICE: That's correct.

SEN. KERRY: But mostly, what we've been pursuing up until recently has been, until, perhaps, Ambassador Khalilzad -- who, I think most of us would agree, is doing an outstanding job under difficult circumstances, but with limited ability, because he's basically trying to resolve a fundamental difference between Shi'a and Sunni -- Shi'a, who are dominant in numbers and will dominate the government; Sunni, who want to return to power.

Now there's nothing in the political equation and nothing in the constitution that resolves that fundamental divide. How do you do that? What are your plans to do that?

They don't really have a plan to do that. They plan on waiting them out. (And costing the US treasury a fortune.)

I think you are dead-on with the idea that Kerry wants more regional influence in order to stave off an overly sympathetic to Iran government. This is bad news for the rest of the ME and could lead to regional war. (Which is a nightmare scenario.) Kerry wants to stabilize Iraq first and wants to do so without allowing Iraq to become a theocracy. (It is on the road to that.)

Condi's ploy was nasty and Kerry has never said anything supportive of Saddam or his rule of terror. (Typical Rethug ploy. Smear your attackers, especially when they are right.)

[ginnyinWI]

8. I agree

Kerry wants the Sunni neighbors to come in as a force for mitigating the trend toward an Islamic, pro-Iranian theocracy. Plus, creating a Sunni force which moderates their "need" for an insurgency is one of the ways to stop the violence and get our troops home. It's a win-win situation.

I don't see how Condi and the rest of the neo-cons can sit there and deny that our presence there is not fueling the insurgency even further. But I guess they are really good at denying realities that the rest of us accept.

[karynnj]

9. Also, she did it in a way and in a place , where he could only

object as he did. In a freer conversation he could point out that it was Rumsfeld not him who shook Saddam's hand and gave him the poison gases and Reagan and Bush I who treated Iraq like a client state arming them against Iran. (Kerry didn't give weapons to the Iraqis to kill Iranians while covertly selling weapons to the Iranians to kill Iraqis - her guys did.)

[karynnj]

7. This makes no sense - and it's past edit time - this is what I meant

Do you think Kerry's suggestion of pulling in the Sunni neighbors is an attempt to get some concessions that lead to a more moderate secular government (that might not be a true democracy) versus an Iranian dominated ISLAMIC- that could be voted in democraticly but which would not sufficiently protect the rights of the minority?

[TayTay]

11. Yes I do.

And an attempt to limit the damage being done daily to the Unioted States and our world reputation. (This war has greatly damaged us in diplomatic circles. We have lost a great deal of leverage and we have lost a lot of moral authority.)

Mr. Kerry made a case that the real solution to this war will come from the Iraqis themselves in a political solution. We are targets there and may be such a focal point for Iraqi hatred that we are, by our very presence, preventing political forces from seeking and getting a political solution that might make for a better government.

I think it might help to pull in the Sunnis. Mr. Kerry stated that his breifings with the military this year show that most of the insurgency is Sunni (2% are foreign fighters.) The rest of the region has a huge stake in how this comes out and in not having an Iranian dominated Middle East. What is holding this back. (Condi said they are starting to work on this, Kerry stated that he found this 'stunningly late.')

BTW, I am going to reference a wikipedia entry. Lots of good stuff here and a link to Iraq shows maps and stuff. Can't tell the actors without a program, after all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

[TayTay]

19. This really sounds like Game, Set , Match to me

SEN. KERRY: But the fundamental differences, by any acknowledgment, were postponed. They came together, they agreed to have a committee that had the right to raise the fundamental issues, but they haven't resolved the fundamental issues.

SEC. RICE: Senator, to ask them to resolve it within a -- within several months, I think, would have been superhuman. Ask them --

SEN. KERRY: Well, you're the ones that set the date for the constitution with them.

SEC. RICE: No, but to ask them to get to a framework in which they can work in an evolutionary way to the resolution of differences that are centuries old, I think, is completely --

SEN. KERRY: Well, that is exactly the problem, that -- well, let me get to that with a question. I see the light's already on. It's incredible how fast it goes.

But many of our military leaders, Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people themselves are now saying, in effect, that our military presence is as much a part of the problem as it is the solution.

General Casey, our top commander, recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee that our military presence, quote, "feeds the notion of occupation" and, quote, "extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant."

The Iraq Sovereignty Committee, made up of elected members of the Iraqi National Assembly, released a report in September stating that the presence of U.S. troops prevents Iraq from becoming fully sovereign.

A recent summary of numerous Iraqi public opinion surveys concluded that a majority of Iraqis, quote, "oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq and those who strongly oppose it greatly outnumber those who strongly support it."

So what do you say to this growing sense in our military leaders, who've told it to us when we visit Iraq, to the general sort of input of people who have spent a lifetime studying the region, that the presence is adding to the numbers of terrorists, adding to the perception of occupation, adding to the problem, and that it doesn't deal with the real problem, which is the political solution needed between Shi'a and Sunni?

SEC. RICE: Well, first of all, Senator, when you come to the political solution, I think you have to see that these people have come a long way in two and a half years.

Strike one: The Iraqi political establishment wants us gone because we are in the way of a political solution
Strike two: The Iraqi people see as as part of the problem, not the solution
Striek Three: Our own military has concluded that we are making it worse not better.

We need to get out (gradually, probably) because of this.

Ahm, where is that damn speech. I want this enumerated further.

Mass? What say you to this?

[JI7]

3. will Cspan rerun this anytime ?

i keep missing Kerry Senate appearances.

[TayTay]

4. Probably Sunday.

They run a lot of stuff on Sunday afternoons. Check the web site and look at the tv schedule.

www.cpsan.org.

[ginnyinWI]

10. it will show up online eventually, if not sooner

It will probably be listed as, "Sec. of State on Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy"--that's what they called it on last night's repeat.

[jillan]

6. It was amazing, I fell asleep on the couch last nite watching c-span...

and woke up just in time to see Kerry! My subconscience mind must've heard Allen, and from all of everyone's posts yesterday, I knew Kerry was next.

All I could think after listening to his awesome questioning was wondering if Condiliar was going to have nightmares that nite? Possibly with Kerry and Feingold questioning her in her dreams. Lol - if I had dreams with Kerry and Feingold, they would not be nitemares.

Feingold was great too. Boxer wasn't bad. She reminds me of Randi Rhodes, so stuck on what she wants to say th she yells over the other person. Obama was great as well. I like his speaking style. I was proud of the dems yesterday.

When Lugar raised his voice to Kerry, I cracked up. Weasel!

[ginnyinWI]

12. I would also like to mention Obama

He painstakingly tried to pin her down on exactly what would constitute a success and allow us to draw down troops. She evaded, of course. That's not what the neo-cons want, after all.

But the thing that bothered me more than anything else about her yesterday, was the arrogant, condescending attitude she and all her buddies in the administration have toward Iraq. It's that old "white man's burden" idea (yeah I know--ironic coming from her). The rather Colonial, Imperialistic idea that the Iraqis are just simple children who don't know what's best for them, and need the strong guidance and strict policing of the U.S. governent in order to survive! This is wrong on many levels.
First, this is not a country of illiterate villagers. They are educated and sophisticated.
Second, even if they were uneducated, it doesn't give us enough reason to just go in and occupy. Who invited us Where in the Constitution does it say we must be an Imperialist power?
Third, How dare we set ourselves up as superior? Does might make right? Does money make right? Who died and made the Neo-cons God?? Who handed down stone tablets from on High with the words, "The Americans are the smartest people on the planet--obey them!"

Rant over :rant:

[jillan]

16. You know what else got me about Condi?

Her refusal to admit that the American people are against this war.

All the dems brought it up, I heard Voinivich bring it up but for different reasons. And yet she would go on and on about how this war is so important, not even acknowledging what the people in this country are saying.

Personally, I don't think this administration cares about the Iraqis. Everytime someone would bring up how our occupation was aiding the insurgency, she just skated over the accusation.

And while we are talking about Condi... what else really bugged me about her, is how her voice would shake when she was in a defensive mode. To me it displays a lack of confidence, and yet she is the person that is our voice to the world. Maybe I am being a bit nit-picky here, but I expect a certain level of professionalism from the person that is representing us to leaders of foreign countries during a time of terror.
Maybe this is part of the reason we have no allies? She can't sell our (their) mission. She comes across as being weak.

[karynnj]

17. Good rant though

[TayTay]

13. Was posting the trasncript helpful

It takes up a lot of space. I won't do it again, if it is not helpful. (I guess everyone can see this on C-Span, but I like it in writing. Better for ruminating.)

[ginnyinWI]

14. I like it too

They are nice for cutting and pasting Kerry quotes in other posts. :)

[karynnj]

15. It was very helpful

you were right on target when you mentioned how they spoke at a level that is hard to follow in real time. I hadn't realized how hateful Condi had been to Kerry - his questions were tough, but her attack was uncalled for. (Though I realize that it was the obvious RW black/white thing. Now that COndi says they went in to change the government if you disagree it was because you supported the government. Intentionally ignoring that there were many options in between.)

[jillan]

18. Thanks for doing this.

This is important, especially coming from a man who gets it!

[kerrygoddess]

20. Link to the entire Video from FR Committee

It's over three hours but if you scroll through you get to JK somewhere at "2:19:49" for Kerry's questioning in the video - http://foreign.senate.gov/archives/2005/archive101905.ram

Interesting that JK noted the Melvin Laird article - I posted about that yesterday here - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=886

Is there a link to this transcript?

[whometense]

21. Today's Boston Globe

Just to get an idea of the press coverage:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/10/20/rice_wont_rule_out_armed_action_against_syria_iran/

Democrats said that the administration had originally used weapons of mass destruction as a rationale for war, not a perceived need to transform the Middle East. They also noted that the administration had said initially that the war would take little time and few resources.

Rice asked for patience and resolve. ''A political solution was not going to be born overnight in Iraq," she said.

''That's not what you told America and that's not what you told this committee," Senator John F. Kerry shot back.

[LittleClarkie]

22. Thanks for digging that out, Tay

I just immortalized it on my blog, in it's entirety.