Video, transcript: Senator Kerry's floor speech on Iraq

[ProSense]

Video: John Kerry talks about Iraq on the Senate floor.

Below are Kerry's remarks as prepared for delivery:

Mr. President, I would like to speak today about the situation in Iraq - the devastating attack in Baghdad, the lack of any real political progress as a result of the President's escalation, the incredible toll it is taking on our armed forces, and what this Administration could learn if they really listened to our generals.

We are now more than four years into the war in Iraq, and tragically it is only now that the Administration has finally realized that there is an urgent need for one individual with the authority to coordinate our overall military and civilian efforts in Iraq - at a time when apparently no one wants the job.

It says a lot that when the President finally decides to appoint a "War Czar" to get everyone on the same page, the situation in Iraq is so bad, and the Administration's stubborn unwillingness to change course is so persistent, they can't find anyone to take the job.

So far, the Administration has approached three retired four star generals about the position -- Marine General John J. "Jack" Sheehan, Army General Jack Keane, and retired Air Force General Joseph W. Ralston.

All three declined. These were not opponents of the Administration; in fact, they all had established ties to this Administration. Yet none of them would not take the job. Why not? Why would our top military commanders decline such a high level position?

General Sheehan, a 35 year Marine who once served as the top NATO commander, summed it up pretty well when he said: "The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going."

It's long past time for a President who insists that he listens to his generals - and not politicians - to finally heed his own advice, and to end a disgraceful record of ignoring the very military the Administration professes to believe in.

This isn't new. Again and again this Administration has turned its back on the best advice of the uniformed military - and each time they've done so at our peril.

Start with General Shinseki, who we all now agree that he was right that we needed a lot more troops to secure Iraq after the invasion. As the former top operating officer at the Pentagon, a Marine Lieutenant General, put it: "the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results." Instead of listening to General Shinseki, the Administration decided to retire him.

Last year, retired high-ranking military leaders -- many of whom played key combat or planning roles in Afghanistan and Iraq -- came forward publicly to call for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And across the administration, the warnings of those wore the uniform of their country all their lives -- and who, retired or not, did not resign their citizenship in order to serve their country -- were dismissed as acts of disloyalty, or as threats to civilian control of the armed forces.

In the end, it took an election to replace Secretary Rumsfeld - not the advice of the men and women who had seen him nearly break the military they'd served for decades. That was this Administration's choice.

It didn't stop there. Just ask General Casey or General Abizaid, who warned that more US troops would not solve Iraq's security problem - and could actually slow the process of getting Iraqi security forces to assume more responsibility -- and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who unanimously opposed this escalation. What happened to them? General Abizaid was replaced. General Casey was re-assigned. The Joint Chiefs were over-ruled.

And yesterday, we learned that the Pentagon is going to stretch our overextended military even further by extending combat tours and reducing time between rotations to provide the additional troops necessary for the President's misguided escalation. What do our military leaders have to say about that?

Robert Scales, a retired Army two-star general, said that to sustain this deployment while giving soldiers the training and rest they need would require twice as many Army and Marine Corps brigades as we have - and then he warned that the Army is about to be "broken." Barry McCaffrey, a retired Army four-star general who recently returned from another fact-finding trip to Iraq, tells us that combat equipment for both the active and reserve components "is shot." His conclusion was simple: "There is no argument of whether the US Army is rapidly unraveling."

At a time when mistake after mistake is being compounded by the very civilian leadership that ignored expert military advice in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, those who understand the price for each mistake is being paid by our troops, our country, and Iraq itself must be heard.

And the message from the generals who were offered the War Czar position has been crystal clear: if they really thought the Administration had a strategy that could succeed in Iraq, why did they turn down the job?

Mr. President, there's a very good reason for their skepticism: this Administration simply refuses to accept the fact that we need to change course in Iraq.

We keep hearing that the escalation is showing progress -but while the level of Iraqi civilian casualties may have gone down in Baghdad, it has gone up in other parts of the country - and the overall casualty rate has basically remained the same. And just today, we learned of a devastating suicide bombing in the Iraqi parliament, which is in the heart of the heavily fortified Green Zone. Ten people died - including two Iraqi lawmakers -- along with any sense of personal security in what is supposed to be the safest part of Baghdad. This is the progress we've been hearing about? And tell me, how are more American troops going to stop a single fanatic with explosives strapped to his chest?

One thing we do know is that American troops are paying the ultimate price for this escalation -in the first seven weeks, the number of U.S. troops who died in Baghdad doubled. On Monday alone we learned of two more soldiers from Massachusetts who died in Iraq -- Captain Anthony Palermo, age 26, of Brockton, Massachusetts, and Sergeant Adam P. Kennedy, 25, of Norfolk, Massachusetts.

The Administration says these men and women are giving their lives because the purpose of this escalation is to allow the Iraqis "space" to make the political deals that we all agree are the only hope for ending the civil war. But if the violence is going down in Baghdad, where is the political progress?

We keep hearing that the Iraqis are getting closer to a deal on sharing oil revenues- but every time, hopes for a final deal turn out to be an illusion. The de-ba'athification law that is a key part of the national reconciliation process was recently denounced by Ayatollah Sistani and is nowhere near completion. The Iraqis are still at square one when it comes to amending the Constitution and disarming the militias. And still, the President refuses to impose any meaningful consequences on the Iraqis for failure to meet these benchmarks.

Mr. President, since we all understand that there is no military solution in Iraq, let's start measuring the progress on the ground in Iraq by what really counts: whether the Iraqis are making the political deals that are necessary to keep their country together. And right now, we have not seen any of the political progress that would give us cause for optimism.

That's only going to change when the Administration accepts the simple reality that this Congress has acknowledged: Iraqi politicians have repeatedly shown they only respond to deadlines - a deadline to transfer authority, deadlines to hold two elections and a referendum, and a deadline to form a government. Americans should not be dying to buy time for Iraqi politicians hoping to cut a better deal. We should be working to bring about the compromise that is ultimately the only solution to what is happening today in Iraq.

Without a real deadline to force the Iraqis to make a deal, there's no telling how long it will take - but we do know that American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will continue to die while their politicians wrangle over the details. And that is simply unacceptable.

The same holds true for the diplomacy that is key to any successful our strategy. Last month, Iraq's neighbors and key players from the international community finally got together at a conference in Baghdad. But nothing tangible came out of it, and there's no sense of urgency about the upcoming meeting in Egypt. That's why a deadline is so essential: to focus all the parties on the critical need to help Iraqis reach the political solution that is the only solution.

Mr. President, we owe it to our troops and to our country to have an honest debate and to try to work together to find the way forward in Iraq. But just yesterday, Senator McCain gave a particularly divisive speech in which he said that Democrats were cheering for defeat and surrender in Iraq. Senator McCain knows better. He knows full well that no one wants to see Iraq fall apart. He knows that we all agree on the need to preserve our vital national security interests in the region, and that none of us downplay the risk of a region-wide conflict or an al-Qaeda safe haven. We disagree on the strategy, but we all agree on the stakes. To suggest otherwise does a disservice to our people and our principles.


Yet still, the Vice President hides behind the rhetoric that dares to claim those who offer a new way forward are "undermining" our troops. Undermining our troops? Let's have that debate - let's have that debate with a Vice President who helped send them into combat without adequate protection so they can be killed and maimed in humvees that -- four years into this war -- still do not have the armor they need.


Let's have that debate with an Administration that sent them back into battle in Iraq with serious injuries and other medical problems -- including some who doctors have said are too injured to wear their body armor.


Undermine the troops? How about failing to provide them with proper medical care when they come home with broken bodies and minds -- forcing them to live in run down facilities -- leaving them to fend for themselves as they deal with mountains of red tape.


Undermine the troops? How about extending tours in Iraq so that military families will wait 15 months to see their loved ones instead of 12 months - and reducing time off between rotations so they have even less time when they get home?


Mr. President, this Congress has finally done what this Administration has stubbornly refused to do - to recognize that the best way to support the troops is to change a failed course and implement a strategy that can work for America and for Iraq. And make no mistake: if the President vetoes the supplemental spending bill, he is the one who is denying our troops the funds they need.

We should honor lives lost not with words but with lives saved. That starts by putting aside the hollow rhetoric and straw men that have undermined a real debate for far too long - and supporting an exit strategy that preserves our core interests in Iraq, in the region, and throughout the world. That, Mr. President, is how we support the troops - and bring our heroes home.

[MethuenProgressive]

1. k&r for John Kerry

[Democrafty]

2. K & R