Earlier today, Senator Kerry held a joint press conference with Senator Jack Reed to discuss the Levin-Reed-Kerry amendment and respond to President Bush’s rhetoric regarding Iraq.

Senator Kerry: I’m pleased to be joined by Senator Reed in responding on behalf of the leadership with respect to the President’s comments in South Carolina this morning. The President is trying to scare the American people into believing that Al Qaeda is the rationale for continuing the war in Iraq. And today he said nothing new about Al Qaeda itself — and basically nothing that we would differ with, with respect to the purposes and goals of Al Qaeda .

We all understand that Al Qaeda is a danger. And we all understand what its goals are. But 9/11 was not plotted in Iraq. 9/11 did not happen from an Al Qaeda in Iraq. It happened from Osama bin Laden and an Al Qaeda in Afghanistan — an Al Qaeda that is now larger and reconstituted and dangerous, if not more so, than it was then.

The President is picking the wrong rationale for this war. And he’s also setting up a phony argument about what it is that we have to continue to do in Iraq. We are not in Iraq because Al Qaeda is the principle threat in Iraq. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, as the President pointed out beforehand. And the fact is that Al Qaeda has grown in its strength and in its presence in Iraq because we are there. So I think it is important for us to realize that all of us are committed to destroying Al Qaeda.

But Al Qaeda is not going to be ultimately destroyed in Iraq, unless the Iraqis themselves join in this fight. And Al Qaeda is not the principal killer of American forces in Iraq. Those forces are dying because of IEDS, because of insurgents, and because of the struggle between Shi’ia and Sunni. And that struggle cannot be resolved militarily.

The President didn’t deal with any of those realities. He never addressed the question of the political settlement. He never re-spoke about the fact that there is no military solution, which he has said previously. He simply talked about more of the same — and for the false reason of solely going after Al Qaeda.

One other point: the President talked about the success of al-Anbar province. The fact is that in al-Anbar, where you have principally Sunni living, the Sunni sheikhs, chiefs, decided that they wanted to protect their sons and daughters and families from Al Qaeda. And so they did join up with Americans to do that. And there has been some success in al-Anbar. But that is a very different situation from what you find in the rest of the country, where you have Shi’ia and Sunni that are killing each other, and where you have none of the same equation that is possible to achieve.

So I think that for all of us, today was a continuation of more of the same. The President is putting forward a false rationale to the American people for the continuation of this war. The fact remains, unchanged, that the only way the Iraqis are going to stand up is if we make clear to them that we are going to be withdrawing our troops over a period of time — with the exception of those necessary to chase Al Qaeda, those necessary to complete the training, and those necessary to protect American forces. That is the real rationale for which we ought to be staying, not because of Al Qaeda.

And finally, let me just point out that this is the National Intelligence Estimate. This is the public National Intelligence Estimate. A week ago, the National Intelligence Estimate contradicted what the President said today. It made it clear that Al Qaeda is stronger today, is reconstituted, and also made it clear that our presence in Iraq is attracting forces to Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda gets stronger because we’re there, Mr. President, not weaker. And if we begin to shift this responsibility to the Iraqis, most of the experts will tell you, the Iraqis do not want Al Qaeda in Iraq. And if we begin to reduce our footprint, I’m confident the Iraqis will begin to reduce the Al Qaeda footprint.

[snip ]

Reporter: Senator, if a U.S. withdrawal from most of Iraq, leaving a component to fight Al Qaeda, goes ahead — how many troops will be needed to complete that mission? Especially, is there are scenario where, if this political reconciliation doesn’t take place, and violence is raging in Baghdad, will U.S. troops be told to sit on the sidelines, in the eyes of the world?

Senator Kerry: Let me say first of all that we have always said, and our legislation is very specific, that we leave the discretion to the President of the United States to determine what number would be necessary to accomplish the three missions. We do change the mission. Those three missions, we repeat, are: To complete the training of the Iraqi forces so they can stand up for themselves and prevent the very chaos that you’re just talking about. Secondly, to continue to chase Al Qaeda — which is the mission the President accused us today of not caring about, but we specifically allow for our ability to be able to pursue that mission.

Now, speaking from a military point of view — and I’m sure Jack Reed will agree with me, in fact he just commented about this — that you could probably go after Al Qaeda with special operations capacity, providing your intelligence and other secrity is adequate on the ground. So there are some suppositions here: That you’re able to transfer responsibility to the Iraqis, that they’re beginning to stand up as the President has said our policy always is, you might get them to stand up, and then you can begin to stand down and reduce the numbers.

The President is in effect saying that his entire policy for the past years is a failure. Because he isn’t talking about standing down anymore as they stand up, he’s talking just about more of the same, and staying. And it directly flies contrary to what our intelligence community is telling us about how that contributes to terrorism.

And the third thing that we would leave the President the discretion to leave forces for is to protect American forces and facilities. As you draw down — as we’ve learned in other incidences — you’ve got to provide protection. We have embassy personnel there, we have contractors, we have USAID, we have others who are doing the job, and they need to be protected.

So we believe that by changing the mission to reflect the reality they have talked about but never translated into policy, we in effect can produce the best success that you could get out of a bad situation. Now, with respect to the chaos that you hear people talking about if America withdraws precipitously, once again: Nothing in our legislation contemplates “precipitous”. It’s a year from now. That would be the sixth year of the war. It contemplates succeeding in the training and transfer of responsibility.

Secondly, we have very significant forces in the region — forces in the Gulf, in Bahrain, in Kuwait, in other Gulf states, and so forth. And given the forces that would be at the President’s discretion to complete the task in this new mission, this more realistic mission, we believe that there would be an adequate buffer for emergency response of any kind.

Third, we also have a very significant diplomatic initiative contained within this overall policy and mission change. And that is dramatically lacking today. There is almost an absence of the kind of ongoing diplomatic lift that we’ve seen in past conflicts, which is essential to getting the stakeholders to resolve the issues that are outstanding between them.

And we are obviously banking on the notion that the President’s discretion, ultimately, as to the forces left behind, will be based on the success of the diplomacy that comes because you have triggered a different attitude in all of the participants in the region by virtue of the fact that you’re leaving. You’ve changed the equation from what it is today. So the minute you begin to make clear America is not staying, we are going to depart, we are transferring authority, then the responsibilities of Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, Iranians all shift — as do the responsibilities of the politicians within Iraq themselves.

So—you know, the President is very good at putting red herrings, straw men up in front of all of you. The biggest straw man today was the flawed logic that he accused Democrats of when they say that Al Qaeda wasn’t there before we went there. And then he translates that and says the following: That that somehow suggests that those who make that argument are suggesting that terrorism is caused by American actions. No. No. That’s not what we’ve ever said, that’s not what we’ve ever intimated, that’s not even the remote suggestion. Of course terrorism is not initiated — nor was 9/11, nor was the Cole, nor the other instances that he talked about.

But this is the bottom line: Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we went there. And while there was an Al Qaeda and they wanted to hurt us, and do other damage, and have a caliphate in the region, the fact is that they were not in Iraq and 9/11 was not planned in Iraq. And the fact is also that our own intelligence community tells us today unequivocally that our presence in Iraq has created more terrorism, attracted more terrorists, created more terrorists.

And that’s what we’re saying to the President: Not that we caused terrorism per se, but his decision to put American troops in Iraq has acted as a magnet and as a target and as an incentive. And we have seen the intelligence documents that have been found in Afghanistan, that Al Qaeda is using our presence in Iraq as a recruitment tool and as a fundraiser for their activities.