Boston Globe reporter, Bryan Bender, has written an article that echoes many points already made on this blog and by bloggers elsewhere.

In the heat of the 2004 presidential campaign, Democratic nominee John Kerry declared that President Bush “should convene a summit of the world’s powers and Iraq’s neighbors” to help stabilize the country.

“Second,” Kerry urged on Sept. 20, 2004, “the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.”

Shortly thereafter, the president derided Kerry’s call for a regional summit, saying, “I’ve been to a lot of summits. My friends, a summit is not a plan.”

And at a press conference with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi , Bush maintained that “we continue to accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces,” claiming that the Iraqi army was already “half complete.”

But this week, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group determined that Bush must immediately hold a regional summit and sharply increase training to salvage the US mission in Iraq. And in receiving the report, Bush called the ideas “very interesting,” vowing to “act in a timely fashion.”

Now, Kerry, who is considering a second run for the presidency, views the study group’s findings - others of which also mirror his own prescriptions from two years ago - as evidence that he was on the right track in 2004.

“That’s what I was pressing in ‘04, and that is what I am pressing today,” Kerry said in an interview yesterday. The Bush administration ” has wasted two years with slogans while there were real policies on the table that they could have pursued in a bipartisan manner.”

He said that when he first read the Iraq Study Group report, “My initial reaction was, ‘At last the Republicans are put in a place where they can’t play politics with this.’ “

<!-more-> Mr. Bender continues on:

But Kerry, in an interview in his Capitol Hill office, said he believes the majority of the country was not ready to see how urgently a new direction was needed in Iraq, partly because key information was not widely known.

He cited the recently published National Intelligence Estimate that concluded the Iraq war - far from being the central front in defeating Al Qaeda, as Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney said in 2004 - has been a recruiting bonanza for terrorist groups.

The administration’s claims seemed more believable to the public in 2004, Kerry said. “The whole dynamic has changed.”

Some independent political observers agreed with Kerry that Americans weren’t in a frame of mind to question the president’s policies in ‘04.

[...]

Still, [Jeremy] Pressman, [a political science professor at the University of Connecticut] said, Bush had an inherent advantage in 2004 in being able to portray the Iraq war in patriotic colors.

“There is something inherently easier to portraying the pro war, jingoistic picture,” said Pressman. Kerry, he said, had to argue that he was “against the war but not pro-Saddam Hussein. He had to argue that the war is wrong and is being fought incorrectly, but not be against the troops.”

But even Pressman noted that parts of the blueprint Kerry laid out in his bid for the White House have now become standard talking points about the war.

For example, a common refrain of Kerry’s speeches and position papers was that the Iraq war had diverted critical resources from defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

In an appearance on “The David Letterman Show” in September 2004, Kerry called the president’s decision not to focus on the war in Afghanistan “catastrophic .” In the second presidential debate a few weeks later, Kerry said Bush “took his eye off the ball, off Osama bin Laden.”

This week, the Iraq Study Group said: “It is critical for the United States to provide additional political, economic, and military support for Afghanistan, including resources that might become available as combat forces are moved out of Iraq.”

And like the study group report this week, Kerry in 2004 said that pushing aggressively for a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians was critical to winning the backing of Arab states.

Kerry had also warned about rising sectarian warfare in Iraq, saying in April 2004 that the country would face “civil war” if security was not enhanced immediately. Many military specialists now believe sectarian violence has risen to the level of a civil war.

But Kerry, who has said he will announce his presidential intentions in the spring, insisted yesterday that his prime focus is reaching a bipartisan agreement to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. He met last week with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and incoming Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates to press the case.

Before it’s too late, he said, “It is very important we work on this to leverage American security interests, protect our troops, and sustain our long-term interests.”

 

They say we must support the war in order to support the troops. I say the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, oppose a course that dishonors their sacrifice, and oppose a course that disserves our principles. They say we would dishonor the lives that have been lost by changing course in Iraq.

How immoral and shameful to use lives already given as an excuse to take even more. How immoral to say that more must die because others already have.

When soldiers suffer and die on the altar of an Administration’s stubborn pride, when they lose limbs because of the incompetence and arrogance of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to take back the moral authority abused by those in high office – take it back and throw them out.

 

            -- John Kerry
             New Hampshire Jefferson Jackson Dinner
            October 13, 2006

 

  Jaymes Song of AP News wrote of today’s memorial at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii in this story titled, “>Pearl Harbor survivors meet for last time>

This will be their last visit to this watery grave to share stories, exchange smiles, find peace and salute their fallen friends.

With their numbers quickly dwindling, survivors of Pearl Harbor will gather Thursday one last time to honor those killed by the Japanese 65 years ago, and to mark a date that lives in infamy.

“This will be one to remember,” said Mal Middlesworth, president of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association. “It’s going to be something that we’ll cherish forever.”

The survivors have met here every five years for four decades, but they’re now in their 80s or 90s and are not counting on a 70th reunion. They have made every effort to report for one final roll call.

“We’re like the dodo bird. We’re almost extinct,” said Middlesworth, now an 83-year-old retiree from Upland, Calif., but then - on Dec. 7, 1941 - an 18-year-old Marine on the USS San Francisco.

Nearly 500 survivors from across the nation were expected to make the trip to Hawaii, bringing with them 1,300 family members, numerous wheelchairs and too many haunting memories.

Memories of a shocking, two-hour aerial raid that destroyed or heavily damaged 21 ships and 320 aircraft, that killed 2,390 people and wounded 1,178 others, that plunged the United States into World War II and set in motion the events that led to atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

“I suspect not many people have thought about this, but we’re witnessing history,” said Daniel Martinez, chief historian at the USS Arizona Memorial. “We are seeing the passing of a generation.”

[...]

Four in five servicemen on the USS Arizona - 1,177 in all - did not survive the day. It was the greatest loss of life of any ship in U.S. naval history. They remain entombed in the battleship’s sunken hull, which still seeps oil every few seconds, leaving a colorful sheen on the harbor water.

 

  Kerry Says “We must recommit to Afghanistan”

September 9, 2006 Speech at Faneuil Hall in Boston, Massachusetts “The Administration [can’t] pretend that the war in Afghanistan is over or that the peace has been secured….The truth is, the Bush-Cheney Administration has engaged in a policy of cut and run in that country. This Administration has cut and run while the Taliban-led insurgency is running amok across entire regions of the country. The Administration has cut and run while Osama bin Laden and his henchmen hide and plot in a lawless no-man’s land. They cut and run even as we learn from Pakistani intelligence that the mastermind of the most recent attempt to blow up American airliners was an al Qaeda leader operating from Afghanistan – yes, from Afghanistan. That’s right – the same killers who attacked us on 9/11 are still plotting attacks against America and they’re still holed up in Afghanistan. To avoid repeating the terrible mistakes of the past, we need to send significant reinforcements to Afghanistan: Start with at least five thousand additional American troops –more elite Special Forces troops, the best counter-insurgency units in the world; more civil affairs forces; and more experienced intelligence units. More predator drones to find the enemy, more helicopters to allow rapid deployments to confront them, and more heavy combat equipment to make sure we can crush the terrorists. And more reconstruction money so that the elected government in Kabul, helped by the United States, not the Taliban, helped by al Qaeda, rebuilds the new Afghanistan.”

September 9, 2006 “Switch the Fight to Afghanistan” Op-Ed in Manchester Union-Leader “We must recommit to Afghanistan.”

September 25, 2006 “Losing Afghanistan” Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal “If Washington seems to have forgotten Afghanistan, it is clear the Taliban and al Qaeda have not. Less than five years after American troops masterfully toppled the Taliban, the disastrous diversion in Iraq has allowed these radicals the chance to rise again. Time is running out to reverse an unfolding disaster in the way we were right to fight after 9/11…Quite simply, we must change course – starting with the immediate deployment of at least 5,000 additional U.S. troops…We must recommit to victory in Afghanistan.”

October 3, 2006 “The Retreatican Party?” Posting on Democratic Daily “We have reached a critical point in Afghanistan. This administration is on the verge of making the same mistake they made in not recognizing the threat of the insurgency in Iraq until it was too late. We know the risks of letting Afghanistan become a terrorist haven. Yet the administration’s policy have defined cut and run. Cut and run when we had Osama bin Laden and his henchmen trapped in Tora Bora. Cut and run when we diverted resources from the hunt to invade Iraq.”

  Today, others agree…

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD (D -WI) Eau Claire Leader Telegram: Fighting Terrorism in Afghanistan—October 4, 2006 “With so many of our brave troops, and our resources, in Iraq, the U.S. has not done enough to address the resurgence of the Taliban and growing instability in Afghanistan.”

SENATOR HARRY REID (D – NV) The Bush Administration Took Its Eye Off the Ball In Afghanistan—October 6, 2006 “Five years ago, America struck back against the killers who attacked our nation on September 11th. With the country united and the world with us, our nation took action in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and destroy the al Qaeda terrorists they aided and abetted. Five years later, the mission remains undone. The Bush White House took its eye off of the ball and took America to war in Iraq based on faulty and cherry picked intelligence. As a result, al Qaeda has not yet been destroyed, the Taliban is resurgent, and Osama bin Laden remains at large. We cannot allow Afghanistan to slide into chaos. We need a new direction.”

LAWRENCE KORB AND BRIAN KATULIS CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS (PDF) – October 25, 2006 Our plan “reduces U.S. troops to 60,000 by the end of 2006, and to zero by the end of 2007, while redeploying troops to Afghanistan, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf.”

FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE ALBRIGHT In an interview with The Santa Barbara Independent – November 3, 2006 “We should have kept our attention on Afghanistan.”

 

Kerry Says “Set a Deadline to Pressure Iraqis/Hold them accountable…”

October 26, 2005 Speech at Georgetown University “I want to talk about the steps we must take if we hope to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that’s not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict.”

October 26, 2005 Speech at Georgetown University “The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay ‘as long as it takes.’ To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political statement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays. The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so a majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn”

October 26, 2005 Speech at Georgetown University “It will be hard for this Administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down, starting immediately after successful elections in December. The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of next year. If the Administration does its work correctly, that is achievable.”

December 8, 2005 Speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C. “We ought to pull 20,000 troops out after the elections on December 15th. Why? That wasn’t arbitrarily chosen, and it’s not arbitrarily set. We put an additional 20,000 troops in…for the purposes of providing extra safety for the referendum and for the elections…. We can’t afford to lose momentum after December 15th, and I think part of the creation of momentum and the transfer of the sort of heeding of our generals is to announce publicly…’we’re pulling out 20,000 troops. We’re cutting back to where we were.’”

December 8, 2005 Speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C. “…the only chance of diminishing the sense of occupation, reducing the targeting and beginning to establish confidence among Iraqis is to begin to transfer that authority….So you set a series of benchmarks beginning with the election — that’s benchmark one — moving on to benchmarks you set about specific areas of responsibility for security. You pull back. You’re there to back them up. They start standing up more. And then you turn over whole provinces, and you begin to reduce down the numbers of troops as you stand them up. And that’s precisely how you begin to change the entire dynamics of the region.” <!-more-> April 5, 2006 Op-Ed in New York Times: Two Deadlines and an Exit “….So far, Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines — a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections. Now we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet…”

April 22, 2006 Speech at Faneuil Hall in Boston “Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines – a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections. It was the most intense 11th hour pressure that just pushed aside Prime Minister Jaafari and brought forward a more acceptable candidate. And it will demand deadline toughness to reign in Shiite militias Sunnis say are committing horrific acts of torture every day in Baghdad. So we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet. Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to deal with these intransigent issues and at last put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraq’s leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year’s end. Doing so will actually empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country.”

June 13, 2006 Speech to the Campaign for America’s Future in Washington, D.C. “The Iraqis themselves must build a democracy. And it will never be done if Iraqis’ leaders are unwilling to make the compromises necessary that that requires….This war cannot be won militarily. It has to be won, if it can be, politically. And the only way forward is political and diplomatic. And so to achieve that, I am convinced that the only way the Iraqis have moved at any time thus far is with a deadline. And I believe we need a hard and fast deadline, not an open-ended commitment of U.S. forces so that we shift responsibility and demand responsibility from the Iraqis themselves. We need a deadline now for the Iraqis to stand up and fight for their own country. I believe that it’s time to set a schedule for that withdrawal. And after all, how many times have we been told by this president that our policy is that as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down?”

June 20, 2006 “Set a deadline for Iraq” Joint posting with Sen. Feingold on DailyKos.com “…it is long past time to set a deadline for the redeployment of American forces out of Iraq.” click here to see posting in its entirety

September 6, 2006 Joint Op-Ed, with Patrick Murphy, in Philadelphia Daily News “…the only appropriate course of action is to create a timeline to bring our troops home and force the Iraqis to fight for their own democracy.”

September 9, 2006 Speech at Faneuil Hall in Boston, Massachusetts “We must redeploy troops from Iraq – maintain enough residual force to complete the training and deter foreign intervention, so we can free up resources to fight the global war on terror.”

September 9, 2006 Speech at Faneuil Hall in Boston, Massachusetts “At each step along the way, the Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines-a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, a deadline to write a Constitution, a deadline to hold elections. So we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet—a clear deadline of July, 2007 to redeploy our combat troops. Make Iraqis stand up for Iraq – and bring our heroes home.”

September 9, 2006 Speech at Faneuil Hall in Boston, Massachusetts “Only through negotiation and diplomacy can you stem the growing civil war, and only be setting a deadline to get out can we force Iraq and its neighbors to take diplomacy seriously.”

September 9, 2006 “Post-9/11 Policy Hasn’t Made World Safer” Op-Ed in the Boston Herald “There are many things we can and must do better, but there are five steps to start: redeploy from Iraq, re-commit to Afghanistan, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reform our homeland defense, and restore America’s moral leadership in the world.” click here to see op-ed in its entirety

September 9, 2006 “Switch the Fight to Afghanistan” Op-Ed in Manchester Union-Leader “Every time President Bush tells the Iraqis we will ‘stay as long as it takes,’ he is giving squabbling Iraqi politicians an excuse to take as long as they want to. Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines. So we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq and get Iraq up on its own two feet – a clear deadline in July 2007.” click here to see op-ed in its entirety

October 13, 2006 Keynote address at New Hampshire’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner “The truth is Iraq distracts and diverts from the real war on terror. Even the Republican Chairman of the Armed Services Committee has returned from Iraq to say that they’ve got 3 months left to end the violence – sure sounds like a timetable to me! It is long since time to make clear: no American soldier should be sacrificed because squabbling Iraqi politicians refuse to compromise. It is time for a summit to do the diplomacy, and it is time to set a deadline for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq and bring our heroes home!”

  Today, others agree…

SENATOR HERB KOHL (D-WI) SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D – IA) Statement – May 4, 2006 “It’s time to bring home as many troops as possible, and to redeploy as many as necessary to fight al Qaeda and others who pose a real threat to our national security. The president’s invasion of Iraq was a strategic blunder, a fatal diversion from our pursuit of those who attacked us on 9/11. The time has come to get out of Iraq and adopt a smarter approach to national security.”

SENATOR EDWARD KENNEDY (D – MA) Statement – June 22, 2006 “The American people want a realistic strategy for our troops to redeployed out of Iraq. Both Democratic amendments make clear that we are united in our belief that it’s time to shift to the Iraqis the responsibility for their own future and begin to withdraw our troops from Iraq. Democrats have sent a clear message: now that a democratic government has been elected by the Iraqi people, it’s time for American troops to begin to come home.”

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER (D – CA) Statement – June 6, 2006 “I introduce this resolution with the hope and prayer that we will redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq and end this ill-fated war that has resulted in more than 20,000 U.S. troops killed or wounded.”

SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL (R – NE) In the Lincoln Journal Star – August 3, 2006 “Feed(ing) more American troop fodder into the fight’ could result in ‘even a worse defeat.’ Iraqis are ‘going to have to step up’ and assume responsibility for defense of their country, Hagel told a telephone news conference from Washington. Hagel said he believes increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq by extending military tours while cycling in new troops is a mistake. ‘Eventually, we need to start pulling people out of there. If Iraqis themselves do not assume control of their country’s fate,’ he said, ‘the nation may dissolve into a civil war that splits it into three countries.”

SENATOR CARL LEVIN (D – MI) FORMER SENATOR MAX CLELAND Statement – September 12, 2006 “It’s time to withdraw our forces from there and leave Iraq to the Iraqis.”

SENATOR CHRIS DODD (D – CT) Hartford Courant – October 13, 2006 “U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd Thursday altered his course on Iraq, calling for a goal of repositioning U.S. troops from current Iraqi positions beginning immediately and finishing within 12 to 18 months.”

LAWRENCE KORB AND BRIAN KATULIS, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS (PDF) – October 25, 2006 “Since the President has decided to open up the debate about the correct course of action in Iraq (even before his handpicked Iraq Study Group led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Indiana congressman Lee H. Hamilton reports back to him by year-end), we will argue that Bush should consider a reasoned, pragmatic plan to strategically redeploy our military forces in Iraq and around the region to fight our terrorist enemies in the most effective and most lethal fashion possible. One year ago the Center for American Progress issued its first report calling for a responsible exit from Iraq as part of a balanced global strategy to make Americans safer. We reiterated that call six months later as subsequent events underscored the need to act on our proposals. Today, the situation in Iraq is even more dire, and time is of the essence.”

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD (D – WI) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel – “A Timetable to Redeploy Troops from Iraq”—October 29, 2006 “By refusing to set a timetable for the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, the president continues to overlook the serious threats that face our country around the world. As I have argued for over a year, a timetable for the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq will help pressure the Iraqis to get their political house in order and will help the U.S. military refocus on defeating the global terrorist networks that threaten us.”

SENATOR CARL LEVIN (D – MI) On ABC’s “This Week” November 12, 2006 “We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months.”

SENATOR CARL LEVIN (D – MI) New York Times – November 12, 2006 “The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over and that they are going to have to solve their own problems.”

SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN AND LESLIE GELB, PRESIDENT EMERITUS OF THE COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS New York Times – May 1, 2006 – Restricted access “The President must direct the military to design a plan for withdrawing and redeploying our troops from Iraq by 2008 (while providing for a small but effective residual force to combat terrorists and keep the neighbors honest). We must avoid a precipitous withdrawal that would lead to a national meltdown, but we can’t have a substantial long-term military presence.”

SENATOR HERB KOHL (D – WI) The Capital Times – November 9, 2006 “Sen. Herb Kohl, released a statement saying he ‘remained concerned that the administration’s commitment in Iraq is too broad, and they still lack a firm timetable for the orderly and honorable withdrawal of our troops.’”

 

Kerry Says We Need A “Dayton Accords Like Summit…”

April 5, 2006 Op-Ed in the New York Times “Two deadlines and an Exit” “We must finally begin to engage in genuine diplomacy. We must immediately bring the leaders of the Iraqi factions together at a Dayton Accords-like summit meeting. In a neutral setting, Iraqis, working with our allies, the Arab League and the United Nations, would be compelled to reach a political agreement that includes security guarantees, the dismantling of the militias and shared goals for reconstruction.”

September 9, 2006 Speech at Faneuil Hall in Boston, Massachusetts “We…desperately need something else this administration disdains: diplomacy. Real diplomacy – a Dayton-like summit of Iraq and the countries bordering it, the Arab League, NATO, and the Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council. Our own generals have said Iraq cannot be solved militarily. Only through negotiation and diplomacy can you stem the growing civil war.”

Today, others agree…

SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN AND LESLIE GELB, PRESIDENT EMERITUS OF THE COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS New York Times – May 1, 2006- (restricted access) “A decade ago, Bosnia was torn apart by ethnic cleansing and facing its demise as a single country. After much hesitation, the United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords, which kept the country whole by, paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations, even allowing Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of American and other forces, Bosnians have lived a decade in relative peace and are now slowly strengthening their common central government, including disbanding those separate armies last year. Now the Bush Administration, despite its profound strategic misjudgments in Iraq, has a similar opportunity.”

THOMAS FRIEDMAN EDITORIAL New York Times – August 4, 2006- (restricted access) “I think we need to try a last-ditch Bosnia-like peace conference that would bring together all of Iraq’s factions and neighbors. Just as Bosnia could be solved only by an international peace force and the Dayton conference — involving Russia, Europe and the U.S., the powers most affected by Bosnia’s implosion — the civil war in Iraq can be quelled only by a coalition of those most affected by Iraq’s implosion: the U.S., Russia, Europe, Japan, India, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria and Jordan. As in Bosnia, any solution will have to be some form of federalism, a division of oil wealth and policing by an international force, where needed.”

RICHARD HOLBROOKE Interview with the Council on Foreign Relations – November 7, 2006 “I think a regional conference is a very good idea, but whether it results in anything will depend on who participates. This war is being waged on the ground by ferocious forces which aren’t necessarily going to be much interested in what regional and international forces say. Still, I think it’s worth trying…If you don’t have Iran and Syria, you’re not going to have a conference of any value. They are bordering states, they have a vested stake, they’re part of the problem, they exacerbate the problem, and you either do it right or you don’t do it at all.”

    Kerry Says “Engage With All the Neighbors, Including Iran, Syria…”

April 30, 2004 Speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri “Other nations have a vital interest [in Iraq] and they must be brought in. To accomplish this, we must do the hard work to get the world’s major political powers to join in this mission. To do so, the President must lead. He must build a political coalition of key countries, including the UK, France, Russia and China, the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, to share the political and military responsibilities and burdens of Iraq with the United States….To bring NATO members and others in, the President must immediately and personally reach out and convince them that Iraqi security and stability is a global interest that all must contribute to…To bring in others it is imperative we share the responsibility and authority…Everyone has a huge stake in whether Iraq survives its trial by fire or is consumed by fire and becomes a breeding ground for terror, intolerance and fear.”

September 20, 2004 Speech at New York University “If the President … would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces … train the Iraqis to provide their own security …develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people … and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year … we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years.”

  Today, others agree…

FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI Lehrer News Hour – March 20, 2006 Brzezinski suggested getting the Iraqis to convene a “conference of … Muslim neighbors, who are interested in continued stability in Iraq and in helping to prevent a civil war from exploding.”

BRITISH PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR New York Times – November 15, 2006 “According to a British official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in keeping with civil service rules, Mr. Blair used his session [with the Iraq Study Group] to reiterate many points he made in a major foreign policy address on Monday night, when he said Western strategy in the Middle East must ‘evolve,’ possible to include a ‘partnership’ with Iran.”

BRITISH PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR CBS News – November 15, 2006 “Blair said a positive strategy for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would help Britain and the U.S. win the support of moderate Muslims and increase pressure on Iran and Syria to work for peace, the spokesman said.”

DAVID IGNATIUS Washington Post – November 15, 2006 The Iraq Study Group, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, is expected “to recommend a regional dialogue that involves Iraq’s neighbors – including Iran and Syria – along with a new effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. […]  Iran will demand a price for any help it offers in Iraq. So will Syria, which is already positioning its proxies for restoration of Syrian influence in Lebanon. There will be a temptation to overreach, as the Syrians clearly are doing, and the prices demanded may be too steep for America to pay. But the essence of a negotiation is that, in the pursuit of mutual interest, the parties narrow their demands to ones that are achievable. This is the kind of conversation America should be having and - god-from-a-machine willing - it may begin soon.”

    <!-more-> Kerry Says “We must change course in Iraq”

September 20, 2004 Speech at New York University “We must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of the war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.”

October 26, 2005 Speech at Georgetown University “While some say we can’t ask tough questions because we are at war, I say no – in a time of war we must ask the hardest questions of all. It’s essential if we want to correct our course and do what’s right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. No matter what the President says, asking tough questions isn’t pessimism, it’s patriotism.”

  Today, others agree…

VETPAC – Veterans’ Alliance for Security and Democracy Release – April 4, 2006 “VETPAC Director Colonel Dick Klass said ‘it is time for the U.S. forces to prepare for a complete redeployment from Iraq’…The group contends that US forces deploy to progressively fewer bases and eliminate unilateral patrols in the major urban areas to avoid direct involvement in the growing sectarian violence and in preparation for redeployment out of Iraq. Col. Klass noted that ‘given the impossible hand they were dealt by the mistakes and incompetence of the Bush administration’s occupation planning, the performance of American military forces has been extraordinary. Their courage, ingenuity and sacrifice should make all Americans proud.’”

SENATOR OLYMPIA SNOWE (R – ME) Press Release – Snowe Calls For Reassessment of Strategy in Iraq—Oct 11, 2006 “As conditions in Iraq continue to worsen, there must be no question among the Administration, the Congress and the Iraqi unity government that staying the course is neither an option nor a plan. I am in agreement with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner who, after returning from Iraq this past week, called for a reassessment of our strategy in Iraq.”

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D – IA) Statement – October 12, 2006 “We need a new course in Iraq. President Bush has given the Iraqi government a blank check payable in the lives of American soldiers and Marines. It’s time to tear up that blank check. It’s time to chart a new course that will serve American interests as well as the interests of the Iraqi people.”

SENATOR HARRY REID (D – NV) Letter to President Bush – October 20, 2006 “Staying the course in Iraq is not a strategy, nor is sitting on the sidelines hoping that the Iraqis will eventually forge a political solution.”

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI (D – CA) Pelosi: ‘No Matter What Slogans Are Used to Describe it, the President’s Iraq Policy Has Been a Failure’ – Tuesday, October 24, 2006 “The President’s decision to ban the ‘stay the course’ slogan is meaningless unless it is accompanied by a change in the ‘stay the course’ strategy. No matter what slogans are used to describe it, the President’s Iraq policy has been a dismal failure. It is long past time for a new direction in Iraq.”

Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek “Rethinking Iraq: The Way Forward” November 6, 2006 “The drawdown option: It is past time to confront reality. To avoid total defeat, the United States must reduce and redeploy its troops and nudge the Iraqis toward a deal.” click here to see entire article

Today, President Nouri al-Maliki called for a regional conference to discuss Iraq’s future and quell the sectarian violence that has torn the country apart. The current Department of Defense Authorization bill passed by Congress includes a Kerry amendment which calls on the President to work with Iraqi leaders to convene this type of summit. Kerry applauds this development in Iraq’s escalating civil war.

Kerry first suggested a regional conference two-and-a-half years ago, and formally proposed a Dayton-like summit in the Senate several times this year. The Senate passed Kerry’s amendment to the DoD Authorization bill calling for this summit on June 22, 2006, and the full Congress approved the measure on September 30, 2006.

As Kerry said on CNN last Sunday, “It will take a lot of groundwork. You’ll have to lay the groundwork. You can’t just suddenly call a summit. You have to put the pieces together. But the bottom line is, the surrounding countries, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Gulf states, Egypt, et cetera, are Sunni. They have an interest in not having an Iraq that comes apart. They have an interest in not having a regional civil war. They have an interest in not having Sunnis brothers and sisters murdered, killed in a genocide. So, those stakeholders have to be brought to the table.”

Here’s what Kerry had to say about today’s al-Maliki’s announcement:

“Prime Minister al-Maliki’s decision to call for a regional conference for Iraq is an extremely important development. It comes at a critical moment, as Robert Gates has just testified that we are not winning in Iraq. This long overdue diplomatic initiative can be an important first step in a change of course. It is essential to bring Iraq’s neighbors together with the international community to forge the sustainable political solution that we all agree is the only hope for ending the violence in Iraq. There’s no military solution in Iraq. The only answer is a diplomatic and political solution. We must now work with the Iraqi Prime Minister to make sure that this conference is as successful as possible, which will require a long overdue commitment to a sustained diplomacy from the highest levels of the Administration.”

John Kerry spoke with Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s Late Edition this morning. Here’s a taste of what they discussed.

BLITZER: Well, what do you think of what the president just said, that we’re going to stay in Iraq to get the job done? There’s not going to be, in his words, “a graceful exit” out of Iraq.

KERRY: Well, I think every American hopes that indeed there will be a graceful exit. And that’s what this last election was about. It really was a resounding vote for change in our policy in Iraq.

KERRY : And I think everything that you’re seeing - the Hadley memo that was leaked, now the Rumsfeld memo that was leaked - they all indicate that in fact, there was very different thinking inside the administration than the administration has been sharing with the American public.

BLITZER: And you welcome that.

KERRY : Well, I welcome - I mean, these are things - look, everything in the Rumsfeld memo is a summary of things that I and others laid out three years ago. I mean, Wolf, this is rather extraordinary. We’ve had young Americans on the front lines losing lives and limbs for the last three years while many of us have been offering alternatives for a way to be successful, and the administration has consistently shut that down.

Now we see they’re embracing the very things that we talked about. I’m glad. What’s important now is not the leaks. What’s important is the policy. We have to get this right, as a country. I think King Abdullah’s warning…

BLITZER: King Abdullah of Jordan.

KERRY : ... that you could have three - King Abdullah of Jordan - and, you know, no one’s covered the Middle East more than you. You understand this. The threat of three civil wars at the same time ought to bring all of us together with urgency.

[...] The bottom line is, there is no military solution. General Casey has accepted that. All of the military has accepted that. And in fact, the administration has.

If that’s true, then you have to come back and say, all right, what are the dynamics of getting a solution? Well, the fundamental problem here is a problem between the stakeholders. The Sunni don’t have oil revenues, don’t have security with respect to Baghdad and the Sunni triangle, and don’t have security with respect to the future and the kind of state that the Shia want to create.

The Shia, on the other hand, have won at the ballot box everything they’ve been denied for over 200 years, and they’re not about to give it up easily, and they have oil.

[...] And certainly, anything that we do cannot be American-imposed. That is one of the lessons of the last several years. So any talk of saying, we’re going to divide up the country or we’re going to do this or that is a mistake.

...we can’t impose it. I’ve said since the first day that Peter Galbraith, Les Gelb, Joe Biden and others talked about this.

That represents something you may be able to achieve, but the question is, how do you get from here to there? The only way to get from here to there is by having the political stakeholders come to the table and resolve the differences. That requires a Dayton Accords- like summit. I’ve been calling for that for three years.

BLITZER: An international conference, if you will.

KERRY : Yes, sir. Absolutely.

BLITZER: And it looks like they’re moving on that. It’s probably going to be one of the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton bipartisan Iraq study group.

KERRY : It will take a lot of groundwork. You’ll have to lay the groundwork. You can’t just suddenly call a summit. You have to put the pieces together. But the bottom line is, the surrounding countries, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Gulf states, Egypt, et cetera, are Sunni.

They have an interest in not having an Iraq that comes apart. They have an interest in not having a regional civil war. They have an interest in not having Sunnis brothers and sisters murdered, killed in a genocide. So, those stakeholders have to be brought to the table.

 

There’s nothing like seeing and hearing it for yourself though. Check out the video and the complete transcript.

 

Andrew Sullivan picked a bit from JK’s appearance on the Situation room for his Quote for the Day on Friday, December 1, 2006:

“I don’t think any sitting president of the United States is a lame duck when it comes to foreign policy. There’s too much power in the presidency, and the interests of our country are too great. If the president reaches out to us in the Democratic Party and really tries to work together, he has a chance to have a legacy here that could be important for our nation and, obviously, for him personally. I’ve offered to be helpful to Condoleezza Rice. I’ve called her. I hope we can all work together, but we’ve got to be tougher in our approach. I believe personally - and I’ve said this publicly - that you have to set a date for the expectation of when the Iraqis will take over their responsibility. And if you don’t get tough and have those kinds of benchmarks, then they have an excuse to avoid it altogether,” – Senator John Kerry on CNN.

  <!-more-> Sandy at Light up the Darkness sets us all straight on some of JK’s accomplishments in this post titled “Morris Reid – Get Your Facts Straight”. She lists a whole series of points concluding with:

D. You could look at his 2004 platform and remind people that everything they voted for 2 weeks ago was exactly what the Party stood for in 2004. If they had listened to the issues instead of the Rovian slander machine, we wouldn’t BE in this mess today. How do you think it helps the Party to criticize the guy we said was best to lead the country? How do you think ‘this is the guy for President’ to ‘oops we didn’t mean it’ resonates with voters? Just – STUPID STUPID STUPID.

We could take ONE page from Ronald Reagan and that is NEVER criticize another Democrat – not EVER. Well, except these Democratic ’strategists’ who never seem to know when to keep their mouths shut.

Points A, B and C are interesting reading as well.

M. Loutre over at culturekitchen has a very unique take in this post titled ‘These latter-day armchair generals really chap my asterisk.‘

And it really chaps my asterisk to hear all of these pompous idiots opining about what we should be doing now that it’s finally (finally?) become clear that the Shrubya administration’s illegal war of pre-emptive aggressive conquest in Iraq is, well, a rapidly degenerating debacle stemming from a totally badly-botched boink-up. (Well, duh.)

Meanwhile there’s at least one voice out there in the wilderness who’s been saying all along the same damn thing that all these johnnies- and janies-come-lately are finally finding the nerve to say in public now that a certain Mr. Rove has been sent to the woodshed for the time being.

Who? That guy? You mean the one who can’t tell a joke?

Yeah. Him.

Unlike virtually every other dog in the fight with the exception of John “Abel” McCain - and with the glaring exceptions of the current pResident, his veep, and his secretary of defense - that guy who can’t tell a joke has in fact been there and has in fact done that. And what everybody’s saying now is the same thing that this guy who can’t tell a joke has been saying for years.

His entire post is entertaining—enjoy.

For those among us who are much more academically inclined to study the minutiae of statistical studies and Bayesian statistics, there’s a post about who is and who is not the most liberal senator from simon jackman’s blog:

Going back to this project reminded me just how fragile is the inference that Kerry was the “most liberal” senator of 2003. He votes on only 23 of the 62 National Journal “key votes”, and in a liberal direction every time; frankly, it’s hard to say much about how liberal he is under these circumstances, and the conclusions are surprisingly sensitive to the choice of prior and even how long you run the MCMC algorithm. Basically you are trying to distinguish between three senators (Kerry, Reed, and Sarbanes) with not much information, and they [are] out on the end of the preference distribution: you need a lot of MCMC iterates and a lot of confidence in your model, etc. to walk away with an authoritative determination as to who is “the most liberal” senator, at least given these data. The analysis based on all 498 non-unanimous roll calls in the 107th Senate (also packaged in the replication archive) is much more robust and makes it clear that Kerry was not the most liberal senator, not even close…

Okay—we’ll take your word for it, Simon.

 

Comparisons between the Vietnam War and the ever-deepening spiral of civil war in Iraq seem to be everywhere these days. Pundits and opinion-makers have been underscoring the similarities between our untenable position in the Middle East of today and our untenable position in the Indochina of four decades past—often by quoting the famous question posed by a young Lieutenant John Kerry to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971:

“How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

As a Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry’s thoughts and positions continue to be informed by the lessons he learned as a young man in Vietnam.

Senator Kerry has made a point of honoring the sacrifices of his brothers in arms at every opportunity. His efforts on behalf of the welfare and well-being of his fellow veterans have been a recurring hallmark of his service in the Senate, as in the recent passage of his amendment which provides $18 million in critical funding to the nation’s Veteran’s Administration (VA) Centers.

Further evidence of Senator Kerry’s deep commitment to his fellow veterans and to the brave troops currently serving on America’s behalf at home and abroad can be found in remarks like those he delivered on November 11, 2002 on the 20th anniversary of the dedication of the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C.: <!-more->

Seven letters — that’s all it takes to make the word Vietnam.

But we know it is much more than a word. More than the name of a country. Vietnam. It is a period in time — it is a one-word encapsulation of history — a one-word summary of a war gone wrong, of families divided, generations divided, a nation divided. It carries in its seven letters all the confusion, bitterness, love, sacrifice and nobility of America’s longest war. It is a one-word all-encompassing answer to questions: What happened to him? Where was he injured? When did he change?

Say the word Vietnam to a veteran and you can smell the wood burning fires, hear the AK-47’s and B-52’s, see pajama-clad Viet Cong skirting a tree line and the helicopters darting across the sky — you can feel all the emotions of young men and women who in the end were fighting as much for their love of each other as for the love of country that brought them there in the first place.

Today we come here to remember and to memorialize forever all that was Vietnam. In doing so we do not just read the names and remember those who gave their lives. We remember and celebrate what they were and remain part of — a great nation committed to peace, individual liberty, freedom for all — a nation which outlined in the writing of a constitution fundamental rights which belong to every one of its citizens and which we remember today are worth dying for. Today — because of those engraved forever on these black panels — we celebrate rights and aspirations that are bigger than any individual and which each of us as individuals are willing to defend with life itself.

We celebrate the nobility of young Americans willing to go thousands of miles from home to fight for the notion that in the final measurement someone else’s freedom was connected to our own.

It doesn’t matter that politics got in the way. It doesn’t matter that leaders remained wedded to their own confusion. Nothing — not politics, not time, not outcome — nothing will ever diminish one iota the contributions of these brothers and sisters, nothing can ever lessen the courage with which they waged war. Nothing reduces the magnitude of their sacrifice, nothing can take away the quality of their gift to their nation.

[...] The Vietnam soldiers, airmen and sailors fought with as much conviction, as much commitment, as much courage and as much selfless sacrifice as soldiers in any war. And we did so with love of country and love of fellow soldiers as great as any despite our nation’s political divisions at home and the difficult circumstances we were required to confront. This memorial will forever remind the generations to come of that special spirit — the special bond of soldier to country and soldier to soldier.

And we remember today also with pride at the outcome — that for our generation of veterans the war did not end when we came home. For us the fight continued — the recognition honoring our deeds came when veterans pushed for it — Agent Orange, outreach centers, extension of the GI Bill — increased funding for Veterans Affairs , these all happened because veterans remembered their brothers and sisters and never stopped fighting to keep faith with the promise to veterans.

We also remember those soldiers captured by the enemy who did not return and those we’ve yet to account for. One of the things we are most proud of is that we initiated the most extensive, exhaustive accounting for the missing or captured in all the history of human warfare. No nation has ever gone to such lengths to remember and to account their missing. Today — because of the veterans of Vietnam — when we send our young men and women into harm’s way, never again will we allow anyone to be left behind. Never will it take so long to find and bring every one home.

The truth is that every advance we’ve made on behalf of our veterans has been the result of the commitment of veterans to each other and their vows never to give up the fight. This Wall itself grew out of that spirit.

That spirit bonded men and women together — making us more than we were when we left for Vietnam, and didn’t diminish once we had returned. Each panel, each name, tells the story of that journey.

[...] That is why we come here today. To keep faith. To celebrate the 58,226 brave men and women who didn’t return from Vietnam, who knew the Lord’s words that “There is no greater love than sacrificing yourself for a friend.” And so, it is in that spirit that we remember all who fought with our brothers and sisters — for our families — for our nation. God bless them all and may God bless the United States of America.

[Editor’s Note: This post was written by guest JK blogger Otter. Thanks for bringing this back to the forefront of our memories.]