From Tuesday morning well into Wednesday, the Senate debated the Levin-Reed-Kerry Amendment to the Defense Authorization Act for 2008. The amendment would have required a binding timetable for redeploying our troops away from the burgeoning civil war in Iraq. Senate Republicans fulminated and filibustered in an effort to derail that amendment and substitute a toothless amendment in its place to provide themselves with political cover against an increasingly anti-war electorate. After an extended at at times acrimonious all-night debate, the amendment was set aside and the entire bill tabled for now by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. A New York Times editorial had this to say about the drawn-out debate:

The nation’s anguish over the Iraq war was kept on hold in the Senate yesterday as the Republican minority maintained serial threats of filibuster to buy time for President Bush’s aimless policies. Last week, the House debated and voted along party lines for a timetable for an American troop withdrawal by next spring. But a similar measure was allowed no such decisive expression in the Senate. Instead, the G.O.P. insisted on the approval of a “supermajority” of 60 of 100 senators before putting to a vote a measure that would apply real pressure on the president to shift his disastrous course in Iraq.

Republicans have the right to filibuster under centuries-old rules that this page has long defended. It is the height of hypocrisy for this band of Republicans to use that power since only about two years ago they were ready to unilaterally ban filibusters to push through some of Mr. Bush’s most ideologically blinkered judicial nominees.

But beyond that, the Republicans are doing the public a real disservice and playing an increasingly risky hand by delaying sober consideration of the war. The filibuster threat on Iraq also is part of a broader Republican tactic of demanding supermajorities on a raft of major issues in the hopes of paralyzing the Senate and then painting the Democrats as a do-nothing, marginal majority.

[...]

The Iraq war stands apart as a watershed issue — a downward spiral that the public increasingly sees as a colossal waste of the nation’s blood and treasure.

In postponing real action to September and beyond, Republicans laughed off the all-night debate as a “slumber party” of “twilight zone” theatrics by the Democrats. In fact, Bush loyalists seem trapped in the twilight zone, ducking their responsibility to represent constituents by applying credible pressure on the president to come up with an end to his sorry war.

Senator Kerry spoke forcefully to the subject in the pre-dawn hours. The full text of his remarks can be found in the Congressional Record, and video footage of his entire speech on the Senate floor can be viewed online as well. Here are some notable excerpts from the Senator's remarks as delivered:

Those of us who have had briefings, and some of us who have spent time pursuing this issue, understand that al-Qaida is reconstituting. They are as strong today as they were on 9/11. That is the latest estimate.

That fact totally contradicts the main message of the President and his administration -- that we have to be over there to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. The "here'' is broadening all around the world. If that were true, then what is going on with the Secretary of Homeland Security when he tells us that his gut is telling him that we are likely to have another attack now? It seems to me the chatter we are hearing reflected in the reports from the intelligence briefings we are getting is the same kind of chatter I heard from George Tenet in July of 2001, when he told us in room 407 that he was absolutely confident there was going to be an attack, they just could not tell us where.

I might add that in the face of that confidence about the attack and the lack of ability to tell us where, the President took the longest vacation in history, and there were no briefings and nothing happened until September, when the attack of 9/11 took place. It is a matter of record, when we measure what the administration is saying today, what will happen and the challenge to us; you have to measure it against the record. This is not an administration that has been correct, conceivably, about anything, but certainly about almost everything with respect to Iraq.

So with each step that has been made, whether it was the early steps made by Paul Bremer, or subsequent steps made with respect to the disbursement of funds, or the promises of a transition to democracy, and so forth, not one expectation has been met. Not one basic political transformation that is essential to resolving this has taken place.

We are in the fifth year, 5 years into it, and the administration says wait another 6 weeks until September before you do this because then we will know what we don't know after 5 years; we will know what we don't know after Senator after Senator has made trips to Iraq and spoken privately with generals, colonels, majors, all the way down the ranks into the noncommissioned officers and those going out on patrols; we have heard from them.

Let me say one thing quickly about what is not happening there. This is also profoundly about those troops. There is no question on either side of the aisle about the respect we have for the quality of the service that American troops are providing our country -- no question at all. These are the best trained, most capable and dedicated people I have ever seen.

One of my interns is serving over there now. He was an intern a couple years ago. We get regular e-mails from him. He writes us about the losses in his unit. He writes us about the patrols he is going out on. He sends us photographs. We sort of feel in our office like family with his unit. He is First Cavalry, and we are proud of his service and of the service of all of those men and women. They are -- most of them -- dedicated to the mission. There is not a lot of griping that we hear, and there is a tremendous pride of service. It is wonderful to see.

The bottom line is they deserve missions that make sense. They deserve an overall policy that is equal to the sacrifice and the commitment they show on a daily basis.

This mission is as flawed as the mission was years ago. You send troops out to find IEDs -- the hard way. You are driving down a road and you go through a community and, kaboom, there is an explosion. You get your wounded out and you turn around and you look at each other and say what did we accomplish? What did we get out of that? Did we secure any territory? Did we in fact make the community more secure? The greater likelihood is that the people who were hiding in some house, or the people who blew up that IED are sitting there congratulating themselves, saying we took out another 6 or 10 soldiers, and the headlines are there and that is what they want.

Every time we go out and do that, we add to the fragility of the community and the chaos, in the sense of the entire stake. We all know that military mission is not going to reduce the long-term violence, which is being driven by the political stakes that both sides -- or all sides, as there are a bunch of entities vying for power here -- but all of them are playing us off against those interests. That is what is going on here.

So how many times do we have to listen to generals, particularly, but also to even the President, or the Vice President, or the Secretary of State, or our colleagues say to us there is no military solution? If there is no military solution, then what are the troops accomplishing in these proactive forays out into the community where they "show the flag'' and show a presence?

The fact is that IEDs are being exploded for one most significant reason, which we need to focus on in the context of this debate: because there are factions within the Sunni and Shia who are vying for power. As long as you have this open-ended presence of Americans, we remain the target and they remain committed to use us to foster the insecurity and fear that allows them to continue to maneuver among each other.

Unless you change that dynamic, what happens here by continuing this policy, which is what our colleagues on the other side are prepared to do -- at least through September, which raises a significant issue that in a moment I will come back to -- but if you continue it, you are guaranteeing that those young men and women will continue to go out in the same posture they are going out today, without any resolution whatsoever of the fundamental political issues.

The politics has to change. There has been no indication whatsoever of the ability or willingness of Prime Minister Maliki, or the others who make up this Government, to make those fundamental decisions. What are we talking about? We are talking about an oil law. Is it that hard to sit down and decide how the revenues of the oil will be divided -- by population, by community, by presence, by need? It hasn't happened. We have been promised month after month, oh, it is just around the corner, just about to happen. And it doesn't happen.

I have sat with some folks over there who have indicated to me that it is, in fact, the open-endedness of the presence of the United States that relieves the pressure. I have even heard that from some of our top U.S. diplomats who have been charged with the effort to negotiate, and they happily and gladly use the pressure of the Congress as a stick to try to leverage some of the transition we want.

But frankly, I have also heard them say that when the President and the administration stand up and say: We are there, don't worry about us, we are going to keep on doing this, they just back off because they don't think they have to listen to the Congress and they know they have this open-ended ability to play their game. It is that simple. That is what we are trying to change.

You hear people say: This precipitous withdrawal. "Precipitous'' is the favorite word of the other side. First, it is not a withdrawal; it is a redeployment. Yes, some troops come home, absolutely, as they ought to, because there are limits to what American troops are able to do in the middle of a civil war.

I ask my colleagues, go read the authorization we sent those troops to Iraq with. There isn't one mention of what is going on there today. There isn't even one mention that is active today. The authority we gave the President to use to send the troops there was related to Saddam Hussein, to weapons of mass destruction, to a whole series of things, none of which are applicable -- not al-Qaida, incidentally.

This is a war which has completely morphed into what it is today, without congressional authorization. But for the fact that the troops are there, the Congress wouldn't send them there for what they are doing today. Just because you are there is the last reason to be sending young Americans out to continue to put their lives in harm's way.

I heard the Senator from Minnesota say the other day that this is not an open-ended commitment that we have today. I don't know how it is not open-ended unless, of course, he knows that General Petraeus is going to recommend that we bring some troops back in September because in the absence of that, it is open-ended. There is nothing that says to the Iraqis: Something is going to happen if you don't do X, Y, or Z.

Last year, we heard Ambassador Khalilzad and then General Casey and General Abizaid say the Iraqis have about 6 months, and if they don't do the following things in the next 6 months, it is going to be really difficult. Guess what, Mr. President. We are a year beyond that now. We are 6 months beyond the 6 months. What happened? Nothing.

The reality is that al-Qaida is a threat. But let's come back to Iraq, which is the key. Al-Qaida wasn't in Iraq. The focus of this war was in Afghanistan and in other places. We shifted it to Iraq. We have put far more resources and far more personnel into Iraq, and Afghanistan is getting worse. I have talked to people who spend every day of their lives focused on defense and security issues who are unbelievably concerned about what is happening in Afghanistan as opposed to concern about what is happening to Iraq in terms of the threat to the United States.

In addition, there is nothing in this amendment that deprives the President or the Congress or the country of the ability to protect our interests in the region. Those interests, incidentally, we believe very deeply are being injured by the current policy. We are creating more terrorists. The CIA has told us that. We have even had reports that al-Qaida -- the Osama bin Laden-al Zawahiri al-Qaida based in northwest Pakistan and Afghanistan -- is using what is happening in Iraq as a recruitment tool, as a fundraising tool. It has become a magnet for jihadists.

The way you deal with that is to be smarter than we are being today, which is diffuse the American presence, have surrogates legitimately doing what we are in the same interest. We ought to be demanding more of the surrounding communities but, frankly, they have lost confidence both in Maliki and this administration. The ability to do that is now much harder than it was.

We in this amendment do not withdraw all the troops from Iraq. Some people don't like this amendment because of that. There are some in the country who think it should just be done tomorrow. That is not what happens here. There is nothing precipitous about it at all. It begins a process that most people in the Senate know is probably going to begin in September, but it begins it with a clarity that begins to change the dynamics on the ground so you begin to best leverage the political transformation that needs to take place.

It does so in a way that leaves the President the discretion to be able to have troops necessary to complete the training of Iraqis. It leaves the President the discretion to have troops necessary to continue to prosecute al-Qaida. And it leaves the President the discretion to be able to have the troops necessary to protect American facilities and forces.

Five years -- going into the sixth year -- of this war, that is a recipe for transforming America's presence there, for transforming Iraqi responsibility, and for achieving the political settlement that is absolutely unachievable as long as there is simply the kind of military commitment that has been on the table to now. To date, the administration has not shown anybody what their route is, what their path is, for the kind of political settlement that seems to escape them every time they make the promise.

I remember personally, when I thought a policy was not working very well, how we wished that people were responding to the realities of what was going on on the ground, and that we wanted people in Washington to be more thoughtful and knowledgeable about what the dynamics were on the ground.

I think the same is true of our troops over there, who are committed to achieving what they can, but who also -- and I have talked to many of them -- feel as though they are trying to put a square peg in a round hole, that they do not have the right tools and the right dynamic to be able to accomplish what needs to be done.

So I say to my colleagues: if you know what you are doing is not working, if you know what you are doing is counterproductive, if you know what you are doing is, in fact, working against your ability to most effectively prosecute the war on terror, if you know what you are doing is creating casualties out of missions that do not accomplish your ultimate goal -- which is providing the security that allows the transformation of the politics; and there is no indication the politics are about to follow -- if you know, in fact, you have strengthened one of the primary entities you are concerned about in the region -- Iran -- if you know you have lost ground with respect to Hamas and Hezbollah -- because you have been focused elsewhere and not leveraging what needs to be done there -- if you know so many interests of your country are being set back, you ought to change your policy.

If we continue down the road we are going now, we are setting ourselves up to empower al-Qaida even more. If we continue down the road we are going now -- without the political resolution, without legitimate leverage in the region that is more reasonable, and without the transfer of legitimate responsibility and accountability to the Iraqis -- then we are going to have more American soldier casualties, we are going to stay in the same position we are in today, and a month from now, 2 months from now, 6 months from now, the judgments we are going to be called on to make will be exactly the same as they are today, only worse, because more time will have been spent, because opportunities will have been wasted, and because the opposition will have been empowered even further.

That is what the choice is for all of us here. I hope we are going to have sort of a real debate. It is legitimate you might differ over whether a particular move is going to accomplish what you set out to do, but please do not debate something that is not on the floor.

This is not a precipitous withdrawal. It does not abandon our interests. It addresses our interests in a different way. It redeploys our troops. It keeps a significant presence, not just there but in the region.

We have troops in Bahrain. We have troops in the gulf. We have troops in other parts of that region, in Kuwait. The fact is, America has the ability to protect its interests vis-a-vis Iran. None of us wants to see chaos in the long term, but there is chaos that is growing on a daily basis, worse and worse, as a consequence of our presence. If we have not learned that lesson by now, then we have learned precious little at all.

Last night the Senate burned the midnight oil and then some, working through the night to debate and defend the Levin-Reed-Kerry Amendment to the Defense Authorization Act against filibustering Republican attempts to derail its call for scheduled withdrawal from Iraq. The Roadblock Republicans managed to block the amendment this morning, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid then took the entire bill itself off the table for the time being.

Senator Kerry spoke out strongly and passionately in favor of the amendment and its reasons for existence in the pre-dawn hours this morning. His remarks as prepared for delivery are included below, though as this video of JK’s speech from the media bloggers at KerryVision shows, he did use those remarks as a springboard to a larger and even more powerful indictment of the Bush administration’s failed policies in Iraq. We’ll have the as-delivered transcript of this morning’s speech posted here on johnkerry.com tomorrow, but in the meanwhile here is a followuppress statement and the original core text that JK was working from when he held forth on the Senate floor early this morning.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

WASHINGTON D.C. -– Senator John Kerry today issued the following statement on the Levin-Reed-Kerry amendment to set a deadline for troop redeployment from Iraq. The vote failed 52-47, short of 60 votes needed for passage. Kerry has advocated a deadline for troop redeployment since last June, when he introduced legislation with Senator Feingold to set a firm date to bring American troops home.

“Today a few Republican Senators chose to stand with their President over voting for a policy for our troops that honors their service and sacrifice,” Senator Kerry said. “How much longer will some in this Congress fail to vote their conscience and do what’s right to bring about change in Iraq? No number of Republican filibusters and politically motivated votes change this fact: without real deadlines to force Iraqis to compromise, they will not compromise. No American soldier should die for Iraqi unwillingness to solve their differences. Again a majority in Congress has spoken, and we will not rest until we have a policy that sets a deadline to bring our troops home.”

Senator Kerry spoke at 6 a.m. this morning on the floor of the United States Senate during the all night debate on Iraq. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:
<!-more-> - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

It’s late. Not just late in the evening, when tradition dictates that we would ordinarily be at home –- but late in this war, late in a failed policy, when good sense told us long ago that our soldiers should begin coming home too.

Every day we spend in Iraq, we are emboldening our enemies, creating new ones, and diverting our best efforts from the real fight against the real enemy: al Qaeda.

Today, we received a National Intelligence Estimate which confirmed this. While we remain bogged down in Iraq –- and I quote –- Al Qaeda “has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability” –- its ability to hit us here –- including a safe haven in the Pakistani tribal areas, its operational lieutenants, and top leadership.

The report gave the lie to the hollow slogan, so often parroted by supporters of this President, as if simple repetition would make it true, that we are fighting them over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Fighting over there has been a recruitment poster for terror. It has attracted jihadists to Iraq. Fighting them over there in Iraq –- where there was no Al Qaeda until we invaded –- has not protected our homeland: Where there was no threat, in Iraq, we have created one. Where there was a very real threat, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, we have not done nearly enough to end it. And still, I wonder why, if fighting over there is the key to avoiding terror at home, why is Secretary Chertoff’s gut telling him we’re about to be hit?

Meanwhile, if the escalation is working, what does the violence in Northern Iraq this week tell us? The truth is, it highlighted the core reality of our involvement there: there is no American military solution to an Iraqi civil war.

This week, the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk saw its worst violence since the war began –- with a massive truck bomb and two smaller attacks killing over 80 people. As an ethnically mixed city in an oil-rich area, Kirkuk lies at the intersection of two of Iraq’s toughest political issues –- federalism and oil laws.

It should come as no surprise that, while Americans have died to give Iraqis, “breathing room,” Iraqi politicians haven’t done anything to resolve these issues. No oil law, no de-baathification, no movement toward resolving disputes over Kirkuk –- no reconciliation and no progress.

Here is the sad but simple truth: Without political progress, our military gains –- however hard-won, however welcome –- will be temporary at best. The only real solution is a political solution.

Not even the escalation’s most resolute supporter could say it has succeeded at its ultimate mission: to enable Iraqi politicians to make the tough political compromises necessary to end their civil war. They are no closer to doing so today than they were when the President announced the escalation in January, and 532 American soldiers have given their lives in that period.

The bill we’re debating tonight is a bill we should have passed more than a year ago.

Last June, Russ Feingold and I came to the Senate floor and asked our colleagues to impose meaningful deadlines to force Iraqis toward political compromise and leverage those deadlines with legitimate diplomatic effort.

That was one year ago. We got thirteen votes. People said they weren’t ready. They said, “I’m not there yet.” Well, a thousand Americans have died since then. What about now? Are you ready now? Or will it take another thousand?

Those thirteen votes have grown to more than fifty votes today –- but still the policy is the same. So today I stand with Senators Levin and Reed of Rhode Island, with virtually the entire Democratic caucus, with my brave Republican colleagues Senators Hagel, Smith and Snowe, in demanding a change of policy. Now. Not in September. Not when we have sixty votes. Not after we leap through procedural hurdles –- now, tonight.

Tonight we put votes on the record, because there can be no more splitting the difference. Private hand-wringing won’t suffice: It’s time to speak one’s conscience publicly –- not privately in the cloakroom or committee –- and vote for a dramatic change of course, otherwise one is acquiescing to –- supporting –- the current strategy.

Many have held back from demanding a change of course because they are concerned about the consequences of redeployment. Let me assure you: All of us are concerned. None of the bills before the Senate constitute a “precipitous withdrawal” –- none abandons our interests in the Middle East, none abandons our allies, and none loses sight of our responsibilities to the Iraqi people or the fight against terrorists.

When we’re not losing sleep on the Senate floor trying to pass a change in strategy, many of us are losing sleep over how to redeploy responsibly –- and have been for some time.

There are broad areas of bipartisan agreement available for those willing to work to build consensus. First, most of us would like to see some residual troop presence even after redeployment next spring. None of us want to redeploy in a manner that only draws us back into the conflict at a later date –- and we all ought to be working together now to lay the groundwork for not just the next few months but several years down the road in Iraq.

All of us are extremely concerned about Al Qaeda in Iraq. The recent NIE warns that the Al Qaeda we know –- Bin Laden and Zawahiri –- will seek to leverage Al Qaeda in Iraq’s contacts and capabilities. The President treats Al Qaeda in Iraq as reason enough not to redeploy a single soldier. This is not just backwards thinking –- our presence there is a major recruiting tool worldwide –- it’s also misguided. Let’s be very clear about something: our bill keeps in place those troops necessary to deny Al Qaeda a sanctuary in Iraq. None of us are ready to give up the fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq –- and none of the bills we propose would do so.

Instead, the bill being debated would refocus our mission on what ought to be our core objective: fighting terrorists. American troops should be hunting and killing Al Qaeda, not being killed on patrol through the streets of Baghdad. Iraqis –- not Americans –- should be patrolling Iraqi streets. We must refocus our mission on preventing this war from spreading into a regional conflict and deterring foreign intervention, not –- as some in this body have suggested –- starting that regional conflict ourselves with military strikes into Iran.

Where’s the political effort to accompany our military effort? Where’s the diplomatic surge to accompany our military surge?

We will redeploy troops eventually –- make no mistake –- all that we are debating here is when and how, and whether we will do so responsibly or wait until we reach a breaking point. But we must redeploy responsibly—and that requires major, immediate diplomatic outreach to resolve the political differences between Iraqi factions and restore America’s credibility across the Middle East.

We must refocus our mission in Iraq, and we must refocus our strategy worldwide away from Iraq and toward a larger, more comprehensive and sustainable fight against terrorists. Today’s NIE revealed the fruits of our neglect –- what our own government is now calling a “safe haven” in Northwest Pakistan. This week, other top intelligence officials said that Al Qaeda is better prepared to strike us than it has been at any time since 9-11.

Redeploying responsibly from Iraq is vital to our national interests, but we can’t lose sight of the rest of the Middle East –- a region that could soon fulfill King Abdullah’s dire warning of three civil wars. The Lebanese government is hanging on by a threat as it fights Sunni extremists in the north and Shia extremists in the south. Iran and Syria have stepped into the vacuum, leading reconstruction efforts after the last war –- and now re-arming Hezbollah for the next one. The Palestinians have just fought a brief civil war that has left an emboldened Hamas in control of Gaza –- and again, Iran and Syria stand poised to take advantage.

These too, like Al Qaeda’s safe haven in Pakistan, are the fruits of our neglect –- all predictable, all predicted. In each case, we failed to seize the diplomatic initiative. When it comes to exploiting opportunities for a diplomatic breakthrough, this Administration has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Not with Iran, not with Syria, not when it came to strengthening President Abbas to stave off a Palestinian civil war. Time and again, we seem to be taken by surprise when events on the ground spin out of control, left scrambling to patch together an ad hoc response from half a world away. This cannot continue.

It’s not too late for us to do better. It’s not too late for us to work together to avoid repeating or deepening the mistakes of the past. Instead of losing sleep on procedural maneuvers and legislative roadblocks, we could be working together to craft a wise and sustainable Plan B for a surge that has already failed.

If we don’t do this now, we will only be forced to do it later –- with fewer good options, and many additional lives lost. We must face reality –- and we ought to face it together, united in our love of country and commitment to getting this right –- instead of divided by a failed policy.

Erie, Pennsylvania is a small city on the edge of a great lake. It is a quintessentially American community — so much so, in fact, that it was designated an All-American City by Richard Nixon in 1972. Like many such cities, it has gone through some painful changes over the last few decades as its old industrial economy gradually gave way to a 21st-century technology/service/tourism economy instead. But Erie still typifies what most Americans look for in their home towns: wide streets, good schools, low crime rates, affordable housing, and a generally pleasant quality of life for its citizens.

And like the residents of most American home towns outside the Beltway and between the polarized left and right coast megalopolises, people in Erie are basically centrist by nature. They may differ widely on specific individual issues, but for the most part they share common values and common beliefs with each other and with the hundreds of millions of other Americans who live in what is sometimes referred to as “flyover country.”

Politics is something that people do care about in Erie, at least when it impacts their daily lives in some particular way, but they don’t obsess about it. They may lean left or right, but they do so with their feet planted firmly in the middle of the road. During the 2004 race, George Bush’s single largest campaign-rally audience was in Erie. But in 2004, Erie voters chose John Kerry over George Bush by a solid margin. Professional pundits and politicians and prognosticators do well to pay attention to what happens in Erie, because it is and always has been a bellwether burg for how the American electorate looks at the world.

That’s why today, while Senators on both sides of the aisle are busy debating the Levin-Reed-Kerry Amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that would begin to put the brakes on the Bush administration’s ongoing escalation of its dishonest war in Iraq, it’s appropriate for us to look at the human costs of making war as seen through the eyes of quintessentially average Americans, as told in the words of four reporters for the award-winning Erie Times-News newspaper.

Two funerals in two weeks. Two flag-draped coffins. Two men who gave the last full measure of devotion for the country they chose to serve. And one mother of two sons in harm’s way, waiting and hoping and praying that they’ll come back home alive again this time.

As Times-News reporter Erica Erwin wrote on July 4,

Alan Sargent stood on the tarmac at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport and placed his hand over his heart.

Fifteen yards away, Northwest Airlines Flight 1740 had rolled to a stop outside gate C6.

Sargent watched, waiting, while members of the ground crew crawled through the plane’s belly into the cargo hold.

Minutes passed before he saw the flag-draped coffin pass from the hold onto a conveyor belt.

“There he is,” Sargent said to himself. “There he is.”

[...]

Travelers walking through the C terminal at Cleveland Hopkins paused, pressing their faces against the window panes as a military honor guard marched in lock step to the plane and carried the coffin to a waiting hearse.

Passengers, asked to stay onboard, watched from their seats above.

A baggage handler dressed in shorts and a fluorescent green vest joined police, fire and airport officials in saluting as the coffin passed by.

And as Times-News reporter Andy Boyle wrote in a follow-up story on July 8,

Nancy Donald looked down when the three rifle shots rang out at the Girard cemetery Saturday. Those shots originated from an old military custom of halting the fighting to remove the dead from the battlefield.

That’s just what happened to Donald’s uncle, U.S. Airman Sgt. Richard Sargent.

[...]

Spectators lined the streets, some standing in front of motorcycles holding American flags and dressed in biker gear. Others were wearing high school ROTC garbs or veteran hats. Lawn chairs were set up and people were watching from their porches.

The bikers came from New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland. A couple were from Florida. They were the Patriot Guard Riders, about 80 strong, and they came to pay their respects.

“It’s a little sad, but also joyous,” said one rider, David Cullen. “He’s finally coming home.”

Sargent’s flag-draped casket was taken out of the funeral home and put onto a horse drawn carriage. The police signaled for traffic to stop, and the final leg of his long sojourn home began.

He traveled down Church Street. Family, veterans and Patriot Guard followed him on foot.

Men and women on the sides of the street snapped to salute as Sargent passed. Others took pictures with cell phones and cameras.

He entered the cemetery to strains of John Williams “Hymn to the Fallen.” The music fit — it’s from “Saving Private Ryan.”

Daniel Edder, the funeral director, said he remembers what was going through his mind when the casket came off the plane in Cleveland.

“It’s been such a long road for Richard,” he said, his voice wavering in front of the cemetery crowd. “Amen — he’s home.”

The honor guard lifted the flag off the casket. They started to fold it in slow, deliberate movements, making sure it was packed tight. It had to be perfect, with one honor guardsman stating, “This flag represents duty, honor, custom.”

The flag was to be given to Donald. An honor guardsman inspected it, making some final touches and pulling it tight.

Then he slipped in three rifle shells from that old military custom of firing. One last inspection, and then the slow, deliberate walk to Donald.

Donald nodded as he handed her the flag. Her eyes welled up.

Her uncle was finally home.

Those compelling descriptions of a fallen warrior’s long last ride home sound all too familiar to Americans by now. Over 4,000 men and women have made the same sad journey home from Iraq and Afghanistan in the past six years. Richard Sargent came home to a hero’s welcome, but there’s one important difference between him and those 4,000 others. His last ride home was a lot longer than theirs could ever be.

Richard Sargent was a flight engineer on a B-24 Liberator bomber that went down in the trackless mountain jungles of New Guinea in April of 1944. The wreckage was finally discovered in late 2001, teams from the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command began excavating the site in 2002, and the last of the remains were finally identified this past April.

It took 63 years to bring Richard Sargent home from New Guinea to Girard, a small town halfway between Erie and the nearby Ohio border. But bring him home they did. He was laid to rest with full military honors, surrounded by friends and loved ones. His sacrifice deserved no less than that.

And Raymond Buchan’s sacrifice deserved no less than that, too.

As Times-News reporter Amanda Palleschi wrote on July 14,

There were the rituals expected at military funerals.

The flag waving at half-staff.

The leather-vested motorcycle riders from the Patriot Guard.

The measured steps of uniformed members of the 99th Regional Readiness Command in Pittsburgh, carrying the silver coffin.

The crisp white gloves. The folding of the flag that Army Sgt. 1st Class Raymond R. Buchan died protecting.

Then there were the moments at Buchan’s burial on Friday that no one choreographed.

The soldier who buried his face in a tissue.

The gifts for Buchan’s family — rosary beads wrapped in a plain, white plastic bag, because “Ray wouldn’t have it any other way.”

The friends who sat waiting outside the funeral home, nervously smoking cigarettes, clutching tissues, not saying a word.

Bob and Jane Zawadzki, standing in their yard on Vista Drive behind Dusckas Martin Funeral Home, arms crossed, watching at the foot of their driveway with their flag hung at half-staff.

Laura Buchan might remember those moments from the day she buried a husband and father, a man whom Maj. Gen. David Huntoon called a “clear and decisive leader” who put the needs of others before his own.

[...]

Raymond R. Buchan, 33, was killed July 1 when insurgents opened fire on his unit in Ta’meem, Iraq, just west of Baghdad. He served with the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, part of the 1st Infantry Division.

He spent four years as an Army recruiter in Erie, where he met his wife, Laura, 27, an Erie native. The couple lived in Germany, where he was based, with sons Hayden, 8, and Andy, 1.

[...]

Huntoon presented Laura Buchan with her husband’s Bronze Star and a Purple Heart, honoring his valor in a time of war.

“He was both tough and compassionate. He was courageous in this fight, and even more courageous when the fight was over,” Huntoon said. He recalled how Buchan listened to everyone who approached him and made friends with Iraqi police officers.

“He made any task look effortless with his smile.”

[...]

As the procession assembled around the tent with the coffin and the soldier and the flag, Laura Buchan sat at graveside, her hands cupped over her mouth as they lowered her husband’s body. She held the folded flag close to her heart and walked up to say goodbye.

Raymond Buchan’s long last ride home took less than two weeks — a much shorter trip in time than Richard Sargent’s 63-year journey, but the same lifetime’s length of loss for his wife and children and loved ones.

In another small town just south of Erie, Dawn Lackovic is hoping and praying that she won’t be the next one to receive an American flag folded into the shape of a triangle. That’s all she can do… except to wait. And wait some more.

As Times-News reporter Robb Frederick wrote on July 16,

No, she didn’t see the news.

Men with air-conditioned haircuts second-guessing her sons? Talking cut-and-run before Iraq is free, its streets safe, its people grateful? She doesn’t need that.

If something bad happens — something gather-the-family bad — the Marine Corps will come for her. Dawn Lackovic will watch them drive up the dirt road, past the pond with the lazy paddle wheel, past the fence she decorated with ribbons cut from a dollar-store tablecloth, and she’ll know before the first word.

Until then, the news is just a nuisance.

“The less I know, the better off I am,” Lackovic says, settling into a porch rocker on a quiet morning in Cambridge Springs.

That’s not to say she doesn’t worry. She does. The boys had trouble after their first deployments. Their tempers coiled, poised like cornered diamondbacks. Their dreams were bad.

During a visit with their father — in an Arizona town called Baghdad, if you can believe that — one of them got drunk and a little mouthy and was shot with the hot end of a police Taser. He spent the night in jail.

And now they’re back in Iraq. Pfc. Bryan Gregory, 22, works in light-armored reconnaissance. Sgt. Nathan Gregory, 24, is a communications officer. This is his third trip.

“People say that God won’t give you more than you can handle,” Lackovic says. “Well, I told him: I’m at my limit.”

[...]

She knows the risks. Bryan Gregory suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and struggled with an inner-ear problem after a bomb exploded under his transport, ripping into his backpack. Nathan Gregory left a 2-year-old at home.

She talks to her mother, Ann Haight. She flies the flag, too.

“I’ve kind of swayed a little,” Haight says of the war. “But when my grandsons tell me they are making a difference, I have to believe them. They’re the ones who are over there.”

Bryan Gregory is due home in October. His brother will follow him out in March.

Lackovic will keep the flag out.

“Don’t get me wrong,” she says. “I would love for my kids to come home. But if they come home before it’s done, before they finish the job, everything they’ve sacrificed, and everybody who has died — it all will be wasted.”

She sits on her porch, and she rocks a while longer. The television stays off.

A small city on the edge of a great lake. Three families, three stories. Two funerals and a waiting. All-American moments being played out against the backdrop of an unjustified, untenable war, like thousands of others just like them across the country every day the Bush administration is allowed to keep putting American sons and daughters in harm’s way, surrounded by the lethal chaos of an Iraqi civil war a half a globe away.

In Erie, citizens pondering the fate of our troops and the Iraqis around around them struggle with their conscience and try to their reconcile their longtime belief in the fundamental rightness of America with their growing awareness of the fundamental wrongness of the Bush administration’s failed policies in the Middle East. All across the United States, in flyover country and on the coasts, in sleepy small towns and bustling big cities, average Americans are watching and waiting to see what happens in Washington this time.

And in Washington, as the Senate debates the Levin-Reed-Kerry Amendment today and will continue to address similarly-purposed legislation in the days to come, Senator Kerry keeps reminding his colleagues on both sides of the aisle what the Buchans and the Lackovics and all the others who’ve lost or still risk losing loved ones in Iraq already know:

You don’t sacrifice American soldiers’ lives for pride or politics. That’s the bottom line. And I think we have the the opportunity to take that position in the Senate now, and I hope we’ll find a responsible center.

... [It’s about] what a lot of people are feeling, which is a very deep frustration to build a truly bipartisan policy that strengthens the country, represents our interests in the region more effectively, and serves our larger strategic interests with respect to the Middle East peace process and security for the region.

... Why now? Why this debate now? Why do we have to, as Sen. McCain asked, “keep taking up the Iraq issue?”

The answer is simple — and compelling: because American soldiers are dying now.

Because the escalation is a failure, now — and we know it. Because when a policy isn’t working, you don’t wait for some artificial timeline to fix it. You fix it now.

The time to fix it is now.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a series of hearing in January and February of this year that sought to lay out what the situation in Iraq was, what the surge of troops into Iraq would mean and how progress would be measured. These hearings had a number of conversations that revealed what the overall benchmarks were for the military strategy.

During the Jan. 18th. SFRC hearing on the foreign/hearings/2007/hrg070111a.html”>SFRC hearing on Jan. 11th of this year had the following exchange with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about the conditions that had to be met to achieve a political solution to the problems in Iraq. Secretary Rice responded with a list of benchmarks that Iraq had to meet to begin to stabilize the country.

KERRY: I understand what the framework for it is. But the question is: Why is there not the political resolution on the table that assures Americans that the fundamental struggle between Sunni and Shia, and the struggle within Shia—I mean, the president talked last night about this war as if it’s sort of a single war: the green zone government struggling for democracy versus everybody else.

Really, there are several wars.

KERRY: There’s a war Sunni on Shia, there’s a war of Sunni and Shia on American occupiers, there’s a war of Syria, Iran engaging with…

RICE: Senator, I think everybody understands that. But you asked me about the political reconciliation.

KERRY: Well, could you just speak to the political piece please.

RICE: Can I answer? Yes, the political piece. It is composed of the following elements: the national oil law, which is a remarkable law in that it does not take a sectarian cast; a new de- Baathification policy which already has allowed a number of officers to return to the armed forces and pensions to be paid—and there will be further effort on that; a commitment to provincial elections, which the Sunnis feel will be important to righting the disproportionately low share of their representation in provincial councils because they boycotted the elections early on.

These are the elements of a national reconciliation plan. And I don’t think, Senator, it can be imposed from the outside. I do think the Iraqis themselves, with our help and with the help of others - and, by the way, with an international compact where the international community has, indeed, said those are the obligations that you must undertake for support - that that is how they will get to that national reconciliation plan.

But they’re not going to get there if they’re unable to provide population security in Baghdad, because that is soaking the atmosphere of sectarianism.

The Initial Benchmark Assessment Report came out on July 12th. What did it say about these particular benchmarks that were mentioned by the co-author of the surge plan and by Sec. Rice?

Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification reform.

Assessment: The Government of Iraq has not made satisfactory progress toward enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification reform. This is among the most divisive political issues for Iraq, and compromise will be extremely difficult. Given the lack of satisfactory progress, we have not achieved the desired reconciliation effect that meaningful and broadly accepted de-Ba’athification reform might bring about.

Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shi’a Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.

Assessment: The current status is unsatisfactory, but it is too early to tell whether the Government of Iraq will enact and implement legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to all Iraqis. The Government of Iraq has not met its self-imposed goal of May 31 for submitting the framework hydrocarbon and revenue-sharing laws to the COR. Although the KRG and the Shi’a parties have agreed to the text of the Revenue Management Law, Council of Ministers’ approval has been delayed by a Sunni party boycott. The effect of limited progress toward this benchmark has been to reduce the perceived confidence in, and effectiveness of, the Iraqi Government.

Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.

Assessment: There are multiple components to this benchmark, each deserving its own assessment:

• Establishing the IHEC Commission: The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress toward establishing an IHEC Commission. The Commission has been established.

• Elections Law: The Government of Iraq has not made satisfactory progress toward establishing a provincial elections law. Drafting of the law has just begun.

• Provincial Council Authorities: The Government of Iraq has not made satisfactory progress toward establishing provincial council authorities. The COR is working on legislation, which has had its second reading; however, the COR committee continues to work on revisions to the draft law, and it remains unclear when the legislation will come to a third and final vote by the full COR.

• Provincial Elections Date: The Government of Iraq has not made satisfactory progress toward establishing a date for provincial elections. Legislation required for setting the date has not been enacted.

Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.

Assessment: The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress toward enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions. The regions law has been passed. Implementation of this legislation should take place after provincial elections are held and after the passage of an updated elections law. The procedures are in place, but whether establishment of additional regions (in addition to the already-recognized KRG) is desirable depends on a number of factors, including the outcome of efforts at constitutional reform. The progress toward this benchmark has been satisfactory, and the effect is that this potentially contentious issue has not been a source of discord.

Of the four benchmarks presented to the SFRC in January and identified as critical to success in Iraq, the assessment is three are unsatisfactory and one is progressing. No further comment is necessary.

 

Thanks to Karen Corbman for her research efforts on this post.  

Yesterday afternoon Senator Kerry made a powerful speech in which he challenged his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take prompt action and bring the war in Iraq to a close. The full text of his remarks is part of the Congressional Record for July 12, but here are some key excerpts from that speech as delivered on the floor of the Senate:

Unless and until Iraqis resolve their fundamental political differences, any security gains will be temporary at best, particularly given the numbers of troops that are committed to that security, and given the difficulties that we already understand in terms of deployment schedules.

That is a fundamental underlying reality that colleagues in the Senate need to focus on. Any tactical gain in the short term, whether it is in Anbar Province, Diyala, or elsewhere, is welcome now, but the fact is, it is fundamentally temporary absent the political resolution that is critical to ultimately ending the violence.

So moving the goalposts, dressing up the failure to meet strict benchmarks as progress, those are, frankly, rationalizations for failure over the long term. They are not plans for success. It is hard when you measure the absence of political progress over the course of the last months against these temporary tactical gains. It is very difficult to suggest that we are doing anything except sort of committing American forces, troops, to a kind of holding action for hope, hope that there is some turn and some kind of outcome.

I think most of us would rather have the U.S. military committed to what we all consider to be a winning strategy, not a hopeful strategy.

<!-more->

I think most of our colleagues understand this war in Iraq was a disastrous mistake and the policy being pursued today which doesn’t resolve the fundamental differences that are propelling Iraqis to kill Iraqis is itself a mistake. So we are seeing a war prolonged and prosecuted not for a winning strategy. No general has come to us, no administration official has come to us where we meet for our secret briefings, or in any committee and said: “This is a winning strategy. What we have is a hope, a wing, and a prayer that somehow these Iraqis are going to come together and make some decisions.”

But we don’t even have the kind of leverage diplomacy that war deserves to maximize the ability of those people to come together. We are seeing a war prolonged to prosecute it not for a winning strategy but for a refusal to accept reality.

What is that reality? We have heard it from General Casey, General Abizaid, General Petraeus, from the Secretary of State, from the President, and the Vice President—there is no military solution.

[...]

The only question on this Senate floor now is whether we are going to have the courage to change the policy and get it right. The only question is whether we are going to stop this administration from adding to the thousands of mistakes compounded one upon the other or whether we are going to say: “Well, we would like to do it. We kind of have the responsibility to. We hear people in cloakrooms privately saying: I think it is wrong. Boy, it is screwed up. But it doesn’t translate into votes.”

It is that simple. If you think the policy is broken now, then we ought to fix it now, because lives are at stake, as are the interests of our country. Our security is at stake, and the war on terror is at stake.

If anybody needs a reminder of the urgency, I say to them respectfully: You don’t have to wait until September to get a reminder. All you have to do is go out to Arlington Cemetery almost any day of the week. You can see the many military funerals but particularly those of service members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can see the precise military honor given to each of those soldiers, the flags draping the coffin rippling in the breeze. You can see the honor guard folding that flag meticulously into that sharp triangle of blue and white stars and then handing it to the loved ones, the wife, the mother, husband, father. Then hear those words: “On behalf of a grateful nation,” and watch people crumble.

We are losing about 100 soldiers a month. I ask my colleagues: How many more times is that scene going to be repeated between now and September? How many more times is that scene going to be repeated before this institution does what it is supposed to do? How are you going to feel in September if you finally wind up saying: “Well, I think the policy is broken now?” And what will happen with respect to the parents of those soldiers and their families, those who gave their lives so we could wait for a report to tell us the obvious, what we know today?

[...]

So my hope is we would work to find a genuine bipartisan majority in the Senate, a majority of conscience, a pragmatic and patriotic majority committed to work across party lines to right a failed policy in Iraq and leave in place a sustainable strategy.

We keep hearing the words “precipitous’’ and “failure.’’ None of us want failure. We want success. What we are hearing today is - we may have differing views about how you get it; it is not often talked about, but it is clear, and I think it should be talked about - that if we are unsuccessful in seeking the kind of political compromise necessary, there will be a lot of killing that will continue, and there will be people who have put themselves on the line to fight for their own future and for democracy whom we will have obligations to. We need to live up to them.

We need desperately to work together in the best traditions of the Senate and the country to find what I think is real common ground—that we have interests in the region, interests in Iraq, interests with respect to the Middle East peace process, that we will have long-term interests and obligations no matter who is President of the United States or how we approach this and that we need to shift course in order to get to that place.

[Update: Video footage and a full text transcript of this speech have also been posted online by the media bloggers at KerryVision.net.]

Senator Kerry spent a long day on the Senate floor yesterday, one made even longer by early morning and late afternoon live interviews with MSNBC hosts Joe Scarborough (“Morning Joe”) and Chris Matthews (“Hardball”). Video clips of both interviews are available at http://kerry.senate.gov/newsroom/media.cfm.

In both appearances, he stressed the need for Senators from both parties to come together on a common plan to bring the Iraq war to a close. In particular, he challenged Republicans to act with the courage of their private convictions and cast their public votes for setting deadlines to redeploy our troops and turn the responsibility for Iraq’s security over to the Iraqis themselves.

As he said in response to Chris Matthews’ question about what it will take to gather the 60 Senate votes needed to bring a legislative end to the Iraq war,

They need to put their votes where their private words are and where their real concerns are. ... The bottom line is a lot of my colleagues have had conversations with Republican colleagues in which they are extraordinarily clear about their disenchantment with the policy. They think it‘s wrong. They know it needs to change. But there‘s still that political link. And I think our job is to put the lives of these young kids on the floor of the Senate in these next days, and the strategic interests of our country, which clearly are not being served by the current policy.

<!-more-> In his earlier interview with a visibly-impressed Joe Scarborough, JK reminded viewers of what matters most in terms of ending the Iraq war and building a responsible foreign policy in the Middle East:

You don’t sacrifice American soldiers’ lives for pride or politics. That’s the bottom line. And I think we have the the opportunity to take that position in the Senate now, and I hope we’ll find a responsible center. ... [It’s about] what a lot of people are feeling, which is a very deep frustration to build a truly bipartisan policy that strengthens the country, represents our interests in the region more effectively, and serves our larger strategic interests with respect to the Middle East peace process and security for the region.”

Senator Kerry’s long day yesterday was supposed to include a floor speech in which he could articulate these points for the other Senators present and for the permanent Congressional record. The actions of those who are attempting to block attempts to achieve the kind of responsible bipartisan policy that he referred to in both interviews forced the schedules to change repeatedly, but he delivered an even stronger version of the speech on the floor of the Senate this afternoon.

As-delivered transcripts of JK’s latest floor speech on Iraq will be available in the morning, and we’ll be sure to present them for you here. But in the meanwhile, here are some key excerpts from the as-prepared-for-delivery version of his remarks to the Senate today:

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Today the President made a partial report on Iraq. While it is true there has been some tactical military success—no amount of spinning the military component can obscure the bottom line reality in Iraq today: That reality is clear: there has been no meaningful political progress, and in the long run, that is the only progress that counts. Unless and until Iraqis begin to resolve their fundamental political differences, any security gains will be temporary at best. Welcome, but temporary. Moving the goalposts, dressing up the failure to meet strict benchmarks as “progress” — these are rationalizations for failure, not plans for success.

Meanwhile, another report tells us that while we’ve been bogged down and distracted in Iraq, Al Qaeda has found safe haven in Pakistan and rebuilt its organization. Today, top intelligence officials tell us that Al Qaeda is better positioned to strike the West than they’ve been at any time since 9-11. And where’s our focus? On Iraq. Our continued presence in Iraq isn’t just a distraction from the fight against terrorists — it’s also Al Qaeda’s best fundraising and recruiting tool. We don’t have to wait until September to know that we need a new policy.

Two days ago, I heard some colleagues come to the floor and question why we’re having this debate now when the White House is going to report on his escalation in September.

These questions from the other side of the aisle astonish me. Why now? Why this debate now? Why do we have to, as Sen. McCain asked, “keep taking up the Iraq issue?”

The answer is simple — and compelling: Because American soldiers are dying now. Because the escalation is a failure, now — and we know it. Because when a policy isn’t working, you don’t wait for some artificial timeline to fix it. You fix it now.

Mr. President, the same voices who have come to the floor for years condemning artificial deadlines now want to wait for more Americans to die and more Iraqis to kill each other until the artificial deadline of September, so President Bush can deliver his report even though we know exactly what it will say. The report will reflect the evidence we see in Iraq every day: violence up in some places, down in others, a civil war raging on, squabbling Iraqi politicians and sectarian forces refusing to compromise, and most importantly — no real political progress in spite of the supposed ‘breathing room’ the escalation provided.

Presidents and politicians may have the luxury of worrying about losing face or legacy, but it’s time for the Senate to think about young Americans and innocent civilians who are losing their lives now for a policy that is failing now.

[...]

We are seeing a war prolonged and prosecuted not for a winning strategy but for a refusal to accept reality. What is that reality? No number of American troops can solve the political differences between Iraqis.

So each member really has to ask themselves, what is our responsibility to our soldiers and to the country? I think it’s to get the policy right — now.

The only question is whether we’re going to change the policy. The only question is whether we’re going to stop this Administration from adding to thousands of mistakes, mistakes compounded, mistakes mounted one upon the other – or whether we’re just going to say we’d like to, say we have a responsibility to act, and then do nothing.

It’s actually that simple. If you know this policy is broken now, don’t wait until September — fix it now.

[...]

We must work together to find a new bipartisan majority of conscience, a pragmatic and patriotic commitment to work across party lines to right a failed policy in Iraq and leave in place a sustainable strategy. And I’m pleased to see that many here in the Senate have finally come together and demonstrated the will to do so. I urge my Republican colleagues to join Senators Hagel and Smith in demonstrating the moral courage to stand as Americans first, not members of either party, behind our shared national interest.

While some insist on viewing this through the prism of victory or defeat over an enemy in battle, that simply isn’t the reality of Iraq today. This is a chaotic society, a failed state. The real question is: how do we work together to craft a strategy that is sustainable militarily, politically, financially, and diplomatically? That will hold Iraq together and protect American interests?

There are areas of broad bipartisan agreement available for those willing to do the hard work of building consensus. First, most of us would like to see some residual troop presence even after redeployment next spring. All of us are concerned that our redeployment from Iraq must not happen in a manner that draws us back into the conflict at a later date — and we ought to be working together now to lay the groundwork for not just the next few months but several years down the road in Iraq.

There is also broad agreement that we must refocus our mission on what ought to be our core objective: fighting terrorists. Instead, we’re creating more than we kill every day that we stay in Iraq. Refocusing the mission means that American troops should be hunting and killing Al Qaeda, not being killed on patrol through the streets of Baghdad. It means training Iraqis to patrol Iraqi streets. We must refocus our mission on preventing this war from spreading into a regional conflict and deterring foreign intervention, not — as some in this body have suggested — starting that regional conflict ourselves with military strikes into Iran.

[...]

I’ve suggested what I hope will be the outlines of a new pragmatic consensus that leaves us on stronger footing to fight terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere and to emerge from this war as strong, as secure, and as well-respected in the world as we can be.

All that remains now is hard work — standing for our principles, hammering out compromise, and forcing this President and this Administration to finally face the core reality that have long been clear to many of us: diplomatically, militarily, strategically, morally — we need a new strategy in Iraq.

I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity to work together to craft a better policy in Iraq — now, and not in September. That is what this moment calls for, and we cannot let it pass without taking immediate action to make things right.

I watched the disappointing cloture vote on the Webb Amendment in the Senate this morning. That amendment would have mandated that troops sent over to the war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan get as much time at home to rest between deployments as they had spent in-service in the war zones.

That seems so simple and so respectful of what is being asked of ‘our troops’ that you wonder how anyone could vote against it. What could be less controversial than asking that American soldiers spend time at home equal to the time they spent deployed in the war zones?

Watching the Webb Amendment being filibustered by stubborn Republican Senators, I kept remembering something John Kerry said in a speech he gave last year at Faneuil Hall in Boston. He spoke passionately that day about the nature of Dissent, and how there is both a right and responsibility for people to speak out when they feel the government is wrong.

What Kerry said about the unjust immorality of the war in Vietnam during his discourse on Dissent sadly applies just as strongly to what is going on today in Iraq:

… That’s certainly what I felt when I came home from Vietnam convinced that our political leaders were waging war simply to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that doomed our mission in the first place. Indeed, one of the architects of the war, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, confessed in a recent book that he knew victory was no longer a possibility far earlier than 1971.

By then, it was clear to me that hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen - disproportionately poor and minority Americans - were being sent into the valley of the shadow of death for an illusion privately abandoned by the very men in Washington who kept sending them there.

<!-more-> An illusion privately abandoned by the very men who kept sending them there.

Like a lot of you, I have conversations with people about the war sometimes. These conversations range from discussions about why we are still there to the effect these deployments are having on soldiers and on their families. I had one conversation at a dentist’s office a few months back that was about one family and one soldier and about how his family is dealing with the deployment.

The soldier in question was scheduled to come home in March. His family had booked a hall and wanted to welcome their son home with a real party. They wanted to celebrate his service and officially honor what he had done for his country. However, their son’s tour of duty in Iraq was extended without warning instead, due to the personnel requirements of the surge that President Bush had implemented starting in January of this year.

Can you imagine what the following months must have been like for that family, and for so many other families like them, never knowing when their extended nightmare might end?

There are the endless days filled with worry about all the things that could go wrong, the desire to know the news conflicting with the fear of watching too much TV lest they see too much of what is going on in Iraq. There are the sleepless nights consumed by concern for the welfare of their sons and daughters who have still not been allowed to return from an unjust war.

The family whose story I heard that day had been given an end date for their son to come home. They had plans to celebrate the end of some of that worry, and a chance to finally go to sleep at night knowing that their child was safe for a while.

That family should have had time with their son at home equal to the time their son spent in Iraq, instead of spending each day and night still praying that he comes home to them at all.

That is what the policy always was. That was what the Webb Amendment sought to restore. That is what was denied this morning when all but a handful of Republican Senators voted to filibuster this Amendment.

There are too many Republican Senators who proclaim that they are breaking with the current policy and that they can no longer vote in lock-step to approve whatever President Bush wants, but then turn right around and continue enabling his unilateral actions when push comes to shove.

When are those Senators going to vote their consciences? When are they going to truly stand by the troops, instead of ignoring a soldier’s basic need to rest and recover from war?

When are they going to stop sending brave warriors back into the valley of the shadow of death for an illusion privately abandoned by the very people in Washington who keep sending them there?

Back in January, President Bush gave a nationally-televised speech laying out his “new” Iraq strategy, known as The Surge (or, alternately: The Same … Only More Of It). We’re now 6 months on, an appropriate time to look back on his words. Remember, he did this against the advice of the large majority of the uniformed military and with the support of Congressional Republicans. In his speech he said:

Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

In an article headlined Iraq outposts plan may be flawed, the LATimes reports:

The neighborhood outposts that the U.S. military launched with great fanfare in Baghdad early this year were supposed to put more American patrols on the streets and make residents feel safer. But some soldiers stationed at the posts and Iraqis who live nearby say they are doing the opposite. [...]

“I just know it’s not much different than it was seven months ago,” said one junior officer in east Baghdad. “We are retaking the same ground every day.”

<!-more-> More from the President’s speech:

[Over] time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad’s residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. [...]

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution. [...]

We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors, and they must step up their support for Iraq’s unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government’s call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region, to build support for Iraq and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

In a large Sunday article, the Washington Post reported:

The Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the political and security goals or timelines President Bush set for it in January when he announced a major shift in U.S. policy, according to senior administration officials closely involved in the matter. As they prepare an interim report due next week, officials are marshaling alternative evidence of progress to persuade Congress to continue supporting the war.

Alternative evidence of progress? Zowee.

As for the diplomatic efforts, it’s patently obvious there’s been no successes there.

This has been a colossal, tragic failure, and everyone knows it. Now, we need to make sure that the growing ranks of GOP Congressmen that are expressing the need to change course put action behind their words and vote for real legislation that forces a change. Nothing less will do, and there’s no more time to wait. Lives are being lost every day to pursue this failed strategy, and we have a moral obligation to do everything possible to work for change. This is a human tragedy almost beyond imagining.

Nobody does this work alone. The people who manage to stay in politics and stay hopeful about being able to make a difference for the country and the world do so because they can draw on the strength, support and energy of others. We can collectively celebrate victories, lift each other up after setbacks and draw on each other’s reserves for support during the long grinding process of trying to bring about positive change in this country. The volunteers who so often write in on this blog, and on other websites and blogs that feature news and commentary on what Senator Kerry is doing, are invaluable, irreplaceable contributors to moving the agenda forward.

I have been privileged to be associated now for over 2 1/2 years with a remarkable group of volunteers that have given an amazing amount of their time, energy and creative resources to making sure that what Senator Kerry is doing is known and promoted on the blogs and around the web. These volunteer supporters have shown up at all kinds of events and made audio and video recordings so that they can share ‘what is going on’ with friends and other supporters who are spread out across the country. <!-more-> A lot of these videos have now found a new home. KerryVision, a lively new website, completely supported and run by volunteers, went live on July 4, 2007 appropriately enough, and will be an online home for news and videos about what Senator Kerry is doing. (KerryVision videos are also available on YouTube.) This is another step forward in grassroots centered politics that allows supporters to bring their side of the news and what they see as important to a web audience. This is from the founding statement on the KerryVision site:

This Independence Day is a special one for the KV team. It’s the day WE THE PEOPLE declare our independence from the barrage of hype and spin that has been hurled at us by the major media outlets; a day when we say “NO MORE” to 24/7 coverage of Paris and Rosie and The Donald, “NO MORE” to terror alerts designed to frighten the public into a constant state of submission and panic, “NO MORE” to pundits who speak in talking points as though the solution to the world’s problems can be had by arranging bumper stickers in some particular order.

That’s not to say there aren’t good sources of news out there already. You can find them if you search hard enough. There are some great newspapers and blogs, there’s C-SPAN and couple of radio and TV news programs that do a pretty good job of informing the public. But the message is often lost in the great deluge of infotainment that floods the airwaves. So, in an attempt to correct the imbalance, WE THE PEOPLE must be the media. KV is our contribution to the education of the American public.

Today, July 4, is the day we say “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH” and begin to report news that has an impact on our daily lives. So, on our nation’s 231st birthday, we celebrate our own. We celebrate the American patriot whose vision and values most closely match our own: John Kerry.

I have often had the honor (and fun) of attending ‘meet-ups’ with the Kerry volunteers. One of the first of these meet-ups took place in Boston in Dec. of 2005. Online friends from all over the country came to Boston to meet each other in person and to attend a Birthday Party event for Sen. Kerry. (I don’t think I ever laughed so much in all my life. Lord this is a chatty, fun, lively, opinionated, energetic and wonderful group! I needed a vacation after this event just to catch my breath!) Certainly the highlight of this meet-up was getting a chance to sit down with Senator Kerry and talk about a whole range of things and to share the perspective, not of political insiders, but of regular citizens with a sitting US Senator. Most of the members of that original ‘birthday group’ were able to come back to Boston last Dec and celebrate our shared passions and commitments and, oh yes, some more good times together.

Senator Kerry knows the value of having these wonderful people on his side and advocating for his work in the US Senate. The Boston Herald, in a report on the Dec Birthday blogger event last December, had the following quote from Sen. Kerry:

“These are people who care, who are creative, and who know the value of people powered politics,” Kerry said. “Over the last two years, they’ve had my back in the fight on the Alito nomination . . . and in the lonely fight (U.S. Sen.) Russ Feingold and I waged to change course in Iraq.”

And they still do have John Kerry’s back. So, thanks for all you do and all your wonderful energy and passion. KerryVision is not only a wonderful way to tell the blogosphere what Sen Kerry is up to, but also a wonderful way to showcase the efforts of some really great people. Democracy is a participatory event and it requires the work of a lot of hard-working people. So, thanks for doing this, and, ah, I’ll see you at the next meetup people.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. <!-more->

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.