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.