Kerry: "What about now? Are you ready now or will it take another thousand?"

[ProSense]

Video: Kerry on Senate Floor

Excerpt of speech as delivered (PDF):

...The American people understand why we ought to debate this issue now. The answer is very simple, and it is very compelling. It is because American soldiers are dying now, and because the escalation, the purpose of the escalation--which was to provide cover for the Iraqi politicians to make compromises--can be judged a failure now.

When a policy is not working, you do not wait for an artificial timeline to fix it; you fix it now. The very 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, regardless of what the facts tell us today.

I believe they want to do it so President Bush can deliver his report, even though we know today what the heart of that report will be. In fact, the President delivered a partial report today. I think most people understand, because it is obvious, that the facts are beginning to accelerate the need to be able to have a more rapid response.

The report in September, I guarantee my colleagues, will reflect exactly what we see today. Violence will be up in some places, and it will be down in others. There will be some tactical successes. Our military will deserve the credit for those, and our soldiers will have earned those tactical successes the hard way. But no matter what sacrifices they have made, and they will have made extraordinary sacrifices, the fact remains that absent the political differences, which already we are hearing they will not make, and they are not prepared to engage in, absent that, the civil war will be raging on and squabbling Iraqi politicians and sectarian forces will refuse to compromise. And, most importantly, despite the so-called breathing room that the escalation was supposed to provide, there will be no real political progress.

<...>

Many of us remember how then-President Nixon continued our involvement because he didn't want history to judge him as having lost a war, notwithstanding that he didn't begin it, he inherited it. So we continued our intervention in a civil war for pride and to save face, not because we had a winning strategy. Presidents and politicians may have the luxury of worrying about losing face or worrying about their legacy, but the Senate has the responsibility to worry about young Americans and innocent civilians who are losing their lives now for a policy that is failing now.

In recent weeks, some have reminded me of a question I asked when I returned from service in Vietnam almost 40 years ago, when I spoke from my heart about what I thought was wrong with that war. Back in 1971, I was privileged to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and raised the question: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? I never thought I would be reliving that question again. I never thought I would have parents of young Americans killed in Iraq look me in the eye and tell me: Senator, my son died in vain.

<...>

Each Member has to ask themselves in these next days, what is our responsibility to our soldiers and to our country--not to our political party, not to an ideology.What is our responsibility to the soldiers and to country? I think it is pretty straightforward. It is to get the policy right, not in September but now.

<...>

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?

Over a year ago, Senator Feingold and I came to the Senate floor and we asked our colleagues to confront this very reality, to recognize the fact that our own generals knew even then there was no American military solution to an Iraqi civil war, to acknowledge that the political progress necessary for the Iraqis to end their civil war would come only if America compelled them to act by imposing meaningful deadlines and leveraging those deadlines with legitimate diplomatic effort. That was 1 year ago. We got 13 votes. People said at the time: Well, we are not ready. I am not there yet. One thousand Americans have died since then. I ask those folks: What about now? Are you ready now or will it take another thousand?

[welshTerrier2]

1. just for the record

many of us asked that same question of Kerry when he ran for President in 2004 ... "Will it take another 1,000?"

we were left, that year, without an end the war candidate. we were called "lefty freepers."

oh, and, we were right.

I strongly support what Kerry is doing now. All who try to stop the war should be welcomed with open arms. Maybe next time he'll listen to us when we plead with him to oppose this madness.

And today, we ask him to stand up and oppose the privatization of Iraqi oil. And we hear crickets. We ask him to lead the charge on public financing of elections. And we cannot hear him. We ask him to talk about mandated conservation to save the planet and we get back inadequate incrementalism. If Kerry stands up, he'll find a movement waiting to go to war. With the campaign crowd, it's about wind surfing. On the issues, we care too deeply to turn away support. It's not personal; it never was.

[ProSense]

3. I appreciate your sentiments. Still, the choice

was between Kerry and Bush in the general election. So to be clear, the only reason that we are in Iraq three years later is that Bush not Kerry is in the WH. Kerry got 95% of the antiwar vote for a reason. There are those who still want to confuse the issue (I believe you referred to them as "the campaign crowd") and others who are still in denial.

[karynnj]

6. The situation was different thenand as he answered it then he promised that

that he woulkd call for the soldiers to leave at a point the war was futile. The proposal he made in 2004, would have had some soldiers out in 2005, a huge international diplomacy summit, no permanent bases and rapidly training the Iraqis.

In 2004, there was no civil war and if quick constructive things were done we could have been out of there.

[AtomicKitten]

2. It's Kerry's 1971 question that resonates today.

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

[karynnj]

7. It was eerie hearing it from Joe Scarbourough

who says he's thought of it for the last year - and admitted that conservatives criticized him for decades for it.

[AtomicKitten]

8. Kerry was as right then as he is now.

n/t

[ProSense]

4. Kick! n/t

[politicasista]

5. K&R

:kick:

[kath]

9. Love it that Kerry used the word "escalation". It really pisses me off that most of the Dems,

and, of course, the MSM, go along with Bush's bullshit and refer to it as the "surge"

Language does matter, people. Let's call it what it is.

[ProSense]

10. Kick! n/t

[politicasista]

11. kick n/t

[saltpoint]

12. I'd like to hear the pathetic and compromised Mitch McConnell try to

answer Senator Kerry's question. I'd like to see Kerry put the question to McConnell, right to his face.

Great post. Thank you.

[karynnj]

13. Maybe that's an idea

Kerry can ask several leaders, such as McConnell on the floor of the Senate. How many people do you think will agree if he asks if he can ask a question will say yes. Saying "no" will get them labelled cowards. Great idea - thst was what he did in 1971 - but those Senators were a lot better than McConnell.

[ginnyinWI]

14. kick