by Frank James
Sen. John Kerry's office has sent out a copy of the Massachusetts Democrat's opening statement he had hoped to make at today's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing now underway at which Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are testifying on Iraq as they did yesterday before the House.
Since only Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), the presidential candidate who is the panel's chair, and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.,) were allowed to make opening statements for the sake of time, Kerry will likely make as much of his statement as he can when his time to ask questions rolls around.
In his statement, Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, raises the specter of Vietnam, specifically Gen. William Westmoreland, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who appeared before Congress during the Johnson Administration to tell lawmakers the U.S. was winning that war in Southeast Asia, an optimism that turned out to be incorrect.
"This is a historic moment: Not since General Westmoreland appeared before Congress 40 years ago has an active duty general played such a major public role in the national debate," Kerry says.
Kerry's definitely not offering that as a compliment.
To drive home his point, Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, says in his statement:
Many thousands of the names inscribed on the Vietnam wall were added after that testimony, after it should have been clear that the strategy would not work. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. That is why we have a solemn duty here to ask the tough questions about Iraq. We owe our troops a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice, and it’s clear that the current strategy -- the President’s escalation -- has failed to achieve its goal of bringing about a resolution of the fundamental conflict between Sunni and Shia.
Here's Kerry's entire statement:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 11, 2007
Kerry Opening Statement at Petraeus-Crocker Hearing
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senate Foreign Relations Committee member John Kerry made the following statement at today’s hearing (as prepared for delivery.)
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, thank you very much for coming before the Committee today, and thank you for your exemplary service. The country owes the brave men and women who serve in the Armed Forces -- and in our diplomatic corps -- an awesome debt of gratitude for the sacrifices they make every day under extremely difficult circumstances in Iraq.
This is a historic moment: Not since General Westmoreland appeared before Congress 40 years ago has an active duty general played such a major public role in the national debate.
Many thousands of the names inscribed on the Vietnam wall were added after that testimony, after it should have been clear that the strategy would not work. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. That is why we have a solemn duty here to ask the tough questions about Iraq. We owe our troops a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice, and it’s clear that the current strategy -- the President’s escalation -- has failed to achieve its goal of bringing about a resolution of the fundamental conflict between Sunni and Shia.
We all agree that there is no American military solution to an Iraqi civil war. That’s why the escalation had a single, simple goal: to create "breathing room" for Iraqis to make the political compromises that will hold their country together and end their civil war.
We heard the bottom line from the GAO last week: only 3 of the 18 benchmarks that the Iraqi government agreed to over a year ago have been met – including only 1 of the 8 benchmarks for political reconciliation. Over 15 months after the Maliki government took power, the Iraqi parliament still has not passed legislation on oil revenue sharing, de-Ba'athification, and provincial elections. The constitutional review process vital to political reconciliation is nowhere close to completion.
Yet despite the obvious lack of movement on political reconciliation, we keep hearing that we are making progress in Iraq. General Petraeus has effectively asked for more time to allow the escalation strategy to succeed. He has spoken about reduced levels of violence, and success in “bottom-up reconciliation” efforts against Al Qaeda, as justification for continuing the current mission.
Let’s be absolutely clear: whatever “tactical successes” we have achieved have not translated into the strategic success we need to turn the tide. The escalation has failed to resolve the fundamental conflict between Sunni and Shia that continues to drive the Iraqi civil war, and there’s no reason to believe that more of the same is going to make a difference.
All summer, supporters of the escalation urged us to wait until September. Wait until September to hear from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Well, September is here, and despite your best efforts, the result is clear: Without deadlines, without accountability—there has been no real political progress in Iraq.
We should not be asking any more American troops to sacrifice their lives and limbs for Iraqi politicians who refuse to compromise. That’s why I believe more strongly than ever that we need to change course in Iraq.
As I have been saying for a year and a half, we need to (1) change the mission to pursuing Al Qaeda, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting U.S. facilities and personnel; (2) set a deadline for redeployment that is necessary to make the Iraqis to make the tough compromises necessary to end their civil war; and (3) engage in the intensive diplomacy necessary to get Iraq’s neighbors to play a more constructive role in stabilizing Iraq.
I believe that strategy protects our vital national interests and gives us the best chance to succeed.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Who cares what John F'n Kerry says? He couldn't even beat Bush, how pathetic do you have to be to lose to Bush in 2004?
Posted by: nisleib | September 11, 2007 10:25 AM
I think the denial of a "Cival War in Iraq" and by removing our troops would cause a Cival War there is something this Administration is using to keep the american people from learning what is actually going on there now. By any defination I know of,"Sectarian violance" is considered "Cival War"
Posted by: lylepink | September 11, 2007 10:27 AM
On this Anniversary of 9-11 I ask everyone - Where is OBL? Isn't this the guy in Al Qaeda that attacked New York on 9-11? It is evident that President Lone Ranger is going to do everything in his power to prolong this war well after his Court appointed Presidency is over so that he can wash his blood stained hands of the mess and leave it to the next guy to resolve. It amazes me that "The Christian Right" are more concerned about making excuses for this guy while meanwhile hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Civilians die and America's Best and Bravest are placed into a Civil War and are asked to be "Democracy Makers" instead of Soldiers. Where is the outrage from the "Keepers of Life" regarding the untold numbers of dead that have come out of this conflict? That's right. I forgot. They are only concerned about unborn fetus's rights to be born (So we can then slap a machine gun into their hands after their birth to go mow down someone other than the Christian Right). Just amazes me how the Bible Banging Rush Limbaugh Listening FOX NEWS Fanatics have ruined this country's image in the world and do not even realize it.
Posted by: MASTER of REALITY | September 11, 2007 10:59 AM
a vietnam veteran?
only technically
correct with less
than 3 months of
service so hardly
a 'veteran'.
Posted by: jimsr | September 11, 2007 11:15 AM
Is Kerry still around? Does anybody pay attention to what he says? Did anybody ever? Maybe he can wear his fatigues with
his medals improperly pinned on to
accuse our soldiers of murder and atrocities again. How did this loser end up in the Senate? He's from Massachusetts? That explains it.l
Posted by: Joseph | September 11, 2007 11:34 AM
John Kerry has made a political career out of lies and decelption. His Vietnam tour was a joke....less than ninety days in combat and we've heard about his combat experience for forty years!
An example....John Kerry stated that Vietnam veterans raped women, killed innocent civilians, and randomly burned villages.
How do I know he's lying....I was there. And not for 90 days....a full tour.
Talk about an integrity issue? How can you even quote him knowing his history of dishonesty?
The mainstream media never surpises me....not anymore.
Vietnam USMC 1969
Posted by: Jim McIntyre | September 11, 2007 11:44 AM
I take it that three or four of the people who commented before me agree completely with what Senator Kerry said because they said nothing about it. It is juvenile, misleading, and un-ethical to criticize a person and not their positions. And yet I understand why: because there is nothing to say. He is right about everything he said. Beware: if someone goes so quickly into personal attacks, they really have no idea what they are talking about.
Posted by: John Hagan | September 11, 2007 11:45 AM
Kerry may be all of the terrible things that you say he is.
But at least he went to Viet Nam which more than anyone can say for Bush or Cheney.
Regardless of what the "swift boaters" say he still has more credibility when talking about military service.
Posted by: Carl L | September 11, 2007 11:51 AM
We aren't repeating the mistakes of Vietnam....
As evidence I'd like to point to the NON-election of Kerry as President
We didn't need switch hitter in then WHite House.
We needed and got a President who had a definate vision for our safety and security. Not someone who changed directions with the wind ie Clinton or Kerry or (enter your favorite democrate here)
Kerry like Gore need to go away...the sooner the better
Posted by: BOB | September 11, 2007 12:07 PM
a vietnam veteran?
only technically
correct with less
than 3 months of
service so hardly
a 'veteran'.
Posted by: jimsr | September 11, 2007 11:15
AM
You are incorrect about Kerry's time in Viet Nam. But either way he was there unlike the cokehead in chief and I had other priorities cheney. Do you understand the term "veteran"? Being somewhere makes you one.
Posted by: Joseph | September 11, 2007 11:34 AM
Joe, have you ever heard of Mi Lai?
Posted by: chimpymcflightsuit'snavigator | September 11, 2007 12:28 PM
Joe,
In VietNam did US soldiers:
Rape women? - definitely
Killed innocent civilians? - definitely
Randomly burn villages? - definitely
All three charges are both warranted and correct. Maybe you were in a safe & clean part of Viet Name - or off the coast on a boat. The rest of us, saw and did exactly what Kerry & 200,000+ real veterans said we did. We killed, we raped, we pillaged, we burned - - all while singing God Bless America.
Fat Dick Cheney was a draft dodger.
Drugged-out boozer Bush played with airplanes in Texas when not campaigning for politicians or on a bender somewhere.
Real veterans aren't afraid of the truth: ugly or pretty, they tell it like it was.
If all you saw was "pretty," you're not a real vet.
Please, move swiftly to the back of the boat.
Posted by: yougootabenutstobelievethis | September 11, 2007 1:26 PM
Dumb chimpy. If there were more Mi Lai's in Vietnam we would have won. Real Americans understand that you don't give your enemy tea and cookies. But the worst mankind has to offer Loony Left wanted to cut and run instead. Your ilk wanted America to lose and today is wrapped in defeat again for no other reason than party and ideology.
Posted by: anonymous D | September 11, 2007 1:27 PM
We're not repeating mistakes in Iraq. We're creating new ones.
Posted by: RomanB | September 11, 2007 2:16 PM
Gosh! I wonder who the "anonymous D" could be??? Is it some other infamous "D" we all know? Once again, this mystery writer is trying to fool everyone by again wrapping stupidity in the flag and pretending that makes it Right.
He says, "...again for no other reason than party and ideology." Well, Johnny Headchopper - oops, I mean, anonymous D, what do you call what YOU are doing? At least the people opposing the war have "reason," something you are clearly lacking. All you have is empty sloganeering masquerading as ideology. You miss the point - there has to actually be an idea to have an ideology.
Posted by: snalg | September 11, 2007 2:41 PM
I am happy to know that Senator Kerry is on top of this issue and is still very relevent to this discussion on Iraq and our national security.
You know, we would all be safer and more secure if Senator Kerry was in fact, President Kerry. A postion denied him because of lies and smears by a vile Republican financed group of anti-Americans and also by fraud and disenfranchisement.
I hope to hear more and more from Senator Kerry- he has predicted the sad outcome of this mistake in Iraq from the very beginning. It is just unfortuate that his experience and well informed opinions on Iraq and other Foreign policy matters are not read or addressed by some childish people who continue to think it is somehow funny to continue with character assinations.
Posted by: MAC | September 11, 2007 3:04 PM
Oh snalg, I do not post as anyone but me, but thanks for thinking of me. Hmmm, Anonymous D posted at about 1:30 Eastern, which makes it 12:30 Central. Either way, I was in a meeting from 11:30 a.m Central until nearly 1:30 pm Central and then went to lunch. Sorry to burst your perpetual stupidity like that.
Posted by: John D | September 11, 2007 3:47 PM
Interesting Johnny D. Do we believe you? I don't think it matters, you didn't disavow what was said. All you said was that it wasn't you. It seems you agree with the vile statment, 'there weren't enough Mi Lai Massacres' made by Anonymous D.
Posted by: jethro | September 11, 2007 3:55 PM
But the worst mankind has to offer Loony Left wanted to cut and run instead. Your ilk wanted America to lose and today is wrapped in defeat again for no other reason than party and ideology.
Posted by: anonymous D | September 11, 2007 1:27 PM
Please not a John D clone!
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | September 11, 2007 4:31 PM
Must be nice for some people to sit around and blog all day. And then write notes to each other and worry about who is who (or is it who is whom?) And then call one another and others juvenile names. Some people need to get a life. Me, too.
Posted by: Donegal | September 11, 2007 4:41 PM
im tired of the disrespect of the left in this country ,who put there power above all eles-- they are in serious trouble and they know it. Think about it, any good news out of iraq puts their party in jepordy/ and also proves that bush is right, they cant allow this-- thats why they are the party for defeat--they will say anyting they can to sheep herd you into thinking were loosing. you cant be much more un american then to hope you loose a war to get votes. they should be ashamed. your not going to pull the wool over my eyes! p.s. i still hate the baltimore sun!
Posted by: jason | September 11, 2007 10:47 PM
An apology to Johnny Headchopper: you have said before you don't post under other names. I forgot that and, for that, I apologize. You have to admit, though, whoever it was has all your hateful little diatribes down pretty well.
Live in peace little Johnny. No insult meant to your own headchopping philosophy.
Posted by: snalg | September 11, 2007 10:58 PM
The assumption that the 'Left" wants to lose in Iraq is nonsense. The war is not about two sides declaring war. We invaded Iraq to topple Saddam Hussain and we accomplished that mission. We are now fighting terrorists with military might when policing actions and intelligence would accomplish the job in a more efficient manner. When we leave Iraq, what remains of al Quada will leave too. The Iraqi's do not want them their and terrorist's aren't interested in taking over countries. So what is our goal at this point? There is nothing to win. What needs to be addressed are goals. We need to help the Iraq's form some sort of government by helping them meet their goals. The problem is, they don't seem to be willing to do the hard work necessary to build unity and be able to live together in peace. The politcal diplomacy is missing. They seem to want to continue fighting among themselves. So what exactly are we doing there now? Keeping the Iraq's from going into full out civil war? For how long? We can not keep up the troop levels for too much long nor can we keep the peace when they seems to just want to fight it out. How much more American blood and money will we provide to the Iraq's when they aren't doing their part?
Posted by: Check | September 11, 2007 11:31 PM