1
   

Text & highlights of John Kerry's 9/20/04 speech re Iraq

 
 
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2004 09:17 pm
Yesterday, in a powerful speech in New York, Kerry set the record straight.

John Kerry laid out a plan to end Bush's irrational, deceptive and unilateral policy in Iraq, and pursue a policy of international cooperation to end the worsening insurgency and rebuild Iraq -- and bring our troops home. And Kerry made it clear that we would not be in Iraq today if he were president.

A few excerpted highlights are below. You can read the whole thing at:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html

Here are the main points from Kerry's speech on Iraq yesterday:

The war on Iraq was a mistake -- war was unnecessary because the inspections were working: "Today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."

Iraq distracted from the war on terror: "The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight."

President Bush misled us about the reasons for the war before it occurred: "He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens. By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war."

President Bush is still misleading people about Iraq, painting an optimistic picture directly contradicted by his own intelligence officials: "In June, the president declared, 'The Iraqi people have their country back.' Just last week, he told us: 'This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march.' But the Administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story. According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people."

Bush went to war for ideological reasons and consistently misjudged the situation on the ground: "This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences. The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong. They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong. They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong. In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself."
John Kerry has a four-point plan to fix our Iraq policy:

"First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support. The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process."

"Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces. The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers."

"Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people. One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price. Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort."

"Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year. If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,696 • Replies: 64
No top replies

 
John Kerry
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 03:21 am
IMPEACH kERRY AND SEND HIM BACK TO fRANCE

WE WE
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 06:11 am
BBB

That was a good speech by John Kerry the senator.

I am looking foward to the debates that they finally settled on?

(have to add that last part because of the john kerry running around A2k)
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 06:16 am
(have to add that last part because of the john kerry running around A2k)

A nuisance, but I will defend his(A2K's Kerry) right to make an ass of himself....well...to a certain degree.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 06:41 am
""Today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way"

So did You Kerry !
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 06:45 am
Well, he actually said he would do everything all over again, but differently. Not that I agree with that....
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 07:47 am
Quote:
"First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support. The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process."


NATO promised to train Iraqi forces and have yet to start doing so. I would really like to know how Kerry plans to get the support of countries that have not done so at this point. What kind of concessions will the US need to make?

Quote:
"Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces. The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers."


Get serious about it?! I guess they should replace the clown college, huh? Kerry says these things but knows that everything that can be done is being done. There is no magic switch that will find new recruits or increase the abilities of those that do volunteer. the continued terror bombings on police stations aren't helping things either.

Quote:
"Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people. One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price. Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort."


Again, every improvement comes with a bullseye drawn on it. Kerry is crying for improvements to be made while at the same time cursing those doing it. It's amazing to me how he can flip flop in the same paragraph!

Quote:
"Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year. If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years."


Yes, maybe Bush hasn't been made aware of the magic fairy dust Kerry plans to use if he becomes president. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 09:11 am
Kerry's speech was well-composed and has a better flow than the relatively inelegant and often blunt utterances of Bush. However the speech reveals that Kerry dwells in the world of rhetoric, nuance, and facile abstractions often unrelated to reality.

Kerry blithely speaks of what he would have done differently, long after the fact, and even in cases in which he has already loudly declared he would have made the same decisions as the President. He also offers, as a remedy for our present strategy in Iraq, exactly the same approach as Bush is currently taking - without observable effect - in the relatively far less dangerous situation in Darfur in Sudan. The UN and our allies are sadly unwilling to do exactly what Kerry says he will "allow" them to do. (From the Balkans, to Iraq, and now Sudan the UN and our Old Europe allies have repeatedly demonstrated their unwillingness to face up to the challenges implied by their lofty rhetoric. )

All of this betrays degrees of unrealism and strategic ineptitude on Kerry's part that in my view disqualify him for such a position of leadership. The political and rhetorical skills required of a senator are not the same as those required for executive power. Even the current dissarray in the Kerry campaign betrays that something in this area is lacking there.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 09:26 am
Which leaves almost nothing Kerry can debate Bush on.

Everything Kerry says either contradicts everything else he's said or it's some pipe dream that can't happen or it's something already being done or has been tried.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 09:42 am
I've had it!
I've had it with the conservatives who complain that Kerry has not come up with a solution to the Iraq mess Bush created.

Let me ask you all, what would you do when faced with the mess in Iraq? What could any person do to undo the harm created in Iraq? It is a no win situation. If we fight on, we lose. If we pull out, we and Iraq lose. The other countries are smart enough to stay clear of the Bush-created mess as they warned would be the outcome.

The only way I can see anyway out of the quagmire is to get the US checkbook out once again (you know, our famous checkbook diplomacy) and buy our way out with lucrative contracts with the other world powers. Their governments, especially France and Russia, will be willing to spill the blood of their young to rake in billions of dollars for their coffers and that of their corporations. France might bail out if their voters rise up against them. But Putin now has total control of Russia and can do what he wants to enrich himself and the corrupt officials. Who knows, we might even be able to pay some Moslem countries enough money to come in for the rebuilding contracts and even troops to take on the insurgents in Iraq. Anything is possible with cash to be handed out.

If terrorists attack their lands in revenge, that will be OK too as long as its the common people and their property that are at risk. The elities can protect themselves.

The neo-cons would love my idea because it would so bankrupt the US treasurery that they could finally succeed in their goal of ending the social and economic legislation enacted by the Roosevelt administration. Finally, we would get back to the days of the robber barons and the Hoovervilles. How they long for the good ole days of Social Darwinism. A bonus for the neo-cons would be that they would get their desired small government and low taxes. But who would want to live in the US after that?

Now, a question for the conservatives. Would you be willing to give up Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy to pay for our checkbook diplomacy? Or do you favor increasing the tax burden on the poor and middle classes to pay for it? Or do you want to continue Bush's policies and make a bet on the outcome---short and long term? Or do you want to pull our troops and our contractors out of Iraq and let them fight it out in a civil war?

The trouble is that my solution would not make a good election campaign issue. We don't like to talk about our historic checkbook diplomacy. We don't like to hear about raising taxes or losing the economic safety net we've enjoyed since Roosevelt's New Deal and it's off-spring Medicare. And radical concervatives don't want to lose their manufactured image of being compassionate. A candidate proposing such a solution would lose the election and staying in power to protect their self-interests is more important to the neo-cons that solving the Iraq mess.

Take your choice---tell me what YOU think Kerry should propose---put up or shut up!

BBB

p.s. To George. You bet I'm cranky about this issue.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 09:49 am
What about the option of being mean? The US appears weak in Iraq because of the weak-kneed sisters at home holding our military back by decrying the violence and deaths of iraqi citizens.

First thing to do is remove the media from Iraq.
Second, declare war again on the uprising insurgents.
Third, allow the government of Iraq to take care of teh insurgency using any means neccessary.
Finally, once everything is done, tidy up the place and leave.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 09:57 am
Quote:
What about the option of being mean? The US appears weak in Iraq because of the weak-kneed sisters at home holding our military back by decrying the violence and deaths of iraqi citizens.

First thing to do is remove the media from Iraq.
Second, declare war again on the uprising insurgents.
Third, allow the government of Iraq to take care of teh insurgency using any means neccessary.
Finally, once everything is done, tidy up the place and leave.


Careful, Facist, your true colors are showing through again...

Or, to be more explanatory, if you are not being sarcastic here, this is not an acceptable solution by any standard of decency or government.

Tell me McG: does it bother you at all when Iraqi civilians die?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 10:01 am
Kerry is definitely his own worst enemy when it comes to his many positions on Iraq. Are we to believe that he now has one he will stick with?

Kerry: Iraq Is "The Wrong War In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time." "Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Monday called the invasion of Iraq 'the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time' and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in his first White House term." (Patricia Wilson, "Kerry on Iraq: Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time," Reuters, 9/6/04)

Dean: Iraq Is "The Wrong War, At The Wrong Time." "I firmly believe that the President is focusing . . . on the wrong war, at the wrong time, when our energy and our resources should be marshaled for the greatest threats we face. Yes, Saddam Hussein is evil. But Osama bin Laden is also evil, and he has attacked the United States, and he is preparing now to attack us again. What happened to the war against al Qaeda?" (Howard Dean, Remarks At Drake University, 2/17/03)

But Kerry Previously Disagreed With Dean's Comment. ABC's GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?" SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA): "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." STEPHANOPOULOS: "Now Governor Dean, you've criticized Senator Kerry on the campaign trail, saying he's trying to have it both ways on the issue of Iraq. Was that answer clear enough for you?" GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN: "Let me be very clear about what I believe. I'm delighted to see Saddam Hussein gone. I appreciate the fact that we have a strong military in this country and I'd keep a strong military in this country. But I think this is the wrong war at the wrong time, because we have set a new policy of preventive war in this country and I think that was the wrong thing to do, because sooner or later, we're going to see another country copy the United States, and sooner or later we're going to have to deal with the fact that there may well be a Shi'a fundamentalist regime set up in Iraq, which would be a greater danger to the United States than Iraq is." (ABC's Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

Kerry Says He Still Would Have Voted For The Iraq War

Kerry: "Yes, I Would Have Voted For The Authority." KERRY: "I'd challenge the president back. But I'm ready for any challenge and I'll answer directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has. And my question to President Bush is why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" (CNN's "Inside Politics," 8/9/04)

Kerry Foreign Policy Adviser Jamie Rubin Had Said Kerry Would Have "In All Probability" Launched A Military Attack Against Iraq If He Were President. (Jim VandeHei And Mary Fitzgerald, "Kerry Defends Position On Iraq," The Washington Post, 8/8/04)

Rubin Now Claims "It Is Not Knowable" Whether Kerry Would Have Gone To War With Iraq If He Were President. (Ronald Brownstein, "Advisor Retracts Remark On Kerry Supporting War," Los Angeles Times, 8/25/04)
Kerry Previously Called Himself An Anti-War Candidate. MSNBC'S CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Are you one of the anti-war candidates?" KERRY: "I am - Yeah." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 1/6/04)

Kerry Has Offered Multiple Excuses For His Vote Against Our Troops

Kerry First Characterized A Vote Against The Funding As "Irresponsible." Doyle McManus (LA Times): "If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?" Kerry: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to - to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible." (CBS, "Face the Nation," 9/14/03)

Kerry Voted Against $87 Billion War Supplemental. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Offered A Tortured Explanation Of His Vote Against The $87 Billion To Support Troops In Iraq. "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." (Richard W. Stevenson and Adam Nagourney, "Bush's Campaign Emphasizes Role Of Leader In War," The New York Times, 3/17/04)

Kerry Said He's "Proud" That He And Edwards Voted Against $87 Billion In Funding For U.S. Soldiers. "Here is the value that John Edwards and I will put in place. I'm proud to say that John joined me in voting against that $87 billion when we knew the policy had to be changed." (John Kerry, Remarks at "Women's Voices: A Luncheon with John Kerry," Boston, MA, 7/12/04)

Kerry Says His Vote Against Body Armor And Supplies For Troops Was "Complicated." Don Imus: "That's probably a longer answer than I would be able to give to, say, Senator Miller or Senator Hatch, but …" Sen. Kerry: "Well, you know, that's a problem. Some of these things are a little complicated. They like to simplify them and pretend to America. The pretending time is over." (MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning," 7/15/04)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 10:03 am
Riposte!

Quote:


http://slate.com/id/2106946/

Kerry's position is not nearly as all over the place as you put it, Fox. You really should look past the talking point memos and find out for yourself...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 10:09 am
Foxfyre
Foxfyre, once again you've followed your pattern of being non-responsive to the question and challenge I posted and responding with issues I didn't raise. That is a diversion from having to provide a solution.

I didn't ask for your opinion about past Kerry positions. I asked you want you thought he should do now to achieve a good outcome in Iraq for the US and the Iraqi people.

BBB
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 10:12 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
What about the option of being mean? The US appears weak in Iraq because of the weak-kneed sisters at home holding our military back by decrying the violence and deaths of iraqi citizens.

First thing to do is remove the media from Iraq.
Second, declare war again on the uprising insurgents.
Third, allow the government of Iraq to take care of teh insurgency using any means neccessary.
Finally, once everything is done, tidy up the place and leave.


Careful, Facist, your true colors are showing through again...

Or, to be more explanatory, if you are not being sarcastic here, this is not an acceptable solution by any standard of decency or government.

Tell me McG: does it bother you at all when Iraqi civilians die?

Cycloptichorn


Oh stop with the facist stuff.

Would this solution solve the current problems in Iraq or not? I don't recall seeing qualifiers in BBB's question.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 10:22 am
No, it wouldn't.

And the idea that we should remove the media from the country so that the military can get it's hands dirty (by which you cannot mean anything other than killing civilians - otherwise, why make the media leave?) is a facist idea. You have to realize that the attempt to hide things from the people of the world is not conducive to democracy.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 10:28 am
BBB I was responding to your comment:
Quote:
I've had it with the conservatives who complain that Kerry has not come up with a solution to the Iraq mess Bush created.


As you can see, I am on your side. Kerry has come up with a lot of solutions to the Iraq mess. We just can't be confident of which position he holds.

So what should he do? Well, I don't know how much credibility he will have at this late date, but to win my respect and confidence he will do the following:

1. He will announce that he stands behind the president against terrorists wherever they exist and will support the president in any reasonable plan to take them out and that includes overwhelming force.

2. He will give notice that not only will homeland security measures be retained but he will strengthen them.

3. He will apologize to the American military for previous anti-war, anti-military, pro-North Vietnam rhetoric and declare he was dead wrong. He will apologize for voting against the very funding that would have supported them in the current war in Iraq and will give his solemn promise that he won't approve any cuts of any kind for the military until all soldiers are out of harms way.

4. He will get back to the Senate and demonstrate some leadership in telling his fellow Democrats to cool the rhetoric that encourages the enemy.

5. He will tell the president to stop wimping out and stop worrying about political correctness and the anti-war crowd and lets get in there and do whatever we need to do to win this war before we lose a lot more people.

If he would say all that convincingly, I think he will beat George Bush in November. I might even rethink my vote.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 10:34 am
Foxfyre
Foxfyre, I'm astonished that you think your non-responsive recommendations would get us out of the Iraq mess.

I didn't ask you what you though Kerry should do to win the presidential election. I asked you what you thought Kerry should propose to resolve the disaster created in Iraq? Can you focus on my question and forget election politics and think about the Iraqi people and our troops in harms way?

BBB
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 10:42 am
What I listed is my opinion on what Kerry should do about Iraq BBB. It spells out my opinion as to what Kerry (and Bush) should do, and, if so stated, I think would win the election for Kerry.

I'm very sorry you think I'm unresponsive. I must be a total idiot. But anyway, everybody have a good day.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Text & highlights of John Kerry's 9/20/04 speech re Iraq
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 02:08:12