KERRY AND FEINGOLD SPEAK TRUTH TO ABSURDITY
(Real Time Summary of Senate Floor addresses)

Feingold finds it "jarring" that the Senate spends so much time talking about Iraq when 9-11 was about Al-Quaida, not Iraq. The question now is: What is in the best interest of protecting the American people at home and abroad. We all supported the Afghanistan effort which clearly was connected with 9-11. Feingold voted against the Iraq war because it was obvious to him that it was not the best strategic approach.
The State Dept in Nov. 2001 listed over 20 countries where Al-Quaida was operating and Iraq was not even on it. When we invaded Zarkawi wasn't even in Iraq. We have because of our errors created now a "beachhead" for terrorists there. The "Iraq-centric" roach-motel policy that claims that all terrorists were centered in Iraq is misguided. Feingold finds this "just plain tragic" five years after 9-11. Our eye is off the ball- we are over-focused on Iraq. We don't have, for example, a policy in Somalia where now a radical Talibanish islamic group has taken over Moggadishu.
Indonesia is the fourth largest country in the world and is Islamic- only two Senators have even been there in the last year and a half while it is being terrorized by an affiliate group of Al-Quaida. In Afghanistan, we all agree that we should not depleat our resourses. Now we are experiencing the "Iraq tax" and seeing insurgencies of talibanists. We are back-sliding in Afghanistan. Because of the bizarre obsession of staying only in Iraq we are missing the point and dropping the ball where we need to focus.
We went to Iraq on a mistaken basis. It is the biggest absurdity that he has ever seen in the Senate. He urges that we change course. The notion that they will attack us here unless we get them there has proved shallow because Al-Quaida has gotten us in England, Indonesia and elsewhere. We are in fact facilitating their recruitment and the growth of their operations in Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia and elsewhere.
We need a new playbook. The current one has nothing to do with the real threat.
Shouldn't we have to exit and refocus before our body count approaches 3,000-10,000 dead troops. It does not make any sense to place these troops in harms way without any idea of whether they can be effective against insurgency. It is a bad idea to just stay when we were strategically wrong to go in the first place.
Feingold honors the troops for their sacrifice. However- If the policy is wrong and we made a mistake, we owe it to those injured and still there and those who will die in the future to correct the mistake and change course. What makes the most sense now? Choice #1 is an open -ended commitment with no end, or #2 is complete a defined mission and redeploy in a reasonable time-frame. We don't need to embolden the enemy by thinking that they have us in a trap and we don't know how to get out. They wanted us in Iraq, they are glad that we are there and they are using us to generate the hatred fueling more terrorism. We are being played.
It was a mistake to assume Iraq was the next logical step in this fight- it is time to redeploy.

John Kerry believes that Feingold has a reasonable and sensible approach on this. Kerry is saddened that sloganeering tries to characterize something differently than what it is. The Amendment is not a "precipitious withdrawal" or "cut and run" or anything like that.
This Amendment is binding. The troops and the country deserve a binding policy rather than a "sense of the Senate." The other one has an open ended date. This has an over the horizon force to protect the security interests in the region and with respect to Iraq. In addition, this Amendment strengthens the National Security of the US and empowers Iraq to stand up and do what they expressed they want to do- assert their sovereignty. Everyone pays lipservice to the "sovereignty of Iraq" and this one actually does that.
It sets a date by which over the course of the next year, the Iraqis can take over their own security. The Iraqi PM said in 16 out of 18 provinces by the end of the year they can take care of their own security. This is what the Iraqis claim they want. It also allows us to still have counter-terrorism capability from the redeployment.
It will be FOUR YEARS (4) since we invaded Iraq- and it is simply TIME. Is this administration telling us that after 4 years they have not trained enough people to stand up for the security of Iraq. The President was prepared to demand of Iraqis this progress up to this point. The Administration gave deadlines and held Iraqis to various dates before with regard to elections, transfer of provisional power, and other clear objectives.
General Casey stated that it is delaying the Iraqi's standing up that we have such a large continued occupation.
Even Bill Buckley and conservative voices say its time for us to let Iraqis take control of their own destiny.
John Kerry does not believe it is "all lost." He believes that this is the way that you give them accountability to take on responsibilities they may be reluctant to do today and give them incentive to step up. This is not abandonment.
The reality is that this war, according to our own commanding General Casey says that this war cannot be won militarily. Even Condolessa Rice says that it must be won politically, not militarily.
The three things we need to do the amendment accounts for doing (a) train (b) fight Al-Quaida and (c) provide for protection of all Americans in American facilities.
The eventual removal of co-alition "foreign" troops from Iraqi streets will help Iraqis to stabilize- because the co-alition occupation inspires insurgency.
The Iraqi security advisor tells us that withdrawing troops will help them provide order in Iraq.

There is no military solution for what is happening in Iraq. There are five components of the insurgency; criminals and organized crime, Baathists, Al-Quaida, foreign insurgents-hard core. All these different elements have to be resolved in different ways. We need a Diplomatic effort (initiated by the Iraqis)- the division of oil royalties, the rights of minorities, the degree of federalism and all these questions, have to be resolved by Iraqis. US Troops are not going to resolve all of this. To just "stay the course" is a policy based on "wishful thinking" rather than on real policy considerations of shifting responsibility.
94% of Sunnis and 90% of Shiites all say we should pull out- why are we not listening to them? What respect of Sovereignty do we actually show them?

Kerry concluded with
Congress helped to get us into this war and Congress has to take us out of it.