Site Presented By
Friday, Jul 10, 2009
Sen. Ted Kennedy: "We cannot simply walk away from the wreckage of a war we never should have fought so that President Bush can wage a political campaign based on dubious boasts of success."
Jan 14, 2004 | Thank you, Gen. Nash, for that generous introduction.
Gen. Nash had an impressive career in the U.S. Army. His experience and expertise in conflict prevention and postwar reconstruction from his leadership in the Balkans has greatly assisted the debate on postwar Iraq.
I'm grateful to him for his impressive public service and for joining us today.
I'd also like to thank Brian and Alma Hart and Sgt. Peter Damon for coming today. The Harts' son, John, was killed in Iraq this fall on patrol in an unarmored Humvee. Sgt. Damon lost both his arms serving in Iraq. We honor their service and their sacrifice.
The enduring accomplishments of our nation's leaders are those that are grounded in the fundamental values that gave birth to this great country. As our founders so eloquently stated in the preamble to our Constitution, this nation was founded by "We the People ... in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Over the course of two centuries, these ideals inspired and enabled 13 tiny quarreling colonies to transform themselves -- not just into the most powerful nation on earth, but also into the "last, best hope of earth." These ideals have been uniquely honored by history and advanced by each new generation of Americans, often through great sacrifice.
In these uncertain times, it is imperative that our leaders hold true to those founding ideals and protect the fundamental trust between the government and the people. Nowhere is this trust more important than between the people and the president of the United States. As the leader of our country and the voice of America to the world, our president has the obligation to lead and speak with truth and integrity if this nation is to continue to reap the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
The citizens of our democracy have a fundamental right to debate and even doubt the wisdom of a president's policies. And the citizens of our democracy have a sacred obligation to sound the alarm and shed light on the policies of an administration that is leading this country to a perilous place.
I believe that this administration is indeed leading this country to a perilous place. It has broken faith with the American people, aided and abetted by a congressional majority willing to pursue ideology at any price, even the price of distorting the truth. On issue after issue, they have moved brazenly to impose their agenda on America and on the world. They have pursued their goals at the expense of urgent national and human needs and at the expense of the truth. America deserves better.
The administration and the majority in Congress have put the state of our union at risk, and they do not deserve another term in the White House or in control of Congress.
I do not make these statements lightly. I make them as an American deeply concerned about the future of the republic if the extremist policies of this administration continue.
By far the most extreme and most dire example of this administration's reckless pursuit of its single-minded ideology is in foreign policy. In its arrogant disrespect for the United Nations and for other peoples in other lands, this administration and this Congress have squandered the immense goodwill that other nations extended to our country after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. And in the process, they made America a lesser and a less respected land.
Nowhere is the danger to our country and to our founding ideals more evident than in the decision to go to war in Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has now revealed what many of us have long suspected. Despite protestations to the contrary, the president and his senior aides began the march to war in Iraq in the earliest days of the administration, long before the terrorists struck this nation on 9/11.
The examination of the public record and of the statements of President Bush and his aides reveals that the debate about overthrowing Saddam began long before the beginning of this administration. Its roots began 13 years ago, during the first Gulf War, when the first President Bush decided not to push on to Baghdad and oust Saddam.
President Bush and his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, explained the reason for that decision in their 1997 book, "A World Transformed." They wrote the following: "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream ... and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles ... Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." Those words are eerily descriptive of our current situation in Iraq.
During the first Gulf War, Paul Wolfowitz was a top advisor to then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, and he disagreed strongly with the decision by the first President Bush to stop the war after driving Saddam out of Kuwait.
After that war ended, Wolfowitz convened a Pentagon working group to make the case that regime change in Iraq could easily be achieved by military force. The Wolfowitz group concluded that "U.S. forces could win unilaterally or with the aid of a small group of a coalition of forces within 54 days of mid to very high intensity combat."
Saddam's attempted assassination of President Bush during a visit to Kuwait in 1993 added fuel to the debate.
After his tenure at the Pentagon, Wolfowitz became dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and continued to criticize the decision not to end the reign of Saddam. In 1994 he wrote: "With hindsight, it does seem like a mistake to have announced, even before the war was over, that we would not go to Baghdad..."
Wolfowitz's resolve to oust Saddam was unwavering. In 1997, he wrote, "We will have to confront him sooner or later -- and sooner would be better ... Unfortunately, at this point, only the substantial use of military force could prove that the U.S. is serious and reverse the slow collapse of the international coalition."
The following year, Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and 16 others -- 10 of whom are now serving in or officially advising the current Bush administration -- wrote President Clinton, urging him to use military force to remove Saddam. They said, "The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action, as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
That was 1998. President Clinton was in office, and regime change in Iraq did become the policy of the Clinton administration -- but not by war.
