Kerry: Bush Will Relent on Iraq by September

In the wake of Harry Reid's announcement that he planned to force an around the clock debate on Iraq, Casey Ross posted on The Boston Herald Politics Blog on Monday night that "U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry on Monday predicted that U.S. troops will be pulled from Iraq by the early fall, saying President Bush is slowly wilting under pressure from Congress."

“I believe that by September the president will announce that troops will be able to come back, and they’ll do it under one guise or another,” Kerry said during a rare visit to the State House on Monday.

The senator was on Beacon Hill to tout government investments in renewable energy and small business, but he took time to address the intensifying battle over Iraq war policy.

He said senate Democrats do not have the 60 votes needed to force a withdrawal, but he believes Bush cannot hold out against opposition much longer. “My hope is the president is going to change his policy because he’s going to see that this thing’s moving against him.”

Kerry, of course has been a leader in the Senate fight to bring the troops home for the past couple of years. Last Thursday Kerry delivered a powerful speech on the Senate floor in the Iraq War, telling fellow members of the Senate, " If you know this policy is broken now, don’t wait until September – fix it now."

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is still forcing the issue and General Pace said on Monday that "troop buildup" was possible. Sounds like more smoke and mirrors from the Bush administration for their failing mission in Iraq. As Dan Froomkin pointed out, Bush "has a tendency to celebrate his generals when they're providing him political cover -- then stick a knife in their backs when they're no longer of any use to him."

I won't be at all surprised if Kerry is right on this one, as he has been so many times in the past.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

John Kerry Asks Bush Not To Cut Military Pay Raise

On Saturday, I reported here that the "Bush Administration won’t approve a pay raise for our military." The simple reasoning is of course, Republicans don't really support the troops.

The piece I quoted Saturday from the Boston Globe noted that Kerry had sent a letter to Bush on Friday, saying that "he was “extremely disappointed” by the White House position on the pay raise, saying it stands “in direct contrast to the will of the American people who support all the efforts to support our troops.”"

Today, Senator Kerry asked Bush to back off his plan to cut a proposed military pay raise. Kerry also asked Bush not to cut a proposed benefit for surviving spouses, which Congress and veterans groups say would help grieving families with a $40 month benefit to help cover expenses when a loved one is killed in action. Last week, the White House opposed both of those provisions in the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Bill.

“It’s unacceptable that this White House continues to choose more tax breaks for the richest Americans and less pay and fewer benefits for our military families,” Senator Kerry said. “Our Democratic Congress has put forth a plan to give our troops a raise at a time of war, and no White House opposition will stand in the way of our commitment to our military. Our troops make incredible sacrifices for our country and we owe them a pay raise and benefits that make it clear we honor their sacrifice. We will fight for this pay raise for our troops until it becomes a reality.”

The Office of Management and Budget said that the House bill’s moves to increase military pay by .5 percent (from 3.0 to 3.5 percent) and give a $40 monthly benefit for surviving spouses and military families were unnecessary. On the same day, the White House expressed opposition to the FY 2008 Budget Resolution Conference Report because it failed to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Last year’s pay increase for members of the uniformed services was just 2.2 percent, the lowest since 1993. Congress has made a commitment to keep pay raises for the military ahead of private sector pay raises.

Kerry is the author of the Military Family Bill of Rights, which has become law. Kerry’s Bill increased the death benefit for surviving spouses and families of troops who die in action to $250,000 and extended the amount of time they can remain in military housing to one full year, along with increasing TRICARE benefits and promoting better care for those suffering from PTSD and other mental illness.

Below is text of the letter Kerry sent Friday:

May 18, 2007

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20007

Dear Mr. President:

We are all proud of our men and women in the American military who continue to perform magnificently in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. They represent the best that this country has to offer, and America owes them and their families a special debt of honor and gratitude. In light of their sacrifice, I ask you to change your position and support a 3.5 percent increase in military pay and an increase in the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance to help American military families.

On May 16, the Office of Management and Budget’s Statement of Administration Policy for the House FY 2008 National Defense Authorization bill opposes Section 644 of the bill, which would pay a monthly Special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, calling the existing benefits “sufficient”. The Statement of Administration Policy also “strongly opposes” Sections 601 and 606 of the House bill, which provide a 0.5 percent increase in military pay above the President’s proposed 3.0 percent across-the-board pay increase, calling it “unnecessary”.

I am extremely disappointed in these decisions. This position fails to honor our military families who have made the ultimate sacrifice. It also stands in direct contrast to the will of the American people who support all efforts to support our troops.

Most disappointing, on the same day your position on a military pay increase was announced, the Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman expressed opposition to the FY 2008 Budget Resolution Conference Report because it failed to extend tax cuts to provide billions for the wealthiest in our country.

Those who have stood for us should know that we stand with them, today and always. These provisions can do something to ease their burden--but truly supporting our troops requires that we act not just as individuals, but as a nation.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry

Tomorrow, Senator John Kerry and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel will hold a press conference to respond to President Bush’s opposition to a 3.5 percent military pay increase for American troops. The press conference will be held in the Senate T.V. and Radio Press Gallery at 11:30 am est.

John Kerry Joins Reid as Co-Sponsor of Feingold Measure to Change Course in Iraq

Today, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that they are introducing new legislation that will "effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces."

The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.

John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced a short time ago that he will cosponsor the legislation introduced by Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to enforce a deadline for the redeployment of US troops. Kerry said in a statement:

“President Bush has once again decided to ignore reality and ignore the will of Congress by pledging to veto a new policy for Iraq,” said Kerry. “In the face of the Administration’s stubborn unwillingness to change course, the Senate has no choice but to force a change of course. Our brave American troops deserve nothing less than a policy that is equal to their sacrifice.

“I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of legislation that Senator Feingold plans to introduce which will change the military mission and enforce the Senate’s one year deadline for redeploying most U.S. troops from Iraq. The message it sends is simple: no more open ended commitment, no more putting American troops in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. The American mission in Iraq will be to train Iraqis and chase Al Qaeda, not do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves. With this legislation, the Senate makes it clear we mean business.

“There is no military solution to the violence in Iraq, and a meaningful deadline is necessary to get Iraqis to stand up for Iraq and start making tough political compromises. I look forward to continuing the fight for a policy that can work in Iraq.”

AP News offered an exclusive with Henry Kissinger today, as noted here earlier, in which Kissinger echoed Kerry and said that "military victory not possible in Iraq." John Kerry was an original co-sponsor with Senator Feingold in June of 2006 of legislation to set a one year deadline for the redeployment of most American combat troops. The original Kerry-Feingold legislation garnered 13 votes, and last week a similar bill earned a majority.

The language of the Feingold legislation reads:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

Henry Kissinger: Military Victory Not Possible in Iraq

Henry Kissinger, "who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam" broke with the Bush Administration on Sunday and said, "the problems in Iraq are more complex than that conflict, and military victory is no longer possible."

In an AP News exclusive, Kissinger noted that "A 'military victory' in the sense of total control over the whole territory, imposed on the entire population, is not possible."

The faceless, ubiquitous nature of Iraq's insurgency, as well as the religious divide between Shiite and Sunni rivals, makes negotiating peace more complex, he said.

"It is a more complicated problem," Kissinger said. "The Vietnam War involved states, and you could negotiate with leaders who controlled a defined area."

But Kissinger, an architect of the Vietnam War who has also advised Bush on Iraq, warned that a sudden pullout of U.S. troops or loss of influence could unleash chaos.

"I am basically sympathetic to President Bush," he said. "I am partly sympathetic to it because I have seen comparable situations."

During his tenure under President Richard Nixon, first as national security adviser and then as secretary of state, Kissinger faced a similar challenge in formulating policy for a Vietnam War that was increasingly unpopular at home.

He oversaw a gradual U.S. pullout from Vietnam through a strategy also planned for Iraq, where U.S. troops are training their Iraqi counterparts to take fuller control of security. He also negotiated directly with North Vietnamese leaders on ending the conflict.

Kissinger said in the interview, echoing what John Kerry has been saying for a very long time that, "the best way forward is to reconcile the differences between Iraq's warring sects with help from other countries." He also "applauded efforts to host an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's neighbors, "including bringing Iran to the table, as Kerry has suggested.

"That is the sort of framework out of which it is conceivable that an agreement should emerge," Kissinger said. "One needs to be prepared to negotiate with adversaries."

Saying that the "fighting in Iraq is likely to continue for years," Kissinger also said, "that America's national interest requires an end to partisan bickering at home over war policy."

"The role of America in the world cannot be defined by our internal partisan quarrels," he said. "All the leaders, both Republican and Democratic, have to remember that it will go on for several more years and find some basis for common action."

It's doubtful that the Bush Administration will heed Kissinger's comments, but they would be wise to do so. It's painfully obvious that they are on the wrong course and with more and more prominent Republican coming forward and breaking with the Bush Adminstration on Iraq, we can only hope that the Bush Administration will begin to listen.

Kerry: Senate Democrats United Behind Iraq Deadline Plan

John Kerry praised the move by Senate Democrats toward setting a deadline for redeploying combat troops today. In a press conference today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joined "Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer, Democratic Conference Secretary Patty Murray, Senator Russ Feingold, and Senator Evan Bayh to announce a new Joint Resolution to revise U.S. policy on Iraq. Iraq has fallen into a bloody civil war, and as conditions on the ground have changed so must U.S. policy change to meet them."

The Reid Joint Resolution builds on the longstanding Democratic position on Iraq and the Levin-Reed Amendment: the current conflict in Iraq requires a political solution, Iraq must take responsibility for its own future, and our troops should not be policing a civil war. It contains binding language to direct the President to transition the mission for U.S. forces in Iraq and begin their phased redeployment within one-hundred twenty days with a goal of redeploying all combat forces by March 31, 2008. A limited number of troops would remain for the purposes of force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counter-terror options.

Kerry's statement in response to the announcement from Democratic leaders that they are offering legislation that sets a deadline for the deployment of US troops from Iraq, is as follows:

“This plan is a critical step forward for our country, and the brave men and women of our armed forces who have been waiting for Washington to provide a clear plan forward in Iraq. Last June, 12 senators joined me in voting to set a deadline for redeployment of American combat troops from Iraq.

Now we can all stand united behind an exit strategy that includes the deadline we need to get the Iraqis to stand up for Iraq and bring American combat troops home. I’m pleased that today’s solution is built on the premise of the legislation we offered last year: that there is no military solution to this conflict and any successful strategy must include a deadline combined with diplomatic, political and economic steps that get Iraqis to make the compromises needed for stability.”

The Senate announcement came in the wake of a similar announcement from the House today, which Kerry also supports.

Kerry Responds to Blair's Redeployment Plan for British Troops Out of Bush's Iraq War

Tony Blair is preparing to cut out of Bush's war. The BBC reported today that Blair will announce a "timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks," on Wednesday.

Blair will also tell the House of Commons during his regular weekly appearance before it that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient, the British Broadcasting Corp. and The Sun newspaper said, quoting government officials who weren’t further identified.

The BBC said Blair was not expected to say when the rest of Britain’s forces would leave Iraq. Currently, Britain has about 7,100 soldiers there.

John Kerry issued the following statement today, in response to Blair’s expected announcement that he would be withdrawing British troops on a fixed timetable, including the redeployment of 1,500 soldiers in the coming weeks and 3,000 troops home by Christmas:

“America’s leading ally in Iraq has decided that a timetable for the phased redeployment of troops is the only responsible policy to help force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq,” said Kerry. “After years of touting Prime Minister Blair’s resolve, the Administration should now pay attention to his new policy. This announcement makes it all the more inexplicable that the President and leading Republicans actually want to send more American troops into the middle of an Iraqi civil war.”

Blair's announcement comes on the heels of Bush's push to escalate the Iraq war with "an increase of 21,000 more troops for Iraq." As Bush's plan to escalate the war, "some of the other coalition partners are pulling out: The Italians and Slovaks have left, and the Danes and the South Koreans want to start withdrawing."

NBC reported that Blair and President Bush spoke about the timetable on Tuesday morning.

The Guardian UK calls the plan, "the British endgame."

John Kerry Joins Obama, McCaskill To Improve Conditions At Walter Reed Hospital

Senator John Kerry announced today that he will co-sponsor the legislation proposed by Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) to improve the lives of recovering veterans at Walter Reed and other medical centers by eliminating paperwork and improving physical conditions. The Obama - McCaskill proposed legislation comes in the wake of the WaPo's reports by reporters Dana Priest and Anne Hull documenting "dismal conditions that wounded soldiers endure at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C."

Considered the premier medical institution for the Army, Walter Reed is so crowded that some wounded soldiers are cared for in Building 18, which The Post reported has broken elevators, ice-covered walkways that confined soldiers to their rooms and other problems. (The Pentagon announced yesterday that repairs are underway for Building 18.)

Kerry also said today that he would explore other options for "directing new funding to Walter Reed and to make immediate improvements to the buildings where veterans are housed." He said that he was “saddened” by a recent Washington Post series exposing the poor sanitary conditions and other hurdles faced by injured veterans returning to the states after service in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he noted the recent story in the Army Times about 15 month delays facing vets seeking a physical evaluation.

“We owe our returning veterans a debt of gratitude, not sub-standard treatment at an overcrowded medical facility,” said Kerry. “The Administration has consistently talked a big game but shortchanged the needs of veterans. How can the president talk about a troop escalation in Iraq while failing to keep faith with the Iraq War veterans we’ve already brought home? Brave men who have been blinded or lost a limb in Iraq should not be sitting in moldy, mouse-infested buildings. Period. It’s unacceptable and this Congress needs to do something about it.”

The Obama - McCaskill legislation that Kerry is co-sponsoring would do the following:

• Simplify the paperwork process for recovering soldiers;


• Improve the ratio of caseworkers to recovering soldiers;


• Increase the training of caseworkers;


• Require more frequent IG inspections of hospital facilities and standards of care;


• Establish timelines and benchmarks for repairs to substandard facilities;


• Provide recovering soldiers with psychological counseling; and


• Require regular reporting to Congress on: the total number of recovering soldiers at military hospitals; the number of caseworkers; the average waiting time for treatment; and the number of suicide attempts, accidental deaths or drug overdoses.

Hardball had Dana Priest on tonight talking about the series. The transcript of Hardball is here. And Paul Rieckoff has a post on the HuffPo about the situation at Walter Reed, that I highly recommend reading.

I'm not at all surprised to see Kerry jumping right in to co-sponsor the legislation from Obama and McCaskill. Fighting for veteran's rights has been an issue for him since day one in the Senate. Anyone who thinks otherswise doesn't know John Kerry.

John Kerry’s Input To Be Valued

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily:

There was on OP/ED in the Boston Herald today that is so worth the read for Kerry supporters here on the Dem Daily. The OP/ED was written by Jeffrey R. Lewis, president of Heinz Family Philanthropies, who served as Republican staff director to the late Sen. John Heinz (R-Pa.).

One of the key points Lewis makes, as a moderate Republican, is that "on a variety of key and core issues," John Kerry "has been right on the merits and he has gotten to these positions long before the rest of the pack." That's a point we've made here many times here on the Dem Daily -- Kerry was right. (Emphasis added below is mine.)

Kerry’s input to be valued
By Jeffrey R. Lewis
Monday, February 19, 2007

Two years from now, when George Bush leaves office, he will leave behind a tattered domestic policy and a severely frayed foreign policy that in some places of the world is broken, embittered, violent and organized into very different camps whose only common denominator is a raging anti-American sentiment.

On Sept. 11, the world was at our feet, understanding our anguish and offering a hand of friendship. Today, much of the world is after our throat, burning our flag, and using foreign trade and oil as weapons of economic destruction against us.

The question that engages many of us - not as Democrats or Republicans but as human beings - is how to approach the project of restoring America’s place in the world.

America must find a path out of Iraq, rebuild our military, re-engage the fight in Afghanistan, restore our diplomacy - especially in the Middle East - and suture together the security coalitions that this administration tore apart with its preference for unilateral action and its disdain for our allies.

Read more »