Transcript of press conference with Senator John Kerry and Senator Jack Reed
(responding to President Bush's comments in a live appearance earlier that morning)

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 –-- Senate Radio-TV Gallery

Senator Kerry: I'm pleased to be joined by Senator Reed in responding on behalf of the leadership with respect to the President's comments in South Carolina this morning. The President is trying to scare the American people into believing that al-Qaeda is the rationale for continuing the war in Iraq. And today he said nothing new about al-Qaeda itself -- and basically nothing that we would differ with, with respect to the purposes and goals of al-Qaeda.

We all understand that al-Qaeda is a danger. And we all understand what its goals are. But 9/11 was not plotted in Iraq. 9/11 did not happen from an al-Qaeda in Iraq. It happened from Osama bin Laden and an al-Qaeda in Afghanistan -- an al-Qaeda that is now larger and reconstituted and dangerous, if not more so, than it was then.

The President is picking the wrong rationale for this war. And he's also setting up a phony argument about what it is that we have to continue to do in Iraq. We are not in Iraq because al-Qaeda is the principle threat in Iraq. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq, as the President pointed out beforehand. And the fact is that al-Qaeda has grown in its strength and in its presence in Iraq because we are there. So I think it is important for us to realize that all of us are committed to destroying al-Qaeda.

But al-Qaeda is not going to be ultimately destroyed in Iraq, unless the Iraqis themselves join in this fight. And al-Qaeda is not the principal killer of American forces in Iraq. Those forces are dying because of IEDS, because of insurgents, and because of the struggle between Shi'ia and Sunni. And that struggle cannot be resolved militarily.

The President didn't deal with any of those realities. He never addressed the question of the political settlement. He never re-spoke about the fact that there is no military solution, which he has said previously. He simply talked about more of the same -- and for the false reason of solely going after al-Qaeda.

One other point: the President talked about the success of al-Anbar province. The fact is that in al-Anbar, where you have principally Sunni living, the Sunni sheikhs, chiefs, decided that they wanted to protect their sons and daughters and families from al-Qaeda. And so they did join up with Americans to do that. And there has been some success in al-Anbar. But that is a very different situation from what you find in the rest of the country, where you have Shi'ia and Sunni that are killing each other, and where you have none of the same equation that is possible to achieve.

So I think that for all of us, today was a continuation of more of the same. The President is putting forward a false rationale to the American people for the continuation of this war. The fact remains, unchanged, that the only way the Iraqis are going to stand up is if we make clear to them that we are going to be withdrawing our troops over a period of time -- with the exception of those necessary to chase al-Qaeda, those necessary to complete the training, and those necessary to protect American forces. That is the real rationale for which we ought to be staying, not because of al-Qaeda.

And finally, let me just point out that this is the National Intelligence Estimate. This is the public National Intelligence Estimate. A week ago, the National Intelligence Estimate contradicted what the President said today. It made it clear that al-Qaeda is stronger today, is reconstituted, and also made it clear that our presence in Iraq is attracting forces to al-Qaeda.

al-Qaeda gets stronger because we're there, Mr. President, not weaker. And if we begin to shift this responsibility to the Iraqis, most of the experts will tell you, the Iraqis do not want al-Qaeda in Iraq. And if we begin to reduce our footprint, I'm confident the Iraqis will begin to reduce the al-Qaeda footprint.

Senator Reed: Thank you, John. In the face of ever-growing skepticism by the American public about the course in Iraq, the President is trying, I believe, to magnify the presence and the impact of al-Qaeda there as a way to rally this waning support. In doing so he is choosing, as he has in the past, a slogan over sound strategy, over realistic plans to deal with what's happening on the ground in Iraq.

And Senator Kerry very articulately and insightfully pointed out that there is an al-Qaeda element there, in fact that we are all committed to constant counter-terrorism activities. That was embodied in the Levin-Reed Amendment, the amendment that Senator Kerry introduced also.

But the struggle there is not principally a struggle between al-Qaeda elements, it's a struggle between sectarian groups. It's a struggle to build a government that functions, a struggle to have a political process that people have confidence in. All of that, the President conveniently overlooked. And as Senator Kerry points out, the place where they point to success is where Sunnis have decided to take up arms with us against al-Qaeda -- which suggests to me that al-Qaeda probably can be dealt with successfully by a combination of Iraqi and American special operations troops.

Now, the other thing that I think the President's speech revealed is, here's a suggestion that bin Laden is actually not just inspiring these groups, but somehow helping to direct them -- which begs the question I think most Americans ask: After five years, why has bin Laden grown back to the stature where he can effectively influence and direct forces in another country?

That would suggest to me that our real strategy should be going after the key leaders, bin Laden and Zawahiri, in Pakistan. That has not been done. And as the NIE points out, in fact they have gotten effectively a safe haven there.

So for all these reasons, I think it underscores the need to change our strategy, as we are trying to do that, to transition to a constant counter-terrorism mission -- to go after a-Qaeda not just in Iraq but in Pakistan, with the co-operation of the government of President Musharraf -- in places around the globe where they are popping up -- and using not just military forces but police forces, because one of the disturbing trends in the NIE was their growth in Europe, of professionals who are now demonstrating their ability to attack targets.

All these things have to be done. And I think again to change the mission now, to change the strategy -- but more importantly, for the President to move back, realistically assess the situation, and propose concrete plans -- not just the speeches aimed, I think, more to excite the passions of the Americans rather than to drive sound policy.

Reporter: Senator Reed, can you respond to the New York Times story today about the report?

Senator Reed: Yeah, I'd be happy to. One of the most consistent issues, or facts, is the so far undisputed suggestion, or more than that -- come April of next year, April of 2008, the Army and Marine Corps will not be able to sustain 150,000 troops -- unless there is the decision made to extend deployment to 18 months, or to call up Reserve and National Guard units that are not scheduled to be called, or to do a combination of them both. So the reality is that the surge is coming to an end next spring not because of anything that's happening in Iraq, but because of the strength limitations of our land forces.

I think that's one of the realities that is shaping this new campaign plan. The other thing I found that was interesting in the campaign plan is that essentially they're talking about the same missions that Senator Kerry and I and Senator Levin talked about -- next year, looking at training Iraqi security forces, counter-terrorism, and there's a suggestion, I think more of a suggestion, that not only will they have to come down in the spring but that they'll have to move to these other missions.

And that's precisely what we were calling for last week in the Levin-Reed Amendment, which -- the Senate passed Amendment 5149 and the supplemental that would do essentially the same thing -- so this campaign plan, I think, is interestingly very similar to what we're talking about. Because I think it tracks what's going on on the ground.

And let me make another point, which both Senator Kerry and I have made, is that the military recognizes that the key struggle here is a political one. According to Colonel Mansoor, who is General Petraeus' aide, or executive officer, if eventually Iraqi government and various sects and groups do not come to some kind of agreement on how to share power, on how to divide resources, and how to reconcile and stop the violence, then the assumption on which the surge strategy is based is invalid and we'll have to re-look the strategy.

Well, I think we have to re-look the strategy now. The assumption that in the next several weeks or months the Iraqi political system is suddenly going to do a remarkable turnabout, start being inclusive rather than exclusive, start making tough decisions about oil laws, I think is very doubtful. And the other fact on the ground that we have to consider is the situation of whether the tactical progress we've made is irreversible. I don't think so. My sense of visiting there just about two weeks ago was that many of the insurgents have simply fled. They are biding their time, they will come back, unless there is this political will and political progress in Baghdad.

So for all these reasons -- and, obviously, the other one one I'll mention is just that with public support being so critical to any endeavor, and with the American people being justoifiably skeptical -- I think we have to begin to change our policy today. And that's what Senator Kerry and I are working on.

Reporter: Senator, if a U.S. withdrawal from most of Iraq, leaving a component to fight al-Qaeda, goes ahead -- how many troops will be needed to complete that mission? Especially, is there are scenario where, if this political reconciliation doesn't take place, and violence is raging in Baghdad, will U.S. troops be told to sit on the sidelines, in the eyes of the world?

Senator Kerry: Let me say first of all that we have always said, and our legislation is very specific, that we leave the discretion to the President of the United States to determine what number would be necessary to accomplish the three missions. We do change the mission. Those three missions, we repeat, are: To complete the training of the Iraqi forces so they can stand up for themselves and prevent the very chaos that you're just talking about. Secondly, to continue to chase al-Qaeda -- which is the mission the President accused us today of not caring about, but we specifically allow for our ability to be able to pursue that mission.

Now, speaking from a military point of view -- and I'm sure Jack Reed will agree with me, in fact he just commented about this -- that you could probably go after al-Qaeda with special operations capacity, providing your intelligence and other secrity is adequate on the ground. So there are some suppositions here: That you're able to transfer responsibility to the Iraqis, that they're beginning to stand up as the President has said our policy always is, you might get them to stand up, and then you can begin to stand down and reduce the numbers.

The President is in effect saying that his entire policy for the past years is a failure. Because he isn't talking about standing down anymore as they stand up, he's talking just about more of the same, and staying. And it directly flies contrary to what our intelligence community is telling us about how that contributes to terrorism.

And the third thing that we would leave the President the discretion to leave forces for is to protect American forces and facilities. As you draw down -- as we've learned in other incidences -- you've got to provide protection. We have embassy personnel there, we have contractors, we have USAID, we have others who are doing the job, and they need to be protected.

So we believe that by changing the mission to reflect the reality they have talked about but never translated into policy, we in effect can produce the best success that you could get out of a bad situation. Now, with respect to the chaos that you hear people talking about if America withdraws precipitously, once again:

Nothing in our legislation contemplates "precipitous". It's a year from now. That would be the sixth year of the war. It contemplates succeeding in the training and transfer of responsibility.

Secondly, we have very significant forces in the region -- forces in the Gulf, in Bahrain, in Kuwait, in other Gulf states, and so forth. And given the forces that would be at the President's discretion to complete the task in this new mission, this more realistic mission, we believe that there would be an adequate buffer for emergency response of any kind.

Third, we also have a very significant diplomatic initiative contained within this overall policy and mission change. And that is dramatically lacking today. There is almost an absence of the kind of ongoing diplomatic lift that we've seen in past conflicts, which is essential to getting the stakeholders to resolve the issues that are outstanding between them.

And we are obviously banking on the notion that the President's discretion, ultimately, as to the forces left behind, will be based on the success of the diplomacy that comes because you have triggered a different attitude in all of the participants in the region by virtue of the fact that you're leaving. You've changed the equation from what it is today. So the minute you begin to make clear America is not staying, we are going to depart, we are transferring authority, then the responsibilities of Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, Iranians all shift -- as do the responsibilities of the politicians within Iraq themselves.

So -- you know, the President is very good at putting red herrings, straw men up in front of all of you. The biggest straw man today was the flawed logic that he accused Democrats of when they say that al-Qaeda wasn't there before we went there. And then he translates that and says the following: That that somehow suggests that those who make that argument are suggesting that terrorism is caused by American actions. No. No. That's not what we've ever said, that's not what we've ever intimated, that's not even the remote suggestion. Of course terrorism is not initiated -- nor was 9/11, nor was the Cole, nor the other instances that he talked about.

But this is the bottom line: al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before we went there. And while there was an al-Qaeda and they wanted to hurt us, and do other damage, and have a caliphate in the region, the fact is that they were not in Iraq and 9/11 was not planned in Iraq. And the fact is also that our own intelligence community tells us today unequivocally that our presence in Iraq has created more terrorism, attracted more terrorists, created more terrorists.

And that's what we're saying to the President: Not that we caused terrorism per se, but his decision to put American troops in Iraq has acted as a magnet and as a target and as an incentive. And we have seen the intelligence documents that have been found in Afghanistan, that al-Qaeda is using our presence in Iraq as a recruitment tool and as a fundraiser for their activities.

Reporter: With the Defense Authorization bill pulled, when will the Senate return to these issues, and what are you doing to make sure that it does?

Senator Reed: Well, I know Leader Reid asked Senator Levin and requested that Senator McCain sit down along with Senator Durbin and Senator Lott and try to get the bill up before the August recess -- that's increasingly unlikely as the days are rapidly approaching for the recess and we have other business on the floor.

But my sense is that with the report of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in September, that that will once again be a reason to revisit the issue -- and not only because we have to get the Defense Authorization bill done, but so many of our colleagues when they took the floor talked about "wait until September," sort of a "See you in September" speech, and I think we'll get engaged in the debate once again. We have to. This is a critical issue, and I think it's time to make changes, not simply to wait and let events on the ground deprive us of even more options.

Reporter: Senator, how many years do you envision a U.S. presence in Iraq to conduct the the new missions you are talking about, however small, and do you agree with Bush's assessment that it's likely to be a Korea type situation where we have forces there for years to come?

Senator Reed: Well, I think we envision, after we've transitioned the mission next April, of having residual forces there, much less than 160,000 troops. But as Senator Kerry said so well, this is a function of how responsible the Iraqis are, how responsible the neighbors are, what success we have in accelerating the training of Iraqi security forces. And the duration of the mission, that's something else that will be dependent on so many factors, principally diplomatic and political factors, I think, more than military factors.

And, you know, we have a regional presence. We have a regional presence because it's a strategic region. We have bases in the area, in Qatar and Bahrain and other places. Those will remain, so the notion that we're picking up and leaving the region, I think, is not something anyone is talking about. I would hope, though, that we could make progress over the next several weeks to accept the language that Senator Kerry's proposed, that Senator Levin and I have proposed -- begin a transition, to transition next year, and I think that's the only way we can practically sustain any presence with the American public. They have to see, I believe, the beginning of a changed mission and reduced forces there.

Reporter: Senator Reed, are you any less optimistic that there may be broader support for the kind of formulation that you and Senator Levin have articulated, given the kind of rhetoric that the President is engaging in and that his generals are continuing to insist on more time, that that may in fact delay the possibility of getting more Republican support?

Senator Reed: Well, I hope not. I think the general officers that are out there are speaking not only to the media but they're also speaking to their troops. And for soldiers that have the responsibility, the awesome responsibility of sending men and women into battle, I think that I would expect them to be confident and ask for even more time and also be reaching the conclusion that they're making a difference.

I think it's at the Commander-in-Chief level we have to begin to think about the bigger picture. Politicians in Baghdad, the regional politics, the diplomatic activities -- I think all those indications suggest that we've got to change course. And also, I think any leader has to consider the public support at home, because without that no policy can be sustained.

Reporter: But given the kind of rhetoric the President is using, is that going to make it more difficult for Republicans to join in?

Senator Reed: Well, I don't think so, because I think -- one, what we're hearing today from the Pentagon about a campaign plan recognizing the surge will end, the rhetoric coming not from the division commanders but from General Petraeus and others saying "Listen, we understand this surge is going to end, we hope it sets the condiitions for political progress" -- that sounds an awful lot like what Senator Kerry and myself and Senator Levin are talking about. And I think the argument's growing, and I think the American public is just going to demand more and more, a more sensible, more sustainable policy.

Senator Kerry: Thank you all for coming.

Transcript