Instead of taking an hour each--I need to protect Senator Feingold's request. He is not here, and I am already compromising myself on his behalf--we would both give up a half hour to begin with, so we would take an hour and 20 minutes, and…
John Kerry
The Public Record
John Kerry is a prominent Democratic politician from Massachusetts who served as the 68th Secretary of State from February 2013 to January 2017 under President Barack Obama. Prior to his role as Secretary of State, Kerry was a United States Senator, representing Massachusetts from January 1985 until June 2013. During his time in the Senate, he was known for his work on foreign relations, environmental issues, and healthcare reform. He played a significant role in the negotiation of the Paris Agreement on climate change, emphasizing the importance of international cooperation in addressing global challenges.
Just to make certain that we are covering the time--and I am not sure we will use it--I certainly would want to reserve an hour for each.
How about if we let the two Senators I mentioned proceed. Senator Feingold and I could each take 30 minutes at this point. Then they have a response. Then we can come back and respond afterwards.
The Senator asked me how much time we needed. Whether it is before someone answers or not is something that can be worked out. That is the time we need.
We would need a little bit longer than that to sort of open it up if we can. Simply because I am trying to accommodate these two Senators, if we could let them speak, I think the Senator from Illinois would like 10 minutes and the Senator…
So that we don't chew up all the time trying to figure out how to chew up the time, let me suggest that we agree that we have 20 minutes quickly divided between the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Vermont. Then if Senator…
There is no other reason to be in Iraq a year from now than standing up the Iraqi forces or chasing al Qaeda or protecting our facilities.
Well, their policy is lie and die. You know, which do you -- which -- you know, it seems to me that our policy is redeploy to succeed.
We're unified on the most essential ingredient, which is the failure of this administration, their lack of honesty with the American people about what is really happening in Iraq.
I believe we need a hard-and-fast deadline, not an open-ended commitment of U.S. forces.
I think it is critical to set a date, because it is the only way the Iraqis are ultimately going to take responsibility. It is the way to shift our forces through redeployment to the real war on terror.
Some fellow Democrats want a different timetable. And yet -- yet others call the whole debate political suicide.
I understand that. I ask the indulgence of the Senator if, after he has finished his business, I could just have a moment.
I welcome it. It is not often a debate breaks out in the Senate anymore, so I am happy to welcome it. I ask, through the Presiding Officer, how long the Senator from Wyoming might think he would engage in debate?
As I have previously, I call for the resignation of the secretary of defense...
We're not going to be a country that takes millions of families and splits them apart.
I think this administration is one of the most derelict in responsibility in the history. Sure. I don't disagree with her.
Because they fear going home and somebody says: You voted against the troops. This is not about the troops. We are all supportive of the troops, and we can have the money for the Defense bill, but we should do it according to the rules of…
The whole reason this is being put on DOD is to make it tough on Senators. And it is tough--
The fact is that you ought to be able to put more people out there to protect Iraqis in the Iraqi streets. And I don't think you need Americans doing some of the patrols that they are doing.
I have said it before in -- in a different way, but I have said the same thing, essentially, which is that it's very -- you know, to -- to the families that see those troops come into a home in the dead of night, everybody here understands…
I think some of them are obviously helping. And it is interesting, because what many of us have been saying in our criticism over the last two years was exactly what we were hearing from the Iraqis and from our own generals.
Well, I'm glad that he's finally, after several years, acknowledging what many of us have been saying. But the real issue is not just whether or not the intelligence was wrong. It's why intelligence that they knew was wrong was used in…
It's why intelligence that they knew was wrong was used in order to exaggerate the situation, that is still unacknowledged and unresolved.





