You can type in the search word 'Kerry' in the video search bucket and then sort by date.
http://www.c-span.org/The Council on Foreign Relations speech is audio only at the CFR site:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9397/real_security_in_a_post911_world.htmlBoth are great speeches but address different aspects of the situation in Iraq. The Georgetown speech addresses, primarily, the situation the US military finds itself in in Iraq and how military policy should proceed there. This speech also contains one of the least read passages or least understood passages on DU:
Finally, and without delay, we must fundamentally alter the deployment of American troops. While Special Operations must continue to pursue specific intelligence leads, the vast majority of our own troops should be in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face. Iraqis should police Iraqis. Iraqis should search Iraqi homes. Iraqis should stand up for Iraq.
Sen. Kerry was calling for US Troops in Iraq to be removed from the major flash-points of trouble in Iraq. As Kerry stated earlier in the speech when he quoted Gen. Casey, the top military Commander in Iraq, our military presence "feeds the notion of occupation." We need to draw our troops back from this danger. Kerry didn't say we need to do this in 12 -18 months. He said, "without delay." He would rather see American troops engaged in training Iraqis to defend their own nation and not be used as to further inflame sentiments that spur the chaos and bombings in Iraq.
Why that hasn't been talked about more on DU in general is beyond me. This went way beyond what anyone else was proposing. This was no 'take them out in six months,' instead this was a sane call to remove a source of insurgent recruitment and resentment and enhance both the mission of our troops in Iraq and guarantee more safety for our people who are serving there.
The CFR speech sketched in the background of what is going on in the whole of the Middle East and frames the Iraq struggle and the festering insurgency as a symptom of a greater struggle within the Islamic world. The speech itself presents the case that the US and international dependence on oil is itself propping up regimes in the Middle East that are corrupt and fundamentally repressive and anti-democratic. One of the best things we can do to enhance any nascent democratic movements in the ME is to begin to withdraw our support from the autocratic rulers over there and begin to demand that those regimes, such as Saudi Arabia begin to adhere to rules of basic human rights.
We are treating the ME as a place that is valuable because of what we can pump out of the ground over there. This has to change. The absolute valuation of the ME based on oil is retarding the growth of that region, preventing natural democratic movements among the people, consolidating power in the hands of a few despots and preventing the people of the ME from becoming full partners in the global community. This has to end. Until we take the steps necessary to end this, the ME will fester as an open wound. The present Admin has no plans to reconsider US policy toward the ME and believes that democracy can be imposed at the point of a gun, something that has never worked in world history. We have to end the dependency of oil in this region. It is shading America's own soul and bringing great harm to human beings in that part of the world.
Great speech. I am still evaluating it, but that is a preliminary. I am actually engaged in a minor research project right now that is comparing and contrasting the stated opinions of at least 5 Democratic Senators on Iraq. (But not Lieberman. Ah, what's the point.) It is very interesting that Sen. Clinton, who is viewed as some sort of leper at DU for her views is actually using these lines in her constituent letters home:
* I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. I believe we are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This will advance our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests of the Iraqi people.
* Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq.
* If these elections succeed, we should be able to start drawing down our troops, but we should also plan to continue to help secure the country and the region with a smaller footprint on an as-needed basis. I call on the President both for such a plan and for a full and honest accounting of the failures of intelligence – something we owe not only to those killed and wounded and their families, but to all Americans.
http://www.clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/index.cfm?topic=iraqletterSenator Hillary Clinton, 11/29/05
Excuse me, but I have heard some of this stuff before. The media is wrong. A lot of Democrats are indeed singing off the same page on Iraq. This dis-unity on the part of the Dems is another media fraud and a sham. There is more that unites us than there is that divides us. Sen. Clinton doesn't go as far as Sen. Kerry in her call for change in the Iraq policy of this Admin, but damn, there is a lot that is in her letter that I have heard from Sen. Kerry in his speeches. A lot.