"Colossal Failures of Judgment" / "Kolossale Einschätzungsfehler"
by John Kerry. Speech at New York University
US-Präsidentschaftskandidat John Kerry hat Amtsinhaber George W. Bush "historisches" Versagen im Irak vorgeworfen. In seiner bislang schärfsten Attacke gegen die Irak-Politik des US-Präsidenten warf Kerry Bush vor, mit "riesigen Einschätzungsfehlern" der Lage im Irak eine Krise von "historischem Ausmaß" ausgelöst zu haben. Bush habe behauptet, der Krieg gegen den Irak sei das Herzstück im Krieg gegen den Terrorismus. "Tatsächlich war der Irak aber eine Ablenkung von diesem Krieg und dem Kampf gegen unseren größten Feind, Osama bin Laden", sagte der Kandidat der Demokraten laut einem vorab verbreiteten Manuskript bei einer Rede an der Universität von New York am 20. September 2004. Den USA drohe im Irak ein Krieg ohne Aussicht auf ein Ende, warnte Kerry.
Wenige Tage später sprach Kerry in Philadelphia im Bundesstaat Pennsylvania. Darin warf der Kandidat dem Amtsinhaber Bush wiederum Versagen im Anti-Terror-Kampf vor und stellte einen Sieben-Punkte-Plan zur Terrorbekämpfung vor. Der Wiener "Standard" schrieb über diese Rede:
Der demokratische US-Präsidentschaftskandidat John Kerry hat Amtsinhaber George W. Bush Versagen im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus vorgeworfen und einen effektiveren Anti-Terrorkampf versprochen. Mit der Invasion im Irak habe Bush vom Kampf gegen den Hauptfeind der Vereinigten Staaten abgelenkt - das Terrornetzwerk El Kaida, sagte Kerry am Freitag in Philadelphia im Bundesstaat Pennsylvania. Die Fehleinschätzung, Fehlkalkulation und das Missmanagement im Irak hätten den Kampf gegen den Terrorismus erschwert.
"Der Irak ist heute, was er vor dem Krieg nicht war - ein Unterschlupf für Terroristen." Er werde einen "härteren, intelligenteren und effizienteren Krieg gegen den Terror" führen als Bush.
Anstatt die US-Streitkräfte zur Ergreifung von Osama bin Laden zu konzentrieren, habe Bush "den Job an afghanische Warlords ausgelagert, die Bin Laden entwischen ließen", sagte Kerry. Das sei ebenso falsch gewesen wie "sich im Irak in einen neuen Krieg zu stürzen, anstatt den Job in Afghanistan zu beenden". Der demokratische Präsidentschaftsbewerber machte Bush dafür verantwortlich, dass in dessen Amtszeit die "atomare" Gefahr durch Nordkorea oder den Iran gestiegen sei. Auch sei er nicht gegen Saudi-Arabien wegen der Finanzierung von Terroristen vorgegangen und habe es versäumt, die Gefahr durch russische Massenvernichtungswaffen in den Händen von Terroristen einzudämmen.
Kerry stellte ein Sieben-Punkte-Programm zur Terrorbekämpfung vor, das sich aber im wesentlichen nicht von den Maßnahmen der Bush-Regierung unterscheidet. Neben der Stärkung der Geheimdienste und einer Aufstockung der Armee um 40.000 Soldaten will er gegen Terror-Finanzierung und die Verbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen vorgehen und den Heimatschutz stärken. Außerdem will er gegen Länder vorgehen, die Terroristen schützen und die Verbindungen zur islamischen Welt stärken. Alten US-Verbündeten will er sich wieder annähern. "Der Krieg gegen den Terror" sei ein ebenso großer Kampf wie der Kalte Krieg.
(Der Standard, 25. September 2004)
Im Folgenden dokumentieren wir die Rede von Kerry in New York im vollen Wortlaut (englisch).
'Colossal Failures of Judgment'
by John Kerry
Speech at New York University September 20, 2004
Published on Monday, September 20, 2004
I am honored to be here at New York University -- one
of the great urban universities, not just in New York,
but in the world. You have set a high standard for
global dialogue and I hope to live up to that tradition
This election is about choices. The most important
choices a President makes are about protecting America...
at home and around the world. A president's first
obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer
to our ideals.
Only a few blocks from here, three years ago, the
events of September 11 reminded every American of that
obligation. That day brought to our shores the
defining struggle of our times: the struggle between
freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear
that our most important task is to fight... and to win...
the war on terrorism.
With us today is a remarkable group of women who lost
loved ones on September 11th ... and whose support I am
honored to have. Not only did they suffer an
unbearable loss - they helped us learn the lessons of
that terrible time by insisting on the creation of the
9/11 Commission. I ask them to stand. And I thank
them on behalf of our country -- and I pledge to them
and to you that I will implement the 9-11
In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are
straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason.
We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever
it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies.
But billions of people around the world yearning for a
better life are open to America's ideals. We must
To win, America must be strong. And America must be
smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility
Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a
To prevent that from happening, we must call on the
totality of America's strength. Strong alliances, to
help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from
falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful
military, transformed to meet the new threats of
terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass
destruction. And all of America's power - our
diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power,
the appeal of our values - each of which is critical to
making America more secure and preventing a new
generation of terrorists from emerging.
National security is a central issue in this campaign.
We owe it to the American people to have a real debate
about the choices President Bush has made... and the
choices I would make... to fight and win the war on
That means we must have a great honest national debate
on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of
his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound
diversion from that war and the battle against our
greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists.
Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic
proportions and, if we do not change course, there is
the prospect of a war with no end in sight.
This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than
1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds
us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American
burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops - and nearly
90 percent of the casualties - are American. Despite
the President's claims, this is not a grand coalition.
Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery,
skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us.
When I speak to them... when I look into the eyes of
their families, I know this: we owe them the truth
about what we have asked them to do... and what is still
to be done.
In June, the President declared, "The Iraqi people have
their country back." Just last week, he told us:
"This country is headed toward democracy... Freedom is on
But the administration's own official intelligence
estimate, given to the President last July, tells a
very different story.
According to press reports, the intelligence estimate
totally contradicts what the President is saying to the
So do the facts on the ground.
Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis.
42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before
the handover. But 54 died in July...66 in August... and
already 54 halfway through September.
And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August -
more than in any other month since the invasion.
We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever
widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our
forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times
- a 400% increase.
Falluja...Ramadi... Samarra ... even parts of Baghdad - are
now "no go zones"... breeding grounds for terrorists who
are free to plot and launch attacks against our
soldiers. The radical Shi'a cleric, Moktada al-Sadr,
who's accused of complicity in the murder of Americans,
holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.
Violence against Iraqis... from bombings to kidnappings
to intimidation ... is on the rise.
Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.
Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity
blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.
Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps
of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their
way to school.
Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able
to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for
tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.
Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the
extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in
Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened.
In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.
But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to
deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So
they're sitting on the fence... instead of siding with us
against the insurgents.
That is the truth. The truth that the Commander in
Chief owes to our troops and the American people.
It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while
our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential
if we want to correct our course and do what's right
for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes
over and over again.
I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war,
I returned home to offer my own personal voice of
dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we
owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to
power. We still do.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his
own special place in hell. But that was not, in
itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we
take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have
traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America
The President has said that he "miscalculated" in Iraq
and that it was a "catastrophic success." In fact, the
President has made a series of catastrophic decisions ...
from the beginning ... in Iraq. At every fork in the
road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the
The first and most fundamental mistake was the
President's failure to tell the truth to the American
He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for
going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about
the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and
By one count, the President offered 23 different
rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse
and mislead the American people, he succeeded.
His two main rationales - weapons of mass destruction
and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection - have been
proved false... by the President's own weapons
inspectors... and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last
week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the
facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that
the earth is flat.
The President also failed to level with the American
people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq.
He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would
be needed, for years, not months. He didn't tell us
that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a broad and
strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the
cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that
even after paying such a heavy price, success was far
And America will pay an even heavier price for the
President's lack of candor.
At home, the American people are less likely to trust
this administration if it needs to summon their support
to meet real and pressing threats to our security.
Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow
America when we seek to rally them against a common
menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the
world has plummeted.
In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President
Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to
Europe to build support. Acheson explained the
situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he
offered to show him highly classified satellite photos,
as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying:
"The word of the President of the United States is good
enough for me."
How many world leaders have that same trust in
America's president, today?
This President's failure to tell the truth to us before
the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of
judgment during and after the war.
The President now admits to "miscalculations" in Iraq.
That is one of the greatest understatements in recent
American history. His were not the equivalent of
accounting errors. They were colossal failures of
judgment - and judgment is what we look for in a
This is all the more stunning because we're not talking
about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose
to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings... major
outside studies... and even some in the administration
itself... predicted virtually every problem we now face
This President was in denial. He hitched his wagon to
the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those
who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and
the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of
misjudgments with terrible consequences.
The administration told us we'd be greeted as
liberators. They were wrong.
They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry
state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong.
They told us we had enough troops to provide security
and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders
and secure the arms depots. They were wrong.
They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi
to build political legitimacy. They were wrong.
They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil
service to run the country and a police force and army
to secure it. They were wrong.
In Iraq, this administration has consistently
over-promised and under-performed. This policy has
been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of
candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the
President has held no one accountable, including
In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over
Iraq were the ones who told the truth.
General Shinseki said it would take several hundred
thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired.
Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would
cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the
successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered
help from the UN -- and he rejected it. He even
prohibited any nation from participating in
reconstruction efforts that wasn't part of the original
coalition - pushing reluctant countries even farther
away. As we continue to fight this war almost alone,
it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant
decision was. Can anyone seriously say this President
has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the
war on terrorism?
By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have
mounted across the globe. The international terrorist
club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on
the rise. We have divided our friends and united our
enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all
Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were...
and where we are. After the events of September 11, we
had an opportunity to bring our country and the world
together in the struggle against the terrorists. On
September 12th, headlines in newspapers abroad declared
"we are all Americans now." But through his policy in
Iraq, the President squandered that moment and rather
than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated
from the world.
We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass
destruction and posed no imminent threat to our
security. It had not, as the Vice President claimed,
"reconstituted nuclear weapons."
The President's policy in Iraq took our attention and
resources away from other, more serious threats to
Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of
mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is
building more under this President's watch...
.. The emerging nuclear danger from Iran...
.. The tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and
nuclear weapons in Russia...
.. And the increasing instability in Afghanistan.
Today, warlords again control much of that country, the
Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all
time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and
plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead
of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to
capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the
mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our
focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible
for September 11th in order invade Iraq.
We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no
operational ties to Al Qaeda.
The President's policy in Iraq precipitated the very
problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of
State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for
international terrorists before the war. Now it is,
and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is
becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists
who someday could hit the United States.
We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it
was not previously a source of serious disagreement
with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim
The President's policy in Iraq divided our oldest
alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into
free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many
moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco and
Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United
States of America.
Let me put it plainly: The President's policy in Iraq
has not strengthened our national security. It has
Two years ago, Congress was right to give the President
the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein
accountable. This President... any President... would have
needed the threat of force to act effectively. This
President misused that authority.
The power entrusted to the President gave him a strong
hand to play in the international community. The idea
was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back
in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction. And we would convince the world to speak
with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.
A month before the war, President Bush told the
nation: "If we have to act, we will take every
precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully.
We will act with the full power of the United States
military. We will act with allies at our side and we
will prevail." He said that military action wasn't
Instead, the President rushed to war without letting
the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went
without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He
acted without making sure our troops had enough body
armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or
preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of
which I would have done.
Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do
everything all over again, the same way. How can he
possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we
knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass
destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States
should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no - because a
Commander-in-Chief's first responsibility is to make a
wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.
Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries
to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire
weapons. But that was not the reason given to the
nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's
not a reason, it's an excuse. Thirty-five to forty
countries have greater capability to build a nuclear
bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying
we should invade them?
I would have concentrated our power and resources on
defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing
Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and
continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein - who
was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no
threat to the region or America.
The President's insistence that he would do the same
thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the
future. And it makes the choice in this election
clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new
direction that makes our troops and America safer. It
is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist
on the answers from the Commander-in-Chief about his
serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his
administration and the President himself. If George W.
Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed
policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else,
the same reckless mistakes that have made America less
secure than we can or should be.
In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. But we cannot
throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq
become a permanent source of terror that will endanger
America's security for years to come.
All across this country people ask me what we should do
now. Every step of the way, from the time I first
spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out specific
recommendations about how we should and should not
proceed. But over and over, when this administration
has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they
have rejected it and gone their own way. This is
Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the
President was close to his last chance to get it right.
Every day, this President makes it more difficult to
deal with Iraq - harder than it was five months ago,
harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize
what is - and what is not - happening in Iraq today.
And we must act with urgency.
Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel,
said we're "in deep trouble in Iraq ... it doesn't add up
.. to a pretty picture [and] ... we're going to have to
look at a recalibration of our policy." Republican
leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered
We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in
First, the President has to get the promised
international support so our men and women in uniform
don't have to go it alone. It is late; the President
must respond by moving this week to gain and regain
Last spring, after too many months of resistance and
delay, the President finally went back to the U.N.
which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing
to do - but it was late.
That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq
by providing troops... trainers for Iraq's security
forces... a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission...
more financial assistance... and real debt relief.
Three months later, not a single country has answered
that call. And the president acts as if it doesn't
And of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by
other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.
The President should convene a summit meeting of the
world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week,
in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N.
General Assembly. He should insist that they make good
on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential
troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in
training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's
borders. He should give other countries a stake in
Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop
Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on
contracts instead of locking them out of the
This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly
recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has
made only made it harder. After insulting allies and
shredding alliances, this President may not have the
trust and confidence to bring others to our side in
Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild
and lead strong alliances so that other nations share
the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.
Second, the President must get serious about training
Iraqi security forces.
Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more
than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he
admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50
percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained
But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship
to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers
have been fully trained, by the administration's own
minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in
uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training
program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces
can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and
The President should urgently expand the security
forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He
should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double
classroom training time, and require follow-on field
training. He should recruit thousands of qualified
trainers from our allies, especially those who have no
troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to
open training centers in their countries. And he
should stop misleading the American people with phony,
Third, the President must carry out a reconstruction
plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi
Last week, the administration admitted that its plan
was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to
radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took
17 months for them to understand that security is a
priority ... 17 months to figure out that boosting oil
production is critical ... 17 months to conclude that an
Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our
One year ago, the administration asked for and received
$18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the
conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today,
less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually
been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink
our policies and set standards of accountability. Now
we're paying the price.
Now, the President should look at the whole
reconstruction package...draw up a list of high
visibility, quick impact projects... and cut through the
red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and
workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton.
He should stop paying companies under investigation for
fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians
in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the
Fourth, the President must take immediate, urgent,
essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can
be held next year.
Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi
government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people
and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a
viable power sharing arrangement.
Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair
elections, the President agreed six months ago that the
U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four
months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls,
the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials
themselves say the elections are in grave doubt.
Because the security situation is so bad... and because
not a single country has offered troops to protect the
U.N. elections mission... the U.N. has less than 25
percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job
The President should recruit troops from our friends
and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won't be
easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on
the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N.
We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to
manage and guard the polling places that need to be
opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing
those burdens alone.
If the President would move in this direction ... if he
would bring in more help from other countries to
provide resources and forces ... train the Iraqis to
provide their own security ...develop a reconstruction
plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people ...
and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections
next year ... we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces
starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all
our troops home within the next four years.
This is what has to be done. This is what I would do
as President today. But we cannot afford to wait until
January. President Bush owes it to the American people
to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track.
Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families,
whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.
The principles that should guide American policy in
Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make
Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has
a stake in the outcome and others should share the
burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they
should be responsible for their own security. We must
move forward with reconstruction, because that's
essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must
help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it's
up to them to run their own country. That's the right
way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
On May 1 of last year, President Bush stood in front of
a now infamous banner that read "Mission
Accomplished." He declared to the American people: "In
the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies
have prevailed." In fact, the worst part of the war
was just beginning, with the greatest number of
American casualties still to come. The president
misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of
this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our
objective - a stable Iraq, secure within its borders,
with a representative government, harder to achieve.
In Iraq, this administration's record is filled with
bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive
statements and errors of judgment of historic
At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on
terrorism, the President has made the wrong choice. I
have a plan to make America stronger.
The President often says that in a post 9-11 world, we
can't hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act
just for the sake of acting. I believe we have to act
wisely and responsibly.
George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do.
George Bush has not told the truth to the American
people about why we went to war and how the war is
going. I have and I will continue to do so.
I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure
and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan
to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror - and
make us safer.
Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the
world is a more dangerous place for America and
If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we
are ...that we can make America stronger and safer than
it is... then November 2 is your chance to speak... and
to be heard. It is not a question of staying the
course, but of changing the course.
I'm convinced that with the right leadership, we can
create a fresh start and move more effectively to
accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with
extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake,
and America's sake, we must get this right. We must do
everything in our power to complete the mission and
make America stronger at home and respected again in
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United
States of America.
Zurück zur Irak-Seite
Zurück zur Homepage