Obama Around the World

International reaction to Obama's victory from the New York Times:

Across the globe, pundits and politicians of all stripes competed for hyperbole on Wednesday to applaud Senator Barack Obama’s claim of victory in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, almost as if he had already been elected to the White House.

His triumph in the primaries, many said, signaled the defeat of racism, and if Senator Obama became president, his election would presage a departure from what outsiders have broadly depicted as the go-it-alone belligerence of the Bush era.

Read more here

McCain in Favor of Negotiating with Hamas

McCain has flipflopped on the issue of whether he would talk directly with Hamas.

Here's the old McCain (old, as in before the "Straight Talk Express" derailed) stating that he would, in fact, talk with Hamas.

Who's the appeaser now?

Bush Compares Obama to Nazi Appeasers

Hmmm... Will McCain denounce and reject?

From The Huffington Post:

President Bush has said repeatedly that he would not insert himself into the presidential race, but that stance changed dramatically today during his trip to Israel. After likening Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Osama bin Laden, Bush compared Barack Obama to Nazi appeasers:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Read more here

Obama Discusses Iraq on the Today Show

Substantive Interview on Foreign Policy

A video interview of Obama by the Iowa Quad City Times editorial board. It is a serious discussion of foreign policy--no glitz, no soundbites, extremely bad lighting.

But Obama is brilliant in his foresight of international affairs, particularly in the light of the recent meltdown in Pakistan and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

Very early in this race, Obama stated in one of the first debates that Pakistan was a serious problem, and that Iraq was a distraction from the more crucial issues of both Pakistan and Afganistan, which is where Al Qaeda is actually based.

At that time, Hillary slammed Obama for being "naive," (even though a later examination of previous statements made by her showed that she'd gone on the record as having agreed with him!)

Obama took a serious hit in the polls from that "naive" statement, with people believing Clintonian spin rather than substance.

However time has shown Barack to be vindicated in his position. He has been consistent from the very beginning.

Here's the interview.

Barack and the Rest of the World

A nice piece written by Roger Cohen in the NY Times entitled "Obama's American Idea." It's about how Obama's international outlook can help restore America's standing in the world. The "Obama Is a Muslim" crowd can't see the forest through the trees and understand why it is good to have a President who can see through the eyes of others, and can reach beyond our own borders. A president who can build bridges with moderate Muslims, who are dismayed about the radical religious element.

I am a Christian, but I consider myself to be a progressive Christian, and I would not like to be judged by the far right wing of the Christian faith. I understand what it means to be uncomfortable with certain right-wing aspects of your own faith and to not want to be lumped in the same category. People of faith can also be people of common sense and people of tolerance and understanding.

Obama’s main Democratic rivals, Senator Hillary Clinton and former Senator John Edwards, have joined him in calling for a shift from fear, militarism and unilateralism toward interaction, including with enemies. But Obama’s global engagement seems visceral in unusual ways.

“If, as president, I travel to a poor country to talk to leaders there, they will know I have a grandmother in a small village in Africa without running water, devastated by malaria and AIDS,” he said. “What that allows me to do is talk honestly not only about our need to help them, but about poor countries’ obligation to help themselves. There are cousins of mine in Kenya who can’t get a job without paying an exorbitant bribe to some midlevel functionary. I can talk about that.”

Referring to the time he spent in Indonesia, Obama said: “I have lived in the most populous Muslim country in the world, had relatives who practiced Islam. I am a Christian, but I can say I understand your worldview, although I may not agree with how Islam has evolved. I can speak forcefully about the need for Muslim countries to reconcile themselves to modernity in ways they have failed to do.”

I was at a blogger's convention last month in Las Vegas and they had "conservative" bloggers there who wanted to know why the Left wasn't more critical of radical Islam and didn't subscribe to using the term "Islamofascism."

I don't get it, do these people live under a rock? Don't they have any Muslim friends? How in the world can you blithely toss around words like "Islamofascism" and not understand that many Muslims would find that offensive and a slur? The usage of slurs does not promote understanding and diplomatic efforts. How can we ever reach out to the moderate Muslims if we are insulting them at the same time?

I have friends who have expressed a concern that Obama's middle name of "Hussein" will be a stumbling block for him. My thoughts are this: 1. Probably someone who votes on the basis of a Middle Eastern middle name is probably NOT someone who would ever vote for a Democrat anyway; 2. What kind of idiots are Americans to judge someone by a name given to them by a father whom he only met one time in his life?

If we are to reject an honest candidate who is in a strong, stable marriage; is a great father; is a person of faith; a person who is trying to reach across party lines to heal divisive partisan politics. A person who has pledged to bring ethics and accountability back to Washington, D.C., who has pledged to restore our Constitutional right of habeas corpus.

If we're that stupid and that small-minded, then we deserve what we get. And we deserve to be a failing nation with corrupt politicians who pander and only tell us what we want to hear, not what we need to hear. We deserve to have a failing educational system and an increasing lack of ability to compete in the global marketplace. We will never get the respect of the world if we vote for politicians based on ignorance and fear.

Obama Right About Pakistan

In one of the earliest debates, Hillary Clinton slammed Obama about being "naive" when he stated that Pakistan was where we really needed to focus our anti-terrorism efforts.

Turns out Obama was right. This comes back to what Obama said in the last debate. That he will speak the truth to the American people, even if it's difficult to hear. Don't we want our politicians to tell us what's really going on, so that we can make the best, most wisest decisions possible?

From CNN's Ruben Navarrette Jr.:

Commentary: Who needs friends like Musharraf?

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- This week, like a lot of Americans, I have Pakistan on my mind -- again.

The last time was in August when that country made a cameo appearance in the 2008 presidential campaign. When Sen. Barack Obama suggested getting out of Iraq and moving "onto the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan," and then pledged, if elected president, to go into Pakistan if our military was in hot pursuit of "high-value terrorist targets" (read: Osama bin Laden), his opponents pounced.

Rudy Giuliani suggested that Obama should be more accommodating of Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Mitt Romney said that Obama was "confused as to who are our friends and who are our enemies." Sen. John McCain called Obama's remarks "kind of typical of his naivete." And Sen. Hillary Clinton said that Obama's foreign policy views were "irresponsible and frankly naive."

And while U.S. intelligence agencies put bin Laden in the remote tribal areas of western Pakistan, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States insisted that, if the U.S. military went into his country after bin Laden, it would destabilize the region.

You don't say. What do you call what is happening now?

In a power grab intended to head off a likely decision by the country's Supreme Court declaring him ineligible to serve another term, Musharraf has declared a state of emergency, suspended the constitution, limited freedom of the press, detained more than 1,000 lawyers and opposition leaders, and put the next round of elections on hold indefinitely. With that, a key U.S. ally in the war on terror -- and a nuclear power to boot -- seems to be spinning out of control.

Now for the really depressing part: The United States seems powerless to stop it. Speaking for his administration, President Bush said Monday that it is "our hope" that Musharraf will "restore democracy as quickly as possible."

Hope? Easy, Mr. President. You don't want to be too aggressive. You might scare him off. Is hope all we have left when dealing with Pakistan? What about the leverage that should come from providing the country with military and economic aid to the tune of -- according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies -- at least $10 billion since September 11, 2001?

By comparison, the amount of aid that Great Britain plans to give Pakistan -- $493 million over the next three years -- seems like a pittance. And yet the Brits say that they're reviewing their aid package in light of the crackdown and demanding that Pakistan's government release all detainees.

That's a splash of moral leadership -- and a good example for the United States to follow. After all, what good is having a friend in that part of the world if it is no friend of freedom and democracy? And, if expedience has us cozying up to a petty dictator who puts his interests before those of his country, what makes us think that -- when push comes to shove -- he won't put his interests before ours? And, if that's true, tell me again why this relationship is worth preserving.

Must-Read NYT Profile

This is a wonderful piece from the New York Times, a profile of Barack Obama that helps you understand why he attracts such excitement and loyalty. He is part of the next generation, a politician in our lifetime who is not confined by the same old Baby Boomer right vs. left divisions that we've all been through for so many years.

You feel, with Obama, that life experience, temperament and opinion are all of a piece. He is, on the one hand, an idealist and optimist who recoils from the zero-sum formula. If a single sentiment stands at the heart of his worldview, it’s that, as he said in a speech earlier this year, “the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people.” What’s good for others is good for us; there’s no contradiction between idealism and realism. This may strike some as naïve; and yet Obama shies away from the exclamatory rhetoric and grandiose formulations that have become George Bush’s stock in trade. Bush’s post-9/11 recognition that our own security depends on the well-being of people on the other side of the globe led him to propound the so-called Freedom Agenda and to promote democracy in the Middle East. Obama, though a more eager democracy promoter than his realist heroes were, is also far more tempered than Bush. He accuses the Bush administration of an ethnocentric fixation on elections and classic political rights. Instead, he argues: “We have to be focused on what are the aspirations of the people in those countries. Once those aspirations are met, it opens up space for the kind of democratic regimes that we want.

Click here to read more.

Obama Calls for New Approach to Iran

Toward a new foreign policy that gives us respect and results. From the New York Times:

CHICAGO, Oct. 31 — Senator Barack Obama says he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.
In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops.

Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns.

But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior.”

In his Democratic presidential bid, Mr. Obama has vigorously sought to distinguish himself on foreign policy from his rivals, particularly Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, by asserting that he would sit down for diplomatic meetings with countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria with no preconditions.

Read more here

Another Hillary Flip-Flop (Iran this time... more to come!!!)

Campaign Fights Back against Clinton Flip-Flops

Obama's campaign is fighting back and coming out swinging and calling Hillary out on her flip-flops (which are too numerous to mention). This is a campaign memo sent to Marc Ambinder's blog on The Atlantic:

TO: Interested Parties

FR: The Obama Campaign

RE: Quasi-incumbent finally gets scrutiny and stumbles

DA: 10/12/07

It is clear that just as voters are becoming more engaged in the campaign in the early primary states that Senator Clinton and her campaign have abandoned the politics of “let’s have a conversation,” in favor of purely tactical posturing.
Questioning and challenging what principles, if any, each candidate is standing on when they take a position or change that position is the normal part of the political process. Our campaign regularly fields questions on significant policy issues, even as we did when Hillary Clinton attacked Barack by calling him naïve and irresponsible for a position which she has agreed with him on 2 of the 3 occasions she has addressed it.

Our campaign will continue to speak openly and honestly about the challenges facing Americans and on our nation on issues as vital as Social Security, torture and international diplomacy and Barack Obama will continue tell Americans not just what they want to hear, but he believes they need to hear as well. Granted, we can see why she and her campaign might continue to get irritated by tough questions about her changing positions – they must be very tough to answer.

On Social Security, Clinton had been saying that nothing was on the table in terms of how to repair and strengthen Social Security. But in a conversation with a voter that the AP overheard, it appears to be clear that raising taxes is on the table in a very real way. [AP, 10/11/07]

When it comes to diplomacy, Clinton moved from thinking it “irresponsible and, frankly, naïve” for a president to offer a meeting with someone we don’t agree with to saying: “Here’s what I would do as president: I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions.” In all fairness, that was the position she seemed to have before launching her attack on Obama for his commonsense policy of not fearing meetings with anyone. [MSNBC,”Countdown with Keith Olberman,” 1/23/07; Clinton, YouTube Debate, 7/23/07; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAlyYtJxaio; Clinton Event, Canterbury, NH, 10/11/07; WP 10/10/07]

On her torture position, first she was for some forms of torture then she opposed all forms, then she refused to tell the Washington Post whether the administration’s policy was one she would continue. [Statement, 9/28/06; New York Post, 10/21/06; NY Daily News, 9/27/07; New York Daily News, 9/27/07]

And then, of course, she did hedge her bet on the pledge she made to the early primary states. It hasn’t been exactly popular in the states with early contests for Clinton to break her word to them. [DiStaso column, Union Leader, 10/10/07]

And, in response to some of the rather breathless political assertions in their memo today, we would make the following points

· In the one state where the race is engaged, Iowa, the last four public polls show a race within the margin of error between Obama and Clinton, with Edwards in third. This is not because it’s the one state in the union immune to Senator Clinton’s appeal. It is because the voters are paying close attention, they know the most about Barack Obama and are responding to his message. As other early states get more engaged, we will see a much closer race.

· We just started advertising in New Hampshire two weeks ago. Even before that, Obama has a solid vote foundation of 20%. We will build on that in the coming weeks thru additional advertising and candidate visits, like the trip this week where Barack unveiled his energy plan.

· South Carolina is a very close two way contest between Obama and Clinton already. We have a solid base and will expand on that as the election draws nearer.

· We have the strongest precinct organization in Nevada, which will be paramount. Organization will win the Nevada caucus. There is no existing list of prior caucus goers at the precinct level and turnout estimates vary wildly.


Senator Clinton in all these states is the quasi-incumbent. In Iowa, where the race is most developed, over 70% of the electorate is not choosing her, producing a dangerously low ceiling.


And let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton must win every contest. They forcefulness with which they embrace the aura of inevitability will make it shatter if she does not win in every single state. Inevitability does not come with state exceptions. Early setbacks will fundamentally alter the race, especially given our campaign’s financial and organizational strength that will allow us to capitalize fully on early momentum on February 5, where we already have much more developed campaign organizations than the Clinton campaign.


The Clinton operation is the greatest money machine in the history of American politics. The fact that Barack Obama, who has been on the national scene only briefly and who had no national fundraising network in place, has outraised Clinton by $12 million dollars this year and has a huge lead in the number of donors speaks to the hunger for change and an alternative to the frontrunner.


So, while the Clinton campaign attempts to duck legitimate questions on their way to their believed coronation, we will stay focused on telling the American people not just what they want to hear but what the need to hear, continue to build a grassroots movement for change and stay focused on measuring our progress in the early states, the only barometer that matters right now

New Campaign Ad from New Hampshire

Barack talks about our addiction to oil and the need to tell the American people the truth about the effects of our energy policies.

Obama Calls for Elimination of World's Nuclear Weapons

Barack Obama is at the forefront of the call to eliminate nuclear weapons. From New York Times:

Obama to Urge Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

By JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 — Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say.

In a speech at DePaul University in Chicago, Mr. Obama will add his voice to a plan endorsed earlier this year by a bipartisan group of former government officials from the cold war era who say the United States must begin building a global consensus to reverse a reliance on nuclear weapons that have become “increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.”

Mr. Obama, according to details provided by his campaign Monday, also will call for pursuing vigorous diplomatic efforts aimed at a global ban on the development, production and deployment of intermediate-range missiles.

“In 2009, we will have a window of opportunity to renew our global leadership and bring our nation together,” Mr. Obama is planning to say, according to an excerpt of remarks provided by his aides. “If we don’t seize that moment, we may not get another.”

His speech was to come one day after an announcement by the Bush administration that it had tripled the rate of dismantling nuclear weapons over the last year, putting the United States on track to reducing its stockpile of weapons by half by 2012.

Read more here

Speech by Barack Obama at DePaul University

This is a speech that was given today by Barack Obama at DePaul University.

A New Beginning
DePaul University
October 2, 2007

Thank you, Ted. Ted Sorensen has been counselor to a President in some of our toughest moments, and he has helped define our national purpose at pivotal turning points. Let me also welcome all of the elected officials from Illinois who are with us. Let me give a special welcome to all of the organizers and speakers who joined me to rally against going to war in Iraq five years ago. And I want to thank DePaul University and DePaul’s students for hosting this event.
We come together at a time of renewal for DePaul. A new academic year has begun. Professors are learning the names of new students, and students are reminded that you actually do have to attend class. That cold is beginning to creep into the Chicago air. The season is changing.
DePaul is now filled with students who have not spent a single day on campus without the reality of a war in Iraq. Four classes have matriculated and four classes have graduated since this war began. And we are reminded that America’s sons and daughters in uniform, and their families, bear the heavy burden. The wife of one soldier from Illinois wrote to me and said that her husband “feels like he’s stationed in Iraq and deploys home.” That’s a tragic statement. And it could be echoed by families across our country who have seen loved ones deployed to tour after tour of duty.
You are students. And the great responsibility of students is to question the world around you, to question things that don’t add up. With Iraq, we must ask the question: how did we go so wrong?
There are those who offer up easy answers. They will assert that Iraq is George Bush’s war, it’s all his fault. Or that Iraq was botched by the arrogance and incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Or that we would have gotten Iraq right if we went in with more troops, or if we had a different proconsul instead of Paul Bremer, or if only there were a stronger Iraqi Prime Minister.
These are the easy answers. And like most easy answers, they are partially true. But they don’t tell the whole truth, because they overlook a harder and more fundamental truth. The hard truth is that the war in Iraq is not about a catalog of many mistakes – it is about one big mistake. The war in Iraq should never have been fought.
Five years ago today, I was asked to speak at a rally against going to war in Iraq. The vote to authorize the war in Congress was less than ten days away and I was a candidate for the United States Senate. Some friends of mine advised me to keep quiet. Going to war in Iraq, they pointed out, was popular. All the other major candidates were supporting the war at the time. If the war goes well, they said, you’ll have thrown your political career away.
But I didn’t see how Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat. I was convinced that a war would distract us from Afghanistan and the real threat from al Qaeda. I worried that Iraq’s history of sectarian rivalry could leave us bogged down in a bloody conflict. And I believed the war would fan the flames of extremism and lead to new terrorism. So I went to the rally. And I
argued against a “rash war” – a “war based not on reason, but on politics” – “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.”
I was not alone. Though not a majority, millions of Americans opposed giving the President the authority to wage war in Iraq. Twenty-three Senators, including the leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee, shared my concerns and resisted the march to war. For us, the war defied common sense. After all, the people who hit us on 9/11 were in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
But the conventional thinking in Washington has a way of buying into stories that make political sense even if they don’t make practical sense. We were told that the only way to prevent Iraq from getting nuclear weapons was with military force. Some leading Democrats echoed the Administration’s erroneous line that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. We were counseled by some of the most experienced voices in Washington that the only way for Democrats to look tough was to talk, act and vote like a Republican.
As Ted Sorensen’s old boss President Kennedy once said – “the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war – and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears.” In the fall of 2002, those deaf ears were in Washington. They belonged to a President who didn’t tell the whole truth to the American people; who disdained diplomacy and bullied allies; and who squandered our unity and the support of the world after 9/11.
But it doesn’t end there. Because the American people weren’t just failed by a President – they were failed by much of Washington. By a media that too often reported spin instead of facts. By a foreign policy elite that largely boarded the bandwagon for war. And most of all by the majority of a Congress – a coequal branch of government – that voted to give the President the open-ended authority to wage war that he uses to this day. Let’s be clear: without that vote, there would be no war.
Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren’t really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That’s the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?
With all that we know about what’s gone wrong in Iraq, even today’s debate is divorced from reality. We’ve got a surge that is somehow declared a success even though it has failed to enable the political reconciliation that was its stated purpose. The fact that violence today is only as horrific as in 2006 is held up as progress. Washington politicians and pundits trip over each other to debate a newspaper advertisement while our troops fight and die in Iraq.
And the conventional thinking today is just as entrenched as it was in 2002. This is the conventional thinking that measures experience only by the years you’ve been in Washington, not by your time spent serving in the wider world. This is the conventional thinking that has turned against the war, but not against the habits that got us into the war in the first place – the outdated assumptions and the refusal to talk openly to the American people.
Well I’m not running for President to conform to Washington’s conventional thinking – I’m running to challenge it. I’m not running to join the kind of Washington groupthink that led us to war in Iraq – I’m running to change our politics and our policy so we can leave the world a better place than our generation has found it.
So there is a choice that has emerged in this campaign, one that the American people need to understand. They should ask themselves: who got the single most important foreign policy decision since the end of the Cold War right, and who got it wrong. This is not just a matter of debating the past. It’s about who has the best judgment to make the critical decisions of the future. Because you might think that Washington would learn from Iraq. But we’ve seen in this campaign just how bent out of shape Washington gets when you challenge its assumptions.
When I said that as President I would lead direct diplomacy with our adversaries, I was called naïve and irresponsible. But how are we going to turn the page on the failed Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to our adversaries if we don’t have a President who will lead that diplomacy?
When I said that we should take out high-level terrorists like Osama bin Laden if we have actionable intelligence about their whereabouts, I was lectured by legions of Iraq War supporters. They said we can’t take out bin Laden if the country he’s hiding in won’t. A few weeks later, the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission – Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton – agreed with my position. But few in Washington seemed to notice.
Some people made a different argument on this issue. They said we can take out bin Laden, we just can’t say that we will. I reject this. I am a candidate for President of the United States, and I believe that the American people have a right to know where I stand.
And when I said that we can rule out the use of nuclear weapons to take out a terrorist training camp, it was immediately branded a “gaffe” because I did not recite the conventional Washington-speak. But is there any military planner in the world who believes that we need to drop a nuclear bomb on a terrorist training camp?
We need to question the world around us. When we have a debate about experience, we can’t just debate who has the most experience scoring political points. When we have a debate about experience, we can’t just talk about who fought yesterday’s battles – we have to focus on who can face the challenges and seize the opportunities of tomorrow. Because no matter what we think about George Bush, he’s going to be gone in January 2009. He’s not on the ballot. This election is about ending the Iraq War, but even more it’s about moving beyond it. And we’re not going be safe in a world of unconventional threats with the same old conventional thinking that got us into Iraq. We’re not going to unify a divided America to confront these threats with the same old conventional politics of just trying to beat the other side.
In 2009, we will have a window of opportunity to renew our global leadership and bring our nation together. If we don’t seize that moment, we may not get another. This election is a turning point. The American people get to decide: are we going to turn back the clock, or turn the page?
I want to be straight with you. If you want conventional Washington thinking, I’m not your man. If you want rigid ideology, I’m not your man. If you think that fundamental change can wait, I’m definitely not your man. But if you want to bring this country together, if you want experience that’s broader than just learning the ways of Washington, if you think that the global challenges we face are too urgent to wait, and if you think that America must offer the world a new and hopeful face, then I offer a different choice in this race and a different vision for our future.
The first thing we have to do is end this war. And the right person to end it is someone who had the judgment to oppose it from the beginning. There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. I will begin to remove our troops from Iraq immediately. I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.
But it's also time to learn the lessons of Iraq. We're not going to defeat the threats of the 21st century on a conventional battlefield. We cannot win a fight for hearts and minds when we outsource critical missions to unaccountable contractors. We’re not going to win a battle of ideas with bullets alone.
Make no mistake: we must always be prepared to use force to protect America. But the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons – it’s to keep nuclear weapons and nuclear materials away from terrorists. That’s why I’ve worked with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to pass a law accelerating our pursuit of loose nuclear materials. And that’s why I’ll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials during my first term in office.
But we need to do much more. We need to change our nuclear policy and our posture, which is still focused on deterring the Soviet Union – a country that doesn’t exist. Meanwhile, India and Pakistan and North Korea have joined the club of nuclear-armed nations, and Iran is knocking on the door. More nuclear weapons and more nuclear-armed nations mean more danger to us all.
Here’s what I’ll say as President: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons.
We will not pursue unilateral disarmament. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong nuclear deterrent. But we’ll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons. We’ll work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert, and to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material. We’ll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons. And we’ll set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.
As we do this, we’ll be in a better position to lead the world in enforcing the rules of the road if we firmly abide by those rules. It’s time to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse. It’s time for America to lead. When I’m President, we’ll strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that nations that don’t comply will automatically face strong international sanctions.
This will require a new era of American diplomacy. To signal the dawn of that era, we need a President who is willing to talk to all nations, friend and foe. I’m not afraid that America will lose a propaganda battle with a petty tyrant – we need to go before the world and win those battles. If we take the attitude that the President just parachutes in for a photo-op after an agreement has already been reached, then we’re only going to reach agreements with our friends. That’s not the way to protect the American people. That’s not the way to advance our interests.
Just look at our history. Kennedy had a direct line to Khrushchev. Nixon met with Mao. Carter did the hard work of negotiating the Camp David Accords. Reagan was negotiating arms agreements with Gorbachev even as he called on him to “tear down this wall.”
It’s time to make diplomacy a top priority. Instead of shuttering consulates, we need to open them in the tough and hopeless corners of the world. Instead of having more Americans serving in military bands than the diplomatic corps, we need to grow our foreign service. Instead of retreating from the world, I will personally lead a new chapter of American engagement.
It is time to offer the world a message of hope to counter the prophets of hate. My experience has brought me to the hopeless places. As a boy, I lived in Indonesia and played barefoot with children who could not dream the same dreams that I did. As an adult, I’ve returned to be with my family in their small village in Kenya, where the promise of America is still an inspiration. As a community organizer, I worked in South Side neighborhoods that had been left behind by global change. As a Senator, I’ve been to refugee camps in Chad where proud and dignified people can’t hope for anything beyond the next handout.
In the 21st century, progress must mean more than a vote at the ballot box – it must mean freedom from fear and freedom from want. We cannot stand for the freedom of anarchy. Nor can we support the globalization of the empty stomach. We need new approaches to help people to help themselves. The United Nations has embraced the Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015. When I’m President, they will be America’s goals. The Bush Administration tried to keep the UN from proclaiming these goals; the Obama Administration will double foreign assistance to $50 billion to lead the world to achieve them.
In the 21st century, we cannot stand up before the world and say that there’s one set of rules for America and another for everyone else. To lead the world, we must lead by example. We must be willing to acknowledge our failings, not just trumpet our victories. And when I’m President, we’ll reject torture – without exception or equivocation; we’ll close Guantanamo; we’ll be the country that credibly tells the dissidents in the prison camps around the world that America is your voice, America is your dream, America is your light of justice.
We cannot – we must not – let the promotion of our values be a casualty of the Iraq War. But we cannot secure America and show our best face to the world unless we change how we do business in Washington.
We all know what Iraq has cost us abroad. But these last few years we’ve seen an unacceptable abuse of power at home. We face real threats. Any President needs the latitude to confront them
swiftly and surely. But we’ve paid a heavy price for having a President whose priority is expanding his own power. The Constitution is treated like a nuisance. Matters of war and peace are used as political tools to bludgeon the other side. We get subjected to endless spin to keep our troops at war, but we don’t get to see the flag-draped coffins of our heroes coming home. We get secret task forces, secret budgeting, slanted intelligence, and the shameful smearing of people who speak out against the President’s policies.
All of this has left us where we are today: more divided, more distrusted, more in debt, and mired in an endless war. A war to disarm a dictator has become an open-ended occupation of a foreign country. This is not America. This is not who we are. It’s time for us to stand up and tell George Bush that the government in this country is not based on the whims of one person, the government is of the people, by the people and for the people.
We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law -- the War Powers Act -- to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.
That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don’t need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don’t need another President who thinks big but doesn’t feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don’t need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country – they are the answer. And it’s time we had a President who acted like that.
I will always tell the American people the truth. I will always tell you where I stand. It’s what I’m doing in this campaign. It’s what I’ll do as President. I’ll lead a new era of openness. I’ll give an annual “State of the World” address to the American people in which I lay out our national security policy. I’ll draw on the legacy of one our greatest Presidents – Franklin Roosevelt – and give regular “fireside webcasts,” and I’ll have members of my national security team do the same.
I’ll turn the page on a growing empire of classified information, and restore the balance we’ve lost between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in a democratic society by creating a new National Declassification Center. We’ll protect sources and methods, but we won’t use sources and methods as pretexts to hide the truth. Our history doesn’t belong to Washington, it belongs to America.
I’ll use the intelligence that I do receive to make good policy – I won’t manipulate it to sell a bad policy. We don’t need any more officials who tell the President what they want to hear. I will make the Director of National Intelligence an official with a fixed term, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve – not someone who can be fired by the President. We need consistency and integrity at the top of our intelligence agencies. We don’t need politics. My test won’t be loyalty – it will be the truth.
And I’ll turn the page on the imperial presidency that treats national security as a partisan issue – not an American issue. I will call for a standing, bipartisan Consultative Group of congressional leaders on national security. I will meet with this Consultative Group every month, and consult with them before taking major military action. The buck will stop with me. But these discussions have to take place on a bipartisan basis, and support for these decisions will be stronger if they draw on bipartisan counsel. We’re not going to secure this country unless we turn the page on the conventional thinking that says politics is just about beating the other side.
It’s time to unite America, because we are at an urgent and pivotal moment.
There are those who suggest that there are easy answers to the challenges we face. We can look, they say, to Washington experience – the same experience that got us into this war. Or we can turn the page to something new, to unite this country and to seize this moment.
I am not a perfect man and I won’t be a perfect President. But my own American story tells me that this country moves forward when we cast off our doubts and seek new beginnings.
It’s what brought my father across an ocean in search of a dream. It’s what I saw in the eyes of men and women and children in Indonesia who heard the word “America” and thought of the possibility beyond the horizon. It’s what I saw in the streets of the South Side, when people who had every reason to give in decided to pick themselves up. It’s what I’ve seen in the United States Senate when Republicans and Democrats of good will do come together to take on tough issues. And it’s what I’ve seen in this campaign, when over half a million Americans have come together to seek the change this country needs.
Now I know that some will shake their heads. It’s easy to be cynical. When it comes to our foreign policy, you get it from all sides. Some folks on the right will tell you that you don’t love your country if you don’t support the war in Iraq. Some folks on the left will tell you that America can do no right in the world. Some shrug their shoulders because Washington says, “trust us, we’ll take care of it.” And we know happened the last time they said that.
Yes, it’s easy to be cynical. But right now, somewhere in Iraq, there’s someone about your age. He’s maybe on his second or third tour. It’s hot. He would rather be at home. But he’s in his uniform, got his combat gear on. He’s getting in a Humvee. He’s going out on patrol. He’s lost a buddy in this war, maybe more. He risked his life yesterday, he’s risking his life today, and he’s going to risk it tomorrow.
So why do we reject the cynicism? We reject it because of men and women like him. We reject it because the legacy of their sacrifice must be a better America. We reject it because they embody the spirit of those who fought to free the slaves and free a continent from a madman; who rebuilt Europe and sent Peace Corps volunteers around the globe; because they are fighting for a better America and a better world.
And I reject it because I wouldn’t be on this stage if, throughout our history, America had not made the right choice over the easy choice, the ambitious choice over the cautious choice. I
wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think we were ready to move past the fights of the 1960s and the 1990s. I wouldn’t be here if, time and again, the torch had not been passed to a new generation – to unite this country at home, to show a new face of this country to the world. I’m running for the presidency of the United States of America so that together we can do the hard work to seek a new dawn of peace and prosperity for our children, and for the children of the world.

Hillary Flip-Flops on Torture

One thing I noticed in last night's debate was that Hillary basically never contradicted anything that Obama had to say, and presented herself as agreeing with him on pretty much everything.

Her strategy is to diminish the differences between the two candidates, and blurring the distinction between the two. Even though there are great differences between Obama and Hillary. Then she can present herself as the candidate with the most "experience," even though her experience and her judgment are suspect. Obama has more years of elected experience than Ms. Clinton. And I don't see how eight years as First Lady constitutes experience.

One of the questions that was asked last night was whether torture is ever justified, and Tim Russert gave a "ticking time bomb" type of scenario.

Obama was the first to answer and replied that torture had no place in American policy. Hillary (of course) agreed with him.

After Hillary's response, Russert revealed that she was, in fact, contradicting her own husband. She sort of laughed it off and said she would speak with him later about the matter.

But, as this piece from the New York Daily News shows, Hillary was not only contradicting Bill. She's also contradicting herself and flip-flopping on the issue.

(This isn't the first time she's done this in the debates. In the debate on foreign policy where she called Obama "naive" about wanting to find Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, turns out that she'd been on the record as having made previous statements that agreed with him. )

HANOVER, N.H. - Sen. Hillary Clinton scored with a Democratic audience last night by contradicting her husband's belief that a terrorist could be tortured to foil an imminent plot - but what observers didn't know is she was contradicting herself, too.

"It cannot be American policy, period," Clinton (D-N.Y.) told debate moderator Tim Russert, who asked if there should be a presidential exemption to allow the torture of a terror chieftain if authorities knew a bomb was about to go off, but didn't know where it was.

When Russert revealed ex-President Bill Clinton advocated such a policy on a recent NBC "Meet the Press" appearance, Hillary Clinton won huge applause from the Dartmouth College audience with a deadpan comeback:

"Well, I'll talk to him later."

She may have to give herself that talk, too.

Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: "If we're going to bepreparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law."

She said then the "ticking time bomb" scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said.

Clinton's campaign did not immediately respond to numerous requests for comment on the eye-popping contradiction.

Read more here

Obama Calls for More Accountability from Private Military Contractors

As I've stated before, the main reason I support Barack Obama is because he's the only candidate consistently calling for more accountability and transparency from all areas of our government.

Many Americans were shocked to learn that the Blackwater private security firm is responsible for protecting many federal employees in Iraq. Many tasks that were formerly done by our Army is now done by these private contractors. (I believe the term that used to be used is "mercenaries" or "soldiers of fortune.")

Obama is once again standing steadfast in his call for honesty as to how our tax money is being spent. From the Des Moines Register:

In February, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., introduced legislation that would require more accountability and transparency regarding these contractors. Now he has filed it as an amendment to legislation on the Senate floor.

It should pass.

Tax dollars pay for contracts with private companies. And to Iraqis, the companies' workers represent the United States. Yet they're not accountable to American taxpayers - or even to Congress in some cases.

In a recent letter to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Obama stated that "little is known about what functions these security contractors are performing, how much their services are costing, what military safety equipment they are provided, and what rules of engagement they are following."

Obama's legislation would require reporting on everything from the number of contracted workers killed to the disciplinary action taken against them.

"The bill would improve coordination between security contractors and U.S. armed forces by requiring the issuance of rules of engagement, clarify the legal status of contractors and require investigation of criminal misconduct engaged in by contractors," he wrote in the letter to Gates.

That makes sense.

According to the Government Accountability Office, 181 private-security companies with 48,000 employees were working in Iraq in March 2006. That's what happens when the size and structure of the U.S. military don't lend themselves to a protracted invasion of a foreign country.

But like military personnel, those contract workers are ultimately paid with public dollars. And to the eyes of the world, America is responsible for their actions. They must be accountable to the American public.

And in an article from The Hill:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has proposed clarifying that private contractors accused of misconduct can be tried under U.S. law and urging the Pentagon to pursue such civilian prosecution. Following a Sept. 16 shooting that infuriated the Iraqi government and got the contracting firm Blackwater USA briefly barred from the country, Senate aides are working on adding parts of Obama’s plan to the defense authorization bill.
Obama told Bush in a Monday letter that he should pin down information immediately on offenses committed by contractors.

“It is our government’s obligation to ensure that security contractors in Iraq are subject to adequate and transparent oversight and that their actions do not have a negative impact on our military’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Obama wrote.

His proposal also would require the Justice Department inspector general to report to Congress on the number of complaints it has received against private contractors, and the number of investigations opened and criminal cases pursued in response. Baghdad officials are investigating Blackwater’s actions in the Sept. 16 violence and other recent incidents that caused Iraqi civilian casualties, and the State Department launched its own probe late last week.

Obama told Bush he was “disturbed” by the Blackwater episode, which “raises larger questions about the role of private security contractors.”

Obama's Statement on Ahmadinejad

A statement from Obama given on Sept. 24. From the campaign:

Chicago, IL -- U.S. Barack Obama today released the following statement on Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University in New York today.

"I would not have extended an invitation to give President Ahmadinejad another platform for his hateful rhetoric. Adolph Hitler was the worst mass murderer in the history of the world, and Ahmadinejad's denial of his crimes is offensive to Jews, to Americans, and to all people of goodwill. But this is America, and we should never be afraid to confront the ranting lies of dictators like Ahmadinejad with the power of truth and the strength of our own values. What Ahmadinejad will learn while he's here is that America is united in rejection of his hateful views, and in opposition to the Iranian government's support of terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons."

Obama Foreign Policy Advisor Serves in Iraq

Mark Lippert, one of Obama's chief foreign policy advisors, is also in the Navy Reserves. He recently has been called for active duty in Iraq. From Wall Street Journal:

After a long day training to be deployed to Iraq, Navy reservist Mark Lippert unlaces his desert boots and pulls out a BlackBerry email device from his dusty backpack.

Checking his messages, he spots an email from the presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama: "I miss you, brother."

Mr. Lippert, a lieutenant junior grade sporting a buzz-cut and desert camouflage, is training here before being shipped out to Iraq, where he will serve as an intelligence officer for the Navy SEALs. In his civilian life, he is the chief foreign-policy adviser for Sen. Obama -- the Democrat whose most well-known foreign-policy stance is his opposition to the Iraq War Lt. Lippert is about to join.

Read more here

JFK Advisor Sorenson Stumps for Obama

Ted Sorenson, former advisor to JFK, has hit the campaign trail in support of Obama, citing Obama's judgment as one of his strongest assets. Sorenson has come out previously in support of Obama's foreign policy, in particular, Obama's statements on Pakistan. From Seacost Online:

EXETER — Like President John F. Kennedy in the 1960s, presidential candidate Barack Obama uses good judgment, according to Ted Sorensen, counsel and speechwriter to Kennedy during his presidency.

The characteristic is what makes the Illinois senator the best candidate for president, Sorensen said during a visit with about 50 residents and community members at RiverWoods on Thursday.

"Looking back at all these years and my 11 years with John F. Kennedy ... I realized that the single most important quality in a president is not their position on any particular issue, it's not their promises for this and that, which are too easily made and forgotten," Sorensen said. "What matters most is the quality of the person and the quality of their judgment."

Read more here

LA Times: Obama's Right on Cuba

F