Obama's Full Terrorism Speech: Sharpens Contrast With Hillary On Foreign Policy
Obama is now wrapping up his full terrorism speech, and I've posted the full text of it as prepared for delivery after the jump. Take a look.
One context worth keeping in mind: This speech is obviously at least partly about continuing the argument with Hillary over how America should conduct diplomacy with hostile nations. Projecting realism about the "war on terror" and proposing more aggressive action in certain theaters of it, as Obama does here, both seem designed to shore up whatever weaknesses Camp Obama thinks may or may not have been created by the Hillary dustup.
One key goal of the speech: To persuade people that toughness in the "war on terror" is not necessarily at odds with his earlier assertion that he'd negotiatiate with hostile nations without preconditions -- or, for that matter, at odds with opposing torture and other aspects of Bush-Cheney's terror approach. This argument is becoming more and more central to the Obama campaign -- the true significance of this speech.
In other words, Obama's basically upping the stakes in a big way here by drawing a stronger and deeper contrast between his and Hillary's foreign policy visions -- and by amplifying the argument that toughness is not synonymous with Bush-Cheney counterterror policies.
Full text after the jump.
Update: Ben Smith points out that Obama's speech is conspicuously missing "the buzzwords of those who see a global conflict between the West and a specifically Muslim insurgency." I think this reinforces my point about the extent to which Obama's trying to shift the debate here.
Thank you Lee, for hosting me here at the Wilson Center, and for your leadership of both the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group. You have been a steady voice of reason in an unsteady time.Let me also say that my thoughts and prayers are with your colleague, Haleh Esfandiari, and her family. I have made my position known to the Iranian government. It is time for Haleh to be released. It is time for Haleh to come home.
Thanks to the 9/11 Commission, we know that six years ago this week President Bush received a briefing with the headline: “Bin Ladin determined to strike in U.S.”
It came during what the Commission called the “summer of threat,” when the “system was blinking red” about an impending attack. But despite the briefing, many felt the danger was overseas, a threat to embassies and military installations. The extremism, the resentment, the terrorist training camps, and the killers were in the dark corners of the world, far away from the American homeland.
Then, one bright and beautiful Tuesday morning, they were here.
I was driving to a state legislative hearing in downtown Chicago when I heard the news on my car radio: a plane had hit the World Trade Center. By the time I got to my meeting, the second plane had hit, and we were told to evacuate.
People gathered in the streets and looked up at the sky and the Sears Tower, transformed from a workplace to a target. We feared for our families and our country. We mourned the terrible loss suffered by our fellow citizens. Back at my law office, I watched the images from New York: a plane vanishing into glass and steel; men and women clinging to windowsills, then letting go; tall towers crumbling to dust. It seemed all of the misery and all of the evil in the world were in that rolling black cloud, blocking out the September sun.
What we saw that morning forced us to recognize that in a new world of threats, we are no longer protected by our own power. And what we saw that morning was a challenge to a new generation.
The history of America is one of tragedy turned into triumph. And so a war over secession became an opportunity to set the captives free. An attack on Pearl Harbor led to a wave of freedom rolling across the Atlantic and Pacific. An Iron Curtain was punctured by democratic values, new institutions at home, and strong international partnerships abroad.
After 9/11, our calling was to write a new chapter in the American story. To devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad. We were ready. Americans were united. Friends around the world stood shoulder to shoulder with us. We had the might and moral-suasion that was the legacy of generations of Americans. The tide of history seemed poised to turn, once again, toward hope.
But then everything changed.
We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.
Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century’s stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support “a dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq. I worried about a “ U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences” in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we “finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda.”
The political winds were blowing in a different direction. The President was determined to go to war. There was just one obstacle: the U.S. Congress. Nine days after I spoke, that obstacle was removed. Congress rubber-stamped the rush to war, giving the President the broad and open-ended authority he uses to this day. With that vote, Congress became co-author of a catastrophic war. And we went off to fight on the wrong battlefield, with no appreciation of how many enemies we would create, and no plan for how to get out.
Because of a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, we are now less safe than we were before 9/11.
According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from al Qaeda is “persistent and evolving.” Iraq is a training ground for terror, torn apart by civil war. Afghanistan is more violent than it has been since 2001. Al Qaeda has a sanctuary in Pakistan. Israel is besieged by emboldened enemies, talking openly of its destruction. Iran is now presenting the broadest strategic challenge to the United States in the Middle East in a generation. Groups affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda operate worldwide. Six years after 9/11, we are again in the midst of a “summer of threat,” with bin Ladin and many more terrorists determined to strike in the United States.
What’s more, in the dark halls of Abu Ghraib and the detention cells of Guantanamo, we have compromised our most precious values. What could have been a call to a generation has become an excuse for unchecked presidential power. A tragedy that united us was turned into a political wedge issue used to divide us.
It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11.
Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.
The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda’s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq – which didn’t exist before our invasion – and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission.
And worse – he is fighting the war the terrorists want us to fight. Bin Ladin and his allies know they cannot defeat us on the field of battle or in a genuine battle of ideas. But they can provoke the reaction we’ve seen in Iraq: a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world.
By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.
The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops out of Iraq, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then ending this war will be my first priority when I take office.
There is no military solution in Iraq. Only Iraq’s leaders can settle the grievances at the heart of Iraq’s civil war. We must apply pressure on them to act, and our best leverage is reducing our troop presence. And we must also do the hard and sustained diplomatic work in the region on behalf of peace and stability.
In ending the war, we must act with more wisdom than we started it. That is why my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support – not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda’s appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.
Ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out. It will also allow us to direct badly needed resources to Afghanistan. Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need—and deserve. As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs, and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country.
As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO’s efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.
We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military – it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.
Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.
Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.
This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It’s a tough place.
But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.
As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.
Beyond Pakistan, there is a core of terrorists – probably in the tens of thousands – who have made their choice to attack America. So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world’s most dangerous weapons.
I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps’s new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.
To succeed, we must improve our civilian capacity. The finest military in the world is adapting to the challenges of the 21st century. But it cannot counter insurgent and terrorist threats without civilian counterparts who can carry out economic and political reconstruction missions – sometimes in dangerous places. As President, I will strengthen these civilian capacities, recruiting our best and brightest to take on this challenge. I will increase both the numbers and capabilities of our diplomats, development experts, and other civilians who can work alongside our military. We can’t just say there is no military solution to these problems. We need to integrate all aspects of American might.
One component of this integrated approach will be new Mobile Development Teams that bring together personnel from the State Department, the Pentagon, and USAID. These teams will work with civil society and local governments to make an immediate impact in peoples’ lives, and to turn the tide against extremism. Where people are most vulnerable, where the light of hope has grown dark, and where we are in a position to make a real difference in advancing security and opportunity – that is where these teams will go.
I will also strengthen our intelligence. This is about more than an organizational chart. We need leadership that forces our agencies to share information, and leadership that never – ever – twists the facts to support bad policies. But we must also build our capacity to better collect and analyze information, and to carry out operations to disrupt terrorist plots and break up terrorist networks.
This cannot just be an American mission. Al Qaeda and its allies operate in nearly 100 countries. The United States cannot steal every secret, penetrate every cell, act on every tip, or track down every terrorist – nor should we have to do this alone. This is not just about our security. It is about the common security of all the world.
As President, I will create a Shared Security Partnership Program to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa. This program will provide $5 billion over three years for counter-terrorism cooperation with countries around the world, including information sharing, funding for training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology, and targeting terrorist financing. And this effort will focus on helping our partners succeed without repressive tactics, because brutality breeds terror, it does not defeat it.
We must also do more to safeguard the world’s most dangerous weapons. We know al Qaeda seeks a nuclear weapon. We know they would not hesitate to use one. Yet there is still about 50 tons of highly enriched uranium, some of it poorly secured, at civilian nuclear facilities in over forty countries. There are still about 15,000 to 16,00 nuclear weapons and stockpiles of uranium and plutonium scattered across 11 time zones in the former Soviet Union.
That is why I worked in the Senate with Dick Lugar to pass a law that would help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. That is why I am introducing a bill with Chuck Hagel that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons. And that is why, as President, I will lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles, we should also negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material.
And I won’t hesitate to use the power of American diplomacy to stop countries from obtaining these weapons or sponsoring terror. The lesson of the Bush years is that not talking does not work. Go down the list of countries we’ve ignored and see how successful that strategy has been. We haven’t talked to Iran, and they continue to build their nuclear program. We haven’t talked to Syria, and they continue support for terror. We tried not talking to North Korea, and they now have enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear weapons.
It’s time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action. It’s time to turn the page on Washington’s conventional wisdom that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that Presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear.
President Kennedy said it best: “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” Only by knowing your adversary can you defeat them or drive wedges between them. As President, I will work with our friend and allies, but I won’t outsource our diplomacy in Tehran to the Europeans, or our diplomacy in Pyongyang to the Chinese. I will do the careful preparation needed, and let these countries know where America stands. They will no longer have the excuse of American intransigence. They will have our terms: no support for terror and no nuclear weapons.
But America must be about more than taking out terrorists and locking up weapons, or else new terrorists will rise up to take the place of every one we capture or kill. That is why the third step in my strategy will be drying up the rising well of support for extremism.
When you travel to the world’s trouble spots as a United States Senator, much of what you see is from a helicopter. So you look out, with the buzz of the rotor in your ear, maybe a door gunner nearby, and you see the refugee camp in Darfur, the flood near Djibouti, the bombed out block in Baghdad. You see thousands of desperate faces.
Al Qaeda’s new recruits come from Africa and Asia, the Middle East and Europe. Many come from disaffected communities and disconnected corners of our interconnected world. And it makes you stop and wonder: when those faces look up at an American helicopter, do they feel hope, or do they feel hate?
We know where extremists thrive. In conflict zones that are incubators of resentment and anarchy. In weak states that cannot control their borders or territory, or meet the basic needs of their people. From Africa to central Asia to the Pacific Rim – nearly 60 countries stand on the brink of conflict or collapse. The extremists encourage the exploitation of these hopeless places on their hate-filled websites.
And we know what the extremists say about us. America is just an occupying Army in Muslim lands, the shadow of a shrouded figure standing on a box at Abu Ghraib, the power behind the throne of a repressive leader. They say we are at war with Islam. That is the whispered line of the extremist who has nothing to offer in this battle of ideas but blame – blame America, blame progress, blame Jews. And often he offers something along with the hate. A sense of empowerment. Maybe an education at a madrasa, some charity for your family, some basic services in the neighborhood. And then: a mission and a gun.
We know we are not who they say we are. America is at war with terrorists who killed on our soil. We are not at war with Islam. America is a compassionate nation that wants a better future for all people. The vast majority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims have no use for bin Ladin or his bankrupt ideas. But too often since 9/11, the extremists have defined us, not the other way around.
When I am President, that will change. We will author our own story.
We do need to stand for democracy. And I will. But democracy is about more than a ballot box. America must show – through deeds as well as words – that we stand with those who seek a better life. That child looking up at the helicopter must see America and feel hope.
As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say – as Secretary Rumsfeld did – “Freedom is untidy.” I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy.
I will double our annual investments to meet these challenges to $50 billion by 2012. And I will support a $2 billion Global Education Fund to counter the radical madrasas – often funded by money from within Saudi Arabia – that have filled young minds with messages of hate. We must work for a world where every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy. And as we lead we will ask for more from our friends in Europe and Asia as well – more support for our diplomacy, more support for multilateral peacekeeping, and more support to rebuild societies ravaged by conflict.
I will also launch a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort across my Administration, not a small group of political officials at the State Department explaining a misguided war. We will open “America Houses” in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America’s Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new “ America’s Voice Corps” we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with – and listen to – the people who today hear about us only from our enemies.
As President, I will lead this effort. In the first 100 days of my Administration, I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle. I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence. I will speak directly to that child who looks up at that helicopter, and my message will be clear: “You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”
This brings me to the fourth step in my strategy: I will make clear that the days of compromising our values are over.
Major General Paul Eaton had a long and distinguished career serving this country. It included training the Iraqi Army. After Abu Ghraib, his senior Iraqi advisor came into his office and said: “You have no idea how this will play out on the streets of Baghdad and the rest of the Arab world. How can this be?” This was not the America he had looked up to.
As the counter-insurgency manual reminds us, we cannot win a war unless we maintain the high ground and keep the people on our side. But because the Administration decided to take the low road, our troops have more enemies. Because the Administration cast aside international norms that reflect American values, we are less able to promote our values. When I am President, America will reject torture without exception. America is the country that stood against that kind of behavior, and we will do so again.
I also will reject a legal framework that does not work. There has been only one conviction at Guantanamo. It was for a guilty plea on material support for terrorism. The sentence was 9 months. There has not been one conviction of a terrorist act. I have faith in America’s courts, and I have faith in our JAGs. As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists.
This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.
That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.
This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America, and that is why the fifth part of my strategy is doing the hard and patient work to secure a more resilient homeland.
Too often this Administration’s approach to homeland security has been to scatter money around and avoid hard choices, or to scare Americans without telling them what to be scared of, or what to do. A Department set up to make Americans feel safer didn’t even show up when bodies drifted through the streets in New Orleans. That’s not acceptable.
My Administration will take an approach to homeland security guided by risk. I will establish a Quadrennial Review at the Department of Homeland Security – just like at the Pentagon – to undertake a top to bottom review of the threats we face and our ability to confront them. And I will develop a comprehensive National Infrastructure Protection Plan that draws on both local know-how and national priorities.
We have to put resources where our infrastructure is most vulnerable. That means tough and permanent standards for securing our chemical plants. Improving our capability to screen cargo and investing in safeguards that will prevent the disruption of our ports. And making sure our energy sector – our refineries and pipelines and power grids – is protected so that terrorists cannot cripple our economy.
We also have to get past a top-down approach. Folks across America are the ones on the front lines. On 9/11, it was citizens – empowered by their knowledge of the World Trade Center attacks – who protected our government by heroically taking action on Flight 93 to keep it from reaching our nation’s capital. When I have information that can empower Americans, I will share it with them.
Information sharing with state and local governments must be a two-way street, because we never know where the two pieces of the puzzle are that might fit together – the tip from Afghanistan, and the cop who sees something suspicious on Michigan Avenue. I will increase funding to help train police to gather information and connect it to the intelligence they receive from the federal government. I will address the problem in our prisons, where the most disaffected and disconnected Americans are being explicitly targeted for conversion by al Qaeda and its ideological allies.
And my Administration will not permit more lives to be lost because emergency responders are not outfitted with the communications capability and protective equipment their job requires, or because the federal government is too slow to respond when disaster strikes. We’ve been through that on 9/11. We’ve been through it during Katrina. I will ensure that we have the resources and competent federal leadership we need to support our communities when American lives are at stake.
But this effort can’t just be about what we ask of our men and women in uniform. It can’t just be about how we spend our time or our money.
It’s about the kind of country we are.
We are in the early stages of a long struggle. Yet since 9/11, we’ve heard a lot about what America can’t do or shouldn’t do or won’t even try. We can’t vote against a misguided war in Iraq because that would make us look weak, or talk to other countries because that would be a reward. We can’t reach out to the hundreds of millions of Muslims who reject terror because we worry they hate us. We can’t protect the homeland because there are too many targets, or secure our people while staying true to our values. We can’t get past the America of Red and Blue, the politics of who’s up and who’s down.
That is not the America that I know.
The America I know is the last, best hope for that child looking up at a helicopter. It’s the country that put a man on the moon; that defeated fascism and helped rebuild Europe. It’s a country whose strength abroad is measured not just by armies, but rather by the power of our ideals, and by our purpose to forge an ever more perfect union at home.
That’s the America I know. We just have to act like it again to write that next chapter in the American story. If we do, we can keep America safe while extending security and opportunity around the world. We can hold true to our values, and in doing so advance those values abroad. And we can be what that child looking up at a helicopter needs us to be: the relentless opponent of terror and tyranny, and the light of hope to the world.
To make this story reality, it’s going to take Americans coming together and changing the fundamental direction of this country. It’s going to take the service of a new generation of young people. It’s going to take facing tragedy head-on and turning it into the next generation’s triumph. That is a challenge that I welcome. Because when we do make that change, we’ll do more than win a war – we’ll live up to that calling to make America, and the world, safer, freer, and more hopeful than we found it.
Agreed. Except for the shoring up piece. Obama is capitalizing on the polls showing that America agrees with his 'open door policy' approach to foreign policy. This speech articulates how and when he would use military force in the best interest of our nation's national security as opposed to waging DUMB wars. This is an excellent speech.
He is putting the screws to Hillary. HRC will rue the day she attacked him with 'naive' and 'irresponsible'
BTW, who is Lee? Was he a member of the Iraq StudyGroup?
August 1, 2007 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great speech, at least on first reading. One passing bit that I particularly like:
Looks like Obama understands what James Fallows was saying in last year's Atlantic article: that the real danger to us is less what al Qaeda does than what we do in response.
August 1, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some real firsts here. Obama is first to point out that Pakistan is a dictatorship and that it needs reform before we can really count on it as an ally.
He's first to point out that conditions in US prisons have created a breeding ground for local terrorist recruiting.
All in all, pretty impressive stuff.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
August 1, 2007 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, agreed, the polls show support for his position. nonetheless, camp obama knows that his assertions on diplomacy can be exploited to (wrongly) paint his position as weakness.
August 1, 2007 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Musharraf's son is a graduate student at Stanford in California.
Musharraf's brother is a long time practicing aneshesiologist in Chicago who could walk to Obama's headquarters on Michigan Ave.
Musharraf has gone on the daily show with John Stewart.
Yes he's a dictator but if they had a vote - we'd get people who hate the US and who'd have nukes.
IF Obama's candidacy is based on Judgement, I'd say starting to bomb or invade (your choice) a state US ally who will be replaced by someone much worse - and is the world's 6th largest country shows a lack of judgement.
NO doubt the buchanans and scarboroughs will love this in your face US policy. But in reality it's pretty close to neocon pre-emptive war.
At least Iran funds terrorism (Hizbollah) and is not an ally.
Musharraf doesn't fund terrorism and is an ally of a soverign country that is no threat to the mainlan US
August 1, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see the difference in going into Pakistan with military force unilaterally and going into Iraq unilaterally as Bush did. Two wrongs will not make a right.
August 1, 2007 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
How's invading a much larger islamic country with nuclear weapons and a state ally better judgement than invading Iraq?
Why not go after Iran? what's the difference...
August 1, 2007 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK.
This is one helluva plan and clear strategy. I especially love the 'America Houses".
I can't wait to see how Bill responds...oops that would be Hillary...who in their right mind believes she has anywhere this type of analysis of global affairs...Bill does and he will do it for her.
August 1, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is the difference between going after the thieves who actually robbed your home rather than the local thug who happened to be in the vicinity and everyone agreed was a scurge even though he didn't actually rob any houses.
August 1, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
what about bombing a sovereign country and stated ally without permission?
August 1, 2007 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two weeks ago, Obama was for precondtions.
Last week, he was for kumbaya-ing with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela with no precondtions.
This week, he's for attacking/invading an unstable Middle East ally preemptively?
August 1, 2007 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton did air strikes without permission, which is why Hillary does not regret giving authority to Bush to wage war endlessly.
More to the point though this speech says nothing about bombing a sovereign country without permission.
Nice try.
August 1, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ive been waiting to read a speech like this from Obama. The more he gets into details of his ideas, the more impressed I am that he has the wisdom and judgement to make the right decisions. There are obviously dangers involved in any type of action against terrorists, but not doing anything is not a solution. My main concern is that with a speech this long and detailed, there are always things his opponents can take out of context and since most people won't read the whole thing, he can be mischaracterized in various ways. He needs to consistantly clarify those distortions wherever they appear.
August 1, 2007 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, because he's no advocating changing the regime and re-building the country? Maybe? But rather acting on intelligence to hit al qaida leadership, which means non-go'vt/non-military sites in the mountains.
Is it really that hard to see the difference?
If anything, such a move would be much closer to, say, the Israeli hit on the Osirak light water reactor in Iraq in the early 80's, though even that is a poor analogy, since that was a site associated with the Iraqi gov't. We're talking about a limited-scope mission that isn't targeting the Pakistani gov't. How is that at all like the regime change operations in Iraq or the regime change some call for in Iran?
That's nonsense.
August 1, 2007 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure I see where he's advocating an "invasion" of Pakistan. He is, however, advocating that Pakistan either take care of al Qaeda in the northern Pakistan border areas, or as President, he will.
August 1, 2007 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
bosnia was not an ally and was practicing ethnic cleansing pakistan is neither
August 1, 2007 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the invocation of Franz Ferdinand was powerful. Much props to anyone else who reads Fallows :D
August 1, 2007 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see any of the things Greg does here. It helps shore up what camp Obama must see as a preceived weakness on national security, but the Pakistan threat is going to be the main 'news' take away here.
While it may make him look 'tougher' it may also may him look more 'risky.' So it'll be interesting to see how the other candidates react. I predict Hillary says nothing, but Richardson or Edwards may question him on his troops in Pakistan. It depends on how broadly that threat is interpretted.
August 1, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, try this then: do you see the difference between limited targeted strikes on terrorist camps (which is clearly what Obama is talking about) and a full-scale invasion with open-ended nation-building?
August 1, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there's certainly a fundamental difference in the mission. Obama is advocating taking out Al Qaeda leadership that holed up in the mountains, not attacking gov't sites or advocating regime change.
These people are international criminals who've masterminded the killing of thousands of civilians in the US, Europe, and Middle East. Why wouldn't you want your President to prioritize brining them to justice?
August 1, 2007 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, what I was trying to say, only clearer and more concise!
August 1, 2007 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing Lee Hamilton? The co-chair of the ISG.
August 1, 2007 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
we didn't get into Iraq for regime change or nation building.
It was military threat.
we've heard this story before , I know how it ends... pissed off muslims, civil war and chaos
August 1, 2007 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards should probably wait to see if HIllary gets Nasty.
If Hillary calls Obama naive for threatening a US ally, than maybe Edwards will sit back and watch...
August 1, 2007 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
INteresting speech.
Nice swipe at Giuliani:
I am also struck by the mention of madrassas. I can imagine some strategist telling him never to mention madrassas because that might just be used to link to terrorists (in the Faux tradition)--Good for him.
As for the comments that invading Pakistan is the same as invading Iraq? I didn't get that Obama was advocating invading Pakistan--rather, that Pakistan has to do more than it's doing now.
And the fact that Musharraf appeared on the Daily Show doesn't make less of a dictator...
August 1, 2007 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a great speech. There is essentially no difference in foreign policy among any of the Democratic candidates, but still Obama had to make this speech to have a chance at the nomination. The only thing that distinguishes him from the others is the war authorization vote and he played that card very well.
One new item, for me, was the implicit question -- Do you want me to be the face that America shows to the World? Many people will answer, Hmmm, not a bad idea.
August 1, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Yes he's a dictator but if they had a vote - we'd get people who hate the US and who'd have nukes."
I see. We they have to remain under the thumb of a military strong man because if they could vote they might not make the choices that would please us.
By the way, Obama isn't talking about invading or bombing Pakistan. He's talking about using our troops to capture the terrorists hiding their under Musharaff's nose. He's also talking about giving more aide to Pakistan, but is trying that aid toward democratic reforms.
You have two choices with Musharaff because his reign won't last forever. One is that he's voted out of office. That's the peaceful way. The second is that the extremists boot him out of office, hang him in the public square and install a worse dictatorship. That's the government that will scare the world with Pakistan's nukes.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
August 1, 2007 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama should get credit for articulating the way US policy needs to be more effective with respect to the causes and remedies related to terrorism.
However, there is no reason to believe that Hillary wouldn't be any less effective. She has a lot more experience, and more importantly, she has network of relationships that she could tap into much more quickly and effectively to bring about needed change.
August 1, 2007 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he won't be any more successful, either. Juan Cole:
How would Pakistan be feeling right about now at the prospect of President Barack Obama?
August 1, 2007 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like who? Do you really think Pakistanis want to elect some mullah from North Waziristan? Most are getting to the point where they hate Musharraf because he's abused his office and hijacked their democracy.
August 1, 2007 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgot the link:
Bush's incompetence gives al-Qaida new life
August 1, 2007 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No pandering on Israel. None. Of the other major candidates, only Bill Richardson would join Obama in delivering a speech that reaches out to the Muslim world without throwing in all the rhetoric demanded by the "pro-Israel" right. In other words, he's going to be an honest broker.
August 1, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Musharraf has permitted tribal leaders in the UNGOVERNED western region of Parkistan to ally with and give safe haven to al Qaeda and the Taliban, where they plot and train for international terrorism including strikes agains the U.S. Musharraf has also permitted Parkistani scientists to sell nuclear secrets to Iran. Pakistan functions as an ally of terrorists, just like Saudi Arabia. It is far more threatening to world and U.S. security than Iraq. Obama is wise to focus there and try to shift debate from sole emphasis on Iraq to debating and resolving the larger mess Bush has created.
August 1, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw let me point out the one-sidedness of the commentary here at TPMCafe. What if Clinton had given this speech? Many of you would call her a war-monger for the discussion of US military action in Pakistan. Many of you would call her long and detailed evocation of 9/11 "Bush-light."
August 1, 2007 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHAT?
The whole point was that Saddam was hell bent on getting nukes, Saddam was evil and a threat, Saddam needed to be taken out of power.
Seriously, what?
You're just wrong here. Regime change wasn't some un-planned accident. It was the animating cause of the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan
August 1, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
there's a cognitive dissonance with obama's message here.
on the one hand he'll meet without preconditions with a holocaust denier but on the other he'll take premptive military action against a sovereign ally and overthrow the government.
what is Obama's message today?
August 1, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
al qaeda has called for Musharraf's overthrow...
August 1, 2007 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if Turkey decides to go over into northern Iraq and start killing Kurds who they think are terrorist without the permission of the leader of Iraq. This would be the same thing as US going into Pakistan without the permission of the leader of Pakistan to kill terrorist. Would this be okay??
August 1, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great post, and I like Juan Cole a lot. What that suggests to me is that the hypothetical Barack lays out is not very likely at all to ever be reality. That is, given the description of the region in question, the notion that we'll ever have "actionable intelligence" on the location of someone in that region is rather small, no? As such, I don't see why we should consider that as anything more than rhetoric, no?
August 1, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
the iraq war was approved on grounds of WMD, afghanistan was invaded cause of al qaeda..
regime change had zero to do with invading Iraq, it was just one of many bush excuses after the fact.
I suppose if we invade Pakistan we can trumpet regime change of a pro-US "president" as Obama calls him for a pro-taliban government.
August 1, 2007 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I read the full text of Obama's speech, I experienced gratitude and a sense of relief: we really do have, in this skinny guy with the funny name, a brilliant, competent and comprehensive thinker/planner who happens to be charismatic, calmly stronger than steel, personally moral and unencumbered by status quo compromises, and [here's the gratitude] this very able fellow is willing to lead this nation at a time when America's woundedness could become a serious decline if not treated fully and correctly.
I have long believed that Obama's candidancy will give America some great leadership irregardless of whether he 'wins'. This speech is that---leadership in action.
I had to remind myself that this is 'election'central... after all..... so why should it bother me that Greg immediately put a 'context' around this speech to steer responses into how the speech relates to the horse race.
Oh, ok, but just for a moment before all the analysis, how about taking that speech out of the 'election' context.... how about taking a moment to enjoy it like you might enjoy a new piece of music. "If you tire of a piece of beautiful music, you have stopped listening."
August 1, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg might want to put up HIllary's statement on this a few days ago.. she said no unilateral US ground troops in Pakistan but would have to be Joint with Pakistani's ..
I guess Obama got his wish on being different.
August 1, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eh? I'd give Clinton props for recognizing where Al Qaida is and what needs to be done about it. I've never called her a war-monger and supported the invasion of Afghanistan. what's more, my impression is that most Obama supporters are like that, for Afghanistan but against Iraq. Not the Kucinich-styled doves who are against all military force or the invocation of military strikes as diplomatic efforts.
The way Hillary was acting like "Bush-light" was by adopting a posture that was hard to read as anything short of suspicious of, if not hostile to, diplomacy. I find it hard to read that same tone into this speech.
August 1, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Irrespective of how anyone feels about Obama as a candidate or the specifics of his speech, they must feel good to see this quality of substance on a REAL issue brought forward for debate. He is showing clear, fresh thinking, ideas and the courage to express and defend his distinctive perspective. Now, Hillary, Edwards and the other candidates need to respond with their own fresh thinking and debate on the merits.
August 1, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary had made this speech I would not be going around claiming she was itching for a war with Pakistan. I'd view it as honestly as I'm viewing Obama's speech. He wants to urge Democratic reforms in Pakistan and he wants to capture the criminals hiding there.
If Hillary said it, or Edwards or Richardson or Biden, it'd still mean the same thing.
I'm not an Obama supporter. But people are twisting his words here.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
August 1, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you define ally? If you include Pakistan and Saudia Arabia under your definition, it may need revision, given their support for international terriorism aimed at the U.S. and its true allies.
August 1, 2007 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, and unlike, say, India...the whole idea was that the REGIME in charge of Iraq was unfit to have nuclear weapons, and as such, unlike, say, India, could not be allowed to rise to the level of nuclear power. The goal, as such, was to change the REGIME to one less intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and more sympathetic to US interests.
The whole point of invading Afghanistan was that the Taliban regime had allowed the country to become over-run with terrorist camps. By replacing that regime with one more sympathetic to U.S. goals, we could secure the region (in theory).
Regime change was very much so a major part of both wars.
You're simply wrong here. This isn't a case of my opinion vs your opinion. Hell, type in "Bush regime change" to google and the very first hit you get is from Sept, 2002, and has this tasty excerpt
you couldn't be more wrong
August 1, 2007 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the whole I do like the speech but Obama does say that if we have "actionable intelligence" and Musharaff doesn't act, we will -- that's the without permission ... while he is clearly not talking about a full scale invasion he is talking about some form of military incursion whether bombing or otherwise.
August 1, 2007 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit. Musharraf harbors the people who attacked us on 9/11 and he does nothing about it because any foreign leader without leverage with the Bush administration is cast aside like old kleenex. His hold on power is predicated on getting $12 billion a year out of US taxpayer pockets which is funneled
solely to his military. Bush doesn't mind because he also likes using al Qaeda to scare the children.
You evidently are one of them.
August 1, 2007 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just the difference between night and day, fire and water, Democrat and Republican Lite, Obama and Hillary.
Is it your opinion then that there is no difference between leaving Iraq (Obama) and staying there (Hillary)?
Do you think that is best to use torture, illegal surveillance, throw out the Constitution (Hillary) or proscribe such tactics (Obama)?
Would it be best to talk to enemies (Obama) or fret that those devils will win out (Hillary)?
I will take the Obama way. You can have Hillary. Sure hope my team wins.
BTW I am not sure that Bush has not already lost Afghanistan - assuming it was his to win. I don't know if we can any longer capture bin Laden in Pakistan. We now more about what our fine leaders did about the investigation of Pat Tillman's death than anything else that has occurred there but we don't know how he died. That is the mess that will be bequeathed the next president. Sure hope it is somebody that this time knows the difference between a terrorist and and a Muslim.
Best, Terry
August 1, 2007 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because a military incursion into Pakistan has the potential for converting millilons of offended Pakistanis to the other side?
August 1, 2007 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
His response was to send in the gendarmes to take out the Red Mosque crew, and to back down on the judicial dismissal. I submit that's likely to be a fair indication of where he perceives the most powerful popular opposition to lie. Not with the jihadists.
The real worry, and the reason why I have some small sympathy with Bush's decision to refrain from an incursion when they learned bin Laden's whereabouts in '05, is that the Pakistani security apparatus, with its ties to radical Islamists, wouldn't allow winners of an election to take office, but would depose Musharraf on the grounds that he'd been voted out, and then seize the levers of power for themselves.
August 1, 2007 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very helpful thoughts. I hope Obama has given the other candidates a high standard to meet, in terms of quality of thinking and quality of debate. If all they can do is sensationalize and nitpick, he should be able to bring focus back and score points by contrast.
August 1, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please elaborate.
What specific experience does Hillary have? All activities she did as a spouse do not qualify as experience when it comes to leadership, otherwise lets hear what you believe her experience is.
The President of the United States has an instant network of relationships to quickly an effectively tap into based on the power and prestige of the office.
August 1, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uprated because, while I don't share your opinion, you're clearly not a troll.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
August 1, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
They do that on a small scale basis as it is. Here's what will stop that from becoming a big deal. When Kurdistan is on it's own after we leave they won't want to risk their newfound freedom in a war with much stronger Turkey. Turkey on the other hand won't want to risk rekindling the war with their own Kurds by attacking across the border too seriously. They also know how the US and Europe frowns on that kind of thing and pissing off the Europeans who they'd like to join in the EU is a powerful disincentive. Another disincentive for both parties is the fact that Turkey is a big customer for Kurdish oil.
August 1, 2007 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given her claim of unparalleled "experience and sophistication" on foreign affairs and her claim that Obama is naive, Hillary (and Madeline Albright) really must respond. As noted above, it will be interesting to see if she responds in attack mode, or in thoughtful debate with her on analysis and ideas.
August 1, 2007 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what?
August 1, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
you're conflating afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan...
Only Pakistan is a US ally...
I'd suggest violating international law and bombing Pakistan unilaterally without the President's approval is a new day in US foreign policy
August 1, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It was military threat".
That had no basis in reality. None.
Then it was regime change and nation building.
August 1, 2007 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure which post you're responding to because of the formatting, could you clarify...?
August 1, 2007 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If our government calls a country or president our ally it works for me
August 1, 2007 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me point out that is the nature of what it means to be polarizing. The most important thing a person has is their reputation. Senator Clinton simply does not have a good one. Unfortunately, that means she is a person who will not be given the benefit of the doubt as she has demonstrated she is calculating and has a track record of misjudgments. Consequently, she would be a disaster for America's foreign policy.
August 1, 2007 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? No, you are conflating them by suggesting that somehow an attack on the soil of Pakistan is somehow the equivalent of an attack on the regime in charge of Iraq.
Nice back-pedal, btw, on the whole "it wasn't about regime change" line.
Bush in Sept 02
Oh, and what kind of ally is Pakistan if they harbor terrorists, we tell them precisely where a high-level terrorist is, and they refuse to act. That's an ally?
August 1, 2007 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've got Hillary's way.
How do like it?
At what?
Trading cattle futures? Voting for Bush's programs?
Best, Terry
August 1, 2007 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately Hillary's "network of relationships" includes obligations to bundled-contribution-carrying, multi-national corporate lobbyists with strong interests in Iraqi oil and military contracts. Her "experience" is primarily as Bill's wife and a naive Senator voting to support Bush's War.
August 1, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is a good speech, and I'd like it whomever gave it.
The only interesting thing I got out of the diplomacy brouhaha was some information about diplomatic language--preconditions vs "certain conditions". Language that seems fairly nuanced--that most people with a dog in this fight between Obama, Clinton, and Edwards don't seem to want to acknowledge.
August 1, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed and I did the same for both of you. In your case very enthusiastically, destor.
Please remember to save all zeroes and ones for me. I collect them.
Best, Terry
August 1, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is Bush-Cheney lite, we've heard it none stop for 7 years. Time to turn the page. Obama gets attention with substance not tired, hollow rhetoric.
August 1, 2007 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I also found his frequent mention of madrassas interesting, and especially his one mention of their funding from Saudi Arabia. He also made a reference to the U.S. being seen as the "power behind the throne of an oppressive leader" (attempting to quote from memory). I'm probably being obtuse, but the only person I could identify as that leader was the Saudi king. He didn't go so far as to note that the 9/11 attackers were primarily Saudis, but all in good time.
Could it be that Obama's finally the one to break ranks with the Saudis?
August 1, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
We had actionable intelligence in 2005 as Barack alludes to. Just as we did in 2000 in Afghanistan after the Cole attack. It's not like in the movies. In both instances the brass in the Pentagon passed around the plans until a quick strike special forces attack with a few dozen men grew to a battalion size mission that got cancelled as too unwieldy. None of the calcified regular Army wants to engage in any mission unless it's a sure thing with overwhelming odds and force on our side. We're never gonna catch bin Laden like that. You can hear a 100 Blackhawks coming for miles and I'm sure he always has a escape route planned. We're gonna have to use stealth like Obama says.
August 1, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, a military incursion, gone poorly, could have disastrous consequences. Or, gone well, could have none of the disastrous consequences and plenty of benefits. That's not an argument for taking those options off the table, that's an argument for making sure we have people in charge who understand those dangers. Nothing in the speech leads me to believe that Obama is somehow unaware or unwilling to entertain the possibility of those dangers. On the contrary, everything in his record and the substance of this speech suggest he's precisely the type of leader who would weigh those potential consequences very seriously.
August 1, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of talk above that basically boils down to the fact that the Middle East, and Pakistan in particular, involves a complex balancing of interests. At least Obama's speech evidences a recognition of that complexity, which is certainly light ages beyond anything coming out of the Executive Branch (or even Dick Cheney's office) these days.
August 1, 2007 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you identify the experience that she has a lot more of?
The "more experience" theme has really settled into the discussion, and I've not been convinced, yet, that Senator Clinton is the vastly more experienced individual in this bunch (Clinton, Edwards, Obama) of candidates. Bill Richardson? Yes. He's got experience. Senator Clinton?
August 1, 2007 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me that we have been able to trace terrorist training directly to this region. Obama is also referring to intelligence in 2005 about a meeting of terrorist leaders but Musharraf said "no" and we did nada.
Musharraf is a dictator who made a "deal" with the tribal leaders. The insurgency of the Taliban in Afghanistan is directly traced to this region. And, don't forget, the terrorist attempts in Britain come from folks who have recently "traveled to Pakistan".
America's goal should have always been to root out these training camps--no matter where they are. Musharraf is in trouble, anyway; his apparent "truce" with the tribal regions is not holding and moderates are ticked that he's trying to subvert their constitution.
You're stretching this lack of judgment charge. What really lacks judgment is not dealing with known terrorist training areas; we didn't deal with those in the past and we got 09/11. Are we slow learners in this country?
August 1, 2007 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary could certainly come up with a release with "naive" in it.
I think successful air strikes in the mountains of pakistan seem like wishful thinking
August 1, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell Heckuva Job Brownie was on the Daily Show and that doesn't make him an expert in emergency management either.
August 1, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary instead has been saber rattling about Iran right along with Bush and Cheney hasn't she? Even though Pakistan is where Al-Q is.
Obama may have underestimated Hillary...she is not BushCheney lite, but BushCheney on steroids.
She is not focused on Al-Q who attacked us, no more so than Bush was, she has another agenda when it comes to America's national security and it does not appear to be what's in the best interest for America.
Obama is highlighting clear differences. I hope Americans are paying attention.
August 1, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
??
You're snarking, right?
August 1, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Have you noticed that the ratings are used most frequently as weapons in Obama related threads? It's unfortunate because the Obama threads also have the best and most heated discussions. But you don't see the troll rating thrown around in many other topics.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
August 1, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
August 1, 2007 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was responding to Hillary the Lib mopper.
August 1, 2007 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Careful, party-of-one, I think this phrase has been copyrighted by one of the campaigns....You must reference the very first politican who said it whenever you use it!!@#!
August 1, 2007 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's experience:
1) Most trusted adviser to Bill Clinton.
2) Extensive travel and behind the scenes diplomacy in role as First Lady.
3) White House hostess to many world leaders, diplomats, and important figures.
4) Senate Armed Services Committee
You write:
"The President of the United States has an instant network of relationships to quickly an effectively tap into based on the power and prestige of the office."
Not really. Relationships don't develop instantaneously, they need experience, time, analysis, and judgment.
August 1, 2007 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Not a single mention of "we fight them there so we can fight them here AND there".....
August 1, 2007 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I think the condition vs. Pakistan might not be so in your face as you suggest. Saying you will go into the tribal areas in Pakistan if Musharraf refuses to actually gives Musharaff cover to say, "either deal with me or deal with the U.S." The point is not the Musharaf is aiding AQ, but that he does not have the political capital to go after them. As for Iran, not talking to them has gotten us nowhere and in fact it has been reported that including them in the Axis of Evil actually made it easier for hardliners to get elected the Iranian hardliners and the neo-cons have a symbiotic relationship. The hard-line rhetoric out of Tehran is as uncouth and irksome to Iranian moderates as Bush's saber rattling is to moderates in this country. Talking to the hardliners gives cover to Iranian moderates because it takes away the threat that the U.S. is about to invade Iran which is used to quiet dissent there. In fact before the Axis of Evil speech Iran was one of the largest contributors to U.S. reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. I think the message is that the current FP is working really really poorly and a big change is needed.
August 1, 2007 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was George Washington at the signing of the declaration of independence. John Hancock complained that there was "no room for him to sign" and Washington said "Time to turn the page."
This has long baffled historians, due to the declaration being written on a scroll.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
August 1, 2007 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct. In 2005, we did have actionable intelligence regarding a terrorist meeting and Musharaff refused "permission" for a bombing run. Since then we've seen the resurgence of the Taliban--and a heck of a lot of Brits involved in the bombing and bombing attempts who "recently traveled to Pakistan" (and I doubt they were meeting with Musharaff).
America simply cannot have Musharaff hold our security hostage. That's not acceptable and it's dangerous for us.
August 1, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please see reply above.
August 1, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah really so what? Al Qaeda's also called for Bush's overthrow. That's not gonna turn me into a raving Republican.
Propping up tinpot dictators is a big part of our image problem anyway.
August 1, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good point that Musharaf could turn something like this into his advantage or at least, as you say, use it for political cover.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
August 1, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the context of Bush, this is an impressive speech. It doesn't move far away from basic neocon spin for my taste, however. Unlike Edwards, Obama does not question the "war on terror" formulation that has served so well as a cover for innumerable US criminal activity abroad and at home. He just wants to reform it. To my mind, Edwards is right to reject the whole concept of a war that can never be won.
Under the rhetoric I still see too much arrogance about America's role in the world and its right to impose its "values" on everybody else. I'd have liked to see some serious questioning about those alleged values as well.
Still, having an Obama administration would be like being rescued from drowning just as you're letting out your last breath. I want more basic change than Obama does, so he's still not my first primary choice, but I could gladly support him in the general election. And I do get a purely instinctive sense that, just maybe, he could grow into a history-changing president of FDR proportions
August 1, 2007 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
One particular passage in todays speech is troubling, as reported by MSNBC:
“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
Tough talk, but clearly this is not good diplomacy. This is meant for the consumption of US voters - i.e., pandering.
August 1, 2007 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama Steals Bidens Al Qaeda Afganistan/Pakistan Plan
The Biden for President Campaign today congratulated Sen. Barack Obama for arriving at a number of Sen. Biden's long-held views on combating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Much of what Senator Obama has proposed Senator Biden has already initiated or accomplished.
As part of the 9/11 bill that passed Congress last week, Senator Biden and Representative Lantos wrote the law that conditions aid to Pakistan on its cooperation with the United States in combating Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Before writing the law, Biden wrote to President Musharraf and Secretary Rice making clear his intent to do so.
Starting in January, Senator Biden has repeatedly called for surging more forces out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.
At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on January 30th, 2007, Sen. Biden discussed the need for a surge in Afghanistan at Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing.
At this same hearing, Sen. Obama asked two questions - he did not address Afghanistan or Al Qaeda or Taliban. The first was on the topic of Iran; the second was on an issue that he admitted "seems somewhat parochial, but I think, as you'll see, is of concern across the world." Obama discussed the "stunning level of mercury in fish" and asked about a proposal for the U.S. adopt a ban on mercury sales abroad?
http://www.joebiden.com/home
August 1, 2007 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kucinich has never opposed all military force. I don't understand why you'd compromise your credibility with stuff like this.
August 1, 2007 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden supported the misadventure in Iraq and voted for the War Resolution in 2002 so his credibility is a bit "iffy" as far as I'm concerned. Biden has enough of a resume to cough up good ideas--too bad for him if someone else (Obama) digests them and then spits them back out in a speech.
Are IDEAS now becoming the exclusive "territory" of each politician in this country? That seems a ludicrous "idea". :)
August 1, 2007 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This speech is strong because it addresses American foreign policy on at least four distinct levels: the military, the civil (economic aid, educational reform, etc.), diplomatic, and - more importantly than we would tend to think - the symbolic. Obama and his team obviously have a nuanced view of how to represent America and protect its interests in the world; no solution is entirely military, no political solution can be sustained without economic and social reinforcement, and, importantly, no American-backed solution will be successful without those American helicopters calling forth positive associations in those above whom they fly, wherever they are in the world. True, most of this stuff comes down to judgment, on-the-spot thinking, and trustworthy advice, but this speech shows, if nothing else, that when those critical moments come, the Obama team will take a thoughtful, comprehensive, multilateral, and multi-layered approach.
August 1, 2007 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also too bad that Biden would not get 1/10th the attention Obama gets for giving such a speech. (I am not a Biden backer--just commenting on the disparity in political coverage).
I have to say I'm a little dismayed by the cries of so-and-so stole so-and-so's ideas that have started to crop up from various corners. Isn't it plausible that all plans might share some similarities here and there? The people who make them probably draw on the same information, talk to the same people, have the same background, etc. I'm not surprised there may be similarities.
August 1, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will be Bill's thoughtful analysis along with Albrights ideas thrown in perhaps.
I doubt seriously that it will be HRC's.
Recall, she has been a US Senator for over 6 years and she has never once spoke out on Foreign Policy to give a new focus. What she did was support Bush and even say we should 'stay the course' she refuses to work with Feingold and Obama, right now..when it comes to withdrawal deadlines and she is saber rattling about Iran. Hillary has said that Ameruca us safer and voted twice for the Patriot Act. If she had any vision on our Foreign Policy surely we could have expected her to have articulated it long ago to demonstate leadership on an issue of huge importance to America and the direction we are headed in. This is a person who had no exit strategy for a war she voted for after refusing to read the NIE report. Nope. Whatever analysis she vocalizes on this issue will not be based on her judgment or global views rather she will simply be the parrot for it.
Hillary is a follower she does not have the incisive intellect and visionary strength it will take to lead this country.
Her experience is a media creation based on 30second sound bites not real substance.
August 1, 2007 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama has done the nation and the Democratic primary a service by focusing on the major, underdiscussed issue of Pakistan and beginning a substantive debate. Hillary would do well to replace the hollow rhetoric with some real analysis and ideas.
August 1, 2007 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
But pussiant, Hillary was a real trooper for Bill and now it's her turn. Didn't you get the memo?
August 1, 2007 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am surprised at the hawkishness of those who support Obama's prescriptions. I wonder whether they would have the same reaction had Clinton given this speech. I would caution anyone who thinks that a US excursion into Waziristan will have no serious consequences to think again. Pakistan is not Iraq: it has a very well trained army, a serious secret service (ISA which helped spawn the Taliban), the bomb and they are a pretty tough lot when it comes to ground fighting. Frankly I am disappointed at the content of this speech because it asserts a projection of US power that will be insupportable in the long run. Russia and China will be the only beneficiaries.
August 1, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
One, two and three are not experience, they're spousal relations and socializing.
What has she done on the Senate Armed Committee that translates into experience?
The President of the USA has global relationships based on the power and prestige of the office.
August 1, 2007 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
great speech. i like how he fires one at bush, one at hillary, and one at giuliani, returns to the 'kid watching the helicopter' motif, and calls back and old favorite, the US constitution:
our purpose to forge an ever more perfect union at home.
and mentioning illegal wiretapping, surveillance of "citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war" (got that, hil?) and saudi funding of madrassas is refreshing, though it shouldn't be.
August 1, 2007 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
(not a response to this post as much as the trend of comments above) Musharaf made a truce with the tribal areas because he had to, not because he wanted to. So Obama's position depends, in large part, on what he means by "actionable intelligence." Actionable intelligence depends on how good our intelligence is. If the intelligence is good, presumably the action will be effective, if the action is effective and they come out with bin Laden then Musharaf is off the hook. If the tribal leaders know that the U.S. can operate in their territories with impunity they will have to come to the table and deal with the Pakistani government. If AQ knows that they are not safe in Pakistan they will go elsewhere (like, ironically, Iraq). The point is this: in this election, action on terror is a sine qua non. No candidate can make a case for doing nothing and expect to win the election. The question then becomes what kind of action? The skepticism is healthy, why do in Afghanistan what didn't work in Iraq? It's a good question. I see a difference but better minds than mine could probably explain it better than I could. But attempts by some comments to elide Obama's statements on diplomatic preconditions, geopolitical conditions, meeting logistics, and tactical military conditions into a single monolithic indiscernible category called "condition" is a waste of time. If you think these things mean the same thing (or even if you worry that other people might), then you are right he is inconsistent. But who sincerely thinks that they are the same thing? Or that Obama changed his mind about all this over the course of a week? You can talk campaign tactics and say he should be clearer. Fine. But to say he is lying strains credulity. The fact is that what he has laid out here is a hard-nosed but humane and balanced policy here. It will be hard for his rivals to make the Obambi or the Obomba labels stick. More than pushing Clinton and Edwards he is systematically exploding the easy dichotomies (religion, merit pay, and now military intervention) that both parties have relied on for 10+ years. And then he steps in to fill the void.
August 1, 2007 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
From dictionary.com:
1. a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something: My encounter with the bear in the woods was a frightening experience.
2. the process or fact of personally observing, encountering, or undergoing something: business experience.
3. the observing, encountering, or undergoing of things generally as they occur in the course of time: to learn from experience; the range of human experience.
4. knowledge or practical wisdom gained from what one has observed, encountered, or undergone: a man of experience.
5. Philosophy. the totality of the cognitions given by perception; all that is perceived, understood, and remembered.
6. to have experience of; meet with; undergo; feel: to experience nausea.
7. to learn by experience.
Once you understand what experience is, then maybe you might understand how relationships are formed.
August 1, 2007 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
biden's calling out someone for plagiarizing his ideas! the word 'irony' is indsufficient.
at least obama didn't "steal" his idea of supporting the biggest foreign policy disaster in a generation.
August 1, 2007 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he was being witty based on the large scrawl of Hancock, given it was on a scroll Washington was noting how big he wrote and this was a great quip, I bet at the time, as many of those signing felt the same way.i.e. we need another page now that John is done signing
After all, the phrase 'give me your John Hancock' has survived the ages as well when it comes to signing contracts.
August 1, 2007 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
No wonder Big Bill scrambled his ass to intercede this weekend to stanch the flow
This is what I like to see. More asses and elbows
Hillary was a bit too quick on the trigger. Major boner
August 1, 2007 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey I am a big Obama supporter, but I don't think he can win the experience thing with Hillary. She just has more. Just as she will have a hard time making the case that she is more of a change agent than he is. The debate will be about which matters more. Up until this speech I think it was always I am willing to take my chances on FP with Obama, but now I think he is making the argument that a change in FP isn't just a good idea, it is critically necessary. Plus he got it out first, no accusations that he is copying Hillary on this or that Axelrod wrote the same thing for Edwards 4 years ago. Experience was going to keep us safe, now Obama is arguing that it may be a liability. Remember he is the only major player now on either side who was not on the national scene in 2001. The story about driving to the state senate only underscores that point. So while Hillary may be more experienced, strategically that might not be so good for the USA. THe more I think about it the better this speech gets.
August 1, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So when is Biden going to produce his text of what he said or even a speech? Seems to me if anything Biden lacks a track record of originality and prefers to copy others:
August 1, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are totally off the mark. First of all, if Hillary had given this speech, she would have used it as an opportunity to hit fellow Dems with right-wing talking points, instead of issuing a broad challenge across the board to take the longer, more difficult, but ultimately correct, road in US foreign affairs.
Policy-wise, it would have been a revelation for Hillary to so sharply separate herself from the pack by going right after Pakistan. That is not something I think we can expect from her, and the truth is that its absolutely vital, something has to be done about that region of the world. People who talk about what a benign dictator Musharraf is are sure missing a lot of context. A.Q. Khan, one of Musharraf's best buddies, the guy who spread nuclear technology around the globe like no one else in history, still lives there as a national hero, with Musharraf refusing all attempts to question or interview him. Some think Musharraf doesn't ever act irresponsibly? Ludicrous. It was a giant step for Obama to 1) actually call Pakistan what it is, a military dictatorship which seized power from an elected government in a coup, and 2) the strongest potential force in the known world today for destabilization.
August 1, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe. But I for one believe that Hillary has given some good speeches. Maybe I would hear sabre rattling from the mouth of Hillary in part because I have heard that from her before. The question here is whether this was a good speech for _Obama_ to make, given his persona and positions on other issues, and, while the verdict is still out, I think the answer might be "yes." Whether it would be a good speech for Hillary depends on where she stands on certain issues. Certainly I would give anyone props (no pun) for the helicopter image (as a picture the benevolent or malevolent state depending on the eye of the beholder). Had she given the speech first there really would be a lot less room for Obama to make his own distinct position--for once he got way out ahead of her on an issue at precisely the time when people are looking at both of them and trying to discern how different they really are. Maybe Hillary is not playing chess by herself after all. Also it is an interesting turn in the debate between Obamaites and Hillary people that the arguments are not about the speech being bad objectively, but that support for the speech is uncritical that people's dissatisfaction with Hillary is unfair.
August 1, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting comment. This might be an explanation/rationale for why he did not use the war on terror label. Maybe he agrees with edwards on that point more than he has publicly admitted. Not sure how many supporters you will get if you frame the whole question of development in the terror lens. It might be better to frame terror through the development lens. The mess in West Africa comes to mind on this point. Good post.
August 1, 2007 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden really wants the FP mantel. And in many respects he deserves it, but Obama is not running against Biden (yet I suppose) as much as Hillary and Edwards. If anything Biden (who wants the FP mantel) just ratified Obama's plan.
August 1, 2007 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey I was starting to notice that too. I get a lot more fives than I probably deserve and I couldn't figure out why. For what it's worth, I think even those comments that rankle ought to be seen--a well-considered rebuttal works in the long run much better than a number.
August 1, 2007 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This part of the speech is indeed an accurate description of Bush's current diplomacy. It is not new criticism of Bush - Kerry said the same thing in 2004, albeit in clumsier language. Nothing the Dem candidates are proposing carries on the policies Obama speaks about here. If anyone thinks they do, please include quotations and educate me. Don't throw out some 'Bush-lite' label with no supporting evidence.
August 1, 2007 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't mistake being against the completely stupid Iraq War as being completely "anti-war". I'm not. But I want more targeted actions where these terrorists hide themselves. Everything I've read for months now indicates a growing threat within these ungoverned tribal areas.
You're also inflating the Paki military; remember there was an agreement with the tribal leaders in this area mainly because the Paki military was spewing blood all over the ground.
I also think there is a very real possibility that the truce is over. Musharaff certainly made that Red Mosque standoff a real issue; and I've also read that personal attacks against him have gone up and he credits those attacks to Islamic extremists. And where are these folks? In that "ungoverned" region where terrorists have found yet another safe haven.
Also remember that the foiled Brit plots involved folks who had "recently traveled to Pakistan". I doubt they met up with pacifists.
August 1, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's gotten to the point where if you want a bunch of 5s, just write something nice about Obama. If you criticize him, you'll get a bunch of 2s and even 0 ratings. The 0 ratings are a problem because I believe if a post remains at 0 for two long, it gets removed. It's part of the spam fighting system.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
August 1, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe.
I rank articulate, humorous and insightful posts as 5s, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. E.g., I happen to love Terry's posts, because they are incredibly articulate. I don't necessarily share his (hers?) opinion, though.
Posts that I find inarticulate or with too many exclamation points (OMG!!!) or insults like "welcome to our planet", I rank as unproductive, simply because it's faster than trying to craft a response to something that I feel is just plain lunacy.
August 1, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't we give 48 hours or something for Saddam to leave so we wouldn't have to invade?
August 1, 2007 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
hrmph! trooper my....
lol
thanks for the laugh
August 1, 2007 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of what? Specifics please.
Haven't you heard? Biden (mr. plagiarism himself) is claiming these are his ideas.
August 1, 2007 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at Google News. Hundreds of newspapers are saying some version of:
"Barack Obama said that he would send troops into Pakistan even without local permission"
I'll bet he comes out with some "clarification" soon.
August 1, 2007 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait to see how Bill responds...oops that would be Hillary...who in their right mind believes she has anywhere this type of analysis of global affairs...Bill does and he will do it for her.
Do you have to be an ass? On what are you basing these assumptions?
August 1, 2007 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those last two points are excellent observations. I think that Obama has succeeded in changing the terms of debate (on this discussion board at least).
August 1, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet he blames it on his staff again, too!
August 1, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
deleted dupe
August 1, 2007 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So then, where's the part where someone is calling for unilateral bombing in Pakistan?
August 1, 2007 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you believe that there are still some people out there who don't believe that Obama is the president? I hope you don't withold your genius from your friends and family, reserving it only for off-the-cuff internet postings.
August 1, 2007 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why people object to using the rating system. It's a free market of ideas and if I disagree with your ideas, I'm free to vote against them. If other people agree with them, they can vote for them.
As for the Troll rating, I'm all for intelligent informed good faith discussion, but when Hillary's campaign volunteers show up and spam multiple blogs with exactly the same postings (compare the Ben Smith comment section on Obama's speech with this one and you'll see what I'm talking about), I make no apologies for giving them a Troll rating. Even so, if someone makes an insightful point, but one that I disagree with, I'm happy to give them a 5. Most of the campaign spam though, is pretty obvious in the way that it distorts, misrepresents, and generally seeks to confuse the issue.
So upgrade, downgrade, rate the posts, however, you want. I think it's foolish to whine about how others rate comments though when have so many other interesting things to discuss.
August 1, 2007 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
1): I've never seen any indication that she was his "most trusted advisor". Bob Rubin, yes; Harold Ickes, yes; Dick Morris (!?) yes; Hillary, no.
2) & 3): So, I guess Laura Bush is now qualified to be President.
4) I'll give you.
So, the bulk of your argument is that she played a minor role in a mediocre presidency. Doesn't really do it for me, sorry.
August 1, 2007 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh cool, I thought so, but it looked kinda like you were responding to me and I didn't get why, lol, I agree with ya ;D
August 1, 2007 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always liked Obama, and after this speech I like him even more. I like Clinton as well. I would be proud to support any of the leading Democratic candidates in the election. My support for Clinton in the primaries is based solely on the fact that she is most likely to get elected. That is much much more important to me than the minor differences between the Democratic candidates.
Obama will have a problem getting elected because he will be swift-boated. It will be much worse than Kerry/2004, and will come from many directions at once, because the right wingers see that it works and they will put much more resources into it. Hillary Clinton has been faced with such personal vilification for many years now and she comes out on top. IMHO is is unlikely that Obama will fare as well.
August 1, 2007 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I say all this as "nominal Obama supporter" (meaning, he's atop a fluid ranking in my mind... followed closely by a fading Edwards, with Dodd and Richardson in the next tier... and HRC actually showing some recent signs of life on my radar.... for whatever my lonely vote and opinion is worth) -
This speech disappoints me.
If Senator Obama is truly aiming to change the tone, if he truly is looking to be a difference maker and turning point in American government - tossing red meat to the rabid right assailing him as weak is NOT the path to the promised land.
Look. I'm awfully sorry we live in a nation where -- the gall! you'd TALK to Syria? to Iran? to North Korea? what weakness and naivite -- supplants an honest discussion about exactly why, yes - there's merit in that idea.
If Senator Obama's answer to that sorry situation is tossing red meat in the direction of the hotheads, then he's given up.
A speech with these trappings and this hype has all the foundations of a 'doctrine'.
...and apparently, that doctrine bears a lot of resemblance to the current doctrine. Do I trust an Obama administration to honestly vet evidence rather than twist it to support a pre-conceived foreign policy goal? Certainly... but this speech is still an implicit endorsement of big chunks of the Bush doctrine, which even setting aside the corruption and the deception, is still wrong.
There's a process in nation for making war on another country. If the evidence can be presented that there is need to invade or bomb Pakistan, we have a process that makes it happen. It is NOT the President deciding what "we" will do.
We've lost sight of exactly WHAT FDR's famous 'Day of Infamy' speech truly was - it was more than just flowery rhetoric to rally a shocked nation, it really and truly was a request to congress to declare war on another nation. I don't care that the declaration was a foregone conclusion (let's not forget -- there was also one nay vote! A Republican, in fact) - it's the way our nation wages war. Or at least, the way it should wage war. It's also important to remember that the declaration was for solely against Japan - regardless of the inevitably of also being at war with Germany - it was actually Germany that declared war on the US four days later. I love FDR as much as the next liberal -- but let's admit that FDR had a bit of a habit for Presidential power grabbing himself. If HE could direct his nation to war the RIGHT way, why haven't we been able to do so since (and yes, I'm talking to you, ghosts of Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ, -- and of course, Dubya)?
Absolutely, it's a two way street. Congress needs to start doing its job again, too. No more of these wishy washy, I don't want to seem weak 'appropriate measures' blank checks.
If a President Obama wants to conduct a military operation against a foreign nation, then I expect a President Obama to deliver to congress a request for EXPLICITLY what he wants and I expect congress to EXPLICITLY craft a bill that delivers EXPLICITLY what President Obama is empowered to do.
I think it's high time our Republic abandoned this pass-the-buck, ad hoc foreign policy that relies FAR too much on one man or woman charting our course.
August 1, 2007 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a dessert topping, either. What's your point?
August 1, 2007 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, but I thought this was a really wonderful, clear part that deserved praise especially, in terms of taking on a lot of complaints we've seen here and elsewhere.
August 1, 2007 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Plowboy.
My post, detailing the response of a Presidential candidate to another Presidential candidate's foreign policy speech, seems quite relevant, even if you may not agree with the response itself.
Why, then, would you rate it a 0?
August 1, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have no idea whether or not somebody is associated with Clinton's campaign. And I don't read the Politico discussion boards so I don't care if people have posted similar things there.
Fact is, when you use the Troll rating you subject comments to potential deletion from the site. It's meant for spam or really obscene stuff. If you want to give people "1s" fine. But I'd save the zeroes.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
August 1, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's interesting. Most people believe that Hillary is politically tone deaf (although her husband certainly isn't). If you look at the way that she tried to whack Obama in the CNN debate and ended up pleading "no mas" as soon as he started counterpunching, I think it gives the lie to the notion that Hillary is more effective in a street fight or that Obama can't defend himself.
August 1, 2007 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What we are witnessing is Obama's ability to put together a coherent vision and comprehensive policy based on disparate ideas. That is what he excells at.
Recall, he was the one who molded consensus in the Senate that his colleagues were willing to agree to. They all had ideas about withdrawal dates but it was Obama who took those dates and melding them into concrete dates sufficient to get a consensus.
These politicians are envious. They are witnessing a phenom and can not handle it.
August 1, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because you didn't detail it, you spammed us with Biden's press release verbatim, and because it's a very silly press release.
Including the incredibly silly notion that if Joe Biden says he's for sending more troops to Afghanistan then no other Democrat can say that he's for sending more troops to Afghanistan.
August 1, 2007 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The War Powers Act does authorize Presidential intervention of this nature--I think for a 60 day period. I'm not sure about ground troops but I think bombing raids and special ops raids are included in the 60 days. This is done without a vote or debate in Congress but I think the Congressional leaders of security-cleared committees are given a "heads up".
Bill had this authorization when he sent a bomb into what everyone thought was a bin Laden meeting. Same with the Balkans. Bush needed a "resolution" because he planned an extended committment of American forces--too darned bad that Congress gave it to him.
If you want this, contact your Congressional representatives and tell them so.
August 1, 2007 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Barack Obama said that he would send troops into Pakistan even without local permission"
I'm not seeing anything in Google News as shrill as what you've posted.
August 1, 2007 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the first debate on April 26th. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what seems to be a pretty straightforward anti-war declaration, one which, incidentally I respect, but there are a lot more polite ways for you to go about asking for clarifications without calling into question my credibility.
I understand that to mean that, as a matter of policy, he's opposed to the idea of war. Again, I respect that position, but I do not agree. If you understand that statement to mean something else, by all means, clarify for me. But please try to do so in a way that furthers discussion, rather than fans the flames of argument.
Debate transcript
August 1, 2007 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
zonk, you bring in some very good points about following correct process in dealing with potential war in the RIGHT way. So, I appreciate your contribution here.
The one thing I do not agree with is your interpretation of Obama's speech as 'throwing red meat'. Let's say that a known murderer has long eluded capture by the police department of a city, and that lack of attention happens to be due to the police focusing on, say, some ongoing riots over police brutality. If a man running for DA announces that he is going to bring in that criminal, why would you call that 'throwing red meat' instead of calling it a promise to 'take care of unfinished business'?
August 1, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that any comments disappear.
I think comments that purposefully distort what someone said deserve downrating b/c they lower the standards of discourse here.
It's fine to disagree with the substance of what Obama said. It's not fine to make up things that he did not say, like that we are going to invade Pakistan or overthrow Musharraf.
August 1, 2007 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
He might want the FP mantle but Obama who serves on the Foreign Relations committee knows his stuff. In the free marketplace of ideas, Obama was the only one who was speaking about tribalism in 2002.
Guess who is on Hardball talking about tribalism, right now? Biden
Now Obama noted those relationships in his interview in 2002....Biden is now saying precisely what Obama said then.
So, if I have to choose between who is copying who...I pick Biden.
August 1, 2007 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That whole enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend thinking can get you into a lot of trouble.
We should expect substantive results out of Musharraf for the billions we are giving him in military aid.
August 1, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if the Pakistani security apparatus did take over, I don't know that the situation would change all that much. They are highly factional, and they also aren't going to take on the U.S. and risk losing billions in military aid or having us side more firmly with India.
August 1, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fallows has long been one of the most perceptive commentators around, but the piece on terrorism last September was one of his best. For those who don't subscribe, I posted lengthy excerpts here; there's also a link to the full article, for subscribers only (I think).
August 1, 2007 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Serious question: has everyone who's dismissing this speech as overly hawkish read the entire thing?
I find it hard to believe that one could read it in its entirety and come away thinking this is some sort of sabre-rattling/chest-pounding red-meat fest.
I mean, really?
I don't know how to read that as anything but a vigorous endorsement of diplomacy and humanitarian pursuits.
August 1, 2007 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
How ironic - Obama's plow boy - always trying plow other's posts under ...
August 1, 2007 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, they just posted the same press release on the front page. Go tell them they're silly, too!
;)
August 1, 2007 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plowboy, according to your reply you might wish to give the rating of 2 or 3, to follow the TPMCafe rating guidelines. NOT a 1 and certainly not a 0. Here is the relevent guideline:
"Readers trying to participate in discussions in good faith should never be given ratings of 1s or 0s. Those ratings are reserved for clearly inappropriate behavior or content -- obscene or offensive language, ethnic slurs, spam, disruptive behavior, extreme ad hominem attacks. This isn't an exhaustive list. But the key point is that you do not give a 1 or 0 to someone's comment just because you think their comment is stupid or because you strongly disagree."
August 1, 2007 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you say that? The AP release FIRST SENTENCE started with these exact words: "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission" and that was picked up by many papers.
Some were much worse, for instance The Guardian: Barack Obama warned Pakistan Wednesday that he would use military force ....
I see very few newspapers that are LESS inflammatory. Of course thay all go on to flesh out the drastic impression the first sentence provides.
August 1, 2007 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're focusing on the fact that I think that the press release is silly and ignoring the fact that he reprinted a press release verbatim as his own thoughts. The same poster is posting identical posts on Ben Smith's blog.
He clearly has little interest in participating in good faith in this discussion. That's my opinion and it's why I gave him the rating that I did.
If you disagree, don't whine. Just go rate him yourself.
August 1, 2007 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm lookin on google news, and not seein what you're seein
google news search
Maybe you're just seeing what you want to see.
The first 10 hits are:
Obama Talks Tough On Foreign Policy
US Democrat Obama talks tough on Pakistan
Obama 'would strike' in Pakistan
Obama vows to hunt down terrorists
Obama Vows To Hunt Down Terrorists
Obama says he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists
Obama Vows to Hunt Down Terrorists
Obama's comments bring criticism
Obama talks tough on Pakistan to show foreign policy strength
Analysis: Obama talks tough on terror
Those are good headlines for him.
August 1, 2007 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is right on every single point. Any comments I've read that disagree with him wildly misunderstand what the speech says.
August 1, 2007 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
JCsylan, it is not clear to me what you are saying here, could you help me out? I think you are making a great point but I am not certain what you are saying in terms of how the debate shifted.
August 1, 2007 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a reckless distortion of Obama's position. He's not talking about an imminent invasion. He's saying that if we have actionable intelligence, we give Musharraf the first chance to do something about it, and if he does not act, we will take out the terrorist camp -- not that we will occupy the country.
August 1, 2007 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
I didn't use a "bush-lite label". You did
But now that you mentioned it, Hillary's a Bush-enabling, Beltway triangulated, card-carrying member of the democratic wing of the War Party.
Like I said..."asses and elbows" time baby
August 1, 2007 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those that need a reminder of what was said by Senator Clinton a few months ago…
“I would begin diplomatic discussions with those countries with whom we have differences, to try to figure out what is the depth of those differences. I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people. You don’t make peace with your friends — you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don’t agree with.”
Senator Hillary Clinton, quoted by CBS News on April 22, 2007, criticizing President Bush’s refusal to meet with “supposed enemies” of the United States.
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_112220939.html
August 1, 2007 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Obama now. Everything he said I agree with and have been thinking in the same lines.
He would be a great president for America and would be great for world peace and harmony.
August 1, 2007 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those that need a reminder of what was said by Senator Clinton a few months ago…
“I would begin diplomatic discussions with those countries with whom we have differences, to try to figure out what is the depth of those differences. I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people. You don’t make peace with your friends — you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don’t agree with.”
Senator Hillary Clinton, quoted by CBS News on April 22, 2007, criticizing President Bush’s refusal to meet with “supposed enemies” of the United States.
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_112220939.html
August 1, 2007 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
They need to be deleted as they simply encourage more posters to come to the site with the same troll like spamming of campaign rhetoric. That is why one ratings are not fine.
Zeros are also for an invasion of posters who lower the discourse and distort intentionally with the use of inflammatory rhetoric.
You know they are from the campaign as they primarily repeat endlessly the campaign talking points in post after post.
August 2, 2007 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lest anyone think these positions were created just for the campaign, I heard Obama say essentially the same things at a local Illinois appearance long before his candidacy was even a rumor. With all due respect to the other candidates, I think Obama is the smartest, most insightful, and most thoughtful of them all. And I still think that, as President, he would be an electrifying presence around the world--with anyone else it will take 10-20 years to repair our relationships with the international community--I think Obama could do it in one term.
August 2, 2007 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also noticed a real first. Obama is pretty much the first person in the government to mention the falling people at the WTC. From what I know alot of people don't believe or want to think about it and added that all the WTC footage has whited out all falling people, it's easy to deny it happening.
Pretty gutsy bringing up such a taboo subject!
Obama says
August 2, 2007 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen! All of the focus on the possibility that we might actually (oh, the horror!) undertake a targeted military action into Pakistan IF we had actionable intel regarding Al Quaida and IF Pakistan nonetheless denied us permission to act, and relatively little discussion of the fact that Obama is speaking about a truly comprehensive approach to these issues.
August 2, 2007 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
A losing battle!
August 2, 2007 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
A good speech in the Kennedy mode -- good writing, inspiring to a new generation, subtly placing Hillary and others in the old. A lot of proposals that are not necessarily doable but provide an indication of what he thinks we should be as a nation in this century. He'll be a good vice president.
August 2, 2007 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink