« Fourth Poll This Week Shows Obama With Solid National Lead | Home | New Vets For Freedom Ad Insists The Surge Has Worked »

Obama: It's Time For A Real Offensive Against Terrorism

With polls showing that John McCain holds a big lead on foreign policy readiness, and with McCain constantly arguing that Obama would surrender in the war on terror, one of Obama's chief political challenges is to drive home the message that his national security policies constitute going on offense against global dangers.

Today Obama is trying to do just that, convening a "21st Century Threats" summit in Indiana with potential running mates Evan Bayh and Sam Nunn, as well as a bunch of foreign policy experts. Obama's speech -- part of his ongoing national security tour leading up to his visit abroad next week -- is underway.

According to Obama's prepared remarks, he'll make the case today that pulling out of Iraq and refocusing our resources in a wholly new way constitutes a real offensive against terrorism.

"It's time to update our national security strategy to stay one step ahead of the terrorists -- to see clearly the emerging threats of our young century, and to take action to make the American people more safe and secure," Obama will say. "Today, we will focus on nuclear, biological, and cyber threats -- three 21st century threats that have been neglected for the last eight years."

Obama will argue that we need to do more to secure the 50 tons of highly enriched uranium that's poorly secured around the world, and will also argue that we need to make eliminating all nukes a central policy goal. He'll also argue for the development of new technology to deal with bio-terror.

It's worth noting once again that Obama is staking his candidacy on the rather audacious belief that he can change, through persuasion, the way national security is discussed in this country -- that Dems don't have to cede this turf to the GOP.

Full prepared remarks after the jump.

Late Update: Steve Benen adds some choice thoughts, and much more context.

It's great to be back in Indiana with such a terrific group of experts. In a few moments, we'll open this up to a discussion, but first I'll make a few comments about some of the emerging threats that we face in the 21st century, and offer some ideas about how we can face those threats.

Throughout our history, America has confronted constantly evolving danger. From the oppression of an empire to the lawlessness of the frontier; from the bombs that fell on Pearl Harbor to the threat of nuclear annihilation - Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.

For most of our history, the most significant danger to our security came from states. The physical safety of our people was protected by oceans. The national security of the United States was buttressed by our economic strength, and a powerful military that answered every call. Today, the dangers extend beyond states alone to transnational security threats that respect no borders. These are threats that can arise from any part of the globe and spread anywhere, including to our own shores - dangers like pandemic disease, nuclear weapons proliferation, environmental degradation, international criminal networks, and terrorism. Of course, we have long struggled against terrorism, and in the closing decades of the 20th century, we tragically lost American lives on our soil and abroad. But it was hard to change a mindset that saw the extremism, the resentment, the terrorist training camps, and the killers as distant threats in the dark corners of the world, far away from the American homeland.

Then, one Tuesday morning in 2001, everything changed. I remember hearing the news on my car radio in downtown in Chicago: 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. We feared for our families and our country. We mourned the terrible loss suffered by our fellow citizens in those two office towers, at the Pentagon, and in a simple field in Pennsylvania. Back at my 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 the size of oceans or solely by our military power. In a globalized world, the power to destroy can lie with individuals - not just states. The terrorists use a world of globalization to travel freely, to transfer money, to use telecommunications to carry out their plots. On 9/11, they used our open society to kill on a terrible scale, but even more terrifying was the thought that they could get their hands on the world's most deadly technology.

Since then, we have taken many steps to strengthen our defense. Some of the most visible address the attacks - or failed attacks - that have already taken place. So after 9/11, airline security tightened and plastic knives replaced metal ones. After the so-called shoe bomber, we started having our shoes screened. After a plot detected in London to ignite dangerous liquids, we started to check our gels and shampoos.

The danger, though, is that we are constantly fighting the last war - responding to the threats that have come to fruition, instead of staying one step ahead of the threats of the 21st century. This is what the 9/11 Commission called our "failure of imagination." And, after 9/11, nowhere was this more apparent than in our invasion of Iraq. Instead of adjusting to the stateless threats of the 21st century, we invaded and occupied a state that had no collaborative relationship with al Qaeda. Instead of taking aggressive steps to secure the world's most dangerous technology, we have spent almost a trillion dollars to occupy a country in the heart of the Middle East that no longer had any weapons of mass destruction.

It's time to update our national security strategy to stay one step ahead of the terrorists - to see clearly the emerging threats of our young century, and to take action to make the American people more safe and secure. It's time to look ahead -- at the dangers of today and tomorrow rather than those of yesterday. America cannot afford another president who doesn't understand the threats that confront us now and in the future.

Today, we will focus on nuclear, biological, and cyber threats - three 21st century threats that have been neglected for the last eight years. It's time to break out of Washington's conventional thinking that has failed to keep pace with unconventional threats. In doing so, we'll better ensure the safety of the American people, while building our capacity to deal with other challenges - from public health to privacy.

It starts with the gravest danger we face - nuclear terrorism. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used concern over this threat to invade a country that had no nuclear weapons program. In the meantime, Pakistani scientist AQ Khan was spreading to hostile nations the technology to produce nuclear weapons and the warheads to deliver them. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn't diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction - in fact, it has only increased it.

We used to worry about our nuclear stalemate with the Soviet Union. Now, we worry about 50 tons of highly enriched uranium - some of it poorly secured - at civilian nuclear facilities in over forty countries around the world. Now, we worry about the breakdown of a non-proliferation framework that was designed for the bipolar world of the Cold War. Now, we worry - most of all - about a rogue state or nuclear scientist transferring the world's deadliest weapons to the world's most dangerous people: terrorists who won't think twice about killing themselves and hundreds of thousands in Tel Aviv or Moscow, in London or New York. And yet, despite initiatives that cost billions of taxpayer dollars, we still don't have an adequate strategy for detecting nuclear and biological materials, a problem that's being discussed at hearings in Congress today.

We cannot wait any longer to protect the American people. I've made this a priority in the Senate, where I've worked with Indiana's own Republican Senator Dick Lugar to pass a law accelerating our pursuit of loose nuclear materials. And I'll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world during my first term as President.

But we need to do much more. It's time to send a clear message to the world: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we'll make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy. We'll negotiate with Russia to achieve deep reductions in both our nuclear arsenals and we'll work with other nuclear powers to reduce global stockpiles dramatically. We'll seek a verifiable global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons. And we'll work with the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and then seek its earliest possible entry into force.

By keeping our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we'll be in a better position to rally international support to bring pressure to bear on nations like North Korea and Iran that violate it. Both of these nations have a history of support for terror. Both should face strong and increasing sanctions if they refuse to verifiably abandon their illicit nuclear programs. And both demand sustained, aggressive, and direct diplomatic attention from the United States, and that's what I'll provide as President.

Just as we must guard against the spread of nuclear terrorism, it's time for a comprehensive effort to tackle bio-terror. We have still failed to solve the anthrax attacks that killed Americans on our soil in 2001. We know that al Qaeda was attempting to develop biological weapons in Afghanistan. And we know that the successful deployment of a biological weapon - whether it is sprayed into our cities or spread through our food supply - could kill tens of thousands of Americans and deal a crushing blow to our economy.

As President, I will launch an effort across our government to stay ahead of this threat. To prevent bio-terrorism, we need to invest in our analysis, enhance our information-sharing, and give our intelligence agencies the capacity to identify and interdict dangerous bio-weapons around the world. To strengthen our efforts with friends and partners, I've proposed a Shared Security Partnership that invests $5 billion over 3 years to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks.

Just as we step up our ability to prevent an attack, we must also bolster our capacity to protect against - and respond to - the threats that may come. When it comes to bio-terror, this can mean the difference between a contained incident and a catastrophe. That's why we need to invest in new vaccines, to reduce the risk posed by those who would use disease as a weapon. That's why we must develop the technology to detect attacks and to trace them to their origin, so that we can react in a timely fashion. And to care for our citizens who are infected, we must provide our public health system across the country with the surge capacity to confront a crisis.

Making these changes will do more than help us tackle bioterror - it will create new jobs, support a healthier population, and improve America's capability to respond to any major disaster. And just as we'll find additional benefits to our action against bio-terror, we can - and must - strengthen our cyber defenses in the 21st century.

Every American depends - directly or indirectly - on our system of information networks. They are increasingly the backbone of our economy and our infrastructure; our national security and our personal well-being. But it's no secret that terrorists could use our computer networks to deal us a crippling blow. We know that cyber-espionage and common crime is already on the rise. And yet while countries like China have been quick to recognize this change, for the last eight years we have been dragging our feet.

As President, I'll make cyber security the top priority that it should be in the 21st century. I'll declare our cyber-infrastructure a strategic asset, and appoint a National Cyber Advisor who will report directly to me. We'll coordinate efforts across the federal government, implement a truly national cyber-security policy, and tighten standards to secure information - from the networks that power the federal government, to the networks that you use in your personal lives.

To protect our national security, I'll bring together government, industry, and academia to determine the best ways to guard the infrastructure that supports our power. Fortunately, right here at Purdue we have one of the country's leading cyber programs. We need to prevent terrorists or spies from hacking into our national security networks. We need to build the capacity to identify, isolate, and respond to any cyber-attack. And we need to develop new standards for the cyber security that protects our most important infrastructure - from electrical grids to sewage systems; from air traffic control to our markets.

All of this will demand the greatest resource that America has - our people. In the Cold War, we didn't defeat the Soviets just because of the strength of our arms - we also did it because at the dawn of the atomic age and the onset of the space race, the smartest scientists and most innovative workforce was here in America. For the last few months, I've talked about how America's economic competitiveness depends on education. The same holds true for our security. If we're not investing in math and science education, our nation will fall behind. And if we're not educating the best and brightest scientists, engineers, and computer programmers here in the United States, we won't be able to keep America safe.

That is the task that lies before us. We must never let down our guard, nor suffer another failure of imagination. It's time for sustained and aggressive action - to take the offense against new dangers abroad, while shoring up our defenses at home. As President, I will call on the excellence and expertise of men and women like the people here today. And I will speak clearly and candidly with the American people about what can be done - what must be done - to protect our country and our communities. Now, I'd like to turn to an open discussion.


72 Comments

| Leave a comment

Well, this is nice. I am glad to have back the candidate willing to take the fight to the GOP. It was a bit disquieting to watch him back off so many fights a week ago, but this the sort of thing that made me so enthusiastic for him in the primary. More, please.

Agreed. I think he was sidetracked with infrastructure building while McCain was controlling the narrative. Like back in September/October of last year when his poll numbers were in the 20-30% range but he was building a huge ground game. I think he's back to being on his game, much like this February. Hopefully this will pay off the way it did in the primaries...

striking the nail's head and hard! I agree with your comment.

user-pic

The polls show foreign policy is his "weakness," so what does he do? Address foreign policy right before a trip abroad. The gamble is betting that McCain will NEVER get a more secure footing on the economy, but that Obama has room to grow on foreign policy.

A gamble worth taking.

Since June 3, O'bama's been temporizing as he organized the GE campaign. With the WO!rld TO!ur, he's rolling it out

As much as I love my gay friends: Sam Nunn for VP!

I'm gay and I must say that choice is truly gross.

Yes, I'm aware that Nunn is gay America's collective disapproving father figure.

However, he's the perfect messenger for a sensible foreign policy based on diplomacy and anti-proliferation strategies, and I'm assuming he would only serve one term as VP (with a more seasoned Obama picking a proper heir in 2012).

He also voted for school prayer in schools. But I will agree he is a great on foreign policy/anti-nuke proliferation, etc. He was even nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. However, his social positions are a candidacy non-starter.

school prayer in schools. i'm retarded.

No to Nunn. He is the same age as McCain. Why cede the vigor and vitality comparison.

That sounds right to me. Gravitas is fine and all, but there is too much of a good thing and Nunn (whether or not a good thing) certainly answers to the description of "too much" in this regard. Vigor and vitality are two of our principle selling points in this race; why dilute their force?

Hit the nail. No Nunn. For all his positive, fundementally, if he cannot fathom the simple reality that all men and women have equal rights- he's a big no.

Anti gay old fart- smells a bit like McShameless.

As someone who is getting a master in IT focusing on security i say /woot for increasing cyber security jobs.

The anti-nuke proliferation talk is a winner... totally sold my dad, a rural farmer in WI, on Obama's candidacy in the primary.

user-pic

"The danger, though, is that we are constantly fighting the last war - responding to the threats that have come to fruition, instead of staying one step ahead of the threats of the 21st century. This is what the 9/11 Commission called our 'failure of imagination.'"
Your guy just stated (and validated) GWB's reason for the Iraq war! Bush looked at potential threats and set out to remove them (WMD getting into the hands of terrorists). Watch and see how quick Rush/Hannity/Coulter and the gang pick up on this and run with it.

user-pic

Such utter B.S. out of you is surprising.

Bush didn't look at a "potential threat". He relied on faulty intelligence that the pros had deep misgivings about to hype an unnecessary war.

user-pic

Sorry, that's y'alls take on it....I'm telling you (I'll do some research) that what Obama says in that part of the speech is almost exacttly what Bush said in one of his in the lead up to the war...(wrong or right as it turned out...watch all the pundits and see if they don't say the same).

I hate you for making me say this but: the news media isn't actually that dumb.

What you fail to realize is that there's a fundamental difference between:

a) what constitutes the threats of the 21st century
b) how to respond to those threats

But if conservatives want to again remind everyone of the fact that Hussein was a crippled dictator without a WMD program... go ahead.

My point is that Bush didn't try to stay one step ahead. He used 9/11 to finish off what his father started (and stopped appropriately). Those completely different than the point Obama is making.

But I digress, it's politics and given your side's weak hand, obfuscation and misleading attacks is all you've got left at this point. Fight on brave, but woefully misguided, solider!

Yikes! "That's completely...."

user-pic
Sorry, that's y'alls take on it

Er, um, no, it's not just CT Voter's take on it. Read the first third of Tom Ricks' book "Fiasco" (and accompanying footnotes of sources) and see if you can still claim, with a straight face, that Bush did not rely on faulty intelligence to start the Iraq war.

That ship has sailed.

Newsflash, Sadaam was the last war. Gulf War, ring a bell? Operation Desert Shield/Storm? No? Still drawing a blank? State sponsored terrorism . . . maybe that will jog your memory.

Eh, that's weak.

Two important points:

1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, which kind of kills your attempt at conflating the two views.

2) "Responding to threats" encompasses a lot more possibilities than "unilaterally invading and occupying a country."

But your comment does do a good job of demonstrating the sort of erroneously reductionist thinking that people like Sam Nunn, Colin Powell, and Barack Obama are wisely advocating against.

user-pic

"Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, which kind of kills your attempt at conflating the two views." It does the exact opposite, the invasion of Iraq was not a response to 9/11, it was a preemption of the future threat Saddam passing WMDs to terrorist posed.

how does pissing off 27 million Iraqis reduce the threat of terrorism ???

maybe you ain't been payin attention, but the Iraq occupation has INCREASED the threat of terrorism

it also empowered Iran, and drove the price of oil to $140 a barrel

all of that was easily foreseen by millions of people

and there were no real international terrorists in Iraq in 2002

so splain to me again how invading Iraq was supposed to reduce the threat of terrorism ???

Can one really speak meaningfully of "GWB's reason for the Iraq war" as if it were a single, coherent entity? Pres Bush did not have one reason for the war; he had a dozen or more, many mutually contradictory, which he would trot out as needed to respond to this or that question. Of course, this is really as much as to say that he had no reason, just a mess of excuses. Just as he was able to say that a booming economy necessitated a tax cut, but then turn on a dime and say that a faltering economy necessitated a tax cut, so too he was able to say that a crazed and aggressive Hussein necessitated a pre-emptive war but also an impotent and weary Hussein also necessitated an strike-while-the-iron-is-hot invasion. There is no possible way to take any position on the subject of national security without validating at least one of Pres Bush's supposed rationales because he articulated so many, logical consistency and empirical accuracy be hanged.

Well, SFCWallace's fundamental assumption is this:

if you say we must "respond to threats," then you agree with George W. Bush on Iraq. It's an abortion of reasoning that just about sums up the narrow-minded foreign policy vision of the outgoing duck.

user-pic

"if you say we must "respond to threats," then you agree with George W. Bush on Iraq."
Didn't say that at all. Pointing out that y'all keep saying "Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!" Which is true, however, that was never the reason for invading, the "threat" of Saddam passing WMDs to terrorists was...exacttly the kind of "staying one step ahead of the threats" Obama mentions.

You are so right. I wondered if I was the only one that noticed how Bush just kept trotting out completely different rationals for going to war with Iraq. It was like - "Okay, if you don't like that one, try this one on." If it wasn't so sick his actions could be a SNL spoof. And I haven't read a word about all this changing around in the MSM press.

user-pic

Well said.

I've just finished re-reading two State of the Union addresses in search of the similarity that SFC claims is there. Couldn't find it in either speech, but I was struck by how similar the references to WMD were in each speech.

The speeches are unintentionally funny, because they illuminate how little GWB has done beside invading Iraq. So very very little. What a joke he has been as president.

user-pic

Tragic joke I might ad. It's really, really sad. 8 wasted years, hundreds of billions wasted, hundreds of thousands dead. It really is a huge tragedy.

user-pic

Obama today: "What we saw that morning forced us to recognize that in a new world of threats, we are no longer protected by the size of oceans or solely by our military power."

Bush Oct 7, 2002: "The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger."

Obama today:"The danger, though, is that we are constantly fighting the last war - responding to the threats that have come to fruition, instead of staying one step ahead of the threats of the 21st century.This is what the 9/11 Commission called our 'failure of imagination."

Bush Oct 7, 2002:"On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America."

Interesting...

Yeeeah, except our guy gets it and Bush is an asshat who gave his Iraq-obsessed, primacy-asserting cronies the keys to the US war machine.

Might see different results from the two.

And I don't really doubt that RW media will run out the storyline you describe, but I'd hope that surrogates can dispatch the facile comparison with ease.

user-pic

This is exactly what Obama should be doing!

I often wonder how much the current administrations sabre rattling is meant to influence other countries and how much of it is meant to influence the profits of Exxon.

Think about it. Nobody takes the Dubya seriously anymore, but they do think he is stupid enough to launch a preemptive attack on Iran, he has proven that much. What if he has no intention of attacking Iran and is just trying to make oil speculators pump up the price of oil so that when his time in office is up he is guaranteed oodles of speaking engagements with Exxon and Haliburton? He has already admitted he wants to cash in when he leaves office, but who in thier right mind would pay to hear him speak?

user-pic

Yeah, it seems pretty weird to me that in the current arguments about how much gas prices are due to speculation or supply and demand, there's no discussion of how much is the risk premium from tensions in the Middle East. Less than a year ago, this seemed to be considered uncontroversial to mention in news stories, but now it's disappeared, despite the endless saber-rattling.

Makes me wonder if it's something neither political campaign wants to put out there because they don't want to be dubbed "blame America" even if it's true (and it's blaming Bush, not America.)

user-pic

Wow. Specific discussion of the events of 9/11...wonder if the Republicans will accuse him of exploiting that?

But seriously--good speech. A recognition of bioterror, and, the anthrax attacks--don't hear much of that these days. A nod to cybersecurity--well, more than a nod. He laid out a plan for security. What's McCain's plan? Other than Iraq-4-Evah!?

user-pic

I wonder if McCain even understands what "cybersecurity" is?

user-pic

Cybersecurity to McCain is someone else leading him onto the Internets....

McCain is a IT person worse nightmare, hes one of those people who clicks on random things and spreads virus's like a wild fire.

McCain believes that Cybers, just like all Americans should be safe and secure.

He thinks American cybers should fight the other cybers till the gates of hell.

You say virus, he takes a pill.

It seems this week that the Obama campaign has taken back control of the narrative. I noticed this the last few days but the press shop seems to be back on its game refuting charges in the same press cycle (I guess the reorganization helped) and the campaign itself seems a lot more forceful in getting its story out.

I like it!

user-pic

Me too.

Did Obama really back-off fights, like people seem to think? I'm not sure that's true - it's not a fight unless someone wants to make it one.

I don't think Obama ever did intend to start fights or to turn the campaign into a cage match.

user-pic

At their best, the Obama campaign is good at pivoting like this and taking the fight in a new direction, forcing the Republicans to follow, rather than responding on the turf they choose. It's tough to get right, since you don't want attacks to go unanswered and assume they'll fade (like with the Swiftboaters), but you also don't want to be focusing more attention on them by talking about them rather than what you want to talk about. But if you do it well, you knock the other campaign completely off their game plan, like yesterday with McCain standing in front of a backdrop about jobs speaking about Iraq and Afghanistan.

Given Obama's statement about bringing a gun to a knife fight, it seems this week the McSame camp brought 19th Century African spears and Obama brought a Truck mounted CIWS.

McSame has been blown outta the water...Go'Bama!

National security is the issue that Republicans have staked their claim to since 9/11. For several election cycles prior to that, they portrayed themselves as the party of "family values." Why so many Dems were willing to concede this territory is a mystery. It appears Obama is working hard to reclaim ground on both fronts.

I'm glad he mentioned cyber warfare - that really needs to be focused on and I feel has by in large been neglected.

user-pic

Especially since Chinese hackers broke into the computers of congressmen working with Chinese dissidents a couple of weeks ago, and it got almost no coverage. I guess if nothing's getting blown up, it's not "security" to the media.

Maybe if we can convince them it's cool James Bond stuff...

All our real vulnerabilities have pretty much been ignored while we have continued to throw cash into the Iraq abyss. Unsecured nukes outside the U.S., ports, insecure chemical stockyards, etc. inside the U.S.. Remember several years ago, there was a cascading blackout that stretched from the East coast to the Midwest? At the time, it was estimated that it might cost as much as 100 billion to modernize the nation's power grid, which seems like a lot of money until you compare it to the Iraq occupation. Of course we old-timers can remember when the 10 billion spent each year to keep Saddam Hussein contained seemed like a lot of money.

My boyfriend was recently discussing having localized power grids, then we wouldn't have specific targets in the U.S.- like a power plant. Rather each neighborhood would have their own much smaller, much less threatening form of energy (wind, photo-voltaic, steam, etc) where excess could be distributed to those that need it, etc. An interesting theory and a smart one considering the threat of our power grid from terrorists or even an attacking army.


http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/06/44516

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation

user-pic

"...where excess could be distributed to those that need it, etc." ...and on the days when the wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shinning?

they're called batteries....

user-pic

...and just how many batteries will it take to power your "neighborhood"...?
"2004, England’s Royal Academy of Engineering released a report concluding that when one factors in all of the costs for wind power — including keeping the more traditional generation sources online — the cost of electricity from wind is more than twice the cost of electricity from coal, natural gas or nuclear power.

Closer to home, last year the Electric Reliability Council of Texas reported that wind power could be counted on as being reliable just 8.7 percent of the time during periods of peak demand. Say that again: 8.7 percent reliability..."
http://www.star-telegram.com/104/story/761664.html

bla, bla, bla. you short-sighted twit. there are a wealth of other sources of energy besides wind- a big one would be steam. why don't you read the wired article?

i'm not saying this is the be all end all, merely a good start.

besides, my larger point is having localized grids, instead of huge ones that cover a quarter to half the country.

user-pic

I recently spoke with one of the lead engineers of a plant in our county that converts our trash to energy. It's apparently state of the art and produces 75 megawatts. I asked how many homes that would serve and he said about 40,000. It feeds into the larger grid. When I pressed as to why there aren't more plants like these, he said they were either too costly or neighborhoods didn't want them close by. He mentioned politics, too. That's too bad.

user-pic

"bla, bla, bla. you short-sighted twit." Come on now...I didn't call you an uneducated moron when you said "batteries." All I'm trying to point out is that there will always need to be back up systems on line and ready to take over for wind or solar. Also each small grid will require it's own source...ie 100 or so more atomic energy stations (where have I heard that before) or other fuel burners.

(Sorry for the double post, missed the first time)

Okay, sorry to call you a twit. I appreciate an argumentative discussion over our energy future.

I don't know too much about dist. generation, myself. However, the idea intrigued me so I'd thought I'd share it here.

I agree, it's probably best to have a wide variety of energy sources, of course, the greener the better. Also, for national security I think the idea of smaller energy grids is a good one.

The biggest question is how to get there. Obviously, wind and solar alone won't cut it.

Thought i'd add that I meant you could store energy from days where there is excess energy generated in the batteries. Sorry again for the "twit" comment. Too much coffee this morning!

Of course, another larger point Obama is making in other speeches, is that he understands that energy independence is itself another way to defend ourselves from threats abroad.

Can't take Obama seriously. Nuclear weapons will never be eliminated unless they are used and the collective world outrage changes the attitude worldwide.

As for pre-emptive action on terror threats, as SFCWallace states so well, that's the Bush doctrine. And since much of that is presumable covert none of us can know how much has gone on or succeeded on that point under Bush except to say that there has not been another major terrorist attack on the 50 U.S. States.

And considering Obama is nothing but reactive in nature, always responding never leading or being proactive, his words once again seem hollow, scripted and not believable.

Nuclear weapons will never be eliminated unless they are used and the collective world outrage changes the attitude worldwide

Fogu, u need to realise that since the creation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 1968, the number of Nukes has steadily declined compared to the cold-war era for instance and that you do not have to actually use a nuclear weapon for it to cease to exist.Furthermore, aquisition of nukes is now harder to achieve because of extra vigilance from the UN security council, hence rogue states like Iran, Libya and North Korea have either given up nuclear programmes( Libya), giving up (N.Korea) or frustrated (Iran).Having said that, Obama's security strategy recognises that the global security situation has changed and a new approach is needed.But you would'nt see that now would u?

user-pic

Obama's specificity was excellent. It hasn't been that long since the conclusion of the primaries. To the armchair strategist it's been an eternity. I agree with seesmithrun that the Obama camp has been working on infrastructure building during the apparent lull. We're just starting to see the fruits of their efforts.

The other thing, and most important, is this: "Obama is staking his candidacy on the rather audacious belief that he can change, through persuasion, the way national security is discussed in this country." Could this mean no more saber rattling? Maybe this is the essence of what Obama means by "change."

He was so persuasive on FISA.

user-pic

FISA was a no-win setup orchestrated by Karl Rove and executed by George Bush. Rove didn't know at the time if it would be Hillary or Obama who would take the heat for it. It didn't matter. There would have been political fall-out on the issue no matter who won the primary or how s/he voted.

user-pic

What is this? A sane discussion of actual threats with actual sane solutions proposed?

This will never convince those right wingers for whom national security is essentially a video game that involves blowing up targets in turbans, but for the grown ups in the country, this is a wonderful breath of fresh air.

user-pic

"What is this? A sane discussion of actual threats with actual sane solutions proposed?
This will never convince those right wingers..."
Sure it will. It convinced us to take down Saddam.

user-pic

"bla, bla, bla. you short-sighted twit." Come on now...I didn't call you an uneducated moron when you said "batteries." All I'm trying to point out is that there will always need to be back up systems on line and ready to take over for wind or solar. Also each small grid will require it's own source...ie 100 or so more atomic energy stations (where have I heard that before) or other fuel burners.

Sorry for calling you a twit.

I think perhaps my original comment was a bit over-simplified and your original response to it was a bit narrow, and there ya go. Don't mean to stiffle discussion/debate! :)

This fella is one smart whippersnapper.
What a stark contrast to our current Woe

Time reports that all three network anchors will be on the road for the WO!rld TO!ur

MasterstrO!ke

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address