What Obama actually said about fighting terrorism (Cross Post)

I am crossposting this Daily Kos diary by Geekesque at DK with permission: What Obama actually said about fighting terrorism.

Crossposted diary follows. If you have questions, it would be preferable to post them in Geekesque's original diary at DKos.

~~~~~~

What Obama actually said about fighting terrorism

by Geekesque, Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 07:51:41 AM PDT

Barack Obama was scheduled to give a speech today on his national security/defense/anti-terrorism policy today.

There's going to be a lot of distortion of what he said, so I thought I'd launch a 'preemptive strike' and detail what he's actually saying.  

The details below the fold.

(Note, when the actual speech is given, I'll update accordingly)

UPDATE:  Here is a link for the entire speech:  http://www.barackobama.com/...

ABC news has the most detailed advance synopsis of the remarks.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder

They are:  has additional useful information and discussion.

His overall approach in general:

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.

Obama's approach consists of five pillars:

  1.  Improving diplomacy and improve our image abroad for the purpose of aiding counterterrorism and counterproliferation efforts.  Obama has been a key player in Senate counterproliferation efforts, and he has effectively positioned himself as the candidate for change from Bush's approach when it comes to international diplomacy.  

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.

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."

  1.  Creating a $5 billion Shared Security Partnership Program that he will say will "forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks around the globe."The most effective tool we have against terrorism is cooperating with other nations in terms of intelligence gathering and utilizing law enforcement resources.  This goes hand-in-hand with the emphasis on outreach and dialogue with the world community.  

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.

  1. Restoring our values.  This is an important point:  not only are torture and 'extraordinary' renditions bad for our nation's character and soul, they also make us less safe by delegitimizing us and our agenda across the world, thus decreasing other nations' willingness to cooperate with us (see also points 1 & 2 above).

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.

  1. Securing a more resilient homeland. It's sad that six years ex post 9/11 we still have to include this as an agenda item.

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.

  1.  Withdrawing from Iraq and refocusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan.  This is where most of the media will focus its attention (because the military stuff is just cooler, I guess).  Obama stresses that Islamic radicalism is the major national security threat to us (besides global warming).  This is something upon which most Democrats agree, but doesn't get discussed very frequently.

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 needâ€"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.

The media is already going ape over his renewed emphasis on Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Obama plans to deploy 1-2 extra brigades to fight the Taliban, who are having their own Surge while Bush obsesses with Iraq.  

Obama also makes it clear that Pakistan's acquiescence in the embryonic Al-Qaeda/Taliban state within its borders--the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan--is simply unacceptable.

Obama's speech notes that:

"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."

Say what?  What's that about a meeting in 2005?

Obama's mention of an "al Qaeda leadership meeting" refers to a classified military operation planned in early 2005 to kill al Qaeda leaders including Osama bin Laden's top deputy Ayman al-Zawahri in Pakistan's tribal regions. First reported in The New York Times earlier this month, the mission was "aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials."

Hmmmm.  Maybe ABC should run a docudrama showing a Bush administration official deciding to protect al-Zawahiri and his crew.

Crucially, #5 is predicated upon getting us the hell out of Iraq.  Obama intends to redeploy troops from Iraq to fight the right fight.  

Obama also advocates spending an additional $1 Billion in non-military aid to help stabilize Afghanistan.  

Of course, there's going to be a TON of crap in the media along a few false lines:

a.  Obama wants to 'invade' Pakistan.  No, that's not accurate.  What he said was:

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

You won't find anyone in the Democratic field (except Kucinich and maybe Gravel) who would say that if they had a chance to take bin Laden or al-Zawahiri out, they'd hesitate to do so.  

Bush's neglect of Afghanistan, the Taliban, and the real Al-Qaeda has been criminal.  There is a real danger of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban of reclaiming Afghanistan and having their own state.  That we cannot allow.

At the same time, you'll note that nowhere does Obama talk about 'invading' Pakistan.  The very notion that dropping a bomb on an Al-Qaeda nest in the mountains is an invasion is stupidity, pure and simple.

  1.  That it's bizarre for someone who believes in diplomacy and opposed the Iraq war to advocate tough measures against terrorists.  This is part of the nonsensical rightwing framing of sane people as wimps who won't protect America.  

The ABC web page title encapsulates both hackish notions:   "Obama, Now The Anti-War Candidate Wants to Invade Another Country."

Of course, the Republicans had a devastating attack:

The Republican National Committee pre-sponded to Obama this morning by claiming that he has a "weak" record on national security

Yes, someone who believes in making America safer instead of enriching oil companies has a 'weak' record according to those bozos.

Not everyone in the Democratic party is going to like this speech.  Those from Kucinich on left will likely criticize it as "Bush/Cheney Light."  I would disagree strongly, noting that each and every one of the five pillars of this plan represents a reversal of Bush's policies.

UPDATE:  The actual speech itself does not mention invading or even sending troops into Pakistan.  Here is what it says:

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.



Display:


Thanks for reading (3.00 / 5)


by NuevoLiberal on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:03:41 PM EST

Thanks for posting this. (3.00 / 2)

Tell Geek good job.

There has been deliberate efforts among certain supporters to come together and single Obama out as enemy number one of the democratic party.  Every instance they can find to attack or distort Obama's words they latch onto it.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:14:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks for posting this. (none / 0)

And by "certain supporters" you mean "Jerome Armstrong."  


by msbatxnyc on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well not just simply Jerome. (3.00 / 1)

Without flamebaiting, there are supporters of different candidates who has been constantly posting mistruths about Obama.  You will notice them because they are the very first ones to jump in a diary critical of Obama and say see I told his politics ain't new.  I told you he is a Washington insider.  See, see, see, I told you . . . yada yada.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well not just simply Jerome. (3.00 / 1)

Right, and when they have substantive critiques based on the actual view that Obama took on a given issue, I'm glad to hash things out with them.  What drives me crazy are the deliberate misrepresentations of Obama's views.  There seems to be a lot of that here, and given that Jerome has a penchant for doing the same thing, today being a prime example of that tendency, I would argue that it's no accident this has turned into the Obama haters' favorite hang out.  


by msbatxnyc on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:36:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks for reading (3.00 / 1)

No, thank you for posting.

I also recommended at Daily Kos. I have had it with people "intentionally" misrepresenting every single thing that comes out of Barack Obamas mouth. It's getting old.

Thanks again.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:58:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am glad you posted this, (3.00 / 1)

because these folks over here, again, "can't read" a speech, went overboard.  The reaction is that a DEMOCRAT said we would go and get Osama.  Now, I don't know about you, but that mo-fo need to be got.  Now, my point of view.  I don't know.  But it is time for the Democrats to turn the heat up on the war on terror and national security.  Out party is always looks at as "patsys' when it comes to this.  I think it was a brave, bold speech.  I read it three times, and I can deal with it.  Now, we will see what happens this weekend at YKos, cause you KNOW, he will be asked a million questions about this, and I will have my micro cassette to record it ALL.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 06:18:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, post an exclusive for us. (none / 0)

Can't wait to hear what happens.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 08:34:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In full text (3.00 / 7)

This is one of the greatest foreign policy speeches and visions defined by a potential president in the last 40 years.  Obama has offered a voice to what Arab scholars have been saying for years.  his pragmatic approach to policy here will fundamentally change the middle east and our relation to it.  Everyone should give the full text a read.  It is simply amazing.  I did not think Obama would be an 'international candidate' getting in, but wow this speech is really something.  This is the 21st century vision, and if your familiar with the academic language surrounding terrorism and ir it is obvious the Obama is well read and well informed.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:11:02 PM EST

Could you please recommend this diary entry? (none / 0)


by NuevoLiberal on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Could you please recommend this diary entry? (3.00 / 1)

yeah, of course.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:17:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In full text (none / 0)

not everything here is from Biden inf fact most is not...and I think most of us would agree Obama is the resident IR expert... As far as stealing that is politics - Biden is not a frontrunner, and should be pleased his ideas are out there.  So now, you can't have a policy proposal that somebody else also has - were in trouble then.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:22:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In full text (3.00 / 1)

Huh? So if someone has a good idea no one else is allowed to ever think it? That's ridiculous.


by Pope Jeremy on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:24:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In full text (none / 0)

That's there new thing. They can't say he doesn't have substance anymore so now they resort to the game of

"Who said what first"

It's the latest craze for LOSERES !


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 05:03:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You need to refrain from throwing around (3.00 / 1)

charges of of plagiarism in politics casually. Many people can arrive at the same POV independently.

If Edwards supporters are going to be callous in making such charges, one can easily reciprocate to make similar charges against Edwards of outright copying of Gore campaign themes, his (star and skylark) logo, his policy positions (of Gore's over the years). Heck, one can claim that Edwards and his campaign steal ideas, thoughts and words from the netroots day in and day out, including my own.


by NuevoLiberal on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I would hope that John Edwards (none / 0)

would avoid your ideas.  Ego, much, NL?


by TomP on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:58:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would hope that John Edwards (3.00 / 1)

I actually don't mind politicians adopting a few thoughts of mine; in fact I encourage it in most cases :)


by NuevoLiberal on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:30:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL! Good line. (none / 0)

I'm surprised you are supporting Obama on this point.  I don't think Gore would.  

If Bush-Cheney do not do "incursions" into Pakistan, that should tell us something.

If Edwards had said what Obama did, I would not have been happy.


by TomP on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:38:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL! Good line. (3.00 / 1)

Why? I think you might be in for a disappointment.

I think each and every candidate could have given this speech.


by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:39:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong (3.00 / 1)


by david mizner on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:53:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong (3.00 / 2)

We'll see.

I hope Edwards is asked about it.

CNN just ran a quote on hillary saying virtually the same thing on Pakistan.


by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:33:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong (none / 0)

I don't see whats wrong with what Obama said.


by bruh21 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 05:09:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think beachmom gave excellent (3.00 / 1)

explanations of what Obama said.

When there is actionable and sound intelligence on terrorist (such as Bin Laden) whereabouts, we should go in to take them out.

If there are known terrorist training camps outside of civilian areas, and we have undeniable evidence, we should give warnings to the host country and if they fail to act, use surgical strikes to take out the camps.


by NuevoLiberal on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:52:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So then (3.00 / 2)

how does Obama's approach differ from Bush's?


by david mizner on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:54:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bush's approach: invade nations (3.00 / 1)

I remind you that Edwards Co-Sponsored Bush's approach by relentlessly hawking the invasion of Iraq:


S.J.RES.46
Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. (CT) (introduced 10/2/2002)

COSPONSORS(16):
Sen Allard, Wayne (CO) - 10/2/2002, Sen Baucus, Max (MT) - 10/7/2002, Sen Bayh, Evan (IN) - 10/2/2002, Sen Breaux, John B. (LA) - 10/9/2002, Sen Bunning, Jim (KY) - 10/4/2002, Sen Domenici, Pete V. (NM) - 10/2/2002

Sen Edwards, John (NC) - 10/3/2002

Sen Helms, Jesse (NC) - 10/2/2002, Sen Hutchinson, Tim (AR) - 10/2/2002, Sen Johnson, Tim (SD) - 10/7/2002, Sen Landrieu, Mary L. (LA) - 10/2/2002, Sen McCain, John (AZ) - 10/2/2002, Sen McConnell, Mitch (KY) - 10/2/2002, Sen Miller, Zell (GA) - 10/2/2002, Sen Thurmond, Strom (SC) - 10/10/2002, Sen Warner, John (VA) - 10/2/2002

The difference between Edwards-cosponsored Bush's approach and Obama's take on taking on terrorists is, the latter is talking about surgical strikes when there is actionable evidence about terrorists, not wholesale invasion of other countries.

As you also know, Obama opposed wholesale invasion of Iraq: Barack Obama's Iraq Speech, I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.


by NuevoLiberal on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:07:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So then (3.00 / 1)

Bush won't do it.

Clinton said the exact same thing.


by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL! Good line. (3.00 / 1)

Then let's see Edward, Biden, Dodd AND cLINTON COME OUT AND CONDEM THE SPEECH. I have not heard from them yet.


by BDM on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:27:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL! Good line. (3.00 / 1)

they won't. The speech was perfectly fine.

Nothing special.


by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:34:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Which Edwards supporters are you referring to? n/t (3.00 / 1)


by edgery on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:44:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is one (3.00 / 2)

of the funniest thing I've read in weeks: Neuvo Liberal thinks John Edwards steals his ideas.


by david mizner on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:46:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In full text (none / 0)

Obama has offered a voice to what Arab scholars have been saying for years.

Not sure I have seen Arab scholars urging unilateral bombings in Pakistan, or why we would listen to them.  

Also not sure Arab scholars are urging bombing campaigns in Iran, though Obama has been.


by MassEyesandEars on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:06:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In full text (none / 0)

Ummm... I would talk to Akbar Ahmed or even Peter Berger - maybe then you get another opinion


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 06:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you joking? (3.00 / 1)

In politics, originality means nothing to me.  Being right does.

MLK cribbed from Gandhi.  That was a good thing.


by AdamSmithsHand on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:58:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In full text (none / 0)

I can't express how shortsighted I think this comment is.

All politicians ought to shamelessly steal all the best ideas they can find, no matter the source. To do otherwise is an abdication of their responsibility to the security and prosperity of the American people.


by Korha on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In Obamaland (1.00 / 4)

Stealing isn't really stealing when Obama does it. It's not political plagiarism. Nope, not at all. It's the new politics. So calm down and relax. Obama has everything under control. Nothing to fret your pretty little head over. He's got ethics. And game. Count sheep.


by DoIT on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:37:23 PM EST

Re: In Obamaland (none / 0)

I don't know who you are, but have been here but a minute, now unless you want us to start calling Hillary supporter "out of their name", refrain from your continuous WRONG use of Obama supporters.  There are many and when the chips fall, and if Clinton gets the nod, when you are back on your REPUBLICAN BOARD, there will still be many here, REAL DEMOCRATS, who will need to come together for the candidate to win.  Again, thanks for your continous support of Clinton, while writing Republican checks.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 06:55:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just last week... (3.00 / 5)

In a private meeting, Obama boasted that he has the best foreign policy judgment of ANY candidate.

If his all over the place positions in the recent past, including today, are any indication, then we are in big trouble.

Throwing out public ultimatums are not the way to further our goals, in my view.

I don't understand the core of Obama's foreign policy views.  They seem at odds sometimes, yet more focused toward greater militarism than I prefer.

The different rhetoric seems, to me, a form of calculation.  Tack to one side, then back to the other, and make it seem there's something to cherry pick for everyone.  I see this as an attempt to appeal to all sides, rather than proposing a cohesive vision.

With apologies to his supporters, who are loathe to accept criticism or find any fault in his pronouncements, this back and forth approach, to my eyes, is not an indication of the best foreign policy judgment by any means.


by citizen53 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:47:38 PM EST

I think he is quite (none / 0)

shaky on foreign policy.  He also seems to have left his 2002 speech behind for a "muscular liberalism."


by TomP on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:59:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just last week... (3.00 / 2)

In a private meeting, Obama boasted that he has the best foreign policy judgment of ANY candidate.

I think that he does have the best "foreign policy judgment" of the three top polling candidates.

If his all over the place positions in the recent past, including today, are any indication, then we are in big trouble.

He has taken brave stands such as calling for a two-state solution in the I/P conflict, which AFAIK, Clinton and Edwards have so far not done.

Throwing out public ultimatums are not the way to further our goals, in my view.

Perhaps he should not have named Musharraf (but instead referred to the "Pakistani government"), but other than that minor misstep, taking out known terrorist camps that are not located in populous areas, after giving host countries (such as Pakistan and Afghanistan) a couple of warnings is a direct approach to dealing with terrorists at the sources of their origin.

I don't understand the core of Obama's foreign policy views.  They seem at odds sometimes, yet more focused toward greater militarism than I prefer.

They're pretty clear to me: root out terrorism at its source, and do not invade countries that don't pose an imminent threat. There is a fundamental difference between invading to occupy a country (as we have done to Iraq) and using surgical strikes to take out terrorist camps.

I do want to see Obama explain clearly why we would need to beef up the size of the military by 90-100K troops when the drawdown from Iraq would increase available troops compared to today, but otherwise, his overall approach makes sense to me.

The different rhetoric seems, to me, a form of calculation.  Tack to one side, then back to the other, and make it seem there's something to cherry pick for everyone.  I see this as an attempt to appeal to all sides, rather than proposing a cohesive vision.

With apologies to his supporters, who are loathe to accept criticism or find any fault in his pronouncements, this back and forth approach, to my eyes, is not an indication of the best foreign policy judgment by any means.

Foreign policy as things stand is a complex global problem. Obama has shown courage in laying out a comprehensive and I would even say daring vision to dealing with the real problems.
- The Israel/Palestine peace process must be resumed with the US playing a trustworthy arbiter.

- That cuts off one of the main straw man arguments Al Queda et al use to recruit their terrorist ranks.

- simultaneously, aggressively take out existing terrorist camps and root them out everywhere

- by doing these things, we eliminate Neocons' straw man (namely, terrorists) for waging unnecessary and deadly wars such as the invasion of Iraq, which, I remind you, was aggressively supported by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.


by NuevoLiberal on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He said ALL candidates... (3.00 / 3)

and, frankly, I think my views in this matter have more merit, despite the explanations you offer.

To me, the fact that his supporters must provide explanations about what he really meant is not reassuring.


by citizen53 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:36:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He said ALL candidates... (none / 0)

When haters deliberately misread what he says--"Obama's going to send troops into Pakistan," "the neo-con/Obama doctrine of pre-emption"--correcting the falsehoods those haters attempt to spread does not mean that Obama was at all deficient in explaining his views.  It just means that he attracts a lot of annoying haters.


by msbatxnyc on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He said ALL candidates... (none / 0)

We will always have to provide explanations as long as you folks continue to purposely misrepresent every word he says.

I suppose their is some karma in knowing that your candidate has virtually no chance of getting the nomination, but too bad you folks feel the need to destroy a man who is clearly a huge asset to our party.  


by AdamSmithsHand on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 05:08:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, citizen53, his foreign policy ideas are (none / 0)

matched to an illusive enemy -- al Qaeda -- which requires flexibility.  We have to hit at them on multiple fronts and in multiple ways:

1.  The information war -- the most important part of it, which I assume interests you greatly.  This is about preventing al Qaeda from recruiting more people in the first place, and it must involve us getting out of Iraq.  It also must mean investing in the Middle East region -- the soft side, like education.  And, of course, constant diplomacy (which Obama has spoken about).  We can all agree that we need to restore America's moral authority by stopping the human rights abuses that are in violation to the Geneva Conventions.  That figures into this equation, too.

2.  Killing or capturing al Qaeda members.  The real al Qaeda is in the borderland between Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Pakistan has been a great disappointment on this front, which is why Obama has stepped up the rhetoric.  The al Qaeda franchise in Iraq is a separate org, but they also need to eliminated (which it seems apparent, that the Iraqis are quite happy to engage in this job).  This is the reason why this is in both the Senate Democratic plan and in Obama's plan -- that forces will need to remain in Iraq for counterterrorism.

3.  Homeland security.  

Obama's foreign policy ideas make sense to me because we have an enemy which is fighting an asymmetric war, which even is on the internet.  We need to wage a "global counterinsurgency", and it includes a wide variety of methods.  Mostly what Kerry talked about in '04 -- law enforcement and intelligence gathering.  But it will also sometimes need to involve the military.  Certainly not to occupy countries, of course.  I actually think Obama (or his FP advisors) "get" this threat.  


by beachmom on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually...one might argue... (none / 0)

that, even though Al Queda is the enemy, they have more support in Pakistan than we do.

Unilateral action against them could very well inflame that country, already anti-American among a majority of the citizenry.  Threats like this do not help, in my view.

It also sends a message that we are still the bully the world has come to know, indeed fear.  Foreign policy concerns our relationship will ALL countries, not just this "war" on terrorism.


by citizen53 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually...one might argue... (none / 0)

Then why has not Clinton, Biden, Dodd and Edwards come out and condem the speech if it is so bellicose.


by BDM on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just last week... (none / 0)

I don't understand the core of Obama's foreign policy views.  They seem at odds sometimes, yet more focused toward greater militarism than I prefer.

The core of Obama's foreign policy views are found in his major foreign policy addresses, the latest of which was just delivered today. You may or may not agree with those views, but they are there. They are also entirely coherent, and not contradictory in the slightest.

Instead of making a blanket statement about John Edwards supporters, let me just say that you, citizen53, are prone to making warped statements about Barack Obama. This post is an example. You're not willing to just say that "Obama's foreign policy views are more focused towards greater militarism than I prefer"--an entirely defensible position--but then you have to go ahead and imply that Obama doesn't have a "coherent foreign policy vision". The former is an opinion, the latter is basically an outright falsehood. Barack Obama has been very clear on where he stands.


by Korha on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for cross posting, NL. (3.00 / 2)

I am distressed that the MSM spin on this speech has become the lib blog spin, too.  Obama was talking about redeploying troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, a position many Democrats have taken.  His comment about going into Pakistan was only if he had good intel.  Such an operation would be limited and would be done by special ops.  Thing is, we're doing that now -- think about Yemen when they used a missile to take out 4 al Qaeda members who were in a car.  This is not about "war with Pakistan", a distortion which I have read on countless blogs, but speaking bluntly to Pakistan, that if they can't do the job of getting al Qaeda (ESPECIALLY Osama bin Laden), then we will.


by beachmom on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:22:25 PM EST

good to see you, beachmom (none / 0)

and for the excellent comment, which I fully agree with.


by NuevoLiberal on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:28:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks for cross posting, NL. (3.00 / 1)

He specifcally discussed redeployemnt to Pakistan as well.

That is a fact.


by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:28:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, here is the text, and I come to a different (none / 0)

conclusion:

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.

...

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.

The last sentence gives the specific fact then he would not go into Pakistan unless there was "actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets".  The troops would be in Afghanistan, otherwise, where we already have bases.


by beachmom on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:45:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WTF? Why is it that ... (2.00 / 2)

It seems like whenever Barry Obama says something, I have to hear what he said, then I have to hear from his surrogates what he "actually said."

What gives?

Why can't Obama's words carry their own weight?  Why can't they deliver their own meaning?  Why does he have to send people out to give us the the actual meaning?

Thats weak.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:26:57 PM EST

You Too Can Be Happy in Obamaland (none / 0)

It's because you aren't one of "them" yet. But once you read enough of their explanations for what he really meant and surrender to the will of what Obama said or what they say he meant everything will be alright. You'll understand and it won't hurt a bit.


by DoIT on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Too Can Be Happy in Obamaland (3.00 / 1)

It's actually because whenever Obama says something, people in the blogosphere that loathe him take a page from the Rove/Bush handbook and take his words out of context and twist them beyond recognition.

When I woke up this morning, I came to MYDD and was horrified by what I thought Obama had adovcated.

...Then I read the speech.


Obama2008....?
by ctnewbie18 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:46:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Too Can Be Happy in Obamaland (none / 0)

You mean like this:

"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"

It sure sounds like he is talking about starting a war with Pakistan to me, but I don't speak Obamaland fluently so it could mean something entirely different.


by DoIT on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:16:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Too Can Be Happy in Obamaland (none / 0)

You've provided no context and therefore the statment is "out of context" like I mentioned before. I have two question for you.

1) Have you read the entire speech (or at the very least, this entire diary)?

2) Deep down inside, do you actually believe that Senator Barack Obama favors starting a war with Pakistan?


Obama2008....?
by ctnewbie18 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:22:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Too Can Be Happy in Obamaland (none / 0)

The text was cited 5 posters up.

1) I have read much of the speech but not all of it.
2) I honestly don't know what Obama favors doing. I know that his rhetoric is a dangerous signal to
be sending to Pakistan


by DoIT on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:53:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Too Can Be Happy in Obamaland (3.00 / 1)

Within the context of the speech, Obama only cited this as definite action:

"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."

I doubt 'actionable intelligence' is the type of stuff that leads to the invasion of an country that's a traditional US ally. Surgical attacks in an area where borders are ambigous does not equal an invasion.

ps. You should read the entire speech. The stuff on diplomacy has much more detail and is a drastic change from current US policy.


Obama2008....?
by ctnewbie18 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 05:07:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? Why is it that ... (none / 0)

Simple.

Because the usual attack dogs come out and work overtime misrepresent everything he says.

Look at what happened today.  Look at the title of the first diary on this subject.

Those of us who support obama would like his words to stand on their own too.  So why not direct your frustration at those folks who feel the need to distort them?


by AdamSmithsHand on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 05:13:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Would that be the ... (none / 0)

Vast left wing conspiracy?

The vast right wing conspiracy?

I am confused.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 08:42:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? Why is it that ... (none / 0)

This is pretty stupid. There are a number of people here on MYDD who love to egregiously twist Obama's words. It's entirely appropriate to combat dishonest spin with honest spin. Maybe if posters stopped distorting Obama's remarks, nobody would have to tell them what he "actually said."

And please, his name is Barack.


by Korha on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:36:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your update is wrong (none / 0)

Obama mentions redeployment of troops in Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Frankly, I think the speech is boilerplate Democratic stuff.

Non-news.


by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:28:02 PM EST

Re: Your update is wrong (none / 0)

"Your update is wrong"

I take it your remark was addressed to Geekesque. Perhaps he will respond if he sees your comment.

My own views (not as thoroughly researched on interpreting Obama yet) are as I have posted in response to citizen53 above.


by NuevoLiberal on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:33:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your update is wrong (none / 0)

The section of the speech:

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.



by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:36:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your update is wrong (none / 0)

Wow, Thanks. I didn't realize he used such disburbing sentence 'right battlefield ... and Pakistan.' This is completely acceptable. He'll likely stir up some protest from Pakistan embassy, if not higher level.

Gosh, he really needs somebody to proofread his every speech.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:42:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your update is wrong (none / 0)

unacceptable.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:42:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your update is wrong (none / 0)

So this is a copy paste?

Anyway, unlike Jerome, I think the speech utterly unremarkable and I think the willingness to strike Al Qaida in Waziristan the correct position.


by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:38:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your update is wrong (none / 0)

Geek asked me to post when I suggested him to crosspost.


by NuevoLiberal on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:41:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Without cooperation and (none / 0)

against the wishes of the sovereign government of Pakistan?

I have no problem if Pakistan cooperates or gives us permission, but I do have a problem with an incursion.  

I would have a problem with the statement even if Edwards said it.


by TomP on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:41:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Without cooperation and (none / 0)

the government of Pakistan is not soveriegn they are a dictatorship... HRW and others have been pushing action there for years - notice Obama says we should hold the gov't accountable as a democracy as well as an ally against terrorism.  Bush-Clinton are fine with dictators as long as the play nice - Clinton was the same with Jordan.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:32:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your update is wrong (none / 0)

Frankly, he is really not as smart as many  pundits like to paint. He has no basic grasp of foreign policies. I'm surprised that his undergraduate degree was in foreign relations. Many of his speech is extremely junior.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:35:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To the Doves it is news (none / 0)

They want to buy the world a Coke and give peace a chance.  They don't want to go to Afghanistan or Pakistan.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 08:43:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pathetic (none / 0)

Typical Hope,Inc.er super spin.  You should consider yourself lucky that I am too sick to deal with this right now. Obama's posturing is so easy to unmaks my golden retriever could do it.  I do however have a couple of links for you to check out from Open Secret.

Clinton
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summar y.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

Obama
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summar y.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Edwards
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summar y.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

Look at the PAC pie-charts. Very telling. Sure, even Kucinich and Gravel have supporters who work for some of the groups whose contributions are tracked, but only Obama and Clinton get enough to actually influence policy.

Hence the hyper-cautious streak on all things economic and thier lack of a Universal Health Care plan. (Obama's isn't universal, Hillary has no plan).

Can Hope,Inc.ers say "sell out"?

And by the way Edwards' Cast Fear Aside speech wipes the floor with Obama's speech. And Edwards gave it months ago. Silly Barack, always playing the "me too" card.


The bold progressive leader is the most electable candidate. Reclaim the Democratic Party! Support John Edwards.
by Michael 4 Edwards on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:45:12 PM EST

Re: Pathetic (none / 0)

His only card left is the media.

Media is the big problem.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:47:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pathetic (3.00 / 1)

The same media that took one paragraph from a full foreign policy briefing and has you guys thinking Obama is intent on invading Pakistan?


Obama2008....?
by ctnewbie18 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:56:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pathetic (none / 0)

I mean, I get what he/she is trying to say. You don't see Obama getting the Edwards haircut or Hillary cleavage treatment, and that's not an insignificant issue IMO even as I'll agree that the media is a big problem.  E.g. of the three who would have the easiest time empowering public broadcasters?  But in the context of the press reaction to this speech it's a really weird attack.


by msbatxnyc on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pathetic (none / 0)

I agree that Obama doesn't get the haircut or cleavage treatment, but I do believe the MSM is sometimes ultra-critical of Obama's policy statements. For example, the MSM conclusion 5 minutes after the debate last week that Hillary had clearly gotten the best of Obama on the foreign leaders question. I know that of the three top-tier candidates, Obama has the fewest non-issue related hit stories, but the Media seems to jump at any opportunity to show Clinton out-doing Clinton, even when it's not actually the case.

Poor Edwards. The MSM seems intent on killing his candidacy this time around... (04' Edwards supporter  here)


Obama2008....?
by ctnewbie18 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:39:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pathetic (none / 0)

Yeah, definitely the frame they like to throw at him is "too green."  It is very reminiscent of the treatment Dean got in '03, where his statements were all twisted and taken out of context to protray him as craaazy.  Funny how all these ex-Deaniacs eat it up and sing it from the hills when it's someone else getting this treatment instead of their guy.  

That being said, I still thinkit's a practical advantage to have a candidate that the press corps(e) is on record as viscerally hating, and he's the only one of the top 3 with that going for him, so far at least.  


by msbatxnyc on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

D'oh (none / 0)

Seems like lots of traffic today.  If so, mission accomplished, so to speak.


by msbatxnyc on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pathetic (none / 0)

Yeah, definitely the frame they like to throw at him is "too green."  It is very reminiscent of the treatment Dean got in '03, where his statements were all twisted and taken out of context to portray him as craaazy.  Funny how all these ex-Deaniacs eat it up and sing it from the hills when it's someone else getting this treatment instead of their guy.  

That being said, I still think it's a practical advantage to have a candidate that the press corps(e) is not on record as viscerally hating, and he's the only one of the top 3 with that going for him, so far at least.  


by msbatxnyc on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pathetic (none / 0)


If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

OMIGOD!!!! Barak Obama is going to invade and occupy Pakistan! [/snark]
by maddogg on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 05:40:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pathetic (none / 0)

Why hasn't Your candidate Clinton come out and condem the speech?


by BDM on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:32:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's advisors (none / 0)

The Obama campaign says those assisting with the speech constituted a mix of a new generation of national security and foreign policy experts such as Samantha Power, a professor of global leadership and public policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide"; Susan Rice, member of the National Security Council for President Clinton; Greg Craig, former Clinton administration undersecretary of state and director of policy planning; and more experienced old hands, such as President Clinton's National Security Adviser Tony Lake, former Clinton and Bush counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and retired Maj. Gen. General Jonathan Gration.

Obama Delivers Bold Speech About War on Terror - Continued


by BDM on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:33:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pathetic (none / 0)

Hillary supports it.


by parahammer on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 05:18:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB (none / 0)

So "if they won't act we will" is not advocating invading a country with NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

It sounds like it is to me.

But Barack said it so Hope,Inc. fans let him off the hook.

Talk about incoherant.

Obama tries to out-Edwards Edwards on special interests (his Iowa add is a joke) yet go to Open Secrets and it's clear who big business thinks is special.

Please compare.

Obama
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summar y.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Edwards
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summar y.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008


The bold progressive leader is the most electable candidate. Reclaim the Democratic Party! Support John Edwards.
by Michael 4 Edwards on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 05:56:29 PM EST

No rationale (none / 0)

There is officially no rational left for supporting Obama.

"He's anti-war."

Kerry-Feingol - 2006 amendment to set timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.

Hillary against it.
Obama against it.
Edwards for it.

Lieberman re-election.

Obama for it. Spoke to CT Dems for Lieberman. Told them that even though he knows where Lieberman stands on foreign policy he hopes CT Dems have the "good sense" to re-elect Joe Liebberman.
Hillary for it. Allowed Bill to help Holy Joe out big time.
Edwards never endorsed Lieberman.  First and only to campaign for Lamont.

Stopping the Escalation by cutting off funds
Obama stops short.
Hillary stops short.
Edwards for it.

The Gregg Amendment.
Obama sets himself for "I was against cutting off funding before I was for it" moment when he votes for it.
Hillary votes for it.
Edwards has made it clear that he supports Congress using its funding authority to end war. H

Reid-Feingold
Obama has to be prodded into supporting it by Chris Dodd and others.
Hillary as well.
Edwards supported it as first step.

The Capitulation Bill
Obama and Hillary turned what could have been a watershed moment into a cheap game of political chicken and another Hillary vs. Barack story.
Edwards was vocally against it from the start.

And now...
Edwards is out in front opposing the Saudi Arms deal.
Meanwhile, Obama is playing the "look at me, I'm a hawk" game.

"Obama is not controlled by special interests."

Then why does his finance team call the wives of lobbyists to get around their "no lobbyist money" pledge. They later called that pledge "symbolic."

And look at the links in my comment above. This guy is an insider in outsider