Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama: Dems Need Tough Security Stance

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:14 PM
Original message
Obama: Dems Need Tough Security Stance

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060917/D8K6TGTO0.html

Obama: Dems Need Tough Security Stance
Email this Story

Sep 17, 7:21 PM (ET)

By MIKE GLOVER

INDIANOLA, Iowa (AP) - Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., warned Democratic activists Sunday that the party must take a tougher stance on national security if it wants to succeed in the November elections.

"What Democrats have to do is to close the deal," said Obama, the keynote speaker at Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin's 29th annual steak fry. "We have got to show we have a serious agenda for change."

Obama's appearance in Iowa, where precinct caucuses launch the presidential season, has raised a number of eyebrows about his intentions for a presidential run in 2008. Though only a first-term senator, Obama has burst onto the national scene.


Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, center, makes his way through the crowd with Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, left, before speaking to local Democrats at Harkin's annual fundraising steak fry dinner, Sunday, Sept. 17, 2006, in Indianola, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)


But he wouldn't say Sunday whether he was considering a run at the White House.

FULL story at link above.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. What is there with Democratic wannabee presidents? Democrats HAVE a
Edited on Sun Sep-17-06 07:36 PM by Mass
tough security stance.

Do we really need to help the GOP push their talking points?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayctravis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. If he's going to announce that we need to have a "tough security stance"
Edited on Sun Sep-17-06 07:21 PM by jayctravis
that's of course going to be what the Publicans drag out; "they don't have a stance".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. That was my first thought. Bad framing.
The CM never reports on Democratic defense policy, so the common wisdom is "they need to get one"?

Wrong. Just stand on that soapbox and YELL what the Dem leadership has been saying all along.

Don't respond. Don't react.

Take the lead!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ethelk2044 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
31. Obama
That is not what he said.  He stated we needed to say No More.
 No more of the same.   I just finished listening to Him on
CSPAN.   I wish people would stop mis-quoting people instead
of listening to the speech with an open mind.  He stated that
we need no more of the same in the Iraq war.  Also, he stated
there is no doubt in his mind if someone would ask us to stand
up for our country everyone would because we were united
during 911.  However, the war that we are in is not the Right
war because we went there under false pretenses.   
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanusAscending Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
37.  Hi Mass, don't believe this crap!
See my post at the end of this thread. I watched the speech TWICE, and this article is all wrong!!:hi: DC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
54. But do voters actually believe it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayctravis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. We'd love to hear that agenda, Senator!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlyvi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. Am I the only one.....
Edited on Sun Sep-17-06 07:19 PM by charlyvi
who's more than a little bit tired of Obama lecturing Democrats on how they should think, act and project themselves? I like Obama, but he's getting a bit too self righteous for my taste. But, then again, I'm in a really bitchy mood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. It's Not Your Mood--He Irritates the Crap out of me
He always has. He has a sense of entitlement or something--and everyone seems to just swoon his way. I personally don't think there's much behind that pretty face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Given the outpouring of scorn last time, uh no.
Myself, I'm all for a tough policy, just not a stupid one. The two get conflated nonstop in our age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanusAscending Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
38. Did you actually HEAR his speech?
Just asking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yes, because you see, Kerry and Murtha know NOTHING about tough security
Edited on Sun Sep-17-06 07:20 PM by blm
and neither does Gary Hart or General Shinseki.

But Obama does, and so does Bayh, and so does Hillary, and so does Warner, and so does Richardson, and so .....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I am sure that Kark is happy. We are doing his job for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Exactly. Dems HAVE been tough on REAL SECURITY, but Obama parrots GOP
talking points in his LECTURE.

Fock that. He's sounding like Clinton when he accepted GOP talking points, and that led to the books being closed on all of BushInc's crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanusAscending Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
39. Hi dear blm!!
Please, please if you didn't hear his speech, don't buy into this crap. Believe me, I know what I heard twice today. The speech was so good that I had to hear it twice. Wait to read the transcript before you judge. Actually as I write this at 12:30 Eastern time, it's re playing on C Span 1. Love ya, DC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #39
47. Well, I've heard this spin from a bunch of idiots like Warner and Bayh,
and Obama sounds just like they do.

I won't stop giving him the chance, but, I've seen this approach play out before, and not supporting strong national security Dems in favor of "tough image as dictated by the REPUBLICAN MOLD of a tough image" is a demerit in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jade Fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. Democrats need to re-define what national security looks like....
For starters, it's NOT invading other people's countries. That just makes us gobs of new enemies. Obvious, but sadly not to a lot of people.

I'll say it's not based on Military strength either. The Military is really only good as a defensive tool. We've seen how well it works as an offensive tool the last few years.

It's really got to be about smart diplomacy. Mostly, no one likes that idea. Too vague, and not enough macho payback opportunities for those many Americans who need a Bad Guy to project onto. The good news: It's cheap! Of course, this would necessitate taking the financial "needs" of Defense Contractors out of the equation, and that's not likely to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Wise, tough men call it like it is - War is the FAILURE of diplomacy.
It means a country FAILED.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnny Noshoes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. The first one to pick up a gun
is the first one who's run out of ideas.


"Some in the name of peace, prepare us for war, in the name of liberty, prepare us for submission, in the name of courage, prepare us to be fearful. Let all Americans challenge war, submission, and fear!"
-- Rep. Dennis Kucinich
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jade Fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. God, Kucinich is good.
May we someday have a President who thinks like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlyvi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Agreed.
Edited on Sun Sep-17-06 07:39 PM by charlyvi

It's National Security, not National Paranoia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jade Fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. You know, that would make a great slogan....
National Security, not National Paranoia. Or National "shoot first and ask questions later" style stupidity.

I hope the Democrats pick this up as a slogan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sidpleasant Donating Member (376 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
16. By the way, is Obama supporting Ned Lamont in the general election?
I seem to recall that Obama appeared at a fundraiser for Joementum during the primary. Is he supporting the Democratic Party candidate for CT Senator or is he supporting the candidate from the Lieberman cult?

Hmmm...is it just me, or does Obama's "Dems need a tough national security policy" sound way too much like something Joe would have said on Fox News?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Yes, he's supporting Lamont
He also contributed $5000 from his PAC (See: http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/08/post_50.html)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-19-06 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #18
81. these PACs ...
Endorsing and campaigning for a fellow Democrat is one thing ... I'm not too sure about this doling out of PAC dollars, with individual politicians having their only personal power purses ... seems more like handing out IOUs to be pulled in later ... another form of old time machine politics ... oh, I'll give you $1000, but you I'll give $5000 ...

but, whatever ...

real campaign finance reform would be nice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
17. You know, I'd like to see the FULL SPEECH before I comment
Every time someone posts a short news blurb about an Obama speech, it's some statement about Democrats that throws DU'ers and folks on MyDD into a fit. And every time, it turns out that the line is a small portion out of a far longer and eloquent speech utterly demolishing modern conservatives and the Republicans. Every time, the media jumps on one or two lines, throws them out of context and succeeds in getting DU'ers in a fit.

I think I'll wait this one out. If he's saying that, essentially, we have to attack Iran, then... NO. But if he's merely saying we shouldn't cede national security to the Republicans, I really don't see how that's something controversial. But there's absolutely no way to no based on the one line pulled out of the speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Does not matter. What people will hear about is that a Democrat is saying
Edited on Sun Sep-17-06 08:09 PM by Mass
the same thing the GOP says: that Democrats do not have a tough stance on security. Nobody will read or listen to his full speech (whatever it said).

So, even if he was not saying that, his framing is bad for this period. The point should be that we are better than the GOP on security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
33. It's the reporter's framing.
There's not a quote from Obama in that article relating to security issues, so we have no idea what he really said. Maybe he was being condescending as the article suggested, or maybe the reporter was too lazy to capture the true message of the speech. If the latter is the case, there isn't a whole helluva lot Obama can do about it. Without a transcipt of the speech we can't know one way or the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #33
79. Thanks. I'm glad somebody else noticed that.
Where's the quote in the article that backs up the intro paragraph's paraphrasing of what Obama allegedly said? The writer or his editor doesn't include it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Merely saying we shouldn't cede national security to the Republicans....
well....that begs the question, "WHO in the Dem party cedes national security to the Republicans?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
40. joe
from connecticut... for one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #40
48. But how different is Obama's national security stance from Joe's?
He certainly didn't side with a withdrawal plan from those weak-ass military minds like Kerry, Murtha, and Hart.....here's the list of who supported a SOUND withdrawal plan in the senate:

How many on this list are weak on national security?

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Wyden (D-OR)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
20. Trying to out-Republican the Republicans has failed repeatedly.
Obama, you can be the one to fail again as well, if you like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INdemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
21. Obama sounds like a Repubican talking
Edited on Sun Sep-17-06 08:12 PM by INdemo
Its not like the Democrats haven't been talking about port security,border security,and airport security..agenda for change...well I believe the Democrats have addressed many issues but its the same ol'story.If the main stream media even mentions the Democrats plan it is drowned out by some Repuke pundit that is such an expert...Obama your speech sounded like it was wriiten by a Republican.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Another look.
LOUISVILLE

Obama stumps for Democrats

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama hammered away at President Bush's Iraq policy Thursday night, saying it has left the military "hollowed-out because we had an ill-conceived plan."

Obama made a pitch for Democrats running for local government and for Congress at a rally in the baseball stadium in Louisville.

The freshman Illinois senator accused Bush of neglecting health care and education and favoring the wealthy over others, but reserved his harshest criticism for the president's foreign policy.

"I have had enough of the kind of foreign policy that puts these young men and young women at risk each and every day without a clear exit strategy, without any idea of how this is making us safer, without any idea of when it's going to end," Obama said.

http://news.kypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060915/NEWS02/609150382/1014/NEWS02
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INdemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. That was great but to talk about his fellow Democrats the same way a
Republican a spin doctor would just doesn't sit well..In Iowa he did sound like a Republican lite.But that was Iowa..Then in Kentucky he sounded like a Democrat....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #24
41. At the risk of ageing myself... right on!
Obama's future is so bright he has to wear shades... He's not perfect but I'll be damned if I'll let him be swift boated.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanusAscending Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #21
42. Damnit, Did you HEAR the speech?
or just read ,and believe this "journalist's" article and swallow it hook, line and sinker"???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INdemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. I heard the speech
It was televised on Cspan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #21
60. Indemo, you have hit the nail on the head - ALL Dems should be FIGHTING
the meme touted by the Republicans and their mediawhores, not accept it as a legitimate point against Democrats who have been talking about EVERY issue related to terror for YEARS BEFORE 9-11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
22. I am begining not to like Obama. Dems *have* a tough stance.
Edited on Sun Sep-17-06 08:11 PM by w4rma
Dems *are* showing a tough agenda for change.

I only hope that he was misinterpreted by big media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #22
51. Dems SHOULD be saying "Fuck that, WE HAD THE STRONGER PLANS in 2004
and we still have the stronger plans in 2006."

And that includes Obama.

Dems are WEAKEST when they ROLLOVER for GOP talking points and parrot them like birdbrains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #51
67. I am in full and total agreement with you, blm. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ripple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
25. He's correct
And I believe he's addressing talking points, rather than suggesting that democrats are truly weaker on security. National security is a huge deciding point among voters. We need to seize the issue and address it clearly, rather than constantly defending ourselves against republican "cut and run" attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. It took 25 posts before indignance gave way to reason
Thank you for your post. We all need the ability to put aside the heat of emotion for the calculus of political victory.

Nothing happens until we win at the polls. Let's do what it takes. Reading Obama's speech, I see that's his point, too.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Saying Karl Rove is right will help us? Saying we do not have a strong
stance will help us?

Saying we need one means we do not have one. That is that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. I re-read my post, but failed to find mention of Karl Rove
It does, however, seem rather Rovian to put words in someone else's mouth, and then flog them for what you pretend they said.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #27
46. Obama failed to communicate the TRUTH. The truth is that the Dems HAVE
strong national security plans, but the media denies Democrats the adequate coverage of thos plans, while giving full service to the GOP storyline that insists they have no plans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #27
57. Obama should be saying Dems HAD the better security plan in 2004 and STILL
do.

Instead, he mewls around as if GOPs are right, and no Dem has been serious before, but they need to get serious NOW?

What would YOU change in this plan to make it MORE SERIOUS, Mr. Obama?


Following is the text of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's speech delivered in New York.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS) KERRY: I am really honored to be here at New York University, at NYU Wagner, one of the great urban universities in America. Not just in New York, but in the world. You've set a high standard, you always set a high standard for global dialogue, as Ellen (ph) mentioned a moment ago. And I intend to live up to that tradition here today. This election is about choices. The most important choices a president makes are about protecting America, at home and around the world. A president's first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals.

(APPLAUSE)

Only a few blocks from here, three years ago, the events of September 11th remind every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight and to win the war on terrorism.

With us today is a remarkable group of women who lost loved ones on September 11th, and whose support I am honored to have. Not only did they suffer unbearable loss, but they helped us as a nation to learn the lessons of that terrible time by insisting on the creation of the 9/11 Commission.

(APPLAUSE)

I ask them to stand, and I thank them on behalf of our country, and I pledge to them, and to you, that I will implement the 9/11 recommendations. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

In fighting the war on terrorism my principles are straightforward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies.

But billions of people around the world, yearning for a better life, are open to America's ideals. We must reach them.

(APPLAUSE)

To win, America must be strong and America must be smart.

The greatest threat that we face is the possibility of Al Qaida or other terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons. To prevent that from happening we have to call on the totality of America's strength: strong alliances to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands; a powerful military, transformed to meet the threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction; and all of America's power -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, our appeal to the values, the values of Americans, and to connect them to the values of other people around the world -- each of which is critical to making America more secure and to preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made, and the choices I would make and have made, to fight and win the war on terror.

That means that we must have a great and honest debate on Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy.

(APPLAUSE)

Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and from our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists.

Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains overwhelmingly an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops and nearly 90 percent of the casualties are American.

Despite the president's claims, this is not a grand coalition.

Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery and skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. I visited with some of them in the hospitals and I am stunned by their commitment, by their sense of duty, their patriotism. When I speak to them, when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: We owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done.

(APPLAUSE)

Would you all join me? My wife Teresa has made it through the traffic, and I'm delighted that she is here. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

In June, the president declared, The Iraqi people have their country back. And just last week he told us, This country is headed toward democracy; freedom is on the march. But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story.

According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people and so do the facts on the ground.

Security is deteriorating for us and for the Iraqis. Forty-two Americans died in Iraq in June, the month before the handover. But 54 died in July, 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September. And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August; more than in any other month since the invasion.

We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever-widening war zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times; a 400 percent increase.

Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra and parts of Iraq are now no-go zones, breeding grounds for terrorists, who are free to plot and to launch attacks against our soldiers.

The radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in suburbs of Baghdad than the prime minister.

Violence against Iraqis, from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation, is on the rise.

Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.

Yes, there has been some progress. Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq, schools, shops and hospitals have been opened in certain places. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.

But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to be able to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence, instead of siding with us against the insurgents.

That is the truth, the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and to the American people.

Now, I will say to you, it is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it is essential if you want to correct the course and do what's right for those troops, instead of repeating the same old mistakes over and over again.

I know this dilemma firsthand. I saw firsthand what happens when pride or arrogance take over from rational decision-making. And after serving in a war, I returned home to offer my own personal views of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it to those risking their lives to speak truth to power. And we still do.

(APPLAUSE)

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in Hell. But that was not -- that was not, in and of itself, a reason to go to war.

(APPLAUSE)

The satisfaction that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, the president has said that he miscalculated in Iraq, and that it was a catastrophic success. MORE

(APPLAUSE)

The first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people.

(APPLAUSE)

He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war, and he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.

By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.

(APPLAUSE)

His two main rationales, weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaida-September 11th connection, have both been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission.

And just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged those facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the Earth is flat.

(APPLAUSE)

The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq. He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed for years, not months. He didn't tell us that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a genuine, broad, strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured.

And America will pay an even heavier price for the president's lack of candor.

At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security.

In the dark days of the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos as proof. De Gaulle waved him away, saying, The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.

How many world leaders have that same trust in America's president today? This president's failure to tell the truth to us and to the world before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war.

The president now admits to miscalculations in Iraq. Miscalculations: This is one of the greatest underestimates in recent American history.

(APPLAUSE)

His miscalculations were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment, and judgment is what we look for a president.

(APPLAUSE)

And this is all the more stunning, because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight, we're not talking about Monday morning quarterbacking. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bipartisan congressional hearings, major outside studies and even some in his own administration, predicted virtually every problem that we face in Iraq today.

The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible and real consequences.

The administration told us we would be greeted as liberators; they were wrong. They told us not to worry about the looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure; they were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots; they were tragically wrong.

They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy; they were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country, and a police force and an army to secure it; they were wrong.

In Iraq, this administration has consistently overpromised and underperformed. And this policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, by an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence.

(APPLAUSE)

And the president has held no one accountable, including himself.

In fact, the only officials -- the only officials who've lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.

Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said it would cost as much as $200 billion. Pretty good calculation. He was fired.

After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the U.N., and he rejected it, stiff-armed them, decided to go it alone. He even prohibited nations from participating in reconstruction efforts because they weren't part of the original coalition, pushing reluctant countries even further away. And as we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision really was.

Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes America stronger in the war on terrorism?

AUDIENCE: No!

KERRY: By any measure, by any measure, the answer is no.

Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all-time low.

Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were and where we are.

After the events of September 11th, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in a legitimate struggle against terrorists. On September 12th, headlines and newspapers abroad declared that, We are all Americans now.

But through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and, rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world.

(APPLAUSE)

We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and posed no imminent threat to our security.

The president's policy in Iraq took our attention and our resources away from other more serious threats to America, threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more right now under this president's watch; the emerging nuclear danger of Iran; the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia; and the increasing instability in Afghanistan.

Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all-time high and the Al Qaida leadership still plots and plans, not only there, but in 60 other nations.

Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on warlords, who one week earlier had been fighting on the other side, to go up in the mountains to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered. He slipped away.

We then diverted our focus and our forces from the hunt for those who were responsible for September 11th in order to invade Iraq.

We know now that Iraq played no part. We knew then on September 11th. And it had no operational ties to Al Qaida.

The president's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem that he said he was trying to prevent.

Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before their war; now it is, and they are operating against our troops.

Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who could someday hit the United States of America.

And we know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world.

The president's policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into freefall.

Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries, like Jordan, Morocco and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president, would have needed that threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority.

(APPLAUSE)

The power entrusted to the president purposefully gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple: We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam, disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation, If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.

Instead, the president rushed to war, without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went purposefully, by choice, without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted by choice, without making sure that our troops even had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead by choice, without understanding or preparing for the consequences of postwar. None of which I would have done.

Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again the same way.

How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying to America that if we know there was no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq?

My answer: resoundingly, no, because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

(APPLAUSE)

Now the president is looking for a reason, a new reason to hang his hat on -- it's the capability to acquire weapons.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Americans, that was not the reason given to the nation, that was not the reason the Congress voted on. That is not a reason today; it is an excuse.

KERRY: Thirty-five to 40 countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade all of them?

I would have personally concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing Osama bin Laden.

(APPLAUSE)

I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or to America.

The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new, smarter direction with John Kerry that makes our troops and America safer. That's the choice.

(APPLAUSE)

It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the commander in chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the president himself.

In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. But we cannot just throw up our hands, we cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America's security for years to come.

All across this country, people ask me and others, what we should do now every stop of the way. From the first time I spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out a specific set of recommendations from day one, from the first debate until this moment. I have set out specific steps of how we should not and how we should proceed.

But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.

Five months ago in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the president was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day this president makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq, harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago, a year and a half ago.

It's time to recognize what is and what is not happening in Iraq today and we must act with urgency.

Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said that, We're in deep trouble in Iraq. It doesn't add up to a pretty picture, he said, and we're going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy.

Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.

We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq.

First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone.

Last spring, after too many months of delay, after reluctance to take the advice of so many of us, the president finally went back to the U.N., and it passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do, but it was late.

That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq's security forces and a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, and more financial assistance and real debt relief.

But guess what? Three months later, not a single country has answered that call, and the president acts as if it doesn't matter.

And of the 13 billion that was previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.

The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and of Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly, and he should insist that they make good on the U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific but critical roles in training Iraqi security personnel and in securing Iraqi borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, is this more difficult today? You bet it is. It's more difficult today because the president hasn't been doing it from the beginning. And I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning.

Delay has only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this president may not have the trust and the confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq.

But I'll tell you, we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to be successful in the end.

(APPLAUSE) Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that -- claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. This is the public statement to America.

Well, guess what, America? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth.

For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained by the administration's own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one -- not one has completed a 24-week field training program.

Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?

The president should urgently expand the security forces' training program inside and outside of Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double the classroom training time, require the follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries.

And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers and start behaving like we really are at war.

(APPLAUSE)

Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people, all of which, may I say, should have been in the plan and immediately launched with such a ferocity that there was no doubt about America's commitment or capacity in the very first moments afterwards. But they didn't plan.

He ignored his own State Department's plan, he discarded it.

Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise the spending priorities in Iraq. It took them 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.

(APPLAUSE)

One year ago, this administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we have to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability, and now we're paying the price for not doing that.

He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers instead of big corporations like Halliburton.

(APPLAUSE)

In fact, he should stop paying companies under fraud investigation or corruption investigation. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon who are responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

(APPLAUSE)

Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee that the promised election can be held next year. Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly that could write a constitution and yields a viable power-sharing agreement.

Because Iraqis have no experience in holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role, yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. secretary general and administration officials say elections are in grave doubt, because the security situation is so bad, and because not a single country has yet offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission.

The president needs to tell the truth. The president needs to deal with reality, and he should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force.

Now, this is not going to be easy. I understand that.

Again, I repeat, every month that's gone by, every offer of help spurned, every alternative not taken for these past months has made this more difficult and those were this president's choices. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq ought to still be prepared to help the United Nations hold an election.

We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S. forces will end up bearing that burden alone.

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and to train the Iraqis to provide their own security and to develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold elections next year, if all of that happened, we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years.

That can achieved.

(APPLAUSE)

This is what has to be done. This is what I would do if I were president today. But we can't afford to wait until January and I can't tell you what I will find in Iraq on January 20th.

President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.

The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear. We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should have always been bearing the burden.

That's the right way to get the job done. It always was the right way to get the job done to minimize the risk to American troops and the cost to American taxpayers. And it is the right way to get our troops home.

On May 1st of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now- infamous banner that read Mission accomplished. He declared to the American people that, In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come.

The president misled, miscalculated and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective -- a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government -- far harder to achieve than it ever should have been.

(APPLAUSE)

In Iraq, this administration's record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment, presidential judgment, of historic proportions.

At every critical juncture in Iraq and in the war on terrorism, the president has made the wrong choice.

I have a plan to make America stronger.

The president often says that in a post-9/11 world we can't hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting.

(APPLAUSE)

George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do and I have all along.

George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.

I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war on terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror that actually makes America safer.

Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans; just ask anyone who travels.

If you share my conviction that we cannot go on as we are, that we can make America stronger and safer than it is, then November 2nd is your chance to speak and to be heard.

It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course.

(APPLAUSE)

I am convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start, move more effectively to accomplish our goals.

Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, for America's sake, we have to get this right. We have to do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.

Thank you, God bless you and God bless the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #25
45. Then his target should be the media who ignores the Dem security plans in
order to protect the GOP storyline that Dems have no plans.

Obama could word it CORRECTLY and make the point BETTER.

Obama COULD have said this:

Democrats need to break through the media stonewalling of our stronger and wiser national security plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
32.  I like him less and less.
Lecturing US instead of THEM?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
34. Obama needs to get hit by the *Clue Bat*
'Nuf said?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninten12 Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
35. Perhaps we should
We could perhaps start out by saying that the US will never be safe so long as a sitting president and his father are on the payroll of Saudi terrorists. I think that would be a good start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanusAscending Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
36. This newspaper article seems to have a very strong "right wing"
bias. I also found a mis quote toward the end of the article re his speech. He didn't say many "self-important" people he said "many self appointed people" I know this for fact, as I listened to the speech twice!! Much of this article must have been from behind the scenes, because none of this was included in his speech!!! And the writer of the article seemed bothered by the fact that many of the audience, after the speech, while he was signing autographs of his book, suggested that he should consider running for President. Gee , why does this bother the writer sooooooo much?? I do hope a transcript of his speech will be up sometime soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #36
74. dc, I listened to portions of the speech and I agree with you on his TONE
and I would like to see the speech in its entirety as said, but, the behind the scenes aspect, IF he wanted to make certain the reporter came away with a quote, and the reporter got that quote wrong and twisted it into a slam against other Democrats, then Obama needs to have his office ask for a correction.

I know what it's like to get snippets taken out of context - but, it certainly seems like it's a TACT of some in the party to decry the party stance as not tough enough, so it's not really a stretch to believe that Obama could have said those words.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 05:57 AM
Response to Original message
43. having read the whole speech -- this isn't right -- no matter what --
"What Democrats have to do is to close the deal," said Obama, the keynote speaker at Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin's 29th annual steak fry. "We have got to show we have a serious agenda for change."

the democratic is not now nor has it ever been for being ''weak''.

i have my arguments with the democratic party -- but they CERTAINLY have a history of loving aggression and military toys as much as the republick party -- and it IS playing into rove/gop talking points to affirm that the democratic party is weak.

and that is what he does with the above statement.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #43
49. Exactly - instead of FIGHTING the meme, he IMPLIES the meme is accurate.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
confludemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #43
53. You've pinpointed one of the problems with the much-ballyhooed Obama
He does this constantly. Now he's doing it in an election season. One time buying into and using as a cudgel against his own party the anti-religious Repub characterization of Dems, the next time, this same game on security. And he has done this with other themes. Why do they keep inviting this "rising star"? No wonder Lieberman was his mentor, they are two peas in a pod
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
50. I'm getting sick of this MACHO swaggering - tough talk.
It's unbecoming for a nation as ours to "give up" our liberties just for a little more *imagined security.*

With Respect, Senator Obama - You're getting weird on this point! Remember your true audience is NOT the chicken-shit Authority lovin' Right Wing. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
52. Blah, blah, blah...we can blow up Muslims as good as they can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strawman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
55. Personally, I'm pretty sick of "tough guys"
They're killing us (and others) and bankrupting the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
56. Fuck "tough"....
how about "smart"?

A "smart" security plan would have included things like offering Pakistani and other Muslim youth in the middle east a good, moderate education so that RW madrassas became uneccessary.

A "smart" security plan would have recognized Saddam was a creep but could be a natural ally and bulwark against Muslim extremists.

A "smart" security plan would seek out a lasting, just peace between Israel and the Palestinians as the only solution to a festering problem that stirs hatred and terrorism in the region.

A "smart" security plan would include a Manhattan Plan for clean, renewable fuel so our future would not be bound to a particular source or region.

But, maybe "smart" may be TOO smart for those stuck on stupid...so we're left with the old "tough" bullshit....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MODemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
58. Obama is getting too big for his britches
Doesn't anyone ever think of the domestic issues in this country? I'm concerned about what's being done
to Social Security, Medicare, Education, etc.,, and all the candidates can talk about is war & more war. :eyes: :eyes: :think: :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanusAscending Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. Sounds like you didn't HEAR the speech either!
He addressed all of these issues, at great length! There sure are a lot of "me tooers" on DU today, who believe what someone tells them, rather than use their own ears. Not meant to be a put down, just sayin'!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MODemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-19-06 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #59
84. Actually, I'm referring to his aspirations to run for president
He just isn't that experienced, and I feel he needs to at least get dry behind the ears from serving in
the Senate. No, I didn't hear this speech, but have heard others he has made. He definitely has charisma, but it takes more than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bling bling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
61. OMFG.
I just went over to KOS and read the comments there about this and it's the same thing as it is here.

The people who watched the speech keep screaming that the AP totally mischaracterized what Obama said, that he didn't criticize nor talk down to the Dem's -- that it was a great speech.

And everybody else just keeps on keepin on with their fingers plugged into their ears, eyes closed, yelling "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, LA LA LA......."

Some people even acknowledge that the media may have misrepresented the speech yet they are BLAMING OBAMA for it because he should have known the press would take everything out of context.

We should be rushing to his defense! No?????? We are absolutely batshit crazy if we ostracize Obama from our side. If we can't control ourselves from recklessly devouring our own then let's just put a gun to our party and put us out of our misery now and get it over with. This slow, painful bloodletting is agonizing and inhumane.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Part of showing you have a serious agenda is by backing to the hilt the
strong agenda that HAS been put up and talking it up for being snmarter and stronger.

How tough are you as a party if some are saying we NEED to get serious about a strong agenda? We HAVE strong security plans that Obama could have emphasized. We had them in 2004 and still do today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. And to do anything else smacks of airing dirty laundry in public.
Ya just don't do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bling bling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #62
66. Your blowing one thing up with a microscope and ignoring all else.
What is your goal, here? I'm being serious. Do you want us all to turn on Obama? Is that what would make you happy? Why do people spend so much energy (ie. over a dozen posts on one thread, for example) insisting Obama is something negative to our party? I just don't get it. Why are we hyperfocusing on something like this and eating our OWN instead of working as a team to counter the media's mischaracterization or at the VERY LEAST expending some energy trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't understand why some people seem to love to hate this man.

Or maybe I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. Turn on Obama? No. I want Obama to NOT TURN AGAINST Kerry, Murtha
Edited on Mon Sep-18-06 02:19 PM by blm
and all the Dems who HAVE BEEN articulating strong security plans. And doing so for twenty years. Does Obama even KNOW that had BCCI papers been made public, we wouldn't have even HAD a 9-11 event? Or that the ONLY successes the US has had against terrorism have come from the tracking of terror funds legislation that Kerry crafted in 1995?

Obama is feeding into the media mischaracterization of Dems instead of fighting it with the FACTS. He needs to wake up and realize that's a WEAK APPROACH and services the lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bling bling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Obama was criticizing the administration.
You are really off the mark with what Obama's speech was about. People are eating up the bullshit that the media once again served us and are regurgitating it to other Dems.

Imagine if Abraham Lincoln lived today (assuming he would be a Democrat now that the parties have switched). Lincoln gives a speech he calls the Emancipation Proclamation.

The AP reports with the headline:

"Lincoln gives speech, stands behind pro-gun lobby, advocates violence."

The bloggers go nuts: "WTF? Kick him out! We don't need NRA lapdog republican-lites."

The moral is that:

1. No where in the Emancipation did Lincoln advocate violence. He actually discourages violence EXCEPT in self-defense.

2. The speech wasn't even about that. It wasn't the point of the speech. The AP hyperfocused on ONE thing out of the entire Emancipation Proclamation and even took it out of context!

That's what is going on with Obama. We've got to stop eating this crap up. More importantly, we've got to stop eating our own.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. Did he say it or not? If the media misquoted him then put up his actual
Edited on Mon Sep-18-06 02:58 PM by blm
words.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bling bling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. Listen to the speech in context.
:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. I caught his talk on Cspan -
it doesn't MATTER that he bashed Bush's policies, he should have done that AND TALKED UP the Dem plans. I didn't hear that - did you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bling bling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Oh really.
You and I both know you didn't watch his speech. You are so completely out in left field about your portayal of what he did and didn't do that it's obvious. You do us all a disservice by diligently repeating, more like amplifying, the AP bullshit. It's disgraceful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. Boy - you don't know me at all.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bling bling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. No, you're right. But I do know this:
You didn't watch that speech. I'd bet my house on it.

There is no way you could have watched that speech and then been somehow angry if you're a Democrat.

There is no way you could have watched that speech and come to this thread, and make well over a dozen posts criticizing Obama, and making it sound like he insinuated that the Dems are weak on national security or that we don't have a plan. There is no way because he didn't insinuate that. At all. Not even CLOSE. Period.

The only people who think that he did are the original AP writer/asshole and the people who read his article and took it for face value (while blatantly ignoring everyone who warned it was a mischaracterization). Nobody who actually saw or heard the speech thought Obama criticized Dems or that he made us look like we *weren't* strong on national security.

It's at the bottom of the page. I beg you, please stop spreading those outrageous rumors about Obama's speech. Please watch the speech. Or just turn it on and listen while you're doing other things. You will be proud he's on our side.

http://www.c-span.org/videoarchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. That's not what I said -
I caught some of the speech on Cspan yesterday, but this article wasn't just written from the speech. IF Obama is being quoted accurately whether from the speech or behind the scenes, then his tact is wrongheaded.

I know his overall tone of the speech - the part that I did see - was not anti-Dem, but, if the words quoted are accurate, he's conveying a POV that bolsters the GOP spin against the Dem PARTY.

Why is it so hard for you to realize that the PORTION of his statement would be taken as an insult to those of us who've been fighting that "Dems are weak on national security" meme since LONG BEFORE 9-11, and 9-11 just made it worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItNerd4life Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
63. What are the Democrats Security Plans?
Many posters are blaming the media for not touting our plans. Many are blaming Obama for speaking and supporting right wing talking points.

But he is partially correct, we need a unified plan and a vision statement. Please let me explain:

What is our plan if IRAN and N. Korea defy world opinion and develop nuclear capabilities?
What is our strategy for fighting terrorists, and how is it different than the Repukes? (We won't invade pre-emptively isn't a plan. It's a statement.)
What is our view of the role of the military? When will we use them and when won't we? (again, we shouldn't have gone into Iraq isn't a plan, it's a statement.)

All of these don't need to be spelled out in a 3000 page document, they can be turned into Vision statements and kept to 1 - 4 sentences. Then, every Democrat touts them.

Vision statements must be small, concise, and repeated. Create and control the talking points. Nobody reads 3000 page plans.

I'm just curious if Obama is going to follow his own advice and create these plans and hopefully some vision statements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. Here's how they were laid out in Oct 2004. They apply today and haven't
changed, except for the part about what actions Iraq needed implemented in 2004 - since Bush continued his own startegy, Iraq ids in a civil war situation and Kerry submitted several withdrawal plans since Oct 2005, all updated according to the reality of the situation on the ground. Follow up plans were submitted in April 2006 and July 2006.


WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by Kerry-Edwards 2004:

The situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate. The coalition has lost control of areas where one million Iraqis live. U.S. forces are attacked an average of 87 times a day - up 100 percent since the spring. And Over 130 foreigners have been kidnapped in Iraq since March. Yet the President has offered no plan to win the peace.

Every week brings more evidence that President Bush doesn't see what's happening -- isn't leveling with the American people about why we went to war in Iraq and how the war is going -- and has no idea how to put our policy on track.

President Bush has taken his eye off al Qaeda, and its network has spread, with thousands of militants plotting and planning in 60 countries, forging new relationships with at least 20 extremist groups in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

John Kerry has a plan to win the peace in Iraq - bringing our allies to our side, training Iraqi security forces, launching a reconstruction effort and taking steps to ensure elections in January.

And John Kerry has a plan to fight a tougher, smarter war on terror - capturing or killing the terrorists and using all the elements of our national power to win this war.

WINNING THE PEACE IN IRAQ

INTERNATIONALIZING TO SHARE THE BURDEN

-- Persuade NATO to make the security of Iraq one of its global missions and to deploy a portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq.

-- Give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

-- Convene a summit of the world's major powers as well as states in the region, and key Arab and Muslim nations, followed by a standing Contact Group to consult on the way forward, and press them to make good on the steps called for in UN Security Council Resolution 1546: providing troops; providing trainers for Iraq's security forces; providing a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission; and providing more financial assistance and real debt relief.

-- Offer potential troop contributors specific and relatively low-risk but critical roles, such as training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders.

TRAINING IRAQI SECURITY FORCES

-- Provide incentives to improve and accelerate military and police recruitment.

-- Expand urgently the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq by establishing a single, common template for police training and another for military training, and enlisting our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries.

-- Recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq.

-- Strengthen the vetting of Iraqi recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training.

DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING A RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM THAT BRINGS MORE BENEFITS TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE

-- Internationalize the non-Iraqi reconstruction personnel in Iraq to share the costs and burdens, end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation, and help coordinate reconstruction efforts.

-- Order U.S. officials to cut through the red tape, reassess the whole reconstruction package and support high-visibility, quick impact projects on the local level.

-- Obtain our allies' final agreement to forgive Iraq's multi- billion dollar debt.

-- Use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton.

-- Stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption.

-- Fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

TAKING ESSENTIAL STEPS TO HOLD PROMISED ELECTIONS NEXT YEAR AND PUT IRAQ ON PATH TO DEMOCRACY

-- Recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force.

-- Train Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened so that U.S forces do not have to bear that burden alone.

-- Make sure an independent Iraqi electoral commission has the equipment and ballots it needs.

-- Convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non- interference in Iraq's internal affairs.

-- Help Iraqis establish a constitutional process for negotiating long-term power sharing arrangements between Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.

-- Invest in long-term capacity-building and training for political parties and civil society groups.

-- Prioritize training for the legal and judicial sectors.

WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR

I. DESTROY TERRORIST NETWORKS. John Kerry has a stronger, smarter strategy for destroying the terrorists before they can attack us. He will:

Direct Effective Use of Military Force to Destroy Terrorist Networks. Kerry will use military force to kill terrorists and destroy their networks. He will never cede our national security to any other nation or institution.

Transform the Military to Meet Modern Threats. Kerry will ensure that our military is fully prepared to meet the new security challenges by: (1) expanding our active duty forces by 40,000 soldiers so that we have enough troops to take the fight to the terrorists wherever they are; (2) doubling the Army's Special Forces capability and increasing other specialized personnel who are trained and equipped to destroy terrorists; (3) completing the process of technological transformation; (4) redirecting the National Guard to assume homeland security as an additional mission; and (5) keeping faith with our veterans and military families.

Reform our Intelligence Services to Prevent Terrorist Attacks. Kerry will act immediately on the 9-11 Commission recommendations and reform our intelligence services to better prevent terrorist attacks, including: (1) creating a National Intelligence Director with real control over personnel and budgets throughout the intelligence community; (2) reorganizing the intelligence community around issue-oriented task forces to maximize coordination and efficiency in addressing the greatest threats we face; (3) strengthening human intelligence by doubling the CIA's overseas clandestine personnel; and (4) ensuring an independent domestic intelligence capability within the FBI.

Deny Sanctuary in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has become a forgotten front in the war on terror. Al Qaeda is regrouping and strengthening. Twice as many American soldiers have died in combat so far this year than in all of last year. John Kerry will ensure that America finishes the job we started in Afghanistan, and that the country receives the security, political, and economic resources it needs. He will expand NATO beyond Kabul; stop the drug trade by doubling counter-narcotics assistance and expedite the growth of an Afghan counter-narcotics force whose specific mandate is to track down and destroy Afghanistan's druglords as well as their drug infrastructure and drug processing facilities; expedite the warlord disarmament and reintegration program; and improve security training.

II. PREVENT NUCLEAR TERRORISM. John Kerry believes that preventing nuclear terrorism must be our primary national security priority. He will:

-- Secure and Reduce Nuclear Stockpiles. Kerry's plan will safeguard existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union within four years, create an international partnership to establish and enforce an international standard for the safe custody of nuclear weapons and materials, safeguard nuclear materials at research reactors around the world, and reduce existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials.

-- Institute a Verifiable Global Ban on the Production of New Bomb Making Materials. A Kerry administration will end production of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons through a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty with real verification mechanisms.

-- Lead an International Effort to End Nuclear Weapons Programs in North Korea and Iran.

North Korea: While the administration has made no meaningful progress in negotiations over the past 18 months, North Korea has reportedly quadrupled its nuclear weapons capability. Kerry will work with our allies to reduce tensions and get the six-party talks with North Korea back on track. He will also be prepared to talk directly with the North Koreans because we should speak for ourselves when our security is at stake. And he will ensure that any final agreement leads to the verifiable and irreversible elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons program and addresses the full range of issues of concern to us and our allies.

Iran: For far too long, the Bush Administration has sat on the sidelines while Iran has advanced its nuclear program. America needs to lead because a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable. John Kerry will make clear to Iran that America will lead an international effort to push for tough measures, including sanctions, if Iran does not comply with the IAEA resolution by permanently suspending its uranium enrichment program and provide verifiable assurances that it is not trying to develop nuclear weapons.

-- Strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). As president, Kerry will work to close the loophole in the NPT that allows countries to develop nuclear weapons capabilities under the guise of a civilian nuclear power program, and make adoption of the additional inspection protocol mandatory.

III. CUT-OFF TERRORIST FINANCING. John Kerry will: (1) impose financial sanctions against any bank that fails to cooperate in the effort to control money laundering, and, if needed, against nations; (2) work with our allies and the World Bank and international financial institutions to shut down the financial pipeline to terrorists; (3) speak openly and plainly about Saudi shortcomings, and get tough with them when it comes to allowing financing of terrorism and spreading an anti-American ideology - there will be no sacred cows when it comes to protecting America; and (4) pursue a plan to make America independent of Mideast oil so that we can rely on our own innovation and ingenuity.

IV. PROTECT THE HOMELAND. Americans deserve a stronger homeland security strategy that protects us from the threats we face. Kerry's comprehensive strategy addresses the critical security gaps that continue to remain after 4 years of ineffective leadership by George W. Bush.

-- Secure America's Ports and Borders. Currently, the United States inspects only about 5 percent of the containers coming into our country. John Kerry supports a six-fold increase in critical initiatives to inspect cargo overseas and to subject companies that do not meet minimum security standards themselves to tougher inspection. Currently, these programs are woefully under-funded and do impose adequate barriers to terrorists seeking to attack America. He will work with our allies in Canada and Mexico as well as our other trade partners to coordinate our personnel and technology to create the Smart Borders necessary to keep commerce flowing while keeping terrorists out. And a Kerry administration will ensure that we create a single, effective, and integrated terrorist watch list that is accessible to everyone who needs it, including agents along our borders and the cops on our streets.

-- Enhance Aviation. Kerry will implement explosives screening for airplane passengers and obtain the equipment needed to screen air cargo just as we screen passenger baggage. To achieve these goals, he will triple the current level of investment in the purchase and installation of explosive detection screening equipment. He will also ensure that our airports have the trained staff necessary to provide the strong and smarter security America deserves.

-- Expand Rail and Subway Security. As president, John Kerry will make new investments of more than $2 billion to protect our mass transit systems and improve the security of our rail systems, including the purchase of more surveillance equipment and better fencing for high-risk areas.

-- Secure America's Chemical Plants and Other Critical Infrastructure. John Kerry will require chemical plants to develop and implement security plans, including measures to use less dangerous chemicals where that is feasible. Kerry will ensure security at our nuclear plants, including adequate fencing and surveillance, as well as armed, trained, and competent security forces. Because 85 percent of our critical infrastructure is owned by the private sector, Kerry will lead the effort to establish the public-private partnerships necessary to devise security precautions that make sense.

-- Defend against Bio-terrorism. Kerry will: (1) make the investments America's public health system needs to detect bioterrorist threats to our communities, and that our hospitals and emergency rooms need to contain bioterrorism; (2) improve the capability for our health system to develop and implement distribution plans for vaccines; (3) lead efforts to increase and improve our stockpiles of medicines; and (4) expedite development of new vaccines.

-- Provide our First Responders the Resources they Need. America's first responders need the equipment and manpower to do the job right. Our local officials shouldn't have to choose between security and public education -- we can do better. To make our homeland security strategy more efficient, Kerry will bring the people on the front lines together to design the standard capabilities needed to respond to a terrorist attack. And he will work to get federal dollars to communities faster and more efficiently.

V. DENY TERRORISTS SAFE HAVENS AND NEW RECRUITS. John Kerry knows that to win the war on terror, America must use all elements of national power to deny terrorists new havens and recruits and prevent terrorists from poisoning minds around the world. America must show that we are willing to use our economic power for the common good; to defeat abject poverty and disease that destroy lives and create failed states in every part of the world.

Work to Prevent Weak and Failing States from Becoming Terrorist Havens. Kerry will work with our allies and the international community to develop comprehensive strategies to strengthen weak states and secure and rebuild failed states.

-- Strategically Target Assistance to Weak and Failed States. As president, Kerry will provide strategically focused assistance to weak and failed states to help them build democratic institutions, better secure their territories, and achieve broad- based economic development. Kerry will help them increase their capacity to meet the needs of their citizens for decent, basic education, basic health and disease prevention services and support the development of small and medium-size enterprises.

-- Develop Rapid Response Capacity. John Kerry will develop an enlarged country-in-transition fund to enable the U.S. government to respond swiftly to crises and opportunities in weak and failed states. With our allies, we will also support initiatives to increase the capacity of developing countries and regional organizations such as the African Union and ASEAN to respond rapidly with peacekeeping force to prevent and resolve conflicts.

-- Refocus Diplomatic, Intelligence and Other Assets on Failed States. The 2002 National Security Strategy stated: "America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones." Yet the Bush administration's distribution of our diplomatic, intelligence and other assets does not reflect that. A Kerry administration will ensure that America has the best intelligence possible on weak and failed states.

-- Share Burden with Allies and International Community. America cannot bear the burden of strengthening weak states and securing and rebuilding failed states around the world alone - our allies, regional powers and international institutions must also do their share. Kerry will rebuild our alliances and bring others in the international community together to address the risks that failed states pose to people all over the world.

-- Lead a Global Education Initiative. Under a new Global Education Initiative, America will lead the world to provide universal basic education by 2015. It is critical that we not only seek to empower reformers to achieve quality public education through the Arab and Muslim world - where a lack of funding has helped foster radical schools that teach hate - but that we also support a global effort for free universal education throughout Africa and the developing world. Increasing education in poor nations - especially for girls - has been shown to be extremely effective in raising incomes, reducing infant mortality and preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

-- Cancel the Debt of the World's Poorest Countries. John Kerry supports wiping clean the debts of the world's most heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) that are reforming their economies and investing in their human capital. Debt relief will give them a fresh start to invest in health, education, and infrastructure. And Kerry will direct his Secretary of the Treasury to initiate negotiations with the Paris Club of Official Creditors, the World Bank, the IMF, and others with the goal of modifying the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative to provide substantially greater debt reduction to a broader set of poor countries. Kerry understands that debt cancellation should not come at the expense of future foreign aid flows to poor countries.

-- Address Global Health Priorities. Epidemics can decimate societies and contribute to weak and failed states, which can become safe havens and recruiting grounds for terrorists and other criminal elements. John Kerry will invest more in health care infrastructure in weak and failing states, and dedicate greater attention and increased resources to training health care professionals and community health care workers. As president, Kerry will double the U.S. funding to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to $30 billion by 2008 and encourage other countries, corporations and foundations to do their share. And in a Kerry administration, global health policy will be driven by science instead of ideology.

VI. SUPPORT DEMOCRACIES IN THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD. We must support the development of free and democratic societies in the Arab and Muslim world to win the war of ideas. While countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan, have at times helped us in the hunt for individual terrorists, they have not always been good allies in turning back the terrorists' cause. In a Kerry administration, America will be clear with repressive governments in the region that we expect to see them change, not just for our sake but for their own survival. And Kerry will restore America's moral authority by leading by example and by promoting respect for the rule of law.

-- Launch a Major Public Diplomacy Initiative. Kerry will lead a major initiative in public diplomacy to train a new generation of American scholars, diplomats, military officers, and democracy builders who understand the Arab and Muslim world, just as we built our knowledge of the Soviet empire during the Cold War. And Kerry will open diplomatic posts and invest in academic programs, scholarships and exchanges with the Muslim world so we can build better bridges and craft more effective policies.

-- Convene a Summit to Increase Mutual Cooperation. As president, John Kerry will convene -- and attend -- a summit with European partners and leaders from the Muslim world to discuss how we can collectively work together to establish new programs aimed at increasing mutual understanding, economic growth, and the fight against terror.

VII. RESTORE ALLIANCES TO COMBAT TERRORIST NETWORKS ACROSS THE GLOBE. Kerry will ensure that America always remains the world's paramount military power. He will also restore alliances to magnify our power, and increase intelligence and law enforcement coordination so that we can stop terrorists hidden around the world before they can strike at us.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
78. This is a poorly written article, to say the least
First, the article says "Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., warned Democratic activists Sunday that the party must take a tougher stance on national security if it wants to succeed in the November elections."

But the quote that follows this doesn't say a thing about "national security" or "tougher stance": "What Democrats have to do is to close the deal," said Obama, the keynote speaker at Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin's 29th annual steak fry. "We have got to show we have a serious agenda for change."

Somebody needs to tell this writer or his editor that you need to match paraphrases with exact quotes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
80. Sometimes...
What people say, and what other people hear, are not the same thing.

While the Democratic party my be strong on defense (I think they're plenty strong, if somewhat naive) the Republicans and many, many moderates do not preceive them as such. It's all well and good if we rail on DU "BUT WE ARE STRONG ON DEFENSE," but it means dick all if the message is not getting out, or not penetrating.

Too long the Democratic party has been reacting to the Republican party and it's part of the reason why we've been getting toasted in elections. We need a strong statement on security and it needs to be something other than "we're not the Republicans" because even if that's not the message being sent, it's what the middle ground is hearing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-19-06 03:59 AM
Response to Original message
82. It's subject to interpretation
Edited on Tue Sep-19-06 04:04 AM by loyalsister
I sense a lot of defensiveness.

The way I understood it was he acknowledged political challenges, and submitted that the way to overcome them is to start thinking about security differently so that we can take a more effective approach.

"What Democrats have to do is to close the deal," said Obama, the keynote speaker at Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin's 29th annual steak fry. "We have got to show we have a serious agenda for change."

I personally don't find it offensive to admit that we have political challenges. That Democrats are "weak on defense" is not simply a meme. It is conventional wisdom.
It requires a paradigm shift to simultaneously convince people that we can get out of Iraq, and remain strong on security\defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-19-06 04:04 AM
Response to Original message
83. a tougher stance is this: "America is NOT afraid of the terrorists, and we
are CERTAINLY not afraid of the rethugs, even though they use the same fear tactics to try to control Americans."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC