Guardian

Sen. Barack Obama Outlines Plans to Root Out Overseas Terrorists

Wednesday, August 01, 2007
FOX News

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama took on President Bush, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and his chief Democratic primary rival on Wednesday in a speech billed as major foreign policy statement by the Illinois senator.

Obama said he will be better focused than Bush on fighting terrorists in foreign lands — shifting away from Iraq and back to Afghanistan — as well as improving diplomatic relations and securing the homeland, according to excerpts from the speech prepared for delivery.

Obama, speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington, D.C., also called for at least two more U.S. combat brigades to be sent to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda, and he had tough words for Musharraf, saying in the absence of more action from the Pakistani leader in the fight against terrorists, the U.S. would step in.

"The president would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of Al Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates Al Qaeda in Iraq — which didn't exist before our invasion — and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan," Obama said, adding: "He confuses our mission."

Obama would place heavy conditions on the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan: "Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said.

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

While not naming any of his Democratic rivals, Obama's aides said speech is the strongest statement on terrorism in the Democratic field. Just last week, a spat between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama grew out of a debate question over foreign diplomacy.

Obama says he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions. Clinton has lampooned the idea as naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."

"The lesson of the Bush years is: Not talking doesn't work," he said Wednesday. He pointed to Syria's continued support for terror, North Korea's apparent march toward nuclear weapons capabilities

"It's time to turn the page on Washington's conventional wisdom that agreements must be reached before we meet, that talking talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear," Obama said.

Obama also will said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and put them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would increase non-military aid to the country by $1 billion.

He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa. Also on his itemized agenda is a plan to double foreign aid overall by 2012 and close Guantanamo Bay, where terrorist suspects are currently detained.

FOX News' Carl Cameron and The Associated Press contributed do this report.



__________________________________________________ _______________

I am a Republican and have been for as long as I can remember. I have always bought into the stigma that Republicans were better on foreign policy; except the Bush Administration has really put that thought in jeopardy. I agree with most of what Obama has to say on matters of foreign policy. I disagree that we should pull out of Iraq because of the imminent consequences for the region and the US, but I do agree that we should not have gone there in the first place.

I think that these remarks by Obama are a political maneuver to show American voters that Obama will not be SOFT on foreign policy and military matters. In a sense he is doing three things. 1)He is separating himself from Hillary Clinton's more pacifist ideology of foreign policy, 2)He is appealling to voters that want a President who is strong on foreign policy and not afraid to use the military, 3)He is castigating Hillary (she voted for the war) and the Republicans for their foreign policy blunder with the Iraq War.

This is a good move on Obama's part. He is drawing the line within the Democratic Party separating those who believe in using military force when necessary and those that do not support war of any kind. Remember, this is America and regardless of the opposition to the Iraq War in this country, Americans have always and will always be in for a fight when the fight is right...even Democrats. So by Hillary making the political decision to appeal to the pacifist left, Obama can appeal to the moderates and the few conservatives within the Democratic Party that do support the use of the military.

__________________
The history of the world is but the biography of great men.
-Thomas Carlyle

astralis

guardian,

hillary clinton as pacifist? as you say, she voted for the war. and to her credit, she defended the war a good deal longer than quite a few other democrats.

this has, of course, earned her the ire of the hard left, especially in such articles like these:

Hillary Clinton, War Goddess- by Justin Raimondo

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

astralis

right now what we're really seeing is a lot of posturing of the political figures. this is obama's riposte to clinton's accusation that obama lacks experience and is naive when it comes to foreign policy, in other words, his response to clinton calling him a dove

as election-time draws closer, the candidates will be drawing more specific foreign policy plans. right now, it's hard to judge with the lack of information.

dalem

Oh yeah, pure genius. Invade the territory of an ally.

Only a Dove can come up with plans designed to cause this much geopolitical damage.

-dale

gunnut

HA! Like I said, the democrats are the real warmongers. Obama would invade Pakistan based on what? Osama might be there? Says who? The international intelligence community who also believed Iraq had stockpiles of WMD? Wow talk about invading a sovereign nation that doesn't pose a threat based on false pretenses.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

JAD_333

It's a good speech for Obama. It will play better with Hillary's supporters than with his. No doubt his polls showed that he needed to demonstrate some toughness on national security. Constantly reminding voters that he was against Iraq from the start and his remark that he'd meet any world leader without preconditions isn't enough to show he has the right stuff to be president. The speech gets him a little closer, but not close enough IMO.

Now he has to explain away his less than astute "invade" Pakistan plan. I agree with dale that you don't just march into an ally's country without its permission. As for yanking aid if Pakistan doesn't produce RESULTS, what do we do if they make a solid EFFORT and come up short? Sorry, no potato? It won't fly with a proud country like Pakistan.

He has a lot of other explaining to do. Where will he get the 2 brigades he wants to send to Afganistan any time soon? Iraq, I presume.

Is he saying all that matters is to catch the 9/11 perpetrators and then we'll go home? Seems so. He chose safe ground there. There's more support here and aboard for our presense in Afganistan than in Iraq. Also, he treats Afganistan as an exclusive US show where we still call all the shots. Did he forget NATO?

After localizing the threat to Afganistan, he proposes $5B to help international security agencies root out terrorists organizations throughout the ME. Interpol? Seems the problem of terrorism goes beyond Afganistan afterall.

There's not much new in the speech, but Obama's definately got a new image. Smart move on his part. Now, we'll see how well he can depend his plan. I'm looking forward to Hillary's reaction.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

sectionOne

Obama truly lacks experience and knowledge. but I also suspect his agenda comes from his fathers and his childhood Islamic upbringing. the idea to invade Pak to get terrorists shows a lack of understanding of Islam and an effort to fool the American people.

the most important weapon the US can have is a public that is aware of what Islamic terrorism really is, and the transparency of Obama will show how far along we are.

astralis

sectionOne,

"childhood Islamic upbringing"? i note that you took the internet rumor hook, line, and sinker.

sectionOne

you saying his father isn't Tanzanian and has experience in madrassas?

astralis

sectionOne

ok, dad was from Kenya. and a muslim.
"Obama has never admitted being a muslim"
but I'm positive if he was born into a muslim family that there are some practices still in effect.
a black Catholic? that's interesting.

but being born into a muslim family doesn't mean there is no exposure to Islam. that's the part that's important. because exposure can evolve into sympathy and favortism.

JAD_333

I think you'll find a good many Christians and Jews sympathetic with certain aspects of Islam, at least, those who take the time to study it objectively.
Even Bush praises Islam and Muslims in general.

Perhaps your beef is with terrorist groups and fundamentalists who interpret Islam to suit their own goals. Christianity has undergone similar misinterpretations in the hands of politically motivated people.

astralis

sectionOne,

if you can't prove it, then this remains baseless conjecture. if you are indeed an academic, you should know quite well the worth of that in an argument.

exposure CAN evolve into sympathy and favoritism, but that's not a given. i was raised in a taiwanese buddhist family, but i'm a christian. obama has by and large been raised as a christian. unless you can find proof that demonstrates this supposed islamic religious sympathy-favoritism link in obama, then your suspicions are completely groundless.

sectionOne

that's all well and good. Christianity and Judism is pluralistic whereas Islam is not. there's not an arabic word for religious pluralism. non-muslims are not considered equal to muslims, that's just fact.

I have no beef. I simply know Islam and terrorism mindset.

to compare Christianity and Islam moves into an apologist territory that I'm not interested in. thanks though.

sectionOne

good, then I wish him luck. I have no suspicions, just presenting the background of a presidential candidate, and that happens to include some Islamic family ties.