Barack Obama on War & Peace Democratic President (2008); IL Senator (2004)

Sub-sections under War & Peace:
• Afghan War
• Iraq War
• Trouble Spots
• Voting Record
• Other issues under War & Peace

OpEd: Conservatives happy Obama is staying in Afghanistan

That kind of reversal gets liberals and even moderates who supported Obama very angry. They feel fooled.

Here's a basic axiom for when a politician changes his mind and alters his positions: The only people who believe he's really changed are those who used to agree with him and now are angry that he's flipped. The folks who used to disagree with him don't really buy that he's come around to their point of view. He loses them both.

So Obama won't gain any new friends by fighting in Afghanistan. The hawks still consider him too weak and unwilling to stand up for American interests And the doves are upset that he went back on his word.

2002: I don't oppose all war; I am opposed to dumb war

Among the bravest was Obama, in a risky speech delivered at an antiwar rally in Chicago in Oct. 2002, when he was a political unknown: "I don't oppose all wars," he began. "What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop on the median income--to distract us from the corporate scandals."

That was less than a year after 9/11. Not bad for a post-partisan. Not bad for connecting the dots. Not bad for prescience and courage.

2002: I don't oppose all war; I am opposed to dumb war

That was less than a year after 9/11. Not bad for a post-partisan. Not bad for connecting the dots. Not bad for prescience and courage. Belatedly, the people noticed the fakery [about the Iraq War]. But how much sooner they might have noticed the fakery had there been braver leadership on the Democratic side.

Among the bravest was Obama, in a risky speech delivered at an antiwar rally in Chicago in Oct. 2002, when he was a political unknown: "I don't oppose all wars," he began. "What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and other

We've taken the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan, until July

We've also taken the fight to al Qaeda and their allies abroad. In Afghanistan, our troops have taken Taliban strongholds and trained Afghan security forces. Our purpose is clear: By preventing the Taliban from reestablishing a stranglehold over the Afghan people, we will deny al Qaeda the safe haven that served as a launching pad for 9/11.

Thanks to our heroic troops and civilians, fewer Afghans are under the control of the insurgency. There will be tough fighting ahead, and the Afghan government will need to deliver better governance. But we are strengthening the capacity of the Afghan people and building an enduring partnership with them. This year, we will work with nearly 50 countries to begin a transition to an Afghan lead. And this July, we will begin to bring our troops home.

OpEd: Relying heavily on drones causes civilian casualties

Obama's "vision" was to shift forces from Iraq to Afghanistan. Obama strongly endorsed the Bush administration policy of attacking suspected al-Qaeda leaders in countries Washington has not (yet) invaded. Presumably, Obama also accepts the more expansive Bush doctrine that the US not only has the right to invade countries as it chooses (unless it is a "blunder," too costly to us), but also to attack others that Washington claims were supporting resistance to its aggression. In particular, Obama is relying more heavily than Bush on the raids by drones that have killed many civilians in Pakistan. Drones have killed about 14 alleged terrorists and 700 civilians--a hit rate of 2%.

Afghan president Hamid Karzai's first message to President-elect Obama: "End US airstrikes that risk civilian casualties."

Troops will begin to exit Afghanistan in July 2011

Evil does exist in the world; sometimes war is justified

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations--acting individually or in concert--will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of the creed and lives of Gandhi and King. But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.

More aid to Pakistan; but pursue bin Laden over their border

OBAMA: We have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq, when we hadn’t finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda.

We have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can’t coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he’s making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants. We’re going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act & we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

Unwise war in Iraq distracted us from catching Bin Laden

A: I think the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place. Six years ago, I opposed this war because I said that not only did we not know how much it was going to cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world, & whether our intelligence was sound, but also because we hadn’t caught bin Laden. We hadn’t put al Qaeda to rest, & as a consequence, I thought that it was going to be a distraction. I wish I had been wrong. We’ve spent over $600 billion so far. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001. We are still spending $10 billion a month at a time when we are in great distress here at home. The lesson is we should never hesitate to use military force, & I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. We did not use our military wisely in Iraq

Afghanistan needs more troops and resources

We need more troops. The situation is getting worse. We had the highest fatalities among US troops this past year than at any time since 2002. I would send 2 to 3 additional brigades to Afghanistan. Keep in mind that we have 4 times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in. That is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the US, and that the place where we have to deal with these folks is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s not just more troops. We have to #1, press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people; #2, we’ve got to deal with a poppy trade that has exploded; #3, we’ve got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan. Until we do, Americans at home are not safe.

Military surge in Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban

A: Yes. I think that’s what we need. I think we need more troops there, I think we need to do a better job of reconstruction there. I think we have to be focused on Afghanistan. It is one of the reasons that I was opposed to the war in Iraq in the first place. We now know that al-Qaeda is stronger than any time since 2001. They are growing in capability. That is something that we’ve got to address. And we’re also going to have to address the situation in Pakistan, where we now have, in the federated areas, al-Qaeda and the Taliban setting up bases there. We now have a new government in Pakistan. We have an opportunity to initiate a new relationship, so that we can get better cooperation to hunt down al-Qaeda and make sure that that does not become a safe haven for them.

Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed

A: I absolutely do stand by it. We should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaida, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our national intelligence estimates is that Al Qaida is stronger now than at any time since 2001. And so, back in August, I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan so you’ve got a legitimate government, and secondly that we have to press them to do more to take on Al Qaida in their territory; and if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. The two heads of the 9/11 Commission a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it’s indisputable that that should be our course.

Deal with al Qaeda on Pakistan border, but not with nukes

CLINTON: I was asked specifically about the Bush-Cheney administration’s policy to drum up support for military action against Iran. Combine that with their continuing effort to try to get “bunker-buster” nuclear bombs that could penetrate into the earth to go after deeply buried nuclear sites. This was not a hypothetical, this was a brushback against this administration which has been reckless and provocative.

Q: Do you accept that distinction?

OBAMA: There was no difference. It is not hypothetical that Al Qaida has established base camps in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. No military expert would advise that we use nuclear weapons to deal with them, but we do have to deal with that problem.

Military action in Pakistan if we have actionable intel

DODD: It was a mistake to suggest somehow that going in unilaterally here into Pakistan was somehow in our interest. That is dangerous. And I don’t retreat from that at all.

OBAMA: I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with Musharraf, because the biggest threat to American security right now are in the northwest provinces of Pakistan and that we should continue to give him military aid contingent on him doing something about that.

FactCheck: Yes, Obama said invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda

That’s not exactly what he said. Obama is referring to an Aug. 1 policy address, in which he made no direct mention of working with Musharraf. Instead, he said he would “take out” al Qaeda if Musharraf failed to act.

Obama (Aug. 1):
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

Focus on battle in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda

Iraq has distracted us from Taliban in Afghanistan

We did the right thing in Afghanistan

We are playing to Osama’s plan for winning a war from a cave

That’s the plan for winning a war from a cave, & so far, we are playing to script. To change that script, we’ll need to make sure that any exercise of American military power helps rather than hinders our broader goals: to incapacitate the destructive potential of terrorist networks and win this global battle of ideas.

Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine

OpEd: Real Change? Still in Iraq; and now in Libya

Instead of being an anti-war President, Obama has not removed troops from Iraq; has escalated the war in Afghanistan; and has involved the US in a civil war in Libya. Domestically, the unemployment situation is still high, the economy is in a questionable "recovery", and the dollar keeps losing value, and spending and the national debt gets worse.

Iraq: 100,000 troops have left; let's finish the job

Make no mistake: Troops coming home from Iraq by August

FactCheck: Iraqis have $29B surplus, not $79B

As we’ve pointed out when Obama said it on the campaign trail, when he repeated it at the last debate, and even when Biden mentioned the figure in the vice presidential debate, that number is wrong. The Iraqis actually “have” $29.4 billion in the bank. The Government Accountability Office projected in August that Iraq’s 2008 budget surplus could range anywhere from $38.2 billion to $50.3 billion, depending on oil revenue, price and volume. Then, in early August, the Iraqi legislature passed a $21 billion supplemental spending bill. The supplemental will be completely funded by this year’s surplus, and that means that the Iraqi’s will not have $79 billion in the bank. They could have about $59 billion.

FactCheck: Opposes surge--hasn’t produced political solution

FACT CHECK: Obama said at the time that the increase in roughly 30,000 US troops in Iraq could improve security in “certain neighborhoods” but that it would not solve the long-term political strife between Iraq’s ethnic and religious groups. “I don’t think there’s been any doubt that if we put US troops in that, in the short term, we might see some improvement in certain neighborhoods,“ he said in March 2007. In a September 2007 speech Obama said ”the stated purpose of the surge was to enable Iraq’s leaders to reconcile. Our troops fight and die in the 120-degree heat to give Iraq’s leaders space to agree, but they aren’t filling it.“

FactCheck: Iraq has at most $59B surplus, not $79B surplus

Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 first Presidential debate Sep 26, 2008

FactCheck: Promised 16-month exit; now 16-month reduction

But in Oct. 2007, Obama supported removing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, saying, “I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.” The quote appears on the campaign’s Web site.

You don’t defeat a terrorist network by occupying Iraq

I will only send our troops into harm’s way when necessary

$10 billion a month spent in Iraq should be spent in the US

2002 anti-war speech was not popular opinion at that time

Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis

A: If we are doing this right, if we have a phased redeployment where we’re as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, then there’ not reason why we shouldn’t be able to prevent the wholesale slaughter some people have suggested might occur. And part of that means we are engaging in the diplomatic efforts that are required within Iraq, among friends, like Egypt, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but also enemies like Iran and Syria. They have to have buy-in into that process. We have to have humanitarian aid now. We also have two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq. We should be ramping up assistance to them right now. But I always reserve the right, in conjunction with a broader international effort, to prevent genocide or any wholesale slaughter than might happen inside of Iraq or anyplace else.

FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million

The Iraq war has undermined our security

Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats

End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war

But the one important thing is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should hav troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. We shouldn’t have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war.

I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.

The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start

Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent

No permanent bases in Iraq

Congress decides deployment level & duration, not president

A: No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.

Leave troops for protection of Americans & counterterrorism

Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge

A: I hope and will work diligently in the Senate to bring an end to this war before I take office. And it is very important at this stage, understanding how badly the president’s strategy has failed, that we not vote for funding without some timetable for this war. If there are still large troop presences in when I take office, then

Q: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, there will be no US troops in Iraq?

A: I think it’s hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don’t know what contingency will be out there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don’t want to make promises, not knowing what the situation’s going to be three or four years out.

We live in a more dangerous world because of Bush’s actions

Case for war was weak, but people voted their best judgment

War in Iraq is “dumb” but troops still need equipment

A: I am proud that I opposed this war from the start, because I thought that it would lead to the disastrous conditions that we’ve seen on the ground in Iraq. What I’ve also said is if we’re going to send hundreds of thousands of our young men and women there, then they have the equipment that they need to make sure that they come home safely. I’m proud of the fact that I put forward a plan in January that mirrors what Congress ultimately adopted. And it says there’s no military solution to this. We’ve got to have a political solution, begin a phased withdrawal, and make certain that we’ve got benchmarks in place so that the Iraqi people can make a determination about how they want to move forward.

Open-ended Iraq occupation must end: no military solution

A: I opposed this war from the start. In part because I believed that if we gave open-ended authority to invade Iraq in 2002, we would have an open-ended occupation of the sort that we have right now. And I have stated clearly and unequivocally that that open-ended occupation has to end. The idea that the situation in Iraq is improving is simply not credible, and it’s not reflective of the facts on the ground. The hard truth is, there’s no military solution to this war. Our troops have done all that they have been asked and more, but no amount of American soldiers are gonna solve the political differences that lie in the heart of the sectarian conflict. Extending the surge is just going to put more men and women in the crossfire of a civil war.

Iraq 2002: ill-conceived venture; 2007: waste of resources

Saddam did not own and was not providing WMD to terrorists

Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism

OBAMA: There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe because it betrayed a set of international rules that were in place to protect us, that could have helped us defeat terrorism. Mr. Keyes implied that by fighting this war in Iraq we have reduced the probability of a terrorist attack to zero. That cannot be the case when we have nuclear fuel lying around in the former Soviet Union. We still have ports that are insecure. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are still insecure. The notion that we have eliminated the terrorist threat while Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan is simply not the case.

KEYES: We have reduced the probability of an attack from Saddam Hussein to zero.

Invading Iraq was a bad strategic blunder

Democratizing Iraq will be more difficult than Afghanistan

A: It is an absolutely hopeful sign for the people of Afghanistan. As I have stated unequivocally, I have always thought that we did the right thing in Afghanistan. My only concerns with respect to Afghanistan was that we diverted our attention from Afghanistan in terms of moving into Iraq, and I think would could have done a better job of stabilizing that country than we have in providing assistance to the Afghani people. All of us should be rooting for the Afghani people & making sure that we are providing them the support to make things happen. With respect to Iraq, it’s going to be a tougher play. I don’t think any of us should be rooting for failure in Iraq at this point. This is no longer Bush’s war, this is our war, and we all have a stake in it.

Never fudge numbers or shade the truth about war

Iraq war was sincere but misguided, ideologically driven

Not opposed to all wars, but opposed to the war in Iraq

Intervene in Libya for humanitarian reasons

Michele Bachmann's position on Libya distinctly contrasts with Obama's position. Bachmann is against American involvement in the civil war in Libya. Her view is that no one really knows who the rebels in Libya are, nor how they intend to change Libya. She further explains that there are terrorist groups assisting the rebels Obama's position is that the US must be involved in Libya for "humanitarian" reasons. As the Libya situation drags on, people will realize that if NATO and the U.S. had never intervened in Libya, the civil war would have been over in a few weeks. The rebels would have been driven out long ago, and thousands of deaths would have been prevented. Americans will demand that Obama answer "Why Libya?" just like they demanded that Bush answer "Why Iraq?"

Supports Arab Peace Initiative (two states) with exceptions

The consensus calls for a Palestinian state to be established in united Gaza and the West bank after Israel's withdrawal. The Arab Peace Initiative adds that the Arab states should then normalize relations with Israel. The initiative was later adopted by the Organization of Islamic States, including Iran.

Obama has praised the initiative and called on the Arab states to proceed to normalize relations with Israel, scrupulously evading the core of the proposal: reiteration of the international consensus. His studied omission can only be understood as [the same] US rejectionist stand that has blocked a diplomatic settlement since the 1970s, with rare and temporary exceptions. There are no signs that Obama is willing even to consider the Arab Peace Initiative. That was underscored in Obama's much heralded address to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4, 2009.

Continued Israeli settlements in West Bank are illegitimate

The operative words are "legitimacy" & "continued." By omission, Obama indicates that he accepts Bush's vision: the vast existing settlement and infrastructure projects are "legitimate," thus ensuring that the phrase "Palestinian state" means "fried chicken."

OpEd: 2008: Denounced Mumbai attacks, but not Gaza attacks

Before the primaries, I reviewed Obama's formal positions at the time. They gave no reason for any expectations beyond enthusiastic support for Israeli crimes. Particularly revealing was his reaction to Israel's sharply accelerated assault on Gaza, opening its violation of the cease-fire on Nov. 4, 2008, as voters were going to the polls to elect Obama, then breaking out in full fury on Dec. 27 after rejection of Hamas initiatives to reinstate the cease-fire. To these crimes Obama's response was silence-- unlike, say, the late November terrorist attack in Mumbai, which he was quick to denounce, along with the "hateful ideology" that lay behind it. In the case of Gaza, his staff hid behind the mantra that "there is one president at a time."

Prevent Iran from attacking Israel, but keep military option

McCAIN: We obviously would not wait for the United Nations Security Council. Both Russia and China would probably pose significant obstacles.

OBAMA: We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it’s unacceptable. And I will do everything that’s required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table. And it is important that we don’t provide veto power to the UN or anyone else in acting in our interests. It is important, though, for us to use all the tools at our disposal to prevent the scenario where we’ve got to make those kinds of choices.

2002: I don't oppose all war; I am opposed to dumb war

Among the bravest was Obama, in a risky speech delivered at an antiwar rally in Chicago in Oct. 2002, when he was a political unknown: "I don't oppose all wars," he began. "What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop on the median income--to distract us from the corporate scandals."

That was less than a year after 9/11. Not bad for a post-partisan. Not bad for connecting the dots. Not bad for prescience and courage.

Engaging in tough diplomacy with Iran is a sign of strength

A: Well, I’m encouraged to see, for example, the Bush administration send an outstanding diplomat, [Undersecretary of State William] Burns, to participate in discussions with Iran. This is what I’ve been talking about for the last year and a half. You know, engaging in tough diplomacy is not a sign of weakness; it’s a sign of strength. So far the Iranians have not accepted the kinds of talks that we need to deal with in terms of suspending their enrichment program. But the fact that we’ve tried to talk to them then strengthens our hand in the international community when we wanna get Russia or China to help apply the tough sanctions that are gonna be required to make Iranians know that we mean business.

Iran is biggest strategic beneficiary of invasion of Iraq

A: Well, let me not speculate yet. I want to take a look at the kind of evidence that the administration is putting forward, & what these plans are exactly. As commander in chief, I don’t take military options off the table and I think it’s appropriate for us to plan for a whole host of contingencies. But let’s look at the larger picture. Iran has been the biggest strategic beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq, they are stronger because of our decision to go in; and what we have to do is figure out how are we going to recalibrate our strategic position in the region. I think that starts with pulling our combat troops out of Iraq.

Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel

OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.

Q: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?

OBAMA: It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we would consider unacceptable, and the US would take appropriate action.

Q: Sen. Clinton, would you?

CLINTON: We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.

Two-state solution: Israel & Palestine side-by-side in peace

• Renewing American Diplomacy: Obama will talk to our foes as well as our friends, and he will restore American leadership and alliances abroad.
• Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push--working with Israelis and Palestinians--to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.

No action against Iran without Congressional authorization

A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

Iran: Bush does not let facts get in the way of ideology

A: It is absolutely clear that Pres. Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology. And that’s been the problem with the administration’s foreign policy generally. It is important for the president to lead diplomatic efforts, to try to offer to Iran the prospect of joining the World Trade Organization, potential normalized relations over time, in exchange for changes in behavior.

Meet directly for diplomacy with the leadership in Iran

A: Look, there’s a broader issue at stake here, and that is how do we approach Iran? I have said, unlike Senator Clinton, that I would meet directly with the leadership in Iran. I believe that we have not exhausted the diplomatic efforts that could be required to resolve some of these problems--them developing nuclear weapons, them supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. That does not mean that we take other options off the table, but it means that we move forward aggressively with a dialogue with them about not only the sticks that we’re willing to apply, but also the carrots.

Committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons

A: We are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. We have been governed by fear for the last 6 years. Bush has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that should have never been authorized. We are seeing the same pattern now. It is very important for us to draw a clear line and say, “We are not going to be governed by fear. We will take threats seriously and take action to make sure that the US is secure.”

Iran military resolution sends the region a wrong signal

Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat

OBAMA: I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran. But, have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region. They’re in the process of developing it. And I don’t think that’s disputed by any expert. They are the largest state sponsor of terrorism, of Hezbollah and Hamas.

KUCINICH: It is disputed.

OBAMA: There is no contradiction between us taking seriously the need, as you do, to want to strengthen our alliances around the world--but I think it is important for us to also recognize that if we have nuclear proliferators around the world that potentially can place a nuclear weapon into the hands of terrorists, that is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to take seriously.

Terrorists are in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran

KEYES: That’s the fallacy, because you did make an argument just then from the wisdom of hindsight, based on conclusions reached now which were not in Bush’s hands several months ago when he had to make this decision.

Problems with current Israeli policy

Engage North Korea in 6-party talks

Use moral authority to work towards Middle East peace

Voted to fund war until 2006; now wants no blank check

A: I disagree with that. Throughout I was a constant critic. It is true that my preference would not be to end this war simply by cutting off funding. My preference would be for the president to recognize that we needed to change course, and that was what I continually pushed for. At the point where we realized the president was not willing to change course, I put forward a very clear timetable for when we should remove our troops. And, when that was vetoed, I then suggested that the only way to negotiate a different direction in Iraq is by not giving Bush a blank check when it comes to funding.

Q: You have changed now in your support of cutting off funding.

A: But I haven’t changed in my opposition to the war.

Late to vote against war is not late to oppose war

OBAMA: I opposed this war from the start. So Edwards is about 4-1/2 years late on leadership on this issue. It’s important not to play politics on something that is as critical and as difficult as this. It is not easy to vote for cutting off funding because the fact is there are troops on the ground. All of us exercise our best judgment, just as we exercised our best judgment to authorize or not authorize this war.

Spending on the Cold War relics should be for the veterans

Would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war

Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

Our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a drawdown of our troops.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations. This legislation would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war against Islamic fascism. The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in Iraq the US Congress loses its will to fight. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home. Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is determined to destroy us and our way of life.

Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.

1. The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces and conducting specialized counterterrorism operations.
2. The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
3. Within 30 days, the administration shall submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

Opponents of the Resolution say:
• This amendment would withdraw American forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground.
• The consequences of an American retreat would be terrible for the security of the American people at home.
• Our commitment is not open-ended. It is conditional on the Iraqis moving toward self-government and self-defense.

Supporters of the Resolution say:
• Congress talks almost incessantly about the situation in Iraq as if on 9/11 the situation involved Iraq. Of course, it didn't. We were attacked by al-Qaida operating out of Afghanistan on 9/11.
• One of the theories we hear is that somehow staying in Iraq is necessary because all the terrorists will come into Iraq, and then they wouldn't be able to attack us anywhere else. Some call this the roach-motel theory. The fact is, al-Qaida is operating in 60 to 80 countries. Yet our resources are only heavily focused on this Iraq situation.
• In terms of differences from other Iraq amendments: This is binding, not just a sense of the Senate.
• Secondly, we have a date; other amendments are open-ended.
• Thirdly, this has an over-the-horizon force specifically to protect our security interests.

Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.