McCain holds out olive branch in foreign policy speech
Los Angeles, CA — Sen. John McCain is set to deliver a major foreign policy address this morning where he will emphasize the need for the US to be a good world citizen and listen to world opinion if the country expects to be listened to.
“When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them,” he is expected to say. “America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model. How we behave at home affects how we are perceived abroad.”
Here is a short excerpt from the prepared text (full text after jump):
In such a world, where power of all kinds is more widely and evenly distributed, the United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone. We must be strong politically, economically, and militarily. But we must also lead by attracting others to our cause, by demonstrating once again the virtues of freedom and democracy, by defending the rules of international civilized society and by creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish. Perhaps above all, leadership in today’s world means accepting and fulfilling our responsibilities as a great nation.
One of those responsibilities is to be a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies. We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to. We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact — a League of Democracies — that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.
At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust. Recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we pay “decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.
America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model. How we behave at home affects how we are perceived abroad. We must fight the terrorists and at the same time defend the rights that are the foundation of our society. We can’t torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured. I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.
There is such a thing as international good citizenship. We need to be good stewards of our planet and join with other nations to help preserve our common home. The risks of global warming have no borders. We and the other nations of the world must get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand off a much-diminished world to our grandchildren. We need a successor to the Kyoto Treaty, a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner. We Americans must lead by example and encourage the participation of the rest of the world, including most importantly, the developing economic powerhouses of China and India.
While he has previously emphasized the importance of diplomacy at times on the trail–the collective impact of the above section sends a powerful message—-an olive branch from a McCain White House to the world and veiled jabs at Bush foreign policy and the perceived damage it has done to the US relationship with it’s allies.
Also, the topics he hammers on a daily basis–Iraq and the war on terror—are pushed back into the last 1/3 of the speech . He takes a very sweeping, macro-look at the major issues facing the world, choosing to discuss AIDS and Africa, China/India, diplomacy and Latin America all before he gets to Iraq.
Though he does connect Iraq and the America as a good world citizen riff towards the end with this notable line:
“Our critics say America needs to repair its image in the world. How can they argue at the same time for the morally reprehensible abandonment of our responsibilities in Iraq?”
I will post some video excerpts after the speech.
PREPARED REMARKS:
When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years. My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well. I detest war. It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description. When nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue. The lives of a nation’s finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted; economies are damaged; strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict. Not the valor with which it is fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war. Whatever gains are secured, it is loss the veteran remembers most keenly. Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war. However heady the appeal of a call to arms, however just the cause, we should still shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us.
I am an idealist, and I believe it is possible in our time to make the world we live in another, better, more peaceful place, where our interests and those of our allies are more secure, and American ideals that are transforming the world, the principles of free people and free markets, advance even farther than they have. But I am, from hard experience and the judgment it informs, a realistic idealist. I know we must work very hard and very creatively to build new foundations for a stable and enduring peace. We cannot wish the world to be a better place than it is. We have enemies for whom no attack is too cruel, and no innocent life safe, and who would, if they could, strike us with the world’s most terrible weapons. There are states that support them, and which might help them acquire those weapons because they share with terrorists the same animating hatred for the West, and will not be placated by fresh appeals to the better angels of their nature. This is the central threat of our time, and we must understand the implications of our decisions on all manner of regional and global challenges could have for our success in defeating it.
President Harry Truman once said of America, “God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose.” In his time, that purpose was to contain Communism and build the structures of peace and prosperity that could provide safe passage through the Cold War. Now it is our turn. We face a new set of opportunities, and also new dangers. The developments of science and technology have brought us untold prosperity, eradicated disease, and reduced the suffering of millions. We have a chance in our lifetime to raise the world to a new standard of human existence. Yet these same technologies have produced grave new risks, arming a few zealots with the ability to murder millions of innocents, and producing a global industrialization that can in time threaten our planet.
To meet this challenge requires understanding the world we live in, and the central role the United States must play in shaping it for the future. The United States must lead in the 21st century, just as in Truman’s day. But leadership today means something different than it did in the years after World War II, when Europe and the other democracies were still recovering from the devastation of war and the United States was the only democratic superpower. Today we are not alone. There is the powerful collective voice of the European Union, and there are the great nations of India and Japan, Australia and Brazil, South Korea and South Africa, Turkey and Israel, to name just a few of the leading democracies. There are also the increasingly powerful nations of China and Russia that wield great influence in the international system.
In such a world, where power of all kinds is more widely and evenly distributed, the United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone. We must be strong politically, economically, and militarily. But we must also lead by attracting others to our cause, by demonstrating once again the virtues of freedom and democracy, by defending the rules of international civilized society and by creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish. Perhaps above all, leadership in today’s world means accepting and fulfilling our responsibilities as a great nation.
One of those responsibilities is to be a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies. We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to. We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact — a League of Democracies — that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.
At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust. Recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we pay “decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.
America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model. How we behave at home affects how we are perceived abroad. We must fight the terrorists and at the same time defend the rights that are the foundation of our society. We can’t torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured. I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.
There is such a thing as international good citizenship. We need to be good stewards of our planet and join with other nations to help preserve our common home. The risks of global warming have no borders. We and the other nations of the world must get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand off a much-diminished world to our grandchildren. We need a successor to the Kyoto Treaty, a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner. We Americans must lead by example and encourage the participation of the rest of the world, including most importantly, the developing economic powerhouses of China and India.
Four and a half decades ago, John Kennedy described the people of Latin America as our “firm and ancient friends, united by history and experience and by our determination to advance the values of American civilization.” With globalization, our hemisphere has grown closer, more integrated, and more interdependent. Latin America today is increasingly vital to the fortunes of the United States. Americans north and south share a common geography and a common destiny. The countries of Latin America are the natural partners of the United States, and our northern neighbor Canada.
Relations with our southern neighbors must be governed by mutual respect, not by an imperial impulse or by anti-American demagoguery. The promise of North, Central, and South American life is too great for that. I believe the Americas can and must be the model for a new 21st century relationship between North and South. Ours can be the first completely democratic hemisphere, where trade is free across all borders, where the rule of law and the power of free markets advance the security and prosperity of all.
Power in the world today is moving east; the Asia-Pacific region is on the rise. Together with our democratic partner of many decades, Japan, we can grasp the opportunities present in the unfolding world and this century can become safe — both American and Asian, both prosperous and free. Asia has made enormous strides in recent decades. Its economic achievements are well known; less known is that more people live under democratic rule in Asia than in any other region of the world.
Dealing with a rising China will be a central challenge for the next American president. Recent prosperity in China has brought more people out of poverty faster than during any other time in human history. China’s newfound power implies responsibilities. China could bolster its claim that it is “peacefully rising” by being more transparent about its significant military buildup, by working with the world to isolate pariah states such as Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe, and by ceasing its efforts to establish regional forums and economic arrangements designed to exclude America from Asia.
China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries. We have numerous overlapping interests and hope to see our relationship evolve in a manner that benefits both countries and, in turn, the Asia-Pacific region and the world. But until China moves toward political liberalization, our relationship will be based on periodically shared interests rather than the bedrock of shared values.
The United States did not single-handedly win the Cold War; the transatlantic alliance did, in concert with partners around the world. The bonds we share with Europe in terms of history, values, and interests are unique. Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union as we continue to support a strong NATO. The future of the transatlantic relationship lies in confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century worldwide: developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, addressing the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia, and institutionalizing our cooperation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance, and democracy promotion.
We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia’s nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization’s doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom.
While Africa’s problems — poverty, corruption, disease, and instability — are well known, we must refocus on the bright promise offered by many countries on that continent. We must strongly engage on a political, economic, and security level with friendly governments across Africa, but insist on improvements in transparency and the rule of law. Many African nations will not reach their true potential without external assistance to combat entrenched problems, such as HIV/AIDS, that afflict Africans disproportionately. I will establish the goal of eradicating malaria on the continent — the number one killer of African children under the age of five. In addition to saving millions of lives in the world’s poorest regions, such a campaign would do much to add luster to America’s image in the world.
We also share an obligation with the world’s other great powers to halt and reverse the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The United States and the international community must work together and do all in our power to contain and reverse North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and to prevent Iran — a nation whose President has repeatedly expressed a desire to wipe Israel from the face of the earth — from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We should work to reduce nuclear arsenals all around the world, starting with our own. Forty years ago, the five declared nuclear powers came together in support of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and pledged to end the arms race and move toward nuclear disarmament. The time has come to renew that commitment. We do not need all the weapons currently in our arsenal. The United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament consistent with our vital interests and the cause of peace.
If we are successful in pulling together a global coalition for peace and freedom — if we lead by shouldering our international responsibilities and pointing the way to a better and safer future for humanity, I believe we will gain tangible benefits as a nation.
It will strengthen us to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism. This challenge is transcendent not because it is the only one we face. There are many dangers in today’s world, and our foreign policy must be agile and effective at dealing with all of them. But the threat posed by the terrorists is unique. They alone devote all their energies and indeed their very lives to murdering innocent men, women, and children. They alone seek nuclear weapons and other tools of mass destruction not to defend themselves or to enhance their prestige or to give them a stronger hand in world affairs but to use against us wherever and whenever they can. Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House, for he or she does not take seriously enough the first and most basic duty a president has — to protect the lives of the American people.
We learned through the tragic experience of September 11 that passive defense alone cannot protect us. We must protect our borders. But we must also have an aggressive strategy of confronting and rooting out the terrorists wherever they seek to operate, and deny them bases in failed or failing states. Today al Qaeda and other terrorist networks operate across the globe, seeking out opportunities in Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Africa, and in the Middle East.
Prevailing in this struggle will require far more than military force. It will require the use of all elements of our national power: public diplomacy; development assistance; law enforcement training; expansion of economic opportunity; and robust intelligence capabilities. I have called for major changes in how our government faces the challenge of radical Islamic extremism by much greater resources for and integration of civilian efforts to prevent conflict and to address post-conflict challenges. Our goal must be to win the “hearts and minds” of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists. In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs.
We also need to build the international structures for a durable peace in which the radical extremists are gradually eclipsed by the more powerful forces of freedom and tolerance. Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are critical in this respect and cannot be viewed in isolation from our broader strategy. In the troubled and often dangerous region they occupy, these two nations can either be sources of extremism and instability or they can in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy.
For decades in the greater Middle East, we had a strategy of relying on autocrats to provide order and stability. We relied on the Shah of Iran, the autocratic rulers of Egypt, the generals of Pakistan, the Saudi royal family, and even, for a time, on Saddam Hussein. In the late 1970s that strategy began to unravel. The Shah was overthrown by the radical Islamic revolution that now rules in Tehran. The ensuing ferment in the Muslim world produced increasing instability. The autocrats clamped down with ever greater repression, while also surreptitiously aiding Islamic radicalism abroad in the hopes that they would not become its victims. It was a toxic and explosive mixture. The oppression of the autocrats blended with the radical Islamists’ dogmatic theology to produce a perfect storm of intolerance and hatred.
We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these out-dated autocracies is the safest bet. They no longer provide lasting stability, only the illusion of it. We must not act rashly or demand change overnight. But neither can we pretend the status quo is sustainable, stable, or in our interests. Change is occurring whether we want it or not. The only question for us is whether we shape this change in ways that benefit humanity or let our enemies seize it for their hateful purposes. We must help expand the power and reach of freedom, using all our many strengths as a free people. This is not just idealism. It is the truest kind of realism. It is the democracies of the world that will provide the pillars upon which we can and must build an enduring peace.
If you look at the great arc that extends from the Middle East through Central Asia and the Asian subcontinent all the way to Southeast Asia, you can see those pillars of democracy stretching across the entire expanse, from Turkey and Israel to India and Indonesia. Iraq and Afghanistan lie at the heart of that region. And whether they eventually become stable democracies themselves, or are allowed to sink back into chaos and extremism, will determine not only the fate of that critical part of the world, but our fate, as well.
That is the broad strategic perspective through which to view our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many people ask, how should we define success? Success in Iraq and Afghanistan is the establishment of peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic states that pose no threat to neighbors and contribute to the defeat of terrorists. It is the triumph of religious tolerance over violent radicalism.
Those who argue that our goals in Iraq are unachievable are wrong, just as they were wrong a year ago when they declared the war in Iraq already lost. Since June 2007 sectarian and ethnic violence in Iraq has been reduced by 90 percent. Overall civilian deaths have been reduced by more than 70 percent. Deaths of coalition forces have fallen by 70 percent. The dramatic reduction in violence has opened the way for a return to something approaching normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi. People are going back to work. Markets are open. Oil revenues are climbing. Inflation is down. Iraq’s economy is expected to grown by roughly 7 percent in 2008. Political reconciliation is occurring across Iraq at the local and provincial grassroots level. Sunni and Shi’a chased from their homes by terrorist and sectarian violence are returning. Political progress at the national level has been far too slow, but there is progress.
Critics say that the “surge” of troops isn’t a solution in itself, that we must make progress toward Iraqi self-sufficiency. I agree. Iraqis themselves must increasingly take responsibility for their own security, and they must become responsible political actors. It does not follow from this, however, that we should now recklessly retreat from Iraq regardless of the consequences. We must take the course of prudence and responsibility, and help Iraqis move closer to the day when they no longer need our help.
That is the route of responsible statesmanship. We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq. It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal. Our critics say America needs to repair its image in the world. How can they argue at the same time for the morally reprehensible abandonment of our responsibilities in Iraq?
Those who claim we should withdraw from Iraq in order to fight Al Qaeda more effectively elsewhere are making a dangerous mistake. Whether they were there before is immaterial, al Qaeda is in Iraq now, as it is in the borderlands between Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Somalia, and in Indonesia. If we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the success of the surge, still exist, as various factions of Sunni and Shi’a have yet to move beyond their ancient hatreds, and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda. Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. I believe a reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran will also view our premature withdrawal as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the State of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly. These consequences of our defeat would threaten us for years, and those who argue for it, as both Democratic candidates do, are arguing for a course that would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would entail far greater dangers and sacrifices than we have suffered to date. I do not argue against withdrawal, any more than I argued several years ago for the change in tactics and additional forces that are now succeeding in Iraq, because I am somehow indifferent to war and the suffering it inflicts on too many American families. I hold my position because I hate war, and I know very well and very personally how grievous its wages are. But I know, too, that we must sometimes pay those wages to avoid paying even higher ones later.
I run for President because I want to keep the country I love and have served all my life safe, and to rise to the challenges of our times, as generations before us rose to theirs. I run for President because I know it is incumbent on America, more than any other nation on earth, to lead in building the foundations for a stable and enduring peace, a peace built on the strength of our commitment to it, on the transformative ideals on which we were founded, on our ability to see around the corner of history, and on our courage and wisdom to make hard choices. I run because I believe, as strongly as I ever have, that it is within our power to make in our time another, better world than we inherited.
Tags: California, diplomacy, foreign policy, Iraq, john mccain
Share
Interesting speech. I agree with most of what he says. We do need to look at the world view on this Iraq war issue and see that if we just leave, there will be genocide and America will be blamed for it. I wish we had never gotten involved over there in Iraq, but as Obama says, ‘After the bus is driven into the ditch, you have to respond with the right choice to get it out’. Leaving immediately, just to stop the war now, will lead to a bigger consequence later.
The one thing that puzzles me is why does he talk about securing our border and then have an amnesty policy that will just cause us to have more illegals or even terrorist to come to our country. Hope he has gotten the message that this is not what the American people want.
I cannot remember a more perfect speech given by a political candidate. I have been a supporter of Obama because I felt that he had a message that I believe that this country needs .Getting rid of special interests , going back to a more respectful way of dealing with both political parties and doing the business of the people of this country EXCEPT for a fast withdrawal of our troops from Iraq as I really don’t believe that any politician is actually dumb enough to leave Iraq as fast as they are claiming, after listening to the reasoning behind what would happen if our troops left before the job is done. At this time I am almost convinced that voting for John Mc Cain to become president is probably the smartest way to go
What would be the clincher to Mc Cain for president is to have him pick as his running mate Joe Lieberman both are known for putting their beliefs before party politics and Lieberman is a very honest and credible person McCain Lieberman FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
Hillary Was Asked About Rev. Wright, Answered Honestly
Send to a Friend »
There is a lot of speculation in the media as to why Hillary spoke about Rev. Wright yesterday. The facts are simple: she was asked a question in an editorial board interview and she answered it honestly.
Here is the transcript:
Q: How would you have responded if your pastor had said some of the things that Rev. Wright said?
A: He would not have been my pastor. You know you don’t choose your family but you choose what church you want to attend.
Looks like an excellent speech overall.
I am not pleased with his position on global warming, but the rest of it is in line with my feelings and thoughts on policy.
Notice he says we must be willing to be persuaded. Good phrase. We need to listen with an open mind. It does not mean we simply roll over, but that we seriously consider the impact of our actions on other nations we before we act.
But it does not abandon our right to act unilaterally if we must.
He has also pegged the Islamist terrorism problem very well. Incredibly complex, yet incredibly simple. They want to kill us and go to great lengths to do so. We must step carefully as we root them out so as not to destroy alliances in the process. A difficult job, but not impossible.
Sandy: I hope you stay convinced that McCain is the best choise. Obama scarse me more than any other political figure. Hillary a lier, but shes better than a lier and racist and a friend of our enimies( Obama).
Fact Check: Sen. Obama Accepts Over $1 Million From Subprime Lending Industry
Send to a Friend »
The Obama campaign’s response to the comprehensive plan Hillary laid out to address the housing crisis today was not to discuss their disagreement with her proposal but to assert that Hillary has received contributions from subprime loan companies.
Considering that Sen. Obama has received $1.18 million from subprime lenders and has taken more campaign contributions from the top ten issuers of subprime loans, that attack rings hollow as just words. Sen. Obama has a record of talking about standing up to special interests and then caving to their demands. Hillary has a 35-year record of standing up to special interests and delivering results.
Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans. [cq.com]
Obama received $266,907 from Lehman. [Cq.com]
Obama received $5395 from GMAC. [Cq.com]
Obama received $150,850 from CS First Boston. [Cq.com]
Obama received $11,250 from Countrywide. [Cq.com]
Obama received $9052 from Washington Mutual. [Cq.com]
Obama received $161,850 from Citigroup. [Cq.com]
Obama received $4600 from CBASS. [Cq.com]
Obama received $170,050 from Morgan Stanley. [Cq.com]
Obama received $1150 from Centex. [Cq.com]
Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs. [Cq.com]
Sen. Obama has taken more money from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans than Hillary. Sen. Obama has received $434,420 from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans. Hillary has received $364,950.
Factcheck: Hillary and Bosnia
Send to a Friend »
Hillary recently misspoke about her trip to Bosnia. She accurately describes the trip in her book, Living History:
‘Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac…’ “Security conditions were constantly changing in the former Yugoslavia, and they had recently deteriorated again. Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find. … We were then off to the fortified American base at Tuzla, where over two thousand American, Russian, Canadian, British, and Polish soldiers were encamped in a large tent city.” [Living History, p. 343]
Contemporaneous news accounts confirm that Hillary’s trip to Bosnia was a dangerous situation:
Hillary’s trip to Bosnia marked the first time since Eleanor Roosevelt that a first lady traveled to a potential combat zone. Accompanied by singer-songwriter Sheryl Crow and comedian Sinbad, Mrs. Clinton traveled to this northwestern Bosnian town on a morale-boosting tour for the 18,500 U.S. troops participating in the NATO-led peacemaking operation. She heard a poem of peace from a Bosnian girl and praised U.S. troops for ’showing what American leadership is.’…This trip to Bosnia marks the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone. During World War II, Roosevelt toured the devastated streets of London and the southwestern Pacific, bringing cheer to U.S. troops. [Washington Post, 3/26/96]
Hillary was ‘protected by sharpshooters’ in a ‘military zone’ when she visited troops in Bosnia. “Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday to deliver a personal ‘thank you, thank you, thank you’ to U.S. troops. ‘They’re making a difference,’ the first lady said of the 18,500 Americans working as peacekeepers in Bosnia. Mrs. Clinton became the first presidential spouse since Eleanor Roosevelt to make such an extensive trip into what can be considered a hostile area, though others have visited hot spots…” [Charleston Gazette, 3/26/96]
3/25/2008 9:34:38 AM #
Comment by sandy
March 26th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
What would be the clincher to Mc Cain for president is to have him pick as his running mate Joe Lieberman both are known for putting their beliefs before party politics and Lieberman is a very honest and credible person McCain Lieberman FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
—————————–
A lovely thought, but politically impractical. Setting aside his foreign policy views, Lieberman is extremely liberal. That ticket could very well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
As it stands now, the conservative base of the Republican party is grumbling and girding their loins to vote for this man that they dislike less than the alternative. Add Lieberman to the ticket and they will stay home in vast herds.
It was a well-packaged tub full of partial truths and outright lies. If McIdiot hates war, then he would not continue to fight and vote for more and more war. His message is essentially:
“I hate war, but I want to escalate the war in Iraq and I can’t wait to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. I want you to believe that war is peace, weakness is strength, and that war is good for everyone. It takes young men out of the work force and kills them, for no good and for completely unconstitutional reasons, thereby leaving fewer workers and decreasing unemployment, especially among illegal immigrants. I was a POW and I hope that you will forget that I received special treatment from the enemy because of who my father was and because I willingly cooperated with my enemy’s propaganda efforts. I know that this is well documented but please don’t read about it or believe it. It was put there by some terrible peace-mongers who don’t love the positive traits of war, death and destruction like me and my supporters. All those peace mongers want is peace, prosperity and sound money. If we don’t crush them, then those ideas could lead to american citizens living happy and productive lives and I will not stand for that.”
McCain = McWar = McDisaster = McCollapse
On the Democratic side, things are much more complicated and diverse and nuanced. Starting with the Clinton side, one of her main advisers for foreign policy is in fact Madeleine Albright. Madeleine Albright adds a little bit of more of the same on the Clinton side. Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state, is infamous for saying on the record during the ’90s that more than 500,000 Iraqi children who were victims of the UN sanctions imposed by the West–their sacrifice was worth it, in terms of undermining the regime of Saddam Hussein. We have Sandy Berger, former national security adviser, as well. And especially Richard Holbrooke, who is going to be probably the next secretary of state under a Clinton government. It’s very important to remember that Richard Holbrooke, when he was assistant secretary of state for East Asia, he was propping up Ferdinand Marcos, the dictator of the Philippines when he was alive, and also dictator Suharto in Indonesia in terms of repression of East Timor. Richard Holbrooke is kind of a hawk, actually. He says that Iran is a threat, and Ahmadinejad is Hitler, which would easily put him in the neocon column for that matter. Basically, most of the Clinton advisers were pro-war on Iraq, while Obama’s advisers, most of them were against. Clinton also has ties with very well-known centrists like General Wesley Clark, who was against the war in Iraq from the beginning, and former US Ambassador, Joseph Wilson, whose wife Valerie was outed as a CIA agent by the Bush administration. Of course, her [inaudible] story is becoming a Hollywood movie. On the Obama side, his main adviser for foreign policy is Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser under Jimmy Carter. You may all remember that Brzezinski wrote The Grand Chess Board, his book where he outlines the fact in his mind that the US has to control Eurasia, and if US doesn’t control Eurasia, it won’t control the rest of the world. So this is not exactly neocon. It was recuperated later by the neocons. But this is basically US world domination, and it has to be armed if, obviously, the countries of Eurasia do not abide. We also have Anthony Lake, a former national security adviser. Former Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice. Former counter-terrorist czar Richard Clarke, who wrote a very, very good book on his efforts to fight al-Qaeda, all of them undermined by the Bush administration in 2001. We have human rights scholar Samantha Power. That’s very good, because basically she’s been talking a lot and writing a lot about US manipulation of the United Nations. But we also have some very, very disturbing characters as well. We have a retired General Merill McPeak who supported; he always backed the occupation and repression of East Timor. And Dennis Ross, who was a Clinton special envoy to the Middle East– he supports the illegal, bloody, and in fact absolutely horrendous Israeli occupation of the West Bank. So even if Obama’s people are, you know, more inclined to finish off the war in Iraq and, okay, try to find a graceful exit from Afghanistan, there’s one fact of the matter: no matter what any one of these advisers think or no matter what we have with a Clinton presidency or an Obama presidency, the ultimate deciders for what’s going to happen in Iraq are going to be the US national security establishment. And for them, obviously, they will be much more comfortable with a guy like John “a century of war” McCain.
@ Typical White Woman,
Will you stop doing that, on every blog. Who are you with? what’s your opinions? Stop the cutting and pasting already.
Profitleads -
Skipped all your history classes, didn’t you?
President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism.
But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq.
Bush’s mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not.
Many of you do not know or remember this, but, back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression.
The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country.
They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people’s duty to back those leaders.
Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not, or whether the war was going badly or not.
And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today.
Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter.
The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty.
Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.
Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in.
Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort.
Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.
Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military.
Women doubled their work to keep things going at home.
Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.
You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President.
Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat-cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President.
Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops’ morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
And imagine this:
Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!
Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage.
No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.
A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being ‘tortured’ by being forced to wear women’s underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.
There were a lot of things different back then.
We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio.
We did not have legions of crackheads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.
No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism.
He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.
It is not the same country.
It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorra and the land of Oz.
We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.
We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims.
They believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam.
It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause…
Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.
So…we either win it - or lose it - and you ain’t gonna like losing.
America is not at war.
The military is at war.
America is at the mall.
Policy is made in part or not all by advisors. For Hillary not that hopeful, some are quite hawkish.
Fine to reach out to other countries, but what about UN? Its there to solve problems together, and not going alone, like with Iraq. We have lost a lot of respect and moral high-ground with torture, Abu Griab and Guantanomo
“At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust. Recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we pay “decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them”
This is the same policy failures the Bush Adminstration offered us in 2000. I think what he meant by persuasion is, we’ll send them aid and money that they can’t refuse and then they will become part of the “coalition”. Same old, same old.
to those who do not seem to have a problem with hillary look up the definition of LIE in the dictionary. the world needs to see this country as a beacon of honesty,for us to raise to the level of our country being seen in the world as worthy we need to have a leader who can be believed and not one who rewrites history to suit herself at every turn and for political expediency
This proves that McCain understands foreign relations AND war. He isn’t a wet behind the ears idealist, he understands the way the world works and plans to make changes that will BOTH benefit the US and be agreeable with our allies. The Straight Talk Express delivers another shipment of truth right to your doorstep. Are you going to ignore it or are you going to pay attention to what the next president has to say?
Comment by profitleads
March 26th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
It was a well-packaged tub full of partial truths and outright lies. If McIdiot hates war, then he would not continue to fight and vote for more and more war. His message is essentially:
“I hate war, but I want to escalate the war in Iraq and I can’t wait to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. I want you to believe that war is peace, weakness is strength, and that war is good for everyone. It takes young men out of the work force and kills them, for no good and for completely unconstitutional reasons, thereby leaving fewer workers and decreasing unemployment, especially among illegal immigrants. I was a POW and I hope that you will forget that I received special treatment from the enemy because of who my father was and because I willingly cooperated with my enemy’s propaganda efforts. I know that this is well documented but please don’t read about it or believe it. It was put there by some terrible peace-mongers who don’t love the positive traits of war, death and destruction like me and my supporters. All those peace mongers want is peace, prosperity and sound money. If we don’t crush them, then those ideas could lead to american citizens living happy and productive lives and I will not stand for that.”
McCain = McWar = McDisaster = McCollapse
————————————————-
I’m sorry your puny brain can’t understand more that “War is bad!”
If we pull out the consequences would be far worse than if we stay, we’re seeing a spike in violence because the Islamic extremists want a left-wing lunatic in the White House that wouldn’t do anything about them committing genocide and launching terrorist attacks against the US from Iraq (if we withdraw too soon).
If the Clinton Administration wouldn’t have treated Osama Bin Laden as a”Law Enforcement Problem”, we may not be where we are today. Many lives lost, trillions of dollars spent.
Great pair, not! Good image in mass-media. Why are people so oblivious to the studied, continuous and blatant hypocrisy of this man?
Its not Lieberman’s Jewish identity that is the problem. The fundamental problem with Lieberman is his “hypocrisy”. The Pollard case is one of many examples of Senator Lieberman’s hypocrisy. Justice takes a back seat as Lieberman continues to exploit the plight of Jonathan Pollard as proof that he is a Jew willing to stand in opposition to the will of Israel and the Jewish community. Trying too hard to prove that he is a “good American”, Lieberman lends himself as a willing tool of the CIA in its on-going exploitation of the Pollard case to call into question the reliability of Israel as an ally, and the loyalty of the American Jewish community.
Great speached…overall. I dont agree with his positon on global warming either. I swear that is the biggest bucket of crap. Global Warming….whatever! The earth is going through cycles…in a few years we will be talking about global cooling and Mr. Dean’s cat will be out of the bag. They want to talk about a waste of MILLIONS of dollars…there ya go.
Comment by profitleads
March 26th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
It was a well-packaged tub full of partial truths and outright lies. If McIdiot hates war, then he would not continue to fight and vote for more and more war. His message is essentially:
“I hate war, but I want to escalate the war in Iraq and I can’t wait to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. I want you to believe that war is peace, weakness is strength, and that war is good for everyone. It takes young men out of the work force and kills them, for no good and for completely unconstitutional reasons, thereby leaving fewer workers and decreasing unemployment, especially among illegal immigrants. I was a POW and I hope that you will forget that I received special treatment from the enemy because of who my father was and because I willingly cooperated with my enemy’s propaganda efforts. I know that this is well documented but please don’t read about it or believe it. It was put there by some terrible peace-mongers who don’t love the positive traits of war, death and destruction like me and my supporters. All those peace mongers want is peace, prosperity and sound money. If we don’t crush them, then those ideas could lead to american citizens living happy and productive lives and I will not stand for that.”
McCain = McWar = McDisaster = McCollapse
—————————————-
Tell us how you really feel, but this time add in some fact instead of broad brush baloney.
I suppose you don’t remember Reagan saying that “We begin bombing in five minutes.”
To quote that great American Fog Horn Leghorn “It’s a joke, son, ya get it?”
The idea of McCain “cooperating” enemy propaganda is another of those foolish left wing smears. I have seen the smear web sites, read all the radio transcripts and come away convinced only that the NVA CLAIMED McCain collaborated, just as they CLAIMED others who were subsequently cleared had collaborated.
If you doubt this, I would submit a single name for you to research.
Colonel Leo Thorsness, USAF (Ret.), Combat Veteran, POW, Medal of Honor Recipient.
The fact that Col. Thorsness has publicly endorsed McCain.
Thorsness very aggressively attempted to have US military personnel who had collaborated prosecuted under military law. Thorsness has not changed his views on this matter. If there were a shred of truth that McCain willingly collaborated with the NVA, Thorsness would not only have not endorsed McCain, but he would have publicly attacked him.
What you obviously do not understand is virtually all military personnel hate war. With rare exceptions, they do not join up to “Shoot, kill, burn babies and eat them.” They join because they are patriots willing to put themselves in harms way to protect our nation.
What you also don’t understand is that it takes two parties to have a wa, but if one of them walks away, the other simply shoots the first in the back.
The war against terrorism, wherever it rears its head, is not going to simply go away because dreamers with no concept of reality wish it away.
Global warming is a fact, overwhelming factual evidence is there. You can stay blind or ignorant, thats your choice. Its not only the weather-pattern, that is changing in a more RAPID way than any time in historical cycles, but what happens to food-supply and security. Even national-security advisors agree that this may well be one of the main problems in the future when societies/populations vie for resources especially water.
Leaving Iraq now would be a betrayal to commen sence. Good post Christopher.
The UN, is useless,it doesn’t even uphold it’s own laws,maybe if it had we wouldn’t even be in Iraq.
ari: Are you kidding me. Global warming is a fact, that is almost to funny. Scientist that believe are stupid, there also the same scientist that believe the dinosours lived in a warm climate. Then we have the Ice Age and then its warm again. What kind of stupidity is that? To me the Biblical story is the only story that matchs and makes sence. In the beginning God created EVERYTHING within a week of time.
Comment by ari
March 26th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Policy is made in part or not all by advisors. For Hillary not that hopeful, some are quite hawkish.
Fine to reach out to other countries, but what about UN? Its there to solve problems together, and not going alone, like with Iraq. We have lost a lot of respect and moral high-ground with torture, Abu Griab and Guantanomo
——————————————–
The UN is a joke that the US should have walked away from 30 years ago.
The UN hasn’t “solved” a problem in a long, long time. It is a den of graft and corruption.
As for loss of respect, you are partly true.
Because we waterboard and render terrorists to other nations, we have lost the respect of the Eurotrash.
Because of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, we have lost the respect of some of the American people all of the Eurotrash and most important, the terrorists.
You see, the Islamists respect strength and violence. Nothing else. When they see the humane conditions in Gitmo, they laugh at us. In a reverse situation, they would be using every method and implement of torture under the sun. They look at dog leashes and women’s pantie “torture” and laugh themselves silly at how soft and weak we are.
I wounder why it was so cold this winter and we saw so much snow fall. ( at least in Illinios we had a lot of snow)
The UN is the biggest joke in history. It hasn’t solved any problems, in many cases it made them worse.
Comment by ari
March 26th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Great pair, not! Good image in mass-media. Why are people so oblivious to the studied, continuous and blatant hypocrisy of this man?
Its not Lieberman’s Jewish identity that is the problem. The fundamental problem with Lieberman is his “hypocrisy”. The Pollard case is one of many examples of Senator Lieberman’s hypocrisy. Justice takes a back seat as Lieberman continues to exploit the plight of Jonathan Pollard as proof that he is a Jew willing to stand in opposition to the will of Israel and the Jewish community. Trying too hard to prove that he is a “good American”, Lieberman lends himself as a willing tool of the CIA in its on-going exploitation of the Pollard case to call into question the reliability of Israel as an ally, and the loyalty of the American Jewish community.
——————————————–
Your agenda is showing again. And you are mixing your metaphors.
Would you please give us links to this theory that the CIA is “…call(ing) into question the reliability of Israel as an ally, and the loyalty of the American Jewish community.”
Pollard was a spy, plain and simple. Lieberman understands, as an American, that you don’t give a pass to a spy, even if he spied for an ally.
Pollard is a American citizen, a naval intelligence specialist with an extremely high security clearance. He betrayed his nation and shoot be pleased that he was not shot for treason.
Ari: How many ice ages have we had?
@dust
So, are you telling me all the bones in the museum are fake? All the digs across the world. There has to be some kind of explanation, since the bible doesn’t address it…wait maybe that’s one of the lost books held deep within the vaults of the Vatican.
Ari needs to join Gurn on the buoy.
No global warming is SCAM. You have more and more scientis coming foward and speaking about this junk, you’ll see. You have the creater/owner of the weather channel sueing Al Gore for this bull…lol. You show me ACTUAL scientific proof…and I mean ACTUAL proof. I suppose ethonal is the greatest thing since slice bread..huh? Did you know it take 2 gallons of gas to make 1 gallon of ethonal?
Disabled American Vet: The Bible does address the subject of dinosaurs. It calls them dragons. The word dinosaur was invent within the past 100 years I believe. No, the bones aren’t fake, but we really dont have any idea of how old they are.
Comment by ari
March 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Global warming is a fact, overwhelming factual evidence is there. You can stay blind or ignorant, thats your choice. Its not only the weather-pattern, that is changing in a more RAPID way than any time in historical cycles, but what happens to food-supply and security. Even national-security advisors agree that this may well be one of the main problems in the future when societies/populations vie for resources especially water.
—————–
B*LLSH*T!!!
Man generated global warming is a wholly owned subsidiary of Al Gore and the liberal bleating media.
Hundreds of scientists who once supported the theory that man has a measurable impact on warming (or cooling) have publicly renounced that position.
Thousands of geoscientists have disputed the inconvenient lie for years.
Nearly ever week, another article hits the press about data and evidence disproving and/or questioning the validity of the theory, severe flaws found in current computer models, scientists renouncing man generated waring theories, and on and on.
You, Ari, can stay blind or ignorant if you choose. The lack of evidence is there, plain for all who open their eyes to see it.
ARI, do you think that it would be smart to abondon the Iraq people(remember what happened the last time we abondened them)?Hand A oil rich country filled with terrorists from all different arab countrys declaring a Holy war on us and Israel.I would bet that with in a year we will have the same problems here on our shores. I tell my Daughter all the time that winner never quit and quiters never win. I pray we don’t pass the problem of going back to Iraq(if we pull out)to our children.The First George bush Should have finished the job. We could also say that Bill could have Shot down Bin Ladens plan before it even landed in Afgainstain,but choose not too,if he had done that we could have avoided 9/11. So there is plenty of blame to go around.
Gotta go, should never have popped in. Still doing taxes.
Ari ,Were C02 gases the fall of the ice age?
Its not anything to do with looking at reverse situation. Even with the most horrific acts committed, states have moral oblligations to give defendants due to course of the law. Thats one of the main principles of a free democrtic state. Why do you think some time ago these terrorists drape their captives in orange suits and blindfold, just same as in Guantanomo. To circumvent rule of law here, us has secret jails and interrogation in ‘friendly’ countries like Egypt, Romania, Jordanie and even Syria. These secret flight on well documented, traced with coordinates of flightnumbers, and caused a big row in europe, since thats against agreements.
With UN- us policy in mass media worthless, no good, against our interests etc. etc.
On other hand when its very convenient we call them in to the job, or when the job becomes bogged down. probably this is whats going to happen in Iraq. Its a occupation force, so in future probably better a coordinated effort of peace-mission of countries of similar culture. Like Africa, africa peace mission-comodores islands.
US hasnt ratified many un legislations especially concerning human rights, why do you think that is? Pinochet, (Chile), Taylor (Africa), Milosovic (Yugo) are afraid that they in future be held accountable.
The UN (who you dismiss as a joke) tried their best to stop your hothead leaders. Hans Blik was publicly derided when he