Obama: Bush gives terrorists what they really want

In the most significant foreign policy speech of his presidential campaign, Barack Obama outlined what is wrong with our foreign policy today, and suggested "five elements" of change to increase our standing the world community and actually make America safer:

The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is partof al Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates alQaeda in Iraq -- which didn't exist before our invasion -- andoverlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruitsin Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: alQaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses ourmission.

And worse -- he is fighting the war the terrorists want us to fight.Bin Ladin and his allies know they cannot defeat us on the field ofbattle or in a genuine battle of ideas. But they can provoke thereaction we've seen in Iraq: a misguided invasion of a Muslim countrythat sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts ourbudgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America,gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to questionour engagement in the world.

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving theterrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to givethem in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undeterminedcost, with undetermined consequences.

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the warthat has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements:getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan andPakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to takeout the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging theworld to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values;and securing a more resilient homeland.

To be blunt, the ideas he presented here were anything but "irresponsible and frankly naive."  Whoever we choose as our nominee needs to be experienced -- no, not as far as time spent in Washington, but experience in terms of logic and maturity.   When you don't come out and apologize for giving Bush a blank check for war, either you agree with the outcome or you are not mature enough to face reality.  John Edwards had the maturity to admit he was wrong to vote the way he did.  Why can't Hillary do the same?  Maybe I just answered that question.

Comments

[CE Erick]

A little anti-Hil eh Todd? Careful, you're tweaking the Inevitability meters the wrong way, the gods may have to smite you...

[granny]

I don't think so. You don't have to be "anti-Hil", you just have to look at events and be honest - and smell the coffee.

On the irresponsible and naive scale, she's not doing all that magnificently.

From my era there's an old saying about the pot calling the kettle black. I think she was ill advised to try patronizing Obama. I think she's been ill advised from very early on.

If she's not guilty of following bad advice, she's guilty of having bad instincts, and poor judgment. None of those things are desirable as Presidential attributes.

[granny]

And secondly, though not secondary, that Foreign Policy speech was superb. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, like that has been said with such clarity and direct truth, to the people of this country in years. What a breath of hope, and fresh air!

It is a really fine speech.

I encourage everyone to read it, every word. Read it twice, even. Don't just graze through Todd's story and think your part is over.

If we want this country back, our part is just beginning.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

lol You're right Erick, I don't want to tick off the last Democratic dynasty since the Kennedy family.

Granny, I would think a lot more highly of Hillary if she actually APOLOGIZED for her vote....or at least said she regretted it. Hillary's Iraq position is not all that far from Bill O'Reilly. The Fox News host thinks we shouldn't have gone to war after all....but that no one should apologize for it because we didn't know there weren't weapons of mass destruction until months after the invasion. Hillary also thinks we shouldn't have gone in....but like Bill, is refusing to say, "I was wrong."

[granny]

In my opinion, there is a limit, long since reached, to the great American passtime of "apologizing".

Too little, too late, now, for Clinton. And in general, apologies have become the dog and pony show of "do whatever suits you, and then say you're sorry".

"Say you're sorry, honey"

BALONEY! Over used, overrated...

Gonzales is "sorry" he confused us, right?!

I'm just really sick of the "apology" mania.

It's become a "cry Uncle, and then I'll feel better" game. Nothing changes. You just got caught and we made you admit it.

If you had to have it whacked out of you with a stick, that's a pretty good indication that you weren't sorry.

In Clinton's case, I think it's a good indication of the same refusal to be "wrong" that we've already got.