posted on May 23, 2007 01:15:58 PM new New al Qaeda Tapes Feature U.S. Capitol Under 'Attack'
May 22, 2007 2:01 PM
ABC News
Rhonda Schwartz Reports:
Al Qaeda has a new opening graphic for its propaganda tapes: the U.S. Capitol under "attack."
"The Islamic State of Iraq...March Toward Washington" reads the headline in English superimposed over a digitally created scene of the U.S. Capitol under attack in the introductory sequence of one tape released on the Internet this week.
Another from al Qaeda's "as Sahab" production arm announces "Holocaust of the Americans in the Land of Khorasan" and shows an image of the U.S. Capitol to introduce a short clip of al Qaeda fighters.
"This is a disturbing new trend," says Laura Mansfield, an Arabic expert who monitors jihadi videos on the Internet.
" "Recall that in January 2006, Osama Bin Laden said that plans for attacks in the U.S. were in progress ," Mansfield told the Blotter on ABCNews.com. "It may be that this new imagery is designed to motivate terrorist activity in the U.S., but it is certainly intended as a recruiting tool and perhaps intended to reassure al Qaeda's jihadi followers they haven't forgotten their goal of an al Qaeda attack on Washington, D.C.," she said.
========================
Some here don't believe the terrorists really mean what they say.
They live in denial. It's going to take another 9-11 attack before they realize and will admit the THREAT is real. And that is what this admin. has been fighting again.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 23, 2007 01:30:04 PM new
Bush had said he would hunt down OBL. Get him dead or alive.
Bush has done nothing to achieve this. If the US is attacked again, it will be Bush's fault for not capturing OBL.
Al-Qaeda has a message of attacking the US every week, now all of a sudden you are going to believe this is more credible than the rest. Besides you are the one that Bush has done so much to prevent terrorist attacks here in US. Are you now saying all those measures will not prevent another attack?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 23, 2007 01:57:02 PM new
Yep....you sound like one who supports the liberal denial of terrorism.
Just like john edwards...the war on terrorism is nothing more than a 'bumper sticker' lie.
We have 1 in 4 young AMERICAN muslims who would support murdering innocent citizens with differenting level of reasons when they'd be willing to do so.
We're in the middle of fighting a war AGAINST the terrorists that ARE fighting our troops in Iraq right now...and these liberals want to admit defeat them and pull our troops out.
Where should we fight terrorists? When they attack us again?
No...we should continue fighting them right where they ARE NOW....in Iraq.
There has been no troop order to stop hunting for bin laden. And NATO troops along with US troops ARE doing just that.
Yea, vote for edwards.....he's in denial too. But because you and your ilk deny the fact of terrorist actions, past, present and future promises they are still making.....won't change the threat.
And it won't make things any better to elect a CIC who's in total denial about terrorism either.
WAKE UP CALL to all who are in such denial they refuse to even admit there is a threat.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 23, 2007 02:16:12 PM newWhere should we fight terrorists?
How about in Antarctica. It is very cold there. The terrorists wouldn't last a day in that kind of weather. Plus there is not much life there so the chances of killing innocent civilians is remote.
When they attack us again?
And what is your proof that they will attack again. Oh that is right, you listen to all of the statements issued by the terrorists groups. Anything Osama and Al-Qaeda say comes true.
Once again your statements prove you have no faith in the government to stop any type of future attacks. Your propaganda of fear will only get you so far Linda.
No...we should continue fighting them right where they ARE NOW....in Iraq.
A lot of good this did for the British. They were fighting alongside our troops in Iraq but yet they were hot by terrorists last summer.
Meanwhile while the US is occupied with Iraq we have future terrorists sneaking into this country via unsecured boarders.
Lastly, military officials have stated Bush has over-exaggerated the threats of the terrorists following us back to the US. They have stated Al Qaeda in Iraq "poses little danger to the security of the U.S. homeland"
Do you stay in your house all day being fearful of all these attacks that are imminent. You sound like your very paranoid.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
And yes, this admin. has been doing all it can to seek out and arrest those terrorists before they reach their goal.
But a president who's in total denial....isn't going to be working to fight it. Can't fight it if they/he denies it even exists.
LOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 23, 2007 02:29:17 PM new
The problem is that Bush has no global war on terrorism, as Edwards pointed out today. Bush persists in fighting an unwinnable war in Iraq and next in Iran while the terrorists are free to plan retaliation elsewhere.
Excerpt....
In a defense policy speech he planned to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards called the war on terror a "bumper sticker" slogan Bush had used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison to the invasion of Iraq.
"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."
Edwards saved his toughest words for the Bush administration, whom he accused of engaging in wrongheaded military adventures while abandoning U.S. "moral leadership" in the world. Because of the administration's poor stewardship, Edwards said troops were exhausted, overworked, and potentially ill-prepared for future threats.
"Leading the military out of the wreckage left by the poor civilian leadership of this administration will be the single most important duty of the next commander in chief," Edwards said.
posted on May 23, 2007 03:52:59 PM new
Listen. the radical progressive left wants to admit defeat .
If they don't want us fighting terrorism in Iraq...then it's fair to say they won't fight it anywhere. lol Maybe you mean he'll fight them with WORDS. lol
WE could have named the 'war on terrorism' 'the war against radical islam.'
But that would have angered the angry left too....many of who very much support them over our own nation. The biggest way is by wanting to give them the win in Iraq.
I don't think there are enough, regular ,SANE democrats that will allow the radical left to lead us down a path of SURRENDERING to the terrorists.
They're in Iraq now...they're funding the was and we're fighting them now, THERE. it.
And like Guilani said....with edwards talking about this war being nothing more than a slogan or a bumper sticker....only proves how much the liberals don't take these threats to the US seriously enough to protect us.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 23, 2007 04:23:04 PM new
"The 9-11 terrorists were here LEGALLY. duh"
Yeah, and most were Saudi's... yet we gave them a free pass on their way out of the country while the rest of the US couldn't move an inch the days after 9/11. Perhaps Linduh can shed some light into why Bush's Saudi buddies got the hell out of Dodge so quickly???
"And yes, this admin. has been doing all it can to seek out and arrest those terrorists before they reach their goal. But a president who's in total denial....isn't going to be working to fight it. Can't fight it if they/he denies it even exists."
The only difference between the fanatics "over there" vs. those in the White House is that "over there" they are willing to put their own lives on the line, while the White House will only put everybody elses but their own. Both of these extremist sides are using propaganda to fuel the flames for their objectives. Neither can be trusted.
posted on May 23, 2007 04:39:14 PM new
rusty - It's my position that you and the other radical progressives here would NEVER support any war ANY President started to protect the US.
Just like edwards lives in denial....when one continues to ignore the threat....the terrorists will continue on....strong and stronger. JUST as they did when clinton IGNORED their FIVE attacks on the US and THEN 9-11 happened.
And it will happen again IF a CIC is in denial of the threat.
Here is another statement from edwards:
"By framing this as a "war," we have walked right into the trap that terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam.'
His problem is that WE ARE in a war against radical islam. And those who aren't radical support, in silence, the actions of the radicals.
Fear and cowardly positions describe those who refuse to see THIS enemy isn't the same one edwards spoke about during WW1, WW11 ext. They cared how many they lost....these radical muslims have no fear of death. They WANT to go on to their future REWARD. That is a MUCH different enemy to fight.
Imo, had edwards, you and your ilk been in power during either of those two wars....we might have lost them too. Because you'd all be working AGAINST America's side of the war, as you are in this war, rather than supporting the fight against terrorists.
Nope....you'd be screaming to give the victory to hitler....because things got tough during periods of those wars too.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 23, 2007 04:53:26 PM new
For anyone interested, compare edwards view on this war against terrorism......vs. how a man, President Bush, with his eyes WIDE open sees the war on terrorism
And remember that as you read edwards talking about ww1 and ww11 we're talking about a whole different group of enemies. The Russians, Germans, Japanese, etc. weren't fighting a religious war, as are these muslims.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 23, 2007 04:55 PM ]
posted on May 23, 2007 05:44:25 PM new Full text of John Edward's speech today at the Council on Foreign Relations
It is wonderful to be back here at the Council. Thank you for having me.
Last year, I had the great pleasure of co-chairing a Council Task Force with Jack Kemp on the future of the U.S.-Russia relationship. For me, that experience served as a powerful reminder of what can be achieved when people of divergent views, bound by a common belief in America's responsibilities as a global leader, can come together to grapple with difficult national security challenges.
Our main conclusions are just as relevant today: that Russia's direction is critically important to America's national security—from non-proliferation and energy security to the spread of HIV/AIDS. And as our report's title made clear, Russia has been headed in the wrong direction, whether in its de-democratization or by bullying its neighbors.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to concentrate sufficient energy on critical issues like getting our relationship with Russia right. Instead, we've been distracted by larger problems created by this president's military and national security policy.
The core of this presidency has been a political doctrine that George Bush calls the "Global War on Terror." He has used this doctrine like a sledgehammer to justify the worst abuses and biggest mistakes of his administration, from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, to the war in Iraq. The worst thing about the Global War on Terror approach is that it has backfired—our military has been strained to the breaking point and the threat from terrorism has grown.
We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq American military that is mission-focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological pursuits. We need to recognize that we have far more powerful weapons available to us than just bombs, and we need to bring them to bear. We need to reengage the world with the full weight of our moral leadership.
What we need is not more slogans but a comprehensive strategy to deal with the complex challenge of both delivering justice and being just. Not hard power. Not soft power. Smart power.
Nowhere are the problems of this Administration's policies more tragically evident than in Iraq. Iraq's problems are deep and dangerous, but they cannot be solved by the U.S. military alone. My plan calls on Congress to use its funding power to stop the surge and force an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops from Iraq, followed by an orderly and complete withdrawal of all combat troops in about a year.
The president has played political brinksmanship over the war in Iraq time and time again. He refuses to acknowledge the futility of his approach, disregards the clear message sent by the American people last fall, and falsely claims that the only way for Congress to support the troops is to prolong the war. That's just not true. Congress can support the troops and end the war, which is exactly what the bill they sent the president last month would have done. When the president vetoed that bill, it was the president alone who was blocking support for the troops. Nobody else.
Any compromise that funds the war through the end of the fiscal year isn't a compromise at all, it's a capitulation. As I have said repeatedly, Congress should send the president the same bill he vetoed again and again until he realizes he has no choice but to start bringing our troops home.
We need to get out of Iraq on our own timetable, not when we are forced to do so by events. As a recent Council report put it, the U.S. "has already achieved all that it is likely to achieve in Iraq... [and] staying in Iraq can only drive up the price of these gains in blood, treasure, and strategic position."
Iraq has done tremendous damage to the U.S. interests in the Middle East, our military, and to our moral authority to lead. It has also completely consumed our country's foreign policy debate. In Congress and the White House, the focus has been on when to get out, how to get out, and how quickly. Too little consideration has been given to what happens after we get out—and that is the very least we owe to the men and women of the U.S. armed forces and their families, who have sacrificed so much.
I believe that once we are out of Iraq, the U.S. must retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war, and prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven. We will most likely need to retain Quick Reaction Forces in Kuwait and in the Persian Gulf. We will also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel. Finally, we will need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world in Iraq's future—including Middle Eastern nations and our allies in Europe.
As everyone in this room knows, the Iraq War has made it far more difficult to deal with other global challenges—whether it's the worsening situation in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent... the nuclear ambitions of states like North Korea and Iran... the crises in Darfur and Northern Uganda... the effort to help bring peace between Israel and its neighbors... the growing economic and security threats from global warming... the plight of the over a billion people who live on less than a dollar a day... or the vast implications of the political and economic rise of states like India and China and the negative trends in Russia.
Throughout this campaign, I have spoken about what we need to do to deal with these huge challenges. In the future, I will continue to chart a course for America to regain the global stature and legitimacy that we'll need to lead and shape the world our children and grandchildren will inherit.
But that course begins with an understanding of power and its purposes in all its forms—political, economic, moral and, yes, military power. The great Dean Acheson once said that "prestige is the shadow cast by power." If that is so, we risk squandering our prestige—as the current Administration has done—if we misuse and misdirect our tremendous power.
I will also talk more specifically about what I intend to do, as commander-in-chief, to lead our great military and restore the contract we have with those who proudly wear the uniform to defend our country and make the world a safe and better place.
Leading the military out of the wreckage left by the poor civilian leadership of this administration will be the single most important duty of the next commander-in-chief. The next commander-in-chief faces several important questions for the future:
How will we rebuild our military force, which most everyone agrees has been severely stressed, if not broken, by the debacle in Iraq?
What lessons have we learned about how the military should be used?
And what is the right role for our military as we seek to restore our moral leadership in the world?
The answers to these questions are what I would like to talk about today.
I can think of no better time to have this discussion than in the days leading up to Memorial Day. This is a day far more meaningful than ballgames and barbeques. It is a time when we honor those who have sacrificed to protect our freedom.
Memorial Day has always had special meaning for our family. My wife Elizabeth grew up on military bases around the world, as the daughter of a Navy aviator. From the U.S.S. Quincy, Elizabeth's father Vincent took part in the first bombing runs of Japan during World War II. Later, after the war, Elizabeth and her parents returned to live in Japan, where her father was stationed.
World War II was not simply a moment of military glory, a moment of triumph for the citizen soldier. It was much more than that. The generation that won World War II is not called The Greatest Generation because of the victory they earned on the battlefield, but because of what they did with that victory, of what they gave to us and the world. Military power without purpose is ultimately self-defeating. Our active engagement in the world after World War II is an example of why we need a strong military. It reveals the relationship between the strength of our military and the power of American ideals.
Think about the choices our wise leaders made in 1945. It would have been easy enough for America to glance at the devastation and just as quickly look the other way. We had saved the world from Nazism and fascism. We were wealthy and we were safe. Many thought it was time we went home.
But Americans like President Harry Truman and General George Marshall saw the truth: that it would require not only America's military might, but our ingenuity, our allies, and our generosity to rebuild Europe and keep it safe from tyrants who would prey on poverty and resentment. Our leaders resisted the imperial temptation to force our will by virtue of our unmatched strength. Instead, they built bonds of trust founded on restraint, the rule of law, and good faith. They were magnanimous out of strength, not weakness.
General Marshall—one of this country's greatest military leaders—was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in rebuilding Europe and promoting peace in the world.
In his Nobel acceptance speech, General Marshall said that military power was "too narrow a basis on which to build a dependable, long-enduring peace." As the Marshall Plan demonstrated, the military is only a means to an end; it is only one instrument of our power. It must work alongside—and reinforce—America's moral leadership.
We saw the power of this relationship during the Cold War, when America deterred the Soviet Union from its quest for world domination. We saw it when we established the United Nations and NATO, which have done so much for peace and human rights. After the Cold War, we saw it in Bosnia, where we helped broker a lasting peace. And we saw it again in Kosovo, where we joined our NATO allies to stop a brutal war criminal from perpetrating another campaign of ethnic cleansing.
This is the America where I grew up as a young boy—a strong nation whose moral promise seemed to fill the hearts of almost everyone I knew. We believed that America, like a beacon, could light up even the darkest corners of the world.
As we all saw six years ago, on September 11, America's greatness alone does not protect us from very real threats.
At that moment, the president could have sent a message of swift justice but also moral leadership. He could have told us where destroying Al Qaeda fit into the broader challenges America faces in the new century. He could have asked all Americans to sacrifice in this new struggle, inviting a hopeful new era of citizenship as the ultimate answer to the terrorists' cynical, evil attack.
But he didn't. Instead, he adopted the most short-sighted, ideological policies available. His strategy has put severe strain on our military... tarnished our moral standing in the eyes of the world... and emboldened our enemies.
It is now clear that George Bush's misnamed "war on terror" has backfired—and is now part of the problem.
The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan. It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world. As a political "frame," it's been used to justify everything from the Iraq War to Guantanamo to illegal spying on the American people. It's even been used by this White House as a partisan weapon to bludgeon their political opponents. Whether by manipulating threat levels leading up to elections, or by deeming opponents "weak on terror," they have shown no hesitation whatsoever about using fear to divide.
But the worst thing about this slogan is that it hasn't worked. The so-called "war" has created even more terrorism—as we have seen so tragically in Iraq. The State Department itself recently released a study showing that worldwide terrorism has increased 25% in 2006, including a 40% surge in civilian fatalities.
By framing this as a "war," we have walked right into the trap that terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam.
The "war" metaphor has also failed because it exaggerates the role of only one instrument of American power—the military. This has occurred in part because the military is so effective at what it does. Yet if you think all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.
There's an emerging consensus inside the armed forces that we must move beyond the idea of a war on terror. The Commander of the U.S. Military's Central Command recently stated that he would no longer use the "long war" framework. Top military leaders like retired General Anthony Zinni have rejected the term. These leaders know we need substance, not slogans—leadership, not labels.
The question is, what should replace the war on terror? Since the end of the Cold War, folks here at CFR and elsewhere have been engaged in an effort to be the next George Kennan and define the era. As all of you know, we need a new strategy for rebuilding a strong military for a new century.
Any new strategy must include new preventive measures to win the long-term struggle and fuel hope and opportunity. This includes strong and creative diplomacy, and also new efforts to lead the fight against global poverty. I've proposed a plan to lead an international effort to educate every child in the world. As president, I would increase foreign assistance by $5 billion a year to make millions of people safer, healthier, and more democratic, and by creating a cabinet-level post to lead this effort.
Any new strategy must improve how we gather intelligence. From my years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know how difficult this can be. We must always seek to protect our national security by aggressively gathering intelligence in accordance with proven methods.
Yet we cannot do so by abandoning human rights and the rule of law. As two former generals recently wrote in the Washington Post, "If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable... we drive... undecideds into the arms of the enemy." And we must avoid actions that will give terrorists or even other nations an excuse to abandon international law. As president, I will close Guantanamo Bay, restore habeas corpus, and ban torture. Measures like these will help America once again achieve its historic moral stature—and lead the world toward democracy and peace.
And finally, a new strategy must have a clear idea of how to rebuild the U.S. military.
For the last four years, the Administration has not only mismanaged the war in Iraq. It has mismanaged the military itself.
We all know the historic irony here. The president and his team held themselves out as stewards of the military. During his campaign in 2000, then-Governor Bush went to The Citadel in South Carolina and said our military power should be used, and I quote, "wisely, remembering the costs of war." His team came into office with decades of experience. They promised that, quote, "help was on the way." They made bold pronouncements about new military doctrines like "transformation" and an "end to nation-building." They held themselves out as saviors, called themselves Vulcans, and cast their opponents as amateurs who should bow down before their slogans and gestures. They even disregarded the advice of highly-decorated military officers themselves.
The results have been a disaster. This Administration's policies have been particularly hard on our military men and women and their families. President Bush could have called on all Americans to sacrifice. But the only ones who have been at war—the only ones asked to sacrifice—have been our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and their families. And that's wrong.
I am here today to announce a new pledge to America's servicemen and women, their families, and our veterans. We will stand by you just as you have stood by us. As president, I will implement a defense policy based on five major principles:
Ensuring that our military policy is planned and executed to fulfill essential national security missions, not some ideological fancy;
Repairing the tremendous damage done to civil-military relations;
Rooting out cronyism and waste and increasing efficiency in the Pentagon;
Rebalancing our force structure for the challenges of the new century, including improving our capabilities to help weak or failing states;
And taking a broader view of security throughout our government.
With these steps, we can begin to rebuild an American military for a new century.
First, we must clarify the mission of a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq American military for the 21st century.
We must be clear about when it is appropriate for a commander-in-chief to use force. As president, I will only use offensive force after all other options including diplomacy have been exhausted, and after we have made efforts to bring as many countries as possible to our side. However, there are times when force is justified: to protect our vital national interests... to respond to acts of aggression by other nations and non-state actors... to protect treaty allies and alliance commitments... to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons... and to prevent or stop genocide.
Yet we must remember the complementary relationship between military force and diplomacy. Too often during the past six years, this Administration's diplomatic efforts have left the U.S. with two unacceptable options: do nothing or use force. We must do better than that. We should always seek to solve problems peacefully, preferably working with others. Yet one of the oldest rules of statecraft is that diplomacy is most effective when backed by a strong military. That does not mean, however, that every problem needs a military answer; far from it.
Our military has three important missions: deterring and responding to aggressors, making sure that weak and failing states do not threaten our interests, and maintaining our strategic advantage against major competitors.
The first mission is deterring or responding to those who wish to do us harm. I want to make one thing absolutely clear: any American president must be able to act with swiftness and strength against anyone who will do us harm. But by elevating this right to a doctrine of "preventive war," this Administration has only isolated us further. Our goal must be to defeat Islamic extremists and limit their reach, not help them recruit and become stronger.
A second mission is to ensure that the problems of weak and failing states do not create dangers for the United States. We face substantial security threats from states that fall apart. These situations are not only dangerous for these countries' civilian populations; they create regional instability and can strengthen terrorist groups that, in turn, directly threaten the United States.
A third mission is maintaining our strategic advantage against major competitor states that could do us harm and otherwise threaten our interests.
In all of these missions, we must continue to strengthen our great partnerships—whether bilateral relationships with friends from Great Britain to Israel to Japan, or through institutions like NATO, which have done so much good for America and the world. While the U.S. does not need permission to protect its interests, we must realize that our strength lies in standing together with the world, not apart.
Next, we must also re-establish a strong connection with military leadership. The past few years have brought the biggest crisis in civil-military relations in a generation. The mismanagement of the Pentagon has been so severe that many of our most decorated retired officers are speaking out. Our constitutional design is clear, and our military leadership clearly must follow a civilian command. But this does not mean that civilians should be able to ram through their pet military projects.
George Bush's civilian leadership at the Pentagon repeatedly ignored the counsel of their more experienced military colleagues. They disregarded wise generals like Ric Shinseki, who advised that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure the peace in Iraq.
As president, I will repair this breach. I will institute regular, one-on-one meetings with my top military leadership, so their analysis and advice will not be filtered, and so I will have the best information about what's best for our troops on the ground.
I will also reinstate a basic doctrine that has been demolished by the Bush Administration. Under my Administration, military professionals will have primary responsibility in matters of tactics and operations, while civilian leadership will have authority in all matters of broad strategy and political decisions. As president, I will exercise command, and I will delegate the decision to use force to no one. But I will also remove any civilian or military officer who stifles debate or simply tells me what I want to hear.
The Administration's mismanagement of the military has not only breached the faith at the highest levels—it has led to a very dangerous situation for our troops, their families, and our nation.
The military that is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is very different from any that's gone to battle before. Today, active-duty servicemen and women are, on average, 27 years old. Guard and Reserve members are, on average, 33 years old. 60% of those deployed have left families at home, and about 50% of those killed in action have left a spouse or child behind. Alarmingly high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder are being reported.
These troops are exhausted and overworked, and we have been forced to dig deeper and deeper to find ground forces for Iraq and Afghanistan. This leaves us ill-prepared for the future. Today, every available combat active-duty Army combat brigade has been to Iraq or Afghanistan for at least one 12-month tour. We are sending some troops back to Iraq with less than a year's rest. To make matters worse, the Secretary of Defense just extended tours from 12 to 15 months, which is unconscionable.
And recruiting has suffered. The Army has been meeting its recruiting targets, but only by lowering its standards. Recruits from the least-skilled category have increased 800% over the past two years. And the Army granted nearly twice as many waivers for felonies and other shortcomings in 2006 as in 2003.
Finally, it is clear that Guard and Reserve members will always play an active and valuable role in the total force of the United States. Yet they have been subjected to repeated and lengthy deployments that do not fit their job description. They also need to be available to respond to disasters domestically.
And as the disgraceful conditions at Walter Reed demonstrated, this Administration has failed our servicemen and women not only in Iraq, but here at home. I will never allow our wounded to be housed in dilapidated, rodent-infested facilities. On the contrary, as I will be announcing in remarks later this week, I will make a new pledge to our veterans, our servicemen and women, and our military families—that our benefits, support services, and readjustment programs properly meet their needs. We owe them no less.
The problem of our force structure is not best dealt with by a numbers game. It is tempting for politicians to try and "out-bid" each other on the number of troops they would add. Some politicians have fallen right in line behind President Bush's recent proposal to add 92,000 troops between now and 2012, with little rationale given for exactly why we need this many troops—particularly with a likely withdrawal from Iraq.
The numbers game only gets us into the same problems as the president's approach. We must be more thoughtful about what the troops will actually be used for. Any troops we add today would take a number of years to recruit and train, and so will not help us today in Iraq.
We might need a substantial increase of troops in the Army, Marine Corps, and Special Forces for four reasons: to rebuild from Iraq; to bolster deterrence; to decrease our heavy reliance on Guard and Reserve members in military operations; and to deploy in Afghanistan and any other trouble spots that could develop.
While such proposals are worth close examination, they do not take into account our withdrawal from Iraq—which I believe must occur in about a year. We need to avoid throwing numbers around for political benefit and instead take a broader view. As president, I will carefully assess the post-Iraq threat environment and consult with military commanders to determine the exact number of troops we need and where.
I will also double the budget for recruiting, and I will raise the standards for the recruiting pool, so we issue far fewer waivers than we do today under the president's policy.
I will put substantial additional resources into maintenance of our equipment and to reset the force. We must spend what it takes to reset our force after Iraq. We have seen a rapid depletion in our military equipment. Over 1,000 vehicles, including tanks and helicopters, have been lost in Iraq, and our equipment is being used at a rate of five to six times its peacetime use.
This inadequacy is especially clear when we look at the demands that have been placed on our Guard and Reserve members. They have been sent to battle without the best equipment. Some units slated to return to Iraq recently reported that they still have outdated equipment. This is unacceptable.
The military budget itself also needs substantial reforms. Today, dozens of agencies perform overlapping tasks, and there is no central, overall accounting of all security activities performed by all relevant agencies.
I will create a National Security Budget that will include all security activities by the Pentagon and the Department of Energy, and our homeland security, intelligence, and foreign affairs agencies. This would allow more oversight and would also allow us to more carefully tailor our expenditures to our missions. Today, literally dozens of agencies have overlapping responsibilities, missions, tasks and programs. We don't link these efforts together nearly enough. We have nuclear proliferation programs in the Defense, State, and the Energy departments. We also have more than fifteen different security assistance programs, running out of both the State Department and the Defense Department.
As president, I will send to Congress a National Security Budget that will grow out of a review of our military, our diplomacy, our foreign assistance programs, our intelligence, our global energy, and our homeland security activities. This budget will provide one government-wide strategy for countering nuclear proliferation; a unified strategy for fighting terrorists; a unified strategy for providing security assistance to our allies; and clear guidance for our agencies on how they should set their budget priorities to make these policies work.
The military has gone a long way in making sure that it's capable and prepared to fight humanitarian crises, as we saw when it provided aid to the victims of the Pacific Ocean tsunami. But this aid is often imbalanced. We've got one agency on steroids—the Pentagon—while the civilian agencies are on life support. As president, I will help rebalance the delivery of civilian services throughout the federal government.
Civilians with training and experience need to be involved in stabilizing states with weak governments, and providing humanitarian assistance where disasters have struck. We need bankers to set up financial systems, political scientists to implement election systems, and civil engineers to design water and power systems. As president, I will create a "Marshall Corps," modeled on the military Reserves, of up to 10,000 expert professionals who will help stabilize weak societies, and who will work on humanitarian missions.
I will also take additional steps to put stabilization first throughout the government. I will put a senior official in the Pentagon to implement these programs. I will harmonize the State Department and Pentagon's overlapping efforts at diplomacy and stabilization better from the White House. And I will implement new stabilization programs at war colleges and staff colleges.
Just as we need to get our national security budget in order, we must also reform our Pentagon budget. The Bush Administration has funneled an enormous amount of taxpayer money to private military contractors, many run by their political cronies. It's no surprise that we have seen rampant overruns in the cost of many weapons programs.
I will respond to the overruns and cronyism strongly and directly. We need a modern-day equivalent of Harry Truman's famous Truman Committee, which traveled the country in the 1940's to find billions of dollars of waste in military spending. As president, I will direct my Secretary of Defense to launch a comprehensive, tough review of fraud, waste, and abuse—and put an end to it. One example is missile defense and offensive space-based weapons, which are costly and unlikely to work.
We also need fundamental reform of our privatization policies. Almost half of Defense Department contracts are now awarded on a noncompetitive basis, giving companies like Halliburton with millions of dollars. To end this, I will direct my Secretary of Defense to overhaul the rules governing privatization, to punish mismanagement, and to reform DOD bonus policies to reward performance.
Finally, I will challenge the military to continue to modernize for a new century. We need to ensure that the U.S. military is the most modern and capable fighting force on the planet. Modernization will also have other benefits. "Greening the military" will increase innovation, save millions of dollars, reduce reliance on vulnerable supply lines, and help America lead the fight against global warming.
We also must do what we can to prevent these problems before they start. This is why I believe it is so important to address issues like global poverty. The reforms I announced two months ago would help stabilize at-risk nations and spread the dream of freedom across the globe—and enhance respect and admiration for America.
Today we need great principles, moral courage, and, above all, a vision—of a tomorrow that is better than today, of a world where the power of example is mightier than the sword.
We need a strong military for a new century, and we need one based on hope, not fear. As Robert F. Kennedy once wrote, "Our answer is the world's hope." Our answer is the world's hope. We will need imagination and courage to imagine great possibilities, to create a world where terrorism belongs to the past. We must, at the same time, rely on our heritage: a time when we were admired by the world, where we shared, with generosity and good faith, our ideals of truth, justice, and equality.
Like a beacon, America can once again provide a clear light for the world—dissolving the fog of injustice, illuminating the path to a new century.
This is the America where I grew up—and it is the America that Elizabeth and I want again to share not only with our own children, but with the children of America, and of the world.
Thank you so much for being here with me today, and God bless America.
posted on May 23, 2007 06:28:41 PM new
And edwards views, hellen, are EXACTLY why American's re-elected a President they knew WOULD defend America and her interests. So unlike the wet-behind-the-ears, edwards.
====================
Since you found a need to print edwards whole speech...I will do the same with our CIC speech to our troops.
=======================
May 23, 2007
Address to Coast Guard Commencement
George W. Bush
The history of the Coast Guard dates back more than two centuries, to the Revenue Cutter Service, established under the presidency of George Washington -- or as I call him, the first George W. (Laughter and applause.) Since its inception, the Coast Guard has conducted search and rescue missions, enforced our maritime laws, protected our marine environment, come to the aid of stranded boaters, and helped staunch the flow of illegal drugs and illegal migrants to our shores. And in this new century, the Coast Guard continues to carry out these vital missions.
Americans rely on the Coast Guard in times of disaster. When Hurricane Katrina hit our nation's Gulf Coast, the men and women of the Coast Guard swung into action, hanging from helicopters, pulling people off rooftops and out of trees, and rescuing more than 33,000 people. (Applause.) When storms and floods and tragedy strike, Americans know that they can count on the United States Coast Guard. (Applause.)
Americans relied on the Coast Guard on September the 11th, 2001. After terrorists struck the Twin Towers, the Coast Guard station on Staten Island put out a call for "all available boats," and organized a massive flotilla of military and civilian craft that evacuated hundreds of thousands of people from lower Manhattan. It was the largest waterborne evacuation in our nation's history. And in the days that followed, the men and women of the Coast Guard stayed on the job, assisting operations at Ground Zero, sending chaplains to comfort the bereaved, and coordinating a round-the-clock defense of New York Harbor and other vital ports. In a time of crisis, the Coast Guard did its job, and did it well. (Applause.)
On September the 11th, the home front you protect became a battlefront in a new and unprecedented war. That day, our nation changed forever, and so did the mission of the United States Coast Guard. This service assumed new and essential responsibilities: to defend our nation against terrorist infiltration, and to help stop new attacks before they kill our people.
As part of Operation Noble Eagle, the men and women of the Coast Guard are protecting more than 360 ports and more than 95,000 miles of coastline. Overseas, the Coast Guard is conducting maritime intercept operations in the Persian Gulf, patrolling the waters off Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The men and women of the Coast Guard are serving with courage, and the American people are grateful to live behind your Shield of Freedom.
Soon you'll join your fellow Coasties in carrying out these and other missions. And this Academy has prepared you well for the new challenges you will face in this war on terror. During your time here, you've taken courses in terrorist tactics and counterterrorism strategies; you've studied radiation detection, remote sensing, and the handling of hazardous materials; you participated in military exercises that have prepared you for the threats of this new century.
You'll need all this training to help keep your fellow citizens safe.In this war, we face a brutal enemy that has already killed thousands in our midst, and is determined to bring even greater destruction to our shores. We're blessed that there has not been another terrorist attack on our homeland in the past five-and-a-half years. This is not for lack of effort on the part of the enemy. Since 9/11, al Qaeda and its allies have succeeded in carrying out horrific attacks across the world; al Qaeda leaders have repeatedly made clear they intend to strike our country again.
In January of last year, Osama bin Laden warned the American people: "Operations are under preparation and you will see them on your own ground once they are finished." Seven months later, British authorities broke up the most ambitious known al Qaeda threat to the homeland since the 9/11 attacks:a plot to blow up passenger airplanes flying to America.
Our intelligence community believes that this plot was just two or three weeks away from execution. If it had been carried out, it could have rivaled 9/11 in death and destruction.
This was not the first al Qaeda plot that has been foiled since 9/11 . In December 2001 we captured an al Qaeda operative named Ali Salih al-Mari. Our intelligence community believes that Ali Salih was training in poisons at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan, and had been sent to the United States before September the 11th to serve as a sleeper agent ready for follow-on attacks. He was ordered to our country by 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who is now in U.S. custody. Our intelligence community believes that KSM brought Ali Salih to meet Osama bin Laden, where he pledged his loyalty to the al Qaeda leader and offered himself up as a martyr. Among the potential targets our intelligence community believes this al Qaeda operative discussed with KSM were water reservoirs, the New York Stock Exchange, and United States military academies such as this one.
We also broke up two other post-9/11 aviation plots. The first, in 2002, was a plot by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to repeat the destruction of 9/11 by sending operatives to hijack an airplane and fly into the tallest building on the West Coast. During a hearing at Guantanamo Bay just two months ago, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad stated that the intended target was the Library Tower in Los Angeles. And in 2003, we uncovered and stopped a plot led by another suspected senior al Qaeda operative named Abu Bakr al-Azdi. Our intelligence community believes this plot was to be another East Coast aviation attack, including multiple airplanes that had been hijacked and then crashing into targets in the United States.
There is a reason that these and other plots have thus far not succeeded: Since September the 11th, we have taken bold action at home and abroad to keep our people safe.
To help stop new attacks on our country, we have undertaken the most sweeping reorganization of the federal government since the start of the Cold War.
We created the new Department of Homeland Security, merging 22 different government organizations, including the Coast Guard, into a single Department with a clear mission: to protect America from future attacks.
To stop new attacks on our country,we've strengthened our nation's intelligence community. We created the position of the Director of National Intelligence to ensure our intelligence agencies operate as a single, unified enterprise.
We created the National Counter Terrorism Center, where the FBI, the CIA, and other agencies work side by side to track terrorist threats across the world.
We directed the National Security Agency to monitor international terrorist communications.
We established a program run by the CIA to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives.
These measures are vital. These measures are working. And these measures have helped prevent an attack on our homeland. (Applause.)
To help stop new attacks on our country,
we passed the Patriot Act, breaking down the walls that had prevented federal law enforcement and intelligence communities from sharing information about potential terrorist activities.
We've transformed the FBI into an agency whose primary focus is stopping terrorist attacks.
We've expanded the number of FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces from 35 before 9/11 to more than a hundred today. And we saw their effectiveness recently when one of these teams helped disrupt a plot by a group of al Qaeda-inspired extremists to kill American soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey.
To help stop new attacks on our country we launched the BioWatch program, placing state-of-the-art equipment in major U.S. cities to detect biological agents.
To help prevent terrorists from bringing nuclear or radiological weapons into our county, we're placing radiation detectors in all major U.S. ports.
We placed advanced screening equipment and U.S. Homeland Security personnel at foreign ports, so we can pre-screen cargo headed for America.
We're determined to stop the world's most dangerous men from striking America with the world's most dangerous weapons. And the Coast Guard is on the front line of this battle. (Applause.)
To help stop new attacks on our country , we've strengthened international cooperation in the fight against terror.A coalition of more than 90 nations -- nearly one-half of the world -- is working together to dry up terrorist financing and bring terrorist leaders to justice. We launched the Proliferation Security Initiative, a vast coalition of nations that are working to stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction on land, at sea, and in the air. With our allies, we have uncovered and shut down the A.Q. Khan network, which had supplied nuclear-related equipment and plans to terrorist states, including Iran and North Korea.
With Great Britain, we convinced the leader of Libya to abandon his country's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. The key components of Libya's nuclear program are now locked up in a storage facility right here in the United States. And today the world is safer because Libya is out of the nuclear weapons business. (Applause.)
All these steps are making our country safer, but we're not yet safe. To strike our country, the terrorists only have to be right once; to protect our country, we have to be right 100 percent of the time. That means the best way to protect our people is to take the fight to the enemy. So after 9/11, I vowed to America that we would go on the offense against the terrorists, fighting them across the world so we do not have to face them here at home. And since 9/11, that is precisely what that United States of America has done. (Applause.)
In Afghanistan, we removed a regime that gave sanctuary and support to al Qaeda as they planned the 9/11 attacks. Today, because we acted, the terrorist camps in Afghanistan have been shut down, 25 million people have been liberated, and the Afghan people have an elected government that is fighting terrorists, instead of harboring them. (Applause.)
The Taliban and al Qaeda are seeking to roll back Afghanistan's democratic progress -- but forces from 40 nations, including every member of NATO, are helping the Afghan people defend their democratic gains. Earlier this month, Afghan, American, and NATO forces tracked down and killed a top Taliban commander in Afghanistan. His death has sent a clear message to all who would challenge Afghanistan's young democracy: We drove al Qaeda and the Taliban out of power, and they're not going to be allowed to return to power. (Applause.)
In Iraq, we removed a cruel dictator who harbored terrorists, paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, invaded his neighbors, defied the United Nations Security Council, pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. Iraq, the United States and the world are better off without Saddam Hussein in power. (Applause.) And today the Iraqi people are building a young democracy on the rubble of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. In December 2005, nearly 12 million Iraqis demonstrated their desire to be free, going to the polls and choosing a new government under the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world.
In 2006, a thinking enemy responded to this progress and struck back with brutality. They staged sensational attacks that led to a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal. If the sectarian violence continued to spiral out of control, the Iraqi government would have been in danger of collapse. The ensuing chaos would embolden Iran, which is fueling the violence, and al Qaeda, a key driver of Iraq's sectarian conflict. The chaos could eventually spread across the Middle East, and generations of Americans would be in even greater danger.
So I had a choice to make: withdraw our troops, or send reinforcements to help the Iraqis quell the sectarian violence. I decided to send more troops with a new mission: to help the Iraqi government secure their population and get control of Baghdad. As we carry out the new strategy, the Iraqi government has a lot of work to do. They must meet its responsibility to the Iraqi people and achieve benchmarks it has set, including adoption of a national oil law, preparations for provincial elections, progress on a new de-Baathification policy, and a review of the Iraqi constitution. The Iraqi people must see that their government is taking action to bring their country together and give all of Iraq's a stake in a peaceful future.
Now, in 2007, we are at a pivotal moment in this battle. There are many destructive forces in Iraq trying to stop this strategy from succeeding -- the most destructive is al Qaeda. Al Qaeda knows that a democratic Iraq is a threat to their ambitions to impose their hateful ideology across the Middle East. And al Qaeda knows that our presence in Iraq is a direct threat to their existence in Iraq. Our security depends on helping the Iraqis succeed and defeating Iraq -- al Qaeda in Iraq. (Applause.)
Some in our country question whether the battle in Iraq is part of the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there's no doubt. Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: He calls the struggle in Iraq a "war of destiny." He proclaimed "the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."
Bin Laden is matching his words with action. He attempted to send a new commander to Iraq, an Iraqi-born terrorist named Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi. According to our intelligence community, this terrorist had been a senior advisor to bin Laden, he served as his top commander in Afghanistan, he was responsible for all al Qaeda's military operations against our coalition in that country. Abd al-Hadi never made it to Iraq. He was captured last year, and he was recently he was transferred to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.
There is a reason that bin Laden sent one of his most experienced paramilitary leaders to Iraq: He believes that if al Qaeda can drive us out, they can establish Iraq as a new terrorist sanctuary. Our intelligence community believes that, "al Qaeda leaders see victory in Iraq -- the heart of the caliphate and currently the most active front in their war -- as a religious and strategic imperative."
If al Qaeda succeeds in Iraq, they would pursue their stated goals of turning that nation into a base from which to overthrow moderate governments in the region, impose their hateful ideology on millions, and launch new attacks on America and other nations. Victory in Iraq is important for Osama bin Laden -- and victory in Iraq is vital for the United States of America. (Applause.)
I've often warned that if we fail in Iraq, the enemy will follow us home. Many ask: How do you know? Today, I'd like to share some information with you that attests to al Qaeda's intentions. According to our intelligence community, in January 2005, Osama bin Laden tasked the terrorist Zarqawi -- who was then al Qaeda's top leader in Iraq -- with forming a cell to conduct terrorist attacks outside of Iraq. Bin Laden emphasized that America should be Zarqawi's number one priority in terms of foreign attacks. Zarqawi welcomed this direction; he claimed that he had already come up with some good proposals.
To help Zarqawi in these efforts, our intelligence community reports that bin Laden then tasked one of his top terrorist operatives, Hamza Rabia, to send Zarqawi a briefing on al Qaeda's external operations, including information about operations against the American homeland. Our intelligence community reports that a senior al Qaeda leader, Abu Faraj al-Libi, went further and suggested that bin Laden actually send Rabia, himself, to Iraq to help plan external operations. Abu Faraj later speculated that if this effort proved successful, al Qaeda might one day prepare the majority of its external operations from Iraq.
In May of 2005, Abu Faraj was captured and taken into CIA custody. Several months later, in December 2005, Rabia was killed in Pakistan. Several months after that, in June of 2006, the terrorist Zarqawi was killed by American forces in Iraq.
Successes like these are blows to al Qaeda. They're a testament to steps we have taken to strengthen our intelligence, work closely with partners overseas, and keep the pressure on the enemy by staying on the offense. (Applause.)
Despite our pressure, despite the setbacks that al Qaeda has suffered, it remains extremely dangerous. As we've surged our forces in Iraq, al Qaeda has responded with a surge of its own. The terrorists' goal in Iraq is to reignite sectarian violence and break support for the war here at home. And they believe they're succeeding. A few weeks ago, al Qaeda's number two, second in command, Zawahiri, issued a video in which he gloated that al Qaeda's "movement of violence" has "forced the Americans to accept a pullout -- about which they only differ in regard to its timing." We can expect al Qaeda to continue its campaign of high profile attacks, including deadly suicide bombings and assassinations. And as they do, our troops will face more fighting and increased risks in the weeks and months ahead.
The fight in Iraq is tough, but my point today to you isthe fight is essential to our security -- al Qaeda's leaders inside and outside of Iraq have not given up on their objective of attacking America again.
Now, many critics compare the battle in Iraq to the situation we faced in Vietnam. There are many differences between the two conflicts, but one stands out above all:
The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland.
The enemy in Iraq does. Nine-eleven taught us that to protect the American people, we must fight the terrorists where they live so that we don't have to fight them where we live. (Applause.)
The question for our elected leaders is: Do we comprehend the danger of an al Qaeda victory in Iraq, and will we do what it takes to stop them? However difficult the fight in Iraq has become, we must win it. Al Qaeda is public enemy number one for Iraq's young democracy, and al Qaeda is public enemy number one for America, as well. And that is why we must support our troops, we must support the Iraqi government, and we must defeat al Qaeda in Iraq. (Applause.)
We're thankful to the military, the intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who work tirelessly to stop new attacks on our country. With every plot they foil, every terrorist they capture, we learn more about the enemy's plans and persistence. In the minds of al Qaeda leaders, 9/11 was just a down-payment on violence yet to come. It's tempting to believe that the calm here at home after September the 11th means that the danger to our country has passed. I see the intelligence every day. The danger has not passed. Here in America, we're living in the eye of a storm. All around us, dangerous winds are swirling, and these winds could reach our shores at any moment.
The men and women of the Coast Guard know how to navigate the storm. We're counting on you to help America weather the challenges that lie ahead. As you begin your Coast Guard careers, you can approach the future with confidence, because our nation has faced dangerous enemies before, and emerged victorious every time.
Terrorists can try to kill the innocent, but they cannot kill the desire for liberty that burns in the hearts of millions across the earth. The power of freedom defeated the ideologies of fascism and communism in the last century, and freedom will defeat the hateful ideologies of the terrorists in this century.
Victory in this struggle will require valor and determination and persistence, and these qualities can be found in abundance in the Class of 2007. (Applause.)
Your class has chosen a motto: Let Courage Part the Seas. America will be counting on your courage in the years to come. You will take your oath as Coast Guard officers in a time of war, knowing all the risks your service entails. I thank each of you for your bold decision to wear the uniform. My call to you is this: Trust in the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror; show leadership in freedom's defense, and character in all you do; be ready for anything. The Coasties who came before you never thought they would be organizing a flotilla in New York Harbor, or patrolling distant coasts in the Persian Gulf. Like them, you will serve in ways you cannot imagine today. But if you bring the skills and creativity you learned at this Academy to every task, our nation's security will be in good hands. (Applause.)
You leave this Academy "strong in resolve to be worthy of the traditions of commissioned officers in the United States Coast Guard."
I respect your passion for service, and the courage of your choice. Your country is grateful, and proud of each of you. Congratulations. God bless. Semper Paratus. (Applause.)
-------------------------------------------
Hopefully EVERYONE will focus on ALL the 'tried' ATTACKS that have been prevented under a President who CAN see the ongoing, long term terrorist threat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 23, 2007 06:45 PM ]
posted on May 23, 2007 06:56:41 PM new
An excellent speech by John Edwards with possible and intelligent solutions for the mess the Bush regime has created and such great inspiration and hope for the future. How wonderful if any president and those who work alongside him or her could accomplish it and get things on the right track again.
posted on May 23, 2007 07:13:42 PM new
Yea like edwards handing a victory to the AQ in Iraq.
That would be great for America. Think AQ will be attacking CANADA also, kiara?
No maybe since it won't be YOUR country it doesn't matter as much as it does to actual AMERICANS.
"Recall that in January 2006, Osama Bin Laden said that plans for attacks in the U.S. were in progress," Mansfield told the Blotter on ABCNews.com. "It may be that this new imagery is designed to motivate terrorist activity in the U.S., but it is certainly intended as a recruiting tool and perhaps intended to reassure al Qaeda's jihadi followers they haven't forgotten their goal of an al Qaeda attack on Washington, D.C.," she said.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 23, 2007 07:16 PM ]
posted on May 24, 2007 06:13:05 AM newGet real. The 9-11 terrorists were here LEGALLY. duh
Exactly they were here legally. How many terrorists are here illegally just waiting to do harm?
Where should we fight terrorists?
Why do you want to continue say we should fight them there instead of here? Is it because fighting them within the United States would lead to thousands of American citizens being killed, billions of dollars in property damage, and hurt the US economy. You wouldn't want the fighting here because of all the consequences but yet you do not care about the Iraqis that have suffered because of this unprovoked war. The Iraqi citizens didn't ask for this war either.
This only proves that Linda only cares about herself and doesn't care about anyone else.
You can not fight a war against a particular group, when that group lives all over the word. There are terrorists inside the US, so why not fight the those terrorists here if is is a "war on terror". Why not fight the terrorists in Britain or France if it s a "war on terror" as Bush claims. Bush made Iraq the center point of this war to purposely take out Saddam.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 24, 2007 07:30:59 AM newYea like edwards handing a victory to the AQ in Iraq.
Nowhere in his speech did he say such a thing. Edwards has never said that because he doesn't believe it.
Think AQ will be attacking CANADA also, kiara?
Who knows, Linda_K? May I be the first to inform you that Al Qaeda has made threats against Canada for a long time so it could very well happen as they are here already.
Fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq will not stop them from attacking North America or anywhere else, it's just a silly excuse (one of many) to cover up a major Bush blunder which caused a huge increase in terrorism worldwide.
As I said years ago, Bush has played right into Al Qaeda's plan because he is such a simple little man with no plan at all, let alone a secret strategy for success.
posted on May 24, 2007 09:23:19 AM new
ld.....no, I don't wish to see anymore destruction on our soil like we suffered on 9-11.
Are YOU saying YOU'D rather have that happen again?
I agree they're all over the world. And they're supporting terrorists in Iraq and they're there too.
So your solution is to admit defeat to them and run. You obviously don't know how they would see that. Or it doesn't matter to you.
And if you haven't read about all the countries in the world, including the UK etc...who ARE fighting terrorists in their own country....then you are more 'slow' than even I've given you credit for being.
That's why something like 90 nations ARE working with the US to dry up their funding...to fight them in their own Nations etc.
And we are also fighting them here in the US. All those who have been arrested for planning their attacks against Americans would have completed their goals, IF they had been allowed to continue forward.
You need to enter reality. And ANY wanna-be CIC who denies there is a war on terrorism.....or a war against radical muslims....is just not the one to be elected and NOT the one who would make decisions in Americas best interests.
Exactly they were here legally. How many terrorists are here illegally just waiting to do harm???"
I don't know how many our gov. is watching. But what we DO know is that 1 in 4 young muslims believe there could be a reason, their religious reasons, to murder American citizens.
I think that could easily be approx. 171,000 who could justify murdering Americas if it was because of their religious beliefs.
Know that many American Christians who have willingly stated they'd do the same???
And just think of all the muslims who didn't have the courage/nerve to admit they would to. Possibly why we don't hear them speaking out against this barbaric behavior from their muslim brothers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 24, 2007 09:29 AM ]
posted on May 24, 2007 09:33:00 AM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda said: Yea like edwards handing a victory to the AQ in Iraq.
kiara: Nowhere in his speech did he say such a thing. Edwards has never said that because he doesn't believe it.
=====
LOL.....denial running rampant again.
He wants the US to withdraw from Iraq.
DUH......that IS giving the win to the AQ and other terrorists there.
I know it's way to difficult for you to grasp.....but even our enemies can understand THAT concept.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
This is what innocent people can look forward to should we leave Iraq before they're able to defend and protect themselves.
This is our enemy. And the enemy our radical, progressive, anti-war liberals want to give the victory to in Iraq.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
The entire government has failed us on Iraq For the president, and the majority leaders and candidates and rank-and-file Congressmen and Senators of either party—there is only blame for this shameful, and bi-partisan, betrayal
SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Countdown
Updated: 2 hours ago
A Special Comment about the Democrats’ deal with President Bush to continue financing this unspeakable war in Iraq—and to do so on his terms:
This is, in fact, a comment about… betrayal.
Few men or women elected in our history-whether executive or legislative, state or national-have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear: Get us out of Iraq.
Yet after six months of preparation and execution-half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:
* The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president-if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history-who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats "give the troops their money";
* The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans;
* The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.
* The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.
You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions-Stop The War-have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.
You may trot out every political cliché from the soft-soap, inside-the-beltway dictionary of boilerplate sound bites, about how this is the "beginning of the end" of Mr. Bush's "carte blanche" in Iraq, about how this is a "first step."
Well, Senator Reid, the only end at its beginning… is our collective hope that you and your colleagues would do what is right, what is essential, what you were each elected and re-elected to do.
Because this "first step"… is a step right off a cliff.
And this President!
How shameful it would be to watch an adult hold his breath, and threaten to continue to do so, until he turned blue.
But how horrifying it is to watch a President hold his breath and threaten to continue to do so, until innocent and patriotic Americans in harm's way, are bled white.
You lead this country, sir?
You claim to defend it?
And yet when faced with the prospect of someone calling you on your stubbornness–your stubbornness which has cost 3,431 Americans their lives and thousands more their limbs–you, Mr. Bush, imply that if the Democrats don't give you the money and give it to you entirely on your terms, the troops in Iraq will be stranded, or forced to serve longer, or have to throw bullets at the enemy with their bare hands.
How transcendentally, how historically, pathetic.
Any other president from any other moment in the panorama of our history would have, at the outset of this tawdry game of political chicken, declared that no matter what the other political side did, he would insure personally-first, last and always-that the troops would not suffer.
A President, Mr. Bush, uses the carte blanche he has already, not to manipulate an overlap of arriving and departing brigades into a ‘second surge,' but to say in unequivocal terms that if it takes every last dime of the monies already allocated, if it takes reneging on government contracts with Halliburton, he will make sure the troops are safe-even if the only safety to be found, is in getting them the hell out of there.
Well, any true President would have done that, sir.
You instead, used our troops as political pawns, then blamed the Democrats when you did so.
Not that these Democrats, who had this country's support and sympathy up until 48 hours ago, have not since earned all the blame they can carry home.
"We seem to be very near the bleak choice between war and shame," Winston Churchill wrote to Lord Moyne in the days after the British signed the Munich accords with Germany in 1938. "My feeling is that we shall choose shame, and then have war thrown in, a little later…"
That's what this is for the Democrats, isn't it?
Their "Neville Chamberlain moment" before the Second World War. All that's missing is the landing at the airport, with the blinkered leader waving a piece of paper which he naively thought would guarantee "peace in our time," but which his opponent would ignore with deceit.
The Democrats have merely streamlined the process.
Their piece of paper already says Mr. Bush can ignore it, with impugnity.
And where are the Democratic presidential hopefuls this evening? See they not, that to which the Senate and House leadership has blinded itself?
Judging these candidates based on how they voted on the original Iraq authorization, or waiting for apologies for those votes, is ancient history now.
The Democratic nomination is likely to be decided… tomorrow.
The talk of practical politics, the buying into of the President's dishonest construction "fund-the-troops-or-they-will-be-in-jeopardy," the promise of tougher action in September, is falling not on deaf ears, but rather falling on Americans who already told you what to do, and now perceive your ears as closed to practical politics.
Those who seek the Democratic nomination need to-for their own political futures and, with a thousand times more solemnity and importance, for the individual futures of our troops-denounce this betrayal, vote against it, and, if need be, unseat Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi if they continue down this path of guilty, fatal acquiescence to the tragically misguided will of a monomaniacal president.
For, ultimately, at this hour, the entire government has failed us.
* Mr. Reid, Mr. Hoyer, and the other Democrats… have failed us. They negotiated away that which they did not own, but had only been entrusted by us to protect: our collective will as the citizens of this country, that this brazen War of Lies be ended as rapidly and safely as possible.
* Mr. Bush and his government… have failed us. They have behaved venomously and without dignity-of course.
That is all at which Mr. Bush is gifted.
We are the ones providing any element of surprise or shock here.
With the exception of Senator Dodd and Senator Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidates have (so far at least) failed us.
They must now speak, and make plain how they view what has been given away to Mr. Bush, and what is yet to be given away tomorrow, and in the thousand tomorrows to come.
Because for the next fourteen months, the Democratic nominating process–indeed the whole of our political discourse until further notice–has, with the stroke of a cursed pen, become about one thing, and one thing alone.
The electorate figured this out, six months ago.
The President and the Republicans have not-doubtless will not.
The Democrats will figure it out, during the Memorial Day recess, when they go home and many of those who elected them will politely suggest they stay there-and permanently.
Because, on the subject of Iraq the people have been ahead of the media….
Ahead of the government…
Ahead of the politicians…
For the last year, or two years, or maybe three.
Our politics… is now about the answer to one briefly-worded question.
Mr. Bush has failed.
Mr. Warner has failed.
Mr. Reid has failed.
So. Who among us will stop this war-this War of Lies? To he or she, fall the figurative keys to the nation.
To all the others-presidents and majority leaders and candidates and rank-and-file Congressmen and Senators of either party-there is only blame… for this shameful, and bi-partisan, betrayal.
Video at MSNBC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on May 24, 2007 09:50:12 AM new
The liberals in congress finally have given up to President Bush's 'no withdrawal date' for the war.
After all that grandstanding.....they'll vote today to give him what he said he wanted from the beginning of their game playing.
Bush to Support War Bill
May 24 12:29 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said he supports a $120 billion Iraq war spending bill on track to to pass Congress Thursday, ending weeks of wrangling with congressional Democrats on how long U.S. troops should stay.
The bill funds the war through September as Bush wanted and does not set a date for troop withdrawals. In exchange for dropping restrictions on the military, Bush agreed to some $17 billion in spending added by Democrats to fund domestic and military-related projects.
"By voting for this bill, members of both parties can show our troops and the Iraqis and the enemy that our country will support our service men and women in harm's way," Bush said in a Rose Garden news conference.
Democrats said they were disappointed with the deal.
"I hate this agreement," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
Obey said the deal was the best that Democrats could do manage because "the White House is in a cloud somewhere in terms of understanding the realities in Iraq."
The bill includes the nearly $100 billion that President Bush requested for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as billions in domestic spending, including $6.4 billion in hurricane relief and $3 billion in agricultural assistance.
Republicans were unhappy about the added domestic spending, but said they were relieved the final measure did not attempt to set a timetable on the war.
"We cannot and will not abandon the Iraqis to be butchered by these terrorists in their midst," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif. "And we cannot and will not abandon our mission just as real progress is starting to be made."
While the measure does not include a timetable on the war, it does threaten to withhold U.S. aid dollars for Iraq if Baghdad fails to make progress on political and security reforms. The president, however, could waive that restriction.
Bush said Iraq's ability to meet the benchmarks outlined in the bill would be difficult.
"It's going to be hard work for this young government," he said. "After all, the Iraqis are recovering from decades of brutal dictatorship."
The hefty spending bill has become a lightning rod for political attacks on Bush and his handling of the deeply unpopular war, which has killed more than 3,400 U.S. troops and cost more than $300 billion. But it also has exposed a sharp divide among Democrats on how far Congress should go to end the war.
Democratic presidential contenders on Capitol Hill are vying for the anti-war vote, but at the same time do not want to appear as though they are turning their backs on the military.
"I believe as long as we have troops in the front line, we're going to have to protect them," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. "We're going to have to fund them."
Biden was alone among the potential Democratic candidates in immediately pledging his support for the bill.
Two front-runners, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, declined to say how they intended to vote on the measure.
Challengers Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio said they would oppose the measure because in their view it issued a blank check to President Bush on the Iraq war.
"Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in Iraq," Dodd said in a statement. "If we are serious about ending the war, Congress must stand up to this president's failed policy now—with clarity and conviction."
Democratic leaders planned multiple votes in the House on Thursday to ensure the measure would ultimately pass because of disagreements among members on elements of the bill. One vote was to be on war funding, while another would be to approve the extra money for domestic and military-related projects.
While liberal Democrats were expected to vote against the war funds measure, GOP members were expected to make up for the losses. On the added spending, Democrats likely were to be unified in their support for the measure, overcoming GOP objections.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 24, 2007 09:55:05 AM newAre YOU saying YOU'D rather have that happen again?
So your solution is to admit defeat to them and run.
Linda_K, not only do you lack the ability to read and comprehend what is said, do you realize how stupid you sound, making up completely mindless scenarios about what other people think and then telling yourself it's true and using that as an approach to discuss any topic at all here - and I do mean ANY topic?
Now run off and find where I have said anything that leads you to believe that I want another attack and that my solution is to admit defeat and run.
Please post my actual statements with links to prove them and then we will try to follow through with a discussion. Otherwise don't use me as the example of what you have imagined liberals think. Or is that to difficult to understand?
posted on May 24, 2007 09:55:58 AM new Not this one.
Full text of John Edward's speech today at the Council on Foreign Relations
It is wonderful to be back here at the Council. Thank you for having me.
Last year, I had the great pleasure of co-chairing a Council Task Force with Jack Kemp on the future of the U.S.-Russia relationship. For me, that experience served as a powerful reminder of what can be achieved when people of divergent views, bound by a common belief in America's responsibilities as a global leader, can come together to grapple with difficult national security challenges.
Our main conclusions are just as relevant today: that Russia's direction is critically important to America's national security—from non-proliferation and energy security to the spread of HIV/AIDS. And as our report's title made clear, Russia has been headed in the wrong direction, whether in its de-democratization or by bullying its neighbors.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to concentrate sufficient energy on critical issues like getting our relationship with Russia right. Instead, we've been distracted by larger problems created by this president's military and national security policy.
The core of this presidency has been a political doctrine that George Bush calls the "Global War on Terror." He has used this doctrine like a sledgehammer to justify the worst abuses and biggest mistakes of his administration, from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, to the war in Iraq. The worst thing about the Global War on Terror approach is that it has backfired—our military has been strained to the breaking point and the threat from terrorism has grown.
We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq American military that is mission-focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological pursuits. We need to recognize that we have far more powerful weapons available to us than just bombs, and we need to bring them to bear. We need to reengage the world with the full weight of our moral leadership.
What we need is not more slogans but a comprehensive strategy to deal with the complex challenge of both delivering justice and being just. Not hard power. Not soft power. Smart power.
Nowhere are the problems of this Administration's policies more tragically evident than in Iraq. Iraq's problems are deep and dangerous, but they cannot be solved by the U.S. military alone. My plan calls on Congress to use its funding power to stop the surge and force an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops from Iraq, followed by an orderly and complete withdrawal of all combat troops in about a year.
The president has played political brinksmanship over the war in Iraq time and time again. He refuses to acknowledge the futility of his approach, disregards the clear message sent by the American people last fall, and falsely claims that the only way for Congress to support the troops is to prolong the war. That's just not true. Congress can support the troops and end the war, which is exactly what the bill they sent the president last month would have done. When the president vetoed that bill, it was the president alone who was blocking support for the troops. Nobody else.
Any compromise that funds the war through the end of the fiscal year isn't a compromise at all, it's a capitulation. As I have said repeatedly, Congress should send the president the same bill he vetoed again and again until he realizes he has no choice but to start bringing our troops home.
We need to get out of Iraq on our own timetable, not when we are forced to do so by events. As a recent Council report put it, the U.S. "has already achieved all that it is likely to achieve in Iraq... [and] staying in Iraq can only drive up the price of these gains in blood, treasure, and strategic position."
Iraq has done tremendous damage to the U.S. interests in the Middle East, our military, and to our moral authority to lead. It has also completely consumed our country's foreign policy debate. In Congress and the White House, the focus has been on when to get out, how to get out, and how quickly. Too little consideration has been given to what happens after we get out—and that is the very least we owe to the men and women of the U.S. armed forces and their families, who have sacrificed so much.
I believe that once we are out of Iraq, the U.S. must retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war, and prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven. We will most likely need to retain Quick Reaction Forces in Kuwait and in the Persian Gulf. We will also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel. Finally, we will need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world in Iraq's future—including Middle Eastern nations and our allies in Europe.
As everyone in this room knows, the Iraq War has made it far more difficult to deal with other global challenges—whether it's the worsening situation in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent... the nuclear ambitions of states like North Korea and Iran... the crises in Darfur and Northern Uganda... the effort to help bring peace between Israel and its neighbors... the growing economic and security threats from global warming... the plight of the over a billion people who live on less than a dollar a day... or the vast implications of the political and economic rise of states like India and China and the negative trends in Russia.
Throughout this campaign, I have spoken about what we need to do to deal with these huge challenges. In the future, I will continue to chart a course for America to regain the global stature and legitimacy that we'll need to lead and shape the world our children and grandchildren will inherit.
But that course begins with an understanding of power and its purposes in all its forms—political, economic, moral and, yes, military power. The great Dean Acheson once said that "prestige is the shadow cast by power." If that is so, we risk squandering our prestige—as the current Administration has done—if we misuse and misdirect our tremendous power.
I will also talk more specifically about what I intend to do, as commander-in-chief, to lead our great military and restore the contract we have with those who proudly wear the uniform to defend our country and make the world a safe and better place.
Leading the military out of the wreckage left by the poor civilian leadership of this administration will be the single most important duty of the next commander-in-chief. The next commander-in-chief faces several important questions for the future:
How will we rebuild our military force, which most everyone agrees has been severely stressed, if not broken, by the debacle in Iraq?
What lessons have we learned about how the military should be used?
And what is the right role for our military as we seek to restore our moral leadership in the world?
The answers to these questions are what I would like to talk about today.
I can think of no better time to have this discussion than in the days leading up to Memorial Day. This is a day far more meaningful than ballgames and barbeques. It is a time when we honor those who have sacrificed to protect our freedom.
Memorial Day has always had special meaning for our family. My wife Elizabeth grew up on military bases around the world, as the daughter of a Navy aviator. From the U.S.S. Quincy, Elizabeth's father Vincent took part in the first bombing runs of Japan during World War II. Later, after the war, Elizabeth and her parents returned to live in Japan, where her father was stationed.
World War II was not simply a moment of military glory, a moment of triumph for the citizen soldier. It was much more than that. The generation that won World War II is not called The Greatest Generation because of the victory they earned on the battlefield, but because of what they did with that victory, of what they gave to us and the world. Military power without purpose is ultimately self-defeating. Our active engagement in the world after World War II is an example of why we need a strong military. It reveals the relationship between the strength of our military and the power of American ideals.
Think about the choices our wise leaders made in 1945. It would have been easy enough for America to glance at the devastation and just as quickly look the other way. We had saved the world from Nazism and fascism. We were wealthy and we were safe. Many thought it was time we went home.
But Americans like President Harry Truman and General George Marshall saw the truth: that it would require not only America's military might, but our ingenuity, our allies, and our generosity to rebuild Europe and keep it safe from tyrants who would prey on poverty and resentment. Our leaders resisted the imperial temptation to force our will by virtue of our unmatched strength. Instead, they built bonds of trust founded on restraint, the rule of law, and good faith. They were magnanimous out of strength, not weakness.
General Marshall—one of this country's greatest military leaders—was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in rebuilding Europe and promoting peace in the world.
In his Nobel acceptance speech, General Marshall said that military power was "too narrow a basis on which to build a dependable, long-enduring peace." As the Marshall Plan demonstrated, the military is only a means to an end; it is only one instrument of our power. It must work alongside—and reinforce—America's moral leadership.
We saw the power of this relationship during the Cold War, when America deterred the Soviet Union from its quest for world domination. We saw it when we established the United Nations and NATO, which have done so much for peace and human rights. After the Cold War, we saw it in Bosnia, where we helped broker a lasting peace. And we saw it again in Kosovo, where we joined our NATO allies to stop a brutal war criminal from perpetrating another campaign of ethnic cleansing.
This is the America where I grew up as a young boy—a strong nation whose moral promise seemed to fill the hearts of almost everyone I knew. We believed that America, like a beacon, could light up even the darkest corners of the world.
As we all saw six years ago, on September 11, America's greatness alone does not protect us from very real threats.
At that moment, the president could have sent a message of swift justice but also moral leadership. He could have told us where destroying Al Qaeda fit into the broader challenges America faces in the new century. He could have asked all Americans to sacrifice in this new struggle, inviting a hopeful new era of citizenship as the ultimate answer to the terrorists' cynical, evil attack.
But he didn't. Instead, he adopted the most short-sighted, ideological policies available. His strategy has put severe strain on our military... tarnished our moral standing in the eyes of the world... and emboldened our enemies.
It is now clear that George Bush's misnamed "war on terror" has backfired—and is now part of the problem.
The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan. It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world. As a political "frame," it's been used to justify everything from the Iraq War to Guantanamo to illegal spying on the American people. It's even been used by this White House as a partisan weapon to bludgeon their political opponents. Whether by manipulating threat levels leading up to elections, or by deeming opponents "weak on terror," they have shown no hesitation whatsoever about using fear to divide.
But the worst thing about this slogan is that it hasn't worked. The so-called "war" has created even more terrorism—as we have seen so tragically in Iraq. The State Department itself recently released a study showing that worldwide terrorism has increased 25% in 2006, including a 40% surge in civilian fatalities.
By framing this as a "war," we have walked right into the trap that terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam.
The "war" metaphor has also failed because it exaggerates the role of only one instrument of American power—the military. This has occurred in part because the military is so effective at what it does. Yet if you think all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.
There's an emerging consensus inside the armed forces that we must move beyond the idea of a war on terror. The Commander of the U.S. Military's Central Command recently stated that he would no longer use the "long war" framework. Top military leaders like retired General Anthony Zinni have rejected the term. These leaders know we need substance, not slogans—leadership, not labels.
The question is, what should replace the war on terror? Since the end of the Cold War, folks here at CFR and elsewhere have been engaged in an effort to be the next George Kennan and define the era. As all of you know, we need a new strategy for rebuilding a strong military for a new century.
Any new strategy must include new preventive measures to win the long-term struggle and fuel hope and opportunity. This includes strong and creative diplomacy, and also new efforts to lead the fight against global poverty. I've proposed a plan to lead an international effort to educate every child in the world. As president, I would increase foreign assistance by $5 billion a year to make millions of people safer, healthier, and more democratic, and by creating a cabinet-level post to lead this effort.
Any new strategy must improve how we gather intelligence. From my years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know how difficult this can be. We must always seek to protect our national security by aggressively gathering intelligence in accordance with proven methods.
Yet we cannot do so by abandoning human rights and the rule of law. As two former generals recently wrote in the Washington Post, "If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable... we drive... undecideds into the arms of the enemy." And we must avoid actions that will give terrorists or even other nations an excuse to abandon international law. As president, I will close Guantanamo Bay, restore habeas corpus, and ban torture. Measures like these will help America once again achieve its historic moral stature—and lead the world toward democracy and peace.
And finally, a new strategy must have a clear idea of how to rebuild the U.S. military.
For the last four years, the Administration has not only mismanaged the war in Iraq. It has mismanaged the military itself.
We all know the historic irony here. The president and his team held themselves out as stewards of the military. During his campaign in 2000, then-Governor Bush went to The Citadel in South Carolina and said our military power should be used, and I quote, "wisely, remembering the costs of war." His team came into office with decades of experience. They promised that, quote, "help was on the way." They made bold pronouncements about new military doctrines like "transformation" and an "end to nation-building." They held themselves out as saviors, called themselves Vulcans, and cast their opponents as amateurs who should bow down before their slogans and gestures. They even disregarded the advice of highly-decorated military officers themselves.
The results have been a disaster. This Administration's policies have been particularly hard on our military men and women and their families. President Bush could have called on all Americans to sacrifice. But the only ones who have been at war—the only ones asked to sacrifice—have been our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and their families. And that's wrong.
I am here today to announce a new pledge to America's servicemen and women, their families, and our veterans. We will stand by you just as you have stood by us. As president, I will implement a defense policy based on five major principles:
Ensuring that our military policy is planned and executed to fulfill essential national security missions, not some ideological fancy;
Repairing the tremendous damage done to civil-military relations;
Rooting out cronyism and waste and increasing efficiency in the Pentagon;
Rebalancing our force structure for the challenges of the new century, including improving our capabilities to help weak or failing states;
And taking a broader view of security throughout our government.
With these steps, we can begin to rebuild an American military for a new century.
First, we must clarify the mission of a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq American military for the 21st century.
We must be clear about when it is appropriate for a commander-in-chief to use force. As president, I will only use offensive force after all other options including diplomacy have been exhausted, and after we have made efforts to bring as many countries as possible to our side. However, there are times when force is justified: to protect our vital national interests... to respond to acts of aggression by other nations and non-state actors... to protect treaty allies and alliance commitments... to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons... and to prevent or stop genocide.
Yet we must remember the complementary relationship between military force and diplomacy. Too often during the past six years, this Administration's diplomatic efforts have left the U.S. with two unacceptable options: do nothing or use force. We must do better than that. We should always seek to solve problems peacefully, preferably working with others. Yet one of the oldest rules of statecraft is that diplomacy is most effective when backed by a strong military. That does not mean, however, that every problem needs a military answer; far from it.
Our military has three important missions: deterring and responding to aggressors, making sure that weak and failing states do not threaten our interests, and maintaining our strategic advantage against major competitors.
The first mission is deterring or responding to those who wish to do us harm. I want to make one thing absolutely clear: any American president must be able to act with swiftness and strength against anyone who will do us harm. But by elevating this right to a doctrine of "preventive war," this Administration has only isolated us further. Our goal must be to defeat Islamic extremists and limit their reach, not help them recruit and become stronger.
A second mission is to ensure that the problems of weak and failing states do not create dangers for the United States. We face substantial security threats from states that fall apart. These situations are not only dangerous for these countries' civilian populations; they create regional instability and can strengthen terrorist groups that, in turn, directly threaten the United States.
A third mission is maintaining our strategic advantage against major competitor states that could do us harm and otherwise threaten our interests.
In all of these missions, we must continue to strengthen our great partnerships—whether bilateral relationships with friends from Great Britain to Israel to Japan, or through institutions like NATO, which have done so much good for America and the world. While the U.S. does not need permission to protect its interests, we must realize that our strength lies in standing together with the world, not apart.
Next, we must also re-establish a strong connection with military leadership. The past few years have brought the biggest crisis in civil-military relations in a generation. The mismanagement of the Pentagon has been so severe that many of our most decorated retired officers are speaking out. Our constitutional design is clear, and our military leadership clearly must follow a civilian command. But this does not mean that civilians should be able to ram through their pet military projects.
George Bush's civilian leadership at the Pentagon repeatedly ignored the counsel of their more experienced military colleagues. They disregarded wise generals like Ric Shinseki, who advised that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure the peace in Iraq.
As president, I will repair this breach. I will institute regular, one-on-one meetings with my top military leadership, so their analysis and advice will not be filtered, and so I will have the best information about what's best for our troops on the ground.
I will also reinstate a basic doctrine that has been demolished by the Bush Administration. Under my Administration, military professionals will have primary responsibility in matters of tactics and operations, while civilian leadership will have authority in all matters of broad strategy and political decisions. As president, I will exercise command, and I will delegate the decision to use force to no one. But I will also remove any civilian or military officer who stifles debate or simply tells me what I want to hear.
The Administration's mismanagement of the military has not only breached the faith at the highest levels—it has led to a very dangerous situation for our troops, their families, and our nation.
The military that is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is very different from any that's gone to battle before. Today, active-duty servicemen and women are, on average, 27 years old. Guard and Reserve members are, on average, 33 years old. 60% of those deployed have left families at home, and about 50% of those killed in action have left a spouse or child behind. Alarmingly high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder are being reported.
These troops are exhausted and overworked, and we have been forced to dig deeper and deeper to find ground forces for Iraq and Afghanistan. This leaves us ill-prepared for the future. Today, every available combat active-duty Army combat brigade has been to Iraq or Afghanistan for at least one 12-month tour. We are sending some troops back to Iraq with less than a year's rest. To make matters worse, the Secretary of Defense just extended tours from 12 to 15 months, which is unconscionable.
And recruiting has suffered. The Army has been meeting its recruiting targets, but only by lowering its standards. Recruits from the least-skilled category have increased 800% over the past two years. And the Army granted nearly twice as many waivers for felonies and other shortcomings in 2006 as in 2003.
Finally, it is clear that Guard and Reserve members will always play an active and valuable role in the total force of the United States. Yet they have been subjected to repeated and lengthy deployments that do not fit their job description. They also need to be available to respond to disasters domestically.
And as the disgraceful conditions at Walter Reed demonstrated, this Administration has failed our servicemen and women not only in Iraq, but here at home. I will never allow our wounded to be housed in dilapidated, rodent-infested facilities. On the contrary, as I will be announcing in remarks later this week, I will make a new pledge to our veterans, our servicemen and women, and our military families—that our benefits, support services, and readjustment programs properly meet their needs. We owe them no less.
The problem of our force structure is not best dealt with by a numbers game. It is tempting for politicians to try and "out-bid" each other on the number of troops they would add. Some politicians have fallen right in line behind President Bush's recent proposal to add 92,000 troops between now and 2012, with little rationale given for exactly why we need this many troops—particularly with a likely withdrawal from Iraq.
The numbers game only gets us into the same problems as the president's approach. We must be more thoughtful about what the troops will actually be used for. Any troops we add today would take a number of years to recruit and train, and so will not help us today in Iraq.
We might need a substantial increase of troops in the Army, Marine Corps, and Special Forces for four reasons: to rebuild from Iraq; to bolster deterrence; to decrease our heavy reliance on Guard and Reserve members in military operations; and to deploy in Afghanistan and any other trouble spots that could develop.
While such proposals are worth close examination, they do not take into account our withdrawal from Iraq—which I believe must occur in about a year. We need to avoid throwing numbers around for political benefit and instead take a broader view. As president, I will carefully assess the post-Iraq threat environment and consult with military commanders to determine the exact number of troops we need and where.
I will also double the budget for recruiting, and I will raise the standards for the recruiting pool, so we issue far fewer waivers than we do today under the president's policy.
I will put substantial additional resources into maintenance of our equipment and to reset the force. We must spend what it takes to reset our force after Iraq. We have seen a rapid depletion in our military equipment. Over 1,000 vehicles, including tanks and helicopters, have been lost in Iraq, and our equipment is being used at a rate of five to six times its peacetime use.
This inadequacy is especially clear when we look at the demands that have been placed on our Guard and Reserve members. They have been sent to battle without the best equipment. Some units slated to return to Iraq recently reported that they still have outdated equipment. This is unacceptable.
The military budget itself also needs substantial reforms. Today, dozens of agencies perform overlapping tasks, and there is no central, overall accounting of all security activities performed by all relevant agencies.
I will create a National Security Budget that will include all security activities by the Pentagon and the Department of Energy, and our homeland security, intelligence, and foreign affairs agencies. This would allow more oversight and would also allow us to more carefully tailor our expenditures to our missions. Today, literally dozens of agencies have overlapping responsibilities, missions, tasks and programs. We don't link these efforts together nearly enough. We have nuclear proliferation programs in the Defense, State, and the Energy departments. We also have more than fifteen different security assistance programs, running out of both the State Department and the Defense Department.
As president, I will send to Congress a National Security Budget that will grow out of a review of our military, our diplomacy, our foreign assistance programs, our intelligence, our global energy, and our homeland security activities. This budget will provide one government-wide strategy for countering nuclear proliferation; a unified strategy for fighting terrorists; a unified strategy for providing security assistance to our allies; and clear guidance for our agencies on how they should set their budget priorities to make these policies work.
The military has gone a long way in making sure that it's capable and prepared to fight humanitarian crises, as we saw when it provided aid to the victims of the Pacific Ocean tsunami. But this aid is often imbalanced. We've got one agency on steroids—the Pentagon—while the civilian agencies are on life support. As president, I will help rebalance the delivery of civilian services throughout the federal government.
Civilians with training and experience need to be involved in stabilizing states with weak governments, and providing humanitarian assistance where disasters have struck. We need bankers to set up financial systems, political scientists to implement election systems, and civil engineers to design water and power systems. As president, I will create a "Marshall Corps," modeled on the military Reserves, of up to 10,000 expert professionals who will help stabilize weak societies, and who will work on humanitarian missions.
I will also take additional steps to put stabilization first throughout the government. I will put a senior official in the Pentagon to implement these programs. I will harmonize the State Department and Pentagon's overlapping efforts at diplomacy and stabilization better from the White House. And I will implement new stabilization programs at war colleges and staff colleges.
Just as we need to get our national security budget in order, we must also reform our Pentagon budget. The Bush Administration has funneled an enormous amount of taxpayer money to private military contractors, many run by their political cronies. It's no surprise that we have seen rampant overruns in the cost of many weapons programs.
I will respond to the overruns and cronyism strongly and directly. We need a modern-day equivalent of Harry Truman's famous Truman Committee, which traveled the country in the 1940's to find billions of dollars of waste in military spending. As president, I will direct my Secretary of Defense to launch a comprehensive, tough review of fraud, waste, and abuse—and put an end to it. One example is missile defense and offensive space-based weapons, which are costly and unlikely to work.
We also need fundamental reform of our privatization policies. Almost half of Defense Department contracts are now awarded on a noncompetitive basis, giving companies like Halliburton with millions of dollars. To end this, I will direct my Secretary of Defense to overhaul the rules governing privatization, to punish mismanagement, and to reform DOD bonus policies to reward performance.
Finally, I will challenge the military to continue to modernize for a new century. We need to ensure that the U.S. military is the most modern and capable fighting force on the planet. Modernization will also have other benefits. "Greening the military" will increase innovation, save millions of dollars, reduce reliance on vulnerable supply lines, and help America lead the fight against global warming.
We also must do what we can to prevent these problems before they start. This is why I believe it is so important to address issues like global poverty. The reforms I announced two months ago would help stabilize at-risk nations and spread the dream of freedom across the globe—and enhance respect and admiration for America.
Today we need great principles, moral courage, and, above all, a vision—of a tomorrow that is better than today, of a world where the power of example is mightier than the sword.
We need a strong military for a new century, and we need one based on hope, not fear. As Robert F. Kennedy once wrote, "Our answer is the world's hope." Our answer is the world's hope. We will need imagination and courage to imagine great possibilities, to create a world where terrorism belongs to the past. We must, at the same time, rely on our heritage: a time when we were admired by the world, where we shared, with generosity and good faith, our ideals of truth, justice, and equality.
Like a beacon, America can once again provide a clear light for the world—dissolving the fog of injustice, illuminating the path to a new century.
This is the America where I grew up—and it is the America that Elizabeth and I want again to share not only with our own children, but with the children of America, and of the world.
Thank you so much for being here with me today, and God bless America.
posted on May 24, 2007 09:59:05 AM new
And furthermore, when funding is needed again in September when the situation is Iraq has deteriorated even further...there will be more liberals backing Edwards.
posted on May 24, 2007 10:01:12 AM new
Thanks for the great post, Helen, I've already emailed it to my senator...if it'll be read is another matter.
Yup, linduh and the other Fascist/neocons are so happy that the bushit administration has been given a blank check to continue their very profitable(for them) meaningless carnage in Iraq.
With evey blown apart soldier or child they will cheer and dance.
Add another reason I am so glad I never had a child that may have been nothing but "meat" to such an evil, corrupt government.
Sad times in America where the economy is tanking, the U.S is in debt to so many countries including Mexico, health care seems like an afterthought, education is deemed unimportant. All the money going to Halliburton and it's buddies....
posted on May 24, 2007 10:22:17 AM new
That is a big part of your problem, helen.
You're always waiting for, imo ROOTING for our defeat.
Think positive.....we might be successful.
Would that cause you to roll up and DIE if we were successful in our mission?
And I'll remind you that not ALL dems want us to withdraw. Only those who are using it to their political advantage...and those like you who rarely ever support any American actions.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
