OBAMA'S WORLD VIEW: CHAPTER 2

Obama Campaign Already Admitting They Will Ignore Commanders On Facts
During Potential Iraq Trip; Instead Will Continue With Withdrawal Plans
______________________________________________________________________

This Morning, Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs Said That Obama Would Go To Iraq To See How He Can Withdraw Our Troops:

Gibbs Said That Obama Was Considering A Trip To Iraq To See How He Could Begin Removing Troops. MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski: "And, Robert, is your candidate - I mean, just this whole Iraq thing is now being revitalized a bit because of the book. But is your candidate going to go to Iraq? Is that in the plans?" Gibbs: "Well, as he said yesterday Mika, it's under discussion about going overseas and going to Iraq sometime between now and the campaign. You know, I don't think we'll be taking that trip with John McCain because as Senator Obama said yesterday, the work that the men and women i n our military are doing over there is just far too important for them to be props in some sort of political stunt or photo-op. You know, what they're doing over there is separated from their families, giving for their country. It's truly, truly amazing, and I think we would want to go over there and talk to them and see what sort of difficulties they're facing and see how it is that we can begin to carefully remove them and carefully bring them back to their families and bring them back to the United States." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 5/29/08)

Click Here To View

But Previously, Obama Said That The President Must Be "Mindful Of The Situation On The Ground And What The Commanders Say":

In February 2008, Obama Told CBS' Harry Smith That The President Has To Be "Mindful Of The Situation On The Ground And What The Commanders Say." Smith: "If you are to be elected president and your commanders on the ground there and your Secretary of Defense said, 'Hold back; you can't be pulling these people out; we're going to create a civil war and a bloodbath,' what would you do?" Obama: "My job as commander in chief is to keep the American people safe. But I firmly believe that we have to send a signal to the Iraqis that it is time to withdraw. We will not have a permanent base there. We will not have a permanent occupation there." Smith: "Even if -" Obama: "Within those constraints -" Smith: "Even if it meant the beginning of civil war?" Obama: "No, no, no. Within those constraints, I think there is going to be some flexibility. And obviously I would consult with commanders. We have to be mindful of the situ ation on the ground and what the commanders say." (CBS' "The Early Show," 2/4/08)

Obama: "I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 4/27/08)


PDF Format

Obama Exaggerates Leadership On Nukes

Please see the McCain campaign’s statement in response (with contrasting fact sheet below) to Senator Obama’s ‘me-too’ record on nuclear proliferation issues.

See the Obama campaign’s exaggerated response linked here: http://thepage.time.com/obama-campaigns-response-to-mccains-nuclear-policy-speech/

“Senator McCain welcomes the support of Senator Obama – or any other legislator – in the fight against nuclear proliferation. In particular, he welcomes Senator Obama’s endorsement of Ronald Reagan’s vision for a world free of nuclear weapons. But to be successful in this critical endeavor, we must get certain facts straight. The Obama campaign insists that their candidate has ‘led the fight in the U.S. Senate for arms control.’ But the record should be clear: Senator Obama, after he entered the Senate in 2005, joined Senator Lugar and the many other members who have supported the Nunn-Lugar program and other nonproliferation programs for years. His campaign points as evidence of his leadership to a bill so non-controversial that it passed the Senate by unanimous consent. There was no “fight” for Senator Obama to lead.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, has a lifetime of experience on national security issues. He coauthored, for example, the 1992 Iran-Iraq Nonproliferation Act, voted numerous times to defend the Nunn-Lugar program, and has been at the center of national security debates over the future of the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. While Senator McCain articulated today a comprehensive vision of a safer world, and in which nuclear proliferation is a far less grave threat, Senator Obama has supported steps that would take America in the opposite direction. By pledging to conduct unconditional presidential summit meetings, during his first year of office, with the world’s worst proliferators – including the leaders of Iran and North Korea - he would undermine the very nonproliferation causes for which he purports to stand. “ ---Tucker Bounds, spokesman John McCain


Barack Obama on Nuclear Security

· Obama presents himself as a strong leader on nuclear issues…

­ In a television ad first broadcast by the Obama campaign in January 2008, the announcer asserts that “in the U.S. Senate, he's led on issues from arms control to landmark ethics reform."
(Ad available at: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/obama_airs_nati.html)

­ Obama strategist David Axelrod insisted that Sen. Obama “has led the fight in the U.S. Senate for arms control [and] joined with Senator Lugar from Indiana to pass the Lugar- Obama Arms Control Act.” (This Week With George Stephanopoulos, 2 Mar 2008)

· …but never had to exercise much leadership.

­ As Obama correctly observed, Sen. Lugar has exercised “tireless leadership” on nuclear security issues for more than 15 years. (Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, 9 Feb 2006)

­ Yet Obama only helped to pass a bill so non-controversial that it was approved in the Senate without amendment and by Unanimous Consent. The only provision dealing with nuclear issues authorized but did not appropriate funds. There was no “fight” for Obama to lead. (H.R. 6060 approved by Senate on 8 Dec 2006, signed into law as PL 109-472)

­ When Obama sought to pass a bill without Lugar’s leadership, it was stripped of substantive provisions and simply became a reporting requirement (S.1977 introduced, 2 Aug 2007. Inserted into H.R. 2764 as S.Amdt. 2692, 6 Sep 2007. Signed into law as PL 110-161.

Ø John McCain has a lifetime of experience in national security matters. For John McCain, issues like the ones he addressed today are not abstract notions. He has seen war, and been involved in security issues – including debates over weapons systems and nuclear policy – throughout his career. He has lived these issues.

Ø John McCain truly has led on such issues, coauthoring, for example, the 1992 Iran-Iraq Non-Proliferation Act (P.L. 102-484), which imposed mandatory sanctions on those who knowingly and materially contributed to Iranian and Iraqi chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programs and certain types of advanced conventional weapons.

· Obama now makes empty promises to confront the threat of nuclear proliferation. On his campaign website, Obama claims that he will:

­ “Secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years,” and “will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material.”

­ Sen. Obama never explains how he will accomplish these ambitious and exceedingly complex goals.

­ Obama claims he will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty “so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.”

­ However, at the same time that Obama wants other countries to get tough on North Korea and Iran, Obama himself plans to hold unconditional summit meetings with Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Holding bilateral presidential summits in the absence of any progress on key security issues is a recipe for undermining the multilateral effort to confront these regimes.

Ø In his speech yesterday, John McCain laid out a broad and specific vision of a safer world, in which the threat of nuclear destruction and terrorism are far less likely. He articulates a complete set of interlocking steps that would lead to the world he envisions.

· Obama also shows poor judgment on key nuclear security issues.
­ Obama has promised “to cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”
(Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&feature=related)

Ø John McCain fully supports the development of robust missile defense systems that can protect the US and its allies from North Korea, Iran and others.

­ Obama will make it a “priority” to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). (Obama response to Council for a Livable World questionnaire.)

Ø John McCain will seek to fix the CTBT’s shortcomings before the US makes a binding commitment to it.

Barack Obama's 2013

This morning, John McCain’s campaign released a new ad focusing on what John McCain envisions achieving during his first term in the White House.

For the sake of comparison, what would America’s economy and national security look like after four years of an Obama presidency?

Middle East

Obama’s premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq would lead to “devastating consequences,” according to our commanders in Iraq. As a result we could be re-entering a more chaotic situation in 2013 after an Obama Administration.

Gen. David Petraeus Testified Before The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Of Which Obama Is A Member, That A Premature Withdrawal From Iraq Would Have “Devastating Consequences.” Gen. Petraeus: “In describing the recommendations I have made…I believe Iraq's problems will require a long-term effort. … Our assessments underscore, in fact, the importance of recognizing that a premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences. … Lieutenant General Odierno and I share this assessment....” (Gen. David Petraeus, Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Testimony, 9/11/07)

Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen: “I do worry about a rapid withdrawal... in a situation that wouldn't call for that in terms of the conditions on the ground, which would then... basically turn around the gains we have... struggled to achieve and turn them around overnight.” (Jim Garamone, “Mullen Says Rapid Withdrawal From Iraq Would Negate Security Gains,” American Forces Press Service, 2/28/08)

Nuclear Terror

Obama’s pledge to unconditionally meet with Ahmadinejad would strengthen a regime pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening our allies.

Obama’s Foreign Policy Pledge Would Strengthen Ahmadinejad. “Middle East experts said Obama's strategy holds potential pitfalls. In Iran, they said, Sen. Obama could strengthen Mr. Ahmadinejad if as U.S. president he moves too quickly to hold direct talks with Tehran's leader. They note Mr. Ahmadinejad is facing presidential elections in 2009 and could use a summit with Sen. Obama as proof of his enhanced stature. They said Mr. Ahmadinejad also could seek to sell to his people that talks with Washington were a direct result of his hard-line stance. ‘If Obama comes into office in January 2009, I wouldn't advise him’ to hold talks with Mr. Ahmadinejad quickly, said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran specialist at Washington's Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who said he is generally supportive of Sen. Obama's agenda. ‘Only two things can rehabilitate Ahmadinejad politically: bombing Iran or major efforts to engage’ him ahead of the vote.” (Jay Solomon, “Obama’s Foreign-Policy Pledge Sparks Criticism from Rivals,” Wall Street Journal, 3/26/08)

Energy Independence

Obama’s windfall profits tax would reduce domestic oil production and increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil, just as it did under Jimmy Carter.

The Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service Found That The Windfall Profits Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Production And Increased Our Dependence On Foreign Oil By As Much As 13 Percent. "From 1980 to 1988, the WPT may have reduced domestic oil production anywhere from 1.2% to 8.0% (320 to 1,269 million barrels). Dependence on imported oil grew from between 3% and 13%." (Salvatore Lazzari, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications for Current Energy Policy," Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)

The Wall Street Journal: The Windfall Profits Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Production, Increased U.S. Dependence On Foreign Oil, And Increased Prices At The Pump. "The last time Congress imposed a form of the windfall tax was the final gloomy days of Jimmy Carter, and the result was: a substantial reduction in domestic oil production (about 5%), thus raising the price of gas at the pump; and a 10% increase in U.S. reliance on foreign oil. A windfall profits tax is the ultimate act of economic masochism because it taxes only domestic production, while imports and foreign oil subsidiaries bear almost none of the cost." (Editorial, "Windfall Accounting Tax," The Wall Street Journal, 11/30/05)

Wasteful Spending

Budgets are bloated, wasteful spending continues, as Obama continues his poor Senate record on pork.

Citizens Against Government Waste Gave Sen. Obama A Lifetime Rating Of 22 Out Of 100. (Citizens Against Government Waste, "CCAGW Challenges Presidential Candidates On Earmarks," Press Release, 12/27/07)

The Club For Growth Gave Obama A Score Of 33 Percent For His Votes Against Anti-Pork Amendments. "[T]he Club for Growth released its 2007 Senate RePORK Card, compiling a scorecard of all senators' votes on fifteen anti-pork amendments throughout 2007. ... Obama (D-IL) Score: 33% Ratio: 2/6." (Club For Growth, "The Club's 2007 Senate RePORK Card,"

www.clubforgrowth.org, 11/5/07)

Economic confidence

Consumers struggle as Obama’s increases on income taxes, Social Security taxes, investment taxes, and corporate taxes, and his "massive new domestic spending," undermine economic confidence.

"Obama's transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?" (James Pethokoukis, "Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?," U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)