Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Campaign Memo: "Barack Obama Was Right"... "It is conventional wisdom that has to change."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:36 PM
Original message
Campaign Memo: "Barack Obama Was Right"... "It is conventional wisdom that has to change."
Edited on Fri Aug-03-07 02:48 PM by jefferson_dem
Campaign Memo: "Barack Obama Was Right"
Has Sen. Barack Obama had a bad few weeks on foreign policy? Or is his a new approach representing "change"?

His campaign is naturally arguing the latter. After causing an uproar by ruling out using nuclear weapons against terrorists in Pakistan or Afghanistan -- a view that other Democrats dismissed as a sign of inexperience and naivete -- his campaign issued the following memo. Their hope is to tie together the threads of the last few weeks --his spat with Sen. Hillary Clinton over rogue leaders; his speech on Pakistan; his nukes comment -- into a coherent campaign message.

Find the full memo penned by Samantha Power, a former journalist and Harvard professor who is advising the campaign below:

*** ***

August 3, 2007
To: Interested Parties
From: Samantha Power -- Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Re: Conventional Washington versus the Change We Need

It was Washington's conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.

Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States "finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda." He warned that a "dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq would result in an "occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is "persistent and evolving." Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war.

Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington's conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want.

On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things. On each point, he has brought fresh strategic thinking and common sense that break with the very conventional wisdom that has led us into Iraq.

Diplomacy: For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them. Here is the result:

The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.

The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.

The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.

By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you're not willing to do it directly to your adversary. Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator - he's ready to tell them what they don't want to hear because that's how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that's how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history.

Barack Obama's judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era of tough, principled and engaged American diplomacy to deal with 21st century challenges.

Terrorist Sanctuaries: For years, we have given President Musharraf hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, while deferring to his cautious judgment on how to take out high-level al Qaeda targets - including, most likely, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Here is the result:

Bin Laden and Zawahiri - two men with direct responsibility for 9/11- remain at large.
Al Qaeda has trained and deployed hundreds of fighters worldwide from its sanctuary in northwest Pakistan.
Afghanistan is far less secure because the Taliban can strike across the border, and then return to safety in Pakistan.

By any measure, this strategy has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us defer to Musharraf in perpetuity. Barack Obama wants to turn the page. If Musharraf is willing to go after the terrorists and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base of operations, Obama would give him all of the support he needs. But Obama made clear that as President, if he had actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan - and the Pakistanis continued to refuse to act against terrorists known to be behind attacks on American civilians - then he will use highly targeted force to do so.

Barack Obama's judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era that moves beyond the conventional wisdom that has brought us over-reliance on an unreliable dictator in Pakistan and an occupation of Iraq.

Nuclear Attacks on Terrorist Targets: For years, Washington's conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway. When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use - inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.

Barack Obama's judgment is right. Conventional wisdom is wrong. It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America's prestige in the world to a level that not even George Bush could take it. We should judge presidential candidates on their judgment and their plans, not on their ability to recite platitudes.

Vision: American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence. Yet conventional wisdom holds that people whose experience includes taking these positions are held up as examples of what America needs in times of trouble.

Barack Obama says we have to turn the page. We cannot afford any more of this kind of bankrupt conventional wisdom. He has laid out a foreign policy that is bold, clear, principled, and tailored for the 21st century. End a war we should never have fought, concentrate our resources against terrorists who threaten America. End the counter-productive policy of lumping together our adversaries and avoiding talking to our foes. End the era of politics that is all sound-bites and no substance, and offer the American people the change that they need.

Barack Obama's judgment is right. It is conventional wisdom that has to change.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/03/campaign_memo_barack_obama_was_1.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. And we know that because Barack Obama is telling us so.
The conventional wisdom is that you don't throw gas on a fire. Publicly threatening to invade Pakistan is throwing gas on a fire. That shows extremely poor judgement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. There was no threat, definitely not one involving "invasion" of Pakistan.
Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I agree. Anyone who says that is not paying attention or deliberately looking to obfuscate his
position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. From Obama's speech on August 1
"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won. The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

That's a threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Not a threat to "invade" Pakistan, though. Try again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. " ... and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Edited on Fri Aug-03-07 03:08 PM by Jim__
You can parse it any way you want. I just look to the reaction from Pakistan to know that my first reaction to his statement was correct. He's throwing gas on a fire. Very bad judgement.

It's the exact same thing bush did when he took office. Publicly threatening countries and blocking any chance that they work with you, rather than quietly getting them to do what you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. "Take the fight to..." doesn't mean invade the country...
Edited on Fri Aug-03-07 03:36 PM by jenmito
And furthermore, BUSH threatened countries that weren't a threat to us and did nothing to us. Obama's talking about finding those who ATTACKED us and said only IF Musharraf won't cooperate would he strike within the country to get known al Qaeda targets. Big difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. "...on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Is this guy going to travel around with an interpreter to tell us just what the hell he does or doesn't mean? He literally says that we should be fighting in Pakistan. Fighting in Pakistan!

Yeah, fine, he says it should be if Musharraf won't act on actionable intelligence, but what does he consider "actionable"? He doesn't say.

No wonder they're upset. So what if this doesn't mean a full-scale invasion? It doesn't SAY much of anything about what size of incursion we'd make, and that's precisely the problem. Just what the hell is this guy thinking? Are we supposed to be mind-readers?

What does he consider Musharraf's "cooperation"? Is this something he divines much like Bush's personal pronouncements about who is or isn't an enemy combatant? This guy's running for president, not Conquering Emperor. Making statements about violating the sovereignty of a nation whose government is at least ostensibly an ally is reckless, and proportionately more reckless with the vagueness of the criteria; since his criteria are vague to the point of ethereal, this makes his sabre-rattling most unseemly. No, scratch that, it's dangerous. Oh, scratch that, too, it's reckless and indefensible.

He's said shockingly vague things about using or not using nuclear weapons and violating the territory of an allied nation. The very fact that we have to parse just what the floog he means by these backhanded, broad-strokes, off-the-cuff pronouncements is what's so terrifying here. The fact that so many people are either unable to see the danger here or are putting their personal egos and how their candidate affiliation reflects upon them on the line is shameful.

By the most charitable reading of his first of these two monsterwhoppergaffes, he's saying that he'd violate the territory of a sovereign state with military personnel and weapons without the permission of the nation's government. The very fact that he'd make such an inflammatory statement without offering many and specific calming qualifications shows that he somehow considers himself above having to explain himself. Read some history: many, many leaders justify the attacks on other nations because of the wrongs they've suffered.

This is not "minor", this is huge.

As for the constant bemoaning his being picked on by adversaries, that's how primaries unfold and how American politics works; there's no mystery about this, and if he's going to suit up and play in this sport, he'd better be able to do it without fouling out. He's hurt himself SERIOUSLY by these two incidents, right after his little tactical victory on the negotiation flap, and it could have dangerous repercussions in that picturesque little powder keg called Pakistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Name one major candidate that WOULDN'T strike al Qaeda in Pakistan after all diplomacy failed...
His speech was so much more than that one statement, which makes perfect sense BTW. If bin Laden or Zawahiri were in Pakistan and Musharraf refused to go after him, should we just let them go? They already declared war on us! Obama is NOT Bush, throwing threats around, making false claims, wanting to invade countries for oil...or do you think he is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. The only person "parsing" is you to support your misquote. You said "invasion." Obama never did..
So you are the parser. The fact that some Pakistanis took offense is no surprise. Terrorists and the Taliban are being tolerated and even actively supported by many elements within Pakistan, including elements within the government of Pakistan. As for the "quiet approach", Bush has tried that in spades and it has not yielded any progress -in fact things have gotton a lot worse. A little firmer stance is now called for. They may scream about it but just watch - fear that the coddling will end with the 2008 election will change the behavior of the Pakistanis. They have as much to lose as we do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. We shouldn't threaten terrorists???
Do you know this is exactly what Republicans do? Make stuff up and then have a "debate" about it. It's pathetic junkyard dog politics. Please go get a new hobby. America is done done done with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. We should not threaten sovereign countries without clear cause.
Edited on Fri Aug-03-07 03:24 PM by Jim__
Especially when any change from the status quo in those countries is very likely to be against our interests. Once again, the reaction from Pakistan speaks for itself.

As for "making stuff up." What stuff? I didn't make up what Obama said. And what qualifies you to speak for America?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. He didn't threaten a sovereign country
That's a bold faced lie. He threatened terrorists, as he should have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I look to the predictable reactions from both the government of Pakistan
Edited on Fri Aug-03-07 03:41 PM by Jim__
and the jihadist dissidents. I knew as soon as he said it what the reaction would be.

You're very free with calling people names and speaking with an authority you don't possess. So far, that all you've done. You've yet to make an argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. They're reacting to LIES
I do not debate LIES. I call them what they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Pakistan is reacting in a very predictable way to what Obama said.
You still haven't made an argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. They reacted to media and political LIES
that used the word INVADE - like YOU DID. The argument against LIES is to call them LIES.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. The LIARS threw gas on the fire
Who did that? Yeah. The one who puts personal power above all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bullet1987 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. You're talking BS and you know it...provide a quote where he said he'd invade
Pakistan. And not some bullshit spin article either...I'm talking from the ACTUAL speech!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. See post #8.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Now THAT is Democratic Foreign Policy
Tough, Honest and Fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. Ah Hate You Libruls
Usin' yer so-called "facts", "evidence" and "history".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
11. The scary thing about this is
Edited on Fri Aug-03-07 02:56 PM by Gman
that campaign people are trying to put together a series of mistakes into a marketable product. I am NOT passing judgement on whether or not Obama's comments constitute real mistakes or not. But I get the impression that regardless of whether or not they were mistakes or why they were mistakes, these professional campaign people, whose job it is to run a campaign or sell a product and not analyze foreign policy, want to sell the mistakes as some kind of good policy with no thorough analysis of the impact of these mistakes as a policy on the world. This then tells me Obama and his campaign are more interested in not sounding like they made a mistake and then winning the primaries than they are on formulating working policy proposals that are new and different and that foreign policy experts can get behind and agree that the policy can work. Instead, we get a bunch of nodding heads like chickens pecking corn saying that all this is a good idea because Obama said it.

Up until right now, I thought I could live well with Obama if Hillary didn't get the nomination. Right now I'm starting to wonder if Obama just might be dangerous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bullet1987 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Ruling out use of nukes in Pakistan (who also have nukes) is
not a mistake...it's smart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. Even if you never intend to use nukes
Edited on Fri Aug-03-07 06:01 PM by Gman
you damn sure don't tell everyone you won't use them. What Obama said was nothing more than a dumb, stupid, rookie mistake that is trying to be spun backwards into some kind of well thought out new foreign policy.

Nope, I ain't buyin' it. Obama made a rookie mistake that only a 2 year freshman Senator, that was a state senator longer than he has been a US senator, can make. Obama needs some serious conseling from some senior foreign policy experts.

You're in the big league now, Mr. Obama. You can't afford minor league mistakes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Let's compare mistakes: Supporting the Iraq War or saying no to nukes
Which is the bigger mistake? No, you don't have to bother answering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. That's no different than saying
were dinosaurs killed because a giant meteor hit the Yucatan or if you divide by zero does the result really not exist?

The two things you point out are completely unrelated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrRobotsHolyOrders Donating Member (681 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. dodge and weave
More dangerous, than say, continuing to rattle the nuclear saber and unnecessarily prop up dictatorships?

How exactly has our support for the Pakistani government, which has sheltered terrorists, fostered internal extremism, and developed a nuclear arsenal that could potentially endanger the entire world, strengthened our foreign policy position? It was (Bill) Clinton's position just as much as it is for Bush, and almost certainly to be carried on in a (Hillary) Clinton presidency.

Are we going to be pimping MAD, the most vile concept in the history of humanity, until someone calls our bluff? And wouldn't it be ironic if that bluff was called by some briefcase nuke-clad gentlemen from our partner Pakistan?

This is one of the most forward thinking policy proposals of probably the last twenty years.

Try again, dawg.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. There were no mistakes, there were LIES
Lie on top of lie on top of lie.

Hillary AGREED with Obama about going after terrorists in Pakistan - and people on this board STILL perpetuate the LIE that his remarks were mistaken.

He stands by his remark that he will not use nukes against terrorists in Pakistan or Afghanistan - and the Hillary people STILL perpetuate the myth that he changed his view.

He's taken the lead in Iowa. This is what people ant, honest clear foreign policy that makes us proud to be Americans again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smalll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
27. lol -
From that Washington Post intro:

"...his campaign issued the following memo. Their hope is to tie together the threads of the last few weeks --his spat with Sen. Hillary Clinton over rogue leaders; his speech on Pakistan; his nukes comment -- into a coherent campaign message."

Good luck with that. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
31. we all know if Hillary said this she would be praised for it. It is simply
because it was not Hillary that has everyone going stupid over this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC