| 
Home STAR*PAC Mission STAR*PAC History
2008 Candidates
Important Links Events Articles & Papers Join Us Contact Us
Donate
|
Sen.BARACK OBAMA (D-llinois)
Barack Obama, born in Honolulu, Hawaii, August 4, 1961; obtained early education in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Hawaii; continued education at Occidental College, Los Angeles, Calif., and Columbia University, New York City; studied law at Harvard University, where he became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review, and received J.D. in 1992; lecturer on constitutional law, University of Chicago; member, Illinois State senate 1997-2004; elected as a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 2004 for term beginning January 3, 2005.
BibliographyObama, Barack. Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. New York: Times Books, 1995. Reprint 2004; Obama, Barack. The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. New York: Crown Publishers, 2006
Obama For President Official Web Site
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA'S RESPONSE
TO 2008 CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE
(CANDIDATE RESPONSES ARE IN BLUE)
Terrorism
1. Please state your thoughts on what are the root causes of terrorism, and what steps the U.S. should take to decrease the threat and build a future free of terrorism.
Please discuss your reaction to the idea that some citizens of other nations may perceive U.S. policies and actions as a form of terror.
This President has misrepresented our enemies – but this does not mean that we do not have them. We are engaged in a global struggle against violent, radical Islamists who distort and pervert that religion to justify the killing of innocent people. Terrorism is their tactic. But even the best military, intelligence, and police work won't beat al Qaeda if we cannot stop the organization from rebuilding every time we break their network and kill their leaders.
From Africa to Central Asia to the Pacific Rim, nearly 60 countries stand on the brink of conflict or collapse. These failed states are the perfect incubators for extremism and terror. I will work to combat hopelessness around the world and dry out the rising well of support for extremism.
In August 2007, I unveiled a comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism worldwide. My plan includes getting out of Iraq in order to fight the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 and who are reconstituting in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to capture or kill terrorists around the world and deny them the world's most deadly weapons; drying up support for terror and extremism worldwide; restoring our values worldwide by ending the use of torture and closing Guantanamo Bay; and securing our homeland by setting clear priorities and taking a risk-based approach to homeland security.
2. Please discuss your views on the Homeland Security program.
The 9/11 Commission gave the government five F's and 12 D's on the implementation of its homeland security recommendations. As president, I will work to enact these recommendations. Chief among my initiatives will be the allocation of homeland security funding according to risk, not pork-barrel politics. We are facing real threats every day and cannot afford to waste precious resources where they are not needed.
I believe Homeland Security's color-coded Advisory System did more to create confusion and fear among our citizens than inform and prepare them. Instead of vague color-coded warnings, we need a comprehensive system to coordinate federal, state and local emergency officials so that when there are credible and direct threats, we will be ready to respond. We also should help state and local officials shoulder the costs of providing added security when there are terrorist threats.
The government's failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina show the critical need to improve our nation's emergency planning and response capacity. It should not take three days to start getting relief to disaster victims. As president, I will professionalize and depoliticize the appointment of FEMA's director. Like the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FEMA Director will have a fixed term of office to insulate him or her from politics. The FEMA Director will once again be a cabinet-level official and report directly to me.
Our chemical plants are still unsecured, despite their tremendous vulnerability. I will ensure that ensure that chemical security regulations are robust and address the real threats facing America's communities. I am deeply concerned about the safety of the millions of Americans who use our nation's public transportation systems everyday. However, ground transportation security has been under-funded, and our subways and buses remain vulnerable. I am committed to improving rail and transit security and will work to address the outstanding vulnerabilities in our rail and transit systems.
3. What is your position on this statement: “The US Iraq occupation is creating more terrorists and hatred around the world”?
More than five years after 9-11, we are less safe. We need to bring all of our power to bear on this threat and develop a much more comprehensive, long-term strategy.
Bin Laden is still at-large, and our efforts in Afghanistan are faltering. The war in Iraq diverted us from the principal front in the war on terror, created a breeding ground for new terrorists, squandered the international cooperation vital to winning this war, and overstretched our armed forces while ignoring the other assets America has to bring to this effort.
4. Iraq – Bush Administration justification of the War:
What is your position on this statement: “The current administration has changed and continues to change the justification for the Iraq war, that is, starting with weapons of mass destruction, to toppling Saddam Hussein, to providing a democratic Iraq government, to now stating that we can't leave because there will be massive bloodshed from sectarian violence.”
I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. I thought it was a “rash war,” that would damage our interests, trap us in a sectarian conflict, and divert us from finishing the effort against al Qaeda. Changing the definition of success to stay the course with the wrong policy is the wrong course for our troops and our national security. The time to end the surge and to start bringing our troops home is now – not six months from now.
The Iraqi government is not achieving the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge, and in key areas has gone backwards. Our military cannot sustain its current deployments without crippling our ability to respond to contingencies around the world. It's time for a change of direction that brings our troops home, applies real pressure on the Iraqis to act, surges our diplomacy, and addresses Iraq's urgent humanitarian crisis. I can only support a policy that begins an immediate removal of our troops from Iraq's civil war, and initiates a sustained drawdown of our military presence.
5. Do you think the Administration intentionally misled the American people and distorted the record to sway public opinion and lead us into war?
The case for the Iraq war was built on exaggerated fears and empty evidence - so much so that Bob Graham, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, decided to vote against the war after he read the National Intelligence Estimate.
But conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.
I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war” in Iraq. I worried about, "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus.
Nearly 4,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq. Five times that number have suffered horrible wounds, seen and unseen. Loved ones have been lost, dreams denied. Children will grow up without fathers and mothers. Parents have outlived their children. That is a cost of this war.
When all is said and done, the price-tag will run over a trillion dollars. A trillion dollars. That's money not spent on homeland security and counter-terrorism; on providing health care to all Americans and a world-class education to every child; on investments in energy to save ourselves and our planet from an addiction to oil. That is a cost of this war.
The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result of this war, our forces are under pressure as never before. Our National Guard and reserves have half of the equipment they need to respond to emergencies at home and abroad. Retention among West Point graduates is down. Our powers of deterrence and influence around the world are down. That is a cost of this war.
America's standing has suffered. Our diplomacy has been compromised by a refusal to talk to people we don't like. Our alliances have been compromised by bluster. Our credibility has been compromised by a faulty case for war. Our moral leadership has been compromised by Abu Ghraib. That is a cost of this war.
Perhaps the saddest irony of the Administration's cynical use of 9/11 is that the Iraq War has left us less safe than we were before 9/11. Osama bin Ladin and his top lieutenants have rebuilt a new base in Pakistan where they freely train recruits, plot new attacks, and disseminate propaganda. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan.
Iran has emerged as the greatest strategic challenge to America in the Middle East in a generation. Violent extremism has increased. Terrorism has increased. All of that is a cost of this war.
6. The U.S. is spending about 2 billion dollars per week in Iraq, with hundreds of Iraqis and soldiers dying. We hope that Congress can bring this war to a close soon. What is your position on the following four statements?
a. “Begin immediate and orderly withdrawal of troops from Iraq.” The time to end the surge and to start bringing our troops home is now – not six months from now. This problem has no military solution. The Iraqi people must take responsibility for their own future. b. “Begin immediate replacement of U.S. troops and contractors with international stabilization forces.” I support beginning immediately to withdraw our forces from Iraq at a pace of 1-2 brigades per month. At that pace, we can have all our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008. c. “Prohibit any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.” I oppose any permanent bases in Iraq and have voted to ensure that there are no permanent bases in Iraq. d. Authorize a wide array of non-military U.S. bilateral and multilateral assistance for reconstruction and reconciliation in Iraq, including a compensation fund for Iraqi noncombatant civilian casualties. I proposed increasing our humanitarian assistance for Iraq's internally displaced peoples and refugees from $183 million to $2 billion. We can and must do more to stop this humanitarian crisis, and we are right to demand more from Iraq's neighbors and from our friends and allies in Europe and Asia. 7. The U.S. has a responsibility to provide financial and humanitarian aid for at least four million Iraqis who are either displaced in their own country or have become refugees in surrounding countries. As part of my comprehensive plan to end the war in Iraq, I would establish an international working group dedicated to addressing the Iraqi refugee crisis. I would increase American investments in Iraq's refugees and internally displaced people and to the neighboring countries that house them to at least $2 billion. I would work with neighboring countries to dramatically increase access to social services for refugees. I also would work to create safe-havens for Iraqis who remain in Iraq, but are displaced from their homes by violence.
I would secure greater regional contributions to humanitarian relief, refugee care and integration, and economic assistance. I would build on the United Nations' new willingness to expand its mission in Iraq, encouraging the European Union, the Arab League, and other regional groupings to expand their relief and assistance efforts. I would also expedite the Department of Homeland Security's review of Iraqi asylum applicants.
8. What is your position on this statement: “The next President must tell the world community that the U.S. has made a monumental foreign policy mistake by invading Iraq and as a nation we must take action not just talk to correct this error”?
I will launch a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort across my Administration, not a small group of political officials at the State Department explaining a misguided war. We will open "America Houses" in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America's Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new "America's Voice Corps" we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with -- and listen to -- the people who today hear about us only from our enemies.
As president, I will lead this effort. In the first 100 days of my Administration, I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle. I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence. I will speak directly to that child who looks up at that helicopter, and my message will be clear: "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."
9. What should be our relationship with Iran?
The world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If America does not lead, Iran could trigger regional arms races that could accelerate nuclear proliferation on a global scale and create a dangerous nuclear flashpoint. In pursuit of this goal, we must never take the military option off the table. But our first line of offense here must be sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy.
10. The Administration proposed $481 billion for FY 2008 military spending, more than the world's next 30 countries combined. What are your views?
“I believe the military budget should be. “ [ ] increased by about $ __________ billion [ ] maintained at about its current level [ ] decreased by about $__________ billion We need to maintain a defense system that is preeminent and second to none in all areas of warfare. Today, our forces are overstretched, inadequately equipped and in need of additional support. To meet their needs I am prepared to spend more, if necessary, but we must spend our resources wisely on the military we need for the 21st century, not the 20th. As president, I will order the re-evaluation of all weapons programs whose origin dates from the Cold War for their relevance to our military's needs today and tomorrow. 11. What is your position on this statement: “I favor reducing military spending and dedicating more resources to meeting essential human needs and providing critical human services”? While we don't ever want there to be another war like the war in Iraq, we need a force that is capable of meeting any challenge we face—even challenges we haven't yet considered—not because we want to, but because we may have to. As president, I would order the reevaluation of all weapons programs whose origin dates from the Cold War for their relevance to our military's needs today and tomorrow. The military does not simply need more of the same force, but rather certain types of forces and skill sets; such as civil affairs, linguistics, engineers, advisors, military police, and special operations forces. In keeping with this commitment to human capacity of the military, I will increase the size of our ground forces by 92,000 troops. This will give us the capacity to meet requirements around the world, reduce the demand on the National Guard for overseas deployments, and communicate to those who would wish us ill that the United States is committed to restoring the capacity of its ground forces. Our military commanders have requested this increase in the size of our force and, as commander-in-chief I will take their recommendations under advisement in my effort to support the troops.
One of the painful lessons we've learned anew over the last several years is that there is no substitute for an adequately sized ground force. In Iraq and Afghanistan, a shortage of troops has resulted in chaos, disorder, and a constant game of catch-up that continues to this day.
National Security Policy and Strategy
National Security Agency:
12. What is your view regarding President Bush admitting at his December 16th 2005 press conference that he did order the NSA (National Security Agency) to spy on American citizens?
Electronic surveillance is an important tool in identifying terrorists and preventing terrorist acts. My view is that such tools are strengthened when all branches of the American government – the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Congress -- are involved in the use of them.
The Administration claims that a dangerous combination of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction requires and justifies a new strategy of first strike or preemptive military attack. The doctrine as declared in September 2002 report, The National Strategy of the Unites States of America, states: “We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists.” 13. What is your position on this statement: “Congress should reverse the policy that approves presidential power to initiate first-strike attack and preemptive war against perceived enemies"? The first responsibility of the President is to defend American citizens and to confront threats to the American people anywhere in the world. I will aggressively pursue any and all threats to the U.S. The U.S. has today and has always had the right to take unilateral military action, including the pre-emptive use of force, to eliminate imminent threats to our country and security. No nation or organization has a veto over our right of self-defense – and none ever will. In fact, Article 51 of the U.N. Charter recognizes this right of self-defense for every nation. The preventive use of force – in anticipation of potential threats that may not be imminent – is a different matter. This is the so-called Bush doctrine. Sometimes, the preventive use of force may be necessary, but rarely. The experience of Iraq underscores that often perceived threats are not are real as they may seem, and our intelligence may be imperfect. But, when our intelligence is good and defensible we should not rule out the use of force. The U.S. should employ a range of tools, including diplomacy, intelligence, economic, and military to deal with these potential threats.
Nuclear Weapons
At the height of the cold war, when every possibility existed for imminent attack, President Kennedy noted that “in an age where a single nuclear weapon contains almost 10 times the explosive force of all the allied air forces in WW II, nuclear war makes no sense” and that “the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.”
14. What is your position on this Nuclear de-alert statement? “I support Admiral Stansfield Turner's proposal that the U.S. should take the initiative to create a reciprocal reduction in nuclear alert status by separating warheads from delivery systems and moving the components hundreds of miles away to storage sites monitored by verification teams.” To prevent accidents or mistakes, we should work with Russia to take our weapons off hair-trigger alert – something that then Governor Bush promised to do when he was campaigning for President in 2000. Having weapons on hair-trigger alert increases the chances for accidents or mistakes. Sixteen years after the end of the Cold War, we are running unacceptable risks. As a first step, we could work with Russia to take the nuclear weapons that are scheduled for reduction under the 2002 Moscow Treaty off hair-trigger alert. 15. The Administration advocates new types of “usable” nuclear weapons such as “bunker busters”, and low yield “tactical” nuclear weapons. What is your position on this statement? "I will continue development of new generations of nuclear weapons". Congress has rightly shelved the proposal by the Bush administration to produce new nuclear warheads. At a time when we are trying to convince everyone else to reduce
their nuclear weapons, we should not be building new ones.
The Administration Nuclear Posture Review suggests possible first use of nuclear weapons against countries without nuclear weapons, such as Syria, Libya and Iran, or possibly in confrontations between China and Taiwan or on the Korean Peninsula.
16. What is your position on this statement: “I support the Nuclear Posture Review's suggestion of possible first use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.”?
I believe we need to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons and make them less relevant, ultimately ending them as a threat to the world. Lowering the threshold for their use is going in the wrong direction. Since 1978, the US has pledged not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are members of the NPT. I support that.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation
17. What is your position on this statement: “I favor the U.S. helping to pay the costs of another country (such as Russia and North Korea) to dismantle its nuclear weapons program”? I strongly support the Nunn-Lugar program and have worked with Senator Lugar to enact legislation to create the next generation of nonproliferation programs that complement Nunn-Lugar. I support additional resources for the Nunn-Lugar program. For example, I have joined Senator Lugar's call for an extra $100 million for securing and destroying biological weapons programs. But, more resources are not enough. There are often bureaucratic delays that slow the progress of the Nunn-Lugar program. My Administration would consistently engage in sustained, high-level leadership – from the Oval Office when needed – to break these logjams. I have also worked with Senator Lugar to successfully restore $8 million in budget cuts to the original Nunn-Lugar Initiative. 18. What is your position on this statement: “If elected I will press for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which would reinforce arms control agreements across the world and help prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons”?
I believe we need to initiate a bipartisan process to achieve ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
World-Wide Nuclear Weapon Production
19. What is your position on this statement: “The U.S. should not question other countries about their development of nuclear weapons when:
a. we continue to design ‘bunker buster' nuclear weapons, b. we maintain a nuclear arsenal that can destroy everyone in the world several times over, c. we were the first to use two atomic bombs killing untold thousands of Japanese”?
Every president since Richard Nixon has affirmed the long-term goal of achieving a world free of all nuclear weapons. George Shultz, Bill Perry, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, and other prominent U.S. leaders recently reaffirmed that vision, saying that the actions we are taking now to prevent nuclear terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons are not adequate to the danger. In the past, the United States was always in the lead on preventing proliferation; it must once again take that lead today, and the top priority must be taking immediate steps to reduce nuclear dangers – locking down nuclear weapons and materials, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons technology and preventing new states from acquiring weapons. I do not support unilateral disarmament, and as president, would ensure that we take strong steps to reduce nuclear dangers while maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent to protect America.
The U.S. Role in the World
20. What policy and action do you advocate for responding to North Korea?
The February 2007 accord with North Korea, if fully implemented, represents a welcome development, as does the recent Geneva agreement for the DPRK to “disclose and disable” its nuclear programs by the end of the year. The IAEA has confirmed the North Koreans shut down the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. This is good news. Positive as these developments are, it is shutting the barn door after the horses have left the stable. The same deal could have been achieved years ago, before North Korea's nuclear weapons breakout, had the current Administration been willing to engage the North. The devil is in the details, however. This has been a tricky set of negotiations, as all are with North Korea, and will likely suffer setbacks. Any final agreement has to ensure the complete, verifiable and irreversible elimination of all nuclear weapons capabilities and programs. 21. What would you do to work with Israel and the Palestinians to help end or minimize the longstanding, bitter conflict between the two communities? In my administration, diplomacy working towards peace and two states living side-by-side in peace and security would be a top priority. The absence of U.S. leadership in the past has helped open the door to extremism in the West Bank and Gaza. Direct U.S. presidential leadership is needed now to ensure the Europeans maintain their isolation of Hamas; to press Egypt to do everything possible to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza; and to get other Arab states to provide political support to President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad and humanitarian aid to Gazans that does not flow through Hamas institutions. I would work with the Israelis to strengthen moderate Palestinian leaders. I would work with the Arab states to provide advice and support to moderate Palestinian leaders. I would continue to isolate Hamas. I believe in a two-state solution that guarantees Israel's security. 22. What is your position on this statement: “The U.S. must develop an anti-missile defense system”?
I support missile defense, but it needs to be developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective. Missile defense technology remains to be proven, and it is therefore premature to start deploying an unproven system. We should not divert scarce resources from other national security priorities on a program that may not protect the American public. As a rule, I will only fund programs that can protect the U.S., our military, and our allies from ballistic missile attack. Most importantly, I will make it clear that National Missile Defense will not stop far more likely scenarios of terrorist WMD use.
United Nations and International Cooperation
23. What is your position on this statement: “I support using the United Nations as the primary route/vehicle for dealing with ethnic cleansing, civil war, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction”?
The United Nations is an important tool to help the United States advance our interest in international peace and security. It can make important contributions to our efforts to confront ethnic cleansing, civil war and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but the United States must also confront these challenges aggressively on its own as well. 24. What is your position on this statement? "I am committed to the U.S. fulfilling all its funding obligations in support of the U.N.”
The United States should play a leading role in the United Nations, including by pushing to implement important reforms. I believe our ability to effectively lead the UN is undermined when we do not fulfill our financial obligations at the UN.
Conventional Weapons Sales
25. Please discuss your views on whether our government should be promoting and underwriting weapons sales and the selling of the latest high tech U.S. weaponry to the international community.
U.S. security assistance is an important tool for U.S. foreign policy. That said, I believe we need to be vigilant in assuring the end uses of such assistance and weapons sales comports with U.S. goals, values, and policies.
|
