Barack Obama's ''CHANGE'': NO POLICY EVIDENET

Barack Obama's ''CHANGE'': NO POLICY EVIDENET
======================================
My Plan for Iraq
By Barack Obama
The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.
The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.
In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.
The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.
Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.
But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.
As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.
Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.
As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.
It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

Obama Brings Economic Message to N.Va.
The Washington Post July 11, 2008By Sandhya Somashekhar
Sen. Barack Obama said yesterday at a town hall meeting in Fairfax County that if elected president, he would bolster the economy by helping working mothers. It was his second visit to the area since becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee and occurred on a day when his likely Republican foe was also reaching out to Northern Virginia voters. In the packed gymnasium at Robinson Secondary School, Obama told more than 2,000 supporters that as president he would work to expand paid family and medical leave, child-care services and preschool programs. These initiatives could be paid for in large part by ending the Iraq war, he said. Obama also spoke briefly of the significance of his return to Virginia less than two months after he launched his general election campaign at a rally of 10,000 supporters at Nissan Pavilion in Prince William County.
================================
Plan to Strengthen the Economy
“I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery…We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers.”
— Barack Obama, New York, NY, September 17, 2007
=====================================
The Problem
Poverty Rising: There are nearly 37 million poor Americans. Most Americans living in poverty work, but still cannot afford to make ends meet.
Minimum Wage is Not Enough: Even when a parent works full-time earning minimum wage and EITC and food stamps are factored into their income, families are still $1,550 below the federal poverty line because of the flat-lined minimum wage.
Barack Obama's Plan
Expand Access to Jobs
Help Americans Grab a Hold of and Climb the Job Ladder: Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce. Create a Green Jobs Corps: Obama will create a program to directly engage disadvantaged youth in energy efficiency opportunities to strengthen their communities, while also providing them with practical skills in this important high-growth career field. Improve Transportation Access to Jobs: As president, Obama will work to ensure that low-income Americans have transportation access to jobs. Obama will double the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program to ensure that additional federal public transportation dollars flow to the highest-need communities and that urban planning initiatives take this aspect of transportation policy into account. Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Supports: Obama will work to ensure that ex-offenders have access to job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling, and employment opportunities. Obama will also create a prison-to-work incentive program and reduce barriers to employment. Make Work Pay for All AmericansExpand the Earned Income Tax Credit: Obama will increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to parents who support their children through child support payments, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families. Create a Living Wage: Obama will raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing. Provide Tax Relief: Obama will provide all low and middle-income workers a $500 Making Work Pay tax credit to offset the payroll tax those workers pay in every paycheck. Obama will also eliminate taxes for seniors making under $50,000 per year. Strengthen FamiliesPromote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies. Support Parents with Young Children: Obama will expand the highly-successful Nurse-Family Partnership to all 570,000 low-income, first-time mothers each year. The Nurse-Family Partnership provides home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income expectant mothers and their families. Expand Paid Sick Days: Today, three-out-of-four low-wage workers have no paid sick days. Obama supports guaranteeing workers seven paid sick days per year. Increase the Supply of Affordable HousingCreate an Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Obama will create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to develop affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods. Fully Fund the Community Development Block Grant: Obama will fully fund the Community Development Block Grant program and engage with urban leaders across the country to increase resources to the highest-need Americans. Tackle Concentrated PovertyEstablish 20 Promise Neighborhoods: Obama will create 20 Promise Neighborhoods in areas that have high levels of poverty and crime and low levels of student academic achievement in cities across the nation. The Promise Neighborhoods will be modeled after the Harlem Children's Zone, which provides a full network of services, including early childhood education, youth violence prevention efforts and after-school activities, to an entire neighborhood from birth to college. Ensure Community-Based Investment Resources in Every Urban Community: Obama will work with community and business leaders to identify and address the unique economic development barriers of every major metropolitan area. Obama will provide additional resources to the federal Community Development Financial Institution Fund, the Small Business Administration and other federal agencies, especially to their local branch offices, to address community needs. Invest in Rural Areas: Obama will invest in rural small businesses and fight to expand high-speed Internet access. He will improve rural schools and attract more doctors to rural areas.

Barack Obama's PlanIran
The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust.
But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq. Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran. Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress. Renewing American DiplomacyThe Problem: The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support. Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs. Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. Expand our Diplomatic Presence: To make diplomacy a priority, Obama will stop shuttering consulates and start opening them in the tough and hopeless corners of the world – particularly in Africa. He will expand our foreign service, and develop the capacity of our civilian aid workers to work alongside the military. Fight Global Poverty: Obama will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal. He will help the world's weakest states to build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth.
Strengthen NATO:
Obama will rally NATO members to contribute troops to collective security operations, urging them to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization operations, streamlining the decision-making processes, and giving NATO commanders in the field more flexibility.
Seek New Partnerships in Asia: Obama will forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea. He will maintain strong ties with allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia; work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity; and work to ensure that China plays by international rules.
Nuclear Weapons
A Record of Results: The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials: He joined Senator Dick Lugar in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world. He joined Senator Chuck Hagel to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons. And while other candidates have insisted that we should threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps, Obama believes that we must talk openly about nuclear weapons – because the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons, it's to keep nuclear weapons away from terrorists. Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials. Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.
Toward a Nuclear Free World:
Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.
Bipartisanship and Openness
The Problem:
Under the Bush administration, foreign policy has been used as a political wedge issue to divide us – not as a cause to bring America together. And it is no coincidence that one of the most secretive administrations in history has pursued policies that have been disastrous for the American people.
Obama strongly believes that our foreign policy is stronger when Americans are united, and the government is open and candid with the American people.
A Record of Bringing People Together: In the Senate, Obama has worked with Republicans and Democrats to advance important policy initiatives on securing weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons, increasing funding for nonproliferation, and countering instability in Congo. Consultative Group: Obama will convene a bipartisan Consultative Group of leading members of Congress to foster better executive-legislative relations and bipartisan unity on foreign policy. This group will be comprised of the congressional leadership of both political parties, and the chair and ranking members of the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committees. This group will meet with the president once a month to review foreign policy priorities, and will be consulted in advance of military action. Getting Politics out of Intelligence: Obama would insulate the Director of National Intelligence from political pressure by giving the DNI a fixed term, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Obama will seek consistency and integrity at the top of our intelligence community – not just a political ally.
Change the Culture of Secrecy:
Obama will reverse President Bush's policy of secrecy. He will institute a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective.
Engaging the American People on Foreign Policy:
Obama will bring foreign policy decisions directly to the people by requiring his national security officials to have periodic national broadband town hall meetings to discuss foreign policy. He will personally deliver occasional fireside chats via webcast.
On Israel
Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership:
Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.
Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He believes strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens. Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.
On Africa
Stop the Genocide in Darfur: Barack Obama has been a leading voice urging the Bush Administration to take stronger steps to end the genocide in Sudan. He worked with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) to pass the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. Obama has traveled to the United Nations to meet with Sudanese officials and visited refugee camps on the Chad-Sudan border to raise international awareness of the ongoing humanitarian disaster there. He also worked with Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) to secure $20 million for the African Union peacekeeping mission. Obama believes the United States needs to lead the world in ending this genocide, including by imposing much tougher sanctions that target Sudan?s oil revenue, implementing and helping to enforce a no-fly zone, and engaging in more intense, effective diplomacy to develop a political roadmap to peace. The international community must, over the Sudanese regime?s protests, deploy a large, capable UN-led and UN-funded force with a robust enforcement mandate to stop the killings.
End the Conflict in Congo: An estimated 3.9 million people have died from war-related causes since the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo began. Barack Obama wrote and passed legislation to promote stability in the Congo. Obama revamped U.S. policy in the Congo to include a commitment to help rebuild the country, develop lasting political structures, hold accountable destabilizing foreign governments, crack down on corrupt politicians, and professionalize the military. The bill also authorizes $52 million in U.S. assistance for the Congo. Bring a Brutal Warlord to Justice: Former Liberian President Charles Taylor has been accused of committing war crimes by international prosecutors. After taking the presidency following a brutal civil war that decimated Liberia's population, Taylor created a rebel group that fought in neighboring Sierra Leone's civil war. These rebels committed a range of atrocities including rape, murder and the use of child soldiers. On July 19, 2005, Obama passed a bipartisan amendment, along with Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) to provide $13 million for the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Signed into law in November 2005, the Obama amendment provides critical funding to keep the Court up and running and dramatically enhances efforts to bring Charles Taylor to justice. Taylor was arrested in 2006. His trial began in June 2007 and was postponed until January 2008.

Transcript: Obama's Speech at NPR.org, June 4, 2008 · Illinois Sen.
Barack Obama delivered a speech on Wednesday, June 4, before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The speech comes the day after he secured enough delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination and become the first African-American candidate for president. In these prepared remarks provided by his campaign, Obama tries to allay doubts that some Jewish voters have expressed about his candidacy. He talks about his great-uncle's service in World War II, as a member of the infantry division that first liberated a Nazi concentration camp. He also calls Israel's security non-negotiable and compares his policies toward Israel with those of Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain.
It's great to see so many friends from across the country. I want to congratulate Howard Friedman, David Victor and Howard Kohr on a successful conference, and on the completion of a new headquarters just a few blocks away.
Before I begin, I want to say that I know some provocative e-mails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. A few of you may have gotten them. They're filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for president. And all I want to say is — let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening.
But if anyone has been confused by these e-mails, I want you to know that today I'll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel. And I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever.
One of the many things that I admire about AIPAC is that you fight for this common cause from the bottom up. The lifeblood of AIPAC is here in this room — grass-roots activists of all ages, from all parts of the country, who come to Washington year after year to make your voices heard. Nothing reflects the face of AIPAC more than the 1,200 students who have traveled here to make it clear to the world that the bond between Israel and the United States is rooted in more than our shared national interests — it's rooted in the shared values and shared stories of our people. And as president, I will work with you to ensure that this bond is strengthened.
I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was 11 years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland, in the face of impossible odds.
The story made a powerful impression on me. I had grown up without a sense of roots. My father was black; he was from Kenya, and he left us when I was 2. My mother was white; she was from Kansas, and I'd moved with her to Indonesia and then back to Hawaii. In many ways, I didn't know where I came from. So I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea — that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.
I also learned about the horror of the Holocaust, and the terrible urgency it brought to the journey home to Israel. For much of my childhood, I lived with my grandparents. My grandfather had served in World War II, and so had my great-uncle. He was a Kansas boy who probably never expected to see Europe — let alone the horrors that awaited him there. And for months after he came home from Germany, he remained in a state of shock, alone with the painful memories that wouldn't leave his head.
You see, my great-uncle had been a part of the 89th Infantry Division — the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. They liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, on an April day in 1945. The horrors of that camp go beyond our capacity to imagine. Tens of thousands died of hunger, torture, disease, or plain murder — part of the Nazi killing machine that killed 6 million people.
When the Americans marched in, they discovered huge piles of dead bodies and starving survivors. Gen. Eisenhower ordered Germans from the nearby town to tour the camp, so they could see what was being done in their name. He ordered American troops to tour the camp, so they could see the evil they were fighting against. He invited congressmen and journalists to bear witness. And he ordered that photographs and films be made. Explaining his actions, Eisenhower said that he wanted to produce "firsthand evidence of these things, if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda."
I saw some of those very images at Yad Vashem, and they never leave you. And those images just hint at the stories that survivors of the Shoah carried with them. Like Eisenhower, each of us bears witness to anyone and everyone who would deny these unspeakable crimes, or ever speak of repeating them. We must mean what we say when we speak the words "never again."
It was just a few years after the liberation of the camps that David Ben-Gurion declared the founding of the Jewish State of Israel. We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security.
Not when there are still voices that deny the Holocaust. Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel's destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don't even acknowledge Israel's existence, and government-funded textbooks filled with hatred toward Jews. Not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot, and Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school.
I have long understood Israel's quest for peace and need for security. But never more so than during my travels there two years ago. Flying in an [Israeli Defense Forces] helicopter, I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean. On the ground, I met a family who saw their house destroyed by a Katyusha rocket. I spoke to Israeli troops who faced daily threats as they maintained security near the blue line. I talked to people who wanted nothing more simple, or elusive, than a secure future for their children.
I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bipartisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment that both John McCain and I share, because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party. But part of our commitment must be speaking up when Israel's security is at risk, and I don't think any of us can be satisfied that America's recent foreign policy has made Israel more secure.
Hamas now controls Gaza. Hezbollah has tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran — which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq — is emboldened and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. Iraq is unstable, and al-Qaida has stepped up its recruitment. Israel's quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people. And America is more isolated in the region, reducing our strength and jeopardizing Israel's safety.
The question is how to move forward. There are those who would continue and intensify this failed status quo, ignoring eight years of accumulated evidence that our foreign policy is dangerously flawed. And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle East's only democracy for the region's extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be.
Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security.
That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.
Across the political spectrum, Israelis understand that real security can only come through lasting peace. And that is why we — as friends of Israel — must resolve to do all we can to help Israel and its neighbors to achieve it. Because a secure, lasting peace is in Israel's national interest. It is in America's national interest. And it is in the interest of the Palestinian people and the Arab world. As president, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency. I will take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my administration.
The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections. But this administration pressed ahead, and the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel.
The Palestinian people must understand that progress will not come through the false prophets of extremism or the corrupt use of foreign aid. The United States and the international community must stand by Palestinians who are committed to cracking down on terror and carrying the burden of peacemaking. I will strongly urge Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel, and to fulfill their responsibility to pressure extremists and provide real support for President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps — consistent with its security — to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements — as it agreed to with the Bush administration at Annapolis.
Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.
I have no illusions that this will be easy. It will require difficult decisions on both sides. But Israel is strong enough to achieve peace, if it has partners who are committed to the goal. Most Israelis and Palestinians want peace, and we must strengthen their hand. The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process — not to force concessions, but to help committed partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence. That's what I commit to do as president of the United States.
The threats to Israel start close to home, but they don't end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat.
I also believe that the United States has a responsibility to support Israel's efforts to renew peace talks with the Syrians. We must never force Israel to the negotiating table, but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israel's leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests. As president, I will do whatever I can to help Israel succeed in these negotiations. And success will require the full enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1701 in Lebanon, and a stop to Syria's support for terror. It is time for this reckless behavior to come to an end.
There is no greater threat to Israel — or to the peace and stability of the region — than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in our commitment to Israel's security. So while I don't want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.
The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.
But just as we are cleareyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today's policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran — the hard-liners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.
I respect Sen. McCain, and look forward to a substantive debate with him these next five months. But on this point, we have differed, and we will differ. Sen. McCain refuses to understand or acknowledge the failure of the policy that he would continue. He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy but offers only an alternate reality — one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite. Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.
Sen. McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran — it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq's leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future.
We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a cleareyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.
There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing — if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States.
Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy and Reagan. These presidents understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.
My presidency will strengthen our hand as we restore our standing. Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear — to the people of Iran, and to the world — that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime — from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization I was interested to see Sen. McCain propose divestment as a source of leverage — not the bigoted divestment that has sought to punish Israeli scientists and academics, but divestment targeted at the Iranian regime. It's a good concept, but not a new one. I introduced legislation over a year ago that would encourage states and the private sector to divest from companies that do business in Iran. This bill has bipartisan support, but for reasons that I'll let him explain, Sen. McCain never signed on. Meanwhile, an anonymous senator is blocking the bill. It is time to pass this into law so that we can tighten the squeeze on the Iranian regime. We should also pursue other unilateral sanctions that target Iranian banks and assets.
And we must free ourselves from the tyranny of oil. The price of a barrel of oil is one of the most dangerous weapons in the world. Petrodollars pay for weapons that kill American troops and Israeli citizens. And the Bush administration's policies have driven up the price of oil, while its energy policy has made us more dependent on foreign oil and gas. It's time for the United States to take real steps to end our addiction to oil. And we can join with Israel, building on last year's U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act, to deepen our partnership in developing alternative sources of energy by increasing scientific collaboration and joint research and development. The surest way to increase our leverage in the long term is to stop bankrolling the Iranian regime.
Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.
That is the change we need in our foreign policy. Change that restores American power and influence. Change accompanied by a pledge that I will make known to allies and adversaries alike: that America maintains an unwavering friendship with Israel, and an unshakeable commitment to its security.
As members of AIPAC, you have helped advance this bipartisan consensus to support and defend our ally Israel. And I am sure that today on Capitol Hill you will be meeting with members of Congress and spreading the word. But we are here because of more than policy. We are here because the values we hold dear are deeply embedded in the story of Israel.
Just look at what Israel has accomplished in 60 years. From decades of struggle and the terrible wake of the Holocaust, a nation was forged to provide a home for Jews from all corners of the world — from Syria to Ethiopia to the Soviet Union. In the face of constant threats, Israel has triumphed. In the face of constant peril, Israel has prospered. In a state of constant insecurity, Israel has maintained a vibrant and open discourse, and a resilient commitment to the rule of law.
As any Israeli will tell you, Israel is not a perfect place, but like the United States it sets an example for all when it seeks a more perfect future. These same qualities can be found among American Jews. It is why so many Jewish Americans have stood by Israel, while advancing the American story. Because there is a commitment embedded in the Jewish faith and tradition: to freedom and fairness; to social justice and equal opportunity. To tikkun olam — the obligation to repair this world.
I will never forget that I would not be standing here today if it weren't for that commitment. In the great social movements in our country's history, Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down south together. They marched together. They bled together. And Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were willing to die alongside a black man — James Chaney — on behalf of freedom and equality.
Their legacy is our inheritance. We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer. This is a bond that must be strengthened. Together, we can rededicate ourselves to end prejudice and combat hatred in all of its forms. Together, we can renew our commitment to justice. Together, we can join our voices together, and in doing so make even the mightiest of walls fall down.
That work must include our shared commitment to Israel. You and I know that we must do more than stand still. Now is the time to be vigilant in facing down every foe, just as we move forward in seeking a future of peace for the children of Israel, and for all children. Now is the time to stand by Israel as it writes the next chapter in its extraordinary journey. Now is the time to join together in the work of repairing this world.

Obama vows to end US role in Iraq
Barack Obama, the Democratic contender for the US presidency, has said his main priority as US president will be to end the US involvement in Iraq.
In a foreign policy speech, Senator Obama said "our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe".
His second priority would be to take the war to al-Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
He criticised the policies of his Republican rival in November's poll.
John McCain says events on the ground must govern any Iraq pullout.
Earlier, President George W Bush rejected any "artificial" timetable for withdrawing US troops, saying a decision must be made "as conditions permit".
Mr Obama's speech comes ahead of a tour that will include Iraq and Afghanistan.
The dates of the trip have not been disclosed for security reasons.
'Unacceptable'
In the speech at the International Trade Center in Washington, Mr Obama said: "This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st Century."
Al-Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia Excerpt from Barack Obama speech
He said the conflict in Iraq must be brought to an end as "the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was".
Mr Obama said that as president he would take the US in a new direction, and his priority would be to finish the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taleban.
He said that the situation in Afghanistan had deteriorated to such an extent that the Taleban were able to launch a brazen attack on one of America's own bases there.
Mr Obama said a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq would allow much needed reinforcements to be sent to Afghanistan.
He said sustained co-operation was needed between Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nato to root out al-Qaeda and the Taleban.
"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large," he said.
"Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia."
"And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan."
On other issues he said he would use all tools not to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and would invest $150bn over the next 10 years to end America's dependence on foreign oil.
Timetable for withdrawal
BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the war over the war in Iraq is moving into high gear.
The essential difference between Mr Obama and his Republican rival, John McCain, is that the Illinois senator wants to set a clear timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq - some 16 months - while Mr McCain insists that the situation on the ground, not timetables, must govern the pace of any withdrawal, our correspondent says.
It is not just a political argument, he adds - it has a huge bearing on the signals that the next US president will send to the Middle East and at root it is a test of their capacity to be Commander-in-Chief.
Opinion polls suggest that Americans remain deeply divided on the best strategy in Iraq, with almost equal proportions opting for a clear timetable or for no timetable for a withdrawal.
Mr Obama may not necessarily need to win this argument outright, our correspondent says, but in setting out his foreign policy stall he needs to show that he has credible, concrete positions that make sense of a complex world.

Obama's AIPAC speech.
Text as prepared for delivery.Prepared text of Barack Obama's speech for the AIPAC foreign policy forum.
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
AIPAC Policy Forum
March 2, 2007
Chicago, Illinois
Thank you so much for your kind introduction and the invitation to meetwith you this morning.
Last week, this event was described to me as a small gathering offriends. Looking at all of you here today; seeing so many of you who careabout peace in this world; who care about a strong and lasting friendshipbetween Israel and the United States, and who care about what’s on thenext page of our shared futures, I think “a small gathering offriends” fits this crowd just right.
I want to begin today by telling you a story.
Back in January of 2006, I made my first trip to the Holy Land. It is aplace unlike any other on this earth – a place filled with so muchpromise of what we truly can be as people; a place where we’ve learnedhow in a flash, violence and hatred and intolerance can turn that promiseto rubble and send too many lives to their early graves.
Most will travel to the holy sites: the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, theDome of the Rock or the Western Wall. They make a journey to be humbledbefore God. I too am blessed to have seen Israel this way, up close andon the ground.
But I am also fortunate to have seen Israel from the air.
On my journey that January day, I flew on an IDF helicopter to the borderzone. The helicopter took us over the most troubled and dangerous areasand that narrow strip between the West Bank and the Mediterranean Sea. Atthat height, I could see the hills and the terrain that generations havewalked across. I could truly see how close everything is and why peacethrough security is the only way for Israel.
Our helicopter landed in the town of Kiryat Shmona on the border. Whatstruck me first about the village was how familiar it looked. The housesand streets looked like ones you might find in a suburb in America. Icould imagine young children riding their bikes down the streets. I couldimagine the sounds of their joyful play just like my own daughters. Therewere cars in the driveway. The shrubs were trimmed. The families wereliving their lives.
Then, I saw a house that had been hit with one of Hezbollah’s Katyusharockets.
The family who lived in the house was lucky to be alive. They had beenasleep in another part when the rocket hit. They described theexplosion. They talked about the fire and the shrapnel. They spoke aboutwhat might have been if the rocket had come screaming into their home atanother time when they weren’t asleep but sitting peacefully in the nowdestroyed part of the house.
It is an experience I keep close to my heart. Not because it is unique,but because we know that too many others have seen the same kind ofdestruction, have lost their loved ones to suicide bombers and live infear of when the next attack might hit. Just six months after I visited,Hezbollah launched four thousand rocket attacks just like the one thatdestroyed the home in Kiryat Shmona, and kidnapped Israeli servicemembers. And we pray for all of the service members who have beenkidnapped: Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev, and Ehud Goldwasser, and I met withhis family this week. I offered to help in any way I can.
It is important to remember this history—that Israel had unilaterallywithdrawn from Lebanon only to have Iran supply Hezbollah with thousandsof rockets.
Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real. Our jobis to renew the United States’ efforts to help Israel achieve peace withits neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share thisvision. Our job is to do more than lay out another road map; our job isto rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout theregion.
That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security ofIsrael: our strongest ally in the region and its only establisheddemocracy. That will always be my starting point. And when we see all ofthe growing threats in the region: from Iran to Iraq to the resurgence ofal-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty andthat friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that willbuild the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peaceand security.
It won’t be easy. Some of those stones will be heavy and tough for theUnited States to carry. Others with be heavy and tough for Israel tocarry. And even more will be difficult for the world. But together, wewill begin again.
One of the heavy stones that currently rest at the United States’ feetis Iraq. Until we lift this burden from our foreign policy, we cannotrally the world to our values and vision.
As many of you know, I opposed this war from the beginning – in partbecause I believed that giving this President the open-ended authority toinvade Iraq would lead to the open-ended occupation we find ourselves intoday.
Now our soldiers find themselves in the crossfire of someoneelse’s civil war. More than 3,100 have given the last full measure ofdevotion to their country. This war has fueled terrorism and helpedgalvanize terrorist organizations. And it has made the world less safe.
That is why I advocate a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq tobegin no later than May first with the goal of removing all combat forcesfrom Iraq by March 2008. In a civil war where no military solutionexists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqigovernment to achieve the political settlement between its warringfactions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.
My plan also allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain andprevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism and reducethe risk of all-out chaos. In addition, we will redeploy our troops toother locations in the region, reassuring our allies that we will stayengaged in the Middle East. And my plan includes a robust regionaldiplomatic strategy that includes talking to Syria and Iran – somethingthis Administration has finally embraced.
The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Ourtroops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. But aconsequence of the Administration’s failed strategy in Iraq has been tostrengthen Iran’s strategic position; reduce U.S. credibility andinfluence in the region; and place Israel and other nations friendly tothe United States in greater peril. These are not the signs of awell-paved road. It is time for profound change.
As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in theMiddle East. We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglectedpriorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the warin Afghanistan. And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of thegreatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran.
Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us. Hiswords contain a chilling echo of some of the world’s most tragichistory.
Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. PresidentAhmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in hiscountry, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real asthe 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars toDachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen thepictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washingtonand Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60years, it is time to deny the deniers.
In the 21^st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the UnitedNations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. Butthat is exactly what he has done. Neither Israel nor the United States hasthe luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.
The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program andprevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous tohave nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while weshould take no option, including military action, off the table, sustainedand aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be ourprimary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.
Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off anew arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabiaand Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contestthat could fuel greater instability in the region—that’s not just badfor the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly moredangerous and unpredictable place. Other nations would feel great pressureto accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran’s backingwould feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclearumbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Irancould spread this technology around the world.
To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to leadtough-minded diplomacy.
This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings weconducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out inclear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy wouldinclude real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean moredetermined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessingthe collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran’s majortrading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf Stateswho supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would meanunifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressureon Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementationof U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focusedapproach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our ownalternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down.
We must also persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognizecommon interests with Israel in dealing with Iran. We should stress to theEgyptians that they help the Iranians and do themselves no favors byfailing to adequately prevent the smuggling of weapons and cash by Iraninto Gaza.
The United States’ leverage is strengthened when we have many nationswith us. It puts us in a place where sanctions could actually have aprofound impact on Iran’s economy. Iran is highly dependent on importsand foreign investment, credit and technology. And an environment whereour allies see that these types of investments in Iran are not in theworld’s best interests, could help bring Iran to the table.
We have no quarrel with the Iranian people. They know that PresidentAhamadinejad is reckless, irresponsible, and inattentive to theirday-to-day needs which is why they sent him a rebuke at the ballot boxthis fall. And we hope more of them will speak out. There is great hopein their ability to see his hatred for what it is: hatred and a threat topeace in the region.
At the same time, we must preserve our total commitment toour unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding militaryassistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defenseprograms. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter andrepel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza. Andwhen Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate rightto defend itself. Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel. By usingLebanon as an outpost for terrorism, and innocent people as shields,Hezbollah has also engulfed that entire nation in violence and conflict,and threatened the fledgling movement for democracy there. That’s whywe have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701,which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolutionwhich Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment ofweapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security inthe region, must end.
These are great challenges that we face. And in moments likethese, true allies do not walk away. For six years, the administration hasmissed opportunities to increase the United States’ influence in theregion and help Israel achieve the peace she wants and the security sheneeds. The time has come for us to seize those opportunities.
The Israeli people, and Prime Minister Olmert, have made clear that theyare more than willing to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinianconflict that will result in two states living side by side in peace andsecurity. But the Israelis must trust that they have a true Palestinianpartner for peace. That is why we must strengthen the hands ofPalestinian moderates who seek peace and that is why we must maintain theisolation of Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel’sdestruction.
The U.S. and our partners have put before Hamas three very simpleconditions to end this isolation: recognize Israel’s right to exist;renounce the use of violence; and abide by past agreements between Israeland the Palestinian Authority.
We should all be concerned about the agreement negotiated amongPalestinians in Mecca last month. The reports of this agreement suggestthat Hamas, Fatah, and independent ministers would sit in a governmenttogether, under a Hamas Prime Minister, without any recognition of Israel,without a renunciation of violence, and with only an ambiguous promise to“respect” previous agreements.
This should concern us all because it suggests that Mahmoud Abbas, who isa Palestinian leader I believe is committed to peace, felt forced tocompromise with Hamas. However, if we are serious about the Quartet’sconditions, we must tell the Palestinians this is not good enough.
But as I said at the outset, Israel will have some heavy stones to carryas well. Its history has been full of tough choices in search of peace andsecurity.
Yitzhak Rabin had the vision to reach out to longtime enemies. ArielSharon had the determination to lead Israel out of Gaza. These weredifficult, painful decisions that went to the heart of Israel's identityas a nation.
Many Israelis I talked to during my visit last year told methat they were prepared to make sacrifices to give their children a chanceto know peace. These were people of courage who wanted a better life. AndI know these are difficult times and it can be easy to lose hope. But weowe it to our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, and to allthose who have fallen, to keep searching for peace and security -- eventhough it can seem distant. This search is in the best interests ofIsrael. It is in the best interests of the United States. It is in thebest interests of all of us.
We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill theirnational goals: two states living side by side in peace and security.Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure toachieve this goal. The United States should leave no stone unturned inworking to make that goal a reality.
But in the end, we also know that we should never seek to dictate what isbest for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli PrimeMinister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating tableby the United States.
We must be partners – we must be active partners. Diplomacy in theMiddle East cannot be done on the cheap. Diplomacy is measured bypatience and effort. We cannot continue to have trips consisting oflittle more than photo-ops with little movement in between. NeitherIsrael nor the U.S. is served by this approach.
Peace with security. That is the Israeli people’soverriding wish.
It is what I saw in the town of Fassouta on the border with Lebanon.
There are 3,000 residents of different faiths and histories.There is a community center supported by Chicago’s own Roman CatholicArchdiocese and the Jewish Federation of Metro Chicago. It is where theeducation of the next generation has begun: in a small village, all faithsand nationalities, living together with mutual respect.
I met with the people from the village and they gave me a tour of thiswonderful place. There was a moment when the young girls came in and theyplayed music and began to dance.
After a few moments, I thought about my own daughters, Sasha and Malia andhow they too could dream and dance in a place like this: a place of renewaland restoration. Proof, that in the heart of so much peril, there weresigns of life and hope and promise—that the universal song for peaceplays on.
Thank you.
Comment
For those of you that are not aware and for friends of yours who may ask about where Obama stands on Israel related issues his positions have been made clear in his AIPAC speech which is on the Obama main web page and now his positions on a group of Israel related issues is made clear on the main Web page : www. barackobama.com under Foreign Policy under Issues where "On Israel" is specifically listed as well as a link to more details on a series of related issues. Please pass this information on to friends who raise the question in the coming weeks leading up to the upcoming primaries. Barack's support for Israel as one of our strongest allies in the Middle East should be clear to anyone who raises such a question. Fact sheet is also below and attached so you can reproduce and distribute. Also below is a letter from Lester Crown and a copy of an editorial of interest. It is also noteworthy that in a speech to a Black Church in South Carolina Barack spoke out against anti semitism that has occasionlly manifested itself in the Black community.He spoke at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta to mark Martin Luther King Day.
He noted that African Americans "have been at the receiving end of man’s inhumanity to man," then went on to say that the community "has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community. "We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them," Obama said. "The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity."

Elliott HartsteinBuffalo Grove, ILFact Sheet:
BARACK OBAMA: A STRONG RECORD OF SUPPORTING THE SECURITY, PEACE, AND PROSPERITY OF ISRAEL
“Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors whileremaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision. . . . That effort begins with a clear and strongcommitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy.That will always be my starting point. And when we see all of the growing threats in the region: fromIran to Iraq to the resurgence of al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty andthat friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from thecurrent instability to lasting peace and security.”[Speech at AIPAC Policy Forum in Chicago, 3/2/07]BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO STRENGTHEN THE U.S.-ISRAEL RELATIONSHIPBarack Obama has established a strong record as a true friend of Israel, a stalwart defender of Israel’s security,and an effective advocate of strengthening the steadfast U.S.-Israel relationship. He believes that Israel’s rightto exist as a Jewish state should never be challenged. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,Obama has consistently emphasized his commitment to our ally Israel, and has been an active supporter oflegislation helping to ensure the support and security of the Middle East’s only established democracy. Obamacontinually works with a number of his colleagues in the Senate to promote a closer relationship between theU.S. and Israel on a range of fronts – security, economic, political, and cultural.Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, amutually beneficial bond strengthened by common values, histories, and dedication to democracy. Obamabelieves that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel,America’s strongest ally in the Middle East. Expressing his support for this reality, Obama delivered themessage to Palestinian university students in Ramallah that the United States would never distance itself fromIsrael. Before the Palestinian elections, Obama asserted that the United States would never recognize Hamasunless it renounced its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel and he continues to insist that Hamas recognizeIsrael, abandon violence, and abide by previous agreements made between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.Support Israel’s Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up stronglyfor Israel’s right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks. Obama is an original cosponsor of theSenate resolution expressing support for Israel, condemning the attacks, and calling for strong action againstIran and Syria. Throughout the war, Barack Obama made clear that Israel should not be pressured into aceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. In addition, Obama signed a letter to theEuropean Union pressing the EU to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons: Concerned about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons andregional ambitions, Barack Obama has been a strong voice warning of the dangers to both the United States andIsrael if Iran successfully develops these weapons. Obama has been consistently outspoken about the growinginfluence of Iran in the region, especially Iraq, saying, “Make no mistake – if the Iranians and Syrians thinkthey can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, theyPrinted in HousePaid for by Obama for Americaare badly mistaken” [Speech to Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 11/20/06] Obama has called for strongerinternational sanctions against Iran to persuade it to halt uranium enrichment. He is a cosponsor of the Durbin-Smith Senate Bill, the Iran Counter Proliferation Act, which calls for sanctions on Iran and other countries forassisting Iran in developing a nuclear program. Believing that Americans must do more to prevent Iran fromacquiring nuclear weapons, Obama authored and introduced as the primary sponsor, the Iran Sanctions EnablingAct in May, 2007. Obama’s Bill makes it easier for state and local governments to divest their pension funds ofcompanies that invest in Iran's energy sector, providing the revenue Iran uses to pursue nuclear weapons andsponsor terrorism. Divestment is a useful tool to bring additional economic pressure to bear on Iran. SenatorObama has conducted an active dialogue with a range of Israeli political leaders and security officials regardingIran and the threat it poses to the United States and Israel.Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel.He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance toIsrael and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met.Additionally, he has called for sustaining the unique U.S.-Israel defense relationship by fully funding militaryassistance and continuing cooperative work on missile defense programs, such as the Arrow.Work towards Two States Living Side by Side in Peace and Security: Barack Obama believes in workingtowards a two-state solution, with both states living side by side in peace and security. Obama is a cosponsor ofthe Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. Introduced in the wake of Hamas’ victory in the Palestinianelections, this act outlaws direct assistance to any entity of the Palestinian Authority controlled by Hamas untilit meets the conditions of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations to renounceviolence, recognize Israel, and agree to abide by all agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority. Obamasigned a letter urging President Bush to make it clear to Palestinian leaders that terrorist groups must eitherdisarm or be barred from the political process. Since the elections, Obama has stated that Israelis must have atrue Palestinian partner for peace. He has sought to encourage Palestinian moderates who seek peace and toisolate Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel’s destruction.Help Palestinian Families Get the Aid They Need Without Supporting Terrorism: Barack Obama supportsU.S. efforts to provide aid directly to the Palestinian people by bypassing any Hamas-led government thatrefuses to renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist. Obama believes that a better life forPalestinian families is good for both Israelis and Palestinians.Limit Hezbollah’s Influence in the Region: Barack Obama is concerned about the rapid re-arming ofHezbollah in Lebanon. He has called for the end of Syrian and Iranian support of Hezbollah via arms shipmentsand funding. Obama urged the enforcement of UN Resolution 1701, which demands the cessation of armsshipments to Hezbollah, a resolution that Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Long before the July 2006conflict, Barack Obama worked to limit Hezbollah’s influence in the region, signing a letter urging PresidentBush to place al-Manar, the official television station of Hezbollah, on the Treasury Department’s SpeciallyDesignated Global Terrorist Entity list and to aggressively target organizations that aid in its broadcast.Support U.S.-Israel Research and Development: As a strong supporter of broadening and deepening theU.S.-Israel relationship, Barack Obama cosponsored the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act. This bill wouldestablish a grant program to support joint U.S.-Israeli research and development efforts in the areas ofalternative and renewable energy sources – a key step toward energy independence, which is very much in thenational security interests of the U.S. and Israel.Achieve Energy Independence: Looking for innovative ways to enhance U.S. and Israeli security throughenergy independence, Obama has pushed a number of initiatives – from E-85 to CAFE reform to biofuels. Thepurpose of these initiatives is to reduce U.S. dependence on oil from the Middle East, limiting the influence ofoil-producing nations and increasing U.S. and Israeli national security.Lester Crown Letter:Dear Friends:While my involvement in politics is motivated by a variety of issues, there is one issue that is fundamental: my deep commitment to Israel and to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship that strengthens both Israel 's security and its efforts to seek peace. I am writing to share with you my confidence that Senator Barack Obama's stellar record on Israel gives me great comfort that, as President, he will be the friend to Israel that we all want to see in the White House – stalwart in his defense of Israel's security, and committed to helping Israel achieve peace with its neighbors. I have been honored to know Barack Obama for years, and I am proud to say that he is unyielding in defending Israel 's security. His conviction holds fast whether the threat comes from Gaza or Tehran . He has been a leader in calling for toughening sanctions against Iran as part of a comprehensive diplomatic effort to prevent the development and deployment of Iranian nuclear weapons. And he has stated clearly that, as President, he will make a personal commitment to help achieve a two-state solution, with Israel and a Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security—with the full understanding that Israel’s security can not be compromised. In this regard, he recently spoke out about his commitment to ensure that Israel 's status as a Jewish state is never called into question:"I start with the premise that Israel is a stalwart ally of ours and their security cannot be compromised. I also start with the premise that the status quo is unsustainable and that what would be good for Israeli security will be the kind of two-state solution that allows the Palestinians to live and prosper in their own state and allows Israel to maintain the security of its state…I think everyone knows what the basic outlines of an agreement would look like. It would mean that the Palestinians would have to reinterpret the notion of right of return in a way that would preserve Israel as a Jewish state." --Senator Barack Obama, Des Moines Foreign Policy Forum, December 18, 2007 In addition, The New York Sun editorial board published an editorial this week on Barack Obama and Israel (see below). The editorial states that anyone who questions Barack Obama on Israel policy has not checked their facts, as Senator Obama has spoken frequently and clearly about his strong commitment to Israel . Few public figures inspire as much hope and optimism as Barack Obama. I have every confidence that, as you get to know Barack Obama's record on Israel, you will share my excitement about the possibility his candidacy represents and my comfort that he will advocate and support a solution in the Middle East that is consistent with values which we hold dear. Please pass on this message to all who are interested.B'Shalom,Lester CrownChicago , IL

Obama and Israel
New York Sun Staff EditorialJanuary 9, 2008
According to an article in the New York Post yesterday, are preparing to attack Senator Obama for his supposed lack of support for Israel . "Obama's commitment to Israel is open to question, and that would help us with Jews," the Post quotes a "prominent New York Republican" as saying. We're no shills for Mr. Obama, but these Republicans haven't checked their facts. At least by our lights, Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel , as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America . In remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Chicago in March, Mr. Obama spoke about his first visit to Israel , in January 2006. "I flew on an IDF helicopter to the border zone. The helicopter took us over the most troubled and dangerous areas and that narrow strip between the West Bank and the Mediterranean Sea . At that height, I could see the hills and the terrain that generations have walked across. I could truly see how close everything is and why peace through security is the only way for Israel," Mr. Obama said, sounding like a certain governor of Texas recounting the helicopter tour he got as a presidential candidate from a future prime minister named Ariel Sharon. Mr. Obama spoke of "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel : our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy." Quoth he: "That will always be my starting point." Mr. Obama spoke of the threat of Iran . "President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz . We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers," he said. Mr. Obama went further, stating: "In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric." Mr. Obama added: "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza ." He took Israel 's side against those who would fault it for its actions in Lebanon in the Summer of 2006. "When Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel 's legitimate right to defend itself," Mr. Obama said. "Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel . By using Lebanon as an outpost for terrorism, and innocent people as shields, Hezbollah has also engulfed that entire nation in violence and conflict, and threatened the fledgling movement for democracy there." And Mr. Obama rejected the idea, put forth by Israel 's false friends, that America does Israel any favors by exerting pressure in the name of peace. "We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli Prime Minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States ," Mr. Obama said. "When I am president, the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel ," Mr. Obama told the National Jewish Democratic Council in February of 2007. "Those who have worked with me in Chicago in the state Legislature and now in the United States Senate will testify that I have not just talked the talk, I have walked the walk when it comes to Israel 's security. I think it is fundamental. I think it is something that is in the interests of the United States because of our special relationship, because Israel has not only established a democracy in the region but has been a stalwart ally of ours," Mr. Obama said to the NJDC. "The United States government and an Obama Presidency cannot ask Israel to take risks with respect to its security." * * *Now the editors of these columns, whatever our faults, weren't born yesterday. We can remember, say, all the vows that a young governor of Arkansas , William Clinton, made, right here in New York , about how he was going to stand with Israel when he became president. And we remember how the liberal — and often Jewish — groups active on the Middle East front, promptly began confecting arguments in respect of how America should pressure the government in Jerusalem to be more forthcoming in its negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs. But Republicans plotting to attack Mr. Obama on Israel need to be careful lest the idea of the perfect becomes enemy of the good. Mr. Obama may not be the best candidate in the field in respect of Israel ; he has some stiff competition in both parties. He has failed to press the issue of Jerusalem . The American retreat he supports in Iraq would make the Middle East a more dangerous place for both Israel and America , not to mention, say, the free Lebanese and the Copts in Egypt . If Mr. Obama disappointed Israel once elected, he wouldn't be the first president to do so. But as a candidate, he has chosen to put himself on the record in terms that Israel 's friends in America , at least those not motivated by pure political partisanship, can warmly welcome. January 9, 2008 Edition=============>Obama and IsraelEditorial of The New York Sun January 9, 2008
FEEDBACK SHARE PRINT EMAIL Add to del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Facebook Add to Newsvine New York Republicans, according to an article in the New York Post yesterday, are preparing to attack Senator Obama for his supposed lack of support for Israel. "Obama's commitment to Israel is open to question, and that would help us with Jews," the Post quotes a "prominent New York Republican" as saying. We're no shills for Mr. Obama, but these Republicans haven't checked their facts. At least by our lights, Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America.
In remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Chicago in March, Mr. Obama spoke about his first visit to Israel, in January 2006. "I flew on an IDF helicopter to the border zone. The helicopter took us over the most troubled and dangerous areas and that narrow strip between the West Bank and the Mediterranean Sea. At that height, I could see the hills and the terrain that generations have walked across. I could truly see how close everything is and why peace through security is the only way for Israel," Mr. Obama said, sounding like a certain governor of Texas recounting the helicopter tour he got as a presidential candidate from a future prime minister named Ariel Sharon.
Mr. Obama spoke of "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy." Quoth he: "That will always be my starting point." Mr. Obama spoke of the threat of Iran. "President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers," he said.
Mr. Obama went further, stating: "In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric." Mr. Obama added: "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza."
He took Israel's side against those who would fault it for its actions in Lebanon in the Summer of 2006. "When Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel's legitimate right to defend itself," Mr. Obama said. "Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel. By using Lebanon as an outpost for terrorism, and innocent people as shields, Hezbollah has also engulfed that entire nation in violence and conflict, and threatened the fledgling movement for democracy there."
And Mr. Obama rejected the idea, put forth by Israel's false friends, that America does Israel any favors by exerting pressure in the name of peace. "We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli Prime Minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States," Mr. Obama said. "When I am president, the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel," Mr. Obama told the National Jewish Democratic Council in February of 2007.
"Those who have worked with me in Chicago in the state Legislature and now in the United States Senate will testify that I have not just talked the talk, I have walked the walk when it comes to Israel's security. I think it is fundamental. I think it is something that is in the interests of the United States because of our special relationship, because Israel has not only established a democracy in the region but has been a stalwart ally of ours," Mr. Obama said to the NJDC. "The United States government and an Obama Presidency cannot ask Israel to take risks with respect to its security."
* * *
Now the editors of these columns, whatever our faults, weren't born yesterday. We can remember, say, all the vows that a young governor of Arkansas, William Clinton, made, right here in New York, about how he was going to stand with Israel when he became president. And we remember how the liberal — and often Jewish — groups active on the Middle East front, promptly began confecting arguments in respect of how America should pressure the government in Jerusalem to be more forthcoming in its negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs. But Republicans plotting to attack Mr. Obama on Israel need to be careful lest the idea of the perfect becomes enemy of the good.
Mr. Obama may not be the best candidate in the field in respect of Israel; he has some stiff competition in both parties. He has failed to press the issue of Jerusalem. The American retreat he supports in Iraq would make the Middle East a more dangerous place for both Israel and America, not to mention, say, the free Lebanese and the Copts in Egypt. If Mr. Obama disappointed Israel once elected, he wouldn't be the first president to do so. But as a candidate, he has chosen to put himself on the record in terms that Israel's friends in America, at least those not motivated by pure political partisanship, can warmly welcome.

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Turning the Page in Iraq
Clinton, IA September 12, 2007
A few months ago, I met a woman who told me her nephew was leaving for Iraq. As she started to tell me about how much she'd miss him and how worried she was about him, she began to cry. "I can't breathe,' she said. "I want to know when I am going to be able to breathe again.'
I have her on my mind when I think about what we've gone through as a country and where we need to go. Because we've been holding our breath over Iraq for five years. As we go through yet another debate about yet another phase of this misguided war, we've got a familiar feeling. Again, we're told that progress is upon us. Again, we're asked to hold our breath a little longer. Again, we're reminded of what's gone wrong with our policies and our politics.
It was five years ago today - on September 12, 2002 - that President Bush made his case for war at the United Nations. Standing in front of a world that stood with us after 9/11, he said, "In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies.' Then he talked about Saddam Hussein - a man who had nothing to do with 9/11. But citing the lesson of 9/11, he and others said we had to act. "To suggest otherwise,' the President said, "is to hope against the evidence.'
George Bush was wrong. The people who attacked us on 9/11 were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before our invasion. The case for 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.
After 9/11, instead of the politics of unity, we got a political strategy of division with the war in Iraq as its centerpiece. The only thing we were asked to do for our country was support a misguided war. We lost that sense of common purpose as Americans. And we're not going to be a truly united and resolute America until we can stop holding our breath, until we can come together to reclaim our foreign policy and our politics and end this war that has cost us so much.
So there is something unreal about the debate that's taking place in Washington.
With all that our troops and their families have sacrificed, with all this war has cost us, and with no discernible end in sight, the same people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, about democracy spreading across the Middle East, about striking a decisive blow against terrorism, about an insurgency in its last throes - those same people are now trumpeting the uneven and precarious containment of brutal sectarian violence as if it validates all of their failed decisions.
The bar for success is so low that it is almost buried in the sand.
The American people have had enough of the shifting spin. We've had enough of extended deadlines for benchmarks that go unmet. We've had enough of mounting costs in Iraq and missed opportunities around the world. We've had enough of a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged.
I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now.
My plan for ending the war would turn the page in Iraq by removing our combat troops from Iraq's civil war; by taking a new approach to press for a new accord on reconciliation within Iraq; by talking to all of Iraq's neighbors to press for a compact in the region; and by confronting the human costs of this war.
First, we need to immediately begin the responsible removal of our troops from Iraq's civil war. Our troops have performed brilliantly. They brought Saddam Hussein to justice. They have fought for over four years to give Iraqis a chance for a better future. But they cannot - and should not - bear the responsibility for resolving the grievances at the heart of Iraq's civil war.
Recent news only confirms this. The Administration points to selective statistics to make the case for staying the course. Killings and mortar attacks and car bombs in certain districts are down from the highest levels we've seen. But they're still at the same horrible levels they were at 18 months ago or two years ago. Experts will tell you that the killings are down in some places because the ethnic cleansing has already taken place. That's hardly a cause for triumphalism.
The stated purpose of the surge was to enable Iraq's leaders to reconcile. But as the recent report from the Government Accountability Office confirms, the Iraqis are not reconciling. Our troops fight and die in the 120 degree heat to give Iraq's leaders space to agree, but they aren't filling it. They are not moving beyond their centuries-old sectarian conflicts, they are falling further back into them.
We hear a lot about how violence is down in parts of Anbar province. But this has little to do with the surge - it's because Sunni tribal leaders made a political decision to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq. This only underscores the point - the solution in Iraq is political, it is not military.
Violence is contained in some parts of Baghdad. That's no surprise. Our troops have cleared these neighborhoods at great costs. But our troops cannot police Baghdad indefinitely - only Iraqis can. Rather than use our presence to make progress, the Iraqi government has put off taking responsibility - that's the finding of a Commission headed by General Jim Jones. And our troop presence cannot be sustained without crippling our military's ability to respond to other contingencies.
Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.
We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.
We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We'll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If - but only if - Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces. But we will set our own direction and our own pace, and our direction must be out of Iraq. The future of our military, our foreign policy, and our national purpose cannot be hostage to the inaction of the Iraqi government.
Removing our troops is part of applying real pressure on Iraq's leaders to end their civil war. Some argue that we should just replace Prime Minister Maliki. But that wouldn't solve the problem. We shouldn't be in the business of supporting coups. And remember - before Maliki, we said that we just needed to replace the last Prime Minister to make everything all right. It didn't work.
The problems in Iraq are bigger than one man. Iraq needs a new Constitutional convention that would include representatives from all levels of Iraqi society - in and out of government. The United Nations should play a central role in convening and participating in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached. To reconcile, the Iraqis must also meet key political benchmarks outside of the Constitutional process, including new local elections and revising debaathification.
Now the Iraqis may come out of this process choosing some kind of soft partition into three regions - one Sunni, one Shia, one Kurd. But it must be their choice. America should not impose the division of Iraq.
While we change the dynamic within Iraq, we must surge our diplomacy in the region.
At every stage of this war, we have suffered because of disdain for diplomacy. We have not brought allies to the table. We have refused to talk to people we don't like. And we have failed to build a consensus in the region. As a result, Iraq is more violent, the region is less stable, and America is less secure.
We need to launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent history to reach a new compact in the region. This effort should include all of Iraq's neighbors, and we should also bring in the United Nations Security Council. All of us have a stake in Iraq's stability. It's time to make this less about what America is trying to do for Iraq, and more about what the world can do with Iraq.
This compact must secure Iraq's borders, keep neighbors from meddling, isolate al Qaeda, and support Iraq's unity. That means helping our Turkish and Kurdish friends reach an understanding. That means pressing Sunni states like Saudi Arabia to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, increase their financial support of reconstruction efforts, and encourage Iraqi Sunnis to reconcile with their fellow Iraqis. And that means turning the page on the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to Syria and Iran.
Conventional thinking in Washington says Presidents cannot lead this diplomacy. But I think the American people know better. Not talking doesn't make us look tough - it makes us look arrogant. And it doesn't get results. Strong Presidents tell their adversaries where they stand, and that's what I would do. That's how tough and principled diplomacy works. And that's what we need to press Syria and Iran to stop being part of the problem in Iraq.
Iran poses a grave challenge. It builds a nuclear program, supports terrorism, and threatens Israel with destruction. But we hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda, ignoring the violent schism that exists between Shiite and Sunni militants. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud and clear - from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war.
George Bush suggests that there are two choices with regard to Iran. Stay the course in Iraq or cede the region to the Iran. I reject this choice. Keeping our troops tied down in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran - it's precisely what has strengthened it. President Ahmadinejad may talk about filling a vacuum in the region after an American drawdown, but he's badly mistaken. It's time for a new and robust American leadership. And that should begin with a new cooperative security framework with all of our friends and allies in the Persian Gulf.
Now is the time for tough and sustained diplomacy backed by real pressure. It's time to rally the region and the world to our side. And it's time to deliver a direct message to Tehran. America is a part of a community of nations. America wants peace in the region. You can give up your nuclear ambitions and support for terror and rejoin the community of nations. Or you will face further isolation, including much tighter sanctions. As we deliver this message, we will be stronger - not weaker - if we are disengaging from Iraq's civil war.
The final part of my plan is a major international initiative to address Iraq's humanitarian crisis.
President Bush likes to warn of the dire consequences of ending the war. He warns of rising Iranian influence, but that has already taken place. He warns of growing terrorism, but that has already taken place. And he warns of huge movements of refugees and mass sectarian killing, but that has already taken place. These are not the consequences of a future withdrawal. They are the reality of Iraq's present. They are a direct consequence of waging this war. Two million Iraqis are displaced in their own country. Another two million Iraqis have fled as refugees to neighboring countries. This mass movement of people is a threat to the security of the Middle East and to our common humanity. We have a strategic interest - and a moral obligation - to act.
The President would have us believe there are two choices: keep all of our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis. I reject that choice. We cannot continue to put this burden on our troops alone. I'm tired of this notion that we either fight foolish wars or retreat from the world. We are better than that as a nation.
There's no military solution that can reunite a family or resettle an orphaned child. It's time to form an international working group with the countries in the region, our European and Asian friends, and the United Nations. The State Department says it has invested $183 million on displaced Iraqis this year -- but that is not nearly enough. We can and must do more. We should up our share to at least $2 billion to support this effort; to expand access to social services for refugees in neighboring countries; and to ensure that Iraqis displaced inside their own country can find safe-haven.
Iraqis must know that those who engage in mass violence will be brought to justice. We should lead in forming a commission at the U.N. to monitor and hold accountable perpetrators of war crimes within Iraq. We must also put strict conditions on U.S. assistance to direct our support to those who want to hold Iraq together - not those who are tearing it apart. The risk of greater atrocities in the short-term cannot deter us from doing what we must to minimize violence in the long-term. Yet as we drawdown, we must declare our readiness to intervene with allies to stop genocidal violence.
We must also keep faith with Iraqis who kept faith with us. One tragic outcome of this war is that the Iraqis who stood with America - the interpreters, embassy workers, and subcontractors - are being targeted for assassination. An Iraqi named Laith who worked for an American organization told a journalist, "Sometimes I feel like we're standing in line for a ticket, waiting to die.' And yet our doors are shut. In April, we admitted exactly one Iraqi refugee - just one!
That is not how we treat our friends. That is not how we take responsibility for our own actions. That is not who we are as Americans. It's time to at least fill the 7,000 slots that we pledged to Iraqi refugees and to be open to accepting even more Iraqis at risk. It's also time to go to our friends and allies - and all the members of our original coalition in Iraq - to find homes for the many Iraqis who are in desperate need of asylum.
Keeping this moral obligation is a key part of how we turn the page in Iraq. Because what's at stake is bigger than this war - it's our global leadership. Now is a time to be bold. We must not stay the course or take the conventional path because the other course is unknown. To quote Dr. Brzezinski - we must not allow ourselves to become "prisoners of uncertainty.'
George Bush is afraid of this future. That is why all he can do is drag up the past. After all the flawed justifications for his failed policy, he now invokes Vietnam as a reason to stay in Iraq. Let's put aside the strange reasoning - that all would have been well if we had just stayed the course in Vietnam. Let's put it aside and leave it where it belongs - in the past.
Now is not the time to reargue the Vietnam War - we did that in the 2004 election, and it wasn't pretty. I come from a new generation of Americans. I don't want to fight the battles of the 1960s. I want to reclaim the future for America, because we have too many threats to face and too many opportunities to seize. Just think about what we can accomplish together when we end this war.
When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan. That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves.
When we end this war in Iraq, we can more effectively tackle the twin demons of extremism and hopelessness that threaten the peace of the world and the security of America. That is why I have proposed a program to spread hope - not hate - in the Islamic world, to build schools that teach young people to build and not destroy, to support the rule of law and economic development, and to launch a program of outreach to the Islamic world that I will lead as President.
When we end this war in Iraq, we can once again lead the world against the common challenges of the 21st century. Against the spread of nuclear weapons and climate change. Against genocide in Darfur. Against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. When we end this war, we can reclaim the cause of freedom and democracy. We can be that beacon of hope, that light to all the world.
When we end this war, we can recapture our unity of effort as Americans. The American people have the right instincts on Iraq. It's time to heed their judgment. It's time to move beyond Iraq so that we can move forward together. I will be a President who listens to the American people, not a President who ignores them.
And when we end the war in Iraq, we can come together to give our full attention to advancing the cause of health care for every American, an energy policy that does not bankroll hostile nations while we melt the polar ice caps, and a world class education for our children. Above all, we can turn the page to a new kind of politics of unity, not division; of hope, not fear.
You know, I welcome all of the folks who have changed their position on the war over these last months and years. And we need more of those votes to change if we're going to change the direction of this war. That is why I will keep speaking directly to my colleagues in the Congress, both Republican and Democratic. Historically, we have come together in a bipartisan way to deal with our most monumental challenges. We should do so again. We have the power to do this - not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. We don't have to wait until George Bush is gone from office - we can begin to end this war today, right now.
But if we have learned anything from Iraq, it is that the judgment that matters most is the judgment that is made first.
Martin Luther King once stood up at Riverside Church and said, "In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late.' We are too late to stop a war that should never have been fought; too late to undo the pain of battle, the anguish of so many families, or the price of the fight; too late to redo the years of division and distraction at home and abroad.
But I'm here today because it's not too late to come together as Americans. Because we're not going to be able to deal with the challenges that confront us until we end this war. What we can do is say that we will not be prisoners of uncertainty. That we reject the conventional thinking that led us into Iraq and that didn't ask hard questions until it was too late. What we can say is that we are ready for something new and something bold and something principled.
It's time for us to breathe again. That begins with ending this war - but it does not end there. It's time reclaim our foreign policy. It's time to reclaim our politics. And it's time to lead this country - and this world - again, to a new dawn of peace and unity.
As prepared for delivery

Protecting our Homeland
“Incredibly, security remains voluntary at (chemical) plants, despite strong warnings from the 9/11 commission that a strike at just one of the nation's major plants could release chemicals capable of killing one million people or more, according to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. He and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., have introduced legislation that would require plant owners to beef up security. The question is why President Bush hasn't been pushing for tougher measures all along.”
— The (Albany) Times Union, September 6, 2006

The Problem
Six years after 9/11, our country is still unprepared for a terrorist attack. From improving security for our transit systems and chemical plants, to increasing cargo screening in our airports and seaports, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission have been underfunded and ignored. The 9/11 Commission gave the government five F's and twelve D's on the implementation of its recommendations. Senator Obama is a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and has supported efforts to base homeland security spending on risk rather than pork-barrel politics. He has also introduced legislation to strengthen chemical plant and drinking water security and to enhance disaster preparedness.
Barack Obama's PlanProtecting Our Chemical PlantsChemical plants are attractive terrorist targets because they are often located near cities, are relatively easy to attack, and contain multi-ton quantities of hazardous chemicals. While a number of plants have taken voluntary steps to improve security, there are still major gaps; and the federal government has never established meaningful, permanent security regulations. Senator Obama worked with Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to introduce comprehensive chemical plant security legislation that would establish a clear set of federal regulations that all plants must follow. The bill requires chemical facilities to enhance security, including improving barriers, containment, mitigation, and safety training, and, where possible, using safer technology, such as less toxic chemicals.
Keeping Track of Spent Nuclear FuelThe nation has 103 operating nuclear power plants which annually produce over 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel that remains highly radioactive for many years. A report by the Government Accountability Office found inadequate tracking and security for spent nuclear fuel rods. Nuclear plants in Connecticut, Vermont and California have reported missing spent fuel in the last five years. Senator Obama introduced legislation to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling, and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants.
Evacuating Special Needs Population in EmergenciesOne of the most devastating aspects of Hurricane Katrina is that most of the stranded victims were society's most vulnerable members - low-income families, the elderly, the homeless, and disabled Americans. Too many states and cities do not have adequate plans in place to care for special-needs populations. Senator Obama introduced and passed legislation to require mandatory planning for evacuating people with special needs.
Reuniting Families After EmergenciesAfter Hurricane Katrina, thousands of people struggled to contact family and friends following evacuation. Evacuees were forced to comb through dozens of databases in an effort to reconnect with loved ones. Senator Obama introduced and passed legislation to create a centralized, federal database to allow individuals displaced by an emergency to call one phone number or go to one website and post their location and condition. Family members and law enforcement officials would be able to use this same secure, centralized system to check the status of missing loved ones.
Keeping Our Drinking Water SafeThere are almost 170,000 public water systems in the United States. An attack on a drinking water system could contaminate or disrupt water service, thereby disrupting society, impacting human health and compromising critical activities such as fire protection. Senator Obama introduced legislation to provide $37.5 million over 5 years for drinking water systems to upgrade their monitoring and security efforts.
Protecting the Public from Radioactive ReleasesFollowing reports that nuclear power plants in Illinois did not promptly notify local communities that tritium – a byproduct of nuclear generation – had leaked into the groundwater, Senator Obama introduced legislation to require nuclear plants to inform state and local officials if there is an unintentional leak of a radioactive substance. Chronic exposure to high levels of tritium can increase the risk of cancer, birth defects and genetic damage.

This moment from a pre-Iraq War
“Oprah” show is found about 49 minutes into the Moyers program. He introduces it as an episode featuring “liberal hawk Kenneth Pollack” and “the right hand man to Ahmed Challabi.”
Oprah, it seems, was no more willing to listen to war critics (even extremely genial ones) than they were.
Audience member: “I hope it doesn’t offend you… I just don’t know what to believe with the media.”
Oprah: “We’re not trying to propagandize, show you propaganda. We’re just showing you what is.”
Audience member: “I understand that, I’m saying —”
Oprah cuts her off.
Oprah: “OK, but, OK, you have a right to your opinion.”
In retrospect, I guess Bill Clinton was right. Apparently, we do need to define what “is” is.

When Oprah Says No To War…by Leah C. Wells, March 4, 2003
On September 19, 2000, Danny Muller and Andrew Mandell, both of Voices in the Wilderness, went to the Oprah show. Her guest that day was presidential hopeful George W. Bush. They had come to ask important, unscripted questions and to find out if our future 43rd President would toe the same line on the Iraq issue as the administrations of his father and Bill Clinton.
Other Voices in the Wilderness members handed out roses to the other audience members before they were seated in remembrance of the 5,000 Iraqi children who die each month due to sanctions.
We didn’t see those roses on television, however, because before each audience member could enter the studio, they had to hand over their rose.
Halfway through the show, impatient for the canned question period from the audience, Mr. Muller stood up and asked Bush, “Mr. Bush, would you continue the Democrats’ policy of bombing and sanctions that kill 5,000 children a month in Iraq?”
The show immediately cut to commercial.
Mr. Mandell then stood and asked what the children of Iraq could expect. Bush stared directly at him. Both Muller and Mandell were escorted out of the audience for their acts of conscience.
More than two years later, the children of Iraq know what to expect.
Bombs.
For many Americans, Iraq had disappeared from the map since the last Gulf War. The economic embargo remained in place, routine bombings dotted the landscape, and Iraqis suffered in silence.
In September 2001, Thomas Nagy, a professor at George Washington University, released a report detailing the U.S. government’s foreknowledge of the devastating effects of sanctions and the impacts of the Gulf War on civilian infrastructure. The document, published in The Progressive, outlined the outcomes of impure water and insufficient sanitation on the most vulnerable members of society: the children. He cites the Geneva Convention as precedent for why these actions are illegal and punishable under international law.
As history repeats, a country considerably less prepared is bracing for another invasion.
“There will be no safe place in Baghdad,” the U.S. Department of Defense declares. Only now the country is dependent on the U.N. programs which keep the cycle of food and humanitarian goods in motion. Were that to be interrupted, there will be major problems for the Iraqi people.
The pipeline for humanitarian goods for Iraqi civilians is potentially jeopardized by an invasion. In the event of a massive conflict, who will take responsibility for the unfulfilled contracts for humanitarian goods? Governments and private companies enter into contracts under the current conditions the Oil for Food Programme and the current Iraqi regime, but if a major war occurs, the agreements to fill orders for wheat and rice, or to transport those goods into Iraq, may fall through.
This would mean that the people of Iraq would be forced to buy their food at market prices. Currently they pay the equivalent of $.12 for their monthly ration which includes rice, lentils, baby formula and flour. The market price is $3.50 and the international price is $8.50. Most Iraqis have a monthly salary equivalent to $2-4 USD. Even government employees only make an average salary amounting to $12 USD. Iraqis could not afford to pay the market or international prices for food, and thus the alternative is starvation if the food basket under the Oil for Food Programme were interrupted due to war.
Mr. Mandell and Mr. Muller doubtfully could have predicted the catastrophic global events which have transpired since their appearance on the Oprah show. The events of September 11th changed the face of modern geopolitics, of civil liberties and of human interaction.
But rather than recognizing the human capacity to transcend hateful acts of extraordinary desperation, our leaders have called for retributive justice smeared across a global canvas. Afghanistan was not enough revenge. The detainees at Camp X-Ray were not enough. Peaceful Tomorrows, a group comprised of the families and loved ones of those killed on September 11th, calling for an end to war has not been enough. The unprecedented international dissent and the street protests in nearly every country have not been enough.
Unfortunately, short of Oprah taking a stand against the war or adding Thich Nhat Hanh’s “Peace Is Every Step” to her book club list, those with something to gain from waging this war will continue to do so at th e expense of those who have everything to lose.

Obama raises $52M in June, setting torrid new pace
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer 41 minutes ago
Though he's raking in the cash so far, Barack Obama's decision to forgo public funds for the fall campaign means he must keep up his torrid pace — a tall order that will tax his time, test his Internet support and require the help of Democratic donors who once wished for his defeat.
The Democratic nominee-in-waiting had his second-best fundraising month in June, a $52 million haul that swamped presidential rival John McCain by more than 2-1. He also got a big boost from his party, which raised nearly five times as much as it had in May.
The new figures underscore the Illinois senator's status as a fundraising star. He has raised $340 million during his presidential run to McCain's $132 million.
Obama's June total also reversed a three-month decline and helped close a cash-on-hand gap between the Democratic and Republican presidential operations. Together, Obama and the Democratic National Committee had $92 million in the bank at the end of June compared with $96 million for McCain and the Republican National Committee.
But the totals also set a tough new standard for Obama's presidential campaign: The $52 million he raised in June is now a baseline, not a high water mark.
"For him to maintain the pace that it looks as if he will need, he will have to match his best-ever month every month," said Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan group that tracks trends in political money. "That's what he's done this time, pretty close to his best-ever month, and he'll need to sustain this pace or increase it."
Obama's best fundraising month was February, when he took in $55 million.
Overall, the McCain campaign has estimated that it and Republican Party committees will have $400 million to spend on the presidential election in the months before the November election.
To surpass that level of spending, Obama and the Democratic Party will have to raise about $100 million a month.
That task is making some Democrats anxious.
"You don't want to be in a situation at the critical time in September and October when you have not met your budget expectations," said Hassan Nemazee, who was Hillary Rodham Clinton's national financial co-chair and is now raising money for Obama and the DNC. "You're going to find yourself between a rock and hard place in terms of meeting your numbers."
McCain plans to accept $84 million in public money in the fall — money he won't have to lift a finger to collect but which will limit his campaign's spending in the fall. The RNC and other party committees will foot the remainder of his campaign bills through coordinated and independent spending on his behalf.
Obama chose to become the first candidate in three decades to bypass the public funds — the money from checkoff boxes on taxpayers' returns — and that places a premium on his ability to raise more than McCain's $84 million.
"We have developed a strategy — a very aggressive strategy — that will only work if our millions of supporters continue to contribute their time and their money," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in an e-mail to donors Thursday.
Then there's Clinton, Obama's foe-turned-supporter.
How much the Obama campaign plans to rely on Clinton's former donors remains to be seen. Her fundraisers say it will be much easier for them to raise money for Obama if his donors contribute to Clinton to help reduce her vendor debts, which at the end of May stood at about $10 million and growing.
"The most readily available, identifiable pool of new people for the Obama campaign to access is unquestionably the Clinton donors," said Nemazee, who personally raised $400,000 for Obama and the DNC in a matter of days recently.
Tad Devine, a political strategist who was a senior adviser in Democrat John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, says Obama could overcome many financial obstacles by selecting Clinton as his running mate.
"If you're planning the first general election that is not going to be financed by public money and you have the potential to pick someone who has already demonstrated the capacity to raise in excess of $200 million, I would think that would be an enormously consequential consideration," he said.
Obama has maintained a busy fundraising schedule in July, holding at least one event a night as he campaigns in big-dollar locales such as Atlanta, Chicago, Washington and New York. Nevertheless, he is taking himself out of the fundraising circuit starting this week when he leaves for at least a week of foreign travel.
Both Obama and McCain have been helping raise money for their respective parties, as well. The DNC had raised only $4.7 million in May, but after Obama locked up the nomination the party raised $22.5 million. The RNC also is getting help from President Bush, who was scheduled to attend an RNC fundraiser in Napa, Calif., Thursday evening that was expected to raise $850,000.
Both campaigns are already spending their money. Obama has set up big field operations in several states, most recently in the new battleground of Virginia. The campaigns are also spending significantly on advertising — Obama about $7.6 million a week in 18 states and McCain and the RNC together some $7.3 million a week in 11 states.
Several Democratic fundraisers and strategists predicted money will come to Obama and the DNC in ever-increasing amounts. They say the Democratic National Convention in late August should serve as a springboard for record cash.
"I don't think summer fundraising at the end of a primary is a barometer for the potential fundraising in the general election," said Devine.
Obama has had extraordinary success tapping small donors through the Internet, particularly young people motivated to give for the first time. But he has caused some consternation recently among his core supporters for supporting an intelligence bill that many Democrats opposed and for other moves that appeared designed to attract more moderate independent voters.
It is significant that of the $52 million that Obama raised in June, only $2 million was for the general election. That means that he has been able to continue to tap new donors and donors who have yet to contribute the $2,300 maximum for the primary portion of his campaign. And he can go to them again for general election contributions.
Unlike McCain, Obama can roll over unused primary election money into the fall general election contest.