Barack Obama on Homeland Security Democratic incumbent President; IL Senator (2004-2008) Sub-sections under Homeland Security: National Service Nuclear Weapons Terrorism Veterans Voting Record Other issues under Homeland Security Lasting peace does not require perpetual war A decade of war is now ending. We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well. We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully--not because we are na‹ve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. Source: Second Inaugural Address , Jan 21, 2013 Don't give military money that they're not asking for Q: Governor, you say you want a bigger military. Where are you going to get the money? ROMNEY: First of all, we're going to cut about 5% of the discretionary budget excluding military. Q: Can you do this without driving us deeper into debt? OBAMA: Gov. Romney's called for $5 trillion of tax cuts that he says he's going to pay for by closing deductions. He then wants to spend another $2 trillion on military spending that our military's not asking for. Now, keep in mind that our military spending has gone up every single year that I've been in office. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined--China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, you name it, next 10. And what I did was work with our Joint Chiefs of Staff to think about what are we going to need in the future to make sure that we are safe? And that's the budget that we've put forward. But what you can't do is spend $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military is not asking for. Source: Third Obama-Romney 2012 Presidential debate , Oct 22, 2012 Take money from war budgets and fund nation-building at home After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today. In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home. There's never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest-hit when the housing bubble burst. Source: 2012 State of the Union speech , Jan 24, 2012 Reduce defense spending 1% in 2013; add 2% per year after According to the first details of the Obama administration's fiscal 2013 defense budget, defense spending in 2013 would be reduced 1% from this year's initial $525 billion request before growing annually 1.8% in 2014, 2.3% in 2015, 1.9% in 2016, and 2.2% in 2017. The administration plans $82 billion in funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars for 2013, according to OMB. The basic defense-only "topline" numbers are currently projected at: $524 billion in 2013; and $533 billion in 2014; $546 billion in 2015; $556 billion in 2016; and $568 billion in 2017. The percentage increases are expressed in "nominal growth," not adjusted for inflation. The 2012-2021 defense plan calls for $5.652 trillion in spending. OMB calculated that the total Budget Control Act- mandated defense cut over those years is $488 billion--or about an 8.5% total decrease. Source: Tony Capaccio in Bloomberg News, "First Budget Numbers" , Jan 11, 2012 New START treaty: more secure & fewer nuclear weapons American leadership can be seen in the effort to secure the worst weapons of war. Because Republicans and Democrats approved the New START treaty, far fewer nuclear weapons and launchers will be deployed. Because we rallied the world, nuclear materials are being locked down on every continent so they never fall into the hands of terrorists. With our European allies, we revitalized NATO and increased our cooperation on everything from counterterrorism to missile defense. Source: 2011 State of the Union speech , Jan 25, 2011 Newsmax Headlines NYT: Obama Team Threatens Press Freedom Trump Draws Record Crowd in Michigan Rep. Chaffetz: If Obama Wants, We'll Do It The Hard Way Secrets to Retire 10 Years Early, Video Shows Plan Do You Favor Immigration Bill? Vote Here What's This? OpEd: On track to spend most on military since WWII For 2008, the US accounted for over 40% of global military expenses, eight times as much as its nearest rival, China. The US is of course alone in having a vast network of military bases around the world and a global surveillance and control system, and in regularly invading other countries (with impunity, given its power). From 1999 to 2008, global military spending increased 45%, with the US accounting for 58% of the total. Obama is on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other president in one term of office since World War II, and that's not counting the additional $130 billion the administration is requesting to find the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, with even more war spending slated for future years. In January 2010, Congress passed his Pentagon budget with supplemental funding for Afghanistan pending. The $708.3 billion budget (with another $33 billion expected for Afghanistan) is not only a record, but also amounts to half the deficit. Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 63-64 , Jun 1, 2010 Called for space weapons ban, but with wiggle room A crucial question is what Obama's position will be on "missile defense"--understood on all sides to be, in effect, a first-strike weapon--and militarization of space. On the latter, he was called for "a world-wide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites," which would mean that the US project of the weaponization of space--so far in isolation and over global objections, spearheaded at the UN by China--would remain undisturbed, while there would be a ban on any interference with satellites, including those essential for the militarization of space. He also called for a space weapons ban, a very welcome step, but presented in a way that leaves "a lot of wiggle room." Obama's approach may be an improvement ove Bush, and offers prospects for popular movements that seek to rid the earth of these threats to survival of the species. But a lot of work will be needed. Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 65-66 , Jun 1, 2010 Let gay people serve in military openly My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do. Source: 2010 State of the Union Address , Jan 27, 2010 US has helped underwrite global security for 60 years Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest--because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity. So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another--that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. Source: Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo, Norway , Dec 10, 2009 Promises to close Guantanamo & treat prisoners as POWs The Bush administration argued that because [prisoners at Guantanamo] are not state-sponsored, they are not entitled to the usual protections of the Geneva Convention, and have no rights to our time-honored (and constitutionally guaranteed) principle of habeas corpus. The Bush White House had been staunchly opposed to giving detainees access to civilian courts, later arguing that military tribunals sufficed. Constitutional lawyers argued--and the Supreme Court agreed--that such a position was impermissible and that habeas corpus extends to those captured in a time of war even if they don't fit into traditional categories. President Barack Obama will close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and remove the "unlawful enemy combatants" status from those detained. Both charges will accelerate resolution of the basic questions that remain: What is the adjudication process and what is the standard against which their actions will be measured to justify release? Source: The Test of our Times, by Tom Ridge, p.144-145 , Sep 1, 2009 FactCheck: F-22 Raptor costs $140M and has never been used Some claims that made our ears perk up actually checked out OK, like on Cold War Weapons: Obama criticized "Cold War weapons we don't use." That's a reference to the F-22 Raptor, a high-tech fighter plane that has been operational since 2005. It costs about $140 million per plane and has never been used in combat. Source: FactCheck.org on 2009 State of the Union address , Feb 24, 2009 Obama Doctrine: moral interest as well as national interest Q: What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the US would send when we don’t have national security issues at stake? OBAMA: Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake. If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in? If we could’ve stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act. So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us. And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible. But understand that there’s a lot of cruelty around the world. We’re not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That’s why it’s so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies. Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain , Oct 7, 2008 Inappropriate to lie to public; just don’t answer questions Q: Describe a situation when you think it’s appropriate to lie to the American people. A: I don’t think it’s appropriate to lie to the American people. And I think that one of the things I want to change about the culture of Washington is, not just the “big lie,” but also the “soft lie.” The fudging, the manipulation, the spin. If we can restore a sense of trust between the American people and their government, we’re going to go a long way to changing the country for the better. Q: What about in a national security situation? A: I don’t think it’s appropriate to lie. I mean, you can put together a hypothetical where there is a national security emergency that is imminent. And you don’t want to provide, for example, the location of our troops. You don’t have to lie in those situations. You simply say, “we’re not answering questions.” Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric , Sep 23, 2008 We should have focused on loose nukes & Al Qaeda after 9/11 Obama's July 15 speech on national security: Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11. We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11. We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework. We could have invested in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil. We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity. We could have done that. Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats--all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Source: Obama`s Challenge, by Robert Kuttner, p. 14-15 , Aug 25, 2008 Grandfather served in Patton's tank corps in WWII With the onset of World War II, [Obama's grandfather] Stanley Dunham enlisted in the army and ended up slogging through Europe with General George Patton's tank corps without ever seeing real combat. [His wife, Obama's grandmother] Madelyn worked as a riveter at the Boeing Company's B-29 plant in Wichita. In Nov. 1942, their daughter, Ann Dunham, was born. Stanley Dunham has been described as a kind of Willy Loman, the tragic, broken character in Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman. There are similarities. Returning from war and grasping the promise of the GI Bill, Stanley moved his young family to California, where he enrolled at the University of California-Berkeley. Obama would later recount kindly of his grandfather that "the classroom couldn't contain his ambitions, his restlessness, and so the family moved on." It was the pattern of a lifetime. There was first a return to Kansas and then years of one small Texas town after another, one dusty furniture store after another. Source: The FAITH of Barack Obama, by Stephen Mansfield, chapter 1 , Aug 5, 2008 Colleges must allow military recruiters for ROTC on campus Q: Will you vigorously enforce a statute which says colleges must allow military recruiters on campus and provide ROTC programs? A: Yes. Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas , Jan 15, 2008 Human rights and national security are complementary Q: Is human rights more important than American national security? A: The concepts are not contradictory, but complementary. Pakistan is a great example. We paid $10 billion over the last seven years & we had two goals: deal with terrorism and restore democracy. We’ve gotten neither. Pakistan’s democracy would strengthen our battle against extremists. The more we see repression, the more there are no outlets for how people can express themselves and their aspirations, the worse off we’re going to be, and the more anti-American sentiment there’s going to be in the Middle East. We keep on making this mistake. As president, I will make sure that nuclear weapons don’t fall into the hands of extremists, especially Al Qaida. If we simply prop up anti-democratic practices that feeds the sense that the US is only concerned about us and that our fates are not tied to these other folks. That’s going to make us less safe. That’s something I intend to change. Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada , Nov 15, 2007 Judgment is as important as experience The conservative magazine the Economist said, “Mr. Obama has already shown that he possesses something more important than expertise--judgment. His prediction about the Iraq war back in 2002 has proved strikingly prescient.” In 2002, Obama said: “I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.“ Everything Obama said five years ago has come true. As columnist Margaret Carlson noted, Obama ”was dead-on correct about the seminal issue of our time.“ Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p. 39 , Oct 30, 2007 Repeal Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell Obama believes we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in consultation with military commanders. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure we accomplish our national defense goals. Source: 2008 Presidential campaign website, BarackObama.com “Flyers” , Aug 26, 2007 America must practice the patriotism it preaches I think it is unconscionable for us to stand by our troops and hoist the flag and suggest how patriotic we are at the same time as the veterans’ budget is being effectively cut. I’m going to monitor very closely how we are treating 100,000+ veterans wh are coming home, to make sure the VA has the capacity to provide transition services for veterans who are leaving the service and reentering civilian life--particularly the National Guardsman and Reservists who did not expect to be fighting in Iraq. Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p.155 , Mar 27, 2007 Get first responders the healthcare and equipment they need It is a noble calling what you do [as firefighters]. You know that. I know that. This country knows that. But sometimes Washington forgets. They praise your work. But when it’s time for you to get health care or buy the radios and equipment you need, those supporters disappear like a puff of smoke. Instead of making your job easier, they tried to cut funding so that you couldn’t buy the masks and suits you need. They wanted to stop the hiring of 75,000 new firefighters. They wanted to hide the US Fire Administration under layers of bureaucracy at Homeland Security. And 5 years after September 11th, they still won’t give our first responders the health care they earned that day. What keeps Washington from doing all that it needs to do to better protect our firefighters, police officers, and EMT’s--it’s not a lack of ideas and solutions that’s holding us back. It is the smallness of our politics. Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC , Mar 14, 2007 Need to be both strong and smart on national defense Obama takes an unexceptional position on defense spending, i.e., we need to be strong but we need to be smart about it. However, some papers reported the story as “Obama chides other Democrats on defense.” Of course, it is not true. The rumor got started that way, in the lead of an AP article on Obama’s Sept. 18 speech to Iowa Democrats. Six other articles reporting on the same event failed to mention the mythical attack on other Democrats. Source: Should Barack Obama be President, by F. Zimmerman, p. 50 , Oct 17, 2006 Grow size of military to maintain rotation schedules Our most complex military challenge will involve putting boots on the ground in the ungoverned or hostile regions where terrorists thrive. That requires a smarter balance between what we spend on fancy hardware and what we spend on our men and women in uniform. That should mean growing the size of our armed forces to maintain reasonable rotation schedules, keeping our troops properly equipped, and training them in the skills they’ll need to succeed in increasingly complex and difficult missions. Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.307 , Oct 1, 2006 We are currently inspecting 3% of all incoming cargo Q: Name a key vulnerability or weakness that you see in homeland security. A: Our inspections of ports. We are currently inspecting 3% of all incoming cargo. Terrorists could load up a cargo container and drive it straight into the middle of the Loop without significant risk of them being inspected. Our chemical and nuclear plants are still unsecured, despite how vulnerable they are. There are a whole host of domestic priorities that have been neglected by the Bush administration. Source: IL Senate Debate , Oct 26, 2004 Give our soldiers the best equipment and training available [The US should] prepare our military to meet the new threats of the 21st century. We must prepare our military to meet the new threats of the 21st century by making sure that we have sufficient forces and by giving our soldiers the best equipment and training available. We must also ensure that members of our National Guard and reservists have access to affordable, quality health care. Source: Press Release, “Renewal of American Leadership ” , Jul 12, 2004 Barack Obama on National Service Serving America doesn’t mean going out shopping Q: As president, what sacrifices will you ask every American to make, to get out of the economic morass that we’re now in? OBAMA: A lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11 and how all of the country was ready to come together and make enormous changes to make us not only safer, but to make us a better country and a more unified country. And President Bush did some smart things at the outset, but one of the opportunities that was missed was, when he spoke to the American people, he said, “Go out and shop.“ That wasn’t the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for. I think the young people of America are especially interested in how they can serve, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m interested in doubling the Peac Corps, making sure that we are creating a volunteer corps all across this country that can be involved in their community, involved in military service, so that our troops are not the only ones bearing the burden of renewing America. Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain , Oct 7, 2008 $4,000 tuition tax credit in exchange for community service Our commitment to education cannot end with a high school degree. The chance to get a college education must not be a privilege of the few--it should be a birthright of every single American. Senator McCain is campaigning on a plan to give more tax breaks to corporations. I want to give tax breaks to young people, in the form of an annual $4,000 tax credit that will cover two-thirds of the tuition at an average public college, and make community college completely free. In return, I will ask students to serve, whether it’s by teaching, joining the Peace Corps, or working in your community. And for those who serve in our military, we’ll cover all of your tuition with an even more generous 21st Century GI Bill. The idea is simple--America invests in you, and you invest in America. That’s how we’re going to ensure that America succeeds in this century. Source: Speech in Flint, MI, in Change We Can Believe In, p.251 , Jun 15, 2008 Expand Peace Corps and AmeriCorps to 266,000 slots THE PROBLEM Americans Not Asked to Serve After 9/11: President Bush squandered an opportunity to mobilize the American people following 9/11 when asked Americans only to go shopping. Insufficient Federal Support for Service : While more than 500,000 people have served in AmeriCorps, the program turns away applicants a year because of limited funding. OBAMA’S PLAN Expand National Service: Obama will expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 slots today to 250,000 and he will focus this expansion on addressing the great challenges facing the nation. He will establish a Classroom Corps; a Health Corps; a Clean Energy Corps; a Veterans Corps; and a Homeland Security Corpss. Expand the Peace Corps: Obama will double the Peace Corps to 16,000 by 2011. He will work with the leaders of other countries to build an international network of overseas volunteers so that Americans work side-by-side with volunteers from other countries. Source: Campaign booklet, “Blueprint for Change”, p. 45-46 , Feb 2, 2008 Put forward a national service program The volunteer Army is a way for us to maintain excellence. If we are deploying our military wisely, then a voluntary army is sufficient, although I would call for an increase in our force structure, particularly around the Army and the Marines, because we’ve got to put an end to people going on three, four, five tours of duty and the strain on families is enormous. The obligation to serve exists for everybody. That’s why I’ve put forward a national service program that is tied to my tuition credit for students who want to go to college. You get $4000 every year to help you go to college. In return, you have to engage in some form of national service. Military service has to be an option. We have to have civilian options as well. Not just the Peace Corps, but one of the things that we need desperately are people in our foreign service speaking foreign languages in a lot of work that may not be hand-to-hand combat but just as critical in ensuring our long-term safety & security. Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas , Jan 15, 2008 Give 18-year-old women opportunity to serve Q: Teenage boys must register for selective service at age 18, but not girls. I’m wondering whether this sends the right message about national service? DODD: I don’t see a need for the draft. I don’t believe that is necessary. But if you are going to have one I think it ought to be gender neutral. Q: If it did not necessarily mean military service, should the country examine registering women at 18? CLINTON: Yes. EDWARDS: Yes. But it’s absolutely crucial that we ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war. As with John Kennedy’s call to action, I think we need a president who asks Americans to sacrifice. KUCINICH: We have to say no to a draft. BIDEN: Yes ,and there should be universal service. OBAMA: Yes. Every young person should have that opportunity to serve and do something that is bigger than themselves. RICHARDSON: Yes. And I outlined a plan two years of college tuition paid off by the government, one year of national service Source: 2007 Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum , Dec 1, 2007 Register women for draft, but not for combat Q: Do you think women should register for selective service when they turn 18 like men do currently? A: You know, a while back we had a celebration in the Capitol for the Tuskegee Airmen, and it was extraordinarily powerful because it reminded us, there was a time when African-Americans weren’t allowed to serve in combat. And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we’re equal. And I think that if women are registered for service--not necessarily in combat roles, and I don’t agree with the draft-- I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters that they’ve got obligations to this great country as well as boys do. Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC , Jul 23, 2007 Barack Obama on Nuclear Weapons Strengthen NPT to have automatic sanctions on Iran [On Iran, Obama called for tough diplomacy "to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior," namely pursuing a nuclear program and supporting terrorism. If Iran abandons its troubling behavior, the US might move toward normal diplomatic and economic relations, Obama proposed, but "if Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation." Furthermore, Obama proceeded, he will strengthen the NPT "so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions." He made no mention of the conclusion of US intelligence that Iran had not had a weapons program for five years, unlike US allies in Israel, Pakistan, and India, the three countries that all maintain extensive nuclear weapons programs (with direct US support), all unmentioned as well. Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.249 , Jun 1, 2010 OpEd: walked away from missile defense of Eastern Europe Russia's burgeoning relationship with Venezuela has purpose beyond energy: anything that diminishes America pleases Putin, both because it weakens a competing power and because it gratifies his personal animus for the US. Russia's resistance to severe sanctioning of North Korea and Iran as they have pursued their nuclear programs are a stick in the eye for the US. So, too, is Russia's insistence that the world replace the dollar as the reserve currency. Putin also bitterly opposes any development that would strengthen the US such as missile defense, particularly in Eastern Europe, and admission of the former Soviet satellites into NATO. Pres. Obama's decision to walk way from our missile defense program in Poland and the Czech Republic was a huge concession to Putin, as is the stalling on admission of Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO. Russia welcomes concessions, and these, like their predecessors, were not repaid in kind. Russia takes, Pres. Obama gives, and Russia demands more. Source: No Apology, by Mitt Romney, p. 18 , Mar 2, 2010 Secure all world's nuclear materials by international treaty Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people--the threat of nuclear weapons. I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. Source: 2010 State of the Union Address , Jan 27, 2010 Reduce US nuclear stockpile & prevent spread of nukes One urgent example [of alternatives to violence] is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles. But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war. Source: Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo, Norway , Dec 10, 2009 Goal is a world without nuclear weapons Without any introduction, Obama begins, "I am the only major candidate to oppose this war from the beginning and, as president, I will end it. "Second," he continues, "I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. "Third," he says, without pausing, "I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a ban on the production of fissile materials. And I will negotiate with Russia to take ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals." Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p. 1-2 , Aug 1, 2008 A New Beginning: seek world with no nuclear weapons On Oct. 2, 2007, Obama declared, "A New Beginning," announcing, "America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons." Obama made clear he did not intend to pursue unilateral disarmament. He promised to work with Russia "to take US & Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert." "We'll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons." Obama stated we would set a goal to expand the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so the agreement is global Obama argued, "We'll be in a better position to lead the world in enforcing the rules of the road if we firmly abide by those rules." This is truly the crux of Obama's argument: because we do not demonstrate moral leadership, other nations have no choice but to proliferate nuclear weapons. At the base of the argument, Obama is saying a world with nuclear weapons is our fault. "It's time to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse," he said. "It's time for America to lead." Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.261-262 , Aug 1, 2008 Seek the peace of a world without nuclear weapons This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The Cold War superpowers came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the furthe spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons. Source: Speech in Berlin, in Change We Can Believe In, p.267-8 , Jul 24, 2008 2007: With Hagel, introduced nuclear nonproliferation bill We must once again convince the world that America has the clear intention of fulfilling the nuclear disarmament commitments that we have made. Building a new global nuclear consensus is the only way to achieve lasting solutions to challenges such as Iran's nuclear ambition. Last summer, Senator Barack Obama and I introduced comprehensive nuclear nonproliferation legislation. Among other things, our bill would provide funding for an international fuel bank that would be administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This fuel bank has the potential to be a critical mechanism to help reduce the demand for sensitive nuclear technologies that could be used to produce nuclear weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. Our bill would also provide funding to enable the United States to work with other countries to develop the technology to identify sources of nuclear material. If Iran's nuclear intentions prove to be peaceful, as its leaders claim, this bill can put that to the test. Source: Our Next Chapter, by Chuck Hagel, p. 92-93 , Mar 25, 2008 Pursue goal of a world without nuclear weapons 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 th development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and expand globally the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles. Source: Campaign booklet, “Blueprint for Change”, p. 50-55 , Feb 2, 2008 Rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy I’ve worked on nuclear proliferation in the Senate, to improve interdiction of potentially nuclear materials. It is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy, something that this administration has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example, and would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job. Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate , Jan 6, 2008 2006: Obama-Lugar bill restricted conventional weapons Obama worked with Richard Lugar (R-IN) to pass legislation to help secure dangerous conventional weapons, especially from the former Soviet Union. In Dec. 2006, the Senate passed the Lugar-Obama bill to restrict the global spread of conventional weapons. Obama noted, “The Lugar-Obama initiative will help other nations find and eliminate the type of conventional weapons that have been used against our own soldiers in Iraq and sought by terrorists all over the world.” Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.160 , Oct 30, 2007 2005: Passed bill to reduce conventional weapon stockpiles Obama’s greatest legislative success was teaming with Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana on a bill that expanded US cooperation to reduce stockpiles of conventional weapons and expanded the State Department’s ability to interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction. In the spring of 2005, Obama had traveled to Russia with Lugar to inspect nuclear weapons stockpiles. Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.313 , Aug 14, 2007 Protecting nuclear power plants is of utmost importance We have utterly failed to deal with what may be one of the most significant potential terror threats to this country, and that is how we protect our chemical plants across the nation. These plants are stationary weapons of mass destruction spread across the country. Their security is light, their facilities are easily entered, and their contents are deadly. Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p.160 , Mar 27, 2007 Rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty We would obviously have to retaliate against anybody who struck American soil, whether it was nuclear or not. It would be a much more profound issue if it were nuclear weapons. That’s why it’s so important for us to rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that has fallen apart under this administration. We have not made a commitment to work with the Russians to reduce our own nuclear stockpiles. That has weakened our capacity to pressure other countries to give up nuclear technology. We have not locked down the loose nuclear weapons that are out there right now. These are all things that we should be taking leadership on. Part of what we need to do in changing our foreign policy is not just end the war in Iraq; we have to change the mindset that ignores long-term threats and engages in the sorts of actions that are not making us safe over the long term. Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate , Jan 6, 2006 Increase funding to decommission Russian nukes More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia still has more nearly 20,000 nuclear weapons and enough nuclear material to produce 50,000 more. At the current rate of spending, it will take 13 years to secure all the potential bomb material from the old Soviet Republic. We should increase funding to do it in four years. We must also strengthen the existing Non-Proliferation Treaty, and lead in the efforts to prevent countries with the proven capability to build WMDs from doing so. Source: Press Release, “Renewal of American Leadership ” , Jul 12, 2004 Barack Obama on Terrorism We have brought 9-11 planners to justice ROMNEY: I don't see our influence growing around the world. I see our influence receding, in part because of the failure of the president. OBAMA: Governor, the problem is, on a whole range of issues, you've been all over the map. When it comes to going after Osama bin Laden, you said, "well, any president would make that call." But when you were a candidate in 2008--as I was--I said, "if I got bin Laden in our sights, I would take that shot;" you said "we shouldn't move heaven and earth to get one man," and you said we should ask Pakistan for permission. And if we had asked Pakistan for permission, we would not have gotten it. And it was worth moving heaven and earth to get him. You know, after we killed bin Laden, I was at Ground Zero for a memorial. By finally getting bin Laden, that brought some closure to me. And when we do things like that, when we bring those who have harmed us to justice, that sends a message to the world. Source: Third Obama-Romney 2012 Presidential debate , Oct 22, 2012 Remain vigilant & focus forcefully on groups like al Qaeda Q: The White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Was Iran, or al Qaeda behind organizing the protests [which led to the American embassy attacks]? A: Well, we're still doing an investigation. The natural protests that arose were used as an excuse by extremists to harm US interests. We have to remain vigilant. Look, when I came into office I said I would end the war in Iraq--and I did. I said that we would begin transitioning in Afghanistan. But what I also said was we're going to have to focus narrowly and forcefully on groups like al Qaeda. Those forces have not gone away. We've decimated al Qaeda's top leadership in the border regions around Pakistan, but in Yemen, in Libya--increasingly in places like Syria-- what you see is these elements that don't have the same capacity that a bin Laden or core al Qaeda had, but can still cause a lot of damage, and we've got to make sure that we remain vigilant and are focused on preventing them from doing us any harm. Source: Obama-Romney interviews by Univision Noticias (Spanish News) , Sep 19, 2012 OpEd: Failed promise to close Guantanamo loses left votes Obama won a lot of the Left votes by promising to close Guantanamo and by claiming to be the anti-war candidate. But Guantanamo still operates and the American involvement in wars has escalated in Afghanistan and Libya. Some on the Left are so upset that they want someone with Left credibility to run against Obama in the primaries. If many on the Left abandon Obama, he will lose a lot of fundraising sources. And he might lose enough votes in the swing states and lose the general election. Source: Why She Will Win, by Ron Paul Jones, p. 17 , Jun 8, 2011 OpEd: torture ban just repositions torture to outside US What the Obama [ban on torture] ostensibly knocks off is that small percentage of torture now done by Americans while retaining the overwhelming bulk of the system's torture, which is done by foreigners under US patronage. Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen not to do so. Obama did not shut down the practice of torture, but merely repositioned it, restoring it to the norm, a matter of indifference to the victims. Since Vietnam, the US has mainly seen its torture done for it by proxy--paying, arming, training and guiding foreigners doing it, but usually being careful to keep Americas at least one discreet step removed. Obama's band doesn't even prohibit direct torture by Americans outside environments of 'armed conflict,' which is where much torture happens anyway since many repressive regimes aren't in armed conflict. His is a return to the status quo ante, the torture regime of Ford through Clinton. Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 260-261 , Jun 1, 2010 No habeas right for detainees outside of US The Boumediene ruling [concluded in 2008] that prisoners in Guantanamo are entitled to the right of habeas corpus. The Bush administration decided to ship prisoners in Guantanamo to Bagram, in Afghanistan, as though it was some sort of a silly game--fly your abducted prisoners to Guantanamo and they have constitutional rights, but fly them instead to Bagram and you can disappear them forever with no judicial process." Obama adopted the Bush position, "filing a brief in federal court that, in two sentences, declared that it embraced the most extremist Bush theory on this issue." Obama's argument amounts to saying that prisoners flown to Bagram from anywhere in the world--in the case in question, Yemenis and Tunisians captured in Thailand and UAE--"can be imprisoned indefinitely with no rights of any kind--as long as they are kept in Bagram rather than Guantanamo.". [This was] in radical violation of Obama's campaign promises and earlier stands." Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.262-263 , Jun 1, 2010 Moving Gitmo to Illinois was logistically & legally complex The real issue [with closing Gitmo] was the difference between a political perspective and a legal one. Why couldn't the legal counsel's office figure out some way to keep those pesky resettlement questions out of Obama's face? The backdrop was the administration's failure to fulfill one of Obama's most widely publicized promises: closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay by Jan. 1, 2010. Early in the transition a group of lawyers wrote a report for Obama explaining how legally and logistically complex shutting the prison would be. After the Inauguration the Pentagon reported that finding a site in the US for the prisoners was difficult. When the government finally settled on an underused federal prison in Thomson, Illinois, planners learned that it would take many months to renovate. Without sustained presidential attention and someone assigned exclusively to Gitmo, closing the prison would be tough. For months, Obama simply let one of his signature campaign promises slip between the cracks. Source: The Promise: Obama Year One, by Jonathan Alter, p.340-341 , May 18, 2010 OpEd: Promised to close Guantanamo but it's still open The litany of broken Obama promises is amazing: He promised to get us out of Iraq. But we're still there. He promised cap and trade. But he hasn't produced. He said he'd end Don't Ask, Don't Tell and allow gays in the military. But he hasn't. He promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. But he has. He said he'd bring down the deficit. But he's tripled it. He promised to close Guantanamo. But it's still open for business. He said he'd fix Social Security. But he hasn't touched it. He promised to preserve Medicare. But he cut it by $500 billion. He said he'd reform immigration law. But it's the same as when he took office. He told Big Labor he'd make it possible to organize new unions without a secret ballot. But that bill died. You may disagree with many of these promises. You're probably glad they failed. But don't let that stop you from using them to defeat Obama. Source: Take Back America, by Dick Morris, p.262 , Apr 13, 2010 Hundreds of al Qaeda have been captured last year We've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships [abroad].. And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed--far more than in 2008. Source: 2010 State of the Union Address , Jan 27, 2010 OpEd: accused of palling around with terrorist Bill Ayers I spoke on the trail about Obama's associations with questionable characters, including Obama's long association with Bill Ayers. A student radical and member of the Weather Underground, Ayers had helped bomb New York City police headquarters in 1970, th Capitol Building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. When Ayer's memoir, "Fugitive Days" was published in 2001, he said, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." In a horrible irony, that interview with Ayers hit newsstands on the morning of September 11, 2001. Disgustingly, Ayers posed in the article stomping on our American flag. In relation to the breaking news about the friendship between Obama and the unrepentant domestic terrorist, headquarters issued an approved sound bite about Obama "palling around with terrorists," and I was happy to be the one to deliver it. Obama had kicked off his political career in Ayers's living room; that sound bite was written into a rally speech. Source: Going Rogue, by Sarah Palin, p.306-307 , Nov 17, 2009 Strategic issue is where to send & how to fund our troops McCAIN: Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic & a strategy. Obama, who after promising not to vote to cut off funds for the troops, did the incredible thing of voting to cut off the funds for the troops. OBAMA: McCain opposed funding for troops in legislation that had a timetable, because he didn’t believe in a timetable. I opposed funding a mission that had no timetable, and was open- ended, giving a blank check to George Bush. I understand the difference between tactics & strategy. And the strategic question that the president has to ask is not whether or not we are employing a particular approach in the country once we have made the decision to be there. The question is, was this wise? We have seen Afghanistan deteriorate. We need more troops there. We should end [the Iraq] war responsibly. We should do it in phases. In 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain , Sep 26, 2008 Disrupting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan prevented another 9/11 Q: Why do you think there has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11? A: Well, I think that the initial invasion into Afghanistan disrupted al Qaeda. And that was the right thing to do. I mean, we had to knock out those safe havens. And that, I think, weakened them. We did some work in strengthening our homeland security apparatus here. Obviously, the average person knows that when they go to the airport, because they are goin’ through taking off their shoes & all that. Q: As president, how would you prevent another 9/11 from happening? A: The problem is when we got distracted by Iraq. We gave al Qaeda time to reconstitute itself. My hope obviously is that we continue to prevent them from being able to move at all out of those safe havens. But our intelligence indicates the likelihood of a potential attack is significantly higher now. And that has been an enormous mistake that I intend to correct when I’m president. Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric , Sep 17, 2008 Islam in 1970s was not opposed to West & rule of law Q: Do you believe that Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of the 21st century? A: I think the problems of terrorism and groups that are resisting modernity, whether because of their ethnic identities or religious identities, and the fact that they can be driven into extremist ideologies, is one of the severe threats that we face. I don’t think it’s the only threat that we face. Q: But how do you view the problem within Islam? As somebody who saw it in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world? A: When I lived in Indonesia, in the late ‘60s & early ‘70s, Indonesia was never the same culture as the Arab Middle East. The brand of Islam was always different.But around the world, there was not the sense that Islam was inherently opposed to the West, or inherently opposed to modern life, or inherently opposed to universal traditions like rule of law. And now in Indonesia, you see some of those extremist elements. Source: CNN Late Edition: 2008 presidential series on Zakaria’s GPS , Jul 13, 2008 Go after al Qaeda but also shrink pool of potential recruits The way we have to approach the problem of Islamic extremism, is we have to hunt down those who would resort to violence to move their ideology forward. We should be going after al Qaeda and those networks fiercely and effectively. But what we also want to do is to shrink the pool of potential recruits. And that involves engaging the Islamic world rather than vilifying it, and making sure that we understand that not only are those in Islam who would resort to violence a tiny fraction of the Islamic world, but that also, the Islamic world itself is diverse. And that lumping together Shia extremists with Sunni extremists, assuming that Persian culture is the same as Arab culture, that those kinds of errors in lumping Islam together result in us not only being less effective in hunting down and isolating terrorists, but also in alienating what need to be our long-term allies on a whole host of issues. Source: CNN Late Edition: 2008 presidential series on Zakaria’s GPS , Jul 13, 2008 No torture; no renditions; no operating out of fear Q: A disturbing Justice Department memo emerged saying that not even interrogation methods that “shock the conscience” would be considered torture nor would they be considered illegal if they had been authorized by the president. Comments? A: We have to be clear and unequivocal. We do not torture, period. Our government does not torture. That should be our position. That will be my position as president. That includes renditions. We don’t farm out torture. We don’t subcontract torture. Torture does not end up yielding good information--most intelligence officers agree with that--but it is also important for our long-term security to send a message to the world that we will lead not just with our military might but we are going to lead with our values and our ideals. That we are not a nation that gives away our civil liberties simply because we’re scared. We’re always at our worst when we’re fearful. Fear is a bad counsel and I want to operate out of hope and out of faith. Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College , Apr 13, 2008 Al Qaida is stronger now than in 2001 as Iraq distracted us We are seeing Al Qaida stronger now than at any time since 2001. That is a significant threat that has to be dealt with. Because we have been distracted, we have ended up seeing a more dangerous situation, and so we are not--this is not just a matter of who is right and who is wrong about having gone to war or the surge. It’s also, how do we deal with the future threats? And as long as we’re bogged down in Iraq, we are not going to be able to deal with those future threats. Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate , Jan 21, 2008 No presidential power for secret surveillance Q: Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes? A: The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes. Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power , Dec 20, 2007 No holding US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants Q: Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants? A: No. I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants. Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power , Dec 20, 2007 Congress decides what constitutes torture, not president Q: If Congress prohibits a specific interrogation technique, can the president instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute? A: No. The President is not above the law, and not entitled to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions for all US Government personnel and contractors. Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power , Dec 20, 2007 No torture; defiance of FISA; no military commissions Q: Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? A: I reject the view that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority. Some further points: The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional. Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional. The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea. The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea. Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power , Dec 20, 2007 Restore habeas corpus to reach Muslims abroad If you were a Muslim overseas listening to Rudy Giuliani say “they are coming here to try to kill you,” which is the tenor of many of the speeches that are delivered by Republicans, you would get an impression that they are not interested in talking and resolving issues peacefully. Now, what we need to do [to reach Muslims] is we need to close Guantanamo. We need to restore habeas corpus. We need to send a strong signal that we are going to talk directly to not just our friends but also to our enemies. Source: 2007 Democratic radio debate on NPR , Dec 13, 2007 Don’t allow our politics to be driven by fear of terrorism A statement most Democrats will make only in progressive precincts, the one he couldn’t quite get out when asked what he would do if American cities were attacked: “The threat that we face now is nowhere near as dire as it was in the Cold War. We shouldn’t allow our politics to be driven by the fear of terrorism.” Source: The Contenders, by Laura Flanders, p. 82 , Nov 11, 2007 If attacked, first help victims then prevent further attacks At the First Democratic debate on April 26, 2007, the moderator asked how would you change the US military stance overseas if we learned that two US cities were hit by al-Qaeda terrorists. Obama responded, “Well, first thing we’d have to do is make sure that we’ve got an effective emergency response. The second thing is to make sure we’ve got good intelligence, A, to find out that we don’t have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and B, to find out do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.“ Later in the debate, Obama added, ”We have genuine enemies out there that have to be hunted down; networks have to be dismantled. There is no contradiction between us intelligently using our military and, in some cases, lethal force to take out terrorists and, at the same time, building the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been lacking over the last six years.“ Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p. 40-41 , Oct 30, 2007 America cannot sanction torture; no loopholes or exceptions America cannot sanction torture. It’s a very straightforward principle, and one that we should abide by. Now, I will do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals & emergency situations & I will make that judgment at that time. But what we cannot do is have the president state, as a matter of policy, that there is a loophole or an exception where we would sanction torture. I think that diminishes us and it sends the wrong message to the world. Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College , Sep 6, 2007 We are no safer now than we were after 9/11 Q: What do you think we’re not prepared for? A: I don’t believe that we are safer now than we were after 9/11 because we have made a series of terrible decisions in our foreign policy. We went into Iraq, a war that we should have never authorized and should not have been waged. It has fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment. It has, more importantly, allowed us to neglect the situation in Afghanistan. We know right now that al Qaeda is hiding in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum , Aug 8, 2007 Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus Why don’t we close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus, because that’s how we lead, not with the might of our military, but the power of our ideals and the power of our values. It’s time to show the world we’re not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. We’re not a country that runs prisons which locks people away without ever telling them why they’re there or what they’re charged with. We’re not a country which preaches compassion to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of major American cities. That’s not who we are. We’re America. We’re a nation that liberated a continent from a mad man, that lifted ourselves from the depths of depression, that won civil rights and women’s rights and voting rights for all our people. We’re the beacon that has led generations of weary travelers to find opportunity and liberty and hope on our doorstep. That’s who we are. Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference , Jun 19, 2007 Homeland security must protect citizens, not intrude on them Every democracy is tested when it is faced with a serious threat. As a nation we have to find the right balance between privacy and security, between executive authority to face threats and uncontrolled power. What protects us are the procedures we put in place to protect that balance, namely judicial warrants and congressional review. These are concrete safeguards to make sure surveillance hasn’t gone too far. Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p. 99 , Mar 27, 2007 Personal privacy must be protected even in terrorism age Americans fought a revolution in part over the right to be free from unreasonable searches, to ensure that our government couldn’t come knocking in the middle of the night for no reason. We need to find a way forward to make sure that we [stop] terrorists while protecting the privacy and liberty of innocent Americans. Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p.132 , Mar 27, 2007 Battling terrorism must go beyond belligerence vs. isolation We know that the battle against terrorism is at once an armed struggle and a contest of ideas, that our long-term security depends on a judicious projection of military power and increased cooperation with other nations, and that addressing the problems of global poverty and failed states is vital to our nation’s interests rather than just a matter of charity. But follow most of our foreign policy debates, and you might believe that we have only two choices--belligerence or isolationism. Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 23 , Oct 1, 2006 Going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion Q: You stand by your statement that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after al Qaeda, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Isn’t that essentially the Bush doctrine? We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis? A: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that. Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate , Jan 6, 2006 Balance domestic intelligence reform with civil liberty risk [The US should] strengthen and improve intelligence capabilities. We must reform our domestic intelligence capabilities in a manner that balances the risks of impeding on the civil liberties of our citizens and increase international cooperation on all fronts. We should also give the Director of Intelligence the authority he or she needs over budget and personnel to be effective and accountable. Source: Press Release, “Renewal of American Leadership ” , Jul 12, 2004 Barack Obama on Veterans Unacceptable to have veterans drive 250 miles to a hospital The incredible burden that has been placed on the American people, starting with military families, and the fact that we still are not doing right by our veterans, that we still don’t honor their service, that there are still homeless veterans, that we still don’t screen properly for post-traumatic stress disorder and make sure that they’re getting mental services that they need, that we are still having veterans in south Texas have to drive 250 miles to access a veterans hospital. That’s unacceptable. Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin , Feb 21, 2008 Improve veterans’ mental health treatment & PTSD benefits AT A GLANCE Improved Mental Health Treatment: Obama will improve mental health treatment for troops and veterans suffering from combat-related psychological injuries. THE PROBLEM There is a Shortage of Care for PTSD: Veterans are coming home with record levels of combat stress, but we are not adequately providing for them. OBAMA’S PLAN Improve Mental Health Treatment: Obama will improve mental health care at every stage of military service. He will recruit more health professionals, improve screening, offer more support to families and make PTSD benefits claims fairer. OBAMA RECORD Obama led a bipartisan effort in the Senate to try to halt the military’s unfair practice of discharging service members for having a service-connected psychological injury. Obama passed legislation to stop a VA review of closed PTSD cases that could have led to a reduction in veterans’ benefits. Source: Campaign booklet, “Blueprint for Change”, p. 56-57 , Feb 2, 2008 Support veterans via the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act Following reports of neglect at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Obama introduced the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act. The bill improves the condition of troop housing, streamlines the process for seeking care, provides greater information to recovering servicemembers, requires the hiring of more caseworkers, and provides more support to family members who care for injured troops: Sheltering and Rehabilitating Homeless Veterans One in three homeless males is a veteran. Fighting for Disability Benefits Obama forced the VA to notify veterans about their right to review past claims. Treating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) & Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Easing the Transition of Veterans into Civilian Life Obama’s legislation would require that the military provide new veterans with electronic medical and service records & monitor health trends. Source: 2008 Presidential campaign website, BarackObama.com “Flyers” , Aug 26, 2007 Address the deficiencies in the VA system We don’t have a full-service VA system, so a lot of troops that have been injured are having to travel elsewhere, and that’s something that we have to address. There are important efficiencies that we can obtain by having a VA hospital system; for example, prescription drugs. But we have to have a VA that serves everybody. In some rural communities that the veterans don’t have access to the services needed, we’ve got to make sure that they do have the option for a private hospital that is close by Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College , Jun 3, 2007 The cost of the Iraq war should not shortchange VA benefits We tried to tell the Bush administration you need an additional $2 billion to provide services to troops who are coming home. They said no. Everything’s covered. Six months through, they had to come back and say, it turns out we did need it after all. Part of the reason is because they have been trying to keep the costs down of this war and have not fully factored in the sacred obligation that we have to make sure that every single veteran has the services that they need. Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College , Jun 3, 2007 Make sure the outpatient facilities work for veterans I visited Walter Reed repeatedly. Typically what would happen is we would go to visit troops in the medical facility, and people will acknowledge that the medical facility at Walter Reed does great work. Unfortunately, it turned out that the outpatient facilities were disastrous. That’s why we now have legislation to make sure not only that we’re just painting over some of the mold in there, but also making it easier for families & veterans to negotiate the system once they’re outpatients. Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College , Jun 3, 2007 Comprehensive plan for our veterans healthcare Washington says that they support the troops. They give long speeches about valor and sacrifice. But when it comes time to sending our troops into battle with the proper equipment and ensure that veterans have what they need when they get home, they don’t do anything except slap a yellow ribbon on the back of their SUV. That’s how come our men and women have to use scrap metal to protect their Humvees. Our veterans end up living among mice and mold. They stare at stacks of paperwork. They thought they left the frontline in Iraq but they came home to a new frontline of red tape and bureaucracy. This is unacceptable. When our veterans come home, I don’t want them crawling around a dumpster for a meal or a box for shelter. I don’t want them drowning in whiskey to silence the PTSD. I don’t want that for our veterans. We know they deserve more. So let’s make a promise today--and say that, right here and right now, is when we begin to put together a comprehensive plan for our veterans. Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC , Mar 14, 2007 Barack Obama on Voting Record FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it Clinton took direct aim at Obama and connects fairly solidly: “You said you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you voted for it.” Clinton is correct to say that Obama opposed the Patriot Act during his run for the Senate. She’s relying on a 2003 Illinois National Organization for Women questionnaire in which Obama wrote that he would vote to “repeal the Patriot Act” or replace it with a “new, carefully crafted proposal.” When it came time to reauthorize the law in 2005, though, Obama voted in favor of it. He started out opposing it: In Dec. 2005, Obama voted against ending debate--a position equivalent to declaring a lack of support for the measure. Then in February of that year, Obama said on the floor that he would support the Patriot Act’s reauthorization. In March 2006, Obama both voted for cloture and for the Patriot Act reauthorization conference report. Clinton, by the way, followed exactly the same path on the 2005 bill, from speaking in opposition to voting for it. Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic debate , Jan 5, 2008 Wrote law to secure & destroy world’s deadliest weapons I’ve worked with GOP Sen. Dick Lugar to pass a law that will secure and destroy some of the world’s deadliest, unguarded weapons. We can work together to track terrorists down with a stronger military, we can tighten the net around their finances, and w can improve our intelligence capabilities. But let us also understand that ultimate victory against our enemies will come only by rebuilding our alliances and exporting those ideals that bring hope and opportunity to millions around the globe. Source: Speech in Springfield, in Change We Can Believe In, p.199 , Feb 10, 2007 Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. Vote on passage of S.1927, the Protect America Act: Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to state that nothing under its definition of "electronic surveillance" should encompass surveillance directed at any person reasonably believed to be located outside the US. A modified version, S.2011, failed; it called for amending FISA to provide that a court order is not required for the electronic surveillance of communication between foreign persons who are not located within the US for collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the US or the surveillance device is located within the US. Opponents recommend voting NO because: Sen. LEVIN: Both bills cure the problem that exists: Our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities who are physically located in foreign countries. Now, what are the major differences? Our bill (S2011) is limited to foreign targets limited overseas, unlike the Bond bill (S1927), which does not have that key limitation and which very clearly applies to US citizens overseas. Our bill does not. Now, if there is an incidental access to US citizens, we obviously will permit that. But the Bond bill goes beyond that, citing "any person." It does not say a "foreign person." We avoid getting to the communications of Americans. There you have to go for a warrant. Proponents support voting YES because: Sen. LIEBERMAN: I will vote for the Bond proposal (S1927) because we are at war, & there is increased terrorist activity. We have a crisis. This proposal will allow us to gather intelligence information on that enemy we otherwise would not gather. This is not the time for striving for legislative perfection. Let us not strive for perfection. Let us put national security first. We are going to have 6 months to reason together to find something better. Reference: Protect America Act; Bill S.1927 ; vote number 2007-309 on Aug 3, 2007 Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. Vote on an amendment, SA2032, which amends HR1585, the Defense Authorization bill: To limit the deployment of a unit or individual of the Armed Forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom to no more than 12 consecutive months; and to limit Marine Corps deployment to no more than 7 consecutive months; except in time of national emergency. Proponents support voting YES because: Sen. HAGEL: The war in Iraq has pushed the US Army to the breaking point. When we deploy our military, we have an obligation to ensure that our troops are rested, ready, prepared, fully trained, and fully equipped. Today's Armed Forces are being deployed repeatedly for increasing periods of time. This is quickly wearing down the troops and their families, impacting the mental and physical health of our troops. Further, these deployments are affecting the recruiting and retention rates of the military. For example, the Army reached only a little over 80% of its recruiting goal for June. This is the second month in a row that the Army has failed to recruit the number of new soldiers needed to fill the ranks. And this is with $1 billion in large cash bonus incentives. Opponents recommend voting NO because: Sen. KYL: Time in theater and dwell times should be a goal, rather than an absolute fixed requirement that becomes the policy of the US military determined by congressional action. By mandating a certain policy for deployment time or dwell time, the Congress is engaged in the most explicit micromanaging of what is obviously a function for the Commander in Chief and military commanders to perform. This is not something Members of Congress are knowledgeable about or would have the ability to dictate in any responsible fashion. It also would be unconstitutional. Clearly, the dwell times of troops or the amount of time in theater is an obligation of the Commander in Chief, not something for the Congress to determine. Reference: Hagel Amendment to Defense Authorization Bill; Bill SA2032 to HR1585 ; vote number 2007-243 on Jul 11, 2007 Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. Vote on passage of a bill to implement unfinished recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) to fight the war on terror more effectively: I: Improving Intelligence and Information Sharing within the Federal Government and with State, Local, and Tribal Governments II: Homeland Security Grants III: Communications Operability and Interoperability IV: Emergency Management Performance Grants Program V: Enhancing Security of International Travel VI: Privacy and Civil Liberties Matters VII: Enhanced Defenses Against Weapons of Mass Destruction VIII: Private Sector Preparedness IX: Transportation Security Planning and Information Sharing X: Incident Command System XI: Critical Infrastructure Protection XII: Congressional Oversight of Intelligence XIII: International Cooperation on Antiterrorism Technologies XIV: Transportation and Interoperable Communication XV: Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention XVII: 911 Modernization XIX: Advancement of Democratic Values Opponents recommend voting NO because: One of the authors of the 9/11 Commission report said, the President's announced strategy should be given a chance to succeed. That is what I think we should do, give this plan a chance to succeed. Our troops in theater, our commanders, and the Iraqi leaders all believe they can see early signs of success in this program, even though it has just begun, and they are cautiously optimistic that it can succeed. I think it would be unconscionable for the Congress, seeing the beginnings of success here, to then act in any way that would pull the rug out from under our troops and make it impossible for them to achieve their mission. Reference: Improving America's Security Act; Bill S. 4 ; vote number 2007-073 on Mar 13, 2007 Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. Sen. Specter's amendment would strike the provision regarding habeas review. The underlying bill authorizes trial by military commission for violations of the law of war. Excerpts from the Senate floor debate: Sen. GRAHAM [recommending NO]: The fundamental question for the Senate to answer when it comes to determining enemy combatant status is, Who should make that determination? Should that be a military decision or should it be a judicial decision? That is something our military should do. Sen. SPECTER [recommending YES]: My amendment would retain the constitutional right of habeas corpus for people detained at Guantanamo. The right of habeas corpus was established in the Magna Carta in 1215 when, in England, there was action taken against King John to establish a procedure to prevent illegal detention. What the bill seeks to do is to set back basic rights by some 900 years. This amendment would strike that provision and make certain that the constitutional right of habeas corpus is maintained. GRAHAM: Do we really want enemy prisoners to bring every lawsuit known to man against the people fighting the war and protecting us? No enemy prisoner should have access to Federal courts--a noncitizen, enemy combatant terrorist--to bring a lawsuit against those fighting on our behalf. No judge should have the ability to make a decision that has been historically reserved to the military. That does not make us safer. SPECTER: The US Constitution states that "Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." We do not have either rebellion or invasion, so it is a little hard for me to see, as a basic principle of constitutional law, how the Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus. GRAHAM: If the Supreme Court does say in the next round of legal appeals there is a constitutional right to habeas corpus by those detained at Guantanamo Bay, then Sen. Specter is absolutely right. Reference: Specter Amendment; Bill S.AMDT.5087 to S.3930 ; vote number 2006-255 on Sep 28, 2006 Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. Amendment to provide for congressional oversight of certain Central Intelligence Agency programs. The underlying bill S. 3930 authorizes trial by military commission for violations of the law of war. The amendment requires quarterly reports describing all CIA detention facilities; the name of each detainee; their suspected activities; & each interrogation technique authorized for use and guidelines on the use of each such technique. Opponents recommend voting NO because: I question the need for a very lengthy, detailed report every 3 months. We will probably see those reports leaked to the press. This amendment would spread out for the world--and especially for al-Qaida and its related organizations--precisely what interrogation techniques are going to be used. If we lay out, in an unclassified version, a description of the techniques by the Attorney General, that description will be in al-Qaida and Hezbollah and all of the other terrorist organizations' playbook. They will train their assets that: This is what you must be expected to do, and Allah wants you to resist these techniques. We are passing this bill so that we can detain people. If we catch someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, we have no way to hold him, no way to ask him the questions and get the information we need, because the uncertainty has brought the program to a close. It is vitally important to our security, and unfortunately this amendment would imperil it. Reference: Rockefeller Amendment; Bill S.AMDT.5095 to S.3930 ; vote number 2006-256 on Sep 28, 2006 Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is: A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes. Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because: Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers. The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected. We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents. Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act. Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006 Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. Vote to invoke cloture on a conference report that extends the authority of the FBI to conduct "roving wiretaps" and access business records. Voting YES would recommend, in effect, that the PATRIOT Act be extended through December 31, 2009, and would makes the provisions of the PATRIOT Act permanent. Voting NO would extend debate further, which would have the effect of NOT extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. Reference: Motion for Cloture of PATRIOT Act; Bill HR 3199 ; vote number 2005-358 on Dec 16, 2005 Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. Vote to adopt an amendment that makes US businesses and their subsidiaries liable to prosecution for dealing with foreign businesses which have links to terrorism or whose parent country supports terrorism. Voting YES would: Empower the President under the Trading with the Enemy Act to prohibit US businesses and their subsidiaries from transacting with foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism. Forbid US businesses and their subsidiaries from engaging in transactions with any foreign business whose parent country has been identified as a supporter of international terrorism. Require the President to publish a list of foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism, and bans US ownership or control of foreign businesses engaged in transactions with such businesses. Call for US businesses to disclose in their annual reports any ownership stake of at least 10% in a foreign business that is itself engaging in transactions with a proscribed foreign business. Reference: Stop Business with Terrorists Act of 2005; Bill S AMDT 1351 to S 1042 ; vote number 2005-203 on Jul 26, 2005 Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. Amendment intended to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents. Reference: State Homeland Security Grant Program Amendment; Bill S AMDT 220 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-64 on Mar 17, 2005 Sponsored bill for Iraq budget to be part of defense budget. Obama introduced requiring Iraq War budget be part of regular defense budget OnTheIssues.org Explanation: Since the start of both the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war, expenditures for those war have been voted for in "emergency supplemental spending bills," instead of in the normal defense spending bill. That implies that the expenditures are unexpectedly high, which may have been true in the early years of the war. This amendment requires regular budgeting for the Afghanistan & Iraq wars. OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require regular budgeting for ongoing military operations. EXCERPTS OF BILL: The President's budget for each fiscal year after 2007 shall include-- a request for funds for such fiscal year for ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq; an estimate of all funds expected to be required in that fiscal year for such operations; and a detailed justification of the funds requested. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote, 98-0, Vote Number: 170. Source: Defense Authorization Bill (S.AMDT.4242 to S.2766) 06-SP4242 on Jun 14, 2006 Improve mental health care benefits for returning veterans. Obama co-sponsored improving mental health care benefits for returning veterans Honoring Our Nation's Obligation to Returning Warriors Act (HONOR Warriors Act): House version is H.R.6268; Senate versions are S.2963 and S.3008. Legislative Summary: To improve and enhance the mental health care benefits available to members of the Armed Forces and veterans, to enhance counseling and other benefits available to survivors of members of the Armed Forces and veterans, and for other purposes. Scholarship program for education and training of behavioral health care specialists for vet centers. Eligibility of members of the armed forces who serve in operation Iraqi freedom or operation enduring freedom for counseling and services through vets centers. Restoration of authority of vets centers to provide referral and other assistance upon request to former members of the armed forces not authorized counseling. Treatment of suicides of certain former members of the armed forces as deaths in line of duty for purposes of eligibility of survivors for certain benefits. Grants for non-profit organizations for the provision of emotional support services to survivors of members of the armed forces and veterans. Pilot programs on awareness enhancement for members of the army regarding post traumatic stress disorder. Source: HONOR Warriors Act (H.R.6268) 08-H6268 on Jun 12, 2008 Study & address suicides among veterans. Obama co-sponsored studying & addressing suicides among veterans Veterans Suicide Study Act - Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs conduct a study to determine the number of veterans who have committed suicide between January 1, 1997, and the date of the enactment of this Act. Congress makes the following findings: Suicide among the veteran population is a serious problem. There is lack of information on the number of veterans who commit suicide each year. Study Required- The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall conduct a study to determine the number of veterans who have committed suicide between January 1, 1997 and the date of the enactment of this Act. Coordination- In carrying out the study, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall coordinate with the Secretary of Defense; Veterans Service Organizations; and States' public health offices and veterans agencies. Report to Congress- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to Congress a report on the study and the findings of the Secretary. Source: Veterans Suicide Study Act (S.2899/H.R.4204) 08-S2899 on Apr 22, 2008 Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror. Obama co-sponsored restoring habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror A bill to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sen. SPECTER. "I introduce this legislation, denominated the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act. Last year, in the Military Commissions Act, the constitutional right of habeas corpus was attempted to be abrogated. I say "attempted to be abrogated" because, in my legal judgment, that provision in the Act is unconstitutional. "It is hard to see how there can be legislation to eliminate the constitutional right to habeas corpus when the Constitution is explicit that habeas corpus may not be suspended except in time of invasion or rebellion, and we do not have either of those circumstances present, as was conceded by the advocates of the legislation last year to take away the right of habeas corpus. "We have had Supreme Court decisions which have made it plain that habeas corpus is available to non-citizens and that habeas corpus applies to territory controlled by the US, specifically, including Guantanamo. More recently, however, we had a decision in the US District Court applying the habeas corpus jurisdiction stripping provision of the Military Commissions Act, but I believe we will see the appellate courts strike down this legislative provision. "The New York Times had an extensive article on this subject, starting on the front page, last Sunday, and continuing on a full page on the back page about what is happening at Guantanamo. It is hard to see how in America, or in a jurisdiction controlled by the United States, these proceedings could substitute for even rudimentary due process of law." Source: Habeas Corpus Restoration Act (S.185/H.R.2826) 2007-S185 on Jun 22, 2007 Paperback: Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney On The Issues Establish global strategy to defeat al Qaeda. Obama co-sponsored establishing global strategy to defeat al Qaeda A bill to require a report setting forth the global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. Directs the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland Security to jointly submit to Congress a report setting forth U.S. global strategy to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. Source: S.2634 2008-S2634 on Feb 13, 2008 Click here for definitions & background information on Homeland Security. Click here for policy papers on Homeland Security. Click here for a profile of Barack Obama. Click here for Barack Obama on all the issues. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Barack Obama. Click here for AmericansElect responses by Barack Obama. Other candidates on Homeland Security: Barack Obama on other issues: Incumbents: Pres.Barack Obama V.P.Joe Biden GOP Candidates: Gov.Mitt Romney(MA) Rep.Paul Ryan(WI) Third Party Candidates: Mayor Rocky Anderson(J) Roseanne Barr(PF) Rep.Virgil Goode(C) Gov.Gary Johnson(L) Jill Stein(G) Andre Barnett(Ref.) GOP Withdrawals: Rep.Michele Bachmann(MN) Herman Cain(GA) Rep.Newt Gingrich(GA) Gov.Sarah Palin(AK) Rep.Ron Paul(TX) Gov.Tim Pawlenty(MN) Gov.Rick Perry(TX) Gov.Buddy Roemer(LA) Sen.Rick Santorum(PA) Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty Page last updated: Jan 22, 2013