National Press Club, Washington, DC | January 26, 2006
Good morning. I want to start by thanking American University and the Committee for Economic Development for hosting this panel today. It's an honor to be here and an honor to be among such great company.
Over one hundred years ago, at the dawn of the last century, the Industrial Revolution was beginning to take hold of America, creating unimaginable wealth in sprawling metropolises all across the country.
As factories multiplied and profits grew, the winnings of the new economy became more and more concentrated in the hands of a few robber barons, railroad tycoons and oil magnates. In the cities, power was maintained by a corrupt system of political machines and ward bosses. And in the state of New York, there existed a young governor who was determined to give government back to the people.
In just his first year, he had already begun to antagonize the state's political machine by attacking its system of favors and corporate giveaways. He also signed a workers' compensation bill, and even fired the superintendent of insurance for taking money from the very industry he was supposed to be regulating.
None of this sat too well with New York's powerful party boss, who finally plotted to get rid of the reform-minded governor by making sure he was nominated for the Vice Presidency that year.
What no one could have expected is that soon after the election, when President William McKinley was assassinated, the greatest fears of the corrupt machine bosses and powerbrokers came true when that former governor became President of the United States and went on to bust trusts, break up monopolies, and return the government to its people.
His name, of course, was Theodore Roosevelt. He was a Republican. And throughout his public life, he demonstrated a willingness to put party and politics aside in order to battle corruption and give people an open, honest government that would fight for their interests and uphold their values.
Today, we face a similar crisis of corruption. And I believe that we deserve similar leadership from those in power as well.
The American people are tired of a Washington that's only open to those with the most cash and the right connections. They're tired of a political process where the vote you cast isn't as important as the favors you can do. And they're tired of trusting us with their tax dollars when they see them spent on frivolous pet projects and corporate giveaways.
It's not that the games that are played in this town are new or surprising to the public. People are not naive to the existence of corruption and they know it has worn the face of both Republicans and Democrats over the years.
Moreover, the underlying issue of how extensively money influences politics is the original sin of everyone who's ever run for office - myself included. In order to get elected, we need to raise vast sums of money by meeting and dealing with people who are disproportionately wealthy. This is a problem that predates George Bush or Jack Abramoff, and I believe that a serious, bipartisan conversation about campaign finance reform is one that this town would do well to have in the months to come.
Yet, while people are familiar with these problems and they encompass both parties, I do think it's fair to say that the scandals we've seen under the current White House and Congress - both legal and illegal - are far worse than most of us could have imagined.
Think about it. In the past several months, we've seen politicians resigning for taking millions of dollars in bribes. We've seen the head of the White House procurement office arrested. We've seen some of our most powerful leaders of both the House and the Senate under federal investigation. We've seen the number of registered lobbyists in Washington double since George Bush came into office. And of course, we've seen the indictment of Jack Abramoff and his cronies.
Now, there's an argument made that somehow this is a bipartisan scandal. And the defense here is that everybody does it. Well, not everybody does it. And people shouldn't lump together those of us who have to raise funds to run campaigns but do so in a legal and ethical way with those who invite lobbyists in to write bad legislation. Those aren't equivalent, and we're not being partisan by pointing that out.
The fact is, since this Republican leadership has come to power, this kind of scandal has been the regular order of business in this town. For years now, they have openly bragged about stocking K Street lobbying firms with former leadership staffers to increase their power in Washington.
And yet, what is truly offensive to the American people about all of this goes far beyond people like Jack Abramoff. It's bigger than how much time he'll spend in jail or how many Republicans he'll turn in. Bigger than the K Street project and golf junkets to Scotland and lavish gifts for lawmakers.
What's truly offensive about these scandals is that they don't just lead to morally offensive conduct on the part of politicians; they lead to morally offensive legislation that hurts hardworking Americans.
Because when big oil companies are invited into the White House for secret energy meetings, it's no wonder they end up with billions in tax breaks while Americans still struggle to fill up their gas tanks and heat their homes.
When a Committee Chairman negotiates a Medicare bill at the same time he's negotiating for a job as the drug industry's lobbyist, it's hardly a surprise when that industry gets taxpayer-funded giveaways in the same bill that forbids seniors from bargaining for better drug prices.
When the people running Washington are accountable only to the special interests that fund their campaigns, of course they'll spend your tax dollars with reckless abandon; of course they'll load up bills with pet projects and drive us into deficit with the hope that no one will notice.
In 2004, over $2.1 billion was spent lobbying Congress. That amounts to over $4.8 million per Member of Congress. $4.8 million per member so that oil companies can still run our energy policy and pharmaceutical companies can still raise our drug prices and special interests can still waste our tax dollars on pet projects.
How much do you think the American people were able to spend on their Senator or Representative last year? How much money could the folks who can't fill up their gas tanks spend? How much could the seniors forced to choose between their medications and their groceries spend?
Not $4.8 million. Not even close.
This is the bigger story here, and this is why the recent scandals have shaken the American people's faith in a government that will look out for their interests and uphold their values.
The well-connected CEOs and hired guns on K Street who've helped write our laws have gotten what they paid for. They got all the tax breaks and loopholes and access they could ever want. But outside this city, the people who can't afford the high-priced lobbyists and don't want to break the law are wondering, "When is it our turn? When will someone in Washington stand up for me?"
We need to answer that call because let's face it - for the last few years, the people running Washington simply haven't. And while only some are to blame for the corruption that has plagued this city, all are responsible for fixing it.
Now, I've been asked by my caucus to take a role in lobbying reform - a role I'm proud to have. As many of you know I'm from Chicago - a city that hasn't always had the cleanest reputation when it comes to politics in this country. But during my first year in the Illinois State Senate, I helped lead the fight to pass Illinois' first ethics reform bill in twenty-five years. I hope we can do something like that here.
I realize there are many proposals floating around out there, and I also realize that our friends on the other side of the aisle have many of their own. I think that's commendable. In fact, I look forward to working in a bipartisan fashion to get a solid bill passed.
But this has to be a serious bill, and it has to go a long way toward correcting some of the most egregious offenses of the last few years. This is not a time for window-dressing or putting a band-aid on a problem just to score political points. This is a time for real reform, and I think the Democrats' Honest Leadership and Open Government Act does this by including provisions that so far the Republican proposals do not.
Real reform means making sure that Members of Congress and the Administration tell us when they're negotiating for jobs with industries they're responsible for regulating. That way we don't have people writing a drug bill during the day and meeting with pharmaceutical companies about their future salary at night.
Real reform means giving the public access to now-secret conference committee meetings and posting all bills on the Internet 24 hours before they're voted on, so the public can scrutinize what's in them.
Real reform means passing a bill that eliminates all gifts and meals from lobbyists, not just the expensive ones. If the we truly agree that having a lobbyist constantly pick up the tab for lunch can help influence legislation, then they'll have no problem changing their position so that the ban includes meals of any price.
Real reform means ending the no-bid contracts for well-connected contributors that have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in both Iraq and the Gulf Coast. And it means ending the practice of appointing your political buddies to positions they are wholly unqualified for. It means no more Brownies.
Finally, I think that real reform must include real oversight and accountability. Our bill sets up an independent Office of Public Integrity to keep an eye on lobbyists and to make sure they comply with the rules.
Now, personally, I think that there's an opportunity for us to go even further than some of the proposals that have come from both parties. And that's why last week I introduced the CLEAN UP Act, which would build on the Democrats' reform bill by giving the American public a clearer view of what's going on here in Washington.
See, one of the reasons why lobbyists like Abramoff and their allies in Congress have been able to manipulate the system is because most of their backroom deals are done in secret. Just the other day, we heard that because of pressure from health care industry lobbyists, Republican negotiators met behind closed doors and changed a budget bill to provide a $22 billion giveaway to HMOs -- $22 billion that would come right out of the pockets of American taxpayers. But of course, no one knew about the change until much later, and no lawmaker would admit to making it.
This is an outrage, and my bill would change this by identifying secret provisions like these that weren't in the original bill, and it would let the public know who put them there, so that special interest giveaways couldn't be slipped in at the last minute. My bill also would shine the spotlight on those pet projects that lawmakers sneak into every spending bill by requiring that they earmarks be posted on the internet 72 hours before they're voted on. The watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, recently endorsed this bill, and I hope that the Senate will take it up soon.
Let me close with one final point. Even if we pass a good bill and rid Washington of the Jack Abramoffs of the world, it's going to take much more than gift bans and lobbying reform to restore the public's faith in a government. It will take not simply a change in laws, but a change in attitudes.
To do this - to earn back that trust - to show people that we're working for them and looking out for their interests - we have to start acting like it.
That means instead of meeting with lobbyists, it's time to start meeting with some of the 45 million Americans with no health care.
Instead of finding cushy political jobs for unqualified buddies, it's time to start finding good-paying jobs for hardworking Americans trying to raise a family.
Instead of hitting up the big firms on K Street, it's time to start visiting the workers on Main Street who wonder how they'll send their kids to college or whether their pension will be around when they retire.
All these people have done to earn access and gain influence is cast their ballot. But in this democracy, it's all anyone should have to do.
A century ago, that young, reform-minded governor of New York who later became our twenty-sixth President gave us words about our country everyone in this town would do well to listen to today. Teddy Roosevelt said that,
"No republic can permanently endure when its politics are corrupt and base...we can afford to differ on the currency, the tariff, and foreign policy, but we cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty. There is a soul in the community, a soul in the nation, just exactly as their is a soul in the individual; and exactly as the individual hopelessly mars himself if he lets his conscience be dulled by the constant repetition of unworthy acts, so the nation will hopelessly blunt the popular conscience if it permits its public men continually to do acts which the nation in its heart of hearts knows are acts which cast discredit upon our whole public life."
I can only hope that in the weeks to come, the work we do here and in Congress will once again strengthen this nation's soul and bring credit back to our public life. Thank you.
Floor Statement on the Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr.
January 26, 2006
First off, let me congratulate Senators Specter and Leahy for moving yet another confirmation process along with a civility that speaks well of the Senate.
As we all know, there's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record. And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I'm deeply troubled.
I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. He's an intelligent man and an accomplished jurist. And there's no indication he's not a man of great character.
But when you look at his record - when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding American's individual rights.
If there is a case involving an employer and an employee and the Supreme Court has not given clear direction, he'll rule in favor of the employer. If there's a claim between prosecutors and defendants, if the Supreme Court has not provided a clear rule of decision, then he'll rule in favor of the state. He's rejected countless claims of employer discrimination, even refusing to give some plaintiffs a hearing for their case. He's refused to hold corporations accountable numerous times for dumping toxic chemicals into water supplies, even against the decisions of the EPA. He's overturned a jury verdict that found a company liable for being a monopoly when it had over 90% of the market share at the time.
It's not just his decisions in these individual cases that give me pause - it's that decisions like these are the rule for Samuel Alito, not the exception.
When it comes to how checks and balances in our system are supposed to operate - the balance of power between the Executive Branch, Congress, and the Judiciary, Judge Alito consistently sides with the notion that a President should not be constrained by either Congressional acts or the check of the Judiciary. He believes in the overarching power of the President to engage in whatever the President deems to be appropriate policy. As a consequence of this, I'm extraordinarily worried about how Judge Alito might approach issues like wiretapping, monitoring of emails, or other privacy concerns that we've seen surface over the last several months.
In sum, I've seen an extraordinarily consistent attitude on the part of Judge Alito that does not uphold the traditional role of the Supreme Court as a bastion of equality and justice for United States citizens.
Should he be confirmed, I hope that he proves me wrong. I hope that he shows the independence that I think is absolutely necessary in order for us to preserve our liberties and protect our citizens.
First off, let me congratulate Senators Specter and Leahy for moving yet another confirmation process along with a civility that speaks well of the Senate.
As we all know, there's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record. And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I'm deeply troubled.
I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. He's an intelligent man and an accomplished jurist. And there's no indication he's not a man of great character.
But when you look at his record - when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding American's individual rights.
If there is a case involving an employer and an employee and the Supreme Court has not given clear direction, he'll rule in favor of the employer. If there's a claim between prosecutors and defendants, if the Supreme Court has not provided a clear rule of decision, then he'll rule in favor of the state. He's rejected countless claims of employer discrimination, even refusing to give some plaintiffs a hearing for their case. He's refused to hold corporations accountable numerous times for dumping toxic chemicals into water supplies, even against the decisions of the EPA. He's overturned a jury verdict that found a company liable for being a monopoly when it had over 90% of the market share at the time.
It's not just his decisions in these individual cases that give me pause - it's that decisions like these are the rule for Samuel Alito, not the exception.
When it comes to how checks and balances in our system are supposed to operate - the balance of power between the Executive Branch, Congress, and the Judiciary, Judge Alito consistently sides with the notion that a President should not be constrained by either Congressional acts or the check of the Judiciary. He believes in the overarching power of the President to engage in whatever the President deems to be appropriate policy. As a consequence of this, I'm extraordinarily worried about how Judge Alito might approach issues like wiretapping, monitoring of emails, or other privacy concerns that we've seen surface over the last several months.
In sum, I've seen an extraordinarily consistent attitude on the part of Judge Alito that does not uphold the traditional role of the Supreme Court as a bastion of equality and justice for United States citizens.
Should he be confirmed, I hope that he proves me wrong. I hope that he shows the independence that I think is absolutely necessary in order for us to preserve our liberties and protect our citizens.
Barack Obama after his Meeting on Iraq with President Bush Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld
January 25, 2006
Complete Podcast Transcript
Hello everybody, this is Senator Barack Obama, and today is Wednesday, January 25, 2006. First of all, let me say that I am glad to be back from the Middle East. It was a wonderful trip, but it is good to be back in the States. It was especially good to hug my kids and my wife. So in case they're listening out there, I love them, and appreciate them. I also want to apologize for some of you who have listened to our last couple of podcasts. I know I was a little bit long in each of those pod casts, but when you're on the road talking into a cell phone, sometimes you loose track of time. I obviously had a lot of information I wanted to transmit. I appreciate you guys bearing with me. I will try to be as succinct as possible in the future.
Today I just had a meeting with George Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, Vice-President Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice, as well as some other officials, to discuss the situation in Iraq. Myself with eight other senators had a frank exchange of views as to what is taking place in Iraq, and how we can improve the situation there. As many of you know, this is a difficult issue for me because I was strongly opposed to the war; felt very strongly that once we were in, it would be very difficult to extract ourselves honorably. Now that we are in, I believe we need to bring our troops home as quickly as possible, but to do so in a way that does not precipitate all out civil war in Iraq.
As I indicated in my pod cast from Iraq, what was clear to me from my visit was that there is no military solution to the problem in Iraq, that the only way we're going to solve the situation there is for all the parties involved to arrive at a political accommodation. In the discussions that we had, I reiterated that view to the president. Ambassador Kaizaad participated in the meeting, as did General Casey. They gave us an update in terms of political situation there. One of the biggest concerns, as I may have mentioned in previous pod casts is that the police and defense security forces in Iraq in particular that are there have to be governed by non-sectarian leadership that the ministries of the interior and defense cannot be subject to the say of either Shia militias or Sunni militias. They have to operate professionally to generate trust from the general public. I also pointed out to the president what I heard in Iraq in regards to reconstruction. How vital it was to have competent institutions in place that would show the Iraqi people that a unified central government would work to improve their lives in a concrete way.
Another point of discussion had to do with troop levels. Obviously, I am extremely interested, as a number of the other Senators were, in figuring out when we can actually start brining troops home. We tried to press both the President and other members of the administration on how we can start reducing troop levels in a meaningful way. I do believe that some progress has been made as respect to training of Iraqi security forces. If in fact we are seeing more trained Iraqis, both in the police and security apparatus, then it seems to me that we should be able to start rotating some of our troops out. We didn't get any firms commitments from the president, but that is something that we will continue to press them on.
There was one final point that came up in discussion. The president insisted that regardless of whether or not agreed about going into Iraq, that all Americans had a stake in the success of Iraqi democracy. I agree with that proposition. I also shared with the President my belief, however, that bipartisanship can only work if the administration and political operatives within the White House are not using national security as a means of supporting chief political points. Obviously that is not something that is restrictive to Republicans; Democrats do it as well sometimes. But, the stakes are too high to suggest that Democrats who have critiqued the war effort, or have dissenting views are un-American. I am hopeful that out of this conversation there is some discussion and consideration of these issues within the White House.
So, thanks for listening, everybody. I appreciate it, and I will talk to you next week. We'll probably have some discussion, at that time, about the Alito nomination.
Complete Podcast Transcript
Hello everybody, this is Senator Barack Obama, and today is Wednesday, January 25, 2006. First of all, let me say that I am glad to be back from the Middle East. It was a wonderful trip, but it is good to be back in the States. It was especially good to hug my kids and my wife. So in case they're listening out there, I love them, and appreciate them. I also want to apologize for some of you who have listened to our last couple of podcasts. I know I was a little bit long in each of those pod casts, but when you're on the road talking into a cell phone, sometimes you loose track of time. I obviously had a lot of information I wanted to transmit. I appreciate you guys bearing with me. I will try to be as succinct as possible in the future.
Today I just had a meeting with George Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, Vice-President Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice, as well as some other officials, to discuss the situation in Iraq. Myself with eight other senators had a frank exchange of views as to what is taking place in Iraq, and how we can improve the situation there. As many of you know, this is a difficult issue for me because I was strongly opposed to the war; felt very strongly that once we were in, it would be very difficult to extract ourselves honorably. Now that we are in, I believe we need to bring our troops home as quickly as possible, but to do so in a way that does not precipitate all out civil war in Iraq.
As I indicated in my pod cast from Iraq, what was clear to me from my visit was that there is no military solution to the problem in Iraq, that the only way we're going to solve the situation there is for all the parties involved to arrive at a political accommodation. In the discussions that we had, I reiterated that view to the president. Ambassador Kaizaad participated in the meeting, as did General Casey. They gave us an update in terms of political situation there. One of the biggest concerns, as I may have mentioned in previous pod casts is that the police and defense security forces in Iraq in particular that are there have to be governed by non-sectarian leadership that the ministries of the interior and defense cannot be subject to the say of either Shia militias or Sunni militias. They have to operate professionally to generate trust from the general public. I also pointed out to the president what I heard in Iraq in regards to reconstruction. How vital it was to have competent institutions in place that would show the Iraqi people that a unified central government would work to improve their lives in a concrete way.
Another point of discussion had to do with troop levels. Obviously, I am extremely interested, as a number of the other Senators were, in figuring out when we can actually start brining troops home. We tried to press both the President and other members of the administration on how we can start reducing troop levels in a meaningful way. I do believe that some progress has been made as respect to training of Iraqi security forces. If in fact we are seeing more trained Iraqis, both in the police and security apparatus, then it seems to me that we should be able to start rotating some of our troops out. We didn't get any firms commitments from the president, but that is something that we will continue to press them on.
There was one final point that came up in discussion. The president insisted that regardless of whether or not agreed about going into Iraq, that all Americans had a stake in the success of Iraqi democracy. I agree with that proposition. I also shared with the President my belief, however, that bipartisanship can only work if the administration and political operatives within the White House are not using national security as a means of supporting chief political points. Obviously that is not something that is restrictive to Republicans; Democrats do it as well sometimes. But, the stakes are too high to suggest that Democrats who have critiqued the war effort, or have dissenting views are un-American. I am hopeful that out of this conversation there is some discussion and consideration of these issues within the White House.
So, thanks for listening, everybody. I appreciate it, and I will talk to you next week. We'll probably have some discussion, at that time, about the Alito nomination.
Honest Leadership and Open Government
January 18, 2006
As most of you know, I'm from Chicago - a city that hasn't always had the cleanest reputation when it comes to politics in this country. In fact, one of the most famous moments in Chicago political life came back in the 50s, when one of Chicago's old-time ward bosses, a guy named Paddy Bauer, was reported to have danced on his chair after the Chicago machine defeated a reform candidate and shouted out for the entire chamber to hear, that "Chicago ain't ready for reform."
I stand here today with my colleagues to say that the American people are ready for reform.
In fact, the American people think reform is long overdue.
Now, let me say at the outset that none of us claim that the Democrats have a monopoly on virtue. Moreover, political corruption is not unique to Washington. During my first year in the Illinois State Senate, I helped lead the fight to pass Illinois' first ethics reform bill in twenty-five years - in part to address some of the questionable practices that were going on in Springfield.
But I think it's fair to say that the scandals that we've seen, both legal and illegal, under the current White House and Congress, are far worse than most of us could have imagined.
Americans may have grown accustomed to big money and special interests exerting too much influence in Washington, but even they have been shocked by what appears to be a systematic takeover of our democracy by high-priced lobbyists.
Think about it. In the past several months, we've seen politicians resigning for taking millions of dollars in bribes.
We've seen the head of the White House procurement office arrested. We've seen some of our most powerful leaders of both the House and the Senate under federal investigation. We've seen the number of registered lobbyists in Washington double since George Bush came into office. And of course, we've seen the indictment of Jack Abramoff.
Over the past few days, there have been suggestions by Republican operatives and commentators that this is somehow a bipartisan scandal.
But let's be clear - while the Democrats certainly are not without sin when it comes to money in politics, Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon and the K Street project - these are Republican sins, and Republican sins alone.
What is also true is that the offenses involved go beyond Jack Abramoff. They are bigger than golf junkets to Scotland and lavish gifts for lawmakers.
The recent scandals have shaken the very foundation of the American people's faith in a government that will look out for their interests and uphold their values.
Because they don't just lead to morally offensive conduct on the part of politicians. They lead to morally offensive legislation that hurts hardworking Americans.
When big oil companies are invited into the White House for secret energy meetings, it's no wonder they end up with billions in tax breaks while Americans still struggle to fill up their gas tanks and heat their homes.
When the halls of Congress are filled with high-priced lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry - some who used to be members of Congress - it's hardly a surprise that they get taxpayer-funded giveaways in the same Medicare bill that forbids seniors from banding together to negotiate for better drug prices.
When the people running Washington are accountable only to the special interests that fund their campaigns, of course they'll spend your tax dollars with reckless abandon; of course they'll load up bills with pet projects and driving us into deficit with the hope that no one will notice.
At this point, the well-connected CEOs and hired guns on K Street who've helped write our laws have gotten what they paid for. They got all the tax breaks and loopholes and access they could ever want. But outside this city, the people who can't afford the high-priced lobbyists and don't want to break the law are wondering, "When is it our turn? When will someone in Washington stand up for me?"
We're here today to answer that call because let's face it - for the last few years, the people running Washington simply haven't. And while only some are to blame for the corruption that has plagued this city, all are responsible for fixing it.
That's why we're asking Republicans to put an end to the pay-to-play schemes and join us in passing the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which should go a long way toward correcting some of the most egregious offenses of the last few years.
You've already heard some of the key provisions in our proposal. It will prevent former Members of Congress from lobbying for legislation they were voting on just a year ago, it will provide more transparency to allow the public to see exactly what their representatives are doing in Washington, and it will end the gifts and trips that allowed people like Jack Abramoff to influence politicians.
I realize that our friends on the other side of the aisle have suddenly found religion on this topic, and I think that's commendable. In fact, I look forward to working in a bipartisan fashion to get a solid bill passed. But let me close by saying that it's going to take much more than gift bans and lobbying reform to restore the public's faith in a government of, by, and for the American people.
To earn back that trust - to show people that we're working for them and looking out for their interests - we have to start acting like it.
That means instead of meeting with lobbyists, it's time to start meeting with some of the 45 million Americans with no health care. Instead of hitting up the big firms on K Street, it's time to start visiting the workers on Main Street who are wondering how they'll send their kids to college or whether their pension will be around when they retire. All these people have done to earn access and gain influence is cast their ballot, but in this democracy, it's all anyone should have to do. The people running this town need to realize that, and if we hope to be real reformers, that's the place we need to start.
As most of you know, I'm from Chicago - a city that hasn't always had the cleanest reputation when it comes to politics in this country. In fact, one of the most famous moments in Chicago political life came back in the 50s, when one of Chicago's old-time ward bosses, a guy named Paddy Bauer, was reported to have danced on his chair after the Chicago machine defeated a reform candidate and shouted out for the entire chamber to hear, that "Chicago ain't ready for reform."
I stand here today with my colleagues to say that the American people are ready for reform.
In fact, the American people think reform is long overdue.
Now, let me say at the outset that none of us claim that the Democrats have a monopoly on virtue. Moreover, political corruption is not unique to Washington. During my first year in the Illinois State Senate, I helped lead the fight to pass Illinois' first ethics reform bill in twenty-five years - in part to address some of the questionable practices that were going on in Springfield.
But I think it's fair to say that the scandals that we've seen, both legal and illegal, under the current White House and Congress, are far worse than most of us could have imagined.
Americans may have grown accustomed to big money and special interests exerting too much influence in Washington, but even they have been shocked by what appears to be a systematic takeover of our democracy by high-priced lobbyists.
Think about it. In the past several months, we've seen politicians resigning for taking millions of dollars in bribes.
We've seen the head of the White House procurement office arrested. We've seen some of our most powerful leaders of both the House and the Senate under federal investigation. We've seen the number of registered lobbyists in Washington double since George Bush came into office. And of course, we've seen the indictment of Jack Abramoff.
Over the past few days, there have been suggestions by Republican operatives and commentators that this is somehow a bipartisan scandal.
But let's be clear - while the Democrats certainly are not without sin when it comes to money in politics, Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon and the K Street project - these are Republican sins, and Republican sins alone.
What is also true is that the offenses involved go beyond Jack Abramoff. They are bigger than golf junkets to Scotland and lavish gifts for lawmakers.
The recent scandals have shaken the very foundation of the American people's faith in a government that will look out for their interests and uphold their values.
Because they don't just lead to morally offensive conduct on the part of politicians. They lead to morally offensive legislation that hurts hardworking Americans.
When big oil companies are invited into the White House for secret energy meetings, it's no wonder they end up with billions in tax breaks while Americans still struggle to fill up their gas tanks and heat their homes.
When the halls of Congress are filled with high-priced lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry - some who used to be members of Congress - it's hardly a surprise that they get taxpayer-funded giveaways in the same Medicare bill that forbids seniors from banding together to negotiate for better drug prices.
When the people running Washington are accountable only to the special interests that fund their campaigns, of course they'll spend your tax dollars with reckless abandon; of course they'll load up bills with pet projects and driving us into deficit with the hope that no one will notice.
At this point, the well-connected CEOs and hired guns on K Street who've helped write our laws have gotten what they paid for. They got all the tax breaks and loopholes and access they could ever want. But outside this city, the people who can't afford the high-priced lobbyists and don't want to break the law are wondering, "When is it our turn? When will someone in Washington stand up for me?"
We're here today to answer that call because let's face it - for the last few years, the people running Washington simply haven't. And while only some are to blame for the corruption that has plagued this city, all are responsible for fixing it.
That's why we're asking Republicans to put an end to the pay-to-play schemes and join us in passing the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which should go a long way toward correcting some of the most egregious offenses of the last few years.
You've already heard some of the key provisions in our proposal. It will prevent former Members of Congress from lobbying for legislation they were voting on just a year ago, it will provide more transparency to allow the public to see exactly what their representatives are doing in Washington, and it will end the gifts and trips that allowed people like Jack Abramoff to influence politicians.
I realize that our friends on the other side of the aisle have suddenly found religion on this topic, and I think that's commendable. In fact, I look forward to working in a bipartisan fashion to get a solid bill passed. But let me close by saying that it's going to take much more than gift bans and lobbying reform to restore the public's faith in a government of, by, and for the American people.
To earn back that trust - to show people that we're working for them and looking out for their interests - we have to start acting like it.
That means instead of meeting with lobbyists, it's time to start meeting with some of the 45 million Americans with no health care. Instead of hitting up the big firms on K Street, it's time to start visiting the workers on Main Street who are wondering how they'll send their kids to college or whether their pension will be around when they retire. All these people have done to earn access and gain influence is cast their ballot, but in this democracy, it's all anyone should have to do. The people running this town need to realize that, and if we hope to be real reformers, that's the place we need to start.
From the Road: Israel and the Palestinian territories
January 14, 2006
Barack Obama at the end of his Middle East trip via Cell Phone from Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv
NOTE: The transcript abruptly ends – there is no goodbye – because Senator Obama’s cell phone connection dropped —
Hello, this is Barack Obama and it's the 14th of January. I'm sitting in an airport in Tel Aviv finishing up on a 9-day trip to the Middle East. Those of you who listened to the last Podcast know that I spent several days in Baghdad as well as Qatar, Kuwait and Jordan. For the last 5 days I've traveled throughout Israel and the Palestinian territories. My impressions - and for those of you who have been to the Middle East I think you'll recognize - that it's an extraordinarily complex place.
We had the opportunity on the first day to meet with a variety of members of Israel security forces and get briefings from them about the border situation and their concerns surrounding Iran as well as the prospects of elections both on the Palestinian side and the Israeli side.
This was a difficult time for the Israeli people - Prime Minister Sharon had just suffered a massive stroke and there was a lot of tumult in terms of political positioning. Fortunately at least on the Israeli side there seems to be a growing consensus represented by the Kadima party, that a centrist position that seeks to disengage from certain areas that are currently controlled by Israel while maintaining vigilance against terrorist attacks is the right approach.
I also had the opportunity then to fly from Tel Aviv all the way up north on a Blackhawk helicopter and see the borders of Israel and the separation barrier that has been erected. The separation barrier is a major bone of contention between Palestinians and Israelis at this point. In most portions it's a high fence that appears temporary and could be moved if the peace process and negotiations go forward. In some places it is a wall - a high barrier that can't be breeched and certainly looks permanent.
One of the points that I think all Israelis want to emphasize is how small and potentially vulnerable from the ground Israel is. And it's true that at certain points it's only about 20-30 minutes wide. When you are flying over it is almost impossible to distinguish between - at least for a layman - between Palestinian villages and Israeli villages. And we had the opportunity to fly up over the Sea of Galilee, towards the Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian borders and visit with a gentleman whose house had been hit by a Katyusha missile just recently, launched by Hezbollah (Hezbollah, the militant Islamic organization that is active in Syria and Lebanon and occasionally engages in skirmishes across the border and obviously makes the population there feel extraordinarily vulnerable.) But, having said that, one of the things you do get a strong sense of is that Israel at this point possesses such superior military forces, that they don't really have enormous vulnerability in a conventional sense. There is no risk of invasion by its neighbors and Israel's economy and infrastructure seem extraordinarily robust and vibrant.
The following day I went into Ramallah and to the West Bank and had an opportunity to talk to Palestinian students, as well as Palestinian businessmen and also had a meeting with Abu Mazen, the President and successor to Yasser Arafat. As you travel through the West Bank, you get a sense of the differences between life for Palestinians and Israelis in this region. Palestinians have to suffer through the checkpoint system, the barriers, the fenced-in wall that exists just to get to their jobs, often times to travel from north and south even within the west bank. It's created enormous hardship for them - there is high unemployment and the economy is not doing as well as it should.
Unfortunately the Palestinians, through Yasser Arafat, suffered from leadership that seemed to be more interested in the rhetoric of Israel's destruction and less interested in actually constructively creating a peaceful solution to the problem and focusing on delivery of services to the Palestinian people. And so I had a wonderful discussion with Palestinian students as well as discussions with Palestinian businessmen and Abu Mazen, about the importance of the Palestinian people focusing on building up infrastructure, building up capacity, building up an honest, non-corrupt government, consolidating arms that are currently dispersed among a variety of militias under a single command structure of the Palestinian authority, and entering into constructive negotiations on a non-violent basis to arrive at a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
Whether that's going to be able to happen or not is not yet clear. There are elections on January 26th and Abu Mazen - his party, Fatah party - is being challenged very effectively by Hammas, which has historically been a terrorist organization. This is their first venture into politics and they've proved to be much more adept at politics and organization than the ruling Fatah movement, which has been marked for its reputation of corruption.
The next day, and the final full day in Israel, we spent finally doing a little bit of sight-seeing and traveling through the old city of Jerusalem. Those of you who have been here know the incredible magic of the city. As the sun rises over 2,000-year old walls - walls built by David, Soloman, the Turkish Empire, we visited the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, where the site of Calvary and Jesus' tomb is located. Just a stone's throw away, the Western Wall; across from there you have the magnificent Dome of the Rock, gilded in gold. It gives you a sense of just how much history is here and it reminds us that you have to be humble when you think about the Middle East and what's possible here.
There are a lot of memories, there's a lot of history, there are a lot of grudges and bitterness and in some ways it reminds us of how lucky we are as Americans that ironically we don't have this kind of history. It's easier for us to forget and move on. It's much harder for people here who are seeing everyday the roots of their own people and the conflicts that go back generation after generation.
On the other hand, as I was leaving Jerusalem on that final day and looking over the Old City I was reminded of how similar in many ways Palestinians and Jews, Muslims, Christians - how similar all these people were; and that despite differences in language and religion and despite the bitter history of the region it must be possible on some level to have each group recognize the humanity of the other.
Barack Obama at the end of his Middle East trip via Cell Phone from Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv
NOTE: The transcript abruptly ends – there is no goodbye – because Senator Obama’s cell phone connection dropped —
Hello, this is Barack Obama and it's the 14th of January. I'm sitting in an airport in Tel Aviv finishing up on a 9-day trip to the Middle East. Those of you who listened to the last Podcast know that I spent several days in Baghdad as well as Qatar, Kuwait and Jordan. For the last 5 days I've traveled throughout Israel and the Palestinian territories. My impressions - and for those of you who have been to the Middle East I think you'll recognize - that it's an extraordinarily complex place.
We had the opportunity on the first day to meet with a variety of members of Israel security forces and get briefings from them about the border situation and their concerns surrounding Iran as well as the prospects of elections both on the Palestinian side and the Israeli side.
This was a difficult time for the Israeli people - Prime Minister Sharon had just suffered a massive stroke and there was a lot of tumult in terms of political positioning. Fortunately at least on the Israeli side there seems to be a growing consensus represented by the Kadima party, that a centrist position that seeks to disengage from certain areas that are currently controlled by Israel while maintaining vigilance against terrorist attacks is the right approach.
I also had the opportunity then to fly from Tel Aviv all the way up north on a Blackhawk helicopter and see the borders of Israel and the separation barrier that has been erected. The separation barrier is a major bone of contention between Palestinians and Israelis at this point. In most portions it's a high fence that appears temporary and could be moved if the peace process and negotiations go forward. In some places it is a wall - a high barrier that can't be breeched and certainly looks permanent.
One of the points that I think all Israelis want to emphasize is how small and potentially vulnerable from the ground Israel is. And it's true that at certain points it's only about 20-30 minutes wide. When you are flying over it is almost impossible to distinguish between - at least for a layman - between Palestinian villages and Israeli villages. And we had the opportunity to fly up over the Sea of Galilee, towards the Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian borders and visit with a gentleman whose house had been hit by a Katyusha missile just recently, launched by Hezbollah (Hezbollah, the militant Islamic organization that is active in Syria and Lebanon and occasionally engages in skirmishes across the border and obviously makes the population there feel extraordinarily vulnerable.) But, having said that, one of the things you do get a strong sense of is that Israel at this point possesses such superior military forces, that they don't really have enormous vulnerability in a conventional sense. There is no risk of invasion by its neighbors and Israel's economy and infrastructure seem extraordinarily robust and vibrant.
The following day I went into Ramallah and to the West Bank and had an opportunity to talk to Palestinian students, as well as Palestinian businessmen and also had a meeting with Abu Mazen, the President and successor to Yasser Arafat. As you travel through the West Bank, you get a sense of the differences between life for Palestinians and Israelis in this region. Palestinians have to suffer through the checkpoint system, the barriers, the fenced-in wall that exists just to get to their jobs, often times to travel from north and south even within the west bank. It's created enormous hardship for them - there is high unemployment and the economy is not doing as well as it should.
Unfortunately the Palestinians, through Yasser Arafat, suffered from leadership that seemed to be more interested in the rhetoric of Israel's destruction and less interested in actually constructively creating a peaceful solution to the problem and focusing on delivery of services to the Palestinian people. And so I had a wonderful discussion with Palestinian students as well as discussions with Palestinian businessmen and Abu Mazen, about the importance of the Palestinian people focusing on building up infrastructure, building up capacity, building up an honest, non-corrupt government, consolidating arms that are currently dispersed among a variety of militias under a single command structure of the Palestinian authority, and entering into constructive negotiations on a non-violent basis to arrive at a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
Whether that's going to be able to happen or not is not yet clear. There are elections on January 26th and Abu Mazen - his party, Fatah party - is being challenged very effectively by Hammas, which has historically been a terrorist organization. This is their first venture into politics and they've proved to be much more adept at politics and organization than the ruling Fatah movement, which has been marked for its reputation of corruption.
The next day, and the final full day in Israel, we spent finally doing a little bit of sight-seeing and traveling through the old city of Jerusalem. Those of you who have been here know the incredible magic of the city. As the sun rises over 2,000-year old walls - walls built by David, Soloman, the Turkish Empire, we visited the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, where the site of Calvary and Jesus' tomb is located. Just a stone's throw away, the Western Wall; across from there you have the magnificent Dome of the Rock, gilded in gold. It gives you a sense of just how much history is here and it reminds us that you have to be humble when you think about the Middle East and what's possible here.
There are a lot of memories, there's a lot of history, there are a lot of grudges and bitterness and in some ways it reminds us of how lucky we are as Americans that ironically we don't have this kind of history. It's easier for us to forget and move on. It's much harder for people here who are seeing everyday the roots of their own people and the conflicts that go back generation after generation.
On the other hand, as I was leaving Jerusalem on that final day and looking over the Old City I was reminded of how similar in many ways Palestinians and Jews, Muslims, Christians - how similar all these people were; and that despite differences in language and religion and despite the bitter history of the region it must be possible on some level to have each group recognize the humanity of the other.
Foreign Relations Committee: Lugar-Obama legislation S.1949
February 9, 2006
Mr. Chairman, I can't do a better job of laying out the issue than you just did, so I am going to keep my opening remarks relatively short.
I want to thank you for your tireless leadership on this issue; for holding this hearing; and for working with me to introduce what I believe is a very good bill. I also want to thank Senator Biden for his insightful comments and his long track record of good work on nonproliferation issues.
The Lugar-Obama legislation, S.1949, does two basic things.
First, it enhances our ability, working with friends and allies, to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction. Second, the bill bolsters ongoing efforts to destroy conventional weapons such as lightweight anti-aircraft missiles.
As the Chairman pointed out in his opening statement, many of these efforts are under-funded, fragmented, and in need of high-level support. I take note of the Chairman's comments that new threat reduction proposals - even the Nunn-Lugar program - are not always warmly received by the Executive Branch.
I agree with your testimony Secretary Joseph that the Department does need flexibility to deal effectively with global threats and international diplomacy. But that isn't the issue here before us today. Every Member of this Committee wants to give the State Department the flexibility it needs.
This issue here today is whether the State Department could use additional resources and coordination to more effectively deal with two critically important threats - interdiction of WMD and destruction of conventional weapons. I believe it can.
I am also concerned that the issue just simply does not get the attention it deserves within the State Department.
I know that both the President and Secretary Rice have expressed their commitment to nonproliferation issues. But, four key State Department interdiction and nonproliferation programs are either flat-lined or slated for only modest of increases in the President's budget. Meanwhile, a $1.2 billion increase is proposed for the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), which will provide funding to nations such as Cape Verde, Madagascar, and Vanuatu.
I am supportive of the MCA, and I am not saying that these countries aren't worthy of U.S. assistance. But, a budget is about prioritizing strategic objectives. And, in my view, the priorities don't appropriately align with the strategic threats we confront today.
Secretary Joseph, despite my concerns, I am hopeful that we can work together to make adjustments to our budget priorities. With regard to Lugar-Obama, I am also confident that we can work in a collaborative spirit to make a good bill even better. I look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I can't do a better job of laying out the issue than you just did, so I am going to keep my opening remarks relatively short.
I want to thank you for your tireless leadership on this issue; for holding this hearing; and for working with me to introduce what I believe is a very good bill. I also want to thank Senator Biden for his insightful comments and his long track record of good work on nonproliferation issues.
The Lugar-Obama legislation, S.1949, does two basic things.
First, it enhances our ability, working with friends and allies, to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction. Second, the bill bolsters ongoing efforts to destroy conventional weapons such as lightweight anti-aircraft missiles.
As the Chairman pointed out in his opening statement, many of these efforts are under-funded, fragmented, and in need of high-level support. I take note of the Chairman's comments that new threat reduction proposals - even the Nunn-Lugar program - are not always warmly received by the Executive Branch.
I agree with your testimony Secretary Joseph that the Department does need flexibility to deal effectively with global threats and international diplomacy. But that isn't the issue here before us today. Every Member of this Committee wants to give the State Department the flexibility it needs.
This issue here today is whether the State Department could use additional resources and coordination to more effectively deal with two critically important threats - interdiction of WMD and destruction of conventional weapons. I believe it can.
I am also concerned that the issue just simply does not get the attention it deserves within the State Department.
I know that both the President and Secretary Rice have expressed their commitment to nonproliferation issues. But, four key State Department interdiction and nonproliferation programs are either flat-lined or slated for only modest of increases in the President's budget. Meanwhile, a $1.2 billion increase is proposed for the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), which will provide funding to nations such as Cape Verde, Madagascar, and Vanuatu.
I am supportive of the MCA, and I am not saying that these countries aren't worthy of U.S. assistance. But, a budget is about prioritizing strategic objectives. And, in my view, the priorities don't appropriately align with the strategic threats we confront today.
Secretary Joseph, despite my concerns, I am hopeful that we can work together to make adjustments to our budget priorities. With regard to Lugar-Obama, I am also confident that we can work in a collaborative spirit to make a good bill even better. I look forward to your testimony.
From the Road: Speaking with American Troops in Iraq
January 9, 2006
PODCAST TRANSCRIPT: Hello, this is Senator Barack Obama, and I am resuming my podcasts after a couple weeks Christmas Break. And I am calling from a cell phone at a hotel overlooking the hills of Amman, Jordan. It's actually a beautiful city, Jordan. The sun is setting and I am just come back from my first trip into Iraq.
You know, obviously Iraq has dominated our foreign policy for the last several years. Listeners to my regular podcasts or those who followed my campaign, I think, are aware of the fact that I have been deeply skeptical about the administration's policy towards Iraq and the initial invasion. I felt it was important for me to visit Iraq myself and get some sort of first hand report about what was happening there.
So, I started the trip actually from Kuwait, where the US maintains several bases that are used to provide logistical support for what's happening in Iraq. I met with troops as well as some of the generals who are in charge of logistical support. They talked about the enormous efforts that are required to maintain our presence in Iraq. There are about 20,000 troops in this base in Kuwait and they typically provide initial training for troops before they deploy into Iraq as well as providing water and fuel and are used as a launching site for operations in Iraq.
I had the opportunity to meet with a number of troops from Illinois as well as play a little basketball with some of the troops in the gymnasium there. And so I had a chance to talk to them about their feelings about what was happening. I think it's fair to say that morale among almost every US troop that I met was high. I think everybody is very proud of the work that they're doing and understandably so. Because regardless of how you feel about the war, what's astonishing is just the pride that our men and women in uniform take about accomplishing the tasks before them. The effort in Iraq is just an unbelievable logistical task.
We flew into Baghdad and then I was helicoptered into the Green Zone. And when you visit the Green Zone, which is several miles wide and long in the center of Baghdad, you really get a sense that US military operations have built an entire city within a city. There are thousands of US military personnel and coalition forces - everything from embassy personnel to logistical support to troops that are about to be deployed into other areas of the country.
It's an impressive achievement and in conversations with US personnel there all of them felt a genuine sense of progress after this most recent election. The feeling was that there was a great opportunity for the first time in sometime to create a national unity government that actually had some claim of legitimacy with the Iraqi people.
I had a meeting then with Ambassador Khalilzad, the US Ambassador to Iraq, who discussed the meaning of the most recent election. His belief is that there is an opportunity to create a government that unifies Shiite, Sunni and Kurd, but that it's not going to be easy. That the election in and of itself doesn't create that unity. In fact the election was largely along sectarian lines. But that hopefully there is a recognition on the part of the leadership in all these various factions that recognizes a unified Iraq is better than the alternative, regardless of how difficult it is. And overall I was impressed with the work that he was doing.
Later that evening I had dinner with the President or Iraq, President Talabani as well as a number of ministers in the current Iraqi government, representing various factions. And the general impression was that they recognized the need to arrive at accommodations; and that was a cause for some small optimism.
The next day we took Blackhawk helicopters and went out to Fallujah, which is the site of some of the worst violence in Iraq. I did not travel through the city proper but rather flew into the primary US military base out there, and had a briefing from both their general as well as the colonels who were in charge of troops out there. As we arrived we learned that just a day earlier five marines had been killed, and obviously people were pretty somber about that. It's still very dangerous work to be done.
And in discussions with our military, one message that came across repeatedly was that there is not going to be a military solution to the problem of Iraq; that only political accommodations can solve some of these problems. One of the colonels that we met in Fallujah, who is in charge of intelligence, pointed out that you've got 50% unemployment rates in many of the western portions of Iraq. And what that means is that the insurgency is going to continually grow unless the central government pays attention to the concrete needs of the people in that area. It also means that despite the work of the US military in apprehending the leaders of the insurgency in that area, there are always young men who are willing to fill the shoes of those who are apprehended. And as a consequence, the insurgency and the dangers posed by the explosive devices that they are setting throughout the country will continue, as well as the suicide bombings. This colonel really felt very strongly that the problem we faced was not a matter of foreign fighters, but rather a combination of foreign Jihadists and, more importantly, the homegrown support that continues to be generated.
We went to Kirkuk in northern Iraq where the situation is a little bit more stable, although there is significant tension there. Kirkuk is the site of a lot of oil wealth that the Kurdish want to incorporate into their regional government and is being resisted by Shiite and Sunni alike. And so a very complicated political process is taking place in that region.
You know, as you fly from Baghdad airport to the Green Zone and then out to places like Fallujah and you look down on the countryside and over the city, you realize how devastating this war has been for the country. It still looks shell-shocked. The land is muddy and fallow and strewn with skeletons of old trucks and cars and the imprints of buildings that are now reduced to rubble. There is very little traffic on the streets; a few people are on foot. It reminds you of how devastating war is.
The conversations that I had with troops who had lost friends and colleagues reminded me of how personally devastating war is to soldiers and their families.
And I think generally it emphasizes, in my mind at least, how our foreign policy has to be tough but it has to also be smart; and that we have to possess some element of humility about our capacity to remake other countries and other cultures.
I think there are several things that I at least learned from the trip, some of which reinforced some of my previous thoughts and some thoughts that are new:
Number one, we have probably a six-month window in which to create the sort of national unity government that can actually deliver a basic government to the Iraqi people and deliver the sort of political accommodations that are the necessary precursor for any solution to the violence in Iraq. Whether that's going to happen or not will depend on the degree to which the Shiite majority shows restraint and recognizes the need to bring Sunnis into all levels of government, particularly the security forces. It's also going to depend on the degree that the Sunnis are willing to recognize that they are never going to have the same degree of power given their numbers as they did under Saddam Hussein.
The second thing that's going to need to happen if there is going to be any modicum of success in Iraq is that the security forces themselves have to be representative of all portions of Iraqi society. Right now the security forces are dominated by Shiite. There have been some disturbing reports about the Ministry of the Interior and the police being used as a vendetta force against Sunnis. That obviously helps to fan the insurgency, which raises a broader point.
And that is that it's going to be important for whatever government that is elected to actually start building institutional capacity.
We met with some of the officials that are in charge of reconstruction over there; and it's clear that the basic structure of civil service - a non-corrupt, technocratic approach to solving problems and delivering services is not deeply imbedded there and has to be developed. And changing that culture is going to take time but it's going to have to start. And whatever else the national unity government accomplishes it's got to recognize that it needs a basic structure of service delivery to gain the confidence of the Iraqi people.
Finally, and I think most importantly, what's clear is that there is not going to be a military solution to this problem. I heard this repeatedly, not just from civilians or observers, but from the military - our military - the recognition that the insurgency cannot be defeated by armed might alone. And it is absolutely critical that our policies recognize that.
I remember having a conversation with one of the colonels out in the field, and although he did not believe that a rapid unilateral withdrawal would actually be helpful, there was no doubt that the US occupation in Iraq was becoming an increasing source of irritation. And that one of the things that we're going to need to do - and to do sooner rather than later - is to transition our troops out of the day-to-day operations in Iraq and to have a much lower profile and a smaller footprint in the country over the coming year.
On the other hand, I did also ask some people who were not particularly sympathetic to the initial war, but were now trying to make things work in Iraq - what they thought would be the result of a total withdrawal and I think the general view was that we were in such a delicate situation right now and that there was so little institutional capacity on the part of the Iraqi government, that a full military withdrawal at this point would probably result in significant civil war and potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths. This by the way was a message that was delivered also by the Foreign Minister of Jordan, who I've been meeting with while here in Amman, Jordan.
The sense, I think, throughout the entire region among those who opposed the US invasion, that now that we're there it's important that we don't act equally precipitously in our approach to withdrawal, but that we actually stabilize the situation and allow time for the new Iraqi government to develop some sort of capacity.
I guess the final point I just want to make is how proud I am of the US troops there. One of the things that I continually emphasized to them was that regardless of how any of us feel about the administration's decision to go into Iraq, all of us are extraordinarily proud of the work that they're doing. What the US military accomplishes on a day-to-day basis, in just setting up and rebuilding portions of the country that have been destroyed and in carrying out extraordinarily difficult tasks on a day-to-day basis is amazing.
And particularly when I was talking to the Illinois troops many of them are guardsmen and reservists - some of them on their second or third rotation - it was important for me to emphasize to them that the folks back home fully support them even as we have, I think, a very legitimate debate back in Washington about what we're doing there.
The fact is that our US military is probably the most capable institution on the planet in terms of carrying out extraordinarily difficult assignments. But it's incumbent on our civilian leadership in Washington to make sure that we don't provide them with assignments that are impossible to accomplish. And I continue to be concerned that we have set out for ourselves just an enormous task of rebuilding an extremely volatile and large country, and the military is not going to be able to do it alone so we're going to have to have some good policies from Washington to move it forward.
Anyway, I hope everybody had a wonderful holiday. I will be returning to Washington after several days in Israel and the Palestinian territories. It's obviously a difficult time there, given the grave illness that Ariel Sharon is suffering. It's thrown the entire Middle East into tumult and I may have some more to say about that when I get back. So hopefully I'll be able to deliver a podcast next week and look forward to being back home to see my wife and kids next week as well.
Take care everybody. Bye-bye.
PODCAST TRANSCRIPT: Hello, this is Senator Barack Obama, and I am resuming my podcasts after a couple weeks Christmas Break. And I am calling from a cell phone at a hotel overlooking the hills of Amman, Jordan. It's actually a beautiful city, Jordan. The sun is setting and I am just come back from my first trip into Iraq.
You know, obviously Iraq has dominated our foreign policy for the last several years. Listeners to my regular podcasts or those who followed my campaign, I think, are aware of the fact that I have been deeply skeptical about the administration's policy towards Iraq and the initial invasion. I felt it was important for me to visit Iraq myself and get some sort of first hand report about what was happening there.
So, I started the trip actually from Kuwait, where the US maintains several bases that are used to provide logistical support for what's happening in Iraq. I met with troops as well as some of the generals who are in charge of logistical support. They talked about the enormous efforts that are required to maintain our presence in Iraq. There are about 20,000 troops in this base in Kuwait and they typically provide initial training for troops before they deploy into Iraq as well as providing water and fuel and are used as a launching site for operations in Iraq.
I had the opportunity to meet with a number of troops from Illinois as well as play a little basketball with some of the troops in the gymnasium there. And so I had a chance to talk to them about their feelings about what was happening. I think it's fair to say that morale among almost every US troop that I met was high. I think everybody is very proud of the work that they're doing and understandably so. Because regardless of how you feel about the war, what's astonishing is just the pride that our men and women in uniform take about accomplishing the tasks before them. The effort in Iraq is just an unbelievable logistical task.
We flew into Baghdad and then I was helicoptered into the Green Zone. And when you visit the Green Zone, which is several miles wide and long in the center of Baghdad, you really get a sense that US military operations have built an entire city within a city. There are thousands of US military personnel and coalition forces - everything from embassy personnel to logistical support to troops that are about to be deployed into other areas of the country.
It's an impressive achievement and in conversations with US personnel there all of them felt a genuine sense of progress after this most recent election. The feeling was that there was a great opportunity for the first time in sometime to create a national unity government that actually had some claim of legitimacy with the Iraqi people.
I had a meeting then with Ambassador Khalilzad, the US Ambassador to Iraq, who discussed the meaning of the most recent election. His belief is that there is an opportunity to create a government that unifies Shiite, Sunni and Kurd, but that it's not going to be easy. That the election in and of itself doesn't create that unity. In fact the election was largely along sectarian lines. But that hopefully there is a recognition on the part of the leadership in all these various factions that recognizes a unified Iraq is better than the alternative, regardless of how difficult it is. And overall I was impressed with the work that he was doing.
Later that evening I had dinner with the President or Iraq, President Talabani as well as a number of ministers in the current Iraqi government, representing various factions. And the general impression was that they recognized the need to arrive at accommodations; and that was a cause for some small optimism.
The next day we took Blackhawk helicopters and went out to Fallujah, which is the site of some of the worst violence in Iraq. I did not travel through the city proper but rather flew into the primary US military base out there, and had a briefing from both their general as well as the colonels who were in charge of troops out there. As we arrived we learned that just a day earlier five marines had been killed, and obviously people were pretty somber about that. It's still very dangerous work to be done.
And in discussions with our military, one message that came across repeatedly was that there is not going to be a military solution to the problem of Iraq; that only political accommodations can solve some of these problems. One of the colonels that we met in Fallujah, who is in charge of intelligence, pointed out that you've got 50% unemployment rates in many of the western portions of Iraq. And what that means is that the insurgency is going to continually grow unless the central government pays attention to the concrete needs of the people in that area. It also means that despite the work of the US military in apprehending the leaders of the insurgency in that area, there are always young men who are willing to fill the shoes of those who are apprehended. And as a consequence, the insurgency and the dangers posed by the explosive devices that they are setting throughout the country will continue, as well as the suicide bombings. This colonel really felt very strongly that the problem we faced was not a matter of foreign fighters, but rather a combination of foreign Jihadists and, more importantly, the homegrown support that continues to be generated.
We went to Kirkuk in northern Iraq where the situation is a little bit more stable, although there is significant tension there. Kirkuk is the site of a lot of oil wealth that the Kurdish want to incorporate into their regional government and is being resisted by Shiite and Sunni alike. And so a very complicated political process is taking place in that region.
You know, as you fly from Baghdad airport to the Green Zone and then out to places like Fallujah and you look down on the countryside and over the city, you realize how devastating this war has been for the country. It still looks shell-shocked. The land is muddy and fallow and strewn with skeletons of old trucks and cars and the imprints of buildings that are now reduced to rubble. There is very little traffic on the streets; a few people are on foot. It reminds you of how devastating war is.
The conversations that I had with troops who had lost friends and colleagues reminded me of how personally devastating war is to soldiers and their families.
And I think generally it emphasizes, in my mind at least, how our foreign policy has to be tough but it has to also be smart; and that we have to possess some element of humility about our capacity to remake other countries and other cultures.
I think there are several things that I at least learned from the trip, some of which reinforced some of my previous thoughts and some thoughts that are new:
Number one, we have probably a six-month window in which to create the sort of national unity government that can actually deliver a basic government to the Iraqi people and deliver the sort of political accommodations that are the necessary precursor for any solution to the violence in Iraq. Whether that's going to happen or not will depend on the degree to which the Shiite majority shows restraint and recognizes the need to bring Sunnis into all levels of government, particularly the security forces. It's also going to depend on the degree that the Sunnis are willing to recognize that they are never going to have the same degree of power given their numbers as they did under Saddam Hussein.
The second thing that's going to need to happen if there is going to be any modicum of success in Iraq is that the security forces themselves have to be representative of all portions of Iraqi society. Right now the security forces are dominated by Shiite. There have been some disturbing reports about the Ministry of the Interior and the police being used as a vendetta force against Sunnis. That obviously helps to fan the insurgency, which raises a broader point.
And that is that it's going to be important for whatever government that is elected to actually start building institutional capacity.
We met with some of the officials that are in charge of reconstruction over there; and it's clear that the basic structure of civil service - a non-corrupt, technocratic approach to solving problems and delivering services is not deeply imbedded there and has to be developed. And changing that culture is going to take time but it's going to have to start. And whatever else the national unity government accomplishes it's got to recognize that it needs a basic structure of service delivery to gain the confidence of the Iraqi people.
Finally, and I think most importantly, what's clear is that there is not going to be a military solution to this problem. I heard this repeatedly, not just from civilians or observers, but from the military - our military - the recognition that the insurgency cannot be defeated by armed might alone. And it is absolutely critical that our policies recognize that.
I remember having a conversation with one of the colonels out in the field, and although he did not believe that a rapid unilateral withdrawal would actually be helpful, there was no doubt that the US occupation in Iraq was becoming an increasing source of irritation. And that one of the things that we're going to need to do - and to do sooner rather than later - is to transition our troops out of the day-to-day operations in Iraq and to have a much lower profile and a smaller footprint in the country over the coming year.
On the other hand, I did also ask some people who were not particularly sympathetic to the initial war, but were now trying to make things work in Iraq - what they thought would be the result of a total withdrawal and I think the general view was that we were in such a delicate situation right now and that there was so little institutional capacity on the part of the Iraqi government, that a full military withdrawal at this point would probably result in significant civil war and potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths. This by the way was a message that was delivered also by the Foreign Minister of Jordan, who I've been meeting with while here in Amman, Jordan.
The sense, I think, throughout the entire region among those who opposed the US invasion, that now that we're there it's important that we don't act equally precipitously in our approach to withdrawal, but that we actually stabilize the situation and allow time for the new Iraqi government to develop some sort of capacity.
I guess the final point I just want to make is how proud I am of the US troops there. One of the things that I continually emphasized to them was that regardless of how any of us feel about the administration's decision to go into Iraq, all of us are extraordinarily proud of the work that they're doing. What the US military accomplishes on a day-to-day basis, in just setting up and rebuilding portions of the country that have been destroyed and in carrying out extraordinarily difficult tasks on a day-to-day basis is amazing.
And particularly when I was talking to the Illinois troops many of them are guardsmen and reservists - some of them on their second or third rotation - it was important for me to emphasize to them that the folks back home fully support them even as we have, I think, a very legitimate debate back in Washington about what we're doing there.
The fact is that our US military is probably the most capable institution on the planet in terms of carrying out extraordinarily difficult assignments. But it's incumbent on our civilian leadership in Washington to make sure that we don't provide them with assignments that are impossible to accomplish. And I continue to be concerned that we have set out for ourselves just an enormous task of rebuilding an extremely volatile and large country, and the military is not going to be able to do it alone so we're going to have to have some good policies from Washington to move it forward.
Anyway, I hope everybody had a wonderful holiday. I will be returning to Washington after several days in Israel and the Palestinian territories. It's obviously a difficult time there, given the grave illness that Ariel Sharon is suffering. It's thrown the entire Middle East into tumult and I may have some more to say about that when I get back. So hopefully I'll be able to deliver a podcast next week and look forward to being back home to see my wife and kids next week as well.
Take care everybody. Bye-bye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe to Speeches
Posts
All Comments
