...the concern that I have here... is the conflation of tyranny and terror.
There's a lot of justified whooping and hollerin' over Barbara Boxer's intrepid performance on Tuesday.
But watching CSPAN, I got to catch the new freshman senator from Illinois take his place on the main stage. Besides holding the administration's feet to the fire on its unfulfilled promises to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa, Senator Obama eloquently called her out on the administration's bait and switch tactics on Iraq.
More excerpts below
This
link is to the "printer friendly" version of the NYT transcript.
Emphases mine.
Obama: We are unanimous in wanting to root out terror. It appears that even within the administration there's ambiguity with respect to our views on tyranny.
Tyranny is problematic, but if engaged in by an ally of ours or a country that's sufficiently powerful that we don't think we can do anything about it doesn't prompt military action. In other cases it does. Part of the, I think, debate and divisiveness of Iraq had to do with the fact that it appeared that the administration sold military action in Iraq on the basis of concern about terror and then the rationale shifted or at least got muddied into an acknowledged desire to get rid of a tyrant.
And I guess what I'm trying to figure out here -- and this is particular to military action and military incursions -- do we have a well thought through doctrine that we can present to the world that explains when we feel that military action is justified and when it is not? Apparently, it's not justified in Sudan, where there's a genocide taking place. It wasn't justified in Rwanda, despite, I think, a unanimity that that was one of the greatest tragedies that occurred in my lifetime. There are a number of circumstances in which we have felt that such incursions or nation-building are not appropriate, despite the evidence of great tyranny, and yet in Iraq and perhaps in Iran and perhaps in other circumstances we think it is.
Did he get a well-thought doctrine? Nah, why start now?
Rice: And the fact is tyranny and terror are linked. They are linked.
Not good enough.
Obama:...the fact that there's a link somewhere between terror and tyranny is not sufficient for us to be making decisions about spending $200 billion to $300 billion or sacrificing the lives of American servicemen and -women.
Rice: Senator, I appreciate that, but I have to say, I don't think it's a vague link. When you talk about the Middle East, it's a pretty clear link. You're talking about the rise of Islamic extremism, you're talking about jihadism, you're talking about the ground in which it grew up. And you're talking about a very narrow definition of terrorism if you only talk about trying to take down the al Qaeda organization.
Obama: I think that's fair. And if that's the case in the -- again, I don't want to belabor this, but -- I'm just trying to give you a sense of where I think our public diplomacy fails. There is certainly a link between tyranny in Saudi Arabia and terrorism. And yet we make a whole series of strategic decisions about accommodating the Saudi regime. And I'm not saying that's a bad decision. But what I am saying is, is that the degree to which you as the spokesperson for U.S. foreign policy is (sic) able to articulate greater consistency in our foreign policy, and where those links exist between tyranny and terror you are able to apply those not just in one or two areas but more broadly, then I think your public diplomacy is going to be more successful.
It was a very impressive performance. I was worrying about all the hype, but so far he is living up to it and more.