A town forum on a new direction in U.S. foreign policy, Iowa City, Iowa, October 3, 2007

- [Joyce Carman] I first heard the name Barack Obama from my daughter in Chicago. That was in 2002 when Obama was campaigning for the Senate and before he gave that amazing speech at the Democratic Convention. My daughter had a Barack Obama pin on her backpack and she spoke with such enthusiasm about how she saw Obama as an inspiration for change that I asked where I could get that pin. She gave me one of hers and I remember thinking, "well, someday, I might be glad I have this." When I got back to Iowa City, I continued to wear that pin. I was curious about how many people would recognize the name and many people did stop me and ask, "who is Barack Obama?" And then one day I ran across a friend who stopped, looked carefully at the pin and said, "oh, Barack Obama. "I remember that name." She continued on to tell me that years earlier, a friend of hers had mentioned Barack Obama. I have a student in one of my law school classes who may be the brightest student I've ever had. And he continued on to say, "I am convinced "that one day he will be president of the United States." His name is Barack Obama. I remember thinking at that time, "this is a man "I wanna know more about," so I began watching for coverage of his speeches on C-SPAN. But just one year later, we invaded Iraq and our country hit a dark, depressing period of time. The disastrous decision to go to war with Iraq depressed us. The lack of leadership by so many members of Congress depressed us. The deaths of so many Americans and Iraqis depressed us. The expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars for the war depressed us. The destruction of our country's reputations depressed us and many of us asked ourselves, "where are the leaders "we need? "The leaders who have the courage to go "against conventional wisdom? "To stand up against what Samantha Power calls "a broken way of doing things." At the time we were asking these questions, Barack Obama was courageously speaking out and opposing that decision to go to war. His courage to speak out gave us hope and out of that hope grew a belief that at last, we could identify a leader whose judgment, whose courage, and whose resolve led him to resist the political wins of the times. We saw a leader who will ask the right questions, a leader who will stand up and will speak up for what he believes. Those are the qualities we need in our next president. Those are the qualities so many Americans see in Barack Obama, and that's why so many of us are here today. If we want real, positive, forward-looking change, now is our time. When former National Security Advisor Brzezinski endorsed Barack Obama, he had this to say, and listen carefully. "You good people of Iowa have a unique, historic opportunity "to take the lead in electing the next president "to bring needed change to our nation." So, all you good people of Iowa, on this glorious, glorious Iowa day, it's my great privilege, it's my honor to ask you to join me in welcoming Senator Barack Obama. - [Senator Barack Obama] Thank you so much. Well, first of all, thank you Joyce, for that wonderful introduction and for your support. I wanna acknowledge Ross Wilburn, the great mayor of the city of Iowa City and an Obama co-chair. Where's Mr. Mayor? He's around here somewhere. I also want to acknowledge Atul Nakhasi whose the president of the University of Iowa Democrats who welcomed you all here today. Where's Atul? He's around here somewhere. And finally, some of you know that I now live in Chicago, but I don't originally come from Chicago. I moved there after college to work as a community organizer. There were a group of churches who had decided to do something about the devastation of steel plants closing in their communities and people had been laid off and so they formed this organization. They gathered some money, they didn't have a lot of money, so all they could afford to hire was me. So I drove out to Chicago, site unseen. The next three and a half years, I worked as an organizer setting up job training programs for the unemployed and after school programs for youth, and it was the best education I ever had, but I came to realize very quickly that organizers are underpaid and they're underappreciated and I am now working in my campaign and I've hired a lot of young people to work for me as organizers and they're all underpaid and underappreciated. And I don't wanna pay them any more money. But I do want to appreciate them. So I want everybody to give a big cheer to Lindsey Schola and Chris Laydell who are my organizers here in Johnson County. And, the nicest thing I can do for them, if after our meeting today, some of you decide, "Obama's my guy," I need you to fill out one of these Obama supporter cards so that they can gather them up and be in contact with you and get organized for the caucuses. If you've already filled out one of these, we want you to be a precinct captain. We wanna cover every precinct in Iowa, and if you can't do that, then we at least want you to try to get four more supporters to sign up to caucus for us, so as you leave, I promise you we will have every door covered. And you would be doing a great service not only to me, but also to Lindsey and Chris if you'd take the time to fill out one of these cards. We're gonna structure this in two parts. I'm gonna make some remarks, focused primarily on foreign policy because I think that even as we debate issues like Iraq and Iran, it's critical that we look forward and see where do we need to take foreign policy in the future. Then, what we're gonna do is we're gonna open up for some Q and A and you can ask me about anything. Foreign policy or the prospects for the Cubs. I, by the way. I just wanna let you know that I'm a White Sox fan, so. I'm not gonna be cheering for the Cubs, but I won't be cheering against them. Five years ago yesterday, I was asked to speak at a rally against going to war in Iraq. The vote to authorize the war in Congress was less than 10 days away, and I was a candidate for the United States Senate at the time, and some friends of mine advised me to keep quiet. Going to war in Iraq, they pointed out, was popular at that time. "If the war goes well," they said, "then you will have "thrown away your chance to get elected to the US Senate." But I didn't see how Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat. I was convinced that a war would distract us from Afghanistan and the real threat from Al Qaeda and I believe the war would fan the flames of extremism and lead to new terrorism. So I went to the rally and I argued against what I called a rash war, a war based not on reason, but on politics. An occupation of undetermined length with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences. I wasn't alone. Though not a majority, millions of Americans opposed giving the president the authority to go to war in Iraq, but conventional thinking in Washington lined up with the president's rush to war and Congress voted to give him the authority for war that he continues to use to this day. We should all be clear, without that vote, there would be no war. Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they were really voting, not for the war, they were voting for inspectors or they were voting for diplomacy, but the American people understood in 2002 what we were debating. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then and that's the truth that we need to understand now. So we need to ask ourselves and ask those who voted for this war, how can you give the president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it? There's a choice that's emerged in this campaign. I think it's one that all of you need to understand. You should ask yourselves, who got the single most important foreign policy decision since the end of the Cold War right and who got it wrong? This is not just a matter of debating the past. It's about who has the best judgment to make the critical decisions of the future because I am not running for president to conform to Washington's conventional thinking. I'm running to challenge it. I am running to challenge that conventional thinking. This election is about ending the Iraq war, but even more, it's about moving beyond it. In 2009, we will have a window of opportunity to renew our global leadership and bring our nation together. If we don't seize that moment, then we may not get another. The American people are gonna have to decide, are we gonna turn back the clock or are we gonna turn the page? If we're gonna turn the page, then the first thing we have to do is end this war and the right person to end it is someone who had the judgment to oppose it from the beginning. There is no military solution to be had in Iraq and there never was. I will begin to remove our troops from Iraq immediately. - [Audience Member] Yeah! - [Senator Barack Obama] I will remove one or two brigades a month and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will maintain in Iraq are those who are absolutely necessary to protect our embassy, protect our diplomats, and our humanitarian workers, and to carry out limited counter-terrorism activities against Al Qaeda in Iraq. I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let me be absolutely clear. I will end this war. And I will do so swiftly and responsibly. But it's also time to learn the lessons of Iraq. We're not gonna defeat the threats of the 21st century on a conventional battlefield. We're not going to counter terrorism or stop nuclear proliferation by invading and occupying other countries. We cannot win a fight for hearts and minds when we outsource critical missions to unaccountable contractors. Earlier this month. Earlier this month, we got a tragic reminder of this when contractors employed by Blackwater were involved in a firefight that left Iraq civilians dead and this incident reflects a larger problem. A recent report showed Blackwater contractors acting with reckless disregard to Iraqi life. In one case, a drunken Blackwater contractor shot a bodyguard for an Iraqi vice president and was whisked out of the country less than 36 hours later. This is outrageous. But what about all the other cases that never make it to the front pages of our paper but taint the Iraqi's images of America and the Arab's worldview of America? To add insult to injury, these contractors are charging taxpayers up to nine times more to do the same job as our soldiers. A disparity that damages troop morale and the results are clear. According to a recent report, and I quote, "the use of private military contractors appears "to have harmed, rather than helped, "the counter insurgency efforts of the US mission in Iraq." What's made this waste and abuse possible has been the absence of leadership and oversight by Washington. The Bush Administration's approach is inaction as best and collusion to coverup at worst. Rather than demand accountability, the Bush Administration has seeded responsibility. There is no evidence they have raised any concerns about Blackwater's behavior or taken any steps to reign in Blackwater or any other contractors. This is completely unacceptable, although unfortunately, it's typical. The fact is that we've known about this for a long time. That's why back in February, I introduced a bill to demand transparency and accountability in security contracting. That's why last week, I pushed through a provision to improve transparency by requiring our federal government to inform the public about how many contractors they're using, what it's costing us, and what their functions are. I've also proposed tougher government reform than any other candidate in this race. Reforms that would eliminate the kind of no-bid contracts that this administration has given to Blackwater. Today, I wanna take just a little bit of time to announce my security contractor accountability plan. This plan would require contractors to coordinate with the US Military to stop contractors from acting in ways that undermine our mission. Contractors would also have to follow rules of engagement. Yes, I know! He's outraged, too, about Blackwater. I know, it's terrible! Contractors would have to follow rules of engagement when they use force, and above all, they would have to comply with US laws. Most contractors currently act as if the law doesn't apply to them because it doesn't, and that has to end. Under my plan, when contractors break the law, they will be prosecuted. I'm also proposing the creation of a special FBI unit devoted entirely to investigating abuses by contractors. This week, the FBI announced it was sending a team to Iraq to look into the incidents with Blackwater earlier this month. I'm glad to see it, but this shouldn't just be a temporary job of the FBI. It should be one of their permanent responsibilities and under my plan, it will be. This isn't a cure-all. My proposal won't solve these proposals overnight, but they're a start, and they've never been so urgently needed. In the end, this isn't just about broken laws or wasted tax revenue, as serious as those offenses are. This is about our claims to moral leadership in the world. A senior military official has said contractor abuses may be worse than Abu Ghraib. We can't let this continue. Given the attention these scandals have generated, we can no longer plead ignorance. The only responsible and only justifiable course is to do everything in our power to stop them. Restoring our security and our leadership will demand more than just ending this war. It's gonna demand more than even just ending these abuses. It's time to start a whole new era in American diplomacy. That starts with turning the page on the Bush/Cheney diplomacy of not talking. We need a president who's willing to talk to all nations, friend and foe. I'm not afraid of America. I am not afraid of America losing propaganda battles to petty tyrants. We need to go before the world and win those battles. JKF once said, "we should never negotiate out of fear, "but we should never fear to negotiate." Strong countries and strong presidents talk to friend and foe alike. If we take the attitude that the president just parachutes in for a photo op after an agreement has already been reached, then we will only reach agreements with our friends. That's not the way to protect the American people. It's time to make diplomacy a top priority. Instead of shuttering consulates. Instead of shuttering consulates, we need to open them up in some of the tough and hopeless corners of the world. Instead of having more Americans serve in military bands than in our diplomatic core, we need to grow our foreign service. Instead of retreating from the world, I will personally lead a new chapter in American engagement. It's time to offer the world a message of hope to counter the profits of hate. In the 21st century, progress must mean more than a vote at the ballot box. It must mean freedom from fear and freedom from want. We can't stand for the freedom of anarchy, nor can we support the globalization of an empty stomach. We need new approaches to help people to help themselves. The United Nations has embraced the millennium development goals which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015. So far, the Bush Administration has tried to keep a distance from those goals. When I am president, they will be America's goals. The Bush Administration tried to keep the UN from proclaiming these goals. The Obama Administration will double foreign assistance to 50 billion dollars to lead the world to achieve them. In the 21st century, we cannot stand up before the world and say that there's one set of rules for America and one set of rules for everybody else. To lead the world, we have to lead by example. That means that we have to be willing to acknowledge our failings, not just trumpet our victories, which also means that when I am president, we will reject torture without exception or equivocation. We will stop renditions shipping prisoners off in the dead of night. We'll close Guantanamo. We'll be a country that restores the right of Habeas Corpus. We'll be a country that credibly tells the dissidence in prison camps around the world that America is your voice. America's your dream. America's your light to justice. I think the world wants America to lead, but we can't lead if we're arrogant. We can't lead if we only talk to our friends, not to our enemies. We can't lead if we have presidents who just recite conventional Washington speak instead of speaking clearly to America and the world. We've seen in this campaign just how entrenched the conventional thinking is in Washington. When I said, that as president, I would lead direct diplomacy with our adversaries, I was called naive and irresponsible, but how are we going to turn the page on Bush/Cheney diplomacy of not talking to our adversaries if we don't have a president who will lead that diplomacy? When I said that we can rule out using nuclear weapons to take out a terrorist training camp, it was immediately labeled as a gaff because I didn't recite the Washington speak, but is there any military planner in the world who would think that we should use nuclear weapons to take out a terrorist training camp? Make no mistake, America must be prepared to use force to protect America, but the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons. It's to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. That's why I've worked with the Republican senator Dick Luger to pass a law accelerating our pursuit of loose nuclear materials. That's why I'll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials during my first term in office. But we need to do more than that. We need to change our nuclear policy and our posture, which is still focused on deterring the Soviet Union, a country that no longer exists. Meanwhile India and Pakistan and North Korea have joined the club of nuclear armed nations and Iran is knocking on the door. More nuclear weapons and more nuclear armed nations means more danger to us all. Here is what I will say as president. America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons. We will not pursue unilateral disarmament. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong nuclear deterrent, but we'll work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off of hair trigger alert and to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and materials. We'll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile materials for weapons, and we'll set a goal to expand the US/Russian ban on intermediate-range missile so that the agreement is global. And as we do this, we'll be in a better position to lead the world in enforcing the rules of the road if we abide by those rules ourselves. It's time to stop giving countries like Iran. IT's time to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse for pursuing nuclear weapons. When I'm president, we'll strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty so that the nations that don't comply will automatically face strong international sanctions. It's time for America to lead. It's time for America to seek a new beginning. Now, let me just wrap up by saying this. There are some who say we can't do these things, that they're too difficult or that we just have to stick to the same old Washington ways of doing things. The same old Washington experience that got us into the war in Iraq, but I believe that the challenges around the world are too urgent, that they're too grave, that they're too unconventional for us to take the conventional path. I believe that we can turn the page to something new and unite this country and seize this moment. I'm reminded every day by events or by my wife that I'm not a perfect man. I won't be a perfect president, but my own American story tells me that this country moves forward when we cast off our doubts and we seek new beginnings. I wouldn't be on this stage if, throughout our history, America had not made the right choice over the easy choice. The ambitious choice over the calculated choice. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think that we were ready to move past the old arguments of the 1960s and the 1990s. I wouldn't be here if time and time again, the torch hadn't been passed to a new generation to unite this country at home and to show a new face of this country to the world. I am running for the presidency of the United States of America so that together we can do the hard work, to seek a new dawn of peace and prosperity, not just for our children, but for children all across the world, and I hope you'll join me. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Alright, here comes the fun part. Right here, this young lady in the shirt with that cute kid in the lap. Who's got her priorities shirt on. - [Audience Member] Thank you for coming, Senator Obama. I had a question about the federal budget. Currently 53% of federal budget goes to the Pentagon. Military expertssay that they can cut up to 15% or 60 billion dollars and still safely defend our country from threats. If elected president or when elected president-- - [Senator Barack Obama] When's better. - [Audience Member] Would you commit to cutting part of the military budget or the Pentagon budget, rather, obsolete Cold War, technology, and invest that into-- - [Senator Barack Obama] What I have said, because, you guys have been at every town hall meeting in every state that I go to, and so I've answered this question about 15 times, is that we do have a military that is still geared towards a cold war and not towards the new threats that we face, which are asymmetrical, which come from terrorists and loose networks of people and we have to adapt that military. I believe that that means we're gonna be able to eliminate a number of weapons programs that are obsolete and I've already pointed, in my speech, to one big set which is, we still have such enormous nuclear stockpiles that really serve no use when it comes to dealing with terrorists, and if anything, weakens our ability to go to other countries and say, "you need to lock down "your nuclear weapons or eliminate them." My commitment is is that we will do a thorough audit of all weapons systems and those that no longer apply to keeping us safe, we will no longer have. I would like to think that some of that money could go to social needs. Some of it is gonna be required to actually reset that military that we do need, so for example, our National Guard has been decimated when it comes to equipment, and that's just basic equipment that we actually used back home here to deal with hurricanes or tornadoes or so forth, and we're gonna have to deal with our veterans in a way that is much better than we've been doing so far. The notion that-- We've got huge numbers of people coming back with post traumatic stress disorder partly because they've been on so many tours. And we're gonna have to use a considerable amount of money to make sure that they are cared for, but I think that is a solemn oath that we make. When we send young men and women to fight for us, when they come home, we've gotta make sure that we're doing right by them, and right now, we're not. Good question, though. Alright. Young lady right there in the sweater. - [Audience Member] Senator Obama, you mentioned the UN millennial goals, so my question is, what other ways will economic relief and development play a role in your foreign policy and what do you feel is the most effective way to use money for humanitarian aims? - [Senator Barack Obama] That's a great question. As I've said, I'm committed to doubling our foreign aid. I think that how we spend that money is just as important as the amount of money we spend. There are a couple of principles that I think are gonna be at the center of an Obama Administration policy. Number one is we have to understand that if we want to stabilized country, just setting up a ballot box and having people vote in and of itself is not enough. Democracy is important, but only if we built a civil infrastructure behind it, so it important for us to emphasize things like rule of law, anti-corruption efforts, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Those are issues that I think we have to encourage in those countries that we're providing assistance. We shouldn't be naive that folks are gonna establish these habits overnight, but in many ways, in my father's home country of Kenya, people are more concerned about not being stopped, harassed, shaken down by police on the streets than they are about voting. They just want some personal security and safety and that is something that has to be in place. Principle number two, the best indicator of whether or not a country is gonna develop is how its girls and its women. And so any foreign aid that I initiate, now I'm biased here because my mother was an expert on women's development issues and she traveled around the world to set up systems so that they could get a foothold in the economy, but every study has shown this, so if we are gonna build schools, and I've called for a global education fund that would build schools that teach math and science instead of hatred of America, if we're gonna build schools around the world, if a country wants to accept that foreign aid, they've gotta treat the girls who are studying there on the same footing as the boys. If we're gonna set up micro-lending projects, then women have to have access to those micro-lending projects, not just the men. I think that is absolutely critical. The third principle, I think, is that whatever development aid we provide has to be reinforced by improving trade relationships with impoverished countries so that there are sustainable goals that can be met. It's not just enough to feed people. People have to be able to feed themselves and hopefully engage in trade so that they can participate in the new global economy. That means that for example here in the United States, we should be thinking how can we open up our markets to countries that don't pose a serious threat to us in terms of the global economy? I was mentioning Kenya, but one of their big exports now is flowers. Apparently, the land around Nairobi is really good for flower growing. Well, that's not a major industry here in the United States. Let's open up that market and let them earn the kind of trade that will allow them then to invest in schools and public health, infrastructure, and so forth. Those would be some broad principles that I would apply, but the most important thing is US should lead on this. It is embarrassing that we still spend a smaller percentage on foreign aid than just about any other developed country and we should. That's something that we've yet to pick up. - [Audience Member] I guess, I'm from Chicago, and I guess I've seen a lot of research being done, I've seen a lot of research on incarcerated youth, and it just seems like people of African decent are just kind of, they're holding up the prison system. I was just wondering if this isn't a concern for a president just like many of the presidents of the past have dealt with this concern. I'm just wondering if, since the research is being done and we're here now doing even more research on it and we're attempting to mentor, to see if even though we're doing things, we're hitting such a small part of the problem and I'm just wondering what can a president do about this and how do you plan to address this concern? - [Senator Barack Obama] Well, it's a great question. I actually, and it's a timely question, I just gave a speech at Howard University last week directly addressed to this issue, so you might wanna look it up online, barackobama.com. It's a pretty good speech. I think people have started to focus on this in part because of what happened in Gina, Louisiana where you had young men who had, no doubt, engaged in violence and should have been punished, but who were charged with attempted murder because of a schoolyard brawl. They had been bullies, and as I said, they should have been punished, but what is true is is that every indicator shows that African Americans are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to receive stiffer sentences for the exact same crimes. This is after you factor out that, let's say, African Americans because they're poor, may be more likely to engage in some of these crimes, even after you factor that out, there's some injustice in the system. What a president can do, I think, is talk about it and shine a spotlight on it, and have a justice department and a civil rights division that is working with local law enforcement to try to deal with some of these discrepancies. Now, I wanna start early. I think the best place to start is by making sure that every child has early childhood education so that they're prepared for school the first day they get there. If we close the achievement gap in education-- If we close the achievement gap in education and we raise teacher salaries, improve professional development, work with them rather than against them on assessment tools to raise standards that actually make sense instead of No Child Left Behind. If we've done all those things, if we've done those things and we've set up after school programs and summer school programs for underprivileged youth, we will cut the number of young people that are going into the drug trade, and that's where you've seen a skyrocketing of incarcerations. First time non-violent drug offenders. Then they get a master's degree in crime when they come out, they're unemployable, they just go back to the streets. Keeping them out of jail in the first place by making schools work and giving the people opportunities, number one. Number two is making sure that we are doing something about recidivism rate by actually giving training and opportunity for those who are coming out, ex-offenders. Number three, as I said, making the justice system work more justly. I think if we do those three things, then at least we can curb some of the trends that we're seeing right now. Okay. - [Audience Member] I've just got a question. I think it's really important that we try to reunify this country. It's been very divisive politics the last, I don't know, 16 years about. I like your message about trying to do so, but how do you actually think you can unify the country when there's all these wedge issues, specifically on the wedge issues such as abortion and gun control and gay marriage? And then how do you also compromise with people who refuse to take any troops out, you know? How are you actually gonna reunify us? - [Senator Barack Obama] Good, well, it's a great question. Look, when I decided to run, I asked myself three questions. One, could my family survive the strains of a presidential campaign, and I've got such a powerful, wonderful wife, and my kids are so fabulous that I figured I could pull it off. So far, they've been thriving and I've been missing them terrible, I admit. Question number two was could I win? And we decided, based on the data that I could win, but the third thing, which was, I think, the most important question I had to ask myself was is there something I can do as the Democratic nominee and then as the president that nobody else can do or that I can do it better than anybody else? My conclusion was yes and it goes to your question. We've become so accustomed to just assuming that half the country, 45% of the country is red, 45%'s blue, 10% is in the middle, maybe. They all live in Ohio and Florida. During presidential contests, we all go there, we fight out on these wedge issues, maybe we eek out a victory, maybe we don't, but even if we do, we can't govern. There's gridlock and so my belief was that I could change the political map and break out of it. When people ask me about this experience question, which I got puzzled by when this first came up, 'cause I thought, "well, I've got 20 years of experience "in public services as a community organizer, "a civil rights attorney, a law professor, "as a state senator, as a United States senator." I came to realize what they really meant was, you don't have enough experience living in Washington. And I tried to explain to them that's not the experience I want. Of petty bickering and gridlock. I don't wanna learn how to play that game better. I want to put an end to the game playing because the times are too serious and the stakes are too high. Here's the experience that I do bring. I have the experience of bringing people together to get things done like I did in the Illinois legislature, providing health insurance to kids who didn't have it. Or by fixing a death penalty system that was broken, and part of the reason the way that I was successful is listening to Republicans, listening to Independents, not presuming that I've got a monopoly on all wisdom, assuming that we have common goals even if we disagree on how to get there, so giving people the benefit of the doubt that Republicans want kids to learn. Republicans want a just criminal justice system, they may just have disagreements in terms of how to get there. Once you establish that sense of common goals, then you can start talking very practically, and that's what we did on the death penalty issue. I said, "look, I don't care which side "of the death penalty you're on. "We can all agree that you can't have innocent people "on death row. "We'd have 13." So I sat down law enforcement with civil rights advocates and death penalty abolitionists and we just worked through what would it take to prevent innocent people from being on death row? Once you start thinking in practical common sense ways, then you can actually build a consensus. We ultimately passed a bill that was voted out unanimously, first in the nation, and when I started off, people said it could not be done, that it would never happen, so I think setting that tone, that we have a common purpose, we have a common destiny, I think that's important. The second thing that we're gonna have to do, though, is overcome the special interests that have an investment in a divided country and healthcare is a great example. Healthcare is a great example. John Edwards, myself, Hillary Clinton, we all have healthcare plans that are basically identical. I mean, 5% differences on each plan, but basically, it's the same concept. We're gonna cover everybody, we're gonna set up a government plan similar to the plan that I, as a member of Congress get. You can buy into it if you're poor, if you can't afford it, we'll subsidize you. We're gonna emphasize prevention, blah, blah, blah. You can go on my website, barackobama.com if you want the details, though. If you want real healthcare reform, though, we've gotta overcome drug and insurance companies that spent a billion dollars in the last 10 years blocking reform. So part of the argument that we've gotta make to the country is to say the Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, "look, the system we have "is inefficient, it's unsustainable, it's a burden "on business, and all of us have an interest "in bringing about fundamental change "and we've gotta overcome those special interests "in order to do so," and I think that you can get not just Democrats but others to say, "that makes sense. "We agree." We're still gonna have some arguments in terms of how to get that done, but I think that once you establish a common goal and you recognize that those that are profiting from the division, then I think you can make progress. Third thing, which you pointed out, which is there are these wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage and so forth, guns. I think that my strategy has been to go directly to people who disagree with me on those issues and say, "I understand your point of view, "I respect your point of view. "Now, we're not gonna agree on this. "Are there areas we can agree on?" I won't always get people's votes by doing that, but at least I'll get their respect. I think there are areas where, on all of these, quote, unquote wedge issues, there are actually things that people agree to, at least the vast majority of people agree to. On guns, there's a very different vision in Chicago of guns because people think 34 kids were shot down on the streets last year, innocent kids. There's a different perception than in rural communities where guns have to do with hunting and the tradition of being with dad and going out. If we can say to both sides, "respect the traditions, "but also respect the reality of handguns in the hands of gang bangers," there should be agreement that we can enforce laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals on the streets. On abortion, we aren't gonna agree on abortion, but we may agree to reducing unwanted pregnancies which will reduce abortion rates by making sure that we provide sensible family planning information. On the issue of gay marriage, maybe we're not gonna get agreement on that, but I think that the vast majority of Americans don't believe that gays and lesbians should be discriminated on the job or where they are looking for a place to live or all the rights that are conferred on heterosexual couples, but leave people with civil unions out on the lurch. I think we can find agreement there. In each of these points, let's not just assume that there are gonna be divisions. I think that we can find areas of common interest. If we can get a 60% majority on any one of these issues, then we can actually get something done, and that's my goal, as president of the United States, is finding that 60% majority to deal with climate change, to deal with healthcare, to deal with education, to deal with these big challenges that can't wait any longer. If we just pretend that somehow doing business the same way we've been doing it is gonna lead to a different result, then we're fooling ourselves. I've got time for one more question. - [Audience Member] My question has to do with a comment that you made a few weeks ago about Pakistan and that comment, I think, has been interpreted to mean as president, you would unilaterally enter the tribal regions of Pakistan to hunt down Osama Bin Laden. I was just wondering, could you reiterate that position and further explain why you would do that? - [Senator Barack Obama] This is one of the challenges of running for president, is people report on what you say incorrectly. The headline the day after was, "Obama to Invade Pakistan." "Obama to Send Troops to Pakistan." Literally, those were the headlines. Again, this speech is barackobama.com. It was given in the context of how do we actually have a tough and smart terrorism policy, and what I said was this. We have to stop thinking just militarily. We have to think diplomatically thinking about all the tools we have to change the environment to make ourselves safer. Step number one was getting out of Iraq. Step number two was having some additional troops in Afghanistan to bolster our efforts there because we have been distracted and Al Qaeda has gotten stronger and the Taliban have gotten stronger since 2001. That included, by the way, getting humanitarian and aid efforts going in Afghanistan that right now are failing, so for example, we've gotta give farmers in Afghanistan some crop other than heroine poppy because heroine poppy is financing the Taliban, which means that we need agricultural specialists in Afghanistan as badly as we need an additional platoon. Probably more. What I did say was this. That Pakistan has not done a sufficiently good job in rooting out Al Qaeda base camps that are in the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Musharraf has been getting billions of dollars from aid from us, but because of some of his own internal concerns, he cut a deal with the tribal leaders there. The tribal leaders left him alone, but they also allowed Bin Laden to establish base camps there, where people are being trained to kill us. That is unacceptable, and so what I said was we have to put more pressure on the Musharraf government. We have to restrict our military aid to, not humanitarian, but military aid to Pakistan if they don't take seriously the need to go after Bin Laden. And what I said was that if we had a clear and targeted strike at Bin Laden or high level Al Qaeda targets and Pakistan was unwilling to take them out, that we should, which, by the way, was echoed by the head of the 9/11 commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, a few weeks later after I said it. They said it in exactly the same terms. This should be a fairly uncontroversial proposition, but it was portrayed in some way as this wild-eyed perspective. One last thing I also said, though, in terms of dealing with terrorism, there are maybe 20 to 25,000 hardcore Jihadists who would strap on a bomb and blow us up, blow up this room. We can't negotiate with them. All we can do is disable them, capture them, kill them. But there are 1.3 billion Muslims around the world and they are trying to live their lives with dignity and respect. If we are going to create safety and security, we've got to reach out to those communities and not with arrogance, but with a sense of what we stand for and who we are and extending a hand of friendship and respect, and that's why one of the things I proposed is to call a summit in the Muslim world within the first year of my presidency that I would lead and would invite Muslim leaders from all around the world. And I think that, although I am a Christian, the fact that I have Muslims in my family back in Africa, the fact that I have lived overseas in places like Indonesia, gives me a credibility in talking to that forum that no other president could have. That's something that I think is worth bearing in mind. The day I am inaugurated, the world looks at America differently. And that is something that we can do something powerful with. Alright everybody, thank you, appreciate you. Thank you guys.