The Iowa Daily Report, Monday, December 15, 2003

* QUOTABLE:

“Good riddance. The world is better off without you, Mr. Saddam Hussein," President Bush said.

"The fact is that if Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison," said Joe Lieberman.

"My name is Saddam Hussein," he told US troops pulling him from his hole. "I am the president of Iraq and I want to negotiate." US Major Brian Reed replied: "Regards from President Bush."

"You know, some people have said, `Oh, Saddam Hussein is captured, this campaign is going away.' I don't think so," said Howard Dean.

"I supported this effort in Iraq without regard for the political consequences because it was the right thing to do," Dick Gephardt said in. "I still feel that way now and today is a major step toward stabilizing Iraq and building a new democracy."

“It seems to me that all of the concerns that I have voiced about Iraq remain. I stand by every concern," Wesley Clark said.

"The Democrats can't touch him at the moment," said Columbia University historian Henry Graff. "He said he was going to get him. He got him. What more do you want? Now if we can lower the level of violence over there, he's going to look good."

It's now almost impossible for Dean to argue, as he did in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, that "although we have won the war, we are failing to win the peace." And the scenes of Iraqis rejoicing make it a lot harder for Dean to explain his gaffe from last spring that "I suppose [Saddam's fall] is a good thing." -- Writes the NY Post.

As for the capture's affect on Dean's candidacy, the anonymous Dean official said: "We've seen this before, `Mission Accomplished,' etc., etc., but I think this campaign has gone way beyond the war, and why we're here also has to do with changing the party and changing the political system in the country."

"The risk to the Democratic Party of Dean as their presidential nominee has gone up dramatically," said Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University.

“Even in the unlikely event that Saddam never had dealings with terrorists or quit building weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War, even if every single thing Bush said about Iraq was a lie, the Dems can't know for sure. If they call him on the war and Bush can prove he was right - using Saddam's own testimony - it will be a very long time before the country trusts a Democrat with national security.” -- writes Zev Chafets of the NY Daily News.

"This is a president who cares more about Halliburton than about bringing our soldiers home!" Howard Dean said.

“The long, dispiriting history of Holocaust denial -- a thriving lie in the Middle East and alive elsewhere -- would be a far worse plague had not the Nuremberg tribunal painstakingly rubbed the noses of various nations in what they did, or did too little to prevent. An unsparing presentation of Hussein's crimes would also usefully complicate the moral exhibitionism of some of America's critics.” -- George Will writes.

"You were never going to get any closure on this whole mess until you got him," a well-informed Bush source said. "This starts building a path to an end game in Iraq."

"We have two core problems," a senior Bush adviser said, "and in a relatively short period of time, we've seen significant changes for the better to both."

"I don't think these people would be coming out to Uncle Nancy's Coffee Shop at 7 o'clock at night if they didn't have an interest in going to a caucus. A lot of them don't see a huge difference between the candidates, and they're looking for a sign or a magic bullet that says this person is going to have the best chance of knocking off George W. Bush next fall," said Iowa legislative staffer Ron Parker.

"You're getting into a situation where you can give any of the eight candidates the undecideds and it doesn't make a difference," said pollster Dick Bennett of the American Research Group in Manchester. His poll, released Thursday, showed the undecided count at just 15 percent in New Hampshire.

“It’s very important that we have somebody who can beat George W. Bush,” John Kerry’s daughter Vanessa Kerry, 26, said, “who can look George Bush in the eyes and say ‘No more, no way.’”

"He's been a registered lobbyist longer than he's been a registered Democrat," Lieberman campaign director Craig Smith said about Wesley Clark.

* TODAY’S OFFERINGS:

Saddam Capture: *Wesley Clark *Howard Dean *Dick Gephardt
*John Kerry *John Edwards *Joe Lieberman *Dennis Kucinich

Howard Dean: *Dean piles on Bush *Dean’s foreign policy speech
*Dean’s the cure *Dean’s hiccup *Dean’s high dollar rollers  *Piling on Dean

John Kerry: *Kerry’s reaction team *Kennedy campaigns

Wesley Clark: *Clark testifies against Milosevich
*Clark: death penalty an option

John Edwards:  Edwards foreign policy address

Dennis Kucinich: *Kucinich in Iowa

Just Politics: *Iowa Harkin endorsement  *Clinton vs. Gore
*Poll watching  *Democrat National Committee

* CANDIDATES & CAUCUSES:

Wesley Clark

"I could not be prouder of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces for capturing this horrible despot. This is a testament to their courage and determination. I'd also like to congratulate Lt. General Sanchez and the intelligence community for the crucial role they played. We've been due good news from Iraq and the world is a safer and better place now that he is in custody."

Howard Dean

"This is a great day for the Iraqi people, the US, and the international community.

"Our troops are to be congratulated on carrying out this mission with the skill and dedication we have come to know of them.

"This development provides an enormous opportunity to set a new course and take the American label off the war. We must do everything possible to bring the UN, NATO, and other members of the international community back into this effort.

"Now that the dictator is captured, we must also accelerate the transition from occupation to full Iraqi sovereignty."

Dick Gephardt

"Today is a great day for our troops, the Coalition forces and the people of Iraq.

"I supported this effort in Iraq without regard for the political consequences because it was the right thing to do. I still feel that way now and today is a major step toward stabilizing Iraq and building a new democracy.

"For many years, we will be confronted with a war on terrorism that is unfinished. This will be a long and difficult struggle and we need a president who has the credibility to unite the American people and our allies in an effort to make our nation and our world safe."

John Kerry

"This is a great day for U.S. forces, the Iraqi people, and the world. Capturing Saddam Hussein and ensuring that this brutal dictator will never return to power is an important step towards stabilizing Iraq for the Iraqis.

"Let’s also be clear: Our problems in Iraq have not been caused by one man and this is a moment when the administration can and must launch a major effort to gain international support and win the peace. We need to share the burden, bring in other countries, and make it clear to the world that Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people.

"Today is another opportunity to invite the world into a post-Saddam Iraq and build the coalition to win the peace that we should have built to win the war.”

John Edwards

"Today, every American and people all over the world are waking up to the good news that Saddam Hussein is no longer free. But no citizens are happier to learn of his capture than the Iraqi people who endured his torture and oppression for decades. They have been waiting to hear of his demise and we are all grateful that they finally received this welcomed news.

"Since last March our men and women in uniform have been working with courage and commitment to help the Iraqi people create the country of their dreams: one that is free, democratic, and free from Saddam Hussein's terrible reign. We are all so proud of their efforts not just today, but every day as they work tirelessly to bring democracy to Iraq.

"Our military leaders have accomplished a great success. I hope President Bush will use this opportunity to chart a course in Iraq that will bring in our allies in a meaningful way to achieve a democratic and peaceful Iraq."

Joe Lieberman

"Hallelujah, praise the Lord. This is something that I have been advocating and praying for for more than twelve years, since the Gulf War of 1991. Saddam Hussein was a homicidal maniac, a brutal dictator, who wanted to dominate the Arab world and was supporting terrorists.

“He caused the death of more than a million people, including 460 Americans who went to overthrow him. This is a day of glory for the American military, a day of rejoicing for the Iraqi people, and a day of triumph and joy for anyone in the world who cares about freedom, human rights, and peace.

“This evil man has to face the death penalty. The international tribunal in The Hague cannot order the death penalty, so my first question about where he's going to be tried will be answered by whether that tribunal can execute him. If it cannot be done by the Iraqi military tribunal, he should be brought before an American military tribunal and face death.

“We've got some challenges ahead of us. This is not over. We've got to seize this moment, bring in the international community to help us rebuild Iraq, ask NATO to join us in the peacekeeping, complete our victory over the insurgents and terrorists that are fighting us, and let the Iraqis govern themselves.

“This news also makes clear the choice the Democrats face next year. If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a more dangerous place.

“If we Democrats want to win back the White House and take this country forward, we have to show the American people that we're prepared to keep them safe. I consistently supported Saddam's removal for the past decade, and am prepared to do what it takes to win the war on terrorism at home and abroad."

Dennis Kucinich

"With the capture of Saddam Hussein the Administration's stated goal of removing him from power has been accomplished. Now the focus must be on ending the occupation. International law must be followed and Saddam Hussein must be held accountable for his actions… The United States must seize this moment and end the occupation of Iraq. The United States must reach out to the world community with a new plan to stabilize Iraq, bring UN peace-keepers in, and bring US troops home."

Dean piles on Bush

The Associated Press story previews Howard Dean’s speech on foreign policy:

Dean's speech Monday at the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles will outline how he hopes to strengthen domestic security and step up the U.S. military's fight against terror. He also will criticize the Bush administration sharply for a "go-it-alone" approach to international conflicts that he says is "leading America in a radical and dangerous direction."

The Boston Globe reports that after the capture of Hussein Dean is rewriting his opening to the speech. In the speech Dean is expected to announce his support for the formation of a global Alliance against terrorism:

“Just as important as finding (Osama) bin Laden is finding and eliminating sleeper cells of nuclear, chemical and biological terror," the former Vermont governor says in a memo to reporters previewing a speech on foreign relations. Bin Laden is kingpin behind the al-Qaida terror network.

"Our global alliance will place its strongest emphasis on this most lethal form of terror."

"Sleeper cells" are small groups of operatives assigned to live nondescript lives, sometimes for years, in a targeted location until being ordered into action under preplanned instructions.

Dean will also be making another major policy speech on Thursday, in New Hampshire, he will describe a "new social contract" between the public, the government and major corporations.

Dean was asked about a 1998 statement he made about the French in a Washington Post  story:

During another 1998 appearance on the show, "The Editors," Dean said it was not worth trying to woo French support on foreign policy initiatives. "The French will always do exactly the opposite on what the United States wants regardless of what happens, so we're never going to have a consistent policy," he said.

Asked about the comment, Dean said he now thinks that because the French "have seen how bad things can get with the United States, they might respond to a new president who's willing to offer them respect again."

Dean has also said buy off the North Korea with a package deal to give up its nuclear weapons programs. He has also offered support for an unofficial peace plan that establishes the borders of a Palestinian state in opposition to the Bush administration’s approach.

Dean’s foreign policy speech:

In the past year, our campaign has gathered strength by offering leadership and ideas and also by listening to the American people. The American people have the power to make their voices heard and to change America's course for the better.

What are the people telling us? That a domestic policy centered on increasing the wealth of the wealthiest Americans, and ceding power to favored corporate campaign contributors, is a recipe for fiscal and economic disaster. That the strength of our nation depends on electing a President who will fight for jobs, education, and real health care for all Americans.

But the growing concerns of the American people are not limited to matters at home: They also are increasingly concerned that our country is squandering the opportunity to lead in the world in a way that will advance our values and interests and makes us more secure.

When it comes to our national security, we cannot afford to fail. September 11 was neither the beginning of our showdown with violent extremists, nor its climax. It was a monumental wake-up call to the urgent challenges we face.

Today, I want to discuss these challenges. First I want to say a few words about events over the weekend. The capture of Saddam Hussein is good news for the Iraqi people and the world. Saddam was a brutal dictator who should be brought swiftly to justice for his crimes. His capture is a testament to the skill and courage of U.S. forces and intelligence personnel. They have risked their lives. Some of their comrades have given their lives.

All Americans should be grateful. I thank these outstanding men and women for their service and sacrifice.

I want to talk about Iraq in the context of all our security challenges ahead. Saddam's capture offers the Iraqi people, the United States, and the international community an opportunity to move ahead. But it is only an opportunity, not a guarantee.

Let me be clear: My position on the war has not changed.

The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost. An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam's ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk.

As our military commanders said, and the President acknowledged yesterday, the capture of Saddam does not end the difficulties from the aftermath of the administration's war to oust him. There is the continuing challenge of securing Iraq, protecting the safety of our personnel, and helping that country get on the path to stability. There is the need to repair our alliances and regain global support for American goals.

Nor, as the president also seemed to acknowledge yesterday, does Saddam's capture move us toward defeating enemies who pose an even greater danger: al Qaeda and its terrorist allies. And, nor, it seems, does Saturday's capture address the urgent need to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the risk that terrorists will acquire them.

The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will help keep our soldiers safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.

Addressing these critical and interlocking threats terrorism and weapons of mass destruction -- will be America's highest priority in my administration.

To meet these and other important security challenges, including Iraq, I will bring to bear all the instruments of power that will keep our citizens secure and our nation strong.

Empowered by the American people, I will work to restore:

The legitimacy that comes from the rule of law;

The credibility that comes from telling the truth;

The knowledge that comes from first-rate intelligence, undiluted by ideology;

The strength that comes from robust alliances and vigorous diplomacy;

And, of course, I will call on the most powerful armed forces the world has ever known to ensure the security of this nation.

I want to focus first on two ways we can strengthen the instruments of power so we can achieve all our national security goals. Then I want to lay out my plans for dealing with the central challenges I have identified: defeating global terrorism, curbing weapons of mass destruction.

First, we must strengthen our military and intelligence capabilities so we are best prepared to defend America and our interests.

When the cold war ended, Americans hoped our military's job would become simpler and smaller, but it has not.

During the past dozen years, I have supported U.S. military action to roll back Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, to halt ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, to stop Milosevic's campaign of terror in Kosovo, to oust the Taliban and al Qaeda from control in Afghanistan. As President, I will never hesitate to deploy our armed forces to defend our country and its allies, and to protect our national interests.

And, as President, I will renew America's commitment to the men and women who proudly serve our nation and to the critical missions they carry out.

That means ensuring that our troops have the best leadership, the best training, and the best equipment.

It means keeping promises about pay, living conditions, family benefits, and care for veterans so we honor our commitments and recruit and retain the best people.

It means putting our troops in harm's way only when the stakes warrant, when we plan soundly to cope with possible dangers, and when we level with the American people about the relevant facts.

It means exercising global leadership effectively to secure maximum support and cooperation from other nations, so that our troops do not bear unfair burdens in defeating the dangers to global peace.

It means ensuring that we have the right types of forces with the right capabilities to perform the missions that may lie ahead. I will expand our armed forces' capacity to meet the toughest challenges like defeating terrorism, countering weapons of mass destruction, and securing peace with robust special forces, improved military intelligence, and forces that are as ready and able to strengthen the peace as they are to succeed in combat.

When he ran in 2000, this president expressed disdain for "nation building." That disdain seemed to carry over into Iraq, where civilian officials did not adequately plan for and have not adequately supported the enormous challenge, much of it borne by our military, of stabilizing the country. Our men and women in uniform deserve better, and as President, I will shape our forces based not on wishful thinking but on the realities of our world.

I also will get America's defense spending priorities straight so our resources are focused more on fighting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and honoring commitments to our troops and less, for example, on developing unnecessary and counterproductive new generations of nuclear weapons.

Leadership also is critically needed to strengthen America's intelligence capabilities. The failure of warning on 9-11 and the debacle regarding intelligence on Iraq show that we need the best information possible about efforts to organize, finance and operate terrorist groups; about plans to buy, steal, develop, or use weapons of mass destruction; about unrest overseas that could lead to violence and instability.

As President, I will make it a critical priority to improve our ability to gather and analyze intelligence. I will see to it that we have the expertise and resources to do the job.

Because some terrorist networks know no borders in their efforts to attack Americans, I will demand the effective coordination and integration of intelligence about such groups from domestic and international sources and across federal agencies. Such coordination is lacking today. It is a critical problem that the current administration has not addressed adequately. I will do so -- and I will meet all our security challenges -- in a way that fully protects our civil liberties. We will not undermine freedom in the name of freedom.

I also will restore honor and integrity by insisting that intelligence be evaluated to shape policy, instead of making it a policy to distort intelligence.

Second, we must rebuild our global alliances and partnerships, so critical to our nation and so badly damaged by the present administration.

Meeting the pressing security challenges of the 21st century will require new ideas, initiatives, and energy. But it also will require us to draw on our proudest traditions, including the strong global leadership demonstrated by American Presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton, to renew key relationships with America's friends and allies. Every President in that line, including Republicans Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the first President Bush demonstrated that effective American leadership includes working with allies and partners, inspiring their support, advancing common interests.

Now, when America should be at the height of its influence, we find ourselves, too often, isolated and resented. America should never be afraid to act alone when necessary. But we must not choose unilateral action as our weapon of first resort. Leaders of the current administration seem to believe that nothing can be gained from working with nations that have stood by our side as allies for generations. They are wrong, and they are leading America in a radical and dangerous direction. We need to get back on the right path.

Our allies have been a fundamental source of strength for more than half a century. And yet the current administration has often acted as if our alliances are no longer important. Look at the record: Almost two years passed between September 11 and NATO assuming the leadership of a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. More than six months have gone by between the fall of Baghdad and any serious consideration of a NATO role in Iraq.

It can, at times, be challenging, even frustrating, to obtain the cooperation of allies. But, as history shows, America is most successful in achieving our national aims when our allies are by our side.

Now, some say we shouldn't worry about eroding alliances because, whenever a crisis comes up, we can always assemble a coalition of the willing. It's nice when people are willing, because it means they will show up and do their best. It does not, however, guarantee that they will be able to accomplish all that needs to be done.

As President, I will be far more interested in allies that stand ready to act with us rather than just willing to be rounded up as part of a coalition. NATO and our Asian alliances are strong coalitions of the able, and we need to maximize their support and strength if we are to prevail.

Unlike the kind of pick-up team this administration prefers, alliances train together so they can function effectively with common equipment, communications, logistics, and planning. Our country will be safer with established alliances, adapted to confront 21st century dangers, than with makeshift coalitions that have to start from scratch every time the alarm bell sounds.

Rebuilding our alliances and partnerships is relevant not only in Europe and Asia. Closer to home, my Administration will rebuild cooperation with Mexico and others in Latin America. This President talked the talk of Western Hemisphere partnership in his first months, but at least since 9-11 he has failed to walk the walk. He has allowed crises and resentments to accumulate and squandered goodwill that had been built up over many years. We can do much better.

Third, I will bring to bear our strengthened resources, and our renewed commitment to alliances, on our nation's most critical and urgent national security priority: defeating the terrorists who have attacked America, continue to attack our friends, and are working to acquire the most dangerous weapons to attack us again.

Essential to this effort will be strong US leadership in forging a new global alliance to defeat terror.

And a core objective of this alliance must be a dramatically intensified global effort to prevent the most deadly threat of all the danger that terrorists will acquire weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, biological, and chemical arms.

A critical component of our defense against terror is homeland security. Here, the current administration has talked much, but done too little. It has devised the color coded threat charts we see on television, but it has not adequately addressed the conditions that make the colors change. Our administration will.

We will do more to protect our cities, ports, and aircraft; water and food supplies; bridges, chemical factories, and nuclear plants.

We will improve the coordination of intelligence information not only among federal agencies but also with state and local governments.

And we will enhance the emergency response capabilities of our police, firefighters and public health personnel. These local first responders are the ones on whom our security depends, and they deserve much stronger support from our federal government. A Department of Homeland Security isn't doing its job if it doesn't adequately support the hometown security that can prevent attacks and save lives.

As President, I will strengthen the National Guard's role at the heart of homeland security. Members of the Guard have always stood ready to be deployed overseas for limited periods and in times of crisis and national emergency. But the Iraq war has torn tens of thousands of Guard members from their families for more than a year. It also deprived local communities of many of their best defenders.

The Guard is an integral part of American life, and its main mission should be here at home, preparing, planning, and acting to keep our citizens safe.

Closing the homeland security gap is just one element of what must be a comprehensive approach. We must take the fight to the terrorist leaders and their operatives around the world.

There will be times when urgent problems require swift American action. But defeating al Qaeda and other terrorist groups will require much more. It will require a long-term effort on the part of many nations.

Fundamental to our strategy will be restoration of strong US leadership in the creation of a new global alliance to defeat terror, a commitment among law-abiding nations to work together in law enforcement, intelligence, and military operations.

Such an alliance could have been established right after September 11, when nations stood shoulder to shoulder with America, prepared to meet the terrorist challenge together. But instead of forging an effective new partnership to fight a common foe, the administration soon downgraded the effort. The Iraq war diverted critical intelligence and military resources, undermined diplomatic support for our fight against terror, and created a new rallying cry for terrorist recruits.

Our administration will move swiftly to build a new anti-terrorist alliance, drawing on our traditional allies and involving other partners whose assistance can make a difference.

Our vigilance will extend to every conceivable means of attack. And our most important challenge will be to address the most dangerous threat of all: catastrophic terrorism using weapons of mass destruction. Here, where the stakes are highest, the current administration has, remarkably, done the least.

We have, rightly, paid much attention to finding and eliminating the worst people, but we need just as vigorous an effort to eliminate the worst weapons. Just as important as finding bin Laden is finding and eliminating sleeper cells of nuclear, chemical, and biological terror.

Our global alliance will place its strongest emphasis on this most lethal form of terror. We will advance a global effort to secure the weapons and technologies of mass destruction on a worldwide basis.

To do so, we will build on the efforts of former Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Richard Lugar, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And our effort will build on the extraordinary work and leadership, as Senator and as Vice President, of one of America's great leaders, Al Gore.

The Nunn-Lugar program has been critical to securing the vast nuclear, chemical, and biological material inventory left over from the Soviet Union. Incredibly, despite the threat that the nexus of terrorism and technology of mass destruction poses, despite the heightened challenges posed by 9-11, the current administration has failed to increase funding for these efforts to secure dangerous weapons. I know that expanding and strengthening Nunn-Lugar is essential to defending America, and I will make that a priority from my first day as President.

Our new alliance will call upon all nations to work together to identify and control or eliminate unsafeguarded components -- or potential components -- of nuclear, chemical and biological arms around the world. These include the waste products and fuel of nuclear energy and research reactors, the pathogens developed for scientific purposes, and the chemical agents used for commercial ends. Such materials are present in dozens of countries -- and often stored with little if any security or oversight.

I will recruit every nation that can contribute and mobilize cooperation in every arena -- from compiling inventories to safeguarding transportation; from creating units specially-trained to handle terrorist situations involving lethal substances to ensuring global public health cooperation against biological terror.

A serious effort to deal with this threat will require far more than the $2 billion annual funding the U.S. and its key partners have committed. We need a global fund to combat weapons of mass destruction not just in the former Soviet Union but around the world -- that is much larger than current expenditures.

Our administration will ask Congress to triple U.S. contributions over 10 years, to $30 billion, and we will challenge our friends and allies to match our contributions, for a total of $60 billion. For too long, we have been penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to addressing the weapons proliferation threat. We urgently need to strengthen these programs in order to defend America.

The next President will have to show leadership in other ways to mobilize the world into a global alliance to defeat terror.

We and our partners must commit ourselves to using every relevant capability, relationship, and organization to identify terrorist cells, seize terrorist funds, apprehend terrorist suspects, destroy terrorist camps, and prevent terrorist attacks. We must do even more to share intelligence, strengthen law enforcement cooperation, bolster efforts to squeeze terror financing, and enhance our capacity for joint military operations -- all so we can stop the terrorists before they strike at us.

The next President will also have to attack the roots of terror. He will have to lead and win the struggle of ideas.

Here we should have a decisive edge. Osama bin Laden and his allies have nothing to offer except deceit, destruction, and death. There is a global struggle underway between peace-loving Muslims and this radical minority that seeks to hijack Islam for selfish and violent aims, that exploits resentment to persuade that murder is martyrdom, and hatred is somehow God's will. The tragedy is that, by its actions, its unilateralism, and its ill-considered war in Iraq, this Administration has empowered radicals, weakened moderates, and made it easier for the terrorists to add to their ranks.

The next President will have to work with our friends and partners, including in the Muslim world, to persuade people everywhere that terrorism is wholly unacceptable, just as they are persuaded that slavery and genocide are unacceptable.

He must convince Muslims that America neither threatens nor is threatened by Islam, to which millions of our own citizens adhere.

And he must show by words and deeds that America seeks security for itself through strengthening the rule of law, not to dominate others by becoming a law unto itself.

Finally, the struggle against terrorism, and the struggle for a better world, demand that we take even more steps. The strategic map of the world has never been more complicated. What America does, and how America is perceived, will have a direct bearing on how successful we are in mobilizing the world against the dangers that threaten us, and in promoting the values that sustain us.

Today, billions of people live on the knife's edge of survival, trapped in a struggle against ignorance, poverty, and disease. Their misery is a breeding ground for the hatred peddled by bin Laden and other merchants of death.

As President, I will work to narrow the now-widening gap between rich and poor. Right now, the United States officially contributes a smaller percentage of its wealth to helping other nations develop than any other industrialized country.

That hurts America, because if we want the world's help in confronting the challenges that most concern us, we need to help others defeat the perils that most concern them. Targeted and effective expansion of investment, assistance, trade, and debt relief in developing nations can improve the climate for peace and democracy and undermine the recruiters for terrorist plots.

So will expansion of assistance to fight deadly disease around the world. Today, HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death in many places.

We still are moving too slowly to address the crisis. As President, I will provide $30 billion in the fight against AIDS by 2008 -- to help the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria meet its needs and to help developing nations meet theirs.

Fighting poverty and disease and bringing opportunity and hope is the right thing to do.

It is also, absolutely, the smart thing to do if we want children around the world to grow up admiring entrepreneurs, educators, and artists rather than growing up with pictures of terrorists tacked to their walls.

We can advance the battle against terrorism and strengthen our national security by reclaiming our rightful place as a leader in global institutions. The current administration has made it almost a point of pride to dismiss and ridicule these bodies. That's a mistake.

Like our country's "Greatest Generation," I see international institutions like the United Nations as a way to leverage U.S. power, to summon warriors and peacekeepers, relief workers and democracy builders, to causes that advance America's national interests. As President, I will work to make these institutions more accountable and more effective. That's the only realistic approach. Throwing up our hands and assuming that nothing good can come from international cooperation is not leadership. It's abdication. It's foolish. It does not serve the American people.

Working more effectively with the UN, other institutions, and our friends and allies would have been a far better approach to the situation in Iraq.

As I said at the outset, our troops deserve our deepest gratitude for their work to capture Saddam. As I also said, Saddam's apprehension does not end our security challenges in Iraq, let alone around the world. Violent factions in that country may continue to threaten stability and the safety of our personnel.

I hope the Administration will use Saddam's capture as an opportunity to move U.S. policy in a more effective direction.

America's interests will be best served by acting with dispatch to work as partners with free Iraqis to help them build a stable, self-governing nation, not by prolonging our term as Iraq's ruler.

To succeed we also need urgently to remove the label "made in America" from the Iraqi transition. We need to make the reconstruction a truly international project, one that integrates NATO, the United Nations, and other members of the international community, and that reduces the burden on America and our troops.

We also must bring skill and determination to a task at which the current administration has utterly failed: We can and we must work for a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Our alliance with Israel is and must remain unshakeable, and so will be my commitment every day of our administration to work with the parties for a solution that ends decades of blood and tears.

I believe that, with new leadership, and strengthened partnerships, America can turn around the situation in the Middle East and in the Persian Gulf. I believe we can defeat terrorism and advance peace and progress. I believe these things because I believe in America's promise. I believe in our capacity to come together as a people, and to act in the world with confidence, guided by our highest aspirations.

Again and again in America's history, our citizens have faced crucial moments of decision. At these moments, it fell to our citizens to decide what kind of country America would be. And now, again, we face such a moment.

The American people can choose between a national security policy hobbled by fear, and a policy strengthened by shared hopes.

They must choose between a go-it-alone approach to every problem, and a truly global alliance to defeat terror and build peace.

They must choose between today's new radical unilateralism and a renewal of respect for the best bipartisan traditions of American foreign policy. They must choose between a brash boastfulness and a considered confidence that speaks to the convictions of people everywhere.

I believe we will again hear the true voice of America.

It is the voice of Jefferson and our Declaration of Independence, forging a national community in which "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

It is the voice of Franklin Roosevelt rallying our people at a moment of maximum peril to fight for a world free from want and fear.

It is the voice of Harry Truman helping post war Europe resist communist aggression and emerge from devastation into prosperity.

It is the voice of Eleanor Roosevelt insisting that human rights are not the entitlement of some, but the birthright of all.

It is the voice of Martin Luther King proclaiming his dream of a future in which every man, woman and child is free at last.

It is the voice of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton bringing long-time foes to the table in pursuit of peace.

With these legacies to inspire us, no obstacle ahead is too great.

Our campaign is about strengthening the American community so we can fulfill the promise of our nation. We have the power, if we use it wisely, to advance American security and restore our country to its rightful place, as the engine of progress; the champion of liberty and democracy; a beacon of hope and a pillar of strength.

We have the power, as Thomas Paine said at America's birth, "to begin the world anew."

We have the power to put America back on the right path, toward a new era of greatness, fulfilling an American promise stemming not so much from what we possess, but from what we believe.

That is how America can best lead in the world. That is where I want to lead America. Thank you very much.

Dean’s the cure

A Washington Post story covers how Howard Dean’s campaign is still propelled by Democrat’s anger:

WINTERSET, Iowa -- There was a doctor in the room, so Nancy Hull naturally grabbed the opportunity to get advice for her aching back. "Dr. Dean," she asked, "whenever I hear George W. Bush speak, I get a searing pain in my spine. Can you suggest a remedy?"

Dean’s reply:

"My prescription is for you to go to the caucuses on January 19 and vote for Howard Dean," the candidate said, drawing even louder whoops and cheers. "That's the best cure for what ails America."

Dean reports that he is leading in the polls now because he is talking to the whole nation. However, when campaigning he runs into a lot more of the angry Democrats. These are the true believers that are required to win elections:

But with a month to go before the first votes of the Democratic primary season, Dean is focusing on his core group, the kind of people who flock to his rallies wearing T-shirts that read "Dump Dumb Dubya" or "He Lied -- People Died" or "Save the Environment -- Plant a Bush Back in Texas." As the candidate is fully aware, that is the constituency that could sew up the Democratic nomination for him in the first month of the primaries.

Dean’s hiccup

Howard Dean still seems to need a prescription for his own weapon of self-destruction. The Post reports on some Dean hiccups:

When Dean spoke to the senior class Friday at Abraham Lincoln High School in Council Bluffs, Iowa -- 400 people, all eligible to vote in next month's caucuses -- he offended the young audience by bringing in a student from arch-rival Thomas Jefferson High School to introduce him. Here in Winterset, he failed even to mention the local claims to fame, John Wayne's birthplace and Madison County's famous bridges.

Talking about Latin American relations in Miami on Saturday night, Dean mysteriously launched into a discussion of Bush's dealings with Mexico -- with nothing said about Cuba, the Latin American state that matters most to Miami.

"Doesn't the man know we care more about Cuba than Mexico?" growled Enrique Ibarra.

Answer: no.

Dean’s high dollar rollers

The LA Times covers Howard Dean’s high dollar fundraisers. He has been doing a lot of these events and is in California today with more such events. One of Dean’s tricks to not alienate his base is to include different levels of giving for the events:

Ticket prices to some Dean fundraisers vary to attract a mix of donors. At today's San Francisco event, where singers Bonnie Raitt, David Crosby and others will perform, the cost of admission ranges from $100 to $2,000.

Tickets are priced the same for the House of Blues event Monday, where bands The Folksmen, Big Bad Voodoo Daddy and The Bangles will perform.

Piling on Dean

Ed Tibbets of the Quad City Times has a story on how both Joe Lieberman and John Kerry sought to score points on Howard Dean and his anti war stance:

... Both said Hussein’s capture highlights their differences over the war with Dean, who vaulted to prominence on the strength of his anti-war rhetoric, particularly in places like Iowa, where liberal caucus-goers have tended to oppose the war in large numbers.

Lieberman offered his harsh comments several times on Meet the Press during the coverage of the capture of Sadam Hussein. Kerry was in Davenport taping a show to be shown statewide in Iowa where Tibbets interviewed Kerry.

Kerry reminded reporters when Baghdad fell this spring Dean reacted coolly to Hussein’s overthrow. “Gov. Dean said very clearly, he wasn’t sure, I guess he said he supposes it’s a good think to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Well, I knew it was a good thing, on that day. Day one.” The Massachusetts senator also said that had more countries been involved in the war effort, Hussein might have been captured sooner and fewer troops might have lost their lives.

Kerry’s reaction team

The Kerry campaign plans a conference call for 3:00 pm today, on which supporters/advisers Max Cleland and Rand Beers will react to Dean's speech. Kerry has added a foreign policy address for Tuesday in Des Moines titled, "Foreign Policy in a Post-Saddam World: Rebuilding Our Alliances and Iraq." Kerry has added lines to his Iowa stump speech -- "Now all of us are glad that today Saddam Hussein was caught... It's particularly a great moment and we all join together in expressing our gratitude for 4,000 Iowa Guardsmen who are over in Afghanistan and Iraq and for nine sorrowful families that have lost sons already serving their country. Now, we need to do the hard work of diplomacy that should have been done in the first place."

Expect Kerry’s team to follow the line of Dean’s speech on foreign policy that this is about tone and nuance and that Dean is the candidate who thinks calling Hamas soldiers is not a problem… Dean’s not understanding that we took sides in Israel years ago is a problem… Dean’s thinking that we shouldn't use the military in Iraq but we should use them in North Korea is a problem… and, Dean’s thinking that this is a time that underscores if we're going to beat George Bush we need someone who has experience and someone who got this policy right. Kerry still believse there is a long way to go to get it right. Capturing Saddam Hussein is a victory but we need to do what we need to do to be stronger in Iraq."

Sen. John Kerry went ahead with his 30-minute forum in Iowa, which followed directly after coverage of the capture of Saddam Hussein, Sunday. Kerry answered only one question about the war in Iraq. "I believe that the capture of Saddam Hussein is helpful and it's a great moment. But it's a moment," he said. "We need a president who understands the real war on terror is not Iraq. It's al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden."

Kerry offered one difference between himself and the two candidates he is competing against in Iowa, Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt. He did it by obliquely criticizing opponents who support repealing all of the tax cuts enacted under President Bush. He blames them of wanting to raise taxes on the middle class.

It is also reported by the Associated Press that John Kerry encouraged his Iowa supporters the day before at a firefighters training session in Cedar Rapids to stick with his Democratic presidential campaign despite lagging poll numbers and Al Gore's endorsement of rival Howard Dean.

Kennedy campaigns

Sen. Ted Kennedy campaigned in New Hampshire for Sen. John Kerry and said that he would be back to help Kerry out more, according to the Manchester Union Leader.

Kerry’s a loving man, Kennedy said, who has fought for years for the issues that matter, from healthcare to the accounting for missing Vietnam soldiers, to his tough stance on environmental issues.

“You don’t see that talked about in any of those national debates,” Kennedy said at one point. He repeated similar statements throughout his speech.

Kerry was committed to important ideas “when there weren’t a lot of television cameras on, and when there weren’t a lot of writers on,” Kennedy said. “It is that constancy of continuity, when he talks about issues like healthcare, or when he talks about issues like the environment.”

Clark testifies against Milosevich

Wesley Clark testified against former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague at the on going two year war crimes trial. Clark held more than 100 hours of negotiations with Milosevic. The negotiations with the Yugoslav leader were an attempt to halt his crackdown on ethnic Albanian separatists in Kosovo. Clark latter directed the alliance bombing campaign against Serbia. Clark also served as military adviser to U.S. Balkans envoy and former ambassador Richard Holbrooke who negotiated the 1995 Dayton Accords that ended the war in Bosnia.

Clark: death penalty an option

Wesley Clark said that the death penalty should be an option for Saddam Hussein, following his testimony at the Hague against Slobodan Milosevic. "I think the Hague is one of the venues that has to be considered. I think all options must be on the table," Clark said. He urged U.S. occupation authorities in Iraq to "consult broadly" before deciding how to try Hussein and said "all punishments must be on the table; nothing should be excluded.

Edwards foreign policy address

Sen. John Edwards in Cedar Rapids offered his own foreign policy address on the same day that Howard Dean is to make his foreign policy address in California. Here is the text of the speech:

It has been nothing short of an extraordinary 48 hours. On Sunday, Americans and people all over the world awoke to the good news that Saddam Hussein is no longer free. But no people were happier to learn of his capture than the Iraqi people who endured his torture and oppression for decades. They have been waiting to hear of his arrest and we are all grateful that they finally received this welcomed news. And we are all so proud of our military serving for their efforts, not just today, but every day as they work tirelessly to bring stability to Iraq.

This is an historic opportunity: an opportunity to bring tolerance and freedom to the Middle East and to change course in Iraq. We must look forward and look for common sense steps we can take today to ensure that freedom triumphs for the Iraqi people.

First, we must ensure that Saddam Hussein cooperates with us fully by telling us where his loyalists and remaining fighters are hiding so we can improve security in Iraq. And he must give us the complete status of his weapons of mass destruction program.

Second, the way Saddam Hussein is prosecuted will either cement, or fatally undermine, confidence in the rule of law in Iraq. It will either prove once and for all to people in the Arab world that Saddam was a monster, or reinforce mistrust of our policies and our judgments about Saddam's regime. Any tribunal that prosecutes Saddam Hussein will therefore have to meet world-class standards of fairness and be seen as legitimate by both the Iraqi people and the international community. I do not believe that the Bush administration's plans to turn the entire process of justice over to the Iraqi Governing Council will meet that standard.

Prosecuting Saddam is not like restoring electricity or picking up the garbage -- it is one of the most politically sensitive and complex tasks facing a post-Saddam Iraq. Giving that task in its entirety to a Council that is neither elected nor sovereign, whose members were handpicked by the United States, diminishes the likelihood that trials will be seen as legitimate. Yes, Iraqis should take the lead in coming to terms with their own past. But they should do so with the assistance and the involvement of the international community, including the United Nations.

And finally, as Secretary Baker travels through Europe to encourage our allies to forgive Iraq's debts, the Bush administration needs to overturn the recent order excluding countries from participating in Iraq's reconstruction.

The events of the last two days show us just how fast the landscape abroad and here at home can change. While I know that capturing Saddam Hussein does not end the danger in Iraq, I believe that it has kicked the door wide-open for all of us to hope that sooner and not later-democracy will thrive for the Iraqi people.

And I can think of no better place to talk about this hope for the future and our mission than with you. It is an honor to be here with students and teachers from the Des Moines' public schools, and other friends to talk about these historic challenges for our nation.

It was during the 1960 presidential campaign when then candidate John F. Kennedy stood at the rear of his campaign train and delivered one of his major foreign policy speeches, "Pathways to Peace." He did not stand at a think tank in Washington D.C. He did not address a policy group in a bigger city, and he did not travel thousands of miles away to another country to tell the American people how he planned to make us safer and stronger. He went west and spoke directly to the people of Fresno, California.

This is how we should speak about America's role in the world-in personal settings with young people and old; schoolteachers and students; businessmen and nurses. For your lives are the ones affected the most by the decisions and direction a president takes our great nation. Many of the books that surround us in this library, teach us invaluable lessons. When we face challenges alone, more often than not we fail. When we shut out most of the world, our challenges are twice as hard. And when we discard our common sense, we lose sight of the future.

There are a lot of grand theories about how best to conduct our foreign policy. But it seems to me that much of foreign policy-like much of life-boils down to good judgment, common sense, and common decency. We use them in our daily lives and we should use them in America's common defense as well. That is why it is critical in these challenging times that people like me talk to you, directly. That we get out of the typical settings and trappings of Washington and do more than continue an ongoing dialogue between the so-called best and the brightest in our nation's capital and in capitals around the world-we talk with the American people about our vision for the country.

Foreign policy, just like domestic policy, is about improving people's lives. It is about expanding opportunity. The opportunity to make America stronger, safer, and more secure. And the opportunity to stand for values like tolerance, freedom, and democracy around the world.

How our leaders meet these challenges has a profound connection to your lives. Here in Iowa, I know that for many our new war on terrorism has taken its toll. Hundreds of families are without their loved ones at this hour, and many have had to say one final good bye. And I know that more than 1,000 people turned out in Tipton, Iowa to say good-bye to Aaron Sissel from the Iowa National Guard's 2133rd Transportation Company. He was the ninth Iowan to die in Iraq. While we miss them all, we are so grateful for their service.

No matter our differences when it comes to Iraq, we all share great pride for our men and women in uniform who serve their country with such honor. And our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families, especially those serving in the Iowa's National Guard.

When President Kennedy gave that speech in California, he said something that is worth repeating again as we debate and discuss our challenges. I am sure some of you have already seen the ads by the Republican National Committee. Well, that is just a taste of what they plan to offer in 2004. They intend to use the old stereotypes that divide us and say that questioning this president's foreign policy is unpatriotic.

We will counter their divisive ways with better ideas and a forward-looking agenda. As President Kennedy said, "There is no one "party of peace" in this country-just as there is no "war party" or "party of appeasement." The sooner we get these artificial labels out of the way, the sooner we can get down to discussing the real issues. For, while both parties talk about peace, peace is not going to be won merely talking by about it. It requires action-and the Democratic Party believes in action."

The time has come for us to offer more than just our anger and criticism; we must offer the American people a better way. Every candidate running for president, and every critic of this administration agrees that their unilateralist, arrogant, and shortsighted approach to foreign policy has led us in the wrong direction. They have tarnished our image, disrespected our allies, and squandered a sense of goodwill for no purpose. I will show the American people-especially our young people-that ideas and actions, not anger and arrogance, will once again lead America back on the path toward peace, security, and strength.

As I travel around our country, I know that you are worried about the threats posed by terrorists who have attacked us on our own soil and threaten to do so again. You are concerned about the possibility that our enemies will gain access to weapons of mass murder and use them. You are upset that American policies are opposed and resented in many parts of the world even among longtime friends. You want to know how we can restore respect for America overseas; and how we can persuade others to stand with us to meet the most fundamental challenges we face.

As your president, I will bolster our effort to defeat terror. I will work with the world to transform the underlying conditions of tyranny that nourish the strength of our enemies and crush the hopes of friends, and I will take real action to keep the world's most dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

And that is what I want to talk to you about today. One of our most pressing challenges is to diminish the threat posed by the spread of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons.

During the Cold War, these weapons were primarily a problem for the major military powers, to handle through maintaining deterrence; arms control negotiations and superpower summits. But today, we face a terrorist movement that has no interest in bargaining, only in killing. If Al Qaeda had possessed a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon on September 11th, there is no doubt in my mind they would have tried to use it. That is why to win the global war on terror, America does not need a new doctrine of pre-emption; we need a new strategy of prevention.

We face an increased threat from hostile governments in countries like North Korea and Iran. Time and technology have enabled both to take steps toward the development of nuclear arms; and North Korea may already have succeeded. These states and others also have the capacity to produce and sell dangerous technologies to terrorists intent on doing us harm. At the same time, the source materials for producing weapons of mass destruction have become vulnerable to theft or black-market sale, particularly in the former Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, the international rules and institutions we rely on to stymie and isolate wrong-doers are riddled with loopholes and gaps. The Bush administration has responded by pretending that these rules and institutions do not matter. I say they do matter, and that the right policy is not to ignore them, but to fix them.

But has this administration taken any common sense steps to secure these weapons? Have we provided adequate funding for programs to stop their spread ? Have we worked every angle to stop North Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs? Have we put our weight behind strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention? Did we support the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? The answer to each question is no.

This administration's approach to protecting America from weapons of mass destruction can be summed up simply: wait until our enemies gather strength, and then use force to stop them. We should be exercising every option we have to stop the spread of deadly weapons before war becomes our only option.

As president, here is the strategy I would pursue:

First, rather than run from international efforts to halt the spread of dangerous weapons, I will lead in modernizing and strengthening those efforts - beginning with one of the most important - the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. For more than three decades, the NPT has served as the cornerstone of our global strategy to limit the spread of nuclear arms. But the world has changed considerably in three decades, and the NPT needs to be reinforced.

Right now it is too easy for a country to cheat or use a legal civilian power program as the jumping off point for an illegal military one; by withdrawing from the Treaty on short notice and having a weapons capability within months. We cannot accept the false choice between the administration's dangerous doctrine of preemption and a multilateral regime that isn't up to the current challenge.

That is why I will create a Global Nuclear Compact to reinforce the NPT. The Compact will close the loophole that allows civilian nuclear programs to go military. We must reinforce the NPT by creating a Global Nuclear Compact to meet the needs of our times-keeping the capabilities and materials required to make the world's worst weapons out of the wrong hands.

Within six months of taking office, I will convene a summit of leading nations to develop a new Global Nuclear Compact.

I envision a plan that will: increase the international community's role in providing access to fuel for peaceful nuclear programs and for reacquiring and storing the dangerous wastes produced by them; limit the capabilities of states to make such materials; increase security for existing stocks of dangerous nuclear materials; enforce strict monitoring to ensure that materials are not being diverted and facilities not being misused; give international experts the authority to inspect without notice, and make clear that any country that joins the NPT, and then opts out, or that violates the rules of the Global Compact, will be subject to strong, immediate and multilateral penalties aimed specifically at its military capabilities.

Second, I will use the full range of national security tools-and develop new ones-to prevent states like North Korea from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. While this administration argued about what to do, North Korea ejected international inspectors, and unsealed 8000 fuel rods for the express purpose of reprocessing plutonium to build nuclear arms.

This administration does not have a coherent strategy for North Korea. All they are trying to do is persuade China to put pressure on North Korea. This is not a serious strategy to protect America.

As president I will work with our closest allies like South Korea and Japan, to develop a serious plan for ending their destabilizing weapons programs and exports-a plan that includes carrots and sticks. We will verify that North Korea is complying and there will be real consequences if they do not. And I will also work with them to develop long-term strategy for the political and economic transformation of North Korea toward democracy and freedom.

I will also develop new tools to deal with proliferation threats like North Korea. Almost one year ago, the United States intercepted a North Korean freighter carrying missiles to the Middle East and then let it go because the shipment did not violate international law. What it did violate was common sense. Countries like North Korea that don't play by international rules shouldn't be allowed to profit from them.

I will work through the UN Security Council and other mechanisms to establish the principle in international law that countries that sponsor terrorism or willfully violate non-proliferation treaties like the NPT should be treated like the criminals they are.

That means the loss of certain rights, including the right to sell or transfer deadly weapons or related materials to other nations or groups. To enforce this principle, law-abiding nations would have the right to search ships, aircraft and land vehicles originating in these lawless countries.

Third, I will end the danger posed by loose nukes in the former Soviet Union and around the world.

More than a decade has elapsed since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and yet still, 20,000 nuclear warheads and enough other material to produce more than 60,000 Hiroshima-size bombs remain at risk in Russia. Weapons facilities and labs are poorly protected and nuclear scientists are out of work, their services up for sale to the highest bidder. A recent study concluded that 60 percent of Russia's nuclear materials have not been secured, making Russia the Home Depot for terrorists.

Instead of living with this danger for the next three decades or more, I will eliminate it before another decade has passed by simply making it a priority. Not just in rhetoric, but by tripling the amount of money we spend each year. Even with this increase, that will be less than 1 percent of what we spend annually on our entire defense budget.

We pay for this long-term solution to our safety by canceling the Bush administration's plan to create a whole new generation of "bunker-busting" nuclear weapons we don't need, and reducing the more than $9 billion we are spending each year to build a missile defense system that so far has succeeded in shooting down only one thing - the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

While we need to maintain deterrence and keep a strong defense, it doesn't make sense to spend nine times as much on one program that might work some day than we spend on all the other programs that do work today to protect our citizens from weapons of mass destruction.

I also believe that securing Russia's weapons is not a burden the United States should carry alone. As president, I will work with our friends and allies around the globe to get them to pay their fair share of this burden, including by fully implementing the G-8 agreement reached last year on a Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction. We should also work to expand these threat reduction programs beyond the former Soviet Union - to places like India and Pakistan. Our goals should be a global clean-out, eliminating nuclear materials from vulnerable sites.

Fourth, I will lead in improving our nation's capacity to understand and respond to WMD threats. The September 11 attacks and the intelligence fiasco in Iraq are evidence of the challenges we face and of the urgency of reform. Real questions have been raised about the accuracy and ability of our intelligence community to understand the threats before us, especially concerning terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is suffering not just from a crisis of confidence - in many ways it is suffering a crisis of competence.

Some want to pin all the blame for our problems on the intelligence community. But accountability resides in the Oval Office. Rather than try to understand how our intelligence should be improved, this administration initially opposed an independent inquiry into the events leading to 9/11.

It opposed an investigation into the intelligence failure in Iraq. And its officials have apparently leaked classified information to discredit critics and spin its own highly inventive notions of the truth. Intelligence information is not something a president uses for propaganda or to score political points. It is a precious tool for keeping our citizens safe and sustaining our credibility abroad.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have spent years studying our intelligence community, and I understand its strengths and weaknesses. That is why I want to shift the authority for tracking down terrorists here at home from the FBI to a new agency. That agency should have a mandate, the mission and the institutional culture needed to assault terror without assaulting the constitution of the United States.

I will also upgrade our capacity to understand and analyze information related to the unique threats posed by these weapons. I will order the hiring of more analysts with the right kind of scientific and technological training and backgrounds and language skills. And I will institute reforms to improve both our technical and human intelligence concerning these weapons.

And finally, I will make sure that, as president, I have the best advice possible to deal with these threats. I will appoint a high-level "Non-Proliferation Director" who will bring focus and energy to our non-proliferation efforts. We have one person in charge of homeland security, one person who leads our fight against drugs and a single administrator in Iraq, but no one person or office in charge of dealing with the challenge of non-proliferation.. As president, I will make sure that we have someone who wakes up every morning thinking about how to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists and others who wish us harm.

These five concrete steps are where I would begin to protect America from the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. But I would also support other measures that this administration has rejected, including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and efforts to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention.

The threat we face is obvious. The need for such a comprehensive strategy has long been self-evident. It requires action on multiple fronts in dozens of countries. It demands that we use every tool in our national security arsenal - deploying foreign aid, engaging multilateral institutions, conducting diplomacy, applying sanctions, threatening and sometimes using force.

It requires sustained, consistent leadership-leadership that we have not had from this administration. And it will require a lot more than simply getting rid of one Middle Eastern dictator. It was great news for the Iraqi people, the world, and the United States that Saddam Hussein was captured. But that alone is no substitute for a comprehensive strategy to deal with the world's most dangerous weapons, no matter how welcome the news.

A one-dimensional foreign policy for a three-dimensional world will not secure our nation. And without our long-standing allies by our side, we cannot stop proliferation at the source. We need them to shut down smuggling networks, enforce international rules, support economic sanctions, and with us should force become necessary. We need more than coalitions of the willing; we need coalitions of the able.

I will always lead in away that brings others to us so that we can protect America from the threat of weapons of mass destruction. So we can succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan. So we can win the war against terrorism. And so we can help foster democracy and freedom and human rights throughout the Middle East and the world.

However, as President Bush said in his recent speech at that the National Endowment for Democracy, we can never defeat violent terror so long as hundreds of millions of people in the Muslim world are denied the right to express themselves peacefully and democratically. This is the right message, but he is the wrong messenger.

Because you can't promote freedom without the support of free countries around the world. You can't promote freedom if you're not respected by the dissidents and democrats who are struggling to be free. Right now democrats in the Arab world simply do not see the U.S. as a credible champion of their cause. They know the Bush administration itself has set a miserable example on civil liberties and human rights here at home; they have seen us abandon America's traditional as a peacemaker in the Middle East.

That is why I would go far beyond the policy President Bush hinted at in his speech. I would increase funding for democracy assistance programs in the Middle East, Central, South and Southeast Asia. I would make clear to authoritarian governments in the Middle East that the benefits they have long enjoyed from the United States, including foreign aid and trade agreements, will no longer be provided unconditionally.

But I would also approach this challenge with a sense of realism and seriousness. I know that meeting it will require the personal leadership and engagement of the president, who must be willing to travel, to speak directly to the people of the Muslim world, to express America's purpose in terms that show respect for their history, understanding of their cultures, and sensitivity to their grievances. It will require new ideas, innovative collaboration with our allies, and bipartisan support here at home. Most of all, we will need to understand that success ultimately depends not on what we dictate but on what the people of this vastly diverse region decide.

We can employ our influence but we cannot impose our vision. And to employ our influence, we need to restore respect for America in the Middle East and around the world; we need to regain our capacity for leadership. There is no question that America is a military power this world has never seen. And I will keep our military strong - with the resources to do its job - and treat America's military men and women with the support and respect they've earned.

But leadership isn't just military power and strength. It's about convincing others that fighting terrorism and defending freedom is right. That fighting poverty and preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS are efforts the world should undertake together. This does not mean that the international institutions and alliances that served America's interests so well for decades are perfect. They're not. But rather than disregard or undermine them, we should lead the effort to make our alliances better and relevant for the threats we now face.

President Clinton realized this when he transformed NATO into an alliance of the 21st Century with new members and new missions. NATO is now in command of the security force in Afghanistan -- and I believe that we should turn to NATO for help in Iraq.

We also need a bold new approach toward the United Nations - an institution that, for all its flaws, remains indispensable to protecting America's interests abroad. American leadership created the UN, and it will take American leadership to transform it. I will work to redefine not just America's role in the UN, but the organization itself. This includes working with the superb Secretary General, Kofi Annan, to implement many of the reforms he has proposed, as well as proposals to help make the UN more reflective of world realities and more effective in handling 21st century challenges like terrorism.

To meet these global challenges, it will take hard work, sacrifice, and courage. All of these steps I will begin as your president. I plan to accomplish as much as I can, but this common cause will continue for years to come. And the young people here today will carry on our efforts. They will do so with humility, not arrogance, with intelligence, not ideology, and with their energy to enrich the quality of life in our country and around the world.

I do not promise that success will be easy or quick. The keys to the White House do not come with a magic wand. I do not pledge that we won't face difficult choices, like the one we have confronted over Iraq. Nor do I promise our friends and allies around the world that America will ask less of them. The fact is that the less we have been willing to share responsibility with our allies, the easier it has become for some of those allies to evade responsibility, to avoid having to contribute money and troops and ideas to common endeavors.

But I do promise to offer my own faith in the power of American ideals and the strength of good people acting together, doing what is right to secure our future.

As president, I will summon the best from every country to link their strengths with ours, so that together we may defeat the destructive purposes of our adversaries and prevail in our purpose of building a freer and more just future for ourselves and for all people.

And that effort starts today in this library here in Iowa. I have come to share my ideas with you and ask for your support to do these very things for our country and our world. These ideas and policies aren't abstract or foreign at all. But common sense measures we can take together to change our country and secure a lasting peace around the world. Thank you very much.

Kucinich in Iowa

Rep. Dennis Kucinich was unfazed by the capture of Saddam Hussein as he called for the bringing in of U.N. peace-keepers and our troops home: "The appropriate step to take now is to work with the world community to beat international terrorism. Don't lead the world to believe that we are after the oil and being in Iraq's government," Kucinich said. "If we suddenly decide there is another leader we don't like, do we invade that country?" According to the Sioux City Journal.

Kucinich also continued to infer that ABC pulled its reporter from his campaign because of his taking on Ted Koppel in a recent debate: "What right does major corporate media have to tell you these are your candidates?" Kucinich asked. "The American people are looking for candidates who stand up to corporate America. It is not appropriate for the media to tell the people of the United States that these are your candidates and these are not."

Iowa Harkin endorsement

Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa says he will wait until after the Holiday’s before considering endorsing any of his party's presidential candidates. He responded to rumors that he was about to endorse a candidate. He didn't rule out such a move before Iowa's caucuses on Jan. 19. The Omaha World Herald reports that the pressure is up on Harkin to endorse:

Harkin had indicated he might remain neutral in the contest, but U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt's labor supporters have stepped up their focus on Harkin after news reports last week suggested he might be leaning a bit more toward Dean.

Teamsters President James Hoffa, the highest-profile labor ally of Missourian Gephardt, called Harkin on Thursday, Dobson acknowledged, though she said she didn't know what was discussed.

Clinton vs. Gore

Ronald Brownstein in his LA Times column Washington Outlooks covers the growing rift between Al Gore and his former boss Bill Clinton. The divergence is over Clinton's assumption that Democrats could not win solely by mobilizing their hard-core partisans. Clinton’s strategy was to craft policies that attracted swing voters while maintaining the allegiance of traditional Democrats.

In contrast, Howard Dean and now Al Gore target their messages at mobilizing their base. The goal is to inspire non-voters with an agenda that energizes traditional party constituencies such as labor, feminists and gay civil rights activists.

Poll watching

The Associated Press reports that Howard Dean is expanding his lead in New Hampshire:

The poll found that 42 percent of likely voters in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary would vote for Dean if the election were held now, compared to 19 percent for Kerry and 13 percent for Wesley Clark, with 8 percent undecided. An even wider margin, 47 percent, said that Dean is the strongest candidate against Bush, compared to 15 percent for Kerry and 10 percent for Clark, according to the poll conducted by KRC Communications Research for the Boston Globe and WBZ-TV. Dean’s recent endorsement from former Vice President Al Gore apparently has helped. About 20 percent of those surveyed said they were more likely to vote for Dean because of the endorsement.

Democrat National Committee

The LA Times canvassed the members of the Democrat National Committee and Howard Dean was favored by 32 percent of the members of the Democratic National Committee surveyed, followed by Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri at 15 percent and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, at 14 percent. Other results showed retired Gen. Wesley Clark with 7 percent, Sen. John Edwards with 5 percent, Sen. Joe Lieberman with 3 percent and Carol Moseley Braun with 1 percent. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton had less than one percent. Twenty-two percent were unsure whom they would choose.

* ON THE BUSH BEAT:

Unpatriotic

Senate Democratic Whip Harry Reid on Saturday accused the Bush administration of calling Democrats "unpatriotic," but he was unable to cite any examples -- apparently because there are none…

The Nevada senator, in the party's weekly radio address, then inaccurately claimed that no Democrat had ever accused the Bush administration of being unpatriotic. But the Weekly Standard, in an editorial in last week's issue, quoted three Democrats — Florida Sen. Bob Graham, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and presidential candidate Al Sharpton — as using that term to describe President Bush.

Iraq and U.S. to prosecute

President Bush in a year-end press conference stated that the United States would work with the Iraqis in the prosecution of Saddam Hussein. "We will work with Iraqis to develop a way to try him that will withstand international scrutiny," he said. In response to Bush’s opinion of Saddam's execution, Bush said his own personal views don't matter. "There needs to be a public trial and all the atrocities need to come out and justice needs to be delivered," he said.

Bush advertising team

The Associated Press reports that the Bush-Cheney team have assembled a very large advertising team to be led once again by Texas consultant Mark McKinnon who will run the media team. The AP reports on six other consultants and can be viewed on the AP’s link.

Court to hear Cheney-energy case

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from the Bush administration regarding a lawsuit brought by watchdog and environmental groups over the energy task force Cheney assembled. The panel met for several months in 2001 and issued a report that favored opening more public lands to oil and gas drilling and proposed a range of other steps.

Presidents have argued executive privileges grant them the power to seek advice and counsel without having to disclose those proceedings. This will be a major decision on that power.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan sided with the groups and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to intervene. The Supreme Court will hear the case sometime in the spring, with a ruling expected by July.

* THE CLINTON COMEDIES:

Hillary’s competing policy?

Hillary Clinton will give a major foreign policy speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. The question is which of the major candidates will measure up to her foreign policy speech today. Aides say Clinton will call for "a return to post-Cold War bipartisan foreign policy consensus that recognizes the importance of allies and international institutions," arguing that the capture of Saddam creates a fertile climate for renewed international cooperation. It's a tune sung by several 2004 hopefuls on Sunday, including Edwards and John Kerry.

She will call for replacing the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq with an Iraq Stabilizing Organization, an international body formed and led by the United States. She also will propose increased military involvement in Afghanistan, contending that not enough attention is being paid to the struggling nation.

* NATIONAL:

Saddam intelligence

Since Saddam was detained, U.S. Army teams from the 1st Armored Division have seized one high-ranking former regime figure -- who has yet to be identified -- and that prisoner has given up a few others, Hertling said. All the men are currently being interrogated and more raids are expected, Hertling said.

"We've already gleaned intelligence value from his capture," Hertling said. "We've already been able to capture a couple of key individuals here in Baghdad. We've completely confirmed one of the cells. It's putting the pieces together and it's connecting the dots. It has already helped us significantly in Baghdad… I'm sure he was giving some guidance to some key figures in this insurgency."

Roth dies at 82

Former Sen. William V. Roth Jr., a fighter for tax cuts during his five terms in the U.S. Senate and the creator of the popular retirement account that carries his name, has died. Roth was the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

"It's fitting that his memory is preserved by a savings vehicle that will bring millions of Americans economic security in the future," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican.

Breaux expected to retire

Senate Democrats have a Southern strategy disaster on their hands. Sen. John Breaux (D-Louisiana) is retiring – making him the fifth southern Democrat to step down in 2004 and further compounding the party's difficulties in its struggle to gain a Senate majority. This means Louisiana is added to Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina where Democrat retirements mean that Democrats must defend a seat without benefit of an incumbent, thus creating an opportunity for Republicans. Republicans currently hold a 51-48 majority in the Senate, with one Democrat-leaning independent.

 

homepage