Wow, what a load of crap televised yeasterday. Nominee Barack Hussien Obama came out and bot can he spin and divert attention from reality. It is no wonder he refuses to open town hall debates with John McCain. Barack gives a good speech but when asked any questions of substance he cannot answer. he has no clue as to what he just said.

Lets look at his spech given yesterday July 15th, 2008.

"Sixty-one years ago, George Marshall announced the plan that would come to bear his name. Much of Europe lay in ruins. The United States faced a powerful and ideological enemy intent on world domination. This menace was magnified by the recently discovered capability to destroy life on an unimaginable scale. The Soviet Union didn't yet have an atomic bomb, but before long it would."

(Not true. Another historical inaccuracy from the left. The USSR tested its first nuclear weapon in 1949.)

"The challenge facing the greatest generation of Americans - the generation that had vanquished fascism on the battlefield - was how to contain this threat while extending freedom's frontiers. Leaders like Truman and Acheson, Kennan and Marshall, knew that there was no single decisive blow that could be struck for freedom. We needed a new overarching strategy to meet the challenges of a new and dangerous world.

Such a strategy would join overwhelming military strength with sound judgment. It would shape events not just through military force, but through the force of our ideas; through economic power, intelligence and diplomacy. It would support strong allies that freely shared our ideals of liberty and democracy; open markets and the rule of law. It would foster new international institutions like the United Nations, NATO, and the World Bank, and focus on every corner of the globe. It was a strategy that saw clearly the world's dangers, while seizing its promise.

As a general, Marshall had spent years helping FDR wage war. But the Marshall Plan - which was just one part of this strategy - helped rebuild not just allies, but also the nation that Marshall had plotted to defeat. In the speech announcing his plan, he concluded not with tough talk or definitive declarations - but rather with questions and a call for perspective. "The whole world of the future," Marshall said, "hangs on a proper judgment." To make that judgment, he asked the American people to examine distant events that directly affected their security and prosperity. He closed by asking: "What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?"

What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?"

(So what was Gen. George marshalls plan? It was prepardness and deployment. A fight against tyranny and oppresion. Recall the Berlin Airlift? Relief from oppression by the Soviets. As for the use of ATOMIC weapons. Gen. Marshall never opposed it. In fact he called for the use of an A-BOMB for a third time in the plans for the invasion of Japan. source:http://www.doug-long.com/marshall.htm

Marshalls judgment of the military was close to that of Gen Sherman. Leave soldiering to soldiers and politics to politicians. Not a pandering use or nonuse of the military depending on who Obama is talking to at the time. Do not forget that Obama said in a speech last year to a far left anti military goup he wants to reduce, cut back weapons and research, and ban nuclear weapons from the American arsenal. A speech that can be seen on youtube, links at Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, once a link was available on Baracks campaign site but now removed.)

"Today's dangers are different, though no less grave. The power to destroy life on a catastrophic scale now risks falling into the hands of terrorists. The future of our security - and our planet - is held hostage to our dependence on foreign oil and gas. From the cave-spotted mountains of northwest Pakistan, to the centrifuges spinning beneath Iranian soil, we know that the American people cannot be protected by oceans or the sheer might of our military alone."

(The dangers are different? How so. An enemy that wants to destroy our way of life is no different then those he eludes to from WWII. A catastrophic scale is right but with Obama lack of courage to do anything about rouge states and groups who want to build, and sell WMD, he looses any creditability in preventing it. He is correct that our future as a nation is being held hostage from foriegn energy. But should we trade that for tyranny economically from our own government? When I say tyranny I elude to the taxation and robbery of our hard earned money to pay for Baracks energy policies that are tied into the myth of global warming and man made climate change.

His policy stances are as follows. From his own website:http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/#reduce-carbon-emissions

Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.

A falsehood that is honey soaked to cover the fact it is nothing more than a new, heavy taxation program.

Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.

A forceful move to dictate what we drive and where we drive. How does he plan to get energy for the recharge of hybrid/electric cars. More importantly is he going to cut the budget somewhere to come up with the $150 billion dollars. No, but another tax hike will pay for this. When he calls for the commercialized deployment of new energy tech around the world. Is he going to charge these other countries or give it away while the U.S. taxpayer once again pays for the world to move foward.

Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.

So where does he plan to build these wind farms. His buddies on the left will not allow the building in proven areas that produce. Example Tad Kennedy and off the coast of Marthards Vinard.

Support Next Generation Biofuels - new taxes to pay for it
Set America on Path to Oil Independence - but does not support new drilling
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change - Barack wants to include China , India, Mexico in this however these countries already refuse to cooperate on climate change. As they do not see a problem and enjoy the fact that the United States is changeing our ways to compensate for their usage of fossil fuels.

Barack accepts that Iran is building nuclear centrifuges for a use that is not peaceful. Yet he has no plan to stop, and prevent the development of Nukes from this country other then lets sit down and chat.)

"The attacks of September 11 brought this new reality into a terrible and ominous focus. On that bright and beautiful day, the world of peace and prosperity that was the legacy of our Cold War victory seemed to suddenly vanish under rubble, and twisted steel, and clouds of smoke.

But the depth of this tragedy also drew out the decency and determination of our nation. At blood banks and vigils; in schools and in the United States Congress, Americans were united - more united, even, than we were at the dawn of the Cold War. The world, too, was united against the perpetrators of this evil act, as old allies, new friends, and even long-time adversaries stood by our side. It was time - once again - for America's might and moral suasion to be harnessed; it was time to once again shape a new security strategy for an ever-changing world.

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan."

(So we ignore the bases and suppliers to the Taliban and AL Quieda? Cut the head off a hydra and watch more heads rise?)

"We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st."

(So who has these loose nuclear materials? How do we get entities that do not support non-proliferation to suddenly change their minds and jump on the band wagon? Do as Barack said a year ago and disarm ourselves?)

"We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil."

(We have looked at baracks energy plan and found it missing. No real plan other then tax and force a lifestyle change upon American Citizens with no real development in alternative energies.)

"We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity."

(Strengthen old aliiances? What copitulate like France? Our true allies came to our aid. It is sad that we do not have many real friends in this world. Even Canada backed away from us in a time of need.)

"We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.

We could have secured our homeland--investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants."

(Secure our homeland. Platitude, as barack does not even support securing our southern or northern boarders.)

"We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.

We could have done that."

(Yes we could have done that, however other things came up. Like the attack on this country on 9/11.)

"Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats - all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks."

(Note how he demeans the service men and women by saying lost. Giving the act of their service a leesor meaning. Then again he demonstrates the lefts position of not understanding, knowing, and comprehending the connections between Saddam and terrorism.)

Our men and women in uniform have accomplished every mission we have given them. What's missing in our debate about Iraq - what has been missing since before the war began - is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe."

(Now he praise the accomplishments of the Military. Saying the can get the job done. Yet he says that the surge failed, we are looseing the war. How can the military one moment be perfect and in the next not able to do their job? Flip Flop!!!)

"I am running for President of the United States to lead this country in a new direction - to seize this moment's promise. Instead of being distracted from the most pressing threats that we face, I want to overcome them. Instead of pushing the entire burden of our foreign policy on to the brave men and women of our military, I want to use all elements of American power to keep us safe, and prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America - once again - to lead."

(Here he shows complete ignorance of how diplomacy works. The American foriegn policies have always been dependant upon the men and women of the military. Who does he think backs up the policies set forth by what ever administration is in office?)

"As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy - one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

(We demonstrate all the time our interests in foriegn nations. Example the G-8 summits. Support for the Chinese in the world economy by alowing such a huge deficet. What does he think our Embassies and diplomatic corps in Karachi and Kandahar are doing. PLaying bocci ball?

His strategy for ending the war = cut and run. Finish the fight? By withdrawling our forces? Secure nukes and materials? How, with begging and pleading? Energy plan = higher taxes prohibiting development and commercialization. Rebuild our alliances, with who. France is friendly then they have been since WWII, Italy the same. Britan remains a strong friend, Isreal is our only friend in the middle east. Russia is resumeing its communist ways and has never been an ally or friend.

He keeps talking about meeting the challenges of the 21st century, but does not outline any of the NEW challenges. Just a repeteing of the 20th century problems we are still dealing with.)

"My opponent in this campaign has served this country with honor, and we all respect his sacrifice. We both want to do what we think is best to defend the American people. But we've made different judgments, and would lead in very different directions. That starts with Iraq.

(Nice pat on the back for McCain while he gets a knifwe in the back form Obamas campaign. Claiming he is to old and unstable from trauma he suffered in Hanoi's Hilton.)

"I opposed going to war in Iraq; Senator McCain was one of Washington's biggest supporters for war. I warned that the invasion of a country posing no imminent threat would fan the flames of extremism, and distract us from the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; Senator McCain claimed that we would be greeted as liberators, and that democracy would spread across the Middle East. Those were the judgments we made on the most important strategic question since the end of the Cold War."

(He opposed the war? Where? Oh thats right he wasnt in federal office yet. He must have made a speech in the Illinois Senete.)

"Now, all of us recognize that we must do more than look back - we must make a judgment about how to move forward. What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done? Senator McCain wants to talk of our tactics in Iraq; I want to focus on a new strategy for Iraq and the wider world."

(Thats right , don't look back at history so that he can repete the mistakes of the Carter administration. Don't look back at his record of nothing. That way the voters do not have to look at my record of nonaccomplishment.

Plan a new strategy but leave out the tactics that give meat to new policies.)

"It has been 18 months since President Bush announced the surge. As I have said many times, our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence. General Petraeus has used new tactics to protect the Iraqi population. We have talked directly to Sunni tribes that used to be hostile to America, and supported their fight against al Qaeda. Shiite militias have generally respected a cease-fire. Those are the facts, and all Americans welcome them."

(What is he saying we do talk to others? I thought we only were war mongers that had cowboy diplomacy. So diplomacy , back by the military works. Wow, what a concept.)

"For weeks, now, Senator McCain has argued that the gains of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war. But this argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face."

(This statment tells us that barack still does not believ in the military winning the war. That he still does not believe that the surge worked.)

"In the 18 months since the surge began, the strain on our military has increased, our troops and their families have borne an enormous burden, and American taxpayers have spent another $200 billion in Iraq. That's over $10 billion each month. That is a consequence of our current strategy."

(You know war isnt just hell. It is expensive too. Especially when you add abunch of riders to military spenind bills and then gloss over them when the total tally is reported. Lets not forget the pork that was included. John Murthas little political paybacks for campaign support. More funds for unneeded welfare expansion.)

"In the 18 months since the surge began, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. June was our highest casualty month of the war. The Taliban has been on the offensive, even launching a brazen attack on one of our bases. Al Qaeda has a growing sanctuary in Pakistan. That is a consequence of our current strategy."

(Yes a repete of history where the American Congress wants to limit the military and where and how they can pursue the enemy.)

"In the 18 months since the surge began, as I warned at the outset - Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country. They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact."

(A flat out lie about the situation in the newly elected Iraqi governement. They have made great strides in coming together and improving their country. Not untill just recently, a few months ago. Has the Iraqi oil industry been able to commercial enough to invite or propose buisness with foriegn countries.)

"That's why I strongly stand by my plan to end this war. Now, Prime Minister Maliki's call for a timetable for the removal of U.S. forces presents a real opportunity. It comes at a time when the American general in charge of training Iraq's Security Forces has testified that Iraq's Army and Police will be ready to assume responsibility for Iraq's security in 2009. Now is the time for a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that pushes Iraq's leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military, and refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests."

(This was the plan to begin with. Train the Iraqis to a level that they can maintain controll in their country of a democratic goverment. Then move our troops onward in the war against Islamofiacism.)

"George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq - they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down. They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops "surrender," even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government - not to a terrorist enemy. Theirs is an endless focus on tactics inside Iraq, with no consideration of our strategy to face threats beyond Iraq's borders."

(More spin and distortion of the current policies inorder to pander to the left antiwar movement.)

"At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave - General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq - victory in Iraq - will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up."

(What, I am sorry as I recall Obama came into the hearings made a little speech then left. Excuse me barack. But our we not doing the best to achieve the goal of leaving the Iraqi government to handle threats with in their own country now. While also making Iraq an ally. I think if Barack would quit drining his own koolaid. Take the time to actually read and comprehend the policies, stategies, and tactics for what is currently happening. He will see that his platitudes, misdirection, and spin of the current situation is being achieved.)

To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress."

(Oh so he poposes only a partial pull out. Leaving support elements in Iraq for future missions. This means bases in Iraq. I thought he was against any bases in Iraq. Another FLIP FLOP!!)

"We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy - that is what any responsible Commander-in-Chief must do. As I have consistently said, I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We will commit $2 billion to a meaningful international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis. We will forge a new coalition to support Iraq's future - one that includes all of Iraq's neighbors, and also the United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union - because we all have a stake in stability. And we will make it clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq."

(Include all of Iraqs nieghbors? Iraqs nieghbors do not support Iraq and its democratic government.)

"This is the future that Iraqis want. This is the future that the American people want. And this is what our common interests demand. Both America and Iraq will be more secure when the terrorist in Anbar is taken out by the Iraqi Army, and the criminal in Baghdad fears Iraqi Police, not just coalition forces. Both America and Iraq will succeed when every Arab government has an embassy open in Baghdad, and the child in Basra benefits from services provided by Iraqi dinars, not American tax dollar."

(So he would have criminals fear the police and authority. Yet in our own country he calls law enforcement agencies terrorists and that under his direction ILLEGAL immigrents will, law breakers entering this country ILLEGALLY, will not fear American law.)

"And this is the future we need for our military. We cannot tolerate this strain on our forces to fight a war that hasn't made us safer. I will restore our strength by ending this war, completing the increase of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and investing in the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the unconventional challenges of our time."

(The military is an all volunter foce. With record numbers of recruitmnents. How does Barack plan to do this? Reinstate the draft?)

"So let's be clear. Senator McCain would have our troops continue to fight tour after tour of duty, and our taxpayers keep spending $10 billion a month indefinitely; I want Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future, and to reach the political accommodation necessary for long-term stability. That's victory. That's success. That's what's best for Iraq, that's what's best for America, and that's why I will end this war as President."

(A total lack of understanding that when one signs the contract for the military they knowingly understand that the possibility of war is there. That they signed up to get the job done. No matter how long it takes. That they have a commitment of 8 years and all of it can be spent on active duty in a foriegn land.)

"In fact - as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain - the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That's why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

(More leftist koolaid and spin on the war in Iraq.)

"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan."

(Here he again eludes that the military can not do its job. Only by hos command can things be accomplished. You know some criminals go into hiding for years. I do not see any reports that Bin Laden or Al-Zawahari our lounging around at club med.)

"Senator McCain said - just months ago - that "Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq." I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That's what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that's why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win."

(McCain is correct. The press as with the war in Iraq only want to report the bad and not the progress being made in Afghanistan. That of which Barack is drinking heavily of the koolaid.)

"I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions - with fewer restrictions - from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century's frontlines are not only on the field of battle - they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.'

(This is new? This is part of the current mission statemnet now. The battle plans already are set up for this.Oh yeah and it is already happening.)

"Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall's lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That's why I've proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure investments are made - not just in Kabul - but out in Afghanistan's provinces. As a part of this program, we'll invest in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, just as we crack down on heroin trafficking. We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism. The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared."

( Doesn't like the fact we are spending billions now but wants to send billions to Afghanistan. Doesn't want to stop or fight the drug war in this country along the southern boarder but will give billions in aid to subsidise the poppy growers in Afghanistan.)

"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.

Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam."

(Calls the invasion of Iraq unjust and uncalled for. A wrong thing to do. But proposes the invasion of another country. Pakisatn. Hmmmm, don't invade here, but invade there. Who is the war mongerer?)

"Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal - securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn't diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction - in fact, it has only increased it."

(Strong democracy in Pakistan. So he plans on rebuilding another countries government. Pakistan may be listed as a democracy but it is far from it in practice.)

"In those years after World War II, we worried about the deadly atom falling into the hands of the Kremlin. Now, we worry about 50 tons of highly enriched uranium - some of it poorly secured - at civilian nuclear facilities in over forty countries. Now, we worry about the breakdown of a non-proliferation framework that was designed for the bipolar world of the Cold War. Now, we worry - most of all - about a rogue state or nuclear scientist transferring the world's deadliest weapons to the world's most dangerous people: terrorists who won't think twice about killing themselves and hundreds of thousands in Tel Aviv or Moscow, in London or New York.

We cannot wait any longer to protect the American people. I've made this a priority in the Senate, where I worked with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to pass a law accelerating our pursuit of loose nuclear materials. I'll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world during my first term as President. And I'll develop new defenses to protect against the 21st century threat of biological weapons and cyber-terrorism - threats that I'll discuss in more detail tomorrow."

( Distorting the facts of history again. We did not worry about the nuke fallin ginto the hands of the Soviets. We worried that they would use it sionce they already had it. Notice how he attaches his name to all legislation that may sway voters. But he has no idea of what is in this legislation. Secure global materials that may be used in nuclear, biological , and chemical weapons. Sounds to me like he wants to step all over other nations soveriegnty. Be the policemen and father . Dictate to the world. Who is the one that may get us involved into a much larger quamuire now?)

"Beyond taking these immediate, urgent steps, it's time to send a clear message: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we must retain a strong deterrent. But instead of threatening to kick them out of the G-8, we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. By keeping our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we'll be in a better position to press nations like North Korea and Iran to keep theirs. In particular, it will give us more credibility and leverage in dealing with Iran."

(Very important key phrase here. AS LONG AS NUCLEAR WEAPONS EXIST. Again go back and listen to his speech to the antinuke crowd. Barack wants to disarm us and in doing so thinks the world will just follow, includeing rogue states. As to Russia. Who has proposed kicking themout of the G-8?)

"We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy - diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions."

(Strong diplomacy? Enfoced by what. He wants the military to move out of the Persian Gulf. Instead of standing by with prepared bases for easy use, established supply lines,ect. Funny how now he says Iran is a threat when early in the campaign he claimed they were a nothing. Posed no threat at all.)

"There will be careful preparation. I commend the work of our European allies on this important matter, and we should be full partners in that effort. Ultimately the measure of any effort is whether it leads to a change in Iranian behavior. That's why we must pursue these tough negotiations in full coordination with our allies, bringing to bear our full influence - including, if it will advance our interests, my meeting with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing."

(Commend what? The fact the Europe has ignored sanctions. Sold centrifuge parts, technology to Iran. Russia has aidded in building Irans nuke facilities. Yeah that deserves a pat on the back and congratulatory hand shake.)

"We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives. If you refuse, then we will ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions in the Security Council, and sustained action outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime. That's the diplomacy we need. And the Iranians should negotiate now; by waiting, they will only face mounting pressure."

( Oh yeah the ol mighty dollar. Look Iran if you do as we say the American tax payer will give you billions of dollars and subsides your nation.)

"The surest way to increase our leverage against Iran in the long-run is to stop bankrolling its ambitions. That will depend on achieving my fourth goal: ending the tyranny of oil in our time."

(End the tyranny of oil. Would not a sensible drilling policy help with this?

"One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil. We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil. It pays for terrorist bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut. It funds petro-diplomacy in Caracas and radical madrasas from Karachi to Khartoum. It takes leverage away from America and shifts it to dictators."

(Thats true, yet he refuses to step up and alow us to use our own natural resources to stem our dependancy on foiegn energy.)

"This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline."

( Oh God, another folower of the Al Gore church of histaria.)

"This is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis. For the sake of our security - and for every American family that is paying the price at the pump - we must end this dependence on foreign oil. And as President, that's exactly what I'll do. Small steps and political gimmickry just won't do. I'll invest $150 billion over the next ten years to put America on the path to true energy security. This fund will fast track investments in a new green energy business sector that will end our addiction to oil and create up to 5 million jobs over the next two decades, and help secure the future of our country and our planet. We'll invest in research and development of every form of alternative energy - solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe. And from the moment I take office, I will let it be known that the United States of America is ready to lead again."

(We have already taken a peak at baracks energy plans. They are nothing more then more taxes and no real plan.)

"Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in the way of global action to tackle this global challenge. I will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. We will also build an alliance of oil-importing nations and work together to reduce our demand, and to break the grip of OPEC on the global economy. We'll set a goal of an 80% reduction in global emissions by 2050. And as we develop new forms of clean energy here at home, we will share our technology and our innovations with all the nations of the world."

(Here is his hope. Hope that other nations buy into the clobal warming myth. That it is all mans fault and we have to give up our lifestyle in order to stop what is a natural cycle of climate patterns.)

"That is the tradition of American leadership on behalf of the global good. And that will be my fifth goal - rebuilding our alliances to meet the common challenges of the 21st century."

(Agai what are these new challenges? I hear nothing but a repete of old challenges.)

"For all of our power, America is strongest when we act alongside strong partners. We faced down fascism with the greatest war-time alliance the world has ever known. We stood shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies against the Soviet threat, and paid a far smaller price for the first Gulf War because we acted together with a broad coalition. We helped create the United Nations - not to constrain America's influence, but to amplify it by advancing our values."

(Here again he eludes to the use of the military. Something he does not favor or knows how to use.)

"Now is the time for a new era of international cooperation. It's time for America and Europe to renew our common commitment to face down the threats of the 21st century just as we did the challenges of the 20th. It's time to strengthen our partnerships with Japan, South Korea, Australia and the world's largest democracy - India - to create a stable and prosperous Asia. It's time to engage China on common interests like climate change, even as we continue to encourage their shift to a more open and market-based society. It's time to strengthen NATO by asking more of our allies, while always approaching them with the respect owed a partner. It's time to reform the United Nations, so that this imperfect institution can become a more perfect forum to share burdens, strengthen our leverage, and promote our values. It's time to deepen our engagement to help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, so that we help our ally Israel achieve true and lasting security, while helping Palestinians achieve their legitimate aspirations for statehood."

(Renew bonds with Europe. This means if you read Obamas statements less soverignty of this nation and more United Nation control over our lives. Share burdens = more handouts of American tax dollars to other nations. A redistribution of Americas wealth.)

"And just as we renew longstanding efforts, so must we shape new ones to meet new challenges. That's why I'll create a Shared Security Partnership Program - a new alliance of nations to strengthen cooperative efforts to take down global terrorist networks, while standing up against torture and brutality. That's why we'll work with the African Union to enhance its ability to keep the peace. That's why we'll build a new partnership to roll back the trafficking of drugs, and guns, and gangs in the Americas. That's what we can do if we are ready to engage the world."

( More international agencies and oversight? How about stepping into the Unnited nations and overhauling that agency?)

"We will have to provide meaningful resources to meet critical priorities. I know development assistance is not the most popular program, but as President, I will make the case to the American people that it can be our best investment in increasing the common security of the entire world. That was true with the Marshall Plan, and that must be true today. That's why I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease. To send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."

(See more money, more money , more money.)

"This must be the moment when we answer the call of history. For eight years, we have paid the price for a foreign policy that lectures without listening; that divides us from one another - and from the world - instead of calling us to a common purpose; that focuses on our tactics in fighting a war without end in Iraq instead of forging a new strategy to face down the true threats that we face. We cannot afford four more years of a strategy that is out of balance and out of step with this defining moment."

(Yet his proposals are not that different form the policies we have right now.)

"None of this will be easy, but we have faced great odds before. When General Marshall first spoke about the plan that would bear his name, the rubble of Berlin had not yet been built into a wall. But Marshall knew that even the fiercest of adversaries could forge bonds of friendship founded in freedom. He had the confidence to know that the purpose and pragmatism of the American people could outlast any foe. Today, the dangers and divisions that came with the dawn of the Cold War have receded. Now, the defeat of the threats of the past has been replaced by the transnational threats of today. We know what is needed. We know what can best be done. We know what must done. Now it falls to us to act with the same sense of purpose and pragmatism as an earlier generation, to join with friends and partners to lead the world anew."

(The generation Obama eludes to also knoew when to step up to the plate. To do the right thing dispite world views. Not to worry about polls and what they have been scewed to say. That generation my friend is called the GREATEST GENERATION.)