CNN exclusive: Obama on foreign policy

CNN's Fareed Zakaria interviews Sen. Barack Obama.

(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama discussed his vision for the world in a wide-ranging foreign policy discussion with CNN's Fareed Zakaria.

The Democratic presidential hopeful answered some tough questions about how he would deal with the world's crises, what he would do if Osama bin Laden is caught and his plan for Iraq.

Here are some highlights from the interview, which aired Sunday on "Fareed Zakaria -- GPS."

ZAKARIA: Tell me, what is your first memory of a foreign policy event that shaped you, shaped your life?

OBAMA: A first memory. Well, you know, it wasn't so much an event.

I mean, my first memory was my mother coming to me and saying, "I've remarried this man from Indonesia, and we're moving to Jakarta on the other side of the world." Watch part of Obama's discussion on foreign policy »

And that's, I think, my first memory of understanding how big the world was. And then, flying there and landing. This was only maybe a year, or even less than a year, after an enormous coup, the military coup in which we learned later that over half-a-million people had probably died.

But it was for me, as a young boy, a magical place. And I think that probably is when it first enters into my consciousness that this is a big world. There are a lot of countries, a lot of cultures. It's a complicated place.

ZAKARIA: But you were an American in Indonesia. How did that make you feel?

OBAMA: Well, you know, it made me realize what an enormous privilege it is to be an American. I mean, it certainly was at that time, even more so, because the gap in the wealth of the West at the time compared to the East was much wider.

But it wasn't simply the fact that my mother was being paid in dollars by the U.S. Embassy, and so, that gave us some additional comfort.

It was also becoming aware that, for example, the generals in Indonesia or members of Suharto's family were living in lavish mansions, and the sense that government wasn't always working for the people, but was working for insiders -- not that that didn't happen in the United States, but at least the sense that there was a civil society and rules of law that had to be abided by.

My stepfather was essentially dragged out of the university he'd been studying in in Hawaii, and was conscripted and sent to New Guinea. And when he was first conscripted, he didn't know whether he was going to be jailed, killed -- that sense of arbitrariness of government power.

Those were the things that you felt you were protected from as an American, and made me, as I got older, appreciate America that much more.

ZAKARIA: Why did you major in international affairs?

OBAMA: Well, obviously, having lived overseas and having lived in Hawaii, having a mother who was a specialist in international development, who worked -- was one of the early practitioners of microfinancing, and would go to villages in South Asia and Africa and Southeast Asia, helping women buy a loom or a sewing machine or a milk cow, to be able to enter into the economy -- it was natural for me, I think, to be interested in international affairs.

The Vietnam War had drawn to a close when I was fairly young. And so, that wasn't formative for me in the way it was, I think, for an earlier generation.

The Cold War, though, still loomed large. And I thought that both my interest in what was then called the Third World and development there, as well as my interest in issues like nuclear proliferation and policy, that I thought that I might end up going into some sort of international work at some point in my life.

ZAKARIA: Do you believe, when looking at the world today, that Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of the 21st century?

OBAMA: I think the problems of terrorism and groups that are resisting modernity, whether because of their ethnic identities or religious identities, and the fact that they can be driven into extremist ideologies, is one of the severe threats that we face.

I don't think it's the only threat that we face.

ZAKARIA: But how do you view the problem within Islam? As somebody who saw it in Indonesia ... the largest Muslim country in the world?

OBAMA: Well, it was interesting. When I lived in Indonesia -- this would be '67, '68, late '60s, early '70s -- Indonesia was never the same culture as the Arab Middle East. The brand of Islam was always different.

But around the world, there was no -- there was not the sense that Islam was inherently opposed to the West, or inherently opposed to modern life, or inherently opposed to universal traditions like rule of law.

And now in Indonesia, you see some of those extremist elements. And what's interesting is, you can see some correlation between the economic crash during the Asian financial crisis, where about a third of Indonesia's GDP was wiped out, and the acceleration of these Islamic extremist forces.

It isn't to say that there is a direct correlation, but what is absolutely true is that there has been a shift in Islam that I believe is connected to the failures of governments and the failures of the West to work with many of these countries, in order to make sure that opportunities are there, that there's bottom-up economic growth.

You know, the way we have to approach, I think, this problem of Islamic extremism ... is we have to hunt down those who would resort to violence to move their agenda, their ideology forward. We should be going after al Qaeda and those networks fiercely and effectively.

But what we also want to do is to shrink the pool of potential recruits. And that involves engaging the Islamic world rather than vilifying it, and making sure that we understand that not only are those in Islam who would resort to violence a tiny fraction of the Islamic world, but that also, the Islamic world itself is diverse.

And that lumping together Shia extremists with Sunni extremists, assuming that Persian culture is the same as Arab culture, that those kinds of errors in lumping Islam together result in us not only being less effective in hunting down and isolating terrorists, but also in alienating what need to be our long-term allies on a whole host of issues.

ZAKARIA: If U.S. forces in Afghanistan captured Osama bin Laden, what would you do with him, and you were president?

OBAMA: Well, I think that, if he was -- if he was captured alive, then we would make a decision to bring the full weight of not only U.S. justice, but world justice down on him. And I think that -- and I've said this before -- that I am not a cheerleader for the death penalty. I think it has to be reserved for only the most heinous crimes. But I certainly think plotting and engineering the death of 3,000 Americans justifies such an approach. Watch what Obama says about bin Laden »

Now, I think this is a big hypothetical, though. Let's catch him first. And the fact that we have failed to seriously go after al Qaeda over the last five years, because of the distraction of Iraq, I think we are now seeing the consequences of that in Afghanistan.

That's not the only problem we have in Afghanistan. We have not dealt with the narco-trafficking that's taking place there. We have not provided farmers there an option beyond poppy. I think the Karzai government has not gotten out of the bunker and helped organize Afghanistan and government, the judiciary, police forces, in ways that would give people confidence.

So, there are a lot of problems there. But a big chunk of the issue is that we allowed the Taliban and al Qaeda to regenerate itself when we had them on the ropes. That was a big mistake, and it's one I'm going to correct when I'm president.

ZAKARIA: You talked about the other threats we face. In dealing with these threats, how should we approach other nations?

John McCain has talked about a new G-8, the group of the richest countries in the world, which would exclude Russia, expel Russia, and not include China. So, it would be an attempt to draw a line in the sand and cast out, as it were, the non-democracies.

Do you think that's a good idea?

OBAMA: It would be a mistake.

Look. If we're going to do something about nuclear proliferation -- just to take one issue that I think is as important as any on the list -- we've got to have Russia involved. The amount of loose nuclear material that's floating around in the former Soviet Union, the amount of technical know-how that is in countries that used to be behind the Iron Curtain -- without Russia's cooperation, our efforts on that front will be greatly weakened.

China is going to be one of the dominant economies -- already is -- and will continue to grow at an extraordinary pace. The notion that we don't want to be engaged in a serious way with China, or that we would want to exclude them from the process of creating international rules of the road that are able to maintain order in the financial markets, that are able to address critical issues like terrorism, that are able to focus our attention on disparities of wealth between countries -- that does not make sense.

Now, I think that we have to have a clear sense of what our values are and what our ideals are. I don't think that we should shy away from being straight with the Russians about human rights violations. We should not shy away from talking to the Chinese about those same subjects.

I think that we have to be tough negotiators with them when it comes to critical issues. For example, if China is not working cooperatively with us on trade issues, I think that there's nothing wrong with us being tough bargainers.

But we have to engage and get them involved and brought into dealing with some of these transnational problems. And that kind of tough, thoughtful, realistic diplomacy used to be a bipartisan hallmark of U.S. foreign policy.

And one of the things that I want to do, if I have the honor of being president, is to try to bring back the kind of foreign policy that characterized the Truman administration with Marshall and Acheson and Kennan.

But also characterized to a large degree -- the first President Bush -- with people like Scowcroft and Powell and Baker, who I think had a fairly clear-eyed view of how the world works, and recognized that it is always in our interests to engage, to listen, to build alliances -- to understand what our interests are, and to be fierce in protecting those interests, but to make sure that we understand it's very difficult for us to, as powerful as we are, to deal all these issues by ourselves.

We need to show leadership through consensus and through pulling people together wherever we can. There are going to be times where we have to act unilaterally to protect our interests. And I always reserve the right to do that, should I be commander in chief.

ZAKARIA: What about if you don't get that consensus, let's say, in a place like Darfur? You've called for a no-fly zone. But it's a U.N. no-fly zone.

OBAMA: Right.

ZAKARIA: Now, but the U.N. isn't going to have a no-fly zone, probably, because the Chinese and the Russians will probably not go along with it.

So, in that event, do you want to have a U.S. or a NATO no-fly zone? In other words, do you want to do something, even if you can't get consensus?

OBAMA: Well, look. There are going to be times where it's the right thing to do, and the consensus is not going to be perfect.

I think our intervention in the Balkans ultimately was the right thing to do, although we never got the sort of formal consensus and coalition that we were able to achieve, for example, in the Gulf War. And so, the situations are going to vary.

My point is this, that we should always strive to create genuine coalitions -- not coalitions that are based on us twisting arms, withholding goodies, ignoring legitimate concerns of other countries, but coalitions that are based on a set of mutual self-interests.

In a situation like Darfur, I think that the world has a self-interest in ensuring that genocide is not taking place on our watch. Not only because of the moral and ethical implications, but also because chaos in Sudan ends up spilling over into Chad. It ends up spilling over into other parts of Africa, can end up being repositories of terrorist activity.

Those are all things that we've got to pay attention to. And if we have enough nations that are willing -- particularly African nations, and not just Western nations -- that are willing to intercede in an effective, coherent way, then I think that we need to act, even if we haven't achieved 100 percent consensus.

But the principle of us wanting to build effective alliances with other countries and to lead in that way through persuasion and organization, I think that's something that has historically been when we are at our best.

ZAKARIA: One area where you're outside the international consensus -- and certainly, perhaps, some others -- is the statement you made in a recent speech supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.

Now, why not support the Clinton plan, which envisions a divided Jerusalem, the Arab half being the capital of a Palestinian state, the Jewish half being the capital of the Jewish state?

OBAMA: You know, the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech. And we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given.

The point we were simply making was, is that we don't want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the '67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent.

I was not trying to predetermine what are essentially final status issues. I think the Clinton formulation provides a starting point for discussions between the parties.

And it is an example of us making sure that we are careful in terms of our syntax. But the intention was never to move away from that basic, core idea that they -- that those parties are going to have to negotiate these issues on their own, with the strong engagement of the United States.

And if you look at the overall tenor of that speech and what I've said historically about this issue, you know, Israel has an interest not just in bunkering down. They've got to recognize that their long-term viability as a Jewish state is going to depend on their ability to create peace with their neighbors.

The Palestinian leadership has to acknowledge that the battles that they've been fighting, and the direction that they've been going in and the rhetoric they've been employing, has not delivered for their people.

And it is very hard, given the history of that region and the sense of grievance on both sides, to step back and say, let's be practical and figure out what works. But I think that's what the people of Israel and the people in the West Bank and Gaza are desperate for, is just some practical, commonsense approaches that would result in them feeling safe, secure and able to live their lives and educate their children.

ZAKARIA: You've also said that the chief beneficiary of the Iraq war has been Iran, which now poses a significant strategic threat to, or challenge to, the United States in the region.

If we were to leave Iraq entirely, would that not cede the field to them and allow Iran to consolidate its gains in the region and in the country?

OBAMA: I don't think so. Look, first of all, I have never talked about leaving the field entirely. What I've said is that we would get our combat troops out of Iraq, that we would not have permanent bases in Iraq.

I've talked about maintaining a residual force there to ensure that al Qaeda does not re-form in Iraq, that we're making sure that we are providing logistical support and potential training to Iraqi forces -- so long as we're not training sectarian armies that are then fighting each other -- to protect our diplomats, to protect humanitarian efforts in the region.

So, nobody's talking about abandoning the field.

ZAKARIA: That might be a large force.

OBAMA: Well, it -- you know, I'm going to make sure that we determine, based on conditions on the ground, how we effectively carry out those limited, temporary missions.

But what is going to prevent Iran from having significant influence inside of Iraq -- or at least, so much influence that Iraq is not functioning -- is to make sure that the government has stood up, that it has capacity, that the Shia, the Sunni, the Kurds have come to the sort of political accommodation that allows them to divide oil revenues that are now coming in quite handsomely, that ensures that, in fact, we're serious about ending corruption in some of the ministries, that provincial federalist approaches to governance are being observed.

The stronger the Iraqi government is on its own -- not with us, but on its own -- the less likely that Iran is going to exert its influence.

And again, this is -- you know this better than I do, Fareed -- the assumption that, because many in Iraq are Shia, that they automatically are going to align themselves with Iran, ignores the fact that you've got Arab and Persian cultures that are very different. And there's -- if Iraqi Shias feel that their government is actually functioning, then I think their identity as Iraqis reasserts itself.

If, on the other hand, the perception is that the government in Iraq is just an extension of the U.S. government, then sympathies for the kind of mischief that Iran has been engaged in may increase.

Now, the last point I would make on this is, this is going to be a messy affair. There's no elegant and easy solutions to what I believe has been an enormous strategic blunder by this administration.

We're going to have to work our way through it. There are going to be -- there's going to be progress in some areas. There is going to be slippage in others.

What we do have to make certain of is that, by creating a phased withdrawal in Iraq, that we are mounting the sort of diplomacy and reaching out to our allies in ways that actually strengthen our ability to isolate Iran, if it continues to pursue what are unacceptable foreign policy decisions by their leadership.

ZAKARIA: But you could imagine a situation where, if the Iraqi government wanted it, 30,000 American troops are still in Iraq 10 years from now.

OBAMA: You know, I have been very careful not to put numbers on what a residual force would look like. What I am absolutely convinced of is that, to maintain permanent bases, to have ongoing combat forces, to have an open-ended commitment of the sort that John McCain and George Bush have advocated, is a mistake. It is a strategic mistake.

It weakens our ability to go after al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It continues to fan anti-American sentiment. I think it allows Iran to more effectively engage in mischief in the region. And it prevents us from isolating them and making clear to the world that they are the authors of their own isolation by their behavior.

Those costs cannot be borne. And that's before we even start talking about the hundreds of billions of dollars and American lives that are lost or profoundly disrupted as a consequence of this engagement.

ZAKARIA: You are going to Europe and the Middle East. You know that in places like France you have 85 percent approval ratings.

Isn't that going to make some Americans very suspicious? If all of Europe likes you, if France likes you, there must be something wrong.

OBAMA: Well, I tell you what. You know, it's interesting. As I travel around the country, here in the United States, I think people understand that there has been a price to the diminished regard with which the world holds the United States over the last several years.

It's something that bothers people. It's something that's brought up.

You know, when I'm doing a town hall meeting in some rural community, invariably, somebody will raise their hand and they'll say, "When are we going to restore the respect that the world had for America?"

And, you know, the American people's instincts are good. It's not just a matter of wanting to be liked. It's the fact that, as a consequence of that diminished standing, we have less leverage on a whole host of critical issues that have to be dealt with.

So, I think the American people are ready for a president who is not alienating the world. And if that president is liked a little bit, well, that's just a bonus.

Now, I don't know how long that will last. We'll see if my approval ratings hold up after I'm president.

ZAKARIA: You're bound to disappoint people. I mean, with approval ratings that high, it's bound to be a letdown. Don't you think?

OBAMA: You know, my job is to make sure that, here in the United States, the American people feel confident that I'm going to be advocating for their interests, that I'm going to keep them safe.

The way to do that though, I believe, is to make sure that we're paying attention to the rest of the world, their hopes, their aspirations, as well, and that we're leading with our values and ideals, and not just with our military.

Original here

Obama slams New Yorker portrayal

Photo: Courtesy

Barack Obama's campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Obama in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife.

An American flag burns in their fireplace.

The New Yorker says it's satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.

The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”

The issue, which goes on sale Monday, includes a long piece by Ryan Lizza about Obama’s start in Chicago politics.

At a press availability Sunday afternoon in San Diego, Obama was asked, according to a transcript by Maria Gavrilovic of CBS News: “The upcoming issue of The New Yorker, the July 21 issue, has a picture of you, depicting you and your wife on the cover.

“Have you seen it? If not, I can show it to you on my computer. It shows your wife Michelle with an Afro and an AK-47 and the two of you doing the fist bump with you in a sort of turban-type thing on top. I wondered if you’ve seen it or if you want to see it or if you have a response to it?”

Obama, shrugging incredulously, replied: “I have no response to that.”

The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post said Sunday on his CNN media show “Reliable Sources” that the cover is arguably “incendiary.”

“I talked to the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who tells me this is a satire, that they are making fun of all the rumors,” Kurtz added.

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune defended it as “quite within the normal realms of journalism,” adding that “it's just lampooning all the crazy ignorance out there.”

The panelists agreed it would succeed in its goal of getting attention.

Original here

A Leader Left Behind?

Jackson Apologizes for Comments About Obama

The Rev. Jesse Jackson has apologized for what he calls 'regretfully crude' comments he made about Barack Obama's speeches in black churches. Jackson made the comments during what he thought was 'a private conversation'.

» LAUNCH VIDEO PLAYER

Few political figures have been more confounding than the Rev. Jesse Jackson. In four decades of public service, he has lived at the crossroads of inspiration and exasperation -- keeping hope alive for many and driving others crazy.

Last week, he managed to become what has eluded him during this historic presidential campaign: the center of attention. But not in a good way. During an unguarded moment on a Fox News set -- Jackson apparently thought the microphone was off -- he whispered to a fellow guest that he wanted to cut off Barack Obama's testicles, using coarser street vernacular. Obama's crime? The presumed Democratic presidential nominee had been talking up faith-based initiatives to help solve social problems and "talking down to black people."

When Jackson learned a storm was brewing, that his remarks would be aired, he apologized to Obama privately, held a news conference, and reiterated his pride that the junior Illinois senator was one victory away from being elected the first African American president. But the episode renewed questions about what Jackson has become in the sunset of his career and how he really feels about Obama and the kind of campaign he has run.

"It made me wonder if there was some personal jealousy," says Georgetown law professor Sheryll Cashin, who has written widely about race relations and inequality in America. "It must be hard for a generation of black men who came up in an era when nothing was easy to see this young man rise, almost effortlessly."

Jackson, now 66, can rightfully claim a pioneering role in that rise. His own two presidential campaigns, in 1984 and '88, laid the foundation for Obama's success during a period when black politicians were not given a prayer of winning a major party's nomination and most considered it folly to try.

When Jackson announced his 1988 bid, he was 46, as Obama is now, and the only Democrat in the field of six to have run for president before. At the outset, he led virtually every national poll of Democrats, a testament to the jet-setting crusades that enhanced his public stature. But few party leaders were willing to treat him like a front-runner. "For the presidency? No," said an incredulous Robert Strauss, the former Democratic national chairman. "It's an accepted fact that this country is not ready to vote a black man or woman for the presidency. . . . It's not fair, but it's the real world and he knows it. I'm not proud of this."

Jackson went on to finish second to Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis for the nomination, racking up 11 contest victories and about 7 million votes. But perhaps the greatest legacy Jackson left from his two campaigns, according to some loyalists, was the opening up of the Democratic Party structure and the growth in black political participation: more candidates running for local office, more strategists, more field operatives, more fundraisers than ever before.

"He made it possible not just for blacks to sit at the black desk," observes Donna Brazile, Jackson's field director in 1984, "but to sit at every desk in American politics." Brazile herself went on to become the first African American to manage the campaign of a major party's nominee when she ran Al Gore's effort in 2000. Of Jackson, she says: "He is my political father."

Pioneers love to be acknowledged. When the Boston Celtics returned to their former glory this year, winning an NBA championship after a 22-year hiatus, you couldn't keep the franchise's legends away. And the team's current stars? They paid constant homage to Bill Russell, John Havlicek, Larry Bird and the rest of the storied ballers who came before them.

Alas, politics is not sports. Jackson, whose ego is not insubstantial, would have relished a larger role in Obama's run. But for the most part, he has been relegated to the sidelines, promoting Obama's candidacy through radio interviews and editorial board sessions that he arranges himself.

While calling his relationship with Obama "quite close and very respectful," Jackson says in an interview that he has not been asked to campaign for Obama as a surrogate and has not been asked to campaign jointly with him. Asked if he would have a speaking part or any other formal role at the Democratic National Convention in August, as has been customary since the 1980s, Jackson says he does not know. He also says he does not know if he will play any formal role in the fall campaign, as he has in the past, traveling the country on behalf of the party and the ticket, registering voters and building turnout.

"I'm available to serve in any capacity that he defines that will help him," Jackson says.

If there is any tension about his role, any hurt over being left out, Jackson walks around it gingerly. Others do not. "Jesse is persona non grata in American politics," says Kevin Alexander Gray, who managed Jackson's successful South Carolina campaign in '88. The perception that Jackson is a polarizing force is widespread but wrongheaded, Gray adds, noting that even in South Carolina, which Jackson carried in '84 and '88, he wasn't invited to campaign for Obama. "If all these other people can stand next to Obama, why can't Jesse Jackson?"

Jackson sees Obama's ascension in evolutionary terms, he says. "He is running the last lap of a 54-year tag-team race," Jackson said, citing the 1954 Supreme Court ruling banning public school segregation, the creation of the Voting Rights Act and other milestones. "Man, there's excitement to see this in my lifetime. . . . If you're part of a team, whoever scores a touchdown, the victory goes to the team."

But when you suggest the team's quarterback should be castrated -- "locker-room trash talk," Jackson reiterates -- isn't it fair to question a team member's sincerity? Comedian John Witherspoon, in town for weekend performances at the Improv, suggested on the "Donnie Simpson Show" last week that envy had gotten the better of Jackson. "It was so stupid," Witherspoon speculated, "it might have been staged."

But staged for what purpose -- to put Jackson back in the spotlight or to help Obama further distance himself from Jackson? Witherspoon didn't exactly say, but Jackson has heard all of the theories, much to his annoyance. "Some of that talk is just people trying to construct concepts," he says, adding, "There's no conspiracy in this."

One concept that has been constructed is a generational divide in black leadership, something Jackson pooh-poohs. "This is not an old-versus-young showdown. That's trivial," he says.

However trivial it is, it has been a political story line -- and a subject of media fascination -- for 20 years. In 1989, the victories of L. Douglas Wilder in Virginia as the nation's first black governor and David Dinkins as New York's first black mayor were heralded as indications of a new style of black leadership emerging. Jackson complained at the time that commentators were trying to drive a wedge between him and Dinkins and Wilder, who were depicted as pragmatic politicians who weren't in the old anti-establishment mold.

A big part of Jackson's reputation was built on confrontation -- protesting government institutions, threatening boycotts and demanding that corporations be accountable and inclusive in awarding contracts and opportunities. Obama's experience as a rabble-rouser is not as extensive, nor does he have the instinct to use pressure first to force an outcome.

Obama seems most comfortable around his younger political peers, which include Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Newark Mayor Cory Booker and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), who has clashed with his father from time to time over language and tactics.

Jackson's concerns about Obama were prompted by two recent Obama speeches -- one in Ohio on expanding and strengthening faith-based social services and another in Chicago on Father's Day in which Obama implored fathers to "realize that responsibility does not end at conception."

Obama told reporters yesterday that Jackson had expressed his concerns about the latter speech privately, even before the Fox News mike episode. Obama said he was "not going to back down one bit" in his critique of the problem posed by so many African American children growing up without fathers in their lives.

"I told him that I absolutely believe we have structural inequalities in this country that have to be dealt with," Obama said, "which is why I have proposed making sure that health care is accessible for every American." But Obama added that it was not "an either/or proposition," that both approaches were needed -- personal responsibility and government intervention.

In the interview, Jackson says it is a question of emphasis. "Faith-based initiatives are inadequate on their best day to respond to the depth and breadth of our crisis," he says, pointing to crumbling public schools, nearly 1 million black men in prison, high unemployment in certain communities and other problems that he says require a systemic solution. "That's why when you speak of black male responsibility, that message is too narrowly focused to get the change that's needed." (Jackson himself took flak several years ago when it was revealed he had a child with a former staffer.)

Observing the back-and-forth, Georgetown's Sheryll Cashin is reminded of the Jesse Jackson who is fixed in her memory, the Jackson with the big Afro and determined disposition. "For me, metaphorically, Jesse Jackson never took off that dashiki," she says. "He has always been this civil rights voice." Cashin's new memoir, "The Agitator's Daughter," details the civil rights activism of her father, who founded an alternative Democratic Party in Alabama and ran for governor against George Wallace in 1970. John Logan Cashin Jr. and Jesse Louis Jackson are products of the same traditions.

"The soldiers from the movement, a lot of them lack the ability to be critical of the community because so much of their life has been challenging the forces against their community," Sheryll Cashin says. But it is a different time, which requires new thinking, she says.

"The black community needs more than ever for a self-reflection, places where we can talk seriously about our own responsibility to our children and the values we want for our children. We don't have enough places where we are brutally honest about how we parent or why it is that so few of us are married."

It is a dialogue that will continue, but probably without Jackson in the lead.

Recently in Chicago, there was a reunion of old Jackson campaign hands. Many reflected on how the nation was made ready to receive a Barack Obama. As a practical matter, some said, Jackson's efforts to remove winner-take-all primaries and establish a proportional system of awarding delegates helped Obama keep Sen. Hillary Clinton from overtaking him.

"Barack Obama didn't just come down on a beam of light from another planet," observes Gray. "Jesse is part of that history. Whatever else you say about Jesse, you can't deny him that."

Original here

"Terrorist" Watch List Hits One Million Names

The "terrorist" watch list now has more than one million names. Do you feel safer now?

Since February we've been tracking the size of our government's list of ostensible terrorist suspects, which according to the government's own report (pdf) has been rising at a rate of 20,000 per month.

Today I appeared in a press conference at the National Press Club here in Washington to mark this latest threshold in the history of our government's so-called "War on Terror." With me were Caroline Fredrickson, head of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, and two watch list victims: Jim Robinson, a former assistant attorney general for the Civil Division at the Justice Department, who flies frequently and is often delayed for hours despite possessing a governmental security clearance; and Akif Rahman, an American citizen who has been repeatedly detained, shackled, separated from his family, and interrogated at the U.S.-Canada border when traveling for his business.

The first thing we have to do is reduce the size of this list. There cannot possibly be one million terrorists poised to attack us. If there were our cities would be ablaze. The president - if not this president, then the next one -- needs to order the Terrorist Screening Center (the entity that maintains the list) to take everyone off this list except those for whom there is credible evidence of terrorist activities or ties. And they should be ordered to do it quickly -- within three months.

There's just no excuse for a terrorist watch list with one million names on it. And the million names dramatically understates the number of Americans actually affected by this hopelessly bloated folly. With common names like Robert Johnson on the list, exponentially more Americans are caught up in a Kafkaesque web of suspicion.

Think about it -- when the government announced it was setting up this list, did anyone picture such a thing? Might as well just put the whole population on the list and save on administrative expenses.

The second primary thing that needs to be done is for checks and balances to be imposed on this watch list system. If the government is going to use watch lists, there needs to be in place the same kinds of due process protections that American citizens expect any other time the government interferes with the rights and privileges that other members of society enjoy (such as the right to travel by air).

Congress needs to put into law -- you can't trust bureaucracies to stick with "guidelines" or other weaker protections -- basic protections such as:

• a right to access and challenge data upon which listing is based;


• tight criteria for adding names to the lists;


• rigorous procedures for updating and cleansing names from the lists;


• and most of all, the right to a meaningful, participatory process by which we can challenge our inclusion on a watch list in an adversarial proceeding before a neutral arbiter.

Today we also announced the creation of an online form where victims of the watch list can report their experiences to us. We will collect those stories and use them in a variety of ways to advance our advocacy. We only share or use each story according to the permission that the submitter gives us, and stories can be submitted anonymously.

In some ways, this million-person watch list is the perfect symbol for an administration whose strategy in fighting terrorism has always revolved around making everyone a suspect -- from data mining to ID cards to see-through body scanners. It is an approach based around trying to pick a one-in-a-billion terrorist out of the population, rather than doing the only thing that has ever really worked to stop attacks: following up competently on known terrorists and known leads and working outward from there to go directly to the terrorists.

Original here

Bolton Claims He Has ‘Always Said’ Striking Iran Is ‘Deeply Unattractive’»

On the Friday edition of Hannity and Colmes, Alan Colmes questioned former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton about his “statements over the last few months” advocating that the Bush administration use military force against Iran. Bolton denied having made such statements, replying that “would not be an accurate reflection of my view”:

COLMES: Well, you’ve said — statements over the last few months that either you believe the Bush administration is going to strike or that you would like if there were a first strike against Iran. Would that be an accurate reflection of your view?

BOLTON: No, it would not be an accurate reflection of my view. In fact, I’ve said most recently I don’t think the Bush administration will use force, and I have always said, Alan, always said, that the use of force against Iran’s nuclear program is deeply unattractive.

Watch it:

However, Bolton has not always found the use of force against Iran “deeply unattractive.” To the contrary, he has vigorously pushed the administration to attack Iran, believing it the “prudent” thing to do:

- Asked if he could imagine a scenario where Bush would strike Iran before the end of his term, Bolton responded “I think so, definitely.” [Fox News, 5/7/08]

- Bolton explained that a U.S. military strike on Iran is “really the most prudent thing to do.” [Fox News, 5/5/08]

- Bolton said that he “absolutely” hopes the U.S. will attack Iran in the “next six months.” [Fox News, 8/22/07]

But Bolton doesn’t only theorize about the U.S. striking Iran. On multiple occasions, he has suggested that Israel will attack Iran “after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President,” which he explained “makes a lot of sense.”

– Pat Garofalo

Original here

Army Secretary Asks for Probe of Firing

Gina Gray says her firing as public affairs director at Arlington National Cemetery was retaliatory. (By Ricky Carioti -- The Washington Post)

Army Secretary Pete Geren has asked his staff for an internal review to examine the Army's firing last month of Gina Gray, the former public affairs director of Arlington National Cemetery who had worked to restore media coverage of military funerals.

"The goal is to strike the right balance between the family's needs and wishes, which always are our top priority, and the interest of the press," Army spokesman Paul Boyce said in an e-mail.

"The Army continues to work with families and the media to ensure a respectful experience that honors the memories of our fallen soldiers and veterans," Boyce said, noting that the cemetery "hosts thousands of local reporters and national media as well as hundreds of documentary productions and book photographers each year."

In a phone interview yesterday, Gray said, "I am definitely encouraged by any investigation into the mismanagement at Arlington Cemetery."

The Washington Post reported on Gray's firing yesterday. After assuming her director position three months ago, Gray discovered that cemetery officials were trying to impose new media restrictions on funerals of Iraq war dead, despite families of the fallen having granted permission for coverage.

Gray believed the new restrictions were wrong and were not supported by Army regulations, The Post reported. But she was demoted six weeks after The Post first reported on her attempts to restore news coverage, and she was fired on June 27.

"Had I not put my foot down, had I just gone along with it and not said regulations were being violated, I'm sure I'd still be there," Gray told The Post, calling her firing retaliatory. "It's about doing the right thing."

Geren is seeking more information on the matter, Boyce said. "The secretary of the Army has asked for an internal review by his staff," he said.

Original here

McCain forgets that Czechoslovakia isn’t a country… again.»

During a press availability today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that he’s been concerned by “a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several day,” including “reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia.” But, as TPM’s Greg Sargent points out, Czechoslovakia hasn’t existed in 15 years. This isn’t the first time McCain has made this mistake. At a debate in Oct. 2007, McCain said that America needs to “have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia and Poland.”

Original here

Bush lifts his father’s ban on offshore oil drilling.»

Just one month after John McCain flip-flopped and called for lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling, President Bush will announce later today that he too will flip-flop and “lift an executive ban on offshore drilling that has stood since his father was president.” Bush and McCain supported the ban when running for president in 2000. The White House says it is trying to get Congress to agree to increase drilling:

But Perino said Bush no longer wants to wait. She pinned blame on the leaders of the Democratic Congress for inaction. ”They haven’t even held a single hearing,” Perino said. ”So we are going to move forward, and hopefully that will spur action by the Congress.”

Asked if Bush’s action alone will lead to more oil drilling, Perino said, “In terms of allowing more exploration to go forward? No, it does not.”

White House officials acknowledge that Bush’s calls for expanded drilling will not “have immediate impact on prices at the pump.”

Original here

Strip Search of 13-Year-Old for Ibuprofen Ruled Unconstitutional

If you have a problem with school officials strip searching 13-year-olds for Advil – or if you care about the government’s standards for informant use and invasive searches – you can take relief in yesterday’s ruling by a full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled 6-5 that students cannot be strip-searched based on the uncorroborated word of another student who is facing disciplinary punishment.

“A reasonable school official, seeking to protect the students in his charge, does not subject a thirteen-year-old girl to a traumatic search to ‘protect’ her from the danger of Advil,” the federal appellate court wrote in today’s opinion. “We reject Safford’s effort to lump together these run-of-the-mill anti-inflammatory pills with the evocative term ‘prescription drugs,’ in a knowing effort to shield an imprudent strip search of a young girl behind a larger war against drugs.”

“It does not take a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old girl is an invasion of constitutional rights. More than that: it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity,” the court continued.

In addition to finding the strip search unconstitutional, the court held that the school official who ordered the strip search, Vice Principal Kerry Wilson, is financially liable in the case and cannot claim qualified immunity. The ACLU co-represented the student, Savana Redding, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which decided to reconsider the case after a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that the strip-search was legal.

For a case like this, it’s hard to understand how the unconstitutionality of strip searching Redding could even be up for debate. Consider how flimsy the government’s case was:

• No physical evidence suggested that Redding – an honor roll student with no history of substance use or abuse – might be in possession of ibuprofen pills or that she was concealing them in her undergarments.
• The strip search was undertaken based solely on the uncorroborated claims of a classmate facing punishment, who was caught with prescription strength ibuprofen – the equivalent of two over-the-counter pills of Advil. (And why on earth might a teenaged girl have ibuprofen?)
• No attempt was made to corroborate the classmate’s accusations among other students or teachers.
• The classmate had not claimed that Redding currently possessed any pills, nor had the classmate given any indication as to where they might be concealed.
• No attempt was made to contact Redding’s parents prior to conducting the strip search.

If you want to get some background information on the abundance of scientific literature describing the serious psychological repercussions of being strip-searched at age 13, you should check out the briefs of support that were also filed by the National Association of Social Workers and the Rutherford Institute.

“The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had,” said Redding in a sworn affidavit following the incident. “I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry.”

As Reason’s Jacob Sullum insightfully observed in his article on the case, “The School Crotch Inspector”:

“There are two kinds of people in the world: the kind who think it’s perfectly reasonable to strip-search a 13-year-old girl suspected of bringing ibuprofen to school, and the kind who think those people should be kept as far away from children as possible … Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between drug warriors and child molesters.”

The same safeguards and regulations on informant use that we have been advocating in the context of criminal drug proceedings apply even more so to the context of school, where young people are particularly vulnerable to unsubstantiated rumors and finger-pointing by vindictive peers.

Original here

Iraq War's Fallen Soldiers Remembered With 4,116-Mile Run

"Run for the Fallen" participants kick off their journey near Fort Irwin, California

Photo: MTV News

Run for the Fallen will cover one mile for every service member who has died in the war.

By Michelle Rabinowitz

Views	4,232

Comments 3

Rating 100%

Rate this article

• Thumbs up
• Thumbs down

Add to my Profile Sign In/Sign Up

Votes Sign In/Sign Up

Permalink

Share

Flag Adult Hate Spam Other

• Send to Friend
  

  Send to a Friend

  Fill out the information below to share this article.

  Friend's email address *Multiple addresses must be separated by commas

  Your email address

  Comments

• Print

• 
• 
• 

Lots of people spend their summers relaxing on the beach or taking that once-in-a-lifetime vacation. Jon Bellona and his friends are spending the hottest months of the year running across the entire country, from California to Virginia. That's 4,116 miles — one mile for every service member who has died in Iraq since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

One of those soldiers was Bellona's best friend and college roommate First Lieutenant Michael J. Cleary. He died December 20, 2005, when an improvised explosive device, or IED, blew up near his vehicle just 10 days before he was scheduled to return home.

"I was actually running along the New Jersey shoreline looking at New York City, where the Twin Towers used to be, when I came up with the idea for the run," Bellona said. "9/11 was the reason Mike joined the Army."

Running was also a natural way to remember Cleary, who loved to pound the pavement.

"He was definitely a big runner when he was in the Army," Bellona said, "even though he smoked about a pack a day!"

"I was a football player in college and never ran," said Rowland Boateng, one of Cleary's best friends from college. "Then spring semester [of] junior year he took me out [on] this long 7 miles, and since then I've been running."

The journey is called Run for the Fallen. The core group of runners includes some of Cleary's friends from Hamilton College Erin Kavanagh, whom he was scheduled to marry two months after he passed away.

But the group isn't just running for Cleary.

"Participating in this run is part of the healing process for us," Boateng said. "This is something that can help all of us who have lost a loved one — a friend, a son, a daughter, a grandchild, a loved one, anyone."

The group started out on June 14, the Army's birthday — better known as Flag Day — right outside of Fort Irwin in California. The military training center is located in the Mojave Desert, one of the hottest spots in the country. The sun was beating down and the pavement was heating up as the runners stretched before the first mile.

"Most people don't know this," Brigadier General Dana J.H. Pittard told the group, "but we are at the same latitude as Baghdad out here."

The group ran the first mile together. Most of the runners, including Pittard, stuck around for the second mile. After that, the core group started switching off, relay-style, for the rest of the 26 miles they tackled that day. At the end of each mile the group planted a small American flag in the ground.

"We are also placing placards with information about each service member," Bellona said. "We worked with about 20 schools [to make] them, so that people can learn a little bit about each of the fallen."

Each placard is a laminated piece of paper, usually with a photo, that contains some facts about the fallen soldier, Marine, airman or sailor the mile is dedicated to. They are being put up in chronological order of their death.

The group is running across Texas this weekend, and they're encouraging everyone to run a mile in their own towns on August 24, when they plan to finish the run at Arlington National Cemetery. The group decided on their final location when the run was only 4,100 miles long.

"We may have to do a few extra loops around Arlington," Bellona said.

Original here