February 27, 2004
University of California at Los Angeles

As Prepared for Delivery

It’s an honor to be here today at the Burkle Center – named in honor of a good friend and one of America’s outstanding business leaders.

Day in and day out, George W. Bush reminds us that he is a war President and that he wants to make national security the central issue of this election. I am ready to have this debate. I welcome it.

Actually, Bush doesn't remind us day in and day out that he's a wartime president. I've pointed this out on a number of occasions. I think he should harp on it daily.

I am convinced that we can prove to the American people that we know how to make them safer and more secure – with a stronger, more comprehensive, and more effective strategy for winning the War on Terror than the Bush Administration has ever envisioned.

Lay it out, then. If it's that good, why not make constructive suggestions to the Bush administration? A reflexively adversarial position is counter-productive if we're all in this together.

As we speak, night has settled on the mountains of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If Osama bin Laden is sleeping, it is the restless slumber of someone who knows his days are numbered. I don’t know if the latest reports – saying that he is surrounded – are true or not. We’ve heard this news before.

We heard it about Sammy several times before it panned out, too...

We had him in our grasp more than two years ago at Tora Bora but George Bush held U.S. forces back and instead, called on Afghan warlords with no loyalty to our cause to finish the job. We all hope the outcome will be different this time and we all know America cannot rest until Osama bin Laden is captured or killed.

We live and learn, don't we? That was the first time we'd conquered Afghanistan. Next time we'll know better...

And when that day comes, it will be a great step forward but we will still have far more to do. It will be a victory in the War on Terror, but it will not be the end of the War on Terror.

Even though there will be lots of people claiming that it is...

This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe. As CIA Director George Tenet recently testified: “They are not all creatures of bin Laden, and so their fate is not tied to his. They have autonomous leadership, they pick their own targets, they plan their own attacks.”

Some of them are more despicable than Binny, more fundamentalist. The Takfiri tried to bump him off in Sudan because of his lax religious practices.

At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas. Of democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views. The War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos; of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future.

It's a conflict between proponents of individual liberty and a worldview that says the common man needs to be ruled, not governed.

Like all Americans, I responded to President Bush’s reassuring words in the days after September 11th. But since then, his actions have fallen short. I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little.

Okay, let's have some examples, and let's have some instances where you'd have done better...

Where he’s acted, his doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations.

Could be they simply weren't going to come on board, no matter what we did. Could be they had their own interests — unilateral interests — that conflicted with ours. Somebody pointed out early in the WoT that alliances were temporary things, matters of expediency where national interests converged, and that in the next stage they may or may not converge. Case in point, Syria and Egypt, both of which were our allies in Gulf War I, but sat out last year's operation. And France, of course, which was also our ally in the first Gulf War.

Iraq is in disarray, with American troops still bogged down in a deadly guerrilla war with no exit in sight.

An arguable point. Operations are being taken over by the Iraqis, the money's being chased down, the bad guys are being rounded up. Very delicate political and diplomatic balances are being maintained. Syria and Iran are both being drawn out and forced into shakier positions. I'd say that Iraq was under control, even though it has the potential to slip out of control. But we knew outside parties were going to try and snatch the bone from between our teeth before we went in there, those of us who were paying attention, anyway.

In Afghanistan, the area outside Kabul is sliding back into the hands of a resurgent Taliban and emboldened warlords.

Another arguable point. The Pashtun areas are as nutty as ever. The Northern Alliance areas have their share of shootouts and tough guys, but things are improving.

In other areas, the Administration has done nothing or been too little and too late.

That's a cliche criticism. You're not offering any alternatives, just carping...

The Mideast Peace process disdained for 14 months by the Bush Administration is paralyzed.

Because we're not wasting any more time on Yasser. The PA is slowly imploding as a result.

North Korea and Iran continue their quest for nuclear weapons – weapons which one day could land in the hands of terrorists.

And we're coming closer to the proof of it. The black hats have thrown off their mask of democracy and they're back to being a cheap theocracy again. The NorKs aren't going to get the level of blind trust they got from Madelaine Albright.

And as Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has admitted, the Administration is still searching for an effective plan to drain the swamps of terrorist recruitment.

Kind of the base issue of the war on terror, isn't it? If there was an easy answer, it'd have been an easy war. It's not, so it ain't.

The President’s budget for the National Endowment for Democracy’s efforts around the world, including the entire Islamic world, is less than three percent of what this Administration gives Halliburton – hardly a way to win the contest of ideas.

Cheap shot with the Halliburton jibe. Halliburton's giving something in return for the money they're getting. What's the National Endowment for Democracy giving? Quantify it, please.

Finally, by virtually every measure, we still have a homeland security strategy that falls far short of the vulnerabilities we have and the threats we face.

But that's still a lot more effective than the nothing we had before 9-11-01. What else would you do?

George Bush has no comprehensive strategy for victory in the War on Terror – only an ad hoc strategy to keep our enemies at bay. If I am Commander-in-Chief, I would wage that war by putting in place a strategy to win it.

Let's have it, then, John-Pierre...

We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests. But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military – but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds.

Anyone who thinks operations have been only military hasn't been paying attention — or has ulterior motives. The diplowar has been fought just as hard, occasionally with troops not as reliable as the 4th ID. Powell's been making and remaking alliances, ad hoc and otherwise, and working on keeping them glued together. Vigorous law enforcement? Look world-wide, at France, Britain, Germany, and Spain, where they've been rounding them up and putting them on trial all along. Some of the sentences are laughable, but they're still being jugged. Look at the Paks, kicking and screaming, yet still rounding them up — some of them, anyway. Look at the fine police work the Indonesians, of all people, did in the wake of the Bali blasts. Intel? Cutting off the flow of terrorist funds? Where the hell have you been, Jack?

To do all this, and to do our best, demands that we work with other countries instead of walking alone. For today the agents of terrorism work and lurk in the shadows of 60 nations on every continent. In this entangled world, we need to build real and enduring alliances.

Real, yes. Some enduring, some ad hoc...

Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done. As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake. But I will not push away those who can and should share the burden.

Ummm... That's the approach Bush has been taking.

Working with other countries in the War on Terror is something we do for our sake – not theirs. We can’t wipe out terrorist cells in places like Sweden, Canada, Spain, the Philippines, or Italy just by dropping in Green Berets.

Luckily, most of those countries have their own equivalents, so it's not necessary.

It was local law enforcement working with our intelligence services which caught Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Bin al-Shibh in Pakistan and the murderer known as Hambali in Thailand. Joining with local police forces didn’t mean serving these terrorists with legal papers; it meant throwing them behind bars. None of the progress we have made would have been possible without cooperation – and much more would be possible if we had a President who didn’t alienate long-time friends and fuel anti-American anger around the world.

Hmmm... Which ones? Lessee, here: we've got cooperation from Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Kuwait, and Qatar. Yemen's playing along as well as they can. Egypt occasionally makes the effort, though they have their own internal pestilences. The Central Asian republics are on board. We're warming to India, where they have massive intel on the Islamist structure in that part of the world. We even seem to have intel exchanges with the Russers and the Chinese. Who's left?

We need a comprehensive approach for prevailing against terror – an approach that recognizes the many facets of this mortal challenge and relies on all the tools at our disposal to do it.

I think we've got that...

First, if I am President I will not hesitate to order direct military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders. George Bush inherited the strongest military in the world – and he has weakened it. What George Bush and his armchair hawks have never understood is that our military is about more than moving pins on a map or buying expensive new weapons systems.

Cheap shots. The strongest military in the world that he inherited actually isn't as strong as it was under his father. There were valid reasons for cutting U.S. troop strength and deployments — the Cold War ended on Bush, Sr.'s, watch. The military has been used as a tool of policy, and used in quite a legitimate manner.

America’s greatest military strength has always been the courageous, talented men and women whose love of country and devotion to service lead them to attempt and achieve the impossible everyday. But today, far too often troops are going into harm’s way without the weapons and equipment they depend on to do their jobs safely. National Guard helicopters are flying missions in dangerous territory without the best available ground-fire protection systems. Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire. And families across America have had to collect funds from their neighbors to buy body armor for their loved ones in uniform because George Bush failed to provide it

All problems that are being addressed. Look at the shortages and inadequacies that showed up in the Second World War — read up on the performance of the Brewster Buffalo against the Zero fighter. When I got to Vietnam, we were just switching from the M-14 to the M-16, with all the bugs that showed up in its first generation. The South Viets were using M-2 carbines. If armies didn't change, we'd still be marching to battle in formation and firing volleys from single-shot muskets.

The next President must ensure that our forces are structured for maximum effectiveness and provided with all that they need to succeed in their missions. We must better prepare our forces for post-conflict operations and the task of building stability by adding more engineers, military police, psychological warfare personnel, and civil affairs teams.

I'm sure Rumsfeld's working on that right this moment. We probably need that split between the Regulars, as an integrated combat force, and the National Guard, as occupation troops. Iraq won't be the last place we occupy.

And to replenish our overextended military, as President, I will add 40,000 active-duty Army troops, a temporary increase likely to last the remainder of the decade.

Not needed, if we split like I just mentioned.

Second, if I am President I will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home and forge stronger international coalitions to provide better information and the best chance to target and capture terrorists even before they act.

That statement leads me to believe he has no idea what intel exchanges are actually in place.

But the challenge for us is not to cooperate abroad; it is to coordinate here at home. Whether it was September 11th or Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, we have endured unprecedented intelligence failures. We must do what George Bush has refused to do – reform our intelligence system by making the next Director of the CIA a true Director of National Intelligence with real control of intelligence personnel and budgets. We must train more analysts in languages like Arabic. And we must break down the old barriers between national intelligence and local law enforcement.

Partially true statements. Some of the barriers betwen national intel and local law enforcement are there as a matter of policy, and the policy might need to be reviewed and tweaked. The Privacy Act of 1974 prohibits intelligence collection on U.S. persons, for instance, without a court order naming the individual. It's too tight. Arabic's a tough language. It takes close to a year to train an analyst to basic proficiency, three years to make him/her/it an expert. If he's not already an analyst he also needs trained in that field. The same applies to Dari, Pashto, Urdu, and any number of other obscure languages with no other application than in the intel field.

In the months leading up to September 11th, two of the hijackers were arrested for drunk driving – and another was stopped for speeding and then let go, although he was already the subject of an arrest warrant in a neighboring county and was on a federal terrorist watch list. We need to simplify and streamline the multiple national terrorist watch lists and make sure the right information is available to the right people on the frontlines of preventing the next attack. But we can’t take any of those steps effectively if we are stuck with an Administration that continues to stonewall those who are trying to get to the bottom of our September 11th intelligence failures. Two days ago, the Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert refused the request of the bipartisan 9-11 commission for just a little more time just to complete their mission. This after the Commission has had to deal with an Administration that opposed its very creation and has stonewalled its efforts. He didn’t hesitate to pick up the phone and call Denny Hastert to ram through his Medicare drug company benefit or to replace a real Patients Bill of Rights with an HMO Bill of Goods.

Cheap shots...

This President told a Republican fundraiser that it was in the “nation’s interest” that Denny Hastert remain Speaker of the House. I believe it’s in America’s interest to know the truth about 9-11. Mr. President, stop stonewalling the commission and stop hiding behind excuses. Pick up the phone, call your friend Denny Hastert and tell him to let the commission finish its job so we can make America safer.

He wants to make sure all the wounded are shot...

Third, we must cut off the flow of terrorist funds. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Bush Administration has adopted a kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money. If I am President, we will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it. We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system.

That'd be really bright. Then the Soddies can shut us out the the international oil system. Then we can have a replay of the 1970s. I'll stick with reasoned diplomacy, thank you, with the ultimate aim of dropping the curtain on the princes.

Fourth, because finding and defeating terrorist groups is a long-term effort, we must act immediately to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. I propose to appoint a high-level Presidential envoy empowered to bring other nations together to secure and stop the spread of these weapons.

The NorKs and the Medes and Persians are going to sign on to that in a flash, I'm sure.

We must develop common standards to make sure dangerous materials and armaments are tracked, accounted for, and secured. Today, parts of Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal are easy prey for those offering cash to scientists and security forces who too often are under-employed and under-paid. If I am President, I will expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy the loose nuclear materials of the former Soviet Union and to ensure that all of Russia’s nuclear weapons and materials are out of the reach of terrorists and off the black market.

The Russers might have something to say about that.

Next, whatever we thought of the Bush Administration’s decisions and mistakes – especially in Iraq – we now have a solemn obligation to complete the mission, in that country and in Afghanistan. Iraq is now a major magnet and center for terror. Our forces in Iraq are paying the price every day. And our safety at home may someday soon be endangered as Iraq becomes a training ground for the next generation of terrorists. It is time to return to the United Nations and return America to the community of nations to share both authority and responsibility in Iraq, and take the target off the back of our troops.

The UN, of course, did such a sterling job of containing Sammy and then disposing of him. Passing resolution after resolution, with no method of enforcement, doesn't do much for international security. Imposing sanctions that are chock full of back doors and opportunities for corruption makes a mockery of what it purports to be trying to do. There has to be a peace for peacekeepers to have anything worthwhile to do, and sometimes peace needs to be imposed.

This also requires a genuine Iraqi security force. The Bush Administration simply signs up recruits and gives them rudimentary training. In a Kerry Administration, we will create and train an Iraqi security force equal to the task of safeguarding itself and the people it is supposed to protect.

Other than rudimentary training takes time. In the case of the Iraqi security forces, most of those recruited brought skills with them, and the training consisted of trying to unlearn some bad habits they'd developed working for Sammy.

We must offer the UN the lead role in assisting Iraq with the development of new political institutions. And we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished.

That's just a statement. Why must we? What are the reasons, other than a desire to shuck responsibility? Why the "lead" role, as opposed even to a "substantial" role? What does the UN offer that we don't or can't?

In Afghanistan, we have some NATO involvement, but the training of the Afghan Army is insufficient to disarm the warlord militias or to bring the billion dollar drug trade under control. This Administration has all but turned away from Afghanistan. Two years ago, President Bush promised a Marshall Plan to rebuild that country. His latest budget scorns that commitment.

A "Marshall Plan" has become a Dem cliche. Afghanistan's a far cry from post-war Europe, and calls for different methods. It's an extremely primitive country, especially in the Pashtun areas. We avoided the Soviet mistake of invading and occupying, but we're making a completely different set of mistakes in trying to build a society. It may well be that there's no approach to Afghanistan that's not riddled with "mistakes." But the Taliban aren't in power, sheltering the supreme headquarters of international terrorism, so other than that I don't particularly care what they do. It's their country, and they're free to screw it up any way they like.

We must – and if I am President, I will – apply the wisdom Franklin Roosevelt shared with the American people in a fireside chat in 1942, “it is useless to win battles if the cause for which we fight these battles is lost. It is useless to win a war unless it stays won.” This Administration has not met that challenge; a Kerry Administration will.

For all those words, you still haven't said how. And you haven't given a whit of credit to George Bush for the admirable job he's done.

But nothing else will matter unless we win the war of ideas. In failed states from South Asia to the Middle East to Central Africa, the combined weight of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack of education, and rapid population growth presents the potential for explosive violence and the enlistment of entire new legions of terrorists. In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, almost sixty percent of the population is under the age of 30, unemployed and unemployable, in a breeding ground for present and future hostility. And according to a Pew Center poll, fifty percent or more of Indonesians, Jordanians, Pakistanis, and Palestinians have confidence in bin Laden to “do the right thing regarding world affairs.”

Not a single mention of Wahhabism in the whole presentation. Amazing.

We need a major initiative in public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. For the education of the next generation of Islamic youth, we need an international effort to compete with radical Madrassas. We have seen what happens when Palestinian youth have been fed a diet of anti-Israel propaganda. And we must support human rights groups, independent media and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture from the grass-roots up. Democracy won’t come overnight, but America should speed that day by sustaining the forces of democracy against repressive regimes and by rewarding governments which take genuine steps towards change.

How about Iran, Soddy Arabia, and Pakistan as the nerve centers of terrorism? How about the international nuclear proliferation ring just uncovered through the agency of combined diplomacy and military action carried out on a multilateral scale?

We cannot be deterred by letting America be held hostage by energy from the Middle East. If I am President, we will embark on a historic effort to create alternative fuels and the vehicles of the future – to make this country energy independent of Mideast oil within ten years. So our sons and daughters will never have to fight and die for it.

You can call it fighting and dying for oil, or you can call it fighting and dying in defense of the national interest. The "historic effort to create alternative fuels and the vehicles of the future" has been under way since the early 1970s. We're driving the 1970s' "vehicles of the future" right now, smaller, lighter, with better gas mileage. We've tried alternative fuels and none have caught on widely, partly due to lack of infrastructure to support them, partly because they were bad ideas. About six months ago we had some guy's propane-powered car explode a few miles from here. Fuel cells might be the wave of the future, but we don't know when the future's going to start. Meantime, whatever happened to the oil depletion allowance? Congress killed it in 1969 and four years later we had gas lines because domestic development had crashed. And no Dem wants to disturb the repose of the caribou in ANWR. They're afraid Halliburton would make some money.

Finally, if we are going to be serious about the War on Terror, we need to be much more serious about homeland security. Today, fire departments only have enough radios for half their firefighters and almost two-thirds of firehouses are short-staffed. We should not be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in New York City. We need to put 100,000 more firefighters on duty and we need to restore the 100,000 police on our streets which I fought for and won in 1994 but which the Bush Administration has cut in budget after budget. We need to provide public health labs with the basic expertise they need but now lack to respond to chemical or biological attack. We need new safeguards for our chemical and nuclear facilities. And our ports – like the Port of Los Angeles – need new technology to screen the 95 percent of containers that now enter this country without any inspection at all. And we should accelerate the action plans agreed to in US-Canada and US-Mexico “smart border” accords while implementing new security measures for cross border bridges. President Bush says we can’t afford to fund homeland security. I say we can’t afford not to.

"Who provides the money When you pay the rent? Did you think that money was heaven-sent?"

The safety of our people, the security of our country, the memory of our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, neighbors and heroes we lost on September 11th call on us to win this war we did not seek. And our children’s future demands that we also do everything in our power to prevent the creation of tomorrow’s terrorists today. Maybe there’s no going back to the days before baggage checks and orange alerts. Maybe they’re with us forever. But I don’t believe they have to be. I grew up at a time of bomb shelters and air raid drills. But America had leaders of vision and courage in both parties. And today, the Cold War is memory, not reality. I believe we can bring a real victory in the War on Terror. I believe we must, not only for ourselves but for all who look to America as “the last best hope of earth.” I believe we can meet that ideal – and that’s why I’m running for President.