Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
$700 Billion Crisis: A Political Mine Field; The Google Impact; Toxic Baby Formula; Biden Speaks About Foreign Policy
Aired September 24, 2008 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: It is Wednesday, September 24th, and here are the headlines right now on CNN.
Your money, your vote. The next president inherits a financial mess. What the candidates are saying about the big bailout.
CNN has shown you how to impact your world. Now Google this. The Internet giant wants to bankroll your ideas to the tune of -- are you ready -- $10 million. The exclusive announcement, live this hour.
And China's tainted milk scandal spreads. What the FDA is doing to keep dangerous dairy products out of the U.S.
And good morning, everyone. I'm Tony Harris. And you are in the CNN NEWSROOM.
Well, the financial world in crisis. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke urgently pitching the big bailout plan.
Now President Bush is considering a primetime speech, possibly tonight, to push Congress to act on it. Whatever is decided, that $700 billion bailout is sure to be a political mine field for the next administration.
And one of these two men will have to step in and deal with it. And did we mention the first presidential debate is just two days away? Both candidates say they have a problem with one aspect of the plan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There's been some talk that some CEOs may refuse to cooperate with this plan if they have to forego multimillion-dollar salaries. I cannot imagine a position that's more selfish and more greedy at a time of national crisis.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The senior leaders of any firm that is bailed out should not be making more than the highest paid government official.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: No doubt there is plenty of blame to go around in all of this. In a CNN/Opinion Research poll, 47 percent of respondents put most of the blame on Republicans, 24 percent blame it mainly on Democrats. And right now more than half of Americans think Barack Obama would handle the economy better than John McCain.
Our Suzanne Malveaux is covering the Obama campaign in Miami, Florida.
Suzanne, great to see you.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It's good to see you, Tony.
HARRIS: What are the candidates offering, Suzanne, to help fix the economy?
MALVEAUX: It's really interesting to listen to both of the candidates right now because they're both pushing for these stipulations, these conditions they say that has to be part of the bailout plan. But at the same time, they don't want to push too far or too fast because they don't want to be perceived as the ones that perhaps would get in the way of a solution here. But there's still a lot of questions about what's going to work, what's not going to work. And what we find is these candidates are starting to sound similar in some ways in terms of what they expect from the administration.
A couple of highlights they've been talking about, taxpayers getting some money back from this bailout plan if it is successful, a bipartisan board that would oversee the plan. Also, as we heard from sound from both if candidates, that Wall Street executives would get limited compensation. And both of these candidates are also saying hold off on that economic stimulus package, it does not have to be a part of this major bill, this massive bill that they expect is going to pass.
We have not heard from either candidate, Tony, about what would be really the deal-breaker. Would they sign? Would they refuse to sign?
Both of them are being rather cautious about this. They want to see how this plays out. Obviously it is very politically risky to get ahead of this -- Tony.
HARRIS: And so much of this is spinning pretty much out of their control. Events are happening so fast in Washington, D.C.
Suzanne, I'm curious, Barack Obama is in Florida today. What's on tap for him?
MALVEAUX: He's in a place called Dunedin. And it's not far from Tampa. And CNNMoney.com said this was the best waterfront property for retirees.
Obviously, retirees very important, a voting bloc for Barack Obama in Florida. But also want to break down the voting numbers here.
You're talking about 12,000 Republicans, 10,000 Democrats here, but then 7,000 Independents. And that obviously is the group that he's trying to go after, those important swing voters.
This is an area that usually is a pretty good indication of which way Florida swings. So obviously a very important region for him to hit today -- Tony.
HARRIS: Suzanne Malveaux in Miami, Florida, with the Obama campaign.
Suzanne, great to see you. Thank you.
MALVEAUX: Thanks.
HARRIS: The administration's money men on Capitol Hill for a second straight day trying to sell the $700 billion bailout. We are also watching other developments in the financial crisis.
Sources say the FBI is investigating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and AIG, as part of a broader look into possible mortgage fraud. The Federal Reserve strikes a deal with central banks in four other countries to pump more money into the financial markets.
The agreements should make up to $30 billion available for the Fed to loan banks in the United States. And billionaire investor Warren Buffett is investing $5 billion in Goldman Sachs, a move that could boost confidence in the U.S. financial firms.
The bailout of Wall Street is the hot topic on Main Street. Outrage, frustration, confusion, we are hearing all of it. Here is what Jim told my colleague Heidi Collins about the crisis.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Republican and Democratic parties are both guilty as to the excesses, the way they spend our taxpayers' money. It's almost like -- I mean, the Democrats and the Republicans, they don't care as much about the American taxpayer as they do about winning elections. So we'll see how this comes out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: OK. You know, we've also been showing you those long lines as gas stations. Take a look at this map of the Southeast.
We have iReports from all of these cities and towns. There's a new gizmo we created to show you where in the world, really, our iReporters are grabbing these images.
I've got to tell you, your iReports really do help us tell these big stories. Just log on to ireport.com.
Google, you know the name. You use the search engine. Now this company wants your brainchild. And they're going to cough up the cash for it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: OK. Cute video. But what's it all about?
Well, Google this. The Internet giant is looking for your ideas that could change the world, and the company will bankroll the best ideas -- listen to this -- to the tune of $10 million.
It is called Google Project 10 to the 100th. And we have the exclusive launch announcement right here on CNN.
With us from New York, Andy Berndt, Google creative lab managing director, and Bethany Pool, Google product marketing manager.
Good to see you both. What an occasion. Thanks for letting us, allowing us to unveil this.
OK, you crazy kids at Google have done it again, 10 to the 100th.
Bethany, how did you come up with this one?
BETHANY POOLE, GOOGLE PRODUCT MARKETING MANAGER: We were looking for ways to celebrate our 10th birthday.
HARRIS: That's it? That simple?
ANDY BERNDT, GOOGLE CREATIVE LAB MANAGING DIRECTOR: Yes. It's more than that. Our idea was to market our 10th birthday and really celebrate kind of the spirit of the Web, the spirit of our users, by putting out a call for ideas. A call for ideas across the whole world, specifically for ideas that would help as many people as possible.
HARRIS: Yes. And you know what, Andy? Your tech company, the world's largest search engine, do you just want tech ideas or are you open to all kinds of ideas?
BERNDT: No, no, no. Not at all. Not just tech ideas. Ideas of any kind -- insights, pragmatic thoughts about how you can make people's lives better.
We're not really limited at all to tech or scientific ideas. We're really just looking for insights from people who are close to different communities, different worlds, different lives, and how those might be magnified to help a lot of people.
HARRIS: Well, Bethany, of all the ideas you could have come up with to celebrate your 10th, you have to tell me how you decided on, then settled on this one.
POOLE: We were looking for basically an idea that would be big, that would have an impact, and would get our users involved, get the people that helped us get here for the last 10 years, and have them do something really cool. So we came up with this idea to help a lot of people. It has everyone involved. HARRIS: Yes. And we're all excited about it and want to learn more about it.
Andy, if you would, how does the initiative work? And I'm hoping that it is interactive so that we can take a look at some of the ideas and perhaps vote on the best of them.
BERNDT: Exactly. It is. It is.
So we'll put out the call for ideas starting today. People will send in their ideas from all around the world. We'll go (ph) those ideas down to a set that we'll ask the whole world then to vote on, and then take the -- hopefully maybe up to five of the best of those and make them happen, really bring them to life.
HARRIS: Wow. Who's going to judge? Maybe I'm just lobbying to get on the panel, but who gets to judge the ultimate winners here?
BERNDT: Well, we'll have a panel, a final panel of judges, that will look through the final list selected by the public and pick out those ideas that seem feasible and seem doable, and will seem to help the most people.
HARRIS: OK. So where do folks go? I know there's a link at impactyourworld@cnn.com. But where else can folks go if they want to participate? And again, this is global.
POOLE: This is totally global. Forty-two countries. And we're expecting submissions in 25 different languages. All you have to do is go to www.project10tothe100.com and submit your idea, and then come back and vote in January.
HARRIS: So, Andy, if this succeeds, let's just say beyond your wildest expectations, what kind of impact do you believe this initiative can have on the world, Doctor?
BERNDT: Well, I don't know. We don't know. I think we're shooting the moon here.
The bigger the better, the more the merrier. We don't really have a topside to this. That's what this is all about. We don't think by any stretch that we have the ideas, but we do think the ideas are out there. So it's yet to be seen.
HARRIS: And they don't need to be big, grandiose ideas. They can be small ideas, or maybe that expands on something -- maybe that's the question. Is it the idea that maybe you can expand on an initiative that's going on right now and maybe have that initiative have a broader reach, a broader impact?
POOLE: We're looking for people who have insights in their community. So, some of the examples that we can give are everything from putting wi-fi devices on public buses to give broader Internet access, to moving -- helping people figure out ways to move a water source -- water from its source to the village.
HARRIS: And that's pretty simple.
POOLE: Very simple.
HARRIS: Well, the best of luck to this. One more time, I know that folks can go to cnn.com, click on "Impact Your World," and be shown a link to get to your site, where they can actually begin to download those ideas. Is that correct?
BERNDT: Absolutely.
POOLE: That's correct.
HARRIS: Beautiful. All right.
I'm going to repeat it once again.
Andy, great to see you. Bethany, great to see you. And the best -- very best with this initiative.
We will be following it.
Once again, our CNN "Impact Your World" Web site will have details on Google Project 10 to the 100th. You will find a link to the project at cnn.com/impact. And you can even submit your ideas to Google through this link.
A CNN iReporter catches the rough waves as a typhoon lashes against Taiwan and China. And look closely and you can see an overturned boat right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: China's tainted milk scandal spilling over to many countries, from Asia to Africa. Hong Kong is reporting two more children sick from contaminated milk products. Now a British grocery chain is pulling Chinese dairy products from its store shelves.
Authorities in the U.S. also taking action. The FDA is expanding testing of Chinese imports that may contain milk-derived ingredients. So as you can see, the investigation is spreading here.
There are no reports of any dairy contamination so far in the United States. But in China, four babies have died and 53,000 children have gotten sick from milk laced with melamine.
If melamine sounds familiar, there's good reason. It's the same chemical found in pet food made in China last year.
Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen is here.
And Elizabeth, you and your team have been looking into this. Is there any way this could end up in the U.S. food supply?
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: So far they haven't found it. But I will tell you this, Tony, in Singapore, they have found melamine in candy made by this company. This is White Rabbit Creamy Candy.
HARRIS: OK.
COHEN: I didn't go to Singapore.
HARRIS: Right.
COHEN: I found this candy here at a store in Atlanta. It was extremely easy to find.
HARRIS: Right.
COHEN: We called several stores and they had it. Does this have melamine? I don't know. But I know that this company makes candy in China, sold to Singapore. It had melamine.
HARRIS: Yes. So let's take a big step back here. What is melamine and what's its use in food?
COHEN: It doesn't have a use in food. That's what's so disturbing about this.
HARRIS: Yes.
COHEN: Melamine is used to make ceiling tiles. Melamine is used to make countertop laminates. It is not supposed to be in food. And it's believed that the Chinese people who put it in food did it to increase the protein content of baby formula because you have to have a certain amount of protein.
HARRIS: I see. I see.
COHEN: So they got protein in there very cheaply. It's a cheap way.
HARRIS: So it's fake. Is it fake protein?
COHEN: No, it's real protein.
HARRIS: It's real protein?
COHEN: It's real protein, but you don't want it in food. I mean, it's literally killing those babies' kidneys.
HARRIS: That's insane. So what are other countries doing about it? We mentioned that investigations are under way. And the ban on some of these products is expanding.
COHEN: Right. And some countries are just yanking Chinese products off the shelves. They are just taking them off without even inspecting them because they are so concerned that they might have melamine.
That's not the approach we're taking in this country. In this country -- and here you see -- there's the White Rabbit candy that was contaminated in Singapore. And so they're just taking them off the shelves.
In this country, they're inspecting first. And if they find the melamine, maybe they'll take them off. In other countries, they're just yanking them off the shelves.
HARRIS: OK. How about this? Here is the candy again.
I rip open the bag; I eat one piece, just one piece. You know I'm inclined to eat the whole bag.
COHEN: Right.
HARRIS: But I eat one piece, and it's tainted, laced with melamine, is that enough to get me sick?
COHEN: You know what? It probably wouldn't do huge amounts of harm. And I'll tell you why.
The babies who got sick from the formula, that's all they drank. They drank infant formula morning, noon and night, and they have very small bodies. So they're getting a big, big, big dose of it, little bodies. One little piece of candy, a big guy like you, it wouldn't be the same.
HARRIS: Yes. OK. Will you keep us posted on what's happening with this?
COHEN: We will, absolutely.
HARRIS: Appreciate it. All right, Elizabeth. Thank you.
And log on to cnn.com/health for the latest news on health and finance, your diet, as well. The address once again, cnn.com/health.
You've heard about Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere and all the fuss it has caused. Take a look at this. It's the Road to Nowhere because there's no bridge and no one is using it. Price tag? Twenty-six million dollars.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: Earmarks, a dirty word on the presidential campaign trail. Governor Sarah Palin bragged about rejecting them. But then our Special Investigations Unit went to Alaska and found the Road to Nowhere.
Here's Abbie Boudreau.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABBIE BOUDREAU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Everyone knows John McCain opposes pork barrel spending. And Sarah Palin says she feels the same way. So why didn't she try to stop a project that would cost taxpayers millions of dollars to build a road that some are calling the "Road to Nowhere?" (voice-over): Take a look down there. That's the city of Ketchikan. And over there, across the Tongass Narrows, that's Gravina Island, and that's where the local airport sits.
To get there from Ketchikan, you have to take the ferry. It takes about 10 minutes.
So that brings us first to the plans for the notorious, expensive Bridge to Nowhere. It would have crossed the narrows here, but to get to the airport, they needed a road.
But here's what happened. When the political outcry about the bridge got so loud and they killed it, well, it was too late. They'd already signed a contract for the road project, so they built it.
(on camera): This is Gravina Island Highway. It runs about three miles long at $8 million per mile, paid for by your tax dollars. But there's no one on this road. Many locals call it the Road to Nowhere.
(voice-over): The Democratic mayor of Ketchikan calls it Governor Palin's road to nowhere.
MAYOR BOB WEINSTEIN (D), KETCHIKAN, ALASKA: She's been saying, "I told Congress thanks, but no thanks. I stopped that Bridge to Nowhere Project." In fact, she didn't tell Congress, thanks, but no thanks, and spent $26 million out of a federal earmark for the Gravina access, AKA Bridge to Nowhere Project, on this road that will not go to a bridge.
BOUDREAU: Weinstein says, of course, a road would have made sense if a bridge had been built, considering how now locals and tourists have to take a ferry to the airport.
While we were on the road, we met PJ Murphy, who works on the island.
PJ MURPHY, TOLL BOOTH COLLECTOR: How many people are coming out yet?
BOUDREAU (on camera): No. Why did you come?
MURPHY: Well, I'm the toll collector down there and I wanted to see where it went and what it looked like.
BOUDREAU: What do you think?
MUPRHY: It's a nice road. It's a nice road. It's a lot better than the road I drive on to go home.
BOUDREAU: And what do you think about where it ends?
MURPHY: Well, it's a Bridge to Nowhere. I mean, come on.
BOUDREAU (voice-over): Mayor Weinstein came with us to see the road, too. (on camera): I mean, who is using this road? Since we've been here we haven't...
WEINSTEIN: Well, currently, you and I are using the road.
BOUDREAU (voice-over): He can joke about it now, wearing a "Nowhere Alaska" T-shirt. But he says that earmark money could have been used to fix roads and sidewalks in town that people actually use.
(on camera): Simply put, what could Governor Palin have done? If she says she's against earmarks, what could Governor Palin have done in this case?
WEINSTEIN: Governor Palin could have stopped construction of this road.
BOUDREAU (voice-over): Back up in the helicopter, another reality check.
(on camera): It's much better to see it from above. Gives you a real perspective of what the road really looks like. It kind of just curves around then it just stops. That's where the bridge was supposed to pick up, right there.
(voice-over): We tried to find someone in town who actually supported the road. So we contacted Palin's former campaign coordinator, an avid Palin supporter. But even he had a hard time not laughing.
(on camera): Do you think it's a waste of taxpayer money?
MIKE ELERDING, FMR. PALIN CAMPAIGN COORDINATOR: On the road?
BOUDREAU: Yes.
ELERDING: Without the bridge, yes. Yes.
BOUDREAU (voice-over): Meg Stapleton, a McCain/Palin spokesperson tells us the governor had no choice. And that's why the project moved forward.
It's hard to imagine that the governor wouldn't think that that's a waste of money, taxpayer money.
MEGHAN STAPLETON, MCCAIN-PALIN CAMPAIGN SPOKESPERSON: The governor could not change that earmark. That earmark was given. That earmark was dictated. That had to be spent on the Gravina road and nothing else. And so, the governor had no options.
BODUREAU: Could she have stopped construction?
STAPLETON: My understanding is that -- you know, I'd have to look into that for you. I don't know.
BOUDREAU: Stapleton did get back to us. And she says, under ordinary circumstances, Governor Palin would not have allowed the Gravina road project to move forward. But given the federal earmark and because the contract for the road was already signed before she got into office, the governor was left no viable alternative. So the road that no one seems to use to the nonexistent bridge was built.
MURHPY: It would be nice to see them put something over here now that they have the road. Park, picnic benches, something to get people out here. I mean, it's pretty here.
BOUDREAU (on camera): Meg Stapleton told us there are several bridge options being considered right now, though no one seems to know if any of those bridges will connect to the road that already exists.
Abbie Boudreau, CNN, Anchorage, Alaska.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HARRIS: Going nuclear. One country moves towards restarting its program.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: Welcome back to the CNN World Headquarters in Atlanta. You're looking at our international desk. That team busy getting the latest information on developing stories around the world.
As a matter of fact, let's start in Finland. Shock and mourning today following a trade school massacre. Eight women and two men gunned down. One victim a teacher, the others, students. Police say the 22-year-old shooter was also a student bent on executing as many people as possible. He died after shooting himself in the head. The country's prime minister is now calling for stricter gun laws.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEXANDER STUBB, FINNISH FOREIGN MINISTER: And let's be absolutely clear here. Finland has very strict gun laws. I mean, yes, we do have a high number of arms, 1.6 million to be exact. And they're based on 650 licenses. And for each license, you actually need to be interviewed by the police. So, we're not talking about free guns, per se, in Finland. I mean, there's a misconception. I've seen in a lot of the international media. But, I'm sure that we will now in Finland, start a discussion also, the difference on what could be called hunting rifles and then just basic traditional handguns.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: And how about this? Just one day before the rampage, Finnish police interviewed the shooter about his violent videos on YouTube, but had no legal reason to hold him. On the world stage, Afghan President Hamid Karzai set to make his state before the United Nations General Assembly in this hour. He says this country wants to defend itself against militants. Mr. Karzai has been pushing for the next U.S. president to send money, planes and equipment to strengthen the Afghan army. As you know, Taliban attacks are on the rise. What you may not know is this has been the deadliest year in Afghanistan since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion.
The U.N. today could shift focus toward Iran's nuclear program. In his address to the world body, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, a few bullying powers are trying to prevent his country from having a peaceful nuclear program. He defended his position in an exclusive interview with our Larry King.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRES. MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, IRAN (through translator): We have offered the IAA the largest number of documents in its history. No country in the world has cooperated with the agency as much as Iran has done. Don't you think the Dynast Regime needs some inspections, as well? I mean, isn't that a dual standard?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: The Iranian president also says quote, the American empire is reaching the end of its road.
Let's take you to Cincinnati, Ohio, now. That key battleground state. There you see the vice presidential candidate -- Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden. He is making a foreign policy speech now.
Let's have a listen.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: ... I know John. I've known him for a long time. And I know he profoundly wants to do the right thing by America. But, ladies and gentlemen, I'm just as convinced that the policies that John would pursue as president would be wrong for America. I'm just as convinced that nowhere, nowhere more so than our national security and our standing in the world would John McCain dig us in a deeper hole.
Ladies and gentlemen, this week John McCain talked about the judgment, the judgment required to be commander in chief. He's right. Nothing, nothing is more important than the judgment of the next commander in chief. But time and again, on the most critical national security issues of our time, John McCain's judgment has simply been wrong.
Right after the terrorist attack on 9/11, John responded by urging that we consider not only attacking Afghanistan -- excuse me -- not only attacking Afghanistan, but he included for consideration, we should attack Iraq, Iran, or Syria. He said the only really difficult question is which country to pick to attack. That's what he said. Ladies and gentlemen, in the run up to the war in Iraq, while Barack and I were saying that this is going to be a disaster if we did not do things fundamentally different than was doing, John McCain insisted that like Dick Cheney, that we would be greeted as liberators. That we didn't need a lot of troops, that victory was imminent. Then he said he wasn't worried about Afghanistan. That quote, and this is a quote, we would muddle through. He then declared Afghanistan, quote, a remarkable success.
Ladies and gentlemen, in John's judgment there is nothing to talk about with Iran. He says there's nothing no talk about. And he wants -- he has this idea that the way to deal with Russia, is try to isolate Russia. Kick it out of the group of eight, the industrial -- the leading industrial nations in the world. And when it comes to homeland security, protecting us right here in our communities, in our ports, in our buildings, in our skyscrapers, in our schools, in our offices, John has voted time and again against implementing the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 commission.
He voted against funding the cops and firefighters, our first responders, against inoperable communications gear for our first responders to be able to talk with one another in a moment of disaster or the moment of national security problems. He again and again has voted against more screening of cargo from going into planes and ships, against better security for our tunnels, our trains, our ports, our chemical plants.
In John's judgment, that six years into the war in Iraq, we should continue to spend $10 billion a month while the Iraqis have a $79 billion surplus. And John McCain continues to insist, against all the evidence and all the facts, that Iraq is the central war on terrorism. Ladies and gentlemen, he doesn't understand that that central war on terrorism is the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where al Qaeda resides.
(APPLAUSE)
Where bin Laden lives. Where the people who actually attack the United States of America are plotting more attacks. Ladies and gentlemen, on this, John McCain is more than wrong. He is dangerously wrong.
(APPLAUSE)
Ladies and gentlemen, it's about judgment. And on a question so basic, so fundamental, so critical to our national security, we cannot afford a commander in chief who is divorced from the reality and from America's most basic national interest. Ladies and gentlemen, at this moment in our history, when we need more than a great soldier, we need a wise leader. And that leader is Barack Obama.
(APPLAUSE)
Time and again, Barack Obama has demonstrated the judgment that we need in our next president. The vision to see over the horizon. Seven years ago, Barack Obama opposed one of the most disastrous decisions in recent American foreign policy history. The diversion of our military might, our resources and our focus from Afghanistan to a war of choice in Iraq. He was profoundly right. Now, he's right again. Barack Obama will end this war in Iraq, and he'll end it in the a responsible way. We will end this war.
(APPLAUSE)
Ladies and gentlemen, as Barack has said, he will be as careful and prudent getting out as we were irresponsible in getting in. Ladies and gentlemen, he knows -- Barack Obama knows that we should not keep spending $10 billion a month while the Iraqis have a $79 billion surplus. We should be shifting responsibility to the Iraqis. Bring our combat brigades home over a period of the next 16 months. Lead a diplomatic surge with the world's great powers in Iraq's neighbors to press for a responsible political solution. And keep a residual force in Iraq to destroy the remaining terrorists, train Iraqis and protect our personnel that are there.
Now, even the Bush administration is moving forward on Barack's plan. Barack's plan is now being implemented by George W. Bush. He is negotiating literally -- literally the Bush administration is negotiating with Maliki, the leader of the Iraqis, on a timeline to draw down our combat brigades and a mission to leave a residual force, almost the same exact thing Barack has been proposing, behind. John McCain keeps talking about the surge.
Well, thanks to the remarkable bravery of Tony and his comrades, the sacrifices made by our armed forces, it has helped reduce the violence, a fact that all Americans applaud. But the surge is over and the political reconciliation it was supposed to produce has not materialized. Now what? Now what do we do? John McCain doesn't have an answer except to say, stay indefinitely. Barack knows that the longer we stay in Iraq in these numbers, the longer we put off Iraqis taking responsibility for their own future and the more we postpone the day when we fully join the fight against al Qaeda, the real threat, and finally defeat those who actually attacked us seven years ago. The longer that takes, the worse off we are. Only John McCain says no now. John McCain is the only odd man out with Barack's plan, the only one.
(APPLAUSE)
Folks, I think Barack understands what John does not. The next president of the United States must be more than the commander in chief of Iraq. He must be the commander in chief of America's interests around the entire world.
Ladies and gentlemen, more than a year ago Barack called for sending at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan. Now, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States military and our commanding generals on the ground echo Barack's call for more troops in Afghanistan. They acknowledge they cannot succeed without them and they acknowledge they cannot get them as long as they are tied down in Iraq. Barack Obama has long recognized, unlike John, what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has recently said. This is not my quote, the quote from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He said, we are not winning in Iraq. Not Barack Obama, that's a quote from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. The Taliban is still on the march. Opium production is through the roof funding these terrorist organizations. According to the national intelligence estimate, that's the outfit we get all our intelligence communities together and they come up with a consensus position. They say al Qaeda is back having quote, regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capacity, including safe havens. Where is that safe haven? It is not Baghdad. It's in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where my helicopter was recently forced down.
Ladies and gentlemen, we know where al Qaeda is. We know where bin Laden is. We should focus on killing him, not being engaged in dealing. Not being engaged and allowing the Iraqis to avoid responsibility.
(APPLAUSE)
The intelligence community has gone to point out that it has established -- al Qaeda has established franchises, my word, not theirs, in 60 additional countries.
Ladies and gentlemen, thankfully there has been no attack on the homeland since 9/11. But we should not take false comfort from that fact. The enemy is patient. In just the past week, al Qaeda affiliates have struck a U.S. Embassy in Yemen, and in the same time blew up the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. Every major terrorist attack in the last eight years, every one can be traced back to the Afghani/Pakistani border, including the attacks in Madrid and in London, in 2006.
The British and the Pakistani police prevented a major new attack on our own planes and our own people, emanating from the same territory. So much for the Bush/McCain claim that we're fighting them in Iraq so they won't attack us over here. We should be fighting them where they reside. Folks, mark my words. If, God forbid, there is another attack on the United States of America, it will not come from Iraq. It will almost certainly come from the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(APPLAUSE)
And ladies and gentlemen, the Bush/McCain approach let down our guard and let our enemies off the hook in that very region. You know, I think we'll be asking ourselves again if, God forbid it happens, how did this happen? How did we take our eyes off the ball? How did we take our eyes off the real threat. Folks, we can and must defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan. But we will not succeed until we provide those additional combat brigades and leverage more help from our NATO allies. The very allies John loves to disparage.
Barack and I will invest more in the training of Afghan security forces. We will conduct more joint operations with NATO and with the Afghan army. And we'll make sure there's a unified international military command and a coordinated fully-funded plan, fully-funded plan for additional police in Afghanistan. They're in trouble. We also need a long-term investment in the Afghani people so they can choose hope over joining terrorists.
Let me put this in perspective. The Bush/McCain policy causes us to spend more money in one month on combat operations in Iraq, than we have spent in the last seven years in Afghanistan. Let me say that again. We spend more money in one month on combat operations in Iraq, than we do on the reconstruction of Afghanistan, where everybody knows the really, really, really bad guys, named bin Laden and al Qaeda live. Ladies and gentlemen, I call that very poor judgment.
So folks, together --
(APPLAUSE)
Together with our allies we will deliver what George Bush promised. A martial plan for ordinary Afghans to open schools, build roads, generate electricity, establish an actual scheme of governance. We'll support alternative livelihoods for the Afghan farmers who are growing poppy now and funding the terrorists. The very people who fund the Taliban and al Qaeda. Folks, but we can't succeed in Afghanistan until we get it straight what our policy in Pakistan needs to be. George Bush and John McCain have pursued for the last seven years, a Musharraf policy, not a Pakistani policy. By pursuing that policy they have alienated the Pakistani people. It's time we get them to work with us.
And ladies and gentlemen, that's why Barack Obama and I together, with the leading Republican senator in the United States Senate for the last 30 years, Richard Lugar of Indiana, my counterpart in the Foreign Relations Committee; that's why we all join together. With a majority of our colleagues in the Foreign Relations Committee in a bipartisan way, to triple nonmilitary aid to the Pakistani people. Turning them away from extremists and moving them from the direction of choosing home and democracy over the alternative being offered to them.
Ladies and gentlemen --
(APPLAUSE)
Ladies and gentlemen, we will ensure that the military assistance that we do provide to Afghanistan -- I mean to Pakistan -- is actually used, actually used to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda.
And unlike John McCain, who called for taking out -- do you remember this context? Remember when the guy who supposedly is not ready to be commander in chief, Barack Obama said, if we have actionable intelligence in Pakistan, I will take out bin Laden and I will take out al Qaeda. And John McCain characterized that as being irresponsible and said we'd be bombing our allies.
Well, Ladies and gentlemen, we will not tolerate an al Qaeda terrorist sanctuary in Pakistan if we have actionable intelligence.
(APPLAUSE) If Pakistan will not or cannot act we will take out high-level terrorists targets, like bin Laden, even if we have them, over the objection of others, if we have them in our sights.
Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama has been absolutely clear about one other item. Iran poses a genuine challenge to the security of the United States and Israel and our allies. Under the policies that George Bush has pursued, though, and John McCain has supported, would continue in Iran. It's not freedom that's been on the march in the Middle East, it's been Iran that's been on the march in the Middle East. Ladies and gentlemen, think about where this policy has taken us so far.
The influence of Iran has increased greatly. They are closer to a bomb. They are expanding their influence in Iraq. They are expanding their influence over their proxies, Hezbollah and Lebanon, and its ally Hamas now controls the Gaza Strip and is bombing Israel from the Gaza Strip. These are not the results of a successful Iranian policy. These are results of a misplaced policy.
Beyond bluster, what would John McCain actually do to meet with these dangers? Well, if you ask, he doesn't say what he'd do, other than bluster.
Barack Obama has laid out exactly what he will do. He has called for a hard-headed diplomatic initiative with our allies to confront Iran, backed up by the toughest economic sanctions and a united front with our allies. He rejects the phony notion that dealing directly with our adversaries is a reward, when, in fact -- when, in fact -- it's a tool of America's strength.
John asked a very telling question. He said, what would we want to talk to Iran about? Well, the same thing Bush administration talked to Libya and Gadhafi about. Same thing they talked to North Korea's Kim about. About our national security. That's what we talk about.
(APPLAUSE)
Ladies and gentlemen, we will talk to Iran to make it very clear to Iran what the regime risks in terms of global isolation if it continues to pursue the policy of acquiring nuclear weapons, if it continues to support terrorism. But we'll also make it clear to the Iranian people who hate their government, who stand to gain a great deal if, in fact, the policy changes, what they stand to gain. Barack Obama understands the reality in Iran. There's significant cracks within the ruling elite in Iran, between Iran's rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and who are stifled politically.
Barack Obama has had the good fortune of being able to lead the effort -- lead the effort for smart sanctions in the United States Senate. But just last week, the bipartisan law that Barack Obama wrote, which would encourage Americans not to invest financially in Iran, one that John McCain did not approve, was on the verge of passing in the United States Senate. Then John McCain's Republican allies blocked it, presumably to deny -- to deny Barack Obama a victory on a fundamental important policy point. Ladies and gentlemen, that's not putting country first. That's putting politics first.
(APPLAUSE)
And it's wrong -- it's wrong for America's security interests.
Folks, Barack got it right. But don't take my word for it. Five former secretaries of state, including Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell, have said, just like Barack, that direct talks with Tehran are in our national interest. John McCain is the only one who doesn't get it.
(APPLAUSE)
So much for judgment. And after seven years in which our senior diplomatic personnel were not allowed to make a single contact with the Iranians, the Bush administration -- the Bush administration realized the absurdity of its own policy and sent our leading diplomat to Tehran. The secretary of state when they -- secretary of state -- excuse me, the assistant secretary of state, as he went to Tehran, sat down at the instruction of the president of the United States. Barack Obama understood that success rests upon keeping our allies in the game, and our partners united, if we're going to be able to bring the pressure on Iran that is needed.
(APPLAUSE)
Ladies and gentlemen, our allies need to know that the United States will go the extra diplomatic mile. And if we do -- if we do, and Iran does not respond, our allies are much more likely to stand with us if diplomacy fails and move toward more robust sanctions and possibly even other alternatives.
(APPLAUSE)
We need our allies with us.
(APPLAUSE)
Ladies and gentlemen, John McCain's sabre rattling is the most self-defeating policy I can imagine. Ladies and gentlemen, what does it do when the sabre is rattled? It forces the Iranian people, who already hate their government, to unite behind their government. It takes away the voices of the moderate forces in Iran. And what else does it do? It generates a sense of instability in the Middle East. And what happens? Oil prices spike, and we put billions upon billions of more dollars out of the wallets of Americans into the pocket of Ahmadinejad and the very people we say -- the very people say are our greatest problem.
(APPLAUSE)
Ladies and gentlemen, the worst nightmare for this divided Iranian leadership -- the worst nightmare for this regime that thrives on isolation and on tension is in America ready, willing and able to engage them. Ladies and gentlemen, since when has talking to an enemy taken no out of your vocabulary?
(APPLAUSE)
Ladies and gentlemen --
(APPLAUSE)
-- it's amazing -- it's amazing how little faith John McCain has in himself and his foreign policy team that they're afraid to sit down. We can still say no. We can still say no.
(APPLAUSE)
Folks, when it comes to Russia, Barack Obama understands that talking tough is one thing, acting smart is another.
(APPLAUSE)
And, folks, he knows looking into a leader's eyes does not necessarily tell you much about his soul. Folks, to deal effectively with Russia, the United States of America and Europe must speak with one voice. John McCain sometimes treats our allies as if they were our adversaries.
Look, when -- when France and Germany disagreed with our policy to go into Iraq, John McCain called them -- quote -- "vacuous and posturing, irrelevant." And Cheney said they lacked the political courage and put their commercial interests first. Well, last week John McCain said he would -- he would not meet with the leader of Spain. Now, folks, he would not meet with the leader of a NATO ally -- a NATO ally, who has Spanish forces in Afghanistan fighting side- by-side with the United States. John McCain said he will not meet with that leader. Ladies and gentlemen, what kind of judgment is that? What kind of bluster is that?
Ladies and gentlemen, John McCain's notion -- John McCain's notion of how to deal with our allies, as well as our adversaries, is rooted in something I just simply do not understand. How in God's name will we succeed ultimately with Russia and meet its aggressive new tendencies without a united NATO? Ladies and gentlemen, John McCain -- John McCain has gotten it wrong on so many fundamental issues.
Imagine -- imagine if we had listened to John McCain when he tried to remove Russia from the G-8. That's the industrial nations last year. Such a move would not have done anything to stop Russia's inextricable and unfair and overwhelming invasion of an independent country of Georgia. But I'll tell you what it would have done. It would have triggered another crisis within our alliance, since no one else in Europe thought that action should be taken, an alliance we now need -- we now need to help us in dealing with Russian aggression.
Together, the United States and Europe must help Russia's neighbors, like the Ukraine, strengthen their Democratic economies. And we have to help them decrease their dependence on Russian energy. We also have to have a new strategy that prevents conflicts from escalating into crisis rather than simply respond to them after they, in fact, occur with nothing but bluster. Months ago, with John McCain and George Bush's administration focused on Iraq, to the exclusion of everything else -- and call for Barack Obama -- at that period -- called for a high level, a high level international mediator and peacekeepers to help resolve the disputes in Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkahzia before they exploded.
Barack Obama -- Barack Obama anticipated what Russia was likely to do. He called for an international negotiation -- negotiating team to put Russia in a corner, to box it. Ladies and gentlemen, when Russia invaded -- when Russia invaded Georgia, an independent country, I got a call from Mikheil Saakashvili, the president, and said, Joe, will you come over? Will you come?
I sat down and talked at length with Barack. I went to see him in Tbilisi. I sat with him while Russian tanks were still on the outskirts of his city, and we laid out a specific proposal. We made it crystal clear, Barack and I, what we would do -- what we would do to preserve the territorial integrity of Russia -- excuse me -- of Georgia. And ladies and gentlemen, that Georgia itself, we argued, should be integrated into the Trans-Atlantic alliances like NATO, that its citizens must have the right to return to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We led the way in securing support for a billion dollars to help Georgia rebuild its economy to prevent Russia from toppling a Democratic regime by crushing their economy.
Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama called for this and we've been very clear -- Barack has been very clear -- that Russia must pay a real price for what they have done thus far. And they clearly already have had the civil nuclear agreement that was before my committee, we pulled down, and the president agreed. And, as I warned at the outset of the crisis, Russia's economy is taking a significant hit with its stock market losing three quarters of a trillion dollars in its value. But even -- even as we hold Russia accountable for its actions, we can and we should deal directly with Moscow on other security issues, like securing nuclear weapons and materials to fight al Qaeda. We need to -- they need to understand that a fuller integration into the international treaty depends on their conduct, and their conduct is critical.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what Barack Obama talked about. He did not bluster about what occurred. He offered concrete alternatives that actually have been adopted, not only by our president, President Bush, but adopted by most of Europe. And John continues to talk.
Ladies and gentlemen, so ask yourselves, based on the judgments they have already made, the policies they have already proposed, which candidate is more likely, as president of the United States, to end the war in Iraq responsibly, to focus America's full might on dealing with the very people who attacked us, al Qaeda and bin Laden, to unite our allies in dealing effectively with the threats posed by Iran and a resurgent Russia, to renew the promise of America to the world? Which candidate is most likely to do those things?
And I think by any objective standard -- any objective standard, not looking to the future, looking to the past, what each of the candidates have said -- to me, it is absolutely, unequivocally clear that Barack Obama is more prepared to be commander-in-chief of the United States of America than John McCain.
(APPLAUSE)
Ladies and gentlemen --
(APPLAUSE)
Ladies and gentlemen, I think this -- the choices are absolutely clear in this next election. The next president of the United States has an awesome, awesome responsibility. He'll also have the greatest opportunity since Franklin Delano Roosevelt to change not only the direction of our country, but change the direction of the world. Barack Obama --
(APPLAUSE)
-- Barack Obama knows that the president of the United States is obviously going to have to contend with the very challenges I've just discussed. But unlike, in my view, John McCain, he understands how rapidly the world is changing, changing before our eyes. And he is also focused on the future. He is not stuck in the past.
Ladies and gentlemen, the emergence of China, a resurgent Russia, India, a unifying Europe, back sliding on historic progress of freedom and free markets in Latin America, the spread of dangerous weapons and lethal disease, the shortage of secure sources of energy, secure sources of water, secure sources of food, the impact of climate change, the growing gap between the rich and the poor, the technical, logical revolution that sends people and ideas and money hurdling around the world at ever faster speeds, ethnic and sectarian violence, including the ongoing genocide in Darfur, the struggle, the very struggle between modernity and extremism -- ladies and gentlemen, that's just the short list of the forces that will be shaping the 21st century.
No one country can control all these forces. But more than any other country in the world, we have the ability to affect them if we use the totality of our strength. That means maintaining the finest fighting force in the world, not -- not pushing it to a breaking point. That means rebuilding our alliances, partnerships and international institutions, not disparaging them, as John does. That means strengthening our diplomacy, not disdaining it. That means using our economic might, not putting that very might in jeopardy.
Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama understands that strength and wisdom go hand in hand.
(APPLAUSE)
Barack Obama understands that America will not only lead but must lead by the power of our example and not just by the example of our power.
(APPLAUSE)
