Obama for America

Fact Check on Republican Claims that Obama Opposes the Death Penalty for bin Laden

“It is absurd that the same group of people who have failed to kill or capture Osama bin Laden for over six years are now arguing about what we should do if we capture him. Barack Obama will redouble our efforts against al Qaeda, target their leaders wherever we find them, increase our forces in Afghanistan and finish the fight there. In short, he will do what the Bush Administration hasn’t done and John McCain won’t do -- make our top priority bringing bin Laden to justice and shutting down al Qaeda before they attack again. A bad decision that George Bush made and John McCain fully supported --to divert forces from Afghanistan to Iraq -- left Osama bin Laden free to promote his vicious brand of violence, and empty tough talk can’t reverse that fact or make up for bad judgment.” --Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the Navy

OBAMA HAS REPEATEDLY SAID HE SUPPORTS THE DEATH PENALTY FOR BIN LADEN

Obama Said That He Would Order A Trial That Observed International Standards And Osama Would Qualify For The Death Penalty Because He Perpetrated Heinous Crimes. Obama said, “The first thing I'd support is his capture, which is something this administration has proved incapable of achieving. I would then, as president, order a trial that observed international standards of due process. At that point, do I think that somebody who killed 3,000 Americans qualifies as someone who has perpetrated heinous crimes, and would qualify for the death penalty. Then yes.” [AP, 7/20/07]

Susan Rice Said Osama Would Have A Fair And Transparent Military Process Or Judicial Process And Would Be Eligible For The Death Penalty. Susan Rice said, “He would put him [Osama Bin Laden] in, if he were captured as opposed to killed. There would have to be a fair and transparent military process or judicial process. That is how we lock people away and make them eligible for the death penalty.” [CNN, 6/18/08]

OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY SAID HE SUPPORTS THE DEATH PENALTY FOR TERRORISTS AND HEINOUS CRIMES

Obama Said That He Supported The Death Penalty For Heinous Crimes Including Terrorism. Obama said, “That was something about him that I respected. Because my own views on the death penalty are very complicated. I've said that in theory I don't object to the death penalty for heinous crimes--terrorism, mass murder, child killers. But, in its application, it's been racially biased, highly unreliable, inconsistent. So for me to try to pretend that I was a cheerleader for the death penalty, simply to score a political point, that wasn't reflective of my views. And I figured I was going to beat him by 20 points anyway.”
[The New Republic, 11/29/07]

Obama Said He Supported The Death Penalty For Terrorists. “Obama, at the time, said the bill would unfairly target minorities, stating, ‘There's a strong overlap between gang affiliation and young men of color ... I think it's problematic for them to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing.’ Obama opposes the death penalty except for terrorists, serial killers and child-murderers, but his campaign added that he does not support the death penalty as it is currently administered in this country.” [The Hill, 3/14/07]

OBAMA HAS MADE CLEAR THAT HE WILL GO AFTER OSAMA BIN LADEN IN PAKISTAN

Obama: There Are Terrorists Holed Up In The Mountains In Pakistan Who Killed 3,000 Americans And If Musharraf Won’t Act, We Will. Obama said, “I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.”
[The War We Need To Win, 8/1/07]

Obama: “I Firmly Believe That If We Know The Whereabouts Of Bin Laden And His Deputies And We Have Exhausted All Other Options, We Must Take Them Out.” Obama wrote in an op-ed, “Relying on Pakistan while we fight the wrong war in Iraq has not worked. Because of that policy, bin Laden and members of his inner circle who bear direct responsibility for the murder of 3,000 Americans are plotting new attacks. If Pakistan cannot or will not take out these high-level terrorist targets and we have actionable intelligence about where they are, then I would take action to protect the American people. I firmly believe that if we know the whereabouts of bin Laden and his deputies and we have exhausted all other options, we must take them out.” [Globe Gazette op-ed, 8/12/07]

Obama: We Shouldn’t Need Permission To Go After Folks That Killed 3,000 Americans. Obama said, “Sen. McCain and George Bush all suggested that I said something wrong when I said we should be going after bin Laden, in high-value targets, and if we've got him in our sites, we should ask for Pakistan's cooperation, we should ask Pakistan to take him out. But if they don't, we shouldn't need permission to go after folks that killed 3,000 Americans.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/24/08]

Obama: If We Have Actionable Intelligence Against Bin Laden Or Other Key Al Qaeda Officials And Pakistan Won’t Strike Them, We Should. Obama said, “With respect to Pakistan, I never said I would bomb Pakistan. What I said was that if we have actionable intelligence against bin Laden or other key al Qaeda officials, and we -- and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to strike against them, we should. And just several days ago, in fact, this administration did exactly that and took out the third-ranking al Qaeda official.” [Cleveland Presidential Debate, 2/26/08]

Obama Said That Iraq Distracted Us From The Real Battle With Osama Bin Laden In Afghanistan And Pakistan. Obama said, “Instead of working to fix our economy and lift up hardworking families, they've fought to extend a war that's costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars without making us any safer -- a war that has strengthened our enemies and distracted us from the real battle with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” [Michigan Messenger, 6/2/08]

Obama Said The US Would Be Justified In Taking “Unilateral Military Action To Eliminate An Imminent Threat” Against An Individual, Said That Al Qaeda Met His Standard. Obama wrote, “We should start with the premise that the United States, like all sovereign nations, has the unilateral right to defend itself against attack. As such, our campaign to take out Al Qaeda base camps and the Taliban regime that harbored them was entirely justified—and was viewed as legitimate even in most Islamic countries. It may be preferable to have the support of our allies in such military campaigns, but our immediate safety can’t be held hostage to the desire for international consensus; if we have to go it alone, then the American people stand ready to pay any price and bear any burden to protect our country. I would also argue that we have the right to take unilateral military action to eliminate an imminent threat to our security— so long as an imminent threat is understood to be a nation, group, or individual that is actively preparing to strike U.S. targets (or allies with which the United States has mutual defense agreements), and has or will have the means to do so in the immediate future. Al Qaeda qualifies under this standard, and we can and should carry out preemptive strikes against them wherever we can. Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not meet this standard, which is why our invasion was such a strategic blunder. If we are going to act unilaterally, then we had better have the goods on our targets.” [Audacity of Hope, p. 308-209]

EXPERTS: OBAMA’S RIGHT, WASHINGTON’S WRONG

Washington Post: Obama “Has The Better Half Of The Argument” On Pakistan. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, “Mr. Obama recently has taken a number of foreign policy positions with which we disagree, but on this it strikes us that he has the better of the argument -- both on substance and on the importance of debate. Faced with such "actionable intelligence," of course any president will weigh risks against potential benefits, and it's impossible to predict that calculus. The costs of action -- in civilian lives, reputation or an ally's stability -- may be too great. It's crucial, as the Sept. 11 commission went on to say, to "reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can help." But the principle that the United States will defend itself by going after terrorist enemies in foreign countries, even without those nations' permission if necessary, is, as Joseph R. Biden Jr. pointed out later in the Democratic debate, already U.S. policy…And, if Mr. Obama is wrong, what would they do about the terrorist training camps in Waziristan? We'd like to hear their answers to that not-so-hypothetical question.” [Washington Post, 8/9/07]

Lee Hamilton: Al-Qaeda Cannot Be Permitted To Have A Sanctuary In Pakistan. McClatchy reported, “Lee Hamilton, the president of the Wilson Center, said he was "very sympathetic" to Obama's stance. Hamilton is a former Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and he co-chaired the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that Congress appointed last year to study the situation in Iraq and make policy recommendations. ‘It seems to me if we've learned anything at all about fighting terrorism, we've learned that we cannot permit al-Qaida to have sanctuaries,’ Hamilton said. ‘Far preferable that Musharraf take them out. But if he does not, we must.’” [McClatchy, 8/1/07]

Sorensen: Obama’s Bold Language On Pakistan Criticized By “Same Old Washington Experts.” Ted Sorensen wrote in a op-ed, “Obama's bold call for American action to seize Osama bin Laden in Pakistan - if our undemocratic, unpopular and unreliable ally the Musharraf regime will not - has been loudly castigated by Obama's Democratic and Republican opponents, using the same old Cold War rhetoric from the same old Washington experts who have dominated the capital's foreign-policy thinking throughout the 20 years that the Bush and Clinton families have controlled the White House.” [Des Moines Register, Ted Sorensen Op-Ed, 8/20/07]

Josh Marshall: Obama’s Position On Pakistan “Clearly Unobjectionable.” Josh Marshall wrote, “But I think he's done a pretty good job so far refusing to get put in that box. And the truth is that I think Obama's actual words are so clearly unobjectionable that this is all Kabuki theater of a particularly strained and disingenuous sort. All Obama said was that if we have actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of high-value al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, and Pakistan won't act, we will act. Clearly, no Republican can quibble with this. They're on the record for invading countries because they might become dangers to us at some point in the future. They're hardly in a position to disagree with Obama if he says we'll hunt down people who committed mass casualty terror attacks within our borders. And I'm not sure Democrats are in much of a position to do so either. The unspoken truth here, I suspect, is that Obama has struck on the central folly of our post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are. I think everyone can see this. But Obama got there first. So they need to attack him for saying it. [Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall, 8/9/07]

Smerconish: Grateful To Obama For Being The First Presidential Candidate “Willing To Say Something Substantive About Our Failure To Find Osama Bin Laden In Pakistan.” Michael Smerconish wrote, “Yours truly, a two-time, Bush 43-supporting political pundit who worked in an appointed capacity in the administration of Bush 41, offers you his gratitude for being the first among A-level presidential aspirants willing to say something substantive about our failure to find Osama bin Laden in Pakistan…Which is why I think it's appalling that your words have been labeled naïve and ridiculed from both the left and the right. Especially when there can be no legitimate debate about these sentiments you offered: ‘There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.’ ‘We can't send millions and millions of dollars to Pakistan for military aid, and be a constant ally to them, and yet not see more aggressive action in dealing with al-Qaeda.’ Who could take issue with any of that?” [Huffington Post, Michael Smerconish, 8/16/07]

Capital Times Columnist: Obama Was The “One Candidate” Who Would Fight A War In The Right Places. Dave Zweifel wrote, “Obama is one candidate who understands that it can be won if we fight it in the right places.” [Capital Times, 8/8/07]

AZ Republic Columnist: Obama Has Clarity In Foreign Policy, “Transgression Isn’t His Policy, But Stating It Out Loud. Robert Robb wrote, “Now, none of Obama's competitor-critics are willing to say that they would not do what Obama said he would do. In other words, no one is taking the position that, as president, if there is such actionable intelligence and Musharraf doesn't act, he or she would take a pass. In fact, most are hinting that they would do precisely what Obama said he would do. So, apparently Obama's transgression isn't his policy, but stating it out loud…However, it would not seem that safe haven for terrorists who constitute a credible threat to attack the United States is something about which strategic ambiguity serves the national interest. Here clarity would seem to be in order, and Obama has the doctrine right: The United States will take action to eliminate those threats irrespective of sovereignty issues.” [Arizona Republic, 8/8/07]