Hillary's Speech on National Security Strategy May 27

Hillary and Jim Jones

View the entire speech here. Clinton says the Obama administration is making the case that defense, diplomacy and development aren't separate entities. They have to be viewed as a whole.

Brennan's Speech on New National Security Strategy

Obama and Brennan

Obama releases his national security strategy tomorrow, so hold on tight for republican and right wing blather. Obama's strategy advocates cooperation with other nations. His strategy doesn't consider "terrorism" the enemy, but rather al qaeda. Terrorism is a tactic. That's an important distinction that's completely lost on war mongers. Obama's strategy doesn't condemn Islam, but rather al qaeda. Obama's vision of national security brings me great comfort. If there was one reason I'd vote again for Obama, it would be for that reason alone. Hillary and James Jones will speak tomorrow on the new strategy. Here is an excerpt of today's speech by John Brennan, President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Tomorrow, Secretary of State Clinton and the President’s National Security Advisor, General Jones, will discuss how this strategy will advance our interests around the world.

Today, as the President’s principal advisor on homeland security and counterterrorism, I want to address how this national security strategy is guiding our efforts to secure our homeland by renewing America’s strength, resilience and values.

The President’s strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not “terrorism” because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not “terror” because terror is a state of mind and as Americans we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as “jihadists” or “Islamists” because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.

Indeed, characterizing our adversaries this way would actually be counterproductive. It would play into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause, when in fact they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims. This is why Muslim leaders around the world have spoken out—forcefully, and often at great risk to their own lives—to reject al Qaeda and violent extremism. And frankly, their condemnations often do not get the recognition they deserve, including from the media.

Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie—propagated by al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism—that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we never have been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America. Read the whole transcript

The strategy will also address the growing numbers of homegrown terrorists:

Indeed, we have seen an increasing number of individuals here in the United States become captivated by extremist ideologies or causes. Somali Americans from Minnesota traveling to fight in Somalia, the five Virginia men who went to Pakistan seeking terrorist training, David Headley, the Chicago man charged with helping to plan the Mumbai attacks, the Pennsylvania woman, Jihad Jane, charged with conspiring to murder a Danish cartoonist. The president’s national security strategy explicitly recognizes the threat to the United States posed by individuals radicalized here at home.

We have seen individuals, including U.S. citizens, armed with their U.S. passports, travel easily to extremist safe havens and return to America, their deadly plans disrupted by coordinated intelligence and law enforcement. Daniel Patrick Boyd of North Carolina, who with others, conspired to murder U.S. military personnel and Najibullah Zazi, who received his instruction in bomb making in Pakistan. Unfortunately, we were unable to thwart Faisal Shahzad, accused of attempting to set off the car bomb in Times Square.

Let's Break Down Rudy's Lies With a Timeline

I usually ignore this stuff because it gets monotonous after a while. I'm sick to death of republicans because they've politicized national security. But let's break down Rudy Giuliani's blatant lies, shall we?

Obama did not wait 10 days to respond.

The day of the failed attack, Dec. 25, Obama ordered tighter security.

Dec. 28, Obama spoke to the press.

Dec. 29, Obama gave an update.

Dec. 31, Obama receives preliminary report.

Jan. 1, Obama speaks on fighting Al Qaeda.

Jan. 5, Obama meets with intel, speaks on counterterrorism reforms.

Jan. 7, Obama speaks on the security report. Here are the corrective actions.

What's worse about this video is Larry King doesn't even know enough to counter Rudy, who's speaking from another orifice.

Obama Speaks on Security Report Jan. 7

Read the report and the fixes here.

Transcript of Obama's remarks here.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

John Brennan and Janet Napolitano speak:

Jim Jones Speaks on Security Review to be Released Today

Obama Announces New National Security Members

Chuck Hagel and David Boren will co-chair the President's Intelligence Advisory Board:

Gates Speaks on New Intelligence that Shifted Missile Defense Strategy

Read about the new strategy here.

Republican Gives Obama A for National Security

Republican campaign consultant Ed Rollins--we need more republicans like him--says Obama has kept the country safe.

Questions on Security for Obama McCain

The NY Times poses some questions for Obama and McCain on national security:

NYT: 1. Afghan officials have charged that some elements of the Pakistani government are seeking to undermine their country by giving sanctuary to Taliban and Qaeda groups that cross the border to attack Afghanistan. Would you launch large-scale armed attacks against terrorists in Pakistan if the new government there is unwilling — or unable — to suppress these groups and refuses to give United States forces permission to act? Or are you willing to put the Afghan regime at risk in order to play for time in Pakistan, hoping that a more successful government will emerge in Islamabad, and fearing that any attempt to use force there will result in a nuclear-armed anti-Western state?

2. For some years now, the world has watched while ethnic cleansing — even genocide — has gripped Darfur. Are you prepared to announce the rules for American intervention for humanitarian purposes and, if so, what would those rules be? Would you be willing to organize a coalition of states to intervene? Or should the United States defer to the United Nations or regional organizations — even when they are deadlocked and unable to act?

3. It has been more than five years since the United States-led coalition removed Saddam Hussein from power. How long should American troops remain in Iraq if American commanders on the ground state that withdrawal would lead to chaos? That is, should the United States withdraw according to a predetermined timetable, even if the consequences appear dire for Iraq? Or should troops remain indefinitely until their withdrawal can be assured to leave behind a stable Iraq?

4. Would you authorize the use of force by the United States — or collaborate with Israel — to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons if it appears that diplomatic efforts are failing to bring about substantial progress in this regard? If not, what further incentives would you offer Iran to end its nuclear programs? For example, would you be willing to press Israel to do away with its own nuclear weapons as part of a regionwide de-nuclearization? What incentives would you be prepared to offer Israel to desist from a pre-emptive attack? Would you be willing, for instance, to give Israel a place under the United States nuclear umbrella?

5. The Supreme Court recently held that prisoners taken in the war against terror are entitled to habeas corpus review in the federal courts. Is it sensible to speak of a “war” on terror, or is this a struggle that should be principally handled by law enforcement? Should suspected terrorists be given the same protections as ordinary criminals — like the right to confront their accusers and the right not to be tried by illegally obtained evidence? Or should there be special rules for the trials of terror suspects, or even a special court that would hold secret trials?

6. In light of United Nations Security Council inaction in Bosnia, Cambodia, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and elsewhere, critics have said that the United Nations is not an effective instrument for confronting rogue states, terror and genocide. Do you favor expanding NATO, or using it as a model for creating an alliance of democracies? If you do, would such an alliance require unanimity of its members for action? Or, if you oppose creating such a group, how should the United States confront crises when the council is paralyzed?

7. What if anything should the United States do to further trade negotiations after the collapse of the Doha round in Geneva? Should the United States try to revive multilateral talks, and, if so, how? Do you support bilateral trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama? Should the United States abrogate Nafta if Canada and Mexico will not revise the agreement to our liking? Read more.