Subject: [big campaign] Tracking Update: McCain Speech on Nuclear Security in Denver, CO
From: "Cammie Croft" <[email-masked]>
To: "big campaign" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 14:12:06 -0400
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

Hello Big Campaign,

Just off the phone with our tracker Greg who made it into today's event.
Below are the notes from our call.

*BIG Highlights:* Anti-war demonstrators interrupt McCain's prepared remarks
FOUR times (video clips available upon request; the files are too large to
send over the google-group)

*Denver, CO: McCain Speech on Nuclear Security*

*Background Details:*
- Approximately 350 people in the audience; diverse crowd
- Tracker had no difficulty gaining entry
- Usual press in attendance - traveling national press and local affiliates;
Fox News broadcast the event live
- Approximately 12 demonstrators outside of event; some carried signs for
Hillary Clinton, others carried signs about chronic disease; unfortunately,
tracker did not see any signs directly targeting McCain
- Two people came on stage with McCain -- 1) Greg McFay(sp) gave opening
remarks and introduced Brown 2) former Senator Hank Brown gave remarks and
then introduced McCain
- Former Senator Brown talked about McCain's foreign policy credentials;
told story about how McCain had concerns going into Lebanon in the '80s
because there were not clear goals and as a result, McCain voted against
war; talked about Vietnam -- and how McCain has fought for normalizing
relations with Vietnam; also said John is very careful about sending our
troops into battle

*Speech Highlights:*
Link to text:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/e9c72a28-c05c-4928-ae29-51f54de08df3.htm

*Remarks By John McCain on Nuclear Security *
* * May 27, 2008

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain delivered the following remarks as
prepared for delivery at the University of Denver in Denver, Colorado, today
at 10:00 a.m. MDT (12:00 p.m. EDT):
For much of our history, the world considered the United States a young
country.  Today, we are the world's oldest constitutional democracy, yet we
remain a young nation. We still possess the attributes of youth -- spirit,
energy, vitality, and creativity.  America will always be young as long as
we are looking forward, and leading, to a better world.

Innovative and energetic American leadership is as vital to the world's
future today as it was during the Cold War.  I have spent my life in public
service working to ensure our great nation is strong enough to counter those
who wish us ill.  To be an effective leader in the 21st century, however, it
is not enough to be strong.  We must be a model for others.  That means not
only pursuing our own interests but recognizing that we share interests with
peoples across our planet.  There is such a thing as good international
citizenship, and America must be a good citizen of the world—leading the way
to address the danger of global warming and preserve our environment,
strengthening existing international institutions and helping to build new
ones, and engaging the world in a broad dialogue on the threat of violent
extremists, who would, if they could, use weapons of mass destruction to
attack us and our allies.
*
***MCCAIN interrupted for the FIRST time by anti-war demonstrators during
the paragraph above.  Demonstrators were shouting, 'Support the troops, End
the war.'***
*
Today we also need to apply our spirit of optimism, energy, and innovation
to a crisis that has been building for decades but is now coming to a head:
the global spread of nuclear weapons.  Forty-five years ago, President John
F. Kennedy asked the American people to imagine what the world would look
like if nuclear weapons spread beyond the few powers that then held them to
the many other nations that sought them.  "Stop and think for a moment," he
said, "what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in so many hands, in the
hands of countries large and small, stable and unstable, responsible and
irresponsible, scattered throughout the world."  If that happened, he
warned, "there would be no rest for anyone."

****MCCAIN interrupted for the SECOND time by anti-war demonstrators during
the paragraph above.  Demonstrators were two young people shouting, 'End
this war. End this war.'  Demonstrators were removed from the event.  At
this point, **McCain stopped the speech to say that he went to town halls
all the time where people share their views, but people always respected the
idea of not interfering with other people's right to free speech.****

Kennedy's warning resonates more today than ever before.  North Korea
pursues a nuclear weapons program to the point where, today, the dictator
Kim Jong-Il has tested a nuclear weapon, and almost certainly possesses
several more nuclear warheads.  And it has shared its nuclear and missile
know-how with others, including Syria.  It is a vital national interest for
the North Korean nuclear program to be completely, verifiably and
irreversibly ended. Likewise, we have seen Iran marching with single-minded
determination toward the same goal.  President Ahmadinejad has threatened to
wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and represents a threat to every
country in the region – one we cannot ignore or minimize.

****MCCAIN interrupted for the THIRD time by anti-war demonstrators during
the paragraph above.  Demonstrators were a man and a woman asking about the
war in Iraq.  They were soon removed from the event.  McCain grew notably
irritated by this third interruption.  He responded by saying, 'I will never
surrender in Iraq my friends.  Our American soldiers will come home with
honor.' *(not exact quote)****
*
Other nations have begun to wonder whether they, too, need to have such
weapons, if only in self-defense.  As a result, we could find ourselves in a
world where a dozen or more nations, small and large, stable and unstable,
responsible and irresponsible, have viable nuclear weapons programs.  But
there is a flip side to President Kennedy's warning.  We should stop and
think for a moment not only of the perils of a world awash with nuclear
weapons, but also of the more hopeful alternative – a world in which there
are far fewer such weapons than there are today, and in which proliferation,
instability, and nuclear terrorism are far less likely.  This is the world
it is our responsibility to build.

There is no simple answer to the problem.  If you look back over the past
two decades, I don't think any of us, Republican or Democrat, can take much
satisfaction in what we've accomplished to control nuclear proliferation.
Today, some people seem to think they've discovered a brand new cause,
something no one before them ever thought of.  Many believe all we need to
do to end the nuclear programs of hostile governments is have our president
talk with leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran, as if we haven't tried talking to
these governments repeatedly over the past two decades.  Others think
military action alone can achieve our goals, as if military actions were not
fraught with their own terrible risks.  While the use of force may be
necessary, it can only be as a last resort not a first step.  The truth is
we will only address the terrible prospect of the worldwide spread of
nuclear arms if we transcend our partisan differences, combine our energies,
learn from our past mistakes, and seek practical and effective solutions.

****MCCAIN interrupted for the FOURTH time by anti-war demonstrators during
the paragraph above.  The main demonstrator was a gentleman asking about
Iraq.****

I'd like to suggest some steps we should take to chart a common vision for
the future.  It is a vision in which the United States returns to a
tradition of innovative thinking, broad-minded internationalism, and
determined diplomacy, backed by America's great and enduring power to lead.
It is a vision not of the United States acting alone, but building and
participating in a community of nations all drawn together in this vital
common purpose.  It is a vision of a responsible America, dedicated to an
enduring peace based on freedom.

A quarter of a century ago, President Ronald Reagan declared, "our dream is
to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the
Earth."  That is my dream, too.  It is a distant and difficult goal.  And we
must proceed toward it prudently and pragmatically, and with a focused
concern for our security and the security of allies who depend on us.  But
the Cold War ended almost twenty years ago, and the time has come to take
further measures to reduce dramatically the number of nuclear weapons in the
world's arsenals.  It is time for the United States to show the kind of
leadership the world expects from us, in the tradition of American
presidents who worked to reduce the nuclear threat to mankind.

Our highest priority must be to reduce the danger that nuclear weapons will
ever be used.  Such weapons, while still important to deter an attack with
weapons of mass destruction against us and our allies, represent the most
abhorrent and indiscriminate form of warfare known to man.  We do, quite
literally, possess the means to destroy all of mankind.  We must seek to do
all we can to ensure that nuclear weapons will never again be used.

While working closely with allies who rely on our nuclear umbrella for their
security, I would ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to engage in a comprehensive
review of all aspects of our nuclear strategy and policy.  I would keep an
open mind on all responsible proposals.  At the same time, we must continue
to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and
superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States
and our allies.  But I will seek to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal
to the lowest number possible consistent with our security requirements and
global commitments.  Today we deploy thousands of nuclear warheads.  It is
my hope to move as rapidly as possible to a significantly smaller force.

While we have serious differences, with the end of the Cold War, Russia and
the United States are no longer mortal enemies.  As our two countries
possess the overwhelming majority of the world's nuclear weapons, we have a
special responsibility to reduce their number.  I believe we should reduce
our nuclear forces to the lowest level we judge necessary, and we should be
prepared to enter into a new arms control agreement with Russia reflecting
the nuclear reductions I will seek.  Further, we should be able to agree
with Russia on binding verification measures based on those currently in
effect under the START Agreement, to enhance confidence and transparency.
In close consultation with our allies, I would also like to explore ways we
and Russia can reduce – and hopefully eliminate – deployments of tactical
nuclear weapons in Europe.  I also believe we should work with Russia to
build confidence in our missile defense program, including through such
initiatives as the sharing of early warning data and prior notification of
missile launches.

There are other areas in which we can work in partnership with Russia to
strengthen protections against weapons of mass destruction.  I would
seriously consider Russia's recent proposal to work together to globalize
the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.  I would also redouble our
common efforts to reduce the risk that nuclear, chemical, or biological
weapons may fall into the hands of terrorists or unfriendly governments.

I believe we should also begin a dialogue with China on strategic and
nuclear issues.  We have important shared interests with China and should
begin discussing ways to achieve the greatest possible transparency and
cooperation on nuclear force structure and doctrine.  We should work with
China to encourage conformity with the practices of the other four nuclear
weapon states recognized in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, including working
toward nuclear arsenal reductions and toward a moratorium on the production
of additional fissile material.

I believe we must also address nuclear testing.  As president I will pledge
to continue America's current moratorium on testing, but also begin a
dialogue with our allies, and with the U.S. Senate, to identify ways we can
move forward to limit testing in a verifiable manner that does not undermine
the security or viability of our nuclear deterrent.  This would include
taking another look at the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to see what can be
done to overcome the shortcomings that prevented it from entering into
force.  I opposed that treaty in 1999, but said at the time I would keep an
open mind about future developments.

I would only support the development of any new type of nuclear weapon that
is absolutely essential for the viability of our deterrent, that results in
making possible further decreases in the size of our nuclear arsenal, and
furthers our global nuclear security goals.  I would cancel all further work
on the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, a weapon that does not
make strategic or political sense.

Finally, we cannot achieve our non-proliferation goals on our own.  We must
strengthen existing international treaties and institutions to combat
proliferation, and develop new  ones when necessary.  We should move quickly
with other nations to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty to end
production of the most dangerous nuclear materials.  The international
community needs to improve its ability to interdict the spread of nuclear
weapons and material under the Proliferation Security Initiative.  And we
need to increase funding for our own non-proliferation efforts, including
the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs established by the landmark
Nunn-Lugar legislation, and ensure the highest possible standards of
security for existing nuclear materials.

In 2010, an international conference will meet to review the
Non-Proliferation Treaty.  If I am President, I will seize that opportunity
to strengthen and enhance all aspects of the non-proliferation regime.  We
need to strengthen enforcement of the so-called "atoms for peace" bargain by
insisting that countries that receive the benefits of peaceful nuclear
cooperation must return or dismantle what they receive if they violate or
withdraw from the NPT.  We need to increase IAEA funding and enhance the
intelligence support it receives.  We also need to reverse the burden of
proof when it comes to discovering whether a nation is cheating on its NPT
commitments. The IAEA shouldn't have to play cat-and-mouse games to prove a
country is in compliance.  It is for suspected violators to prove they are
in compliance.  We should establish a requirement by the UN Security Council
that international transfers of sensitive nuclear technology must be
disclosed in advance to an international authority such as the IAEA, and
further require that undisclosed transfers be deemed illicit and subject to
interdiction.  Finally, to enforce treaty obligations, IAEA member states
must be willing to impose sanctions on nations that seek to withdraw from
it.

We need to enlist all willing partners in the global battle against nuclear
proliferation.  I support the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Accord as a means of
strengthening our relationship with the world's largest democracy, and
further involving India in the fight against proliferation.  We should
engage actively with both India and Pakistan to improve the security of
nuclear stockpiles and weapons materials, and construct a secure global
nuclear order that eliminates the likelihood of proliferation and the
possibility of nuclear conflict.

As we improve the national and multilateral tools to catch and reverse
illicit nuclear programs, I am convinced civilian nuclear energy can be a
critical part of our fight against global warming.  Civilian nuclear power
provides a way for the United States and other responsible nations to
achieve energy independence and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and
gas.  But in order to take advantage of civilian nuclear energy, we must do
a better job of ensuring it remains civilian.  Some nations use the pretense
of civilian nuclear programs as cover for nuclear weapons programs.  We need
to build an international consensus that exposes this deception, and holds
nations accountable for it.  We cannot continue allowing nations to enrich
and reprocess uranium, ostensibly for civilian purposes, and stand by
impotently as they develop weapons programs.

The most effective way to prevent this deception is to limit the further
spread of enrichment and reprocessing.   To persuade countries to forego
enrichment and reprocessing, I would support international guarantees of
nuclear fuel supply to countries that renounce enrichment and reprocessing,
as well as the establishment of multinational nuclear enrichment centers in
which they can participate.  Nations that seek nuclear fuel for legitimate
civilian purposes will be able to acquire what they need under international
supervision.  This is one suggestion Russia and others have made to Iran.
Unfortunately, the Iranian government has so far rejected this idea.
Perhaps with enough outside pressure and encouragement, they can be
persuaded to change their minds before it is too late.

I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel
that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise
be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials.  It is even possible that
such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed
spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

This is a long list of steps we need to take.  It is long because there is
no single answer to this crisis, and there are no easy answers.  It is long
because no nation can meet this dire challenge alone and none can be
indifferent to its outcome.  The United States cannot and will not stop the
spread of nuclear weapons by unilateral action.  We must lead concerted and
persistent multilateral efforts.  As powerful as we are, America's ability
to defend ourselves and our allies against the threat of nuclear attack
depends on our ability to encourage effective international cooperation. We
must strengthen the accords and institutions that make such cooperation
possible.  No problem we face poses a greater threat to us and the world
than nuclear proliferation.  In a time when followers of a hateful and
remorseless ideology are willing to destroy themselves to destroy us, the
threat of suicide bombers with the means to wreak incomprehensible
devastation should call the entire world to action.  The civilized nations
of the world must act as one or we will suffer consequences once thought
remote when the threat of mutually assured destruction could deter
responsible states from thinking the unthinkable.

Americans have always risen to the challenges of their time.  And we have
always done so successfully not by hiding from history, but by making
history; by encouraging a sometimes reluctant world to follow our lead, and
defend civilization from old mistakes and old animosities, and the folly of
relying on policies that no longer keep us safe.  I want to keep the country
I love and have served all my life secure in our freedom.  I want us to rise
to the challenges of our times, as generations before us rose to theirs.  It
is incumbent on America, more than any other nation on earth, to lead in
building the foundations for a stable and enduring peace, a peace built on
the strength of our commitment to it, on the transformative ideals on which
we were founded, on our ability to see around the corner of history, and on
our courage and wisdom to make new and better choices.  No matter how
dangerous the threats we face in our day, it still remains within our power
to make in our time another, better world than we inherited.  And that, my
friends, is what I am running for President to do.

Thank you.

-- 
Cammie L. Croft
Tracking/Media Monitoring Director
Progressive Media USA
[email-masked]
202-609-7679 (office)
206-999-3064 (cell)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---