Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A2: CTBT
CTBT bad for United States
The Heritage Foundation. “Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: A Bad Idea in 1999, a Worse Idea
Today” 06/29/07. <http://www.heritage.org/research/Homelanddefense/upload/wm_1533.pdf>
For both procedural and substantive reasons, the Senate should oppose ratification of the CTBT. The
Senate rejected ratification in 1999 for good reasons, and those reasons are still pertinent today. Further, the
effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear deterrence posture has declined in recent years for reasons of atrophy
within the weapons complex and changing international circumstances. The United States has no margin
for error in maintaining its national security in the context of its nuclear deterrent. Senate consent to
the ratification of the CTBT entails nothing less than gambling with the survival of the United States.
A2: Leadership
Obama lacks experience
Ashley C. Stinnett. “Can Americans really trust Barack Obama?” The Herald Dispatch. 07/02/08.
<http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x2102941045/Can-Americans-really-trust-Barack-Obama>
In this day and age of exit polls and data analysis, it seems only fair to point out an ongoing struggle the
Barack Obama campaign has yet to overcome: So many Americans are leery of his inexperience as a
United States senator. Many will recall not too long ago, Obama was merely a state representative in
Illinois. He was propelled to his current office after serving many years in his home state. Like most
freshman senators, Obama quickly began learning the ups and downs of national politics. He began
shaking hands with prominent political leaders while memorizing the names of top lobbyists. Of course,
anyone who keeps up with national level politics realizes if an individual serves in Washington for more than
a week, he or she will be introduced to lobbyist sharks really soon. It's all part of the game. Now begins the
troubling part. Within a year of entering office, Obama made the conscious decision to run for president. He
began collecting names of influential people, all the while making phone calls to big-money donors. This is
typical behavior of anyone who seeks a major office. Obama spent the majority of 2007 launching his bid
to become president. The young statesman began traveling and reaching out to millions. His campaign
became more of a rock concert aimed at energizing minorities, youth voters and blue-collar workers.
Although everything seems to be going well, his many faults, not to mention the bizarre company he
keeps, begin to surface.
Obama’s military and political inexperience would render him an ineffective president
MICHAEL GOODWIN. “HE'S GOT A LOT TO LEARN. McCain's exposing Obama's weaknesses on national
security,”06/01/08. <LEXIS>
Even before he clinches the nomination, a flurry of McCain attacks over Iran, Iraq, Cuba and military
leadership has exposed Obama 's soft underbelly on national security. The effective barrage is a
testament to how the primary battles never tested the rookie Democrat on whether he is ready to be
commander in chief. In Prof. McCain's class, Obama is slowly making progress, but remains far below
grade average. It's not certain he can catch up by November's final exam, where the threshold issue is the
public's confidence a candidate can and will defend America. Perceived weakness is a disqualifier. The
problem for Obama, beyond his lack of experience, is that his instincts are those of the Perfect Liberal
by way of Harvard Law School. Like Bill Clinton's clumsy attempts to salute when he first won the
Oval Office, Obama exhibits discomfort about things military. He is a peacenik by gut and, as critics
note, drew the wrong lessons about Cold War talks JFK and Ronald Reagan had with the Soviets. That didn't
matter during the primary battle, where Obama 's early opposition to Iraq was a defining difference against
Hillary Clinton. But doubts about his national security bona fides are already a handicap in the nascent
general election. McCain, showing it is never too early to shape the battlefield to match your strengths, has
ripped into Obama on a daily basis. Truth be told, Obama has presented him with a target-rich environment.
The first opening surfaced in a July 2007 debate, when Obama was asked if he would, without
preconditions, meet in the first year of his administration with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and
North Korea. Obama promptly and famously said, "I would."
WNDI 2008 6
Elections DA Impacts Scholars
A2: Space
Obama Supports NASA
Eun Kyung Kim. “Obama says he'll support NASA programs,” 07/29/08. < http://www.news-
press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080729/NEWS01/80729090/1075>
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged his commitment to NASA in
a statement his campaign released Tuesday congratulating the agency on its 50th anniversary. The
declaration may surprise many NASA supporters. Earlier in his campaign, the Illinois senator said he would
rather see money budgeted for Constellation, the program to replace the aging shuttles, go instead toward
education reform. Yet, Obama said he would support the agency if elected this fall. “I believe we need
to revitalize NASA’s mission to maintain America’s leadership, and recommit our nation to the space
program, and as President I intend to do just that,” he said. Obama took aim at the current Washington
establishment — and the Bush administration — for failing to give NASA the sufficient support it has
needed.
A2: Pakistan
Obama’s proposed invasion of Pakistan would fight terrorism
JAMES GORDON. “HIS GOOD IDEAS TOO LATE – PROS,” 08/02/07. <LEXIS>
WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama yesterday offered a sweeping and sophisticated strategy for
nailing Al Qaeda inside U.S. ally Pakistan's borders - but his best ideas may be too little, too late,
counterterror experts say. Chief among them is to add at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan.
Obama 's speech was a highly detailed assessment of the "forgotten war," arguing for more military might,
close cooperation with allies and increased development aid that could pull Afghanistan back from the
brink and maybe destroy Osama Bin Laden's base in Pakistan. Surging the number of American forces
to over 30,000 by adding up to 7,000 or more G.I.s makes sense, since the Taliban and Al Qaeda continue to
replenish their ranks. Obama also wants better trained Afghan forces included in more combat
missions. But none of it would happen for 18 months, even if he wins in 2008. Robert Grenier, a private
security executive who as CIA station chief in Pakistan oversaw the toppling of the Taliban in 2001, said
adding more U.S. troops would be "re-creating on a smaller scale the same mistake that has been made in
Iraq." "Only Afghans can deal with the phenomenon that is the Taliban," he said. "There needs to be an
Afghan solution." Though vague in his speech about how he would use extra U.S. forces, a key adviser said
Obama does not envision occupying parts of Pakistan, where Al Qaeda - and most likely Bin Laden - have a
safe haven. "Nobody is talking about a ground invasion of Pakistan's tribal areas," said former Bill Clinton
National Security Council aide Susan Rice, an Obama adviser. "That isn't feasible." Rice said surgical
strikes continue to be the best option, adding that Obama wants to strengthen U.S. special operations
forces on the Afghan side to "up the ante" and cajole European NATO allies to get more into the fight.
Obama talked tough by warning Pakistan's President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that if intelligence on Bin
Laden surfaces and Musharraf "won't act, we will." Grenier speculated that as President, Obama would
likely still coordinate any strikes with the Pakistanis, just as President Bush has.
WNDI 2008 8
Elections DA Impacts Scholars
Dooming relations means they can’t solve the case – relations are key to heg
Joseph P. Keddell Jr., Specialist in Japanese Politics, Faculty of Law at Tokyo University and Tohoku University,
1993, The Politics of Defense in Japan: Managing Internal and External Pressures, pg. 200
The maintenance of bases in Japan has been important to the United States for two reasons. First is the
bases' .geostrategic location. Such bases had served during the Cold War to help contain the Soviet Union
militarily and were deemed useful for blocking Soviet forces that were trying to move from Vladivostok to
the Sea of Japan and Pacific Ocean in the event of war. The U.S. bases in Japan are also considered useful in
the post-Cold War era for deploying U.S. forces to cope with the increased likelihood of regional conflicts
following the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Continuing instability in Indochina and the potential for increased
tensions in Northeast Asia following the demise of aging leaderships in North Korea and China
increase the value of these bases to the United States, as does the loss of the U.S. air and naval bases in the
Philippines. Second is the cost effectiveness of such bases. Japan furnishes military bases to the United
States at no charge and continues to increase its share of financing base costs. For instance, by 1990 the
Japanese government had increased its coverage of U.S. base costs in Japan to over 50 percent.106The
government views its financing of the costs of U.S. military facilities in Japan as a means of ensuring
continuation of the U.S. security guarantee.
The Associated Press. "Giuliani, McCain: U.S. should prepare to use force against Iran." 10/16/07
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/913507.html (CVD)
Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain said Tuesday they would be
prepared as president to use military force against Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons.
Giuliani characterized Iran as a state sponsor of terror that is seeking nuclear weapons and said Tehran needs
to understand how the United States would respond to that development. "Anybody who wants to be
president of the United States would say a prayer at the beginning that you would never have to use
American military power," the former New York City mayor said. "But as president, you can't hesitate to do
that, if it's in the best interest of the United States." "You have to stand up to dictators and tyrants and
terrorists," he added. "Weakness invites attack. Strength keeps you safe." On Iran specifically, Giuliani said,
"We've seen what Iran will do with ordinary weapons. If I'm president, I guarantee you we will never
find out what they would do with nuclear weapons because they're not going to get them." Said
McCain, "At the end of the day, we cannot allow the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons." The
presidential candidates spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition. Last week, Giuliani reiterated during a
presidential debate his stance in favor of a military option against a nuclear Iran. On another subject,
Giuliani said he would not negotiate with the Palestinians on the situation in the Middle East until two
conditions are met: acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and a good-faith effort to stop
terror. "If they do those two things and mean it, then of course we can negotiate," Giuliani said. "We would
like to have peace. But we don't want to have a peace in which we are taken advantage of. We don't want to
have a peace in which Americans and Israelis are getting killed. And we certainly don't want to create another
terrorist-supporting state. We have too many of them already."
McCain WILL order Iranian missile strikes and mass bombing strikes
Arnaud de Borchgrave, Specialist in International Affairs. "Israel: We Will Strike Iran Alone."
Newsmax. 7/26/08
http://www.newsmax.com/borchgrave/israel_iran_nuclear/2008/06/26/107691.html (CVD)
If, on the other hand, John McCain moves into the White House on the afternoon of Jan. 20, 2009, he
presumably would approve of Israeli bombing raids and cruise-missile strikes against Iran's nascent
nuclear weapons capability. There is only one thing worse than bombing Iran, McCain has said, and that
is an Iranian nuclear bomb.
WNDI 2008 20
Elections DA Impacts Scholars