WEST LAFAYETTE, IND. — Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday criticized the Bush administration for failing to protect the American people from weapons of mass destruction and said he would take aggressive measures as president to lessen the threat from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and from cyber-terrorism.
Obama unveiled what he described as a comprehensive national security strategy in a speech at Purdue University here, while leading a panel of academic experts and present and former politicians whose views of global threats largely tracked his own.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee also released a nine-page document on "Confronting 21st Century Threats," in which his campaign said the White House, Congress and some U.S. allies had succumbed to a mind-set of "conventional thinking [that] has failed to adapt to a world of new threats."
"The danger . . . is that we are constantly fighting the last war, responding to the threats that have come to fruition, instead of staying one step ahead of the threats," Obama said.
He was joined in the panel discussion by two potential running mates, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), who has spent much of his career lobbying for safeguards against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials.
Some of the initiatives described were characterized by current and former U.S. counter-terrorism officials and experts as being expensive, unrealistic or already underway.
"It sounds good on paper, but I get the sense that this is being put out to shore up his national security credentials," said Arthur Keller, until 2006 a CIA expert on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. "This would take a serious investment of time and money and a major diplomatic effort. It's like saying everyone should eat well; it's not going to happen necessarily, and it's easier said than done."
The Obama camp acknowledged some of the criticisms, but the candidate said: "We're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. . . . If that same amount of money were spent over the course of the next four years, we could lock up all the loose nuclear material."
"In terms of how realistic it is," said a senior campaign advisor who declined to be named because he didn't want his full- time employer associated with the campaign, "we will never eliminate nuclear weapons until we start trying. It's going to take a long time and a large effort, but we are never going to get there unless we start."
