Obama, Smart and Prescient About Iraq

Good morning. How are you today?

I'm aware Super Tuesday is tomorrow, and I wanted to do something else to convince more people to vote for Barack Obama.

In my last post, I quoted part of the speech Obama gave opposed to invading Iraq. He gave it on October 2, 2002 in Chicago. (Unless he gave it on October 26, both dates come up when I search.)

October 2nd is when Congress voted to pass the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." Hillary Clinton voted for that, and at the same time she voted against the Levin amendment which would have required Bush to come back to the Congress a second time, after he went to make his case to the United Nations, before he would have the authorization to use military force.

Bush and Cheney (and Rove and minions of the right) all claimed that that was intolerable, because then the U.N. would have veto power over our foreign policy.

Hillary says the same thing now to defend her vote against that amendment. Baloney.

It doesn't mean that at all. It means, watch out -- we're giving Bush a blank check to do what he wants militarily, let's put the brakes on, make him come back and discuss it before he takes that final step to war. Oh, and there's also that "Congress has the right to declare war" thing in the constitution too.

Bill Clinton a while ago claimed he was "always" against the invasion of Iraq, a ludicrous statement and not true. If he was, he kept quiet about it. (I'm finding the Clintons very annoying. Months ago, I thought it was a plus Bill would be around Hillary's presidency. Now I have much more mixed feelings about it.)

In any case, there were others who did speak out against the invasion at the time of that unfortunate (maybe cowardly, maybe confused) vote of the Congress. Al Gore was one, and gave a stirring and strong speech against the invasion. And so did Barack Obama.

I hadn't seen the full text of the speech until I received it in an email from playwright John Guare this morning. (I'm name dropping, but thought it was interesting how I got it.)

In any case here's the full text of the speech printed below. He really hits every point correctly, while Hillary and so many others were busy saying to George W. Bush, "go do whatever you want, you've succeeded in frightening the American public, so we can't risk getting the public mad at us and thinking we're weak, so go to it, Dubya!" (And if they weren't scared of the public, or positioning themselves not to be "weak on terrorism," then they were in agreement -- and unwise.)

Obama's speech (October, 2002):

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Comments

[LizM]

...continued...

You may be right about the motivations behind Hillary Clinton"s vote on the Iraq resolution - I don"t know enough about it to judge. If what you say is true, then I have serious doubts about her overall competence.

I can tell you that Senator Biden was not so motivated. Like Senator Obama, Senator Biden knew that Saddam posed no imminent threat to the US and that Iraq had NOT reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. Essentially, Senator Biden knew then what he knows now. But, he also knew that, if left unfettered, Saddam would become an imminent threat and he needed to be dealt with sooner or later.

Senator Biden, and many of his senate colleagues voted for this resolution as they saw it as the best way to disarm Saddam AND avoid war. The record is clear that Senator Biden was publically warning of the dire consequences of what would happen if the US were to invade Iraq in a rush to war without allies. He viewed the Levin amendment, after consultations with then Secretary of State Powell (who, at the time, was the only sane voice in the administration and had not yet ruined his career and credibility in his infamous presentation before the UN) as decreasing the effectiveness - to some extent, at least - of the resolution to avoid war by weakening the case that the President could take to the UN.

Finally, if Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that she is not competent to deal with Iraq, Barack Obama has been completely disingenuous in his rhetoric on Iraq. He has consistently used false claims of being the only one who has opposed this war from the beginning and of equating a vote for the Iraq resolution with a "vote for war" or de facto support for this Iraq invasion. If he believes his own rhetoric, then he is not competent to be the next POTUS. He has successfully used these false claims and accused his rivals of voting for war as a distraction from, and compensation for, his own paucity of foreign policy experience and judgement.

[LizM]

Well, it wasn"t the 2nd of October when Congress voted to pass the Iraq resolution authorizing the use of US military force in Iraq UNDER CERTAIN AND CLEARLY DEFINED CONDITIONS which the President, in the end, chose not to meet. But, you"re only off by a week, more or less.

It is clear that most people do not understand the context within which the debate over this resolution and its many amendments took place, much less the resolution or the amendments themselves. This is because most people still rely on the media to inform them when the media has demonstrated, time and time again, that it is not at all capable of doing that. And, so...most people have completely misunderstood what this resolution was all about.

As for the Levin amendment being a wholesale give away of American sovereignty over to the UN...only an uniformed person would believe that. That was NOT a valid reason to oppose the Levin amendment. More about that, later.

This resolution was about enforcing UN resolutions that had been violated by Saddam for years - it was NOT about pre-emptive war, requiring a Congressional declaration thereof. The Iraq resolution was about giving the President the clout he needed to go to the UN and force that body to keep sanctions on Iraq (sanctions which, at the time, were in jeopardy of being lifted all together) and UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. With this resolution, the President could say to the UN, with a united Congress at his side, that the UN must act to enforce the resolutions that Saddam was in violation of or the President would, with the full force of the Congress behind him.

Far from being a "vote for war", a vote for this resolution was a vote for, and best chance of, AVOIDING war to disarm Saddam.

...to be continued...

[outnow]

Chris,

Hillary went along with the herd. It was going to be a "win-win" for her. Either we won quickly and got the oil or we won eventually and got the oil. Look at New York as the victim of 9-11. Actually, she was in favor of attacking Iran rather than Iraq, even back then. But she wanted to attack someone.

Any fool could see that Saddam Hussein was not a clear and present danger to the United States. But in New York, the drums were beating for war. Judy Miller and many others led the charge. Cheney, Bush, Condi, Pearle, Rumsfeld.

I debated the grounds for war with many of my friends. We weighed the "evidence" and found it lacking. It was hearsay and conjectural. Colin Powell and Condi Rice had a bad demeanor while they lied. Bush - well everything he says is untrue.

Sean Penn was against the war. Scott Ritter the former UN weapons inspector. Anyone who believed that the US would be attacked should seek professional help for being gullible. Does this make Obama a hero? At least he spoke out which is more than some.

Why would Hillary "trust" Bush when Bill Clinton didn't even go through the UN with Bosnia or Kosovo? NATO? Right! Bill went around the UN. I have heard her CYA speech - just in case the war didn't go well. She could have it both ways.

Obama is virtually untested. The devil we know is Hillary. The thought of McCain waging a hundred-year war. Isn't he about a hundred himself?

[balance]

The decision to go into Iraq was wrong, but the line of reasoning to support the Authorization has a long bi-partisan history.

Presidents have always "saber rattled" and threatened to use military force, as a tactic to push supposedly hostile foreign powers to change their policies.

The most famous example of this belongs to John F. Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In fact, JFK probably played the most dangerous militaristic bluff in American history. And actually, it would scare the bejeezus out of me.

Hillary Clinton probably went along with Bush Jr, thinking that he was saber rattling also. Raising the stakes, so that Saddam would keep the inspectors in Iraq. Bill Clinton saber rattled with North Korea and got an agreement to stop their nuclear program -- until Bush Jr. messed things up. Bill Clinton sent an aircraft carrier battle group through the Taiwain Straits to convince China to moderate their militarism towards Taiwain.

So in that vein, Hillary Clinton may have thought that Bush Jr was saber rattling. -- Especially given assurances from the White House that Bush Jr. did not intend to start the invasion.
Go back to post 911-land. It united the country behind Bush Jr. The entire nation put an extraordinary amount of trust in Bush Jr's hands. Bush Jr should bear the entire responsibility for being an incompetent, inexperienced nitwit, and for starting the Iraq War.

Now, to declare that her vote was a mistake, -- to do this may weaken her ability, as President to "saber rattle" and use the prospect of military force to dissuade hostile foreign powers from harming American interests and American allies.

Talking about how you would bluff at a card game, effectively weakens your ability to win that game.

[Bagger]

I still remember how lonely I felt not agreeing with this war. Feeling unpatriotic and almost treasonist thinking the war was a bad idea. How we forget how lonely some of us were during this time. This speech solidifies my thoughts of Barack Obama.

[Steamboater]

Don't tell me you're against the war and then vote to fund it; that's what Obama did. It reminds me of his long-standing relationship with Rezko and Obama's rise to power. He used Rezko to get where he is and then voted to fund the war because he feared a backlash from voters. That's the bottom line and all for power. So to try and claim Obama as blameless about this war and then Hillary as full of baggage is not only unreasonable but silly.

[May2002]

In this mass echo chamber, Obama has become a saint, or I should say the second coming of Jesus Christ.

I just read NYTimes article, "Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate," which vividly depicts a Obama who is no better and no worse than any other politician.

In one of his legislation effort, he failed to meet his constituents' demands but bowed to special interests.

No only that, during Iowa campaign, he actually made false claim--boasting that he had passed such a bill.

Finally when the New York Times confronted him (for this reporting), he could hardly explain it.

Right now, since worshipping Obama is in such vogue, this type of real facts usually used to judge a candidate, all becomes non-important. Especially in the misty eyes of young voters, Obama can do no wrong.

So I must say Obama must be a second coming of Jesus Christ. Because he has not been evaluated from a human being level or measured as another politician.

Even mainstream media doesn't do their duties any more, but becomes the loudest macrophone that drives this Obama phenomenon so quickly to its high attitude.

By the way, the link of the New York Times article is the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?em&ex=1202274000&en=49167536d01105ab&ei=5087%0A

[larry278]

Another blog which confirms that HRC in no longer the designated POTUS #44; BHO is the newly designated POTUS #44.

[thebassguy]

Great ANTI-WAR song "Sittin On a Time Bomb" by Hard Bargain:
http://thebassguy.com/sittinonatimebomb.mp3


Enjoy it, and pass it along! thx.

tbg

[COEze]

Chris, thanks for sharing the copy of Obama's speech.
What an insight! Obama was almost prophetic in predicting the outcome of the war. To me, that is the sign of a great leader and visionary. Hillary and most Democratic legislators were falling over each other in their stampede to prove their patriotism. Quite to the contrary, I consider Obama's stand as even more patriotic because his analysis of the war and its consequences focused on protecting Americans and American interest.
Obama will be a great president. Vote for Obama, we can use an honest uniter.

[ambro23]

Volum is right, Obama has it both ways by giving a speech opposed to the invasion, but then funding it at every chance Bush demanded it.

That's why I won't support Clinton or Obama...

Clinton was totally wrong on Iraq since the start and never voted against it...

[ChiMan1]

On Iraq, It is now proven from Saddam's own mouth, he intended to re-start his WMD program as soon as it was feasable.
Democrat response: Ready, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, anyway you get the idea.
Republican response, after ONLY 17 UN Resoloutions; Ready,Aim,Fire!
In other words, Geter Done!
Time will prove this policy worked. Regards!

[Transcendentobserver]

You Sir are parsing words. The documented position of Pres. Clinton regarding to the debates leading to the invasion of Iraq is whether the term "against" is a distinction from "opposed to" without a difference. Please inform us how in your judgment you conclude that he was somehow in favor of the war and disingenuous in telling recently he was not.

[May2002]

I was against the war before the war even started.

I am just an ordinary America who likes to read and cares about many different issues.

Based on this background, without classified intelligence, I could judge that Bush didn't make the case for me and sense that he wanted to go to the war any way. And the mainstream media didn't do their serious duties but gave Bush a free ride.

I was against the war by attending largest protests in Washington DC and in NYC, and marching in NYC few times.

The point I want to make is that I don't think we need to give Obama that much credits for his anti-war stand. At least I know it didn't require any IQ higher than mine to come to that conclusion.

As far as I am concerned, if you have enough commen sense, sense of justice and humanity, you would come to that conclusion.

For Democrats who are not pleased with Hillary's vote as a result will not vote her, this is one thing.

But praising Obama too highly for his only speech against the war, as far as I am concerned, it is like giving someone Academic Award when he should only get a local drama award.

The credit should belong to all of us--the ordinary Americans who were against the war since the start and have taken actions to make our voices being heard.

Honestly, I don't think Obama is such an ideaist who will die for his cause. I rather think he is quite pragamatic and willing to compromise. So who knows if he would be in the senate at that moment, under the raw emotion and shadow of 911, what conclusion he would come to, instead of only making one speech. That's why I am not the one, like most of the people here who have a misty eye on Obama. That's why I agree with some doubters--Obama hasn't been tested.

Please vote Obama as you want, but please don't make him a saint. It turns me off.

[rwe]

Look at his vitng record or lack there of... He can't vote continually present on the world stage... In spite of the lefts hatred for Pres Bush because he had the audacity to win two elections , he has stood on his convictions (knowing you want him convicted). Barack is an opportunist, ask any in Illinois who have not seen him since his days in the Illinois senate. He will be a deer in the headlights