Obama On Iraq: Laudable or Damnable?
Watching Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) on NBC's Meet the Press today, I came away torn about whether his statement on Iraq was laudable or damnable.
As Media Matters reports, Tim Russert asked Obama about why he had made statements over the years suggesting that even though he opposed the Iraq War, he could understand why Democrats in Congress at the time may have voted for it. Here was Obama's response:
"[That statement] was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on Meet the Press during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war, so it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq."
Before exploring this comment, let's make sure it has some context. Obama wasn't just silent in 2004 on the war, he was silent in 2005, too. Here's an excerpt of my previous piece for The Nation on Obama:
Then there is the Iraq War. Obama says that during his 2004 election campaign he 'loudly and vigorously' opposed the war. As The New Yorker noted, 'many had been drawn initially by Obama's early opposition to the invasion.' But 'when his speech at the antiwar rally in 2002 was quietly removed from his campaign Web site,' the magazine reported, 'activists found that to be an ominous sign'-one that foreshadowed Obama's first months in the Senate. Indeed, through much of 2005, Obama said little about Iraq, displaying a noticeable deference to Washington's bipartisan foreign policy elite, which had pushed the war. One of Obama's first votes as a senator was to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her integral role in pushing the now-debunked propaganda about Iraq's WMD.
So here's what I wonder: Is it a laudable thing that Obama basically kept quiet in 2004 for, as he basically said, the good of the Democratic ticket? Or is damnable, and should he have continued to push his party to stop the war?
As an aside: I'm not necessarily sure I believe that Obama's explanation is actually the full explanation for his reticence. Because he was also silent in 2005, after the election was over, I get the feeling that he "loudly and vigorously" opposed the Iraq War as an Illinois Senate primary candidate when he was an underdog in that race, but then when he was a sure winner in the general election and then during his short pre-presidential-primary-candidate days in the Senate, he didn't see a political necessity (and perhaps perceived political danger) in continuing to strongly voice his opposition. That was, in fact, precisely the time he was making these occasional statements suggesting that he could understand other people voting for the war.
But most politicians are politicians - they act, at least in part, out of opportunity for themselves. So the "whys" of Obama's silence are really less important going forward than the "whether" - whether it was good or bad that he kept silent? I say that's more important because it tells us about what kind of decision-making we can expect from him as a president not just on Iraq, but on all issues.
I'm torn on this, and could make a case for both sides here. I am irritated that as one of the most famous Democrats in America at the time (especially post-convention speech), he didn't voice stronger opposition to move his party - and that he said he didn't do it because basically, he didn't want to embarrass his party. Then again, I can see the argument that Democrats winning in 2004 would have probably ended the war a lot sooner than Bush, and so at that moment, helping the party win the presidency was worth staying quiet for. But then again, too, I can see the argument that had someone like Obama been more aggressive in opposing the war during 2004, he might have pulled his party into a more strongly antiwar position which may have helped the party actually win the 2004 election, much like Ned Lamont's forcing the party to more frontally challenge Bush on the war helped Democrats win in 2006.
What do you think about this?
UPDATE: A commenter points out this excerpt from a new Atlantic Monthly article:
Initially, Obama did try to avoid publicity, turning down repeated requests to appear on national television, as well as invitations to speak before Democratic groups. "We wanted to be mindful of our place," Robert Gibbs, his spokesman, told me. Even on the issue of Iraq, which dominated 2005, Obama, an opponent of the invasion from the beginning, passed up the chance to speak out. "He could have been the moral voice, the moral authority on Iraq," one of Obama's closest advisers told me. "But he was just a freshman senator. It would have been presumptuous of him to take that lead."
Now, I have to say, that is pretty screwed up - and damnable. A war is going on - one that Obama opposes. His people admit he could have been the moral leader against it, but decided not to, essentially out of deference to the Senate club's etiquette. Without commenting on the original question of whether his silence in 2004 was laudable or damnable, I have to say that this Atlantic Monthly excerpt makes his silence in 2005 damnable, to say the least.
Cross-posted from Credo Action
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Right question... wrong time.
Let us assume that Obama's stance on the war during the time in question was in fact reflective of his desire to temper his opposition to the war to fit his available power and influence.
This is what I happen to believe.
Assuming this, we will not know whether this effort was effective or not until he becomes President and acts on the issues at question.
We can no more evaluate his actions now than we could evaluate the actions of a Stealth bomber on its way to its target.
If you believe that Obama believed that he did not have the influence at the time to make a significant difference and you believe that in fact he would have if he could have, then his actions may or may not have been laudable, but they certainly would have been prudent.
Dennis Kucinich will be a footnote in political history not because he saw - and reported seeing - a UFO, but because he either didn't accurately evaluate the relationship between his convictions (about the war and many other things) and his credibility and effectiveness as a political actor, or because he didn't care, or both.
I believe that neither of these was true of Obama.
If they had been, I believe that the result would have been to further marginalize a potentially powerful political actor who had - and still has - precious little margin with which to work.
Open and honest trumpeting of sincerely held convictions in the public arena is laudable, whether it's Dennis Kucinich or Ted Kennedy.
But political expediency is not inherently immoral... neither is that Stealth bomber's radar invisibility.
Neither, by the way, is the morality of the mission the only determinant of laudability or damnation.
Political expediency may, however, place a burden on the bonds of trust that effectiveness requires, and commentary on this point is reasonable.
What is not reasonable is to laud it or damn it before we know its effects.
Which - in this case - we will not know for some time.
This post's ambivalence is a consequence of this fact.
It is not damnable that Obama chose to remain quiet in ‘05. Let's be practical and realistic for a minute. He was just a freshman senator who couldn’t have changed a thing. He wouldn't have stopped one funding bill, wouldn't have convinced a single Republican to break with their party, & wouldn't have saved one life in Iraq. He couldn't have made a real difference as he did not have the knowledge, experience, or stature of someone like Murtha, for example, who was able to make an impact on the Iraq debate.
In truth, he was correct in '05. Of course he should have given his opinion when asked and voted his conscious, but he was right to remain in the background for a while.
What is damnable is that he had the gall to make the almost instantaneous leap from remaining in the background to standing front and center and claiming he's now ready to lead the entire free world (talk about a 180). And now what he has done is sucked all the oxygen out of the debate and caused the media to focus exclusively on this celebrity match up between himself and Hillary which has drowned out the serious candidates and serious issues.
His candidacy is the best thing to ever happen to Hillary because she doesn’t want to debate the issues with qualified candidates. She likes this ridiculous game that’s going on the media. And, if we’re stuck with her that is bad news for the Democrats.
Obama should’ve remained in the background a little longer and let people who know the issues, have the experience, and who could debate circles around Hillary if ever they got the chance to speak – people like Joe Biden - he should’ve let those people lead on the issues because Obama is not ready. He doesn’t know how to get out of Iraq. He doesn’t know what to do about Iran. He doesn’t know what to do about Pakistan. He knew this in 2005, but his ego allowed people push him into running way before he was ready.
Not one of the Democratic,let alone Republican wannabes seems to get that rampant economic and political imperialism is the driving force behind all of the US military adventures around the world since President Theodore Roosevelt (who wanted the US Navy to bombard Barcelona during the Cuba crisis!). In the end it will not be enough to bring the troops out of Iraq. Troops must eventually also be taken out of Japan, South Korea, all countries bordering on Russia and China, all Near-and -Mideastern countries except for the time being Afghanistan, all European countries (especially Germany, Poland, Italy, and Spain). Most of these countries are perfectly capable of defending themselves anyway and the European countries are not threatened by attacks against them. Of course no presidential wannabe will ever propose this because he/she can then kiss the nomination goodbye. My point is that it is gigantically naive of "anti-war" persons to expect any "new directions" in foreign policy from any of the current wannabes once they get into the White House. There will be a few cosmetic changes and that will be all, folks.
The country was not supportive of the Obama's position in 2004. How stupid would that have been politically for him to stand up and say something? Do you not remember how Feingold was presented to the country? While people will bash the Clinton triangulation theory b/c she does it by telling falsehoods, Obama did it by not speaking out. He would have been pegged and roasted and it wouldn't have accomplished anything. He did not have enough pull to shift the argument.
Recently I saw Cokie Roberts make the claim that the Republicans were "Slight" underdogs in the coming Presidential elections.
While the thought of Guliani having the powers of President scares the living HELL out of me, I got to thinking about her point.
There is only one group that can give the Republicans a victory in 2008...the Democrats!
They have shown no distiction since gaining the majority in both houses of congress.
They took Impeachment off the table without any consideration of what the "people" wanted.
They have not "aggressively" pursued an end to the war.
They have caved in to the President every time he stood up to them. Always claiming the "next time" we're going to stop him.
What the Democratic party (and this country) really needs right now is LEADERSHIP!
That's right...all caps and it needs to be shouted to the heights.
I thought that Obama might be that man. Now I'm not sure. Nobody - least of all Clinton - has taken a real stand.
Voting at the last minute, when they are sure which way the wind blows, dodging votes where they could be making a statement...
These are NOT the things that I think of when looking for a leader.
Why won't a major candidate state, for the record, "I will roll back the many damages that Bush has inflicted upon our Constitution?
Dodd has done so, but he seems to be the onlty one and I don't know how electable he really is.
Where are our leaders?
Obama putting the "party" first by silencing he's criticism of the war smacks too much of "Politics as usual" to me.
2004? 2005?
Irrelavant, really.
It's 2007.... and every Democrat that hasn't moved a foot on getting those troops out of Iraq since the 2004 election should be damned, including Presidential candidates.
Every Democrat candidate that says "when I become President" to those troops be damned for riding their backs for the next year just to get elected. (Yes, you, Hillary... Why not use the megaphone NOW? When I'm President... puhlease)
Speaker Pelosi be damned for thinking a better strategy than impeachment is riding the backs of those soldiers stranded for another year... soldiers she once said were "priority #1"... as she hopes for high tide come election time. Whining, vetos, McConnell/Boehner stalling and bawling... As if that strategy is a winner now...
Guess that only leaves Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul out of all the candidates.... and a handful of Democrats not to be damned.
The rest of Congress be damned as they continue to search for their balls, remember their oaths, and the clock is tic to the toc for our soldiers in Baghdad.
Do you know how the Senate works? It's an old boy's club and always has been, and everyone knows that. You're incredibly naive to think otherwise.
There were a LOT of politicians that should have and could have stood up and been a leader against the Iraq occupation in 2005. Hillary Clinton was one of them. She had the name recognition and power to speak out...but didn't. John Kerry could have, even after an election defeat, he could have. But he didn't. There were a lot of folks at that time that were quiet about the occupation when they shouldn't have been. Singling out Obama makes it sound like you've got a personal bone to pick. "Could have" and "should have" aren't going to solve the problems starting this next year. Let it die. The occupation will never end if you're going to whine endlessly about someone not speaking up enough during one year of said occupation. Every year was a crucial year, and everyone knew where Obama stood on the war in 2005. The full clip of his interview with Russert was him stating that he never felt a case had been made for the war, and that as an outsider at the time, he might not have been swayed by information that only politicians would have been privy to.
The people to blame for not taking a strong enough stand against the occupation aren't the politicians, unless they're Republicans. The people to blame for this occupation are a large section of this country that keep re-electing Republicans (and one particular independent) that vote lock-step with this President regardless of how wrong it is. They are the folks who play political games instead of taking their jobs seriously. They shut down government when they don't get their way, they threaten filibusters on every issue, they vote to authorize an impeachment only to create discord for political reasons (and not because it's the right thing to do).
Obama seems to base his whole claim for the presidency on the fact that he was supposedly "right" about the war, when he wasn't in a position to have to vote on it or put himself on the line. However, let's get real. He, like the entire democratic party, has done very little to stop it. They have continued to fund it. They have continued to vote for measures that have stomped all over the Constitution and made this president less and less accountable. So who cares if he was right 5 years ago? What is doing TODAY to change things? From what I've seen, very little.
Obama is no more qualified to be President than the posters here. He can speak for hours and not say a thing. Most of us STILL have no idea where he stands on any issue.
Who can really claim to have a better position on the war than Obama? We should reserve our criticism for those that actually voted for the war. They did so because they thought the war would be popular and they couldn't risk it in their bids for re-election. No backbone!
OBAMA is just another "in" politician. I will NEVER vote for him nor Billary.
What? Obama actually getting his hands dirty playing the game of politics? Impossible! Why that would make him just like Hillary!
I thought that Obama answered the question by Russert in the only way he could: candidly and openly. He made a HUGE distinction that has been missing from the anti-war movement and needs to be constantly repeated: Even though the entire Bush-led effort was wrong from the beginning, that doesn't mean that Americans still shouldn't have supported the efforts of the military even though they were given an impossible task!
Anti-war too easily morphs into anti-support, and this is what the freshman Senator had to do as his constituents bravely fought an ill-placed war. He tried to work from within this framework and move the President toward better options amongst all the bad ones he's chosen.
As he stated yesterday, its time to realize that being patriotic doesn't only apply to being pro-war. One can be patriotic and stand against wrong-headed uses of the military for the sake of a bankrupt agenda. This is the type of leadership the nation sorely needs, not more triangulation of similar positions that are held by the neo-cons and Bush, particularly when it applies to further conflict with Iran, who's never attacked another nation since the 18th Century!
It's about time someone questioned Mr. Obama's statements (or the lack of statements). What I hear from Obama supporters is that he was against the war from the beginning and this makes him presidential material. I was against the war from the beginning too but I doubt that gives me much in the way of knowing how to run this country.
Mr. Obama is a nice guy but he is dividing the Democratic party. If he was a true Democrat and if he really wanted to help the party he would step back and take a look at what he is doing. I admit I am a HRC supporter and proud of it. I would, however, support Joe Biden without any hesitation if he got the nominee. John Edwards is a slug and a an angry one at that. Both he and Obama think that mud slinging and attacks are the way you win nominations. Neither one of them know their history or have looked at what has been going on in the Democratic party for the past 30-40 years (unfortunately I have). Democrats have been infighting and the Republicans have stood together and attacked the Democrats. And where has that gotten us?
Obama might be a nice guy but he needs to pay his dues and take his licks. He needs to attack the real enemy. The Repubicans will slice and dice him and have him floating in the Chicago river if he gets the nomination.
In Obama's early days as senator, he was given superstar treatment by the media. This seemed to be causing him some problems... more senior senators resented it and tried to knock him down a few pegs, it seemed. He got a major slap-down from McCain early on, as you remember, and I thought at that time: McCain already sees Obama in the presidential race. I'm sure Hillary did too.
There is no question that Obama was trying to get OUT of the limelight at that time.
Also, Obama did say to Russert that he had felt once we'd gone in to Iraq, that we had to do our best to make things turn out well over there, and that it wasn't the time to be speaking against the war. I wish he had explained that position with more clarity. I think it was a reasonable approach under the circumstances.
Still, every time I go back and read his pre-Iraq speech, I see that he was thinking much more clearly, and had much better judgement than any of the other candidates on the issue (except maybe Kucinich).
All of the Dem. candidates have some problems... I'm not sure any have a better chance of winning in the general than Obama. I do think he could learn to speak with more clarity... that would help him a lot as a candidate. His points sometimes get lost in the discussion somehow.
Loading comments…
Posted November 11, 2007 | 11:23 PM (EST)