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

[OhPlease2007]

Obama when asked --by Tim Russert-- how many troops he would withdraw from Iraq as president, replied, "I'm going to leave that up to commanders on the ground", which, of course, is pure Bush speak. Of course, Obama added the caveat, "because my job is to set a clear mission for them; their job is to then tell me what we need to achieve this mission", but let's face it, when 'the pressure was on', and Obama was faced with a really tough question/decision, he folded & punted, just like he always does in my opinion.

In the article, 'Politicize the War, here is what Christopher Hayes wrote about the idea of the commanders on the ground acting as 'surrogate commanders-in-chief', as reported in The Nation:

"But even more absurd is the notion that the people executing war policy should be actually determining war policy, that we should just outsource the decisions about the duration of our occupation of Iraq to the all-knowing David Petraeus."

- Chris Hayes, The Nation

To suggest under ANY circumstance, no matter how clever the parsing of answers, that decisions that are 'the sole responsibility of the president' -- as commander-in-chief -- be delegated to and/or left up to the commanders on the ground in Iraq, is not only faulty in the sense that it suggests that it is not the true responsibility of the president to provide a clear exit strategy for ending the mission in Iraq and withdrawing our troops, it smacks of dereliction of duties that are charged to any democratically elected president sworn under oath into the oval office as, the sole commander-in-chief.

Obama 'seems' like a nice enough guy, but he just doesn't strike me as a strong, confident -&- competent "enough" leader, and in my opinion, I think he is out of his league in running for President. I will not be voting for Obama.

Source:

The Nation (Politicize the War, Chris Hayes, 04/03/2007)

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=181682

[PaulAbrams]

David, I think you are asking the wrong question, at least as far as how Obama would peform as Prez. All these people were playing political games---look at Hillary and Edwards not even reading the NIE, and voting AGAINST the Levin Amendment.
The key is that Obama realized in advance that the whole enterprise was wrong, just bad, stupid policy. And, he said so.
Afterwards, he played it cautiously, but I think compared to the other Senators--Edwards, Biden, Dodd and Clinton---he was the least supportive of the war.
If you are looking for a political hero, there are none. If we had had a political hero, we might not have been to war--why, for example, did ALL of these 4 vote AGAINST the Levin Amendment? Those answers would give you insights into what these people really would do as President.

[Nonamnesiac]

Judging on how Obama ducks key votes (MoveOn condemnation, Mukasey just to name a couple), and his pro-Bush's initial $150 billion Iraq funding war vote for 2008 without limits on Bush in early October of this year as part of a bi-partisan 92-3 vote, Obama probably would have ducked the 2002 Iraq war vote if he had actually been in the Senate at the time. Since then he's voted for nearly every Iraq budget Bush has obtained.

But what astounds me is how anyone can consider him anti-war when he refused to commit to having all troops out of Iraq by 2013. He, Edwards and Hillary, by refusing to make that commitment are unworthy of a single true anti-war vote. Aside from the fact that position is stupid politically given the fact the vast majority of the American people want out, and stupid strategically because it gives credence to Bush's treason and high crimes and misdemeanors in getting us in and keeping us in, it's indefensible morally to our troops who are being killed and maimed still, despite the media blackout, and the Iraqis who are killed and maimed and the families of all killed and maimed, whether American or Iraqi.

[CalDem]

Maybe we don't have to make a choice between the two extremes you list as laudable or damnable. I guess that's a conclusion that voters will have to make. However, something as complex as war, especially coming in as a senator once a war has already started, is not necessarily a matter of choosing door A or B. Some think that he would be ideal if he had come in with guns blazing...others may see him as someone knowing his convictions yet being able to learn and make progress with the situation dealt. It's funny how we allow some candidates to look back and say...the infamous "if I knew then what I know now"...but expect someone who may have been initially against the war to be error-free. Maybe Obama did not tie it all up in a nice bow and come and save the day in 2004 or 2005 but so some much has been learned and done since then. I admire him working within the system he entered and pressing forward.

[MRb1000]

The Hillary machine is at it again!!! It will not work.

[Swampfish]

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.


******Obama must be made to understand that aligning with Harry Reid & the rest of the Dem Senate leadership is bad for him big time.Shunning Reid,Schumer & Feinstein will be looked upon with admiration.

[BlueBoomer]

This one is easy:
BARAK OBAMA IS ALL TALK AND NO SUBSTANCE.

The 2002-2005 situation may seem nebulous, BUT, here's one that isn't:

In September of this year, when he actually was a sitting Senator and had been pointing fingers at other candidates for their Iraq votes (which have be mis-characterized by the media as "voting for the war"), BARAK OBAMA CHOSE TO NOT EVEN SHOW UP FOR BOTH THE IRAQ SENATE RESOLUTION VOTE AND THE IRAN RESOLUTION VOTE.

That should, by rights, make him UNELIGIBLE to comment either way on ANY BODY ELSE'S VOTES. PERIOD.
(Kind of like any citizen who doesn't vote, forfeits bitching rights if they don't like the result.)

BUT, he has been allowed to get away with it (except that Mike Gravel pointed it out in the "debate" that occurred the night after the votes.)...NO ONE IN THE MEDIA THAT I HAVE HEARD HAS ASKED OBAMA POINT BLANK WHY HE CHOSE NOT TO SHOW UP FOR THOSE VOTES...What could his rationale be, other than IT'S EASIER TO NOT BE WRONG IF YOU DON'T VOTE AT ALL.

Based on that fact, as far as Obama is concerned, his "judgement" amounts to nothing more than a 9-letter word, and his leadership -- well, there isn't any.

Obama may be able to play clever on SNL, but the man is certainly NOT A READY FOR PRIME-TIME PLAYER.

That distinction belongs to the REALLY QUALIFIED candidate in this campaign...the one the corporate money can't buy, so they haven't tried (and consequently his campaign needs the help of average americans who will benefit from his presidency by being able to live with the confidence that a smart, proven, competent leader is in place)...
That candidate is JOE BIDEN.

Look and see for yourself.
And if anybody can make specific and logical and true arguments why he is not the BEST and MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE, I say, lay them out.

TRUTH TO POWER >>> POWER TO THE PEOPLE.
BIDEN in '08.