home

A Defense Of Obama On Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:22:27 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Barack Obama was right and courageous to oppose the Iraq Debacle in 2002. No one should ever try and diminish that. What he did once he became a Senator, well that is a different story. But his 2002 speech struck the right chord with me. The estimable Susie Madrak cites a NYTimes article where some are quoted as taking issue with one passage of the speech:

[Obama] was also careful to emphasize that there were times when military intervention was necessary. . . . Mr. Obama’s refrain about supporting some wars perplexed some in the crowd.

An event organizer, Carl Davidson, recalled that a friend “nudged me and said, ‘Who does he think this speech is for? It’s not for this crowd.’ I thought, ‘This guy’s got bigger fish to fry.’ At the time, though, I was only thinking about the U.S. Senate.”

I do not care who it was for - it was absolutely right in my opinion. It was the view expressed by Wes Clark and Howard Dean in 2003. It is the classic Democratic liberal view of foreign policy and national security. Most importantly, it was and is right.

Speaking for me only

< Facts Are Stubborn Things | Rahmbo Blasts Kennedy's Attack On Clinton >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Defense Of Obama On Iraq | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Actions (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Coldblue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:33:54 PM EST
    speak louder than words.

    Where is the action Obama?

    not only that (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Chisoxy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:16:35 PM EST
    But for him to lie about the conditions that speech was given "Heated Senate Campaign" over plays and over states his courage. He spoke out, and he was right. But he was in no real political danger from doing so, and even then failed to act and simply gave a speech.

    At some point he's going to have to demonstrate leadership in a form other than a damn speech. Until then I reserve my right not to vote for him.

    [ Parent ]

    He was right, but so were a lot of us, and (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by Anne on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:34:16 PM EST
    I don't see a whole lot of courage in words that are not followed by actions.

    Once he was elected to the Senate, he had the opportunity to be courageous, to use his powers of persuasion to work toward something better.

    He had the opportunity in 2007 to bring attention and focus on Afghanistan, to working with our European allies.  It didn't have to be in-the-spotlight work - it could have been behind-the-scenes grunt work.  But he was too busy then.

    I'm sorry, but I do not see courage in this man.  I hear a lot of talk, but I don't see anything on the other side of it.

    It's a shame that he has become known for "What Obama Really Meant" - WORM - instead of "What Obama Really Did" - which, in some twist of irony, is WORD.

    that's a fair point too (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:36:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    brings new meaning (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by reynwrap582 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:43:48 PM EST
    "...Just WORDs!"

    [ Parent ]
    WORD (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by RalphB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:39:24 PM EST
    It'e really too bad he has no deeds to show us what his words might mean.  There's no "there" there and I think it may be an unrecoverable weakness against Sen McCain.


    [ Parent ]
    In other words (none / 0) (#38)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:12:50 PM EST
    'Where's the beef?"

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:38:39 PM EST
    ...the Democrats have been an utter disappointment on Iraq.  There is just no excuse, none whatsoever, for them to keep funding this war.  The Democrats took power in the midterms in 1974 and cut off money for any further SE Asia hijinks almost immediately, and the country shrugged and that was that.  How is it that the Democrats in Congress have a higher support level for the Iraq War than the entire country?

    It's cowardice.  That's all it is.

    And Obama deserves stronger criticism on this than Clinton, in my opinion.  He spoke against the war, he's run on how his "judgment" is better than Clinton's, and yet he keeps giving them money.  It's pretty clear by now that an affirmative act, i.e. voting for withdrawal or redeployment or whatever euphemism you like - isn't going to work, with Bush's veto power.  Only a negative act will end this war.  Voting against money.

    But they keep giving it to him, and it drives me crazy.

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:41:30 PM EST
    They deserve equal condemnation for their support of BushCo's war.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:29:25 PM EST
    I guess.  But it's just particularly galling given the "judgment" meme.  One of many things about him that bothers me.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:48:09 PM EST
    If you buy the campaign sound bites of any pol, I would question your judgement.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Well (none / 0) (#46)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:45:37 PM EST
    I find it's usually best to question my judgment right off the bat.  If I'm right in the end, it's a nice surprise.

    [ Parent ]
    True (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:03:38 PM EST
    and I don't see Obama selling a speech against the war as some sort of great policy judgement when he has waffled on his votes even to the point of quoting Lieberman and Bush w/r/t war funding. And then he voted against it another time.

    [ Parent ]
    Got To Give Him That (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:38:58 PM EST
    Whatever you think of him now. It was the right thing to do.


    Zactly (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:40:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What Courage? (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:57:43 PM EST
    "Barack Obama was right and courageous to oppose the Iraq Debacle in 2002."

    I am so damn sick of rewarding nothing.  

    Giving an anti-war speech at an anti-war rally while representing an anti-war district is NOT courageous.

    Courage was Hubert Humphrey making his civil rights speech at the 1948 Democratic Convention.
    Courage was Hubert Humphrey giving speeches to mostly white audiences in Mississippi about civil rights.
    Courage was Lady Bird Johnson standing up to abuse while campaigning throughout the south after LBJ forced through the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
    Courage was JFK taking full responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco in a televised news conference.
    Courage was FDR, his legs rendered useless by polio, fighting his way back into politics.

    And yes, courage is Hillary Clinton standing up to catcalls, abuse from the most famous member of her party and a continuous drumbeat in the national media to withdraw.

    Millions of us objected to the war in Iraq and like Obama had no actual responsibility in the matter.

    Please stop rewarding NOTHING.

    Today's NYT article, whether intended or not, paints a picture of a man without any conviction save his own persoanl advancement.

    Pleas


    [ Parent ]

    He ended up voting for the (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Iris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:36:49 PM EST
    war funding in the end, when he had a 'new coalition.'  At least Hillary has been consistent.

    [ Parent ]
    As I recall (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:01:43 AM EST
    he also voted against a troop withdrawal schedule amendment in one of the funding bills.

    [ Parent ]
    Speeches (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kayla on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:03:54 PM EST
    I am the type of person who doesn't look at speeches as just a bunch of words on a certain topic spoken powerfully and eloquently.  That's great and all, but the best speeches are bigger that.  The location, the circumstances surrounding it, what motivated the speech, the type of crowd listening to it, the actions of the speaker beforehand that helped propel the speaker to make the speech, and actions afterwords to follow up on it.  All of it together is important to me when measuring the greatness of a speech.  

    So, I'm glad he made the speech, I agree with it, it was important and even couragious at the time.  I just wish he had believed in it so much that he kept it on his website, or stood up against it in the senate, or held rallies against it or something more.

    But that's politics.  At least he made the effort to stand against it at least once and emphatically.  He even called out the lack of WMD, which is impressive, considering he didn't even have the intelligence.  That is good for something.  And it is good judgment.

    kayla - I knew, or at least believed, (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Anne on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:25:00 PM EST
    that there were no WMD in Iraq, and so did millions of ordinary citizens, so I'm not impressed that Obama was also one of those millions.

    And how is a speech any more of an effort than what those of us regular folks - writing letters to the editor, calling our congresspeople - did?

    What troubles me is that people like Obama, who gave a speech, actually had the power and the ability and the connections to effect change.  When I hear Obama talking about bringing change to Washington - as if he hasn't already been in DC for the last 3 1/2 years - I wonder why he hasn't made a real effort to do it as a United States Senator.

    Talk that is not followed by action doesn't mean much to me - it tells me that it was said for reasons that had more to do with self-interest.

    Look at Obama's history - it's been all about him, and he's glued on a thin veneer of public service to hide the fact that he's in this for himself.

    Is the presidency going to be enough for him?  Will reaching that goal be the pinnacle of his career, or will he grow bored and petulant, and tire of the hard work, when the adulation inevitably stops?

    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:35:49 PM EST
    >Is the presidency going to be enough for him?  Will reaching that goal be the pinnacle of his career, or will he grow bored and petulant, and tire of the hard work, when the adulation inevitably stops?

    er...what is it you're getting at exactly?  Are you accusing him of running for Pope, too?

    I guess Obama's self-evident megalomania do stand out in sharp contrast next to those shrinking violets, Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Practically had to drag them back into the spotlight.

    [ Parent ]

    Bill and Hillary Clinton have actually (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Anne on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:50:43 PM EST
    worked for what they believe in - no one's handed them anything, they've never treated each rise up the ladder as just another resume item that had nothing behind it.  Can you honestly tell me that his chairmanship of the Foreign Relations subcommittee is more than resume padding?

    I'm not suggesting that Obama is looking to be King of the World, but I do question why he wants to be president, because I don't see the hard work and devotion to causes and principles that I think are important indicators of someone's work ethic.  Heck, I can't really even pinpoint what he believes in, because he's constantly tweaking it, and never not finding a little piece here and a little piece there that he can sell off or chip away at so that he can present a position that is acceptable to some segment of the electorate.  Where is the line for him?  When does he close the door on political expediency because principle is more important?

    Sorry - I see nothing about him that suggests he really wants to work hard - so why does he want what may be the hardest job there is?

    [ Parent ]

    Re: Bill and Hillary Clinton have actually (none / 0) (#37)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:20:27 PM EST
    I guess I just have a knee-jerk response to criticisms of any candidate that try to peer into their soul and intuit what they truly want.  The so-called character issues.  I have no interest in whether a candidate is a jerk who is mean to his kids and lies about his golf game.  And that's the level of this criticism as far as I'm concerned.  His work ethic?  Come on.  If you want to criticize specifics, sure, I'm all for that.  His health care is too timid for me.  I wish it hadn't taken him so long to commit to withdrawal from Iraq, and I know once he's elected it's still going to take a lot of pressure from us to get him to follow through.  I'd like to hear a stronger plan for homeowners with failing mortgages.  These are all real, valid criticisms, and even his strongest supporters owe it to him and to themselves to call him on things like those.

    "Obama is lazy and arrogant," however, is kind of a waste of time.  It makes Clinton supporters nod their head in approval, Obama supporters sigh in annoyance, and the squabbling continues.

    [ Parent ]

    I can't speak for Anne (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by tree on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:55:17 PM EST
    but my take on what she is saying is that Obama's history as we know it shows little of a principled stand on beliefs but shows a lot of self-interest and interest in rising in political power for its own sake. See articles about this here and here

    I'm not into "psychoanalyzing" politicians either, but I think it is important to know their history and Obama's history shows that he's perfectly willing to shift in the wind if it benefits his political career. I have no idea if there is any issue that he feels strongly enough to risk any political capital on. I don't want to rely on a candidate like that, and I can understand Anne's question about whether he will grow bored with the Presidency. If his history shows that his main interest in elective office is to propel himself into higher political office, what does he do when he can't go any higher? Is the game over?

    [ Parent ]

    Re: I can't speak for Anne (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:25:22 PM EST
    >Obama's history shows that he's perfectly willing to shift in the wind if it benefits his political career.

    Unfortunately, I'd say that describes at least two thirds of the Democratic Party.  It's a lot more politically acceptible to be far-right in the GOP than far-left here, alas.

    And not that he invented this, but...the modern master of this has to be Bill Clinton.  Triangulation on welfare "reform" is the worst example that springs to mind.  Beating Republicans to the center-right to steal their thunder.  I'll take the criticism of Obama as fair, but both Clintons have certainly done their share of lunging towards the right for short-term political gains.  Recent examples include supporting McCain's useless and unsound gas tax holiday, and threatening total annihilation of Iran if they dare attack Israel.  (Israel's nuclear stockpile: 150-200 warheads.  Iran's nuclear stockpile: somewhere between zero and one.)

    I guess I don't understand the question.  Is Obama going to get bored with being president and go on a crazy road-trip with four old college buddies?  What exactly is the contention, he'll start nuclear wars and embargos just to see what happens?  I don't get it.

    [ Parent ]

    Whether someone (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Iris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:44:34 PM EST
    will fight and not bow to pressure on the issues that count means a lot!  If Andrew Sullivan or other Obamacons insist that he veto "socialized medicine," would he?

    My point is we don't know.  Hillary would not bow to that kind of pressure, as she has evidenced in this campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    Less sleep (none / 0) (#27)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:42:55 PM EST
    I think.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry for the flippancy (none / 0) (#30)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:50:12 PM EST
    But your pseudo-psychoanalyzing of Obama's "real motives" was a little too Maureen Dowd.

    [ Parent ]
    Well yes (none / 0) (#32)
    by kayla on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:51:56 PM EST
    I basically agree.  I do wish he had spent more time as an anti-war type of guy.  He certainly had a lot of resources to make a difference.  

    This might sound demeaning to some Obama supporters, and I don't mean it to be at all, but I think Obama would have made (or maybe will make) a great activist or civil rights leader.  It's like he's wasting his talents running for president.  I really do believe that there are too few of those types of motivators out there and Obama has an amazing talent to bring people together and inspire.  I'm not one of the ones inspired by him, but I still can recognize that talent and if he stood for something bigger than himself, I'd probably be an Obamaphile, too.

    [ Parent ]

    No. (none / 0) (#19)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:05:41 PM EST
    That is good for something.

    Not at all.  He was an unknown outsider.

    [ Parent ]

    Look (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by kayla on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:43:52 PM EST
    I'm trying to give the guy some credit here. ;)

    [ Parent ]
    As someone who lives in suburban Chicago, I can (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by gabbyone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:52:54 PM EST
    tell you that not only was Obama a virtual unknown when he gave the speech, but the speech was not even noticed.  In fact 99% of the people here would tell you they never heard of that speech until he used it to start running for office.  The story that day was Jessie Jackson.  The newspapers never even mentioned Obama and there was no television news coverage of him.  It was not a courageous speech because in liberal Chicago many people felt the same way. The speech was not recorded and when Obama needed it for campaign purposes he had to go into a studio and record it. (including crowd noises.) When Obama began running for the Senate, it was not unusual for even local news reporters to slip and call him Osama, not in disrespect but because they had never heard of Obama but knew the name Osama. He became the candidate for the Senate by default, not from a hard run campaign as he would have you believe.
    Before I get accused of saying this because I support Clinton, I went to many fundraisers for Obama and worked in the suburban districts for him.  I didn't object to him being my Senator, I still believed the same hype we are all getting now but President is an entirely different thing.
    He is Axelrod created.  If you want to see another Axelrod creation...go read about the Governor of MA - Duval Patrick.

    I was at the famous speech (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by fiver2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:12:44 PM EST
    as I posted here yesterday, I think.  There wasn't much courage in what he said.  There were at least 15,000 people crammed into the blocks around Federal Plaza and most of the Chicago political leadership got before the microphone at some point that evening.  Leaders of various unions and non-profits spoke, too.  Some were sedate.  Some were rabble-rousing.  Their messages were completely diverse, so I don't see anything remarkable about Obama's message in context.  The most rousing speaker was a fellow whose conviction recently had been reversed -- actual innocence -- and who'd recently been released from prison.  He was the one who wrapped things up and inspired us all to file out of the Plaza toward Lakeshore Drive.

    I don't remember hearing Obama although I wasn't that familiar with him at the time and I don't doubt that he did give some version of the text he published later.  

    I, too, volunteered for his Senate campaign, and gave him a little money but his election was never in any doubt so I spent most of my energies elsewhere that cycle.  I became disillusioned with him pretty quickly after he hit Washington, though.  He let progressives down big-time starting in the days prior to the Roberts confirmation fight, and his statement afterward infuriated me.

    [ Parent ]

    I just realized (none / 0) (#56)
    by abfabdem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:39:35 AM EST
    from reading this thread that I was at that march and rally too!  And I sure don't remember hearing him speak. I've read about the famous 2002 anti-war speech but I never realized where he gave it. So I must have heard it, but as other writers have commented it must not have stood out in my mind as there were so many speakers.  And now to find out he re-creatd it on a soundstage?  That is so weird.  

    [ Parent ]
    Weird? (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:10:49 PM EST
    And now to find out he re-creatd it on a soundstage?  That is so weird.

    How would you have recorded it? On your telephone answering machine? Obviously he thought it important enough to record it properly. Why do you have a problem with that?

    [ Parent ]

    I personally have no problem w/ (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:12:14 PM EST
    recording it later; but I would like to see the original notes/transcript, if any.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes Me Too (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:14:17 PM EST
    Considering that I do not trust either candidate on Iraq, it would help to have more detail.

    [ Parent ]
    Any information as to what he actually (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:58:36 PM EST
    sd. at Federal Plaza?  

    [ Parent ]
    According to NPR (none / 0) (#36)
    by karen for Clinton on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:13:16 PM EST
    Transcripts and video do not exist.  It wasn't reported in any newspapers at the time of the speech either.

    Obama recreated it... supposedly.  I don't watch obamavideo and I haven't seen his recreation.

    I was at NYPAC daily for years volunteering during NAM. Some speeches I heard moved me dramatically and many of them were famous folks but nobody hit me harder than a guy in a wheelchair outside of Fort Dix NJ at a small gathering in the rain.  Decades later I have no idea what he said but I still carry him with me everywhere I have gone since that day.

    [ Parent ]

    What stood out for me was this: (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:31:33 PM EST
    Still, Mr. Khalidi said ascertaining Mr. Obama's precise position was often difficult. "You may come away thinking, `Wow, he agrees with me,' " he said. "But later, when you get home and think about it, you are not sure."

    And he couldn't even decide on his own what to say -- had to go to Axelrod for guidance.

    Sounds like he's still the same.  

    Changes for what he believes in -- at the time.

    Why only one speech in October 2002? (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by tree on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:37:57 PM EST
    Here's my take: The real important protests against the war happened in January and February of 2003. And yet the only, and oft-repeated, argument in favor of Obama's "judgment" on the war was a pretty uninspiring and tame speech he gave at an anti-war rally in Chicago in October of 2002: a rally that had the blessing of the Chicago machine. Not only did he have to be contacted a few days prior in order to be urged to make the speech, he had to check it out with others to see if it wouldn't politically damage him, according to the NY Times story linked above.  He was running unopposed for the IL State Senate in a district that was heavily anti-war at the time of the speech.

    He decided to run for US Senate in January 2003, and I can't find any indication that his war "opposition" consisted of anything other than one speech in October of 2002. Did he do anything to oppose it in January or February of 2003? Certainly not anything that he would like the voter to know about. I consider the actions and protests in January and February of 2003 to have been much more important and relevant for opposing the war. We all know that he took his October speech off his website in the summer of 2003, and then resurrected it for his Presidential run. And, of course, he has done nothing to lead the fight to end the war as a US Senator.

      As for the AUMF vote, which happened a week later in October of 2002, I, like Obama, can't say for sure how I would have voted had I been in the Senate that day, but I do know that one result of the vote was the UN Resolution that got the inspectors into Iraq again. I think that Bush and co. were spoiling for war no matter what but I also know that the UN inspections were the only hope, however small, that the war could have been avoided. The UN inspections were in fact one of the catalysts for the massive anti-war protests in February 2003. And if it hadn't been for the UN inspections, we would have never been able to prove that the whole justification of the war was bogus.

      If Obama was really a leader and a critic of the war based on moral judgment, why haven't we heard about anything but ONE speech in October of 2002.  What did he do to try to stop it?

    This was the "fairy tale" (none / 0) (#57)
    by abfabdem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:42:07 AM EST
    Bill Clinton was referring to, but his point got lost in the racism charges so no one was brave enough to bring it up again after that.  Now look where that's gotten us!!

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:24:41 PM EST


    Indeed, in principle. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:30:24 PM EST
    But I'd still like to know exactly what he sd. at Federal Plaza, as opposed to the newer version.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for that. (none / 0) (#13)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:56:32 PM EST
    Rewriting history while we're making it.

    Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

    [ Parent ]

    Eeeek! (none / 0) (#11)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:52:25 PM EST
    Barack Obama was right and courageous to oppose the Iraq Debacle in 2002.

    No one knew who this guy was in 2002.  Especially this from a guy whose middle name is Hussein.

    It was a speech that he had to redo, wasn't it?

    He gets nothing from this.

    Nothing.  

    I don't see that his middle name (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:55:33 PM EST
    has any relevance.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh. (none / 0) (#15)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:59:20 PM EST
    I agree.  But let's see his original speech.

    Of course, he wasn't running for president then.  He wouldn't have had a chance.

    [ Parent ]

    WTF? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:57:25 PM EST
    What does his middlename have to do with anything?

    [ Parent ]
    He did just fine (none / 0) (#16)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:02:12 PM EST
    in Chicago, didn't he.

    [ Parent ]
    Nothing whatsoever (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:31:35 PM EST
    But the Republicans will probably post that comment here in the fall, so we owe it to the party and the country to post it first.  We like to think of it as vetting.

    [ Parent ]
    Laughy face. (none / 0) (#24)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:32:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I disagee it was right for Obama (none / 0) (#48)
    by Saul on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:13:23 AM EST
    The speech was given strictly for political reasons.  He knew that he had nothing to fear in making this speech since his district was almost totally against the war.  There was no political risk.  He knew way before 9-11 and Iraq that he was going to run for the  u.s. senator and the presidency.  This man had these plans way ahead of time.  It was very welled plan from the get go.  Remember after becoming Illinois senator for only two years he ran for U.S. Congressman but lost.  Too overly ambitious for my taste.  I feel Obama  said the heck with experience, I going to from kindergaden to  my PHD without having to pay any of the typical tenure dues all the other politicians have done in the past.

    When he became U.S. Sentor he switched his thinking again for political expediency.  He knew if he kept being against supporting the war he would be looked as being unpatriotic and not supporting the troops and this would effect his higher political ambitions and that was a huge voting bloc he could not afford to disenfranchise.

    Hilary had an excuse to support the war becasue she voted for it. Obama did not.

    If you are truly against something you stick with it and do not worry how it affects you politically.

    I had asked in past threads of all the senators that voted against the Iraq resolution to go to war how many stayed true to it by not supporting any of the financial bill to keep the war going. I was told that Senator Feingold was the only one.  If that is true then that is what I mean by sticking to your guns no matter what the political heat you will get.  That is courage.  Why did not Obama do that.  In fact Feingold  if the his voting record is correct, IMO is to be more respected than Obama.

    I do not trust Obama now that I know what I know  about him and plenty of this negative knowledge and facts came from reading TL. I feel he has hoodwink and bamboozled the majority of the voters on who he really is  and his beautifully rhetoric should be looked with suspicion.  

    I always wondered why Obama lost MA big time. Double digits.  He had Ted Kennedy, Kerry, Gov Patrick, and the daughter of John Kennedy all endorsing him.  If there was a state he should had a rout in it was this one.  I called the Boston Globe and asked this very question.  Their reply was that it was not so much a vote for Hilary as it was a vote against Patrick.  Patrick is a clone of Obama in style and rhetoric.  I think Obama copied him. Patrick just like Obama gave the beautifully charismatic speeches with many reference to Martin Luther King and John Kennedy and of course the voters feel in love with him just like they have for Obama.  The paper said that since Patrick got elected he had not lived up to his rhetoric or promises and several scandals erupted after he was elected.  He chose to have a Cadillac instead of the Ford car that was afforded to the Governor.  Also he changed all the curtains in the Governor's mansion and charged it to the tax payers.  The people when they saw Obama campaign said we have seen this ploy before so we are not going to be fooled again. So they voted for Hilary.

    x (none / 0) (#49)
    by Mary Mary on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:41:17 AM EST
    The stakes were a wee bit higher for Clark and Dean, though, weren't they? I think it's insulting to them to make such a comparison.

    They were not running for office (none / 0) (#50)
    by Saul on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:15:12 AM EST
    Many of the those that voted for the Iraq resolution  voted at a time when it was a mid term election.  They feared for their political lives so they voted for the resolution though deep down inside they did not want to.  Dean and Clark were not running for anything. No comparison to someone in a office picked by voters.  It was easier for them like even the common voter to condemn the invasion.

    You can rest assure that if Obama's Illinois district was for the invasion or had he had some opposition to his Illinois seat he would have never given the speech.  He researched to see how politically damaging it would be to him before he decided it was ok to give the speech.  That is not courage that is just being a politician.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Mary Mary on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:07:54 AM EST
    Dean was not running for office? Clark didn't intend to run for office? In late 2003?

    [ Parent ]
    I stand corrected you are right (none / 0) (#55)
    by Saul on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:01:07 AM EST
    I was referring to people already in office.  Dean and Clark probably felt that being opposed to the war was a positive thing to them since neither were in an elected office at the time like  Kerry and Edwards were.  I believe Dean could not run for governor of Vermont again since he was there for 5 2year terms already and had made up his mind to run for the presidency.  I might be wrong. Would have Dean and Clark said those things had they been in the U.S. congress and were hoping for re election?

      My point is that those already in congress and  even more for those who  were up for reelection during that  midterm year were greatly pressured into voting for the Iraq resolution even though they did not want to.  Kerry and Edwards voted for the resolution mostly because they were in office and their constituencies at that time probably favored the invasion.   You got to remember that at the time most not all of the people were in lynch mob mentality and they wanted some one to pay for 9-11 and Bush and his administration knew that and said we got the public and the congress just where we want them.  They won't say no to the invasion

    My main point is if a politician  is willing to risk his political office by never wavering on his beliefs then I say what he or she said or did was the right thing but if you change your view for political expedience then I say no you were not right in what you said.   Obama again had no risk when he gave the speech and was aware of that and then later change his mind for political expediency  when he later became U.S. Senator because he knew he was going to run for the presidency.  His speech although good in the context got ruined for the real reasons he was giving it.  IMO then he was not right.  

    [ Parent ]

    They were not running for office (none / 0) (#51)
    by Saul on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:31:22 AM EST
    Many of the those that voted for the Iraq resolution  voted at a time when it was a mid term election.  They feared for their political lives so they voted for the resolution though deep down inside they did not want to.  Dean and Clark were not running for anything. No comparison to someone in an office picked by voters. Yet their decision against the war was the right choice  It was easier for them like even the common voter to condemn the invasion.

    You can rest assure that if Obama's Illinois district was for the invasion or had he had some opposition to his Illinois seat Obama would have never given the speech.  He researched to see how politically damaging it would be to him before he decided it was ok to give the speech.  That is not courage that is just being a politician who is checking the wind before he makes a decsion. Had Obamam risked his political life like Senator Feingold did then I would have respect for Obama and his speech.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, You are absolutely correct to (none / 0) (#52)
    by bslev22 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:43:01 AM EST
    point this out.  Senator Obama said the right things in October of 2002 about Iraq, and Senator Clinton was wrong.  It means nothing to me in terms of my unequivocal support for Senator Clinton, which is not based on any notion that I agree with everything that she has ever  said or done in her life. Senator Obama is a politician, yes, and perhaps he made his speech for political reasons.  But sometimes a politician can be political and correct at the same time.  

    He was not right in the true sense of being right. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Saul on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:12:03 AM EST
    You can rest assure that if Obama's Illinois district was for the invasion or had he had some opposition to his Illinois seat Obama would have never given the speech.  He researched to see how politically damaging it would be to him before he decided it was ok to give the speech.  That is not courage or being right that is just being a politician who is checking the wind before he makes a decision. Had Obama risked his political life like Senator Feingold did then I would have respect for Obama and his speech. Then and only then can you say that Obama did the right thing.


    A Defense Of Obama On Iraq | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment