How Did Obama Oppose the War?

Axiom_Blade

Unregistered
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
2,979
Okay, I keep hearing from Obama about how he's "opposed the war from the beginning".
That's all well and good, but what did he do to show his disapproval?

Did he speak out? Did he go to rallies and protests? Did he petition his representatives?
 
Okay, I keep hearing from Obama about how he's "opposed the war from the beginning".
That's all well and good, but what did he do to show his disapproval?

Did he speak out? Did he go to rallies and protests? Did he petition his representatives?

Yes. Yes. Don't know.
 
Okay, I keep hearing from Obama about how he's "opposed the war from the beginning".
That's all well and good, but what did he do to show his disapproval?

Did he speak out? Did he go to rallies and protests? Did he petition his representatives?
Against Going to War with Iraq

Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois; at the same day and hour that President Bush and Congress announced their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, but over a week before it was passed by either body of Congress.

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.

I wouldn't know about petitioning his representatives, but I'm sure some of 'em noticed that he had views.
 
Yes. He opposed it in part because he believed it was an attempt by Karl Rove to distract the public.

No, seriously.

His remedy was containment. However, even in containment Saddam was building new palaces with funds. The idea that somehow Iraq was going to collapse under containment was naive at best and completely ignorant at worst.

His opposition to the Iraq war sounds great in sound bites but when you dissect his reasons why all you get is ignorance and woo.
 
Yes. He opposed it in part because he believed it was an attempt by Karl Rove to distract the public.

No, seriously.

His remedy was containment. However, even in containment Saddam was building new palaces with funds. The idea that somehow Iraq was going to collapse under containment was naive at best and completely ignorant at worst.

His opposition to the Iraq war sounds great in sound bites but when you dissect his reasons why all you get is ignorance and woo.

The predictable political jab at the Bush Admin's domestic policies is hardly the most pertinent part of his criticism. You seem to have entirely glossed over the crucial part of his rationale against the war, except for one little optimistic rhetorical flare. I'll repeat what you failed to address in bold:

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.

He's not putting forth anything like a permanent solution to Saddam Hussein's regime in this speech. He's just saying that a full-scale invasion, especially at that point in time, would be reckless and completely unnecessary. He turned out to be right. Also keep in mind that he's speaking at an anti-war rally. Do you really think he's going to say, "..in concert with the international community he can be contained, unless at some point the international community agrees he's gotten too far out of line, at which point we will take appropriate military measures with UN authorization."?
 
He's not putting forth anything like a permanent solution to Saddam Hussein's regime in this speech. He's just saying that a full-scale invasion, especially at that point in time, would be reckless and completely unnecessary.

Except that pre-911, we weren't talking about containment and were instead talking about lifting sanctions on Iraq because "the children were suffering". Pre-911 the zeitgeist was moving toward non-containment.

Obama only seems correct in hindsight because the future his side wanted never happened. However, if we had never pursued invasion and had instead let lifting of sanctions continue, we would have another Iran in the making since the Iraqi scientists confirmed that Saddam wanted the centrifuges dug up after sanctions were lifted.

The idea that the present vindicates Obama's viewpoint at the time (riddled with conspiracy woo as it was) ignores the fact that the alternative he discussed was only an alternative because Bush pushed for regime change. If Bush had never pushed for regime change, there would not have been people clamoring for Iraq containment.
 
Except that pre-911, we weren't talking about containment and were instead talking about lifting sanctions on Iraq because "the children were suffering". Pre-911 the zeitgeist was moving toward non-containment.

Obama only seems correct in hindsight because the future his side wanted never happened. However, if we had never pursued invasion and had instead let lifting of sanctions continue, we would have another Iran in the making since the Iraqi scientists confirmed that Saddam wanted the centrifuges dug up after sanctions were lifted.

The idea that the present vindicates Obama's viewpoint at the time (riddled with conspiracy woo as it was) ignores the fact that the alternative he discussed was only an alternative because Bush pushed for regime change. If Bush had never pushed for regime change, there would not have been people clamoring for Iraq containment.
Had the sanctions been lifted we would be dealing with 2 nut-case governments next door to each other intent on getting nukes.
 
Except that pre-911, we weren't talking about containment and were instead talking about lifting sanctions on Iraq because "the children were suffering". Pre-911 the zeitgeist was moving toward non-containment.
His speech took place post-9/11.

Obama only seems correct in hindsight because the future his side wanted never happened. However, if we had never pursued invasion and had instead let lifting of sanctions continue, we would have another Iran in the making since the Iraqi scientists confirmed that Saddam wanted the centrifuges dug up after sanctions were lifted.
Obama seems correct in hindsight because he was. Bush was not stuck choosing between letting the lifting of sanctions continue and invading. There was at least one other alternative--containment.

The idea that the present vindicates Obama's viewpoint at the time (riddled with conspiracy woo as it was) ignores the fact that the alternative he discussed was only an alternative because Bush pushed for regime change. If Bush had never pushed for regime change, there would not have been people clamoring for Iraq containment.
Huh? You don't give credit to Obama for pointing out that there was an alternative to invasion because if Bush didn't push for invasion it wouldn't have been an alternative?

What leads you to believe that no one would have reconsidered the lifting of sanctions without Bush pushing for invasion? I would expect any president to reevaluate the country's entire foreign policy in the Middle East after an event like 9/11.
 
Obama seems correct in hindsight because he was. Bush was not stuck choosing between letting the lifting of sanctions continue and invading. There was at least one other alternative--containment.
Not if Saddam was really developing WMDs. What this boils down to is: Do you think Bush believed Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction?
 
Not if Saddam was really developing WMDs. What this boils down to is: Do you think Bush believed Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction?
Why not if Saddam was really developing WMDs? Yes, I think a lot of people believed it. Containment options were not even close to being exhausted.

As it turns out, North Korea actually has been developing WMDs, and curiously enough, a policy of containment seems to be working brilliantly.
 
Or maybe our policy of dealing with China, who holds North Korea's leash.

There was no other world power to tell Saddam to quit it.
 
Why not if Saddam was really developing WMDs? Yes, I think a lot of people believed it. Containment options were not even close to being exhausted.

Weapons inspectors were expelled, Saddam was firing on our aircraft in the no-fly zone, Oil-for-Food was a sham, economic sanctions were failing and, as you said, a great number of people genuinely believed he was developing WMDs. Containment was viewed to clearly be failing.

As it turns out, North Korea actually has been developing WMDs, and curiously enough, a policy of containment seems to be working brilliantly.

Brilliantly is a vast overstatement. They all ready have nuclear weapons, have tested them and are within range of striking the capital of South Korea. We have only recently (in the last week or so) started to see any genuine progress and it remains to be seen how far that will go.
 
I just wanted to point out that if the "failed" containment would have led to such dire consequences if the sanctions were lifted, then that means they were surely accomplishing something (if only avoiding those consequences).
 
I just wanted to point out that if the "failed" containment would have led to such dire consequences if the sanctions were lifted, then that means they were surely accomplishing something (if only avoiding those consequences).
They were leading to dire consequences with the sanctions in place.

Similar to our (supposedly) "brilliant" policy of containment in North Korea, which still allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons while the Dear Leader lived in the lap of luxury and exercised absolute power over his starving citizens.
 
We still had to make a choice. Each choice had some tragic consequences. My personal preference would have been to continue containment during the initial stages of our WOT while we still had lots of allies.
 
His speech took place post-9/11.


I realize that. My point was, people were only clamoring for containment because it was an alternative to regime change. Lifting of sanctions despite non-compliance was the trend before Bush started making the case for regime change.
 
"I don’t oppose all wars. 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 [former Pentagon policy adviser] Richard Perle and [Deputy Defense Secretary] Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, 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."
-Barack Obama-

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/17/20754/427
 
Against Going to War with Iraq

Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois;
Obama preaches to the choir. Big stinking deal.

His opposition was impotent, as compared to those who voted for and against the war at the time.

DR
 
Obama preaches to the choir. Big stinking deal.

His opposition was impotent, as compared to those who voted for and against the war at the time.

DR

Well, if he did all he could at the time, I don't see how you can fault him for that.
 

Back
Top Bottom