One more time for the kid in the back

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Obama: I'm not against wars but

COLUMN FOR THE HYDE PARK HERALD FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2002
by Senator Barack Obama, D-13

The following is a speech that I gave at a recent rally regarding the situation in Iraq. The rally was downtown at Federal Plaza and several Hyde Parkers attended:

Good afternoon. Let 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 Administrations 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 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 Perles 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 Roves 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 thru the worst month since the Great Depression.

That?s what Im 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 Queda.


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 Queda, thru 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 in 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.


Let there be no illusions about Obama's world view, his wisdom, or his grasp of the consequences of poor foreign policy, what some of us in the know might have heard called the Bush Doctrine.

Let there be no mistake that each and every single one of Obama's predictions in 2002 about the war which Bush and his friends were hyping came true in a frighteningly accurate way. Let there be no mistake through partisan revisionist history that Saddam was anything but a local dictator, such as exist all over the world even today, who even in their professed hatred for the United States, have little if any international reach. Let there be no mistake that after seeing each and every one of his fears realized by the inept leadership of the administration in power that the mere thought of committing another 30,000 troops into the line of fire seemed the height of folly not just to Obama, but to over 80% of the American people, nearly every Democrat, and a majority of Republicans. Let there be no mistake that this man is not afraid to confront terrorism, and evil, and do what is necessary to defeat them.

In the face of unrelenting and overwhelming criticism and uncertainty about this "mysterious" Barack Hussein Obama, let there be no mistake about who he really is, what he really knows, and what he stands for.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
And yet he's so quick to place further sanctions on Iran. Seems like he didn't learn from Bill's mistakes.

And BTW, Ron Paul stood up many, many times trying to change people's minds about going into Iraq as well. And we see where that got him.
 

AAjax

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2001
3,798
0
0
Funny, when running for senate he pledged to block war funding and then proceeded to rubber stamp evey war funding bill that came accross his desk.

Change you can believe in,,,,,,, Cough
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
You should work for the guy, man. ;) But yes, he has always been right about the war.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
And yet he's so quick to place further sanctions on Iran. Seems like he didn't learn from Bill's mistakes.

He'd be stupid not to, frankly.

And BTW, Ron Paul stood up many, many times trying to change people's minds about going into Iraq as well. And we see where that got him.

Except Ron Paul thinks the same things no matter what the circumstances.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
For me still a major and discerning reason why Obama's wisdom and judgement is better than the Maverick's, who may be three decades older than him, but indicative that another three decades probably still wouldn't give him the intellgence and competence to see a similar situation as properly as Obama did.
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Originally posted by: AAjax
Funny, when running for senate he pledged to block war funding and then proceeded to rubber stamp evey war funding bill that came accross his desk.

Change you can believe in,,,,,,, Cough

Of course - we were already committed to the war. If he chose NOT to fund the war, republicans would be all over him today for "not supporting the troops".
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: bamacre
And yet he's so quick to place further sanctions on Iran. Seems like he didn't learn from Bill's mistakes.

He'd be stupid not to, frankly.

Yeah, because they did wonders for Iraq...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S1YkQs5nXQ

Explain in detail how either country is remotely close to the same situation. Come on, we know you can't.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
In 2002 Obama was a nobody who represented one of the most liberal districts in his state.

He got up and gave a speech that matched the ideas of 90% of the people in his precinct.
There is NOTHING brave about this speech. It had no long term meaning outside of his district. He did not have to stand up to party leaders or other Democrats who supported the war. He had no vote on the war. All he had to do was stand up and say what the people who elected him wanted him to say.

If you want to impress me then show me a time in which Obama stood up against his party leaders and took a stance that was not popular with them or the people who voted him into office.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In 2002 Obama was a nobody who represented one of the most liberal districts in his state.

He got up and gave a speech that matched the ideas of 90% of the people in his precinct.
There is NOTHING brave about this speech. It had no long term meaning outside of his district. He did not have to stand up to party leaders or other Democrats who supported the war. He had no vote on the war. All he had to do was stand up and say what the people who elected him wanted him to say.

If you want to impress me then show me a time in which Obama stood up against his party leaders and took a stance that was not popular with them or the people who voted him into office.
Agreed - BUT in 2002 he was also smart enough to know he was also against the majority of the democrat party on this (as the dems like to forget). He registered his discontent when most were openly supportive, and I think he did it pretty well. He knew that at some point the words could be used against him....

Thanks for the read, OP.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Actually the majority of Democrats in the house voted No.
And while the majority of Democrat Senators voted yes when you add the house and Senate together you see that the majority of Democrats in office were against the war.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: bamacre
And yet he's so quick to place further sanctions on Iran. Seems like he didn't learn from Bill's mistakes.

He'd be stupid not to, frankly.

Yeah, because they did wonders for Iraq...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S1YkQs5nXQ

Explain in detail how either country is remotely close to the same situation. Come on, we know you can't.

Like Iraq, Iran is no threat to the USA.

Unlike Iraq, Iran hasn't invaded another country in 200 years.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: bamacre

Like Iraq, Iran is no threat to the USA.

Unlike Iraq, Iran hasn't invaded another country in 200 years.

Iran is a threat to the U.S. and to deny otherwise shows a poor understanding of its effect on the ME; for example, it's continued defiance of nuclear sanctions and refusal for years to come to the diplomacy table to negotiate its position, hurts its government's credibility. It's particularly dangerous when Iranian government-backed weapons/militia/influence have killed U.S. soldiers in Iraq. These are all facts that make it a threat.

And I said describe in detail. You didn't and we all know you can't, I'm afraid.
 

AAjax

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2001
3,798
0
0
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: AAjax
Funny, when running for senate he pledged to block war funding and then proceeded to rubber stamp evey war funding bill that came accross his desk.

Change you can believe in,,,,,,, Cough

Of course - we were already committed to the war. If he chose NOT to fund the war, republicans would be all over him today for "not supporting the troops".

Obama has been a senator since 2005, During his senate run we were already committed to the war, thus the empty promises.
 

Ballatician

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2007
1,985
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In 2002 Obama was a nobody who represented one of the most liberal districts in his state.

He got up and gave a speech that matched the ideas of 90% of the people in his precinct.
There is NOTHING brave about this speech. It had no long term meaning outside of his district. He did not have to stand up to party leaders or other Democrats who supported the war. He had no vote on the war. All he had to do was stand up and say what the people who elected him wanted him to say.

If you want to impress me then show me a time in which Obama stood up against his party leaders and took a stance that was not popular with them or the people who voted him into office.

Is it bad that he is supporting the views of the people who put him in office?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Nothing brave?

He bucked his entire party and the nation by opposing this war in 2002.
No, over half his party vote against the war. He was going along with the majority of Democrats in opposing the war.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,395
2
81
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb


And BTW, Ron Paul stood up many, many times trying to change people's minds about going into Iraq as well. And we see where that got him.

Except Ron Paul thinks the same things no matter what the circumstances.

That's called a man of principle, actually.
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Originally posted by: AAjax
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: AAjax
Funny, when running for senate he pledged to block war funding and then proceeded to rubber stamp evey war funding bill that came accross his desk.

Change you can believe in,,,,,,, Cough

Of course - we were already committed to the war. If he chose NOT to fund the war, republicans would be all over him today for "not supporting the troops".

Obama has been a senator since 2005, During his senate run we were already committed to the war, thus the empty promises.

Regardless of whether he was in the US senate or not, the guy had the cojones to jeopardize his long-term political career by coming out strongly against what was a very popular war at the time.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: Brigandier
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb


And BTW, Ron Paul stood up many, many times trying to change people's minds about going into Iraq as well. And we see where that got him.

Except Ron Paul thinks the same things no matter what the circumstances.

That's called a man of principle, actually.

Sometimes. Most of the time though, it's called being stubborn. Believing in creationism 150 years ago as a viable alternative to evolution? Stupid, but at least understandable. Believing in creationism today after decades of independent, lab-proven reproduction of evolutionary behavior? Outright ignorance plain and simple.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,531
2
81
Jesus F'ing Christ Prof - would it kill you to once give credit where credit is due? How many SENATORS voted with Obama against the war? How many DEMOCRATIC senators voted against the war? His stance on the war at that time was his own - and if you can't see the wisdom in that stance - and how true it rings today - then nothing can help you. Show me another senator or Rep that spoke out against the war in anything close to the speech that is listed here.

You are exactly the kind of person that is at the very heart of what is wrong with our country - you think it's 'my way or the highway' on every single issue - and there can be no diversion from your side's vision. At least GenX has the guts to admit fault at times in the hands of a Republican.

It's such a middle-ages approach to things it's not even funny.

Make Palin a democrat for a minute, and make her Obama's VP pick - you would have written a damn novel by now about how unexperienced and unqualified she is for VP - but put her on your team and she's chock full of experience.

Al Gore makes a movie about global warming, and he's the devil for it - Newt Gingrich co-authors a book about nearly the same thing and it goes unmentioned.


Let's compare this speech to the current BS being thrown around - that Obama was wrong about the surge - there is even a 2nd grade website now, thetruthaboutthesurge.org, or something idiotic along those lines -

How about we compare Obama being wrong about the surge (which McCain is also on record as questioning whether or not it would work - but lets not let facts get in the way of a good talking point) to Obama being right about the war, and McCain and the rest of the Bush team being on the wrong side of that decision - you tell me which is more important, or who showed better judgement.