Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran

[Aidoneus]

Ah, "rising star"..

Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran
By Tom Mackaman
1 October 2004

In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published September 26, Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said he would favor the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation’s nuclear arsenal.

Obama, the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention, is being hailed as a “rising star” in the Democratic Party. In his Tribune interview, he said explicitly what is implicit in repeated statements by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and other party leaders. They have frequently attacked the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq on the grounds that it is diverting attention from supposedly greater threats, in particular Iran and North Korea.

Obama told the Tribune, “he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?”

Answering his own question, Obama said, “I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”

Obama advanced a racist argument for attacks on Iran and Pakistan. Making a comparison between the “Islamic world” and the Soviet Union, he argued that the religious outlook of Iranians and Pakistanis made them less prone to compromise and reason and more warlike.

--snip--

Obama’s statements underscore the Democratic Party’s acceptance in principle of the “Bush Doctrine” of preventive war—a doctrine that contravenes international law and provides a rationale for US military interventions against any country deemed an obstacle to US imperialist interests around the world.

The African-American Democrat is being groomed for national leadership. His speech at the Democratic convention, a homily on hard work, individual responsibility and the American dream, would have been well received at a Republican convention not so many years ago. But in 2004, Obama is passed off as a “progressive” politician.

--snip--

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/obam-o01.shtml

[bloom]

1. "being groomed for national leadership"

I guess that means advocating pre-emptive war.

:puke:

[livinbella]

37. We need to re-groom him while he still has credibility

Doesn't this guy have handlers.
Every dim-witted remark he makes will come back to haunt
him in the future.

[KittyWampus]

56. It's A Misleading Headline But Of Course Some People

need to believe the spin used to manipulate the far-Left.

So many people on the far-Left are so freaking gullible.

And actually not too well informed.

:eyes:

P.S. A Socialist paper writing and spinning this crap reminds me of Nader. They probably want to kill of the Democratic Party just as much as Nader. So the GOP and Socialist Party have the same goal.

[RoyGBiv]

2. Misleading headline ...

Obama's statements are not a "call" for surgical strikes.

Is the World Socialist Website a valid LBN news source?

OnEdit: This is reporting on a story from Sept. 26th.

[Rose Siding]

8. This article is an editorializing crock

Obama made a "racist argument" :eyes:

They even hated Howard Dean.

[livinbella]

43. Perhaps, but are the quotes accurate and in context?

I think they are. So, perhaps he has made some
stupid, ill-advised statements.
If so, let's put the boot to his ass till he dummies up.
There is no advantage to making believe he did not say
what he said.

[Rose Siding]

46. Did you read the real article? Trib link's posted down in the thread.

And (HUGE surprise here) the wsjs didn't even ask Obama for a quote or clarification in this re-hack/hash.

[livinbella]

11. He should have reframed the question

Iran is a great country with great people and an excellent
(elected and beloved) President. Iran thirsts for
Democracy - not the kind we have here but true Democracy.
Invading Iran will eliminate all the recent progress that has been
made in that country. We need to work with Iran.
Punishing Israel when they commit atrocities would be
a great show of intent.

He sounds a little too willing to let those missles
fly.

[RoyGBiv]

16. You're not reading the article ...

Either that, or you're not understanding it.

Note specifically what Obama says about "elements" within the country. And there is no doubt there are elements within the country that fit the description Obama gave, and should those elements take over entirely, and have nukes, we will be faced with a crisis and have to question what we do. That is *all* Obama said.

It's the headline that leads to the conclusion Obama is "too willing" to let the missiles fly. The headline does not match the statements in the story, culled as they were from a larger presentation to present a specific position.

[livinbella]

35. Hello. Start here please:

"Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said he would favor the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program."

He said that. If you are refering to a different article,
please let me know.

Also:
"Obama told the Tribune, “he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?”

Answering his own question, Obama said, “I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”

So, Obama is clearly stating
he is not only open to the idea of military action against Iran,
he expects it! That is crazy. This guy needs to think about the
world a little more, he sounds like a f*cking half-wit.

[RoyGBiv]

40. I'm done with you ...

Crawl back into your hole.

[geek tragedy]

42. Go troll somewhere else.

This isn't MarxistsforBush.com.

[never cry wolf]

45. You start here, please

Taken from the original Tribune article:


Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short , the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

You are twisting a few phrases WAY out of context. He obviously HAS though quite a bit about the world, more than you, I daresay.

You are the one sounding like the frikking halfwit!

[livinbella]

3. Oh No!!! When you get to know him, you learn to hate him!

This guy is dangerous - and not in a good way.

[ReadTomPaine]

6. You would vote for Alan Keyes, then?

Welcome to DU.

RTP

[livinbella]

22. I would not vote for any republican under any conditions

Sadly, the more Obama talks, the more I can't stand him.
He better do more reading and practice some good old
fashioned shut-the-fuck-up. He is coming off as an ignorant fool.

[never cry wolf]

26. Try reading what he ACTUALLY said, link to trib posted below..n/t

[geek tragedy]

28. And you are coming off as someone

who doesn't know jack shit about Obama or the issues involved.

Try reading about him in a source other than the looney-tunes WSWS.

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. OMG

Are you a Democrat? Did you hear his speech at the convention? Obama is the best thing to come out of this party in years.

You can't possibly think he's a fool (unless you're a freeper in disguise).

[jpgray]

19. Again, where does he call for surgical strikes, or make racist statements?

I'm still looking for the actual interview, but the quotes by WSWS show nothing of the kind.

[mahina]

31. Barrack Obama is a wonderful man. What you said is disgraceful.

This is a smear and you are in the wrong place. LOVE competence, brilliance, patriotism, sacrifice for others, working for the greater good.

[alittlelark]

4. The World Socialist Website

has an agenda, and is spinning his statements.

What would YOU do if you knew Iran had warheads, and were in a position to make global decisions? I'm unsure what I would do - I would have to think on it. It sounds as though Obama is thinking about it.

[RoyGBiv]

10. Exactly ...

As I said, this headline is a misrepresentation of the content of Obama's remarks.

WSW is painfully stretching the meaning.

[Chico Man]

5. Hard work, individual responsibility and the american dream is republican?

Give me a break. This is a load of crap.

[Fovea]

7. Obama speakin realpolitik

and saying nothing that any president since Washington hasn't said.
I also do not buy the line that Obama is being racist in his assesment of the fundi cultures here and abroad.

Fundies of every stripe have a serious death drive problem.

Let us see what Barak does in the Senate. I have a good feeling from what I see so far.

[lumpy]

9. If this article is to be believed

and his remarks not taken out of context should Obama be considered for higher public office?

[jpgray]

17. Where in his remarks does he call for surgical strikes, or exhibit racism?

Point it out to me, because I can't see it.

[Rose Siding]

18. Here's the Trib article. From the 25th

wsws couldn't even get the date right.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0409250111sep25,1,7098310.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[jpgray]

27. Thanks. Note there still isn't anything that matches the wsws headline

I think someone posted the full quotes below as well, so I won't post them here.

[mzmolly]

12. I agree with those that said the headline is "MISLEADING"

:hi:

[geek tragedy]

25. "Misleading" is the entire point of printing (and posting) the article

Those on the far left are just as capable of lying as Bush.

[xray s]

13. What the hell is wrong with destroying nuclear bomb facilities?

If Pakistan falls into the hands of people who follow guys like bin Laden I hope to hell we destoy their nukes. Same for Iran.

Obama states he would try diplomacy first, but reserve the right to take military action as a last resort. Makes sense to me.

This article is a stupid attempt to smear an intellegent man and one of our best.

[Jim Sagle]

14. Obama RRRAWWWWWWWXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jpgray]

15. If these are the quotes, the article is pretty misleading

Where does he "call for surgical strikes" here?

“he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?”

“I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”

And what is racist about acknowledging that the Soviet Union and Islamic Fundamentalists use different strategy and have a different mindset? It's simply the truth.

“With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain. I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.”

I can't find anything on the Tribune website, so I don't have the full interview. But I think this article is really reaching. Obama isn't calling for strikes or making racist statements in these two quotes.

[Rose Siding]

20. Here's the link

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0409250111sep25,1,7098310.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[MoJoWorkin]

38. thanks

I was posting when you provided it. I am new to this blog stuff, and am so slow I might as well not do it at all, ha!:kick:

[Rose Siding]

44. It comes in handy sometimes

You'll catch on. Getting information out is *a portion* of the battle. Welcome to DU :hi:

[xray s]

29. the article is a smear

you might as well post freeper shit if we are going to post crap like this wsws smear.

[MoJoWorkin]

32. Doesn't ring true to me

Do you have the Actual article in the Chicago Tribune? I tried to find it online and couldn't. This sounds suspicious to me, and I would want to see it in print from the Trib, rather than someone else saying this is what was said.
I may have to contact Obama's campaign, to see what gives.

[jpgray]

34. Yes, it was rather difficult to find there

steviet_2003's post below has his remarks in full, and party_line has posted the link on this page twice.

[never cry wolf]

21. Here's what he said, WITHOUT the wsws filter.

Seems like a reasoned position to me!

Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."


As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf's troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.

Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.

"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.

"... I think there are elements within Pakistan right now--if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don't think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0409250111sep25,1,6128171.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[RoyGBiv]

24. Thanks for that ... n/t

[geek tragedy]

23. YAWN

Apparently the far left has too much time on their hands, so now they and their minions are out smearing any Democrat they can reach.

Makes one wonder why they bother with a site called "Democratic Underground."

[cali]

30. Sorry

I don't buy the WSWS spin. And I thought Obama's speech was terrific.
Calling him a racist is pure malarkey.
I also wonder if the author of this hit piece was actually present at the interview. Let's see; what else? Well, the headline is totally misleading. Obama didn't call for missile strikes on Iran, and you snipped the following out of the article:

He said: “With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain. I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.”

In the case of Pakistan, the Senate hopeful added, “I think there are elements within Pakistan right now—if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over—I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don’t think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.”

I don't know what should be done if radical fundamentalist types overthrow Musharref, but the thought of nuclear weapons in the hands of an apocalyptic millenarian group whose beliefs do not preclude the use of such weapons, makes me shudder. And just so someone doesn't try and correct me on the millenarian label: Historians agree; millenarianism ain't just for Christians anymore.

[sonicx]

36. lying headline strikes again

do they teach people how to report anymore?

[serryjw]

52. I am MORE concerned about this......

quote...
He said he would supports civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship...WTF?? and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
end quote...........

This does not make me happy. The 'basic rights' THEY are entitled to are written into the US Constitution. No new rights are needed. The late great Thurgood Marshall said 'separate is not equal'What Obama is saying is he is willing to give them privileges

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

39. Fee Fie Fo Fum...

I smell the blood of trolls.

Or Nolls*.

*nolls=Nader trolls. Thanks for that to the Eschaton Gang.

[Deja Q]

41. Well, Iran and N Korea are threats...

And while * has openly antagonized them, we still need to respond if necessary.

Let's hope Kerry gets in, with an eye open.

[Aidoneus]

47. An educating experience

So I'm no better than Bush, a troll, a Nader troll (and I thought I didn't even like him! I know the ICFI/WSWS doesn't, so I don't know where that's coming from..), voting for Keyes, essentially the enemy, etc etc etc.. nice. Even after my 3yrs here, this silly bullshit routine still gives me a good chuckle:--trained dogs barking on command.

I don't like some of you guys either, so I'll let y'all get back to the epitaph hurling. I might also suggest "terrorist supporter", "potential terrorist", "suspicious left-wing radical", "seditionist", "unduckspeaker", etc etc.. but I'll leave the names up to you.

[RoyGBiv]

51. Just curious ...

Why did you choose to post the WSW story rather than the original story about Obama's comments presented in the Tribune?

In light of your comment that you seem to enjoy the "bullshit routine" that followed, watching "trained dogs barking on command," how would you have others interpret your intent?

[jdonaldball]

53. In Newspeak: "Doubleplusungoodthinkful"

I think Obama is the better candidate for the Illinois Senate.
But I've also noticed that many DUers consider him to be above and beyond reproach - or perhaps above all Humanity. The hysterical fawning over Obama reminds me a bit of the cult of Mao in the Cultural Revolution.

[jpgray]

60. Ok, then show us the truth of the article.

Show us that Obama's above statements are racist, and that he calls for strikes on Iran. He does neither of these things.

[jpgray]

54. All I've done is ask you where the article's take is present in the quotes

And no one seems able to answer that question. You post an article that cannot be defended on its own terms, and I think you should expect an unfavorable response. And don't play the victim here--you were looking to stir the pot, and you did it. I'm sorry if some people called you names, but you haven't responded to any of the substantive criticisms of this article. Also I agree that you should rather have posted the Tribune article, that actually contains Obama's words. What you have posted more realistically belongs in the Editorial section of this site, since it deals with biased and flawed interpretations of his statements.

[jono]

55. I won't call you names but

I will pose a question. Max Cleland returned from Vietnam with three fewer limbs and the RW smear machine questioned his service and his patriotism. They cranked it up against McCain, an ex-POW, and now they've done it to Kerry. They were all viciously attacked on one thing that it used to seem couldn't be - service to their country.

Here we have the WSWS editorializing the remarks of Obama, an African American, as racist, when his comments have nothing to do with race but rather with military strategy and how it would be different for terrorist organizations and for nations. How is this smear any different from the RW smears?

[Zomby Woof]

58. "epitaph hurling"

LOL. Nice Freudian slip...

[geek tragedy]

61. Well, that's what you get when you spread LIES about prominent

Democrats and slime the party's nominee for President.

[jukes]

48. deeply disturbing

pre-emptive aggression is unamerican, inhumane, & illegal.

[jpgray]

57. Every primary candidate but Kucinich and Sharpton supported it

I didn't see Dean's foreign policy described as deeply disturbing, even though he outlined several scenarios in which unilateral preemptive war would be justified.

[JI7]

49. wsws= world socialist web site with shitty misleading headline

[sleipnir]

50. Obama is quite the figure. Not too sure about him anymore.

I still don't know whether or not to trust him. He's always throwing out some odd comment. Perhaps Keyes' ideology is staring to affect Obama's thinking.

But the article is slightly slanted and Obama still favors talks to end the conflict.

[jpgray]

59. Can you show me where the wsws claims are supported by Obama's comments?

Thanks in advance.

[Moderator]

62. This article is news analysis

not Latest Breaking News.