"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war."

[TheWraith]

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.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

[w13rd0]

1. Wisdom...

...from our next President. 2009 is too long to wait for a return to the realm of reason.

[wiggs]

2. When was the speech given? Link non-functional. nt

[DanTex]

4. October 2002.

Try this link: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech

[TheWraith]

6. October 2nd, 2002. Sorry about the link.

Don't know what happened to it. This one works:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

[wiggs]

8. Haven't seen it before, surprisingly. I am stunned by how on point it is..sounds

like it was written yesterday. This is something that must be shown to people here on in....important.

Is this the speech Clinton was referring to...."he just has a speech from 2002?"

[TheWraith]

9. Yep, this is the "he has a speech" speech. nt

[PseudoIntellect]

36. Exactly my reaction...I was confused about whether this was the one from 2002

or some speech he gave this March. It seems like it could have been delivered today, had he not mentioned Saddam in the context of his being in power still.

[Cha]

31. This is the link I always

use..

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

[DanTex]

3. Pretty much says it all. And 6 years later, I wouldn't change a single word. nt

[TheWraith]

7. I find this paragraph particularly relevant.

"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."

Talk about being dead on.

[Cha]

33. It's all the things we talked about on DU when

we were actively opposing bush's War On Iraq and he was right there with us ..only I didn't know it.

It's all the reasons we came together on when the world said no to war on Iraq, Feb 15, 2003, and millions across the world protested against the impending bombings.

[PseudoIntellect]

38. This dead-on prediction by Obama is unfortunately overshadowed by GOPers who show pastor clips

over and over. "Hey look! His judgment isn't good at all! Look at his former pastor!!! That guy gave an award to LOUIS FARRAKHAN. Logically, that means OBAMA LIKES FARRAKHAN!!!11!1111one"

Never mind the big picture about a trillion dollar war in times of economic instability. Let's talk about a guy's former pastor all day.

[BigDDem]

5. I'm opposed to dumb war

but I dont mind paying for the bombs, thank you and have a good one!

[XemaSab]

10. Obama's medical record says he's had some rashes

:shrug:

[Cha]

35. You're

quick:)

[Faygo Kid]

11. Lest we forget.

[Skip Intro]

12. “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know”

MR. RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Senator Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of ‘04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ‘04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

--------------------------------------------

For all the chatter about Obama adviser Samantha Power's calling Clinton a "monster," another set of remarks made on her book tour in the United Kingdom may be equally threatening to the Obama campaign: Comments in a BBC interview that express a lack of confidence that Obama will be able to carry through his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months.

"He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator," she said at one point in the interview.

Power downplayed Obama's commitment to quick withdrawal from Iraq on Hard Talk, a program that often exceeds any of the U.S. talk shows in the rigor of its grillings. She was challenged on Obama's Iraq plan, as it appears on his website, which says that Obama "will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

...

"You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"

"It’s a best-case scenario," she said again.

-----------------

just for the record

[TheWraith]

13. It's always nice being able to leave out the important bits, isn't it?

Like from that quote you cited, which goes on to explain that he wasn't sure what he would have done about it in the Senate, but that from his perspective the case for war had not been made.

And I love how the Obama haters keep twisting that statement by Power out of context, pretending like it's an endorsement of continuing the war in Iraq when any responsible adult knows that it's nothing of the kind, simply an acknowledgement that the final details of our exit from Iraq may vary.

[Skip Intro]

14. Obama didn't challenge Russert. He explained it away as being politically motivated.

I simply quoted Russsert's question. Take it up with him.

[stillcool]

32. ............

WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR
Asked how John Kerry and John Edwards could have been wrong on the war and he could have been right, Obama said, "I think they have access to information that I did not have.”

WHAT OBAMA SAID

RUSSERT: The nominee of your party, John Kerry, the nominee for vice president, John Edwards, all said he was an imminent threat. They voted to authorize George Bush to go to war. How could they have been so wrong and you so right as a state legislator in Illinois and they're on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees in Washington?

OBAMA: Well, I think they have access to information that I did not have. And what is absolutely clear is that John Kerry said, "If we go into war, let's make sure that we do it right. Let's make sure that our troops are supported. Let's make sure that we have the kind of coalition that's necessary to succeed." And the execution of what was a difficult choice to make was something that all of us have to be concerned about. And moving forward, the only way that we're going to be able to succeed is if, I think, we have an administration led by John Kerry that's going to allow us to consolidate the relationships with our allies that bring about investment in Iraq.

RUSSERT: But if you had been a senator at that time, you would have voted not to authorize President Bush to go to war?

OBAMA: I would have voted not to authorize the president given the facts as I saw them at that time.

RUSSERT: So you disagree with John Kerry and John Edwards?

OBAMA: At that time, but, as I said, I wasn't there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don't have a change in tone and a change in administration, I think we're going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq.

[Honeycombe8]

17. That was a good answer by Obama. Good post. Another reason why he'll be President. nt

[Skip Intro]

19. Yeah, I want a president who can change his deeply held convictions for political expediency.

Just what we need.

[Honeycombe8]

20. No change. He chose not to criticize Kerry for his vote. He never said HE himself...

favored the war.

Clinton supporters may not understand holding back on criticism of a nominee for President, but maybe that's why Obama is winning? Politically savvy?

As for his position vs. Bush's....this has been repeated numerous times. This was after we were in Iraq, at a certain stage. Had nothing to do with voting to go into the war.

[muryan]

37. No we need more politicians taking out the knees of our nominee

I guess that why you're such a big fan of Hillary right?

[beachmom]

21. He was trying not to make Kerry & Edwards look bad. Good grief, everybody knows

he was walking around eggshells, to be a TEAM PLAYER for the Democratic ticket in 2004. But clearly, he did not agree with Kerry & Edwards on the IWR vote.

Only a hack would use an obvious comment of "being nice to K/E" and read into it something that is not there.

[stillcool]

24. ........

WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR
Asked how John Kerry and John Edwards could have been wrong on the war and he could have been right, Obama said, "I think they have access to information that I did not have.”

WHAT OBAMA SAID

RUSSERT: The nominee of your party, John Kerry, the nominee for vice president, John Edwards, all said he was an imminent threat. They voted to authorize George Bush to go to war. How could they have been so wrong and you so right as a state legislator in Illinois and they're on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees in Washington?

OBAMA: Well, I think they have access to information that I did not have. And what is absolutely clear is that John Kerry said, "If we go into war, let's make sure that we do it right. Let's make sure that our troops are supported. Let's make sure that we have the kind of coalition that's necessary to succeed." And the execution of what was a difficult choice to make was something that all of us have to be concerned about. And moving forward, the only way that we're going to be able to succeed is if, I think, we have an administration led by John Kerry that's going to allow us to consolidate the relationships with our allies that bring about investment in Iraq.

RUSSERT: But if you had been a senator at that time, you would have voted not to authorize President Bush to go to war?

OBAMA: I would have voted not to authorize the president given the facts as I saw them at that time.

RUSSERT: So you disagree with John Kerry and John Edwards?

OBAMA: At that time, but, as I said, I wasn't there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don't have a change in tone and a change in administration, I think we're going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR

"‘I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know..'”

WHAT OBAMA SAID

"He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

"In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

"‘But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'”

"But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ‘What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,' he said.”

[cliffordu]

42. Keep eating grapes that sour and your face will stay like that forever....

Not even a nice try.

[rug]

15. What does he consider a smart war?

[anigbrowl]

16. I think it's pretty obvious from the first few paragraphs.

[rug]

18. In the next paragraph he equated Bush's war on terror with the Civil War and WW2.

"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."

Is that what he considers a smart war?

[hulka38]

22. I'm pretty sure that he won't be responding to your question. You seem to have an opinion

on the matter. Why not share it?

[rug]

23. The speech was cynical old politics at its finest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html

[hulka38]

26. There was posturing in the Pakistan statement, sure. What's your larger point?

Connect the dots in your head for me please.

[rug]

27. He is a conventional politician who's built his campaign on a phony antiwar speech.

And he wasn't posturing on Pakistan. He means it.

[hulka38]

28. He was clearly against the war in Iraq (dumb war) before it started which was correct.

What was phony about it? Were you for it?

On Pakistan he was trying to appear tough in response to criticism that he was too soft on foreign policy/national defense. No one knows what the circumstances will be in Pakistan if and when he assumes office. I think withdrawing from Iraq and sending those troops to Afghanistan with the idea of opening a ground war in Pakistan is highly unlikely.

[stillcool]

34. what did you think in 2002..

when he gave the speech? Was it cynical old politics then?

[stillcool]

29. attacking those who attack?

maybe.

[muryan]

39. Would you suggest

We ignore those who attack us? I've been for the war in Afghanistan since day 1, and I don't think you'll find many people who disagree.

[NotThisTime]

25. Geez, and from someone with so little foreign policy experience, GUESS WHO WAS RIGHT ON? Not the

It wasn't the freaking Republican's that were right...

Anyone who doesn't believe what he said, well, I feel sorry for you.

[Cha]

30. I wish I had known about this speech of Obama's

years earlier but I found it this year and am still amazed how prescient and full of good judgement it is.

[muryan]

40. I read it a couple months ago

It was posted in full text on freerepublic after super tuesday during the infant stages of operation chaos, it didn't have the effect that the poster intended as even they saw the wisdom in his words. They wouldn't readily admit it but there was a lot of "even a broken clock..." type responses.

[Cha]

41. That's funny you saw

it first on fr! I saw it on DU somewhere and started linking it everytime a hilary said he wasn't against the war on Iraq. It was like talking to a brick wall but I got to know the speech very well and it did me a lot of good:)

[muryan]

43. I actually remember when he first made the speech

But I only rehashed it trolling fr. They know how to do their research, even if the conclusions they draw are batshit crazy.