Was Obama wrong to call for surgical missile strikes on Iran?

[Karmadillo]

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

Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran

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.”

more...

[Tyo]

1. Yes, he was wrong. n/t

[madokie]

2. it seems to me anyone wanting to impose their will upon someone else is wrong, no matter the

circumstances

[The Straight Story]

11. Indeed. Now excuse me while I go and

light up a smoke at a bar and let my dog bark outside for 30 minutes :)

[Rosemary2205]

38. I hope you'll think twice about that statement

where would we be if we STOPPED imposing our collective will, abolished all laws and let the murderers, thieves and child molesters do whatever they hell they felt like doing to anyone they pleased.

IMHO there are certainly instances when the community as a whole HAS to impose it's collective will on the "bullies". Whether it's my town, or the world doing so.

[WilliamPitt]

3. What's your opinion on the matter?

[Karmadillo]

5. Not a very bright idea.

nt

[Common Sense Party]

55. What's YOUR opinion on the matter?

Especially since this is over two years old?

[Benhurst]

4. Wrong.

[MissWaverly]

6. Yes, he is wrong

anyone with half a brain would want nukes after seeing Bush trash Iraq for 4 years.
The problems in the M.E. are a direct result of our stupidity. We can't negotiate that.
Iran is a poor country, the only way we can do anything positive is to "win hearts and
minds" and you can't do that with nukes.

[ensho]

7. yes, very wrong - won't get my vote

nor any candidate who wants to attack any country.

[newyawker99]

40. Hi ensho!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ensho]

70. thanks, but I've been at DU forever under the name donsu

nt

[Zynx]

8. It concerns me that he has no real idea what he is talking about, yes.

The consequences of any military action against Iran for the US are severe (mostly economic, not that that's not, well, IMPORTANT), and need to be weighed against how "bad" Iran continuing to do what they are is.

Iran is, and will never be, a direct threat to the United States, so the secondary damage they are doing needs to be really honking high to justify a return to a 1979-1980 oil fiasco.

[Selatius]

9. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Obama is a fool for stating this.

We accept India and Pakistan having nukes and to a lesser extent North Korea. The problem with Iran is that it sits on a lot of oil, and they disobeyed US power by overthrowing the US-backed Shah. Contrary to Ahmedinejad's rhetoric about Israel, the real leader of Iran is Khamenei, and he says Iran's position with respect to Israel is that they are onboard with the international consensus with the two-state solution that even the Arab League supports.

[leftofthedial]

10. would Ahmadinejad be wrong to call for surgical missile strikes on the US?

what does Obama think gives us the right?


WRONG.

[Selatius]

18. Yes.

In answer to your second question, probably because he has as one of his base assumptions that the US is a force of good in the world instead of another force out to exploit and manipulate for self-gain.

Perhaps the lesson a good number of Democrats are missing is that the US shouldn't be meddling in the affairs of others at all even when it does have that ability not because we don't care what's going on in places like Darfur but because we don't want Darfur being used as precedent for another Viêtnam or Iraq.

[leftofthedial]

24. The US? A force of good?

Illegal invasions? Illegal occupations? Torture? Concentration camps?

That's a good one.

I hope we can dispense with that lie once and for all. We haven't been a force of "good" since our initial involvement in Korea.

[Pavulon]

68. Korea was UN

I would say the US was the definition of good during the cold war. There were oppressive governments that contained their people and then there was the west. Vietnam obviously was a different thing..

Many east germans, poles, and others would have differing opinions.

Bottom line is that unstable governments should not have nukes. If a pakistani or future Iranian nuke goes off here the result would be a massive retaliation and millions of dead people.

But that nuke could pop in moscow by chechens or anywhere. Uncontrolled nuclear arsenals are tremendously dangerous.

Please don't make a bullshit comment about our arsenal. Wackos have no access to them and if you try to drive past the gate at any military base that may have them you will be machine gunned. It happens and hits local papers every few years, someone for whatever reason, runs the gate and gets shot.

[Dhalgren]

12. Yes, he was dead wrong. Military "options" should be removed from the "table".

We have no business approaching diplomatic negotiations with the threat of war in the background, especially when the nation we are supposed to be negotiating with has done nothing in any way to provoke any such response. If we want Iran to not create a nuclear weapon, we need to approach them with that in mind, not with veiled threats of yet another illegal, murderous war...

[napi21]

13. He was wrong. I could probably be sent to Gitmo for saying this, but

if I were Prez of a Country that was named by another agressive Country's leader as an axis of evil, that Country already invadedanother Country they called an axis of evil, and most of my neighbors had nukes, I'd want them too...just to deter anyone from attacking ME! I think Ahmadinijad is abit of a nut, but I also think he's mostly mouth! I can't blame him for wanting to have his own nukes when Israel, India, Pakistan, Korea, China, and of course the US all have them!

[Connie_Corleone]

And here is what he said on 60 Minutes Feb. 11th, 2007:

(For more clarification on his thinking)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/11/60minutes/main2458530_page3.shtml

KROFT: Would you talk to Iran or Syria?

OBAMA: Yes. I think that the notion that this administration has -- that not talking to our enemies is effective punishment -- is wrong. It flies in the face of our experiences during the Cold War. Ronald Reagan understood that it may be an evil empire, but it's worthwhile for us to periodically meet to see are there areas of common interest. And most importantly, those conversations allow the possibility that our ideas and our values gain greater exposure in these countries. The fact of the matter is that Iran currently is governed by an oppressive regime, one that I think is a threat to the region and to our allies, but there are a lot of people in Iran who potentially would like to be part of this broader community of nations. For us not to be in a conversation with them doesn't make sense. Now I don't think that that conversation should be conditioned on our accepting their support of terrorism or their building nuclear capacity and potentially sparking an arms race in the Middle East, any more than our conversations with the Kremlin presumed that we approved of their aggression around the world. You know, we can have a robust strategy of blocking and containing aggressive actions by hostile or rogue states, but still open up the possibility that over time those relationships may evolve and they may change. And there may be opportunities for us to resolve some of our differences, not all of them, but some of them in a constructive way.

KROFT: Would you advocate the use of military force to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

OBAMA: I think we should keep all options on the table, but I think that our first step should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we've displayed thus far. And I think this is an example of where our blundering in Iraq has cost us dearly. Iran's the big winner from the Iraq War. They have gained immeasurable strength in the Middle East, and because of the strains that it's placed on our alliances and our leverage with other countries around the world, it's made it more difficult for us to be able to mobilize international pressure to get them to stand down from what I believe is a process of developing nuclear weapons.

[Colobo]

15. This is reasonable

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

20. Ah, context. Thanks for that!

:toast: MKJ

[msongs]

34. Obama agrees with CHENEY: all options on the table nt

[babylonsister]

48. Thank you! Diplomacy works and is effective; now we have to vote for

someone who believes in it and wants to use it copiously.

[montanacowboy]

14. Really stupid

if this is what we have to look forward to in our candidates, count me out;

I cannot imagine for the life of me Al Gore saying something like this

[dogman]

16. Another top tier candidate without foreign policy credentials.

But who wouldn't want to have a beer with him? That's the question that America is told to care about.

[rebel with a cause]

17. OMG!

This is from an article in 2004 before he was even elected Senator and from a socialist site that really hated Obama. It is not factual in its statements about the Illinois campaign and I would doubt much of what else it had to say. Please!

Why don't you go back a few more years and find something from another web site that set out to discredit him. Again, Please!

Sitting on my hands and walking away.

[Telly Savalas]

19. Does anybody have a link to a full transcript of the actual interview

from September 2004?

As hard as it might be to imagine, hit pieces such as the one linked to in the original post often leave out a good deal of context when offering fragments of quotes, which leads to a distorted view of candidate's positions.

[Connie_Corleone]

21. It's better to read the more current statements about Iran from Obama

60 Minutes interview from this month:

I posted it upthread.

[Telly Savalas]

26. No. It's better to take two and a half year old out of context comments

from the World Socialist website.

[Karmadillo]

29. In what way were the comments taken out of context?

nt

[Telly Savalas]

42. The article cherry-picks certain statements to give a distorted view of his position.

[Karmadillo]

71. Which statements were cherry-picked?

nt

[Tin Man]

75. It's way beyond cherry-picked, it's utter distortion. "Obama calls for missile strikes"...

The headline "Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran" - is utter bullshit, and intentionally misleading.

How did the article conclude that Obama was advocating missile strikes against Iraq, when during the same interview, he said: "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.

That's hardly "calling for missile strikes", is it?

[dogman]

31. Yes those earlier remarks were made for a Senate race against an ultra-conservative.

It is necessary to remember who your opponent is, and tailor your remarks accordingly. He is a skilled politician.

[Karmadillo]

23. Here's a link to the Chicago Tribune that supports the WSWS account

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

CAMPAIGN 2004: US SENATE RACE
Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran

By David Mendell
Tribune staff reporter
Published September 25, 2004

<edit>

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."

<edit>

[never cry wolf]

76. Also from the article, "as a last resort" BTW: VERY misleading OP subject line

Not ruling out use of a surgical missile strike and thinking of it as a last resort is NOT calling for an attack.

Sheesh, this article was written before he was even elected.

A last resort

Obama's willingness to consider additional military action in the Middle East comes despite his early and vocal opposition to the Iraq war. Obama, however, also has stressed that he is not averse to using military action as a last resort, although he believes that President Bush did not make that case for the Iraq invasion.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

[TomClash]

22. Definitely wrong

Expect oil to be over $100 bbl and gasoline well north of $3 within days of an attack.

Expect an attack against American forces, or civilians, quite possibly in the US.

[The Straight Story]

25. No - I think he was right

Better than calling for a war where we have to go in like in Iraq. Find your target, destroy it, done - less people affected that way (we could have done the same in Iraq by hitting suspected plants and leaving it at that, but nooooo bush had to take over the entire country).

Let me ask this: Would you want pat robertson, jerry falwell, or a few other folks of their kind to have and control nuclear weapons? Sure - you can say they do in the US, but we know they really don't or they would have used them long ago on San Francisco and Chavez. Unstable people and regimes are a concern to many nations if they acquire nuclear weapons. We already have them, china does, etc - there are enough people with them - adding more to the pot, especially fanatical people who don't care if they live or die , is only going to lead to something terrible.

The nuclear cat is out of the bag and it ain't going back in. The best we can do is to try and keep the kooks from getting them and using them for their religious zealotry.

And if you think they wouldn't use em against Israel...

[Quixote1818]

27. I agree, but only with the UN on board. Clinton did missile strikes on Iraq frequently

If they don't listen to the UN and the UN votes that missile strikes on specific targets are OK then I would be behind it. Mainly to take out some of the entrances to the nuclear facility's.

[The Straight Story]

28. well stated and I agree (nt)

[Solon]

54. You forget that Iran was moderating it's religious views in the late 1990s..

Then Bush enters office, and, because of his stupid "axis of evil" and sabre rattling remarks, the moderation movement, led mostly by young people, was completely neutered. What affect would air strikes have on a nation that poses little threat to the region right now? When was the last time Iran attempted to invade another nation, remember, the Iran-Iraq war was a war of defense by Iran.

Think about what happened in the United States after 9/11, Bush was empowered, and the U.S. became, simply put, more dangerous to the security of the world. Wouldn't these "surgical" airstrikes have the same effect in Iran?

[jody]

30. Yes wrong but he can use ignorance as his excuse just as he can on ever other major political issue.

[cali]

32. This is a two year old hit piece.

As exerpts posted in this thread demonstrate, Obama is for the use of diplomacy.

Congratulations on posting an out of context, 2 year old blurb, from a source that has it in for Obama, and then asking a leading question. Makes me want to puke.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Pretty much the same thing Shotgun Dick is saying.

Same song, different singer.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US_refuses_to_rule_out_use_of_force_against_Iran/articleshow/1671238.cms

US refuses to rule out use of force against Iran

MELBOURNE: Stepping up pressure on Iran, US Vice President Dick Cheney on Saturday refused to rule out the use of force to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"It would be a serious mistake if a nation like Iran were to become a nuclear power," Cheney warned during a joint press conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. "All options are still on the table."

Cheney said that the US was working with it allies to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear weapons programmes, and that it was Washington's preference for that to happen peacefully.

"The next step toward getting Iran to abandon its nuclear programmes was still being debated," he said.

[lakeguy]

35. totally wrong, but i'm sure obama has no idea that

iran will start running low on oil in 10 years or less. what other short-term choice for energy do they have besides nuclear. no one should be able to deny a country the right to secure energy for its people.

[tomp]

46. agreed. nt

[xultar]

36. Yes. It was wrong and a bad call.

[mmonk]

37. Yes

[Adelante]

39. His thinking seems to have evolved since that time

You should do better research than this if you want to critique a candidate on any issue in order to present the fullest picture.

[windbreeze]

41. Yes, in no uncertain terms...

Don't we hear enough of this shit out of the Repukes???? We need to think about this long and hard...just because he's a Dem., doesn't make him right...and if he feels this way...he's sure at odds with me...

He's still young enough to serve, isn't he??? How about he does a tour or two in the ME...You can talk the talk...how about you walk the walk...Volunteer...
wb

[JanMichael]

43. If he said that then yes he is WRONG.

Period.

[burrowowl]

44. Yes! he was wrong and still remains so on this point.

There is no reason for this, just the regular propaganda by the Maladministration, is Obama swallowing it? It would be an act of war and this act of war does not meet the requirements of a just war (for shame Obama, you went to Catholic school as I did and we learned about the requirements for a Just War in catechism) and ..... there ain't no such thing aa 100% surgical missle strikes!
This leaves me to believe that had he been in Congress when the IWR was voted on, he would have probably voted for it.
Kucinich has always been against the IWR and did not vote for, as did Kenedy, etc. Clear thinkers these.

[tomp]

45. can't we cancel him out with a real rock star...

...who doesn't want to bomb iran.

[jarnocan]

47. dang-that is so sad...dang I think I'm depressed again. nt

[Truthiness Inspector]

49. Why bash Obama over this topic?

He is right. Iran is not our best buddy, our fuzzy friend with whom we can negotiate. Obama knows this, and this makes him a stronger contender in my mind.

[eridani]

52. So what?

It's a sovereign country that has not invaded any other country for a couple of hundred years. Can we say the same? We've been fucking with them since 1953, when we overthrew a secular democrat because he nationalized their oil. They have a right to defend themselves from us.

[Porcupine]

56. It's not bashing to criticize an idiot position.

What, losing 2 wars isn't enough for us? We need Democratic candidates who start from a position of promoting peace. Promoting expansion of the war is just stupidity.

I won't vote for Obama. Might as well vote for the republican if he's going to push us into another war.

[rman]

66. Same reason why we bash Bush over the same topic.

It's about policies, not about persons.

[longship]

50. Bad, bad, Obama.

Was beginning to like you. Now, it's back to square one.

You really are just an inexperienced neophyte with a helluva lot of charisma and whole helluva lot of potential. But, before I can vote for you for the big office, I want you to stay in the Senate and learn how to be a real liberal. I suggest that you follow Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer, and a few other liberals to learn what liberal is.

[Hawkowl]

51. He will not get my vote

Yes, he's wrong. Period. This whole discussion on whether to attack a country before it gets nuclear weapons has been played out time and time again. The Soviet Union. North Korea. China. Iraq. Which ones did we attack? Which scenario has turned out badly? DUH!

He's just popping off at the mouth trying to look tough...because he isn't tough. Obama is all about Obama. Say anything to be president. Just like Hillary.

[Zero Division]

53. This is over two years old. Time for an update on Obama's opinion on Iran.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/11/60minutes/main2458530_page3.shtml

OBAMA: Yes. I think that the notion that this administration has -- that not talking to our enemies is effective punishment -- is wrong. It flies in the face of our experiences during the Cold War. Ronald Reagan understood that it may be an evil empire, but it's worthwhile for us to periodically meet to see are there areas of common interest. And most importantly, those conversations allow the possibility that our ideas and our values gain greater exposure in these countries. The fact of the matter is that Iran currently is governed by an oppressive regime, one that I think is a threat to the region and to our allies, but there are a lot of people in Iran who potentially would like to be part of this broader community of nations. For us not to be in a conversation with them doesn't make sense. Now I don't think that that conversation should be conditioned on our accepting their support of terrorism or their building nuclear capacity and potentially sparking an arms race in the Middle East, any more than our conversations with the Kremlin presumed that we approved of their aggression around the world. You know, we can have a robust strategy of blocking and containing aggressive actions by hostile or rogue states, but still open up the possibility that over time those relationships may evolve and they may change. And there may be opportunities for us to resolve some of our differences, not all of them, but some of them in a constructive way.

KROFT: Would you advocate the use of military force to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

OBAMA: I think we should keep all options on the table, but I think that our first step should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we've displayed thus far. And I think this is an example of where our blundering in Iraq has cost us dearly. Iran's the big winner from the Iraq War. They have gained immeasurable strength in the Middle East, and because of the strains that it's placed on our alliances and our leverage with other countries around the world, it's made it more difficult for us to be able to mobilize international pressure to get them to stand down from what I believe is a process of developing nuclear weapons.

Obama's current opinions on Iran aren't nearly as bellicose as this article makes his opinions out to be (I should note in fairness that this article was also written over two years ago, as well.). Like Edwards, Obama's opinion appears to be evolving on Iran. Would I prefer that Obama sounded more like Clark on this issue? Absolutely. But I certainly don't believe that an Obama presidency would inevitably lead to an attack on Iran.

[sandnsea]

57. He didn't call for missile strikes

Bullshit headline from a bullshit article written by the bullshit wsws.org, once again.

[stillcool]

58. I can not judge the man on this article from 2004...

.. the article has no flow...the cited quotes seem taken out of a broader conversation. A hypothetical conversation repeated three years later in snippets does not have any value...to me.

[leomcgarrysghost]

59. Newbie

He's a new guy. He's gonna make mistakes. I give him a pass on this one.

[Dawgs]

60. Responses to this thread make me wonder why even visit DU.

The fact that some of you have decided to change your opinion on this out of context hit piece is really depressing and surprising. I've always felt that DUers were more informed and more intelligent. I guess I'm wrong.

[cali]

63. Pathetic, isn't it?

A two year old hit piece taken as gospel by so many without any research into the motivation behind such an attack, or any exploration of Obama's record and history.

Revolting. Not to mention stupid.

[Tin Man]

64. Yep, some folks are quick to post - without the bother of reading or researching the issue

...and unfortunately, those lazy types are often the most prolific responders. But considering there's about a bazillion DUers, there's likely to be a number of "prolific lazies" replying to any given thread, especially active ones like this.

[Tin Man]

61. Ridiculous. Article is from Oct *2004*, published by *World Socialist Website*

...and in fact, no where in the article is Obama quoted as recommending "surgical missle strikes on Iran"

The whole article is basically a hit-job, and the person who posted it here is either a fool or a provocateur.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

62. Yes. He cannot be my candidate. eom

[rman]

65. He's following the neocon's doctrine of preventative war.

It's like hitting someone in the face because you think he might hit you in the face at some time in the future.
"Shoot first, ask questions later." - Not very becoming of a liberal.

[cali]

69. Do you realize that they do nothing but cherrypick quotes

in this article? That it's two years old? That it comes from a source that's hostile to dems? That Obama strongly opposed Iraq, and has made numerous statements against war with Iran?

Sheesh.

[depakid]

67. Another example of Obama opening his mouth

and saying something impolitic off the cuff that he could have phrased much better (to say the least).

So far, he's managed to get away with these sorts of statements, but sooner or later, his inexperience will catch up to him. Wait and see.

[kurth]

72. More pandering to Israel

Why?

[aein]

73. leading question, dubious source, where's the transcript?

[Tin Man]

77. But it's sooooo much easier to fabricate claims without an actual transcript to get in the way...

...this "report" is completely without supstantiation.

And considering that it's 28 months old, it kinda makes you wonder why the OP dragged this stinking garbage from out of the landfill, don't it?

[never cry wolf]

79. I don't really wonder too hard, it seems fairly obvious what the OP's agenda is

This is an anti-Obama poster who had to use out of context quotes from a WSWS article critiquing a Tribune article from before he was elected.

[Tin Man]

80. Bingo!

...you've hit the nail on the head.

[WindRavenX]

74. yes nt

NT

[never cry wolf]

78. Absolutely ridiculous and highly misleading OP

If Musharef were overthrown would it be responsible to NOT want to take nuclear weapons out of the hands of radical fundamentalists? No where in the original Sept., 2004 Trib article did he call for a strike and in fact stated it would not be optimal and it would only be a last resort measure.

He is merely saying he would not take that option off the table and also clearly states that it is not his option of first, second or any choice other than the second worse.

edit to add linky: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

[Ediacara]

81. Locking

From the DU Rules

Do not post "flame bait" discussion topics. While there is no clear line regarding what constitutes flame bait, the moderators have the authority to shut down threads which they consider too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory. Please use good judgment when starting threads; inflammatory rhetoric does not normally lead to productive discussion.
--
Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.