Looking back: Barack Obama's pre-war speech on Iraq

[Taco John]

Barack Obama's Iraq Speech

Delivered on 26 October 2002.


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 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 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 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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech"

[Bronco_Beerslug]

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 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.

One of only just a few who had the guts and courage and intelligence to call it like it was, and now is.

[freak6]

Great find Taco. Here are the muthrfkrs responsible for supplying Bush with his Pre-war "intelligence".

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/....ap/index.html

[N.O.Bronco]

man the spot onness of this is incredible, Barck just got a huge plus from me. This shows a man who was rational and smart in a time where the majority of America(dems included) were ready to march the path anyone told them.

The uncannyness of how right he was just makes me smile and get upset at the same time. I love how Republicans say its the left who are irrational and out of touch with reality

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by freak6

Great find Taco. Here are the muthrfkrs responsible for supplying Bush with his Pre-war "intelligence".

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/....ap/index.html

Inspector general: Pentagon manipulated prewar intel

Under whose orders I wonder?

[bendog]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Inspector general: Pentagon manipulated prewar intel

Under whose orders I wonder?

Bill 'drop trou' Clinton! I heard it on Rush

[Cito Pelon]

He was on the beam with that speech. Of course, the trouble is if he becomes President we may as well have Osama bin-Laden in charge of Homeland Security. There will be monthly attacks like 9/11. No doubt about it.

J/K, but that's what we'll be hearing in the stretch run to November, 2008.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

One of only just a few who had the guts and courage and intelligence to call it like it was, and now is.

vote for him then if you like him so much. That is what free elections are all about. He won't be president though.

[baja]

That's nothing George could have written a speech just as good right guys?

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

vote for him then if you like him so much. That is what free elections are all about. He won't be president though.

Or so racists such as yourself are praying.

[Spider]

Obama nailed it from the get go , he is either loney as a Bed Bug , or just a sheer freaking genius .......... Either way , he wont vote for it then not vote for it ............
the attacks on Barack have already begun , Madrisa school , Smoker , I am sure a few more will pop up , but I think the Majority of us Americans wont fall , for the Bull this time around , Sure there are those that will believe anything the right wing throws out , We call them Kool aid drinkers , and you people here know who you are , so I dont need to name names .........
We sure could have used Barack Obama leadership after 9-11 ,no one can question that ............

[mhgaffney]

Bull****.

Obama wants to attack Iran. To that extent he is no better than Bush. Just another a-hole politician in my book.

Doing the 'ol shuffle for votes.

Where is honest Abe Lincoln when we need him? As a US Senator Lincoln spoke out very forcefully and eloquently against Pres Polk's false flag attack on the Mex border that stampeded the US into a war with our southern neighbor.

The difference between then and now is that an Abe Lincoln could not possibly get elected today.

America has sunk so far down into a swamp of corruption and evil

that

today honest Abe would be screened out by the foul Oligarchs who run America for their own personal profit.

They would smear him and eliminate him from the fold. Sad to say but true.

I support Cong Ron Paul from Texas. An egalitarian and a libertarian. A progressive anti war Republican who's actually more of an independent. He's my man.

Ron Paul for President!

[Spider]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Bull****.

Obama wants to attack Iran. To that extent he is no better than Bush. Just another a-hole politician in my book.

Doing the 'ol shuffle for votes.

Where is honest Abe Lincoln when we need him? As a US Senator Lincoln spoke out very forcefully and eloquently against Pres Polk's false flag attack on the Mex border that stampeded the US into a war with our southern neighbor.

The difference between then and now is that an Abe Lincoln could not possibly get elected today.

America has sunk so far down into a swamp of corruption and evil

that

today honest Abe would be screened out by the foul Oligarchs who run America for their own personal profit.

They would smear him and eliminate him from the fold. Sad to say but true.

I support Cong Ron Paul from Texas. An egalitarian and a libertarian. A progressive anti war Republican who's actually more of an independent. He's my man.

Ron Paul for President!

mini Nukes ?

[cutthemdown]

you say spide that it will be Republicans that attack Obama huh? Hmmmm let's see just how Hilliary goes about attacking him. I don't see the Dems being all nice and cozy as they battle for the nomination. Especially when the Republicans don't have a juicy canidate. Dems could really be in control!!!! I could care less really I see very little difference in my actual day to day life as it has went from BushSR, to Clinton, To BushJR. I made my most money under Bush JR, but I am older and should be making more so it's hard to say for me. The tax cut Bush put through helped some. And the lessoning of the capital gains txes also helped.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Bull****.
Ron Paul for President!

Paul has about as much of a chance as a 3 legged horse in the Kentucky Derby does. Plus he can't decide if he's a Republican or a Libertarian.

[mhgaffney]

You are probably right. Ron Paul has no chance. But is this a statement about Ron Paul? No, it's a statement about America.

Like I said above our nation is now so corrupt there's no chance for real leadership to emerge. This is why Paul Craig Roberts thinks we are a failed state. If true leaders cannot emerge then the future is bleak.

Can we change this equation? That's the question. I don't see many people trying. I see a lot of narcissistic TV watchers whose philosophy of life can be summed up in one word: WOOPPEE.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

You are probably right. Ron Paul has no chance. But is this a statement about Ron Paul? No, it's a statement about America.

Like I said above our nation is now so corrupt there's no chance for real leadership to emerge. This is why Paul Craig Roberts thinks we are a failed state. If true leaders cannot emerge then the future is bleak.

Can we change this equation? That's the question. I don't see many people trying. I see a lot of narcissistic TV watchers whose philosophy of life can be summed up in one word: WOOPPEE.

The only way to change it is to change contribution laws (make all contributions anonymous). That way politicians aren't beholding to any special interest and have no reason to court any of them.

[ro_50]

Wow, good find. I heard him speak when he was a state senator in Illinois and didn't know about this speech.

It's too early to see who has my vote but right now, he's looking intriguing and I'm slightly leaning towards him, but as I said, its too early.

I think his so called "in-experience" in D.C. is a good thing and let's see if he can use this to his advantage.

[Spider]

Perhaps Obama is the leader we need now to get us out of this huge ****ing mess , the Idiot in Charge left us with ............

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

You are probably right. Ron Paul has no chance. But is this a statement about Ron Paul? No, it's a statement about America.

Like I said above our nation is now so corrupt there's no chance for real leadership to emerge. This is why Paul Craig Roberts thinks we are a failed state. If true leaders cannot emerge then the future is bleak.

Can we change this equation? That's the question. I don't see many people trying. I see a lot of narcissistic TV watchers whose philosophy of life can be summed up in one word: WOOPPEE.

throw yourself on your sword quick, only doom and despair will follow. Okay, whatever dude. got your "farsi" down yet....dman

[Spider]

Originally Posted by defenseman

throw yourself on your sword quick, only doom and despair will follow. Okay, whatever dude. got your "farsi" down yet....dman

looks like Gaff touched a nerve ..........

[Spider]

well 1 thing is for sure Baracks free ride is over , short honeymoon ......
it will be funny watching the KKK and the right join forces ........

[mhgaffney]

d-man has obviously swallowed the farm. Netanyahu (the yahoo) has been going around telling lies, stirring up hatred, fear etc. Whipping up qwar fever -- and d-man is in the peanut gallery

The comparison of Iran to Nazi Germany a la 1938 collapses under the most casual scrutiny, as there is nothing in common with the two states.

Bibi's agenda of course is to achieve Israeli hegemony in the region (to get the US to do it for him). Which means destroying all opposition. Isreal has always had two choices. 1) To sit down and negotiate the political settlement that has been on the table for many years with its neighbors and with the Palestinians. It's always been possiible -- but would require painful compromises and in the end would probably lead to a pluralistic society where Palestinians are a majority and Jews a minority. Obviously this is not acceptable to the Zionists. Or,

2) Israel can continue trying to be Sparta -- a small but exremely militaristic pariah. Unfortunately, it appears to have chosen the second path. As Ray McGovern, former CIA agent of 27 years, has pointed out, an attack upon Iran may initially be successful (like the US attack on Iraq), but ultimately it will result in the US being ejected from the region -- probably followed soon thereafter by the destruction of Israel. If this happens it will truly be a case of a self fulfilling prophecy coming to pass.

Someone should remind d-man (again since thus far the message hasn't penetrated the clouds) that Iran has never been the aggressor in modern history, even though it's been invaded and occupied a number of times. Contrast this with the US and Israeli record, which is a wasteland wake of destroyed, occupied and bombed nations.

I was very suprised when I discovered how close we actually came to global nuclear war in 1999, on Clinton's watch, when we bombed Yugoslavia. BTW, we spread depleted uranium across that proud nation, and even targetted the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Be assured it was no mistake. As for the Russians, they were one incident away from intervening -- since we were bombing their Slavic brothers in Serbia.

It was utter madness. And this happened under a Democratic administration. This is partly why I believe Iran will be so serious if it goes off. A Russian general has been making similar statements about the seriousness of the situation. Just today I heard that Putin gave a warning in a talk before the EU. We need to take a deep breath, and step back from the abys. And pull our troops out of Iraq immediately. If we go things there will actually improve. The Shi'ites and Sunnis will immediately start negotiations to end the civil war and maybe hold the country together.

In any event I do not support O Bomb a.

[Cito Pelon]

Ah, the DC political system is pretty inbred. The Speaker of the House is run by the respective DNC or RNC since they control the purse strings. The DNC or RNC gets their stooge in the Speaker position, then the stooge Speaker enforces party discipline. Good for the politicians, bad for the USA.

[Dudeskey]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Paul has about as much of a chance as a 3 legged horse in the Kentucky Derby does. Plus he can't decide if he's a Republican or a Libertarian.

I thought Libertarians were Republicans that smoke pot...