Barack Obama's Iraq Speech

[Stephanie]

Oh darn that ole internet can come bite to bite ya in the ass.



SNIP:
←Wikisource:Speeches Against Going to War with Iraq (2002)
by Barack Obama
Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois; at the same day and hour that President Bush and Congress announced their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, but over a week before it was passed by either body of Congress.

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.

read it all here.
Barack Obama's Iraq Speech - Wikisource

 

[Dr.Drock]

"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."

That's all we need to read.

How americans still have so much faith in bureacrats is nothing short of astounding to me.

 

[Angelhair]

'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.'

THIS is ALL I need to read.

 

[rightwinger]

Thanks for posting Steph...prophetic wasn't it?

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.



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.



And you wonder why we voted for the guy?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Now let me be clear — 

What the hell is the deal on this? Who besides himself, is trying to stop him from being clear? This is in just about every statement he makes, does he have any clue how stupid it makes him sound? This would be the leading "Bushism" were it a Bush habit.... We would never have heard the end of it from late night comedians, pundits, and etc. But today? Crickets.

Audio Montage: Just let him be clear.mp3

 

[Trajan]

I for one think he should do a press conference......you know, where he gets asked questions, not just a setting where he drones on telling us what his spin doctors of told him to say based on the latest polling.

But, minus ToTus ( the tele-prompter) , I frankly don't think he would survive a Q & A, if the right questions were asked, I really don't. *shrugs*

From Ross Douthats column today, he has some one liner in there that made me chuckle.....

A War By Any Name
By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: March 27, 2011

Tonight, in a speech that probably should have been delivered before American planes began flying missions over North Africa, Barack Obama will try to explain to a puzzled nation why we are at war with Libya.

Not that the word “war” will pass his lips, most likely. In press briefings last week, our Libyan campaign was euphemized into a “kinetic military action” and a “time-limited, scope-limited military action.” (The online parodies were merciless: “Make love, not time-limited, scope-limited military actions!” “Let slip the muzzled canine unit of kinetic military action!&#8221 Advertising tonight’s address, the White House opted for “the situation in Libya,” which sounds less like a military intervention than a spin-off vehicle for the famous musclehead from MTV’s “Jersey Shore.”

But by any name or euphemism, the United States has gone to war, and there are questions that the president must answer. Here are the four biggest ones:

What are our military objectives? The strict letter of the United Nations resolution we’re enforcing only authorizes the use of air power to protect civilian populations “under threat of attack” from Qaddafi’s forces. But we’re interpreting that mandate as liberally as possible: our strikes have cleared the way for a rebel counteroffensive, whose success is contingent on our continued air support.

If the rebels stall out short of Tripoli, though, how will we respond? With a permanent no-fly zone, effectively establishing a NATO protectorate in eastern Libya? With arms for the anti-Qaddafi forces, so they can finish the job? Either way, the logic of this conflict suggests a more open-ended commitment than the White House has been willing to admit.

Who exactly are the rebels? According to our ambassador to Libya, they have issued policy statements that include “all the right elements” — support for democracy, economic development, women’s rights, etc. According to The Los Angeles Times, they have filled what used to be Qaddafi’s prisons with “enemies of the revolution” — mostly black Africans, rounded up under suspicion of being mercenaries and awaiting revolutionary justice. According to The Daily Telegraph in London, their front-line forces include what one rebel commander calls the “patriots and good Muslims” who fought American forces in Iraq.

snip-
Can we really hand off this mission? Officially, this is a far more multilateral venture than was, say, the invasion of Iraq. But as Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin points out, when it comes to direct military support, this war’s coalition is “smaller than any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War.” Officially, too, the United States is already stepping back into a supporting role, as NATO takes over the command. But as Wired’s Spencer Ackerman argues, the difference between a “high” United States involvement and a “low” military commitment may prove more semantic than meaningful.


more at-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/opinion/28douthat.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[Trajan]

Now let me be clear — 

What the hell is the deal on this? Who besides himself, is trying to stop him from being clear? This is in just about every statement he makes, does he have any clue how stupid it makes him sound? This would be the leading "Bushism" were it a Bush habit.... We would never have heard the end of it from late night comedians, pundits, and etc. But today? Crickets.

Audio Montage: Just let him be clear.mp3

I remember an old saying about Nixon, (I think it originated with William Manchester) whenever he said; " let me make one thing perfectly clear", its was about to become opaque and meandering....Obama suffers no such scrutiny.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Now let me be clear — 

What the hell is the deal on this? Who besides himself, is trying to stop him from being clear? This is in just about every statement he makes, does he have any clue how stupid it makes him sound? This would be the leading "Bushism" were it a Bush habit.... We would never have heard the end of it from late night comedians, pundits, and etc. But today? Crickets.

Audio Montage: Just let him be clear.mp3

I remember an old saying about Nixon, (I think it originated with William Manchester) whenever he said; " let me make on thing perfectly clear", its was about to become opaque and meandering....Obama suffers no such scrutiny.

Exactly.

Apparently it's some kind of rhetorical device that is supposed to make you sound assertive and thoughtful. It really only makes one sound like he needs crutches to get through statements.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Thanks for posting Steph...prophetic wasn't it?

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.



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.



And you wonder why we voted for the guy?

Well one could make a case for voting for him the 1st time, a 2nd time? That would defy logic.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Thanks for posting Steph...prophetic wasn't it?

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.



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.



And you wonder why we voted for the guy?

Well one could make a case for voting for him the 1st time, a 2nd time? That would defy logic.

I'll vote for him again, no problem - if the GOP doesn't nominate a total outsider such as Herman Cain. In fact, he's the only GOP'er I'd give my vote to. If they nominate a party insider, another McSame, they can forget it.

I want a divided government, above almost all else. To that end I don't mind President Obama having a second term.

 

[Avorysuds]

Thanks for posting Steph...prophetic wasn't it?

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.



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.



And you wonder why we voted for the guy?

Shocking, another Democrat that has no issue with the Irag Afghan and now new third war because a D is next to their presidents name.

I say it and I say it again... "Liberals are what they hate."

 

[Dr.Drock]

Thanks for posting Steph...prophetic wasn't it?

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.



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.



And you wonder why we voted for the guy?

Well one could make a case for voting for him the 1st time, a 2nd time? That would defy logic.

I'll vote for him again, no problem - if the GOP doesn't nominate a total outsider such as Herman Cain. In fact, he's the only GOP'er I'd give my vote to. If they nominate a party insider, another McSame, they can forget it.

I want a divided government, above almost all else. To that end I don't mind President Obama having a second term.

I guess my point was if you voted against a Bush-style foreign policy and now you know it's actually a Bush-style foreign policy than you wouldn't vote for him again.

If warmongering and nationbuilding are things you approve of, then you should have voted for Bush and should continue voting for Obama.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Well one could make a case for voting for him the 1st time, a 2nd time? That would defy logic.

I'll vote for him again, no problem - if the GOP doesn't nominate a total outsider such as Herman Cain. In fact, he's the only GOP'er I'd give my vote to. If they nominate a party insider, another McSame, they can forget it.

I want a divided government, above almost all else. To that end I don't mind President Obama having a second term.

I guess my point was if you voted against a Bush-style foreign policy and now you know it's actually a Bush-style foreign policy than you wouldn't vote for him again.

If warmongering and nationbuilding are things you approve of, then you should have voted for Bush and should continue voting for Obama.

Go with the devil you know. I sure as hell don't want a Huckabee or any other of the front runners from the GOP anywhere near the Oval office, especially if they have a super majority Congress.

I'm not a one-issue voter.

 

[rightwinger]

Thanks for posting Steph...prophetic wasn't it?

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.



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.



And you wonder why we voted for the guy?

Shocking, another Democrat that has no issue with the Irag Afghan and now new third war because a D is next to their presidents name.

I say it and I say it again... "Liberals are what they hate."

I opposed Iraq from the start and support getting the hell out of Afghanistan

Libya is far from reaching a war status

 

[Avorysuds]

Thanks for posting Steph...prophetic wasn't it?

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.



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.



And you wonder why we voted for the guy?

Shocking, another Democrat that has no issue with the Irag Afghan and now new third war because a D is next to their presidents name.

I say it and I say it again... "Liberals are what they hate."

I opposed Iraq from the start and support getting the hell out of Afghanistan

Libya is far from reaching a war status

Yes, you need to kill at least 10,000 people that don't want to die before a liberal can consider Obama's War a "War."

Like I said, you are what you hate, good luck.

Oh and I’m yet to see you start a single thread with bitching about Obama needed to get the fuk out of Iraq or Afghanistan… All I see is support for his third War.

Hey RW, can you define what makes a war a war for all of us? Pretty please?

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'll vote for him again, no problem - if the GOP doesn't nominate a total outsider such as Herman Cain. In fact, he's the only GOP'er I'd give my vote to. If they nominate a party insider, another McSame, they can forget it.

I want a divided government, above almost all else. To that end I don't mind President Obama having a second term.

I guess my point was if you voted against a Bush-style foreign policy and now you know it's actually a Bush-style foreign policy than you wouldn't vote for him again.

If warmongering and nationbuilding are things you approve of, then you should have voted for Bush and should continue voting for Obama.

Go with the devil you know. I sure as hell don't want a Huckabee or any other of the front runners from the GOP anywhere near the Oval office, especially if they have a super majority Congress.

I'm not a one-issue voter.

Yeah Huckabee is a big tax, big spending, middle-east meddling, big government liberal.

We don't want that type of bureacrat in office.............................

 

[rightwinger]

Shocking, another Democrat that has no issue with the Irag Afghan and now new third war because a D is next to their presidents name.

I say it and I say it again... "Liberals are what they hate."

I opposed Iraq from the start and support getting the hell out of Afghanistan

Libya is far from reaching a war status

Yes, you need to kill at least 10,000 people that don't want to die before a liberal can consider Obama's War a "War."

Like I said, you are what you hate, good luck.

Oh and I’m yet to see you start a single thread with bitching about Obama needed to get the fuk out of Iraq or Afghanistan… All I see is support for his third War.

Hey RW, can you define what makes a war a war for all of us? Pretty please?

Sure thing buddy...

To Libya this is a Revolution or Civil War

To the US at this time, it is a military engagement. Firing weapons does not make a war. Until the US puts significant troop strength on the ground and is involved in taking and holding territory it is not a war

Military engagements have been used by President over the last 60 years and have not reached war status

What do you think a war is?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I guess my point was if you voted against a Bush-style foreign policy and now you know it's actually a Bush-style foreign policy than you wouldn't vote for him again.

If warmongering and nationbuilding are things you approve of, then you should have voted for Bush and should continue voting for Obama.

Go with the devil you know. I sure as hell don't want a Huckabee or any other of the front runners from the GOP anywhere near the Oval office, especially if they have a super majority Congress.

I'm not a one-issue voter.

Yeah Huckabee is a big tax, big spending, middle-east meddling, big government liberal.

We don't want that type of bureacrat in office.............................

You don't know what he is, until he's given the reins of absolute power he would have with a super majority GOP Congress. We MUST not let one-party rule happen again.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Go with the devil you know. I sure as hell don't want a Huckabee or any other of the front runners from the GOP anywhere near the Oval office, especially if they have a super majority Congress.

I'm not a one-issue voter.

Yeah Huckabee is a big tax, big spending, middle-east meddling, big government liberal.

We don't want that type of bureacrat in office.............................

You don't know what he is, until he's given the reins of absolute power he would have with a super majority GOP Congress. We MUST not let one-party rule happen again.

All I can go by is his history as a bureacrat, those principles I gave are what he abides by.

I couldn't care less if the GOP or dems have full power or a mix of power, the exact same stuff happens in all scenarios. The only difference is rhetoric and who's is loudest depends on how many voices are spewing that rhetoric.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Gaddafi is a far less threat to the U.S. and Region than Saddam Hussein was. Hussein gassed his people and invaded other Nations. Gaddafi has never been hostile to his neighbors. And there is absolutely no evidence of "Genocide" either. Those claims are just BULLSHIT. This is a Libyan Civil War. Their whole "Gotta save the poor Civilians/Destabilizing the Region" shtick really is a dishonest sham. This War is only about the Oil. And that's the truth. Shame on them.