Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
| October 02, 2002

October 2, 2002

“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 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 armchair, 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.”

By the way, just so you know where I’m coming from, I’m not with the Obama campaign. I’m just one voter, and reader who happens to think highly of Obama. Edwards is my second choice. I am not eager to see Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee.

In October of 2002, while the U.S. Senate was preparing to authorize President Bush to use military force in Iraq, he gave a speech expressing his opposition to the war that included this: “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. 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.”

That kind of statement on a crucial national policy decision hardly suggests to me a careful follower. That is the sort of speech a leader gives.

Do you truly think that Barack Obama is anti-gay, or a homophobe, or doesn’t value tolerance? I don’t.
I am, however, pretty anxious about the consequences of a Republican victory in the 2008 presidential election.

I suspect he let someone else select the performers for his tour. What happened after it became clear there was a problem? Did he rectify it?

My feeling isn’t that he’s anti-gay, but that this is one of several things he’s said or done which is just off by half a beat and indicate he’s ‘not ready for Prime Time’. He’s a little green.

I also sense that he’s more of a follower than a leader and that’s why his speeches sound so much like Edwards. That he doesn’t strike me as a leader leaves me feeling he’s an extremely expensive beautiful empty suit who gives a great speech.

He’ll be a very good senator for Illinois.

Hammer-nail-bang. They wish!

Shitfire, I wish I was on John Edwards’ campaign staff.

Move, John! MOVE!

raven @ 127

OMG. Brian Williams just reported that Condi met with Jimmy Carter about the ME. Shut my mouth!

I think Carter actually likes Condi – he’s been pretty kind in his comments about her (unlike the rest of the admin)

Of course, Carter has been involved in “talking with” some pretty reprehensible people over the years in his Peace negotiations. His view is that you might disagree to the core with them, but you try to bring them to a place where progress towards human rights and peace increases. Usually he backs off name-calling during that time. Almost always, even when upbraiding an individual he points out actions and behaviors, rather than making aspersions on their “essence” as a human being.

Notice how very different things are under Bush…personal attacks are often first, with distortions about what has actually occurred second.

Oh, and when it comes to FEMA, I’m very alert to moral hazards. In the case of Katrina, it was the Army Corps levies that failed, not bad behavior on the part of NOers. (You could ask a separate Q about whether we should construct levies to protect NO, but that was not in the behavioral calculations of the people who’ve been living there for decades.) In the case of CA wild fires, I think that programs like FEMA encourage bad behavior, like building in canyons where your house is highly likely to get consumed by wild fire. Think those home owners ought to pay full cost & taxpayers not. For awhile it looked like the Feds were getting smarter about not providing flood insurance & moving people out of areas that flood frequently, but, as usual, pandering to local voters won out over sensible economic policy. Haven’t seen any attempt to make people who build in CA canyons held responsible for their decisions, though I’m on the other coast & may be unaware of what’s actually happening.

Hate to disagree with you eCahn. You DON’T understand what is happening at all.

First these firestorms are generally a very recent phenomenon. with the exception of the 1970 Laguna Fire and one other all the major wildfires in California (10 of the top 12) have occurred after 2002.
Many of these homes were built long before that period…at a time when fires were smaller, controllable, and relatively benign.

Second. When these fires come thrugh they not only impact homes in CANYONS, but on plateaus, ridgelines, rolling hills, and flat terrains. And sometimes they encroach into cities. Once one of these big fires get moving they are indiscriminant. I don’t understand what the difference would be between a canyon and these other areas. Basically you are arguing that any Californian (actually any Westerner) that lives outside the city core shouldn’t receive fire protection.
Of course, that’s the vast majority of the population of California nowadays.

Because that is actually where these fires impact (not just a few people living in Canyons). And if the Santa Ana winds had kept up…the risk to cities themselves would have been dire. 80-120 mph winds blowing cinders from other burnt structure are carried far from the rural and suburban fringes and aren’t merely confined to “canyons”.

Your statement is about as absurd as saying that taxpayers should ignore the people of New Orleans ‘coz they built on a hurricane prone area. Or that West Coasters and the people of he Mississippi Valley shouldn’t expect Federal aid because they should realize they are living in a serious earthquake zone. Or the peoples of the South and Midwest not deserving any help from tornados. Or those people in the heartland along the Missouri, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers deserving no help because they live in a floodplain (one that is naturally 40 miles wide in places if left unchecked). Blizzards…heatwaves…droughts…well, the risks of living in the South, West, or North was well known. Should take care of your own foolish choices, right?

And since we have long been warned of the consequences of Global Warming- well some took bad advice, but that was their coice,- then the increase in coastal sea-levels, storm intensity, and disease spread should have been recognized and these folks should have sold their homes and gotten out. It’s their fault!

Back to laissez-faire, except of course for the rich!

A couple things stood out for me. First, Edwards was able to make an appeal that played on multiple levels. The university academics could come together with the blue collar workers worried about scabs and the rural retirees who worried about health care and Iraq and the farmers who were concerned about the blowback from feetrade.

Another thing that impressed me was how how respectful Edwards was about the idea of dissent in general, and his treatment of questioners who clearly would never vote for him — like the fair tax guy, or the retiree who saw crime behind every tree trunk. Edwards was able both to disagree forcefully (with regard to tax policy), and to find some sort of common ground with even the most addled of questioners. I saw in his responses both a skillful politician and someone who had a real respect for the give and take which is inevitable in a functioning democracy.

I am aware that Edwards’ strong showing in Iowa is keeping his candidacy alive on the national level at this point. Coming from someone who sees the candidates up close and personal, I hope that folks who don’t have this opportunity will take a serious second look at his candidacy. He’s matured a lot since 2004, and has the courage of his convictions. I’d hate to see people write him off simply because Kos thinks that he’s shot himself in the foot with public financing for the primaries.