Obama Wrong on Iraq?

On October 2, 2002 Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, who was yet to make his bid for the United States Senate, gave a speech against going to war in Iraq. When one examines the basic tenants and claims of that speech one will discover Senator Obama's reasoning behind his vehement opposition to the war.

Obama's claim is that he is a patriot. He loves the United States of America. I find this to be explicit throughout his rhetoric of the speech. However, he is not opposed to war when it comes to protecting 1) America's national interests, 2) our homeland as it relates to national security, and 3) the general welfare of all American citizens.

Read paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the transcript and read for yourself what he is and was opposed to when it comes to the war in Iraq. The transcript has not been altered and you can locate identical transcripts from independent, non-partisan websites by utilizing the Google search engine.

On Thursday President Bush announced that he would withdraw 8,000 troops from Iraq by February of 2009, but he would also deploy a new set of troops to Afghanistan. Barack's response was consistent with his initial position on the war. He said, "President Bush is not acting quickly or forcefully enough to get more U.S. forces into Afghanistan and out of Iraq. His plan comes up short - it is not enough troops, not enough resources, with not enough urgency, Obama said. The next president will inherit a status quo that is still unstable"

It's just as interesting now as it was seven years ago that we're even in a war with Iraq when it was Osama Bin Laden in AFGHANISTAN that attacked us. We have yet to hear a credible explanation of that. As certain military personnel have told me, "We've always had a reason to go into Iraq." My response was that the American people have understood this from 1998 (Bush Sr.'s first term) until the year 2000 (the end of Bill Clinton's term). What we don't understand is in the context of retaliation why Bush ordered a war on a country that did not attack us and was somewhat docile at the time. Sure, Saddam was still a dictator, but there was no cause for immediate alarm. And where did the reports that he had weapons of mass destruction come from? I can hear the Twilight Zone theme music as an answer to that question.

Yesterday, Senator McCain took it upon himself to blast Obama because of the progress in Iraq. "Sen. Obama was wrong about Iran. He was wrong about Iraq. He was wrong about Russia. He's wrong about America's national security challenges in the future. And he has no experience, and more importantly, he lacks the judgment to lead this country."

I have to admit that's a great political soundbite and leaves the ball in Obama's court, however, we have to remember that John McCain supported this war in the first place. Wouldn't it be fair to ask where was Senator McCain's "foreign policy experience" when he voted for a war that was fueled by faulty intelligence? You couldn't smell anything fishy with the plethora of war experience you love to purport? Where was the consideration of the American people and our service men and women when the briefs were forwarded to the Senate and it contained information that should have prompted McCain to vote no? Folks, it wasn't there. Obama wasn't wrong on the war.

It may seem like things are turning around now, but that has been the natural ebb and flow of this entire conflict. As a matter of fact, it is the atmosphere of the Middle East. Barack's final paragraph of his speech says it better than I ever could:

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.