No one can touch Obama's prescient view of the Iraq war

[Mortos]

I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. 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. 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.

Barack Obama 2002

Who else currently running was this right on the issue of the Iraq war? His statement in 2002 was completely and totally right in every aspect. His prediction of what would happen is the written history of what did happen. The Iraq war is the dominant issue of our time and probably will be for the next decade or more. We need a candidate who has clarity of thinking and a proven track record on this issue. No one else comes close.

The more I read and learn about Obama, the more I like him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama

[Adelante]

1. Is there a link to the 2002 statement?

Thanks.

[Mortos]

4. Here ya go

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

The entire speech.

[madame defarge]

2. And this is why I support him.

The War in Iraq is THE issue, to me. Until we end this illegitimate war -- the cost in lives & $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, all other issues are irrelevant (IMHO).

Frank Rich has a great op-ed today in the NYTimes (via Times Select). For those who don't subscribe to NYTimes, I'm sure his complete piece will be up somewhere on the internets soon.

Stop Him Before He Gets More Experience
http://www.nytimes.com/opinion/

[kevsand]

3. Both Clark and Kucinich were saying the same things.

Obama, as usual, was dead on, but to answer your question, he was not the only one who took this position at the time. Dick Durbin also spoke eloquently against the war, and voted against the resolution, as did Ted Kennedy and a number of other Democratic senators. Among current candidates, Kucinich and Clark must be counted with Obama as opponents of the war before it began.

[Tiggeroshii]

10. He is the only major candidate running now who was right about Iraq.

I am guessing. Kucinich is running, but so far is not a major candidate(in terms of fundraising, support, etc). I do not know what Richardson's position was at the time but if it was the same as Obama's I will retract my subject line.

[kevsand]

12. Richardson is no more major at this point than Kucinich.

I guess if you get to define what words mean, any statement you make is correct. That being said, I was responding to the statement in the OP, which did not have your self-defined qualifier.

[cali]

5. I love Obama, but let's be honest, it cost him nothing to say that in

2002. The folks that really took a risk back then were Dean and Kucinich- very different folks who opposed the war for very different reasons, but were both running for President. As for prescient takes on the war, read some of the speeches by Senators who opposed the IWR. Let's not get carried away by Obama and credit him as exceptional in his insight and wisdom about the Iraqi War. He wasn't. I suggest you read Sen. Leahy speech on the eve of the war. It provides some incredible historical perspective and wisdom.

[Tellurian]

6. Is there an english translation to his name?

just curious-

[LWolf]

7. That's bullshit:

No one can touch Obama's prescient view of the Iraq war




Dennis Kucinich doesn't need to "touch" Obama's view. He was on the floor of the House in 2002 with this:

Vote "NO'' On Iraq War Resolution US
Statement by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), October 3, 2002
Before the House of Represenatives

<snip>

The resolution goes on to say, and I quote from the resolution: ``Whereas members of al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, are known to be in Iraq.''

Well, the American people need to know there is no credible evidence that connects Iraq to the events of 9-11 or to participation in those events by assisting al Qaeda.

The resolution states, and I quote: ``Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens.''

The key issue here, and the counterpoint that the American people need to know, is that any connection between Iraq's support of terrorist groups in the Middle East, Mr. Speaker, is an argument for focusing great resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not a sufficient cause for the United States to launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq. Indeed, an argument could be made that such an attack would exacerbate the condition in the Middle East and destabilize the region.

The resolution states: ``Whereas the attacks on the United States of America of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations.''

And, again, and I stress, the American people need to know that there is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9-11. However, this resolution attempts to make the connection over and over and over. And just saying that there is a connection does not make it so, because the Central Intelligence Agency has not presented this Congress with any credible information that indicates that there is in fact a tie between Iraq and 9-11, between Iraq and al Qaeda, or Iraq and the anthrax attacks on this Capitol.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/10/03_kucinich_vote-no.htm

It's a long statement. There's much more, and you can read it at the link. You said, We need a candidate who has clarity of thinking and a proven track record on this issue. That's true. No one else comes close.That's obviously false.

Congressman Kucinich has a clear, strong. proven track record in Congress on this issue. What's more, as far as "track records" go, he has more time and experience serving in Congress than Senator Obama.

I applaud Obama for his foresight, but I will not stand by if and when his supporters or campain spouts the "no one else" blatantly false propaganda.

[mtnsnake]

8. How about none of the heavyweights "can touch Obama's prescient view of the Iraq war"

None of them can.

[LWolf]

9. I guess it depends on the scale.

If the scale includes record and experience, rather than corporate support and media hype, DK is a heavier weight than Obama.

If the scale measures substance over all other attributes, he's the heaviest.

[Tiggeroshii]

11. Unfortunately these days "heavyweight" refers to corporate support and media hype.

One day it may change(I hope), but so far that is the case...

[LWolf]

14. The vehicle of change,

according to one man:

"Be the change you wish to see."

In other words, don't accept the status quo. Live and act the change. I really like this one. The change I wish to see is that substance on issues be more weighty than corrupt corporate influence and media hype.

Therefore, the only weight a candidate has for me is substance on issues and record, and I will not allow the rest to influence my perspective or my choice. If everyone did this, today, you wouldn't have to hopefully wait for "someday over the rainbow."

[Mortos]

13. Dennis Kucinich

will never be a serious contender for the nomination. I am sorry to brust the bubble of his supporters but anyone with a realistic view of the nominees realizes that Kucinich; truthful, ethical and knowledgeable man that he is has not got a shot at being the nominee.

Is it right? Is it fair? No, probably not. But it is reality.

He has ever right to run and should because maybe by running he can focus the spotlight on some of the very decent and humanitarian issues he champions.

[LWolf]

15. I've heard this argument before, obviously.

To be frank:

I don't see what makes Obama more "serious" than Kucinich. It isn't record, experience, substance on issues. Is Obama more corrupt? More in the pocket of corporate politics and corporate media? Prettier? What?

I believe that you just said that a truthful, ethical, knowledgeable candidate will never get the nomination.

That means we can dispense with pretending that the "serious" candidates are truthful, ethical, and knowledgeable. Which must mean that the Democratic Party cannot be spun as "truthful, ethical, or knowledgeable."

To be honest, I think that this pov will eventually lead to the death of the Democratic Party. That's not a "win," in my book.

And, regardless of his chances, the statement in your OP is still blatantly false.

[jen4clark]

16. What makes Obama more "serious"

than Kucinich...

Corporate Press and those who buy in to their tactics of once again shoving whom they want to be the Dem candidate down our collective throats.

I'd say 8 years as VP and Obama will make an excellent President! I so wish our newly majority Senators would get serious about doing the job they were elected to do for the next 2 years instead of running around the country and missing votes... :(