What Would Obama Have Done? Voted for
the War and Lied About It - Just Like Hillary
by Paul Street
"He would have gone along with Lieberman, Edwards,
Clinton, Kerry, and the rest of the pro-war crowd."
This article was originally published in Znet.
It pains me to concur with corporate-neoliberal war
Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton about anything, but Barack Obama really
should tone down his campaign rhetoric about "opposing the Iraq War from the start."
On October 2, 2007, the Obama campaign made an obnoxious
point of celebrating the "fifth anniversary" of the Chicago speech then State
Senator Barack Obama gave in the fall of 2002. That's the Daley Plaza
oration where Obama said that "even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined
length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences"
"What would I have done? I don't know."
But, as Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd accurately noted, Team Obama
"forgot to celebrate another anniversary. Last July 26th marked the third
anniversary of the New York Times story in which Obama admitted that he
did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq resolution had he been serving
in the United States Senate at the time of the vote." Dodd quoted
directly from the Times story:
"In a recent interview, [Obama] declined to
criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although
he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the
time. 'But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said.
'WHAT WOULD I HAVE DONE? I DON'T KNOW.' What I know is that from my
vantage point the case was not made'" (New York Times, 26 July,
2004).
Interesting. Seeking to exploit majority antiwar
sentiment that he has repeatedly defied (see below), Obama hammers away
again and again at Clinton and Edwards for making a terrible war-authorization
vote that (he confessed) he might well have made if he'd had access to the
same "Senate intelligence reports" Clinton, Kerry and Edwards
possessed to such great effect.
"Absolute Faith in Our Country and Its Leaders"
The New York Times interview came one day before
Obama delivered the speech that is widely credited for creating his overnight
national notoriety - his famous Keynote Address to the 2004 Democratic Convention. That's the speech where
Obama referred to Americans as "one people, all of us pledging allegiance
to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of
America." He said that Americans have "a righteous wind at our backs"
and praised "a young man" named Seamus who "told me he'd
joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the
following week." Seamus' most endearing quality, Obama told the 2004 Democratic Convention, was "absolute faith
in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service."
Reflecting on Seamus' supposed blind and unquestioning devotion to the American
fatherland, Obama "thought this young man was all that any of us might
hope for in a child."
"Never Go to War Without Enough Troops to Win"
The national narcissism and militarism that lay at the
heart of Obama's Keynote Address was more quietly evident when Obama discussed
the terrible blood costs of the Iraq
occupation purely in terms of "the more than nine hundred [U.S.] men and women
- sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors - who won't be
returning to their hometowns. I think," Obama said, "of the families I've
met who were struggling to get by without a loved one's full income, or whose
loved ones had returned with a limb missing or nerves shattered, but who still
lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists."
In the part of The Speech that came closest to directly
criticizing the Iraq invasion, Obama suggested that the Bush
administration had "fudged the numbers" and "shad[ed] the truth"
about why "our young men and women" were "sent into harm's
way." He added that the U.S. must "care for [soldiers'] families while
they're gone, tend to the soldiers upon their return, and never go to war
without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of
the world."
"The most powerful military state in history attacks and
colonially occupies a weak nation it has already devastated over decades."
What, morally cognizant listeners were left to wonder,
about the considerably larger quantity (well into the tens of thousands) of
Iraqis who had been killed and maimed and who lost income as a result of the
criminal U.S. invasion of their country by the summer of 2004? What about the
massive harm U.S. forces were ordered to inflict on Iraqis, considerably
greater than the damage they experienced?
It is hardly a "war," moreover, when the most
powerful military state in history attacks and colonially occupies a weak
nation it has already devastated over decades of military assault and even
deadlier "economic sanctions."
"Securing the peace" was a morally impoverished and
nationally arrogant, self-serving way for Obama to describe the real White
House objective in Iraq by the
summer of 2004: to pacify, by force when (quite) necessary, the outraged
populace of a nation that understandably resented a brazenly imperial invasion
it saw (with good reason) as driven by the United States' desire to deepen its
control of Iraqi and Middle Eastern oil.
And "shade the truth" didn't come close to doing
justice to the high-state deception - the savage, sinister, and sophisticated
lying - that the Bush administration used and is still using to cover their
real agenda, understood with no small accuracy by the people of Iraq.
Obama's comment about never "going to war" without the
resources to "win" and to keep the world's "respect" evaded the critical
question of the invasion's unjust nature. What, after all, was the
leading problem with Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union ? Was it that he we
went in without the capacity to "win" and thereby lost global esteem or was it
that he launched a monumentally criminal, racist and mass-murderous war of
imperial aggression that killed millions of Russians, Germans and other Eastern
and Central Europeans?!
Obama's great speech followed dutifully in accord with the
Democratic "leadership's" determination to downplay war dissent and to portray
their party's elites as the most competent managers of war and empire.
The 2004 Democratic Party Convention's managers were selling their presidential
candidate - John F. Kerry - as a more effective imperial administrator. They
relied heavily on their standard bearer's "heroic" Vietnam War record. Unlike the
incumbent George W. Bush, the
party insistently repeated, Kerry had "answered the call" to "national
duty" during the 1960s. Kerry accepted his nomination with a salute
and the statement that he was "Reporting for Duty," surrounded by fellow
veterans who had joined him in a previous illegal invasion. Delegates on
the floor were instructed to muzzle their opposition to Bush's terrible war.
Obama was happy to play along, given his longstanding
lust - going back to childhood, according to his close friend Valerie
Jarrett (see David Mendell, Obama: From Promise to Power [New York:
HarperCollins, 2007], p. 7) - for the presidency.
The "Dumb War" Speech: Removed and Reborn
So what about that earlier speech, presented at a
protest organized by elite Chicago "Lakefront liberals" (Mendell, Obama, pp.
172-175)in the fall of 2002? In that address, given when he could
afford to be more reckless - before he had been tapped to join the national
power elite - Obama said he was "not opposed to all wars; I'm opposed to dumb
wars." He criticized "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."
Obama was accurate and forthright about critical
matters. His speech rightly (consistent with elementary common sense and
the counsel of much of the U.S. foreign policy establishment) predicted that
invading Iraq would exacerbate Islamic anger and terrorist threats. It
correctly criticized the politically motivated nature and the potentially
long duration and high (U.S.) costs of the planned "war." It struck a
progressive chord when it related the administration's military ambitions
to Bush's desire to turn public attention away from pressing domestic
problems like poverty and corporate corruption.
"Obama argued that invading Iraq would be a foreign
policy mistake - something that would likely not work for American power - but
NOT that it would be a brazenly imperialist transgression."
It was not a Left oration. Calling Bush's imminent war
"dumb" but not criminal or immoral, it deleted the illegal
and petro-imperialist ambitions behind the Iraq invasion being planned in Washington . It said nothing about the
racist nature of the administration's determination to conflate Iraq with 9/11 and al Qaeda. It
argued that invading Iraq would be a foreign policy mistake - something that
would likely not work for American power - but NOT that it would be a
brazenly imperialist transgression certain to kill untold masses of
innocent Iraqis.
Still, the speech was strong enough to be quietly
taken off Obama's campaign Web site by the summer of 2004. Even his
relatively tepid 2002 objections to the forthcoming mass-murderous
invasion - actual Left voices within and beyond the U.S. were (quite
accurately) describing Bush's plans as racist, oil-driven, imperialist, and
criminal - were deemed too truthful for public viewing when he was running for
the U.S. Senate and had been selected to give an important, nationally
televised address for an "opposition" party that was muting its delegates'
criticism of a radically interventionist foreign policy its own leaders helped
create.
Two and a half years later, things had changed. Now that the
Iraq "fiasco" had become the leading black mark on the Republicans' record and
"opposing the war from the beginning" had become a great political plus, Obama
referred to his 2002 speech on a regular and even ritual basis. He told his
biographer, Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell, that it was
"the speech I'm most proud of" (Mendell, p.176). He routinely cited it as an
example of his foreign policy superiority over his chief rivals for the
Democratic presidential nomination (Hillary Clinton and John Edwards), both of whom voted for
authorize Bush to use force against Iraq in early
October of 2002. He has used his 2002 speech again and again to burnish his
image as an antiwar candidate, encouraging desperate and deluded peace and
justice progressives to bring their antiwar signs and symbols to his rallies
and speeches.
Heckuva "Antiwar" Record, Barry
Never mind that he has repeatedly voted to fund the illegal,
racist, mass-murderous and brazenly petro-imperialist occupation of Iraq since his arrival in the U.S. Senate. Never
mind that he voted to confirm the mendacious war criminal Condoleezza
Rice as Secretary of State, who played a critical role in advancing the
preposterous Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) claims Bush used to invade Iraq - the same ridiculous claims Obama admitted he might
have played along with if only he'd had Hillary Clinton's
"intelligence" access. Or that he distanced himself from fellow Illinois U.S. Senator Dick Durbin when Durbin faced vicious
right-wing attacks after daring to tell some basic truths about U.S. torture
practices in Iraq. Or that
Obama used his considerable political and campaign finance muscle to
back centrist Democrats against antiwar progressives in numerous
Congressional primaries in 2006 (he even supported the neoconservative Joe Lieberman - his self-chosen Senate mentor -
against the antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont in Connecticut). Or that
he has repeatedly and absurdly argued that the illegal invasion was launched
with the best of democratic intentions and praised U.S. military personnel for
their "unquestioning" "service" in Iraq and
(despite numerous U.S. atrocities there) for "doing everything we could
ever ask of them."
Never mind that his belated calls for
withdrawal are hedged by numerous statements indicating that an Obama
White House would maintain a significant military presence in and around Iraq for an indefinite period of time. Or that he
refuses to support taking a reckless (possibly even nuclear) U.S. military
assault on Iran off the
table of acceptable U.S. foreign policy options.
"Obama used his considerable political and campaign
finance muscle to back centrist Democrats against antiwar
progressives in numerous Congressional primaries in 2006."
A recent high point in Obama's "antiwar" record came when he
couldn't bother to be present on the Senate floor to vote against the Bush's
administration's provocative, saber-rattling effort to define Iran's
Revolutionary Guard as "an international terrorist organization." That chilling
step was supported by Hillary Clinton, a former Iraq War Hawk
(to the right of even Lieberman on the invasion through at least late
2005) who continues to make the contemptible claim that she would not
have voted to authorize Bush for invasion if she'd "known then what we know
now." The measure is strongly opposed by John Edwards, who has shown the
common decency to own his horrid Iraq War vote and to call it "the
biggest mistake of my life."
How would Obama have decided on Iraq in the fall of 2002 if he'd been in the U.S.
Senate? Let's "stop and think for a minute," as my fellow Obama antagonist
Mike Gravel likes to say. Looking at Obama's
subsequent record, the likely direction of his vote seems clear: he would have
gone along with Lieberman, Edwards (who has apologized profusely for his
vote), Clinton (no remorse), Kerry (who cares?), and the rest of the pro-war
crowd.
A more interesting question is this: what would Obama be
saying about his (hypothetical 2002 pro-war) vote today?
That's easy. He'd be lying and deceiving just like
Hillary. He wouldn't be accepting blame for "a terrible decision" like
Edwards.
Humility is not one of Obama's most noticeable qualities.
Antiwar peace and justice types supporting Obama need to get
a clue about their candidate and his real record and nature.
It's getting a little late in the game for them to keep
playing along with this shifty and slimy political disease that is the
Obama phenomenon.
Paul Street is a writer, speaker and activist
based in Iowa
City, IA and Chicago, IL. He is the author of Empire and Inequality:
America and the World Since 9/11 (Boulder, CO:
Paradigm); Racial Oppression in the Global Metropolis (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007); and Segregated
Schools: Educational Apartheid in Post-Civil Rights America (New York: Routledge, 2005. Paul can be reached at paulstreet99@yahoo.com.
In this series, we ask acclaimed authors to answer five questions about their book. This week’s featured author is Tracie Canada. Canada is the Andrew W. Mellon Assistant Professor of…
The SanctionsKill campaign exposes how US economic warfare kills civilians across the Global South. Meanwhile, the Palestinian-led BDS movement represents a legitimate tool of grassroots resistance…
The US government left Black residents to die after Hurricane Katrina, refusing Cuba's offer of emergency doctors. This racist neglect exposed a truth that the US state would rather sacrifice its own…
The current military occupation of DC is not an anomaly but an escalation of a long war on Black communities, a more visible form of ongoing political subjugation.
From Bandera to Ben-Gurion, an axis of ethno-supremacy is rising, fueled by U.S. backing. Same guns. Same flags. Same ideology. Gaza and Donbass are not separate wars. They are one machine.
