Here, meanwhile, was Obama’s response to Clinton’s “obliterate” comment: “Well, it's not the language that we need right now, and I think its language that's reflective of George Bush. We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk, and, in the meantime, we make a series of strategic decisions that actually strengthen Iran. So -- and, you know, the irony is, of course, Senator Clinton, during the course of this campaign, has at times said, 'We shouldn't speculate about Iran.' You know, 'We've got to be cautious when we're running for president.' She scolded me on a couple of occasions about this issue, and yet, a few days before an election, she's willing to use that language.”
Clearly, Obama's objection was to the language Clinton used, not to the idea of attacking or even "obliterating" Iran. In that one short excerpt, he used the word "language" three times. But can you find in that statement anything that would indicate opposition to actually attacking Iran?
Again, should we breathe easier knowing that if Obama does attack Iran, he will choose his words more carefully as he “sells” the war?
Obama and Pat Buchanan: On Iraq They Can Agree
While the most obvious significance of Obama's AIPAC speech is that it illuminated his position on Israel and Iran, there was another reason this address was important: because it revealed the true nature of his objections to the war in Iraq.
Throughout his campaign, Obama has pointed to the fact that he opposed the Iraq War before it started—something his main democratic rival, Hilary Clinton, could not claim—as evidence that he truly is a departure from the political norm; not only from the policies of the Bush Regime, but from other current and past Democratic candidates. Implicitly, Obama has said to the anti-war movement: “Look, I know you’ve been stabbed in the back by Democrats before, but you can trust me because I’ve been on your side the whole time.” Certainly not true.
Two people, or groups of people, can arrive at the same viewpoint for entirely different reasons, and with completely opposing motives. Just because the vast majority of us in the anti-war movement opposed the Iraq War from the start, and Barack Obama opposed the Iraq War from the start, doesn’t mean our interests and his interests are parallel. If you want to get a clear sense of somebody’s position on an issue and where that position leads, you can’t just look at what they believe; you have to look at why they believe it.
Yes, Barack Obama did express opposition to the Iraq war way back in 2002. But so did the ultra-conservative, racist, and xenophobic Pat Buchanan. Why? Because Buchanan felt the war was detrimental to America’s global interests.
“Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends,” Buchanan wrote in 2003. “Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.”
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
Does Pat Buchanan’s opposition to the Iraq War—and even to the neocons waging that war— make him an advocate for the people of the world? Were he running for president in 2008, would people place their faith in him to reverse the nightmare of the Bush Regime?
Obviously neither Barack Obama and Pat Buchanan, nor their agendas, are identical to one another. However, Obama’s opposition to the Iraq War comes from the same basic source as Pat Buchanan’s: He believed, and still believes, the war undermined U.S. security and interests. And his speech before AIPAC made this point crystal clear.
Again, it’s best to just let Obama’s words speak for themselves:
· “I respect Senator McCain and I look forward to a substantive debate with him these next 5 months. But on this point, we have differed and we will differ: Senator McCain refuses to acknowledge the failure of the policy he would continue. He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy. But he offers only an alternative reality, one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite: Iran has strengthened its position. I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.”
· “Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. And instead of pursuing a strategy to address that threat, we ignored it. And instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what has happened. The hard-liners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in 2005. The United States and Israel are less secure.”
· “Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran, it is precisely the way to strengthen it.”
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
