tony mitra
10-11-2007, 06:11 PM
Five years after Iraq war vote, we're still foolishly rattling our sabers
By SEN. BARACK OBAMA
ON THE FIFTH anniversary of the Senate's vote to authorize an open-ended war in Iraq, we should resolve to never repeat the terrible mistake of launching a misguided war. But unfortunately, the Senate risked doing exactly that when it recently opened the door to an extension and escalation of the ongoing war in Iraq to include military action against Iran.
There is no doubt that Iran poses a threat. It has armed terrorists beyond its borders, maintains an illicit nuclear program, and its leaders have issued belligerent threats that are a concern to us all. But our first and most important avenue to contain Iranian aggression is to try the tough and direct diplomacy that the Bush administration has too often disdained. Instead of encouraging that diplomacy, an amendment passed last month by the Senate could be used by the President as justification to strike Iran under the authority granted to him by the 2002 Iraq war resolution.
The amendment, offered by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl, directly links the ongoing war in Iraq -- including our troop presence -- to checking the threat from Iran. The amendment opens with 17 findings that highlight Iranian influence within Iraq. It then states that we have to "transition(s) and structure" our "military presence in Iraq" to counter the threat from Iran, and states that it is "a critical national interest of the United States" to prevent the Iranian government from exerting influence inside Iraq.
Why is this so dangerous? The Bush administration could use language like this to justify a continued troop presence in Iraq as long as it perceives a threat from Iran. Even worse, the Bush administration could use the language in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq.
As my colleague Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in opposing the amendment, "I do not want to give the President and his lawyers any argument that Congress has somehow authorized military actions."
He is exactly right. Because as we learned with the original authorization of the Iraq war -- when you give this President a blank check, you can't be surprised when he cashes it.
I strongly differ with Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment. We do need to tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime, particularly on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which sponsors terrorism far beyond Iran's borders. But this must be done separately from any unnecessary saber-rattling about checking Iranian influence with our "military presence in Iraq." Above all, it must be done through tough and direct diplomacy with Iran, which I have supported, and which Sen. Clinton has called "naive and irresponsible."
Sen. Clinton says she was merely voting for more diplomacy, not war with Iran. If this has a familiar ring, it should. Five years after the original vote for war in Iraq, Sen. Clinton has argued that her vote was not for war -- it was for diplomacy, or inspections. But all of us knew what the Senate was debating in 2002. John Edwards has renounced his own vote for the war, and he should be applauded for his candor. After all, we didn't need to authorize a war in order to have United Nations weapons inspections. No one thought Congress was debating diplomacy. No newspaper headlines ran on Oct. 12, 2002, reading, "Congress authorizes diplomacy." This was a vote to authorize war, and without that vote, there would have been no war.
America needs a leader who will make the right judgments about matters as grave as war and peace, and America needs a leader who will be straight with them. When I spoke out against going to war in Iraq in 2002, I knew that I was putting my political career on the line. Going to war was popular; so was President Bush. But I felt strongly that a war in Iraq would lead to an open-ended and destructive occupation of Iraq, and weaken us in the fight against al-Qaida in Afghanistan. And I felt a responsibility to say so.
Now, the Senate has once again voted for an amendment that goes out of its way to draw connections between distinct threats, and that replaces judicious policy-making with unnecessary saber-rattling. And once again, we hear that it is not really a vote for more war, it is a vote for more diplomacy.
But the way to support diplomacy is to actually pursue it, which is what I have called for in this campaign. Not the ad hoc Bush-Cheney diplomacy of not talking to people we don't like, but real, direct, and sustained diplomacy that exhausts all of our options instead of rushing to war.
In choosing their next President, the American people need to look at the judgments each of the candidates has made on war in the past, and at who has clearly learned the lessons of this disastrous war going forward.
This is not a debate about 2002; it's about the future, and in that debate I can run on, and not from, my record.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is running for the Democratic nomination for President.
For updates from New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary, sign up for our morning headlines and news alerts
YOUR COMMENTS
________________________________________
The voices of UnionLeader.com readers: To join UnionLeader.com's discussion of the news, use the form below.
The reason Obama did not vote is not because he didn't show up. He did show up for the scheduled vote. Harry Reid canceled it. When he rescheduled it for the next morning, Reid (whose son works for Clinton campaign) let Obama know only 1 hour in advance. Obama was in New Hampshire at the time and it was impossible to make it back to Washington. Obama did, however issue out a statement that same day on how he would have voted if he had the opportunity.
- cynthia johnson, Mt. Rainier, Maryland
Once again, Obama clearly outlines his judgment as opposed to Hillary's lack of. Wake up from your slumber Democrats! Hillary is part of the problem, not the solution. Obama is the best choice among the candidates and I truly hope he wins because he has the judgment and character to unify this nation and lead us in a positive direction.
- Will, Northborough
Thank you for publishing Sen. Obama's piece. How refreshing to see a candidate's positions and reasoning clearly laid out for the public, instead of a campaign soundbyte. His openness is much more appealing and evident of leadership than Hillary Clinton's non-answers and side-stepping, and makes it clear that he has the judgment to be president.
- Kelley Latshaw, Bloomington, IN (formerly from Nashua)
Talk about there you go again--once again, Sen. Obama is criticizing Sen. Clinton for the way she voted on something that Sen. Obama didn't vote on. Only this time, unlike the 2002 Iraq authorization vote (which Sen. Obama has admitted he might have voted for if he had been in the Senate at the time), Sen. Obama didn't bother to vote on what he now thinks was a very important matter even though he is a sitting senator. By the way, Sen. Clinton was joined in her vote by two of the most longstanding antiwar voices in the Senate--Sen. Levin and Sen. Durbin. But of course, unlike Sen. Obama, those two senators are not running for President.
- Joe B, Davidsonville, MD
This is a well thought out analysis, and the arguement is brilliant. Hillary Clinton is too arrogant and she doesn't seem to have learned from her disastrous mistake. Do we reward incompetence with highest office in the land? The answer is No. I am not ready to reward incompetence with highes office in the land
- John O'nei, Manchester, NH
This is an on target analysis of Hillary Clinton's recent vote, which can be summed up with the infamous Reaganism "Here you go again!"
- rose makofske, roslindale, massachusetts
What Obabma fails to metion is that diplomacy and tough negotiating was what we had before Bush and we see what that got us. It is so easy to sit back and critisize but a lot harder to have real answers. He has made enough ignorant forgeign policy statements to make me nervous. Voting for any in the democratic party will bring more terrorism here because like the last dem in the whitehouse they will do nothing about it and pretend it does not exist. It's easy to say bring the boys home and forget about it, but will that be retracted when we have constant terrorist attacks here at home and on our interests? You libs talk a good game but as always have no real plan. The right is no better either because in my view both major parties lost touch with "avergae america" and this country a long time ago.
- Bill Brewster, Pelham
Obama is no shill for the Israel lobby that has us mired in Iraq and headed to Iran, but because of that he likely can't get elected. Too bad, but any Dem is far better than any chickenhawk neocon.
- Stacy Reams, Bedford
Superb analysis by Barack Obama. Clinton apologists will try to paint this as some sort of unwarranted attack and/or giving up on the "politics of hope" in a vain attempt to deflect attention from this significant lapse in judgment by Senator Clinton. However, this is in no way an ad hominem attack. It is fair to point out policy differences and illustrate leadership qualities (or lack thereof in the case of Ms. Clinton). Barack Obama is ready to lead this nation. He has the experience, judgment, character and integrity to be a great president and he should not have to wait in line behind an inferior candidate such as Hillary. Vote Obama!!!
- Michael James, Peoria, Illinois
Sen. Obama says the right things about the war, but his closing line is a bit disingenuous; he has practically no record on national or foreign policy matters to run either on *or* from.
- Kevin, Lancaster
Source: Union Leader : http://www.unionleader.com/default.aspx
Go to the bottom of the page for the link.
By SEN. BARACK OBAMA
ON THE FIFTH anniversary of the Senate's vote to authorize an open-ended war in Iraq, we should resolve to never repeat the terrible mistake of launching a misguided war. But unfortunately, the Senate risked doing exactly that when it recently opened the door to an extension and escalation of the ongoing war in Iraq to include military action against Iran.
There is no doubt that Iran poses a threat. It has armed terrorists beyond its borders, maintains an illicit nuclear program, and its leaders have issued belligerent threats that are a concern to us all. But our first and most important avenue to contain Iranian aggression is to try the tough and direct diplomacy that the Bush administration has too often disdained. Instead of encouraging that diplomacy, an amendment passed last month by the Senate could be used by the President as justification to strike Iran under the authority granted to him by the 2002 Iraq war resolution.
The amendment, offered by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl, directly links the ongoing war in Iraq -- including our troop presence -- to checking the threat from Iran. The amendment opens with 17 findings that highlight Iranian influence within Iraq. It then states that we have to "transition(s) and structure" our "military presence in Iraq" to counter the threat from Iran, and states that it is "a critical national interest of the United States" to prevent the Iranian government from exerting influence inside Iraq.
Why is this so dangerous? The Bush administration could use language like this to justify a continued troop presence in Iraq as long as it perceives a threat from Iran. Even worse, the Bush administration could use the language in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq.
As my colleague Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in opposing the amendment, "I do not want to give the President and his lawyers any argument that Congress has somehow authorized military actions."
He is exactly right. Because as we learned with the original authorization of the Iraq war -- when you give this President a blank check, you can't be surprised when he cashes it.
I strongly differ with Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment. We do need to tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime, particularly on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which sponsors terrorism far beyond Iran's borders. But this must be done separately from any unnecessary saber-rattling about checking Iranian influence with our "military presence in Iraq." Above all, it must be done through tough and direct diplomacy with Iran, which I have supported, and which Sen. Clinton has called "naive and irresponsible."
Sen. Clinton says she was merely voting for more diplomacy, not war with Iran. If this has a familiar ring, it should. Five years after the original vote for war in Iraq, Sen. Clinton has argued that her vote was not for war -- it was for diplomacy, or inspections. But all of us knew what the Senate was debating in 2002. John Edwards has renounced his own vote for the war, and he should be applauded for his candor. After all, we didn't need to authorize a war in order to have United Nations weapons inspections. No one thought Congress was debating diplomacy. No newspaper headlines ran on Oct. 12, 2002, reading, "Congress authorizes diplomacy." This was a vote to authorize war, and without that vote, there would have been no war.
America needs a leader who will make the right judgments about matters as grave as war and peace, and America needs a leader who will be straight with them. When I spoke out against going to war in Iraq in 2002, I knew that I was putting my political career on the line. Going to war was popular; so was President Bush. But I felt strongly that a war in Iraq would lead to an open-ended and destructive occupation of Iraq, and weaken us in the fight against al-Qaida in Afghanistan. And I felt a responsibility to say so.
Now, the Senate has once again voted for an amendment that goes out of its way to draw connections between distinct threats, and that replaces judicious policy-making with unnecessary saber-rattling. And once again, we hear that it is not really a vote for more war, it is a vote for more diplomacy.
But the way to support diplomacy is to actually pursue it, which is what I have called for in this campaign. Not the ad hoc Bush-Cheney diplomacy of not talking to people we don't like, but real, direct, and sustained diplomacy that exhausts all of our options instead of rushing to war.
In choosing their next President, the American people need to look at the judgments each of the candidates has made on war in the past, and at who has clearly learned the lessons of this disastrous war going forward.
This is not a debate about 2002; it's about the future, and in that debate I can run on, and not from, my record.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is running for the Democratic nomination for President.
For updates from New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary, sign up for our morning headlines and news alerts
YOUR COMMENTS
________________________________________
The voices of UnionLeader.com readers: To join UnionLeader.com's discussion of the news, use the form below.
The reason Obama did not vote is not because he didn't show up. He did show up for the scheduled vote. Harry Reid canceled it. When he rescheduled it for the next morning, Reid (whose son works for Clinton campaign) let Obama know only 1 hour in advance. Obama was in New Hampshire at the time and it was impossible to make it back to Washington. Obama did, however issue out a statement that same day on how he would have voted if he had the opportunity.
- cynthia johnson, Mt. Rainier, Maryland
Once again, Obama clearly outlines his judgment as opposed to Hillary's lack of. Wake up from your slumber Democrats! Hillary is part of the problem, not the solution. Obama is the best choice among the candidates and I truly hope he wins because he has the judgment and character to unify this nation and lead us in a positive direction.
- Will, Northborough
Thank you for publishing Sen. Obama's piece. How refreshing to see a candidate's positions and reasoning clearly laid out for the public, instead of a campaign soundbyte. His openness is much more appealing and evident of leadership than Hillary Clinton's non-answers and side-stepping, and makes it clear that he has the judgment to be president.
- Kelley Latshaw, Bloomington, IN (formerly from Nashua)
Talk about there you go again--once again, Sen. Obama is criticizing Sen. Clinton for the way she voted on something that Sen. Obama didn't vote on. Only this time, unlike the 2002 Iraq authorization vote (which Sen. Obama has admitted he might have voted for if he had been in the Senate at the time), Sen. Obama didn't bother to vote on what he now thinks was a very important matter even though he is a sitting senator. By the way, Sen. Clinton was joined in her vote by two of the most longstanding antiwar voices in the Senate--Sen. Levin and Sen. Durbin. But of course, unlike Sen. Obama, those two senators are not running for President.
- Joe B, Davidsonville, MD
This is a well thought out analysis, and the arguement is brilliant. Hillary Clinton is too arrogant and she doesn't seem to have learned from her disastrous mistake. Do we reward incompetence with highest office in the land? The answer is No. I am not ready to reward incompetence with highes office in the land
- John O'nei, Manchester, NH
This is an on target analysis of Hillary Clinton's recent vote, which can be summed up with the infamous Reaganism "Here you go again!"
- rose makofske, roslindale, massachusetts
What Obabma fails to metion is that diplomacy and tough negotiating was what we had before Bush and we see what that got us. It is so easy to sit back and critisize but a lot harder to have real answers. He has made enough ignorant forgeign policy statements to make me nervous. Voting for any in the democratic party will bring more terrorism here because like the last dem in the whitehouse they will do nothing about it and pretend it does not exist. It's easy to say bring the boys home and forget about it, but will that be retracted when we have constant terrorist attacks here at home and on our interests? You libs talk a good game but as always have no real plan. The right is no better either because in my view both major parties lost touch with "avergae america" and this country a long time ago.
- Bill Brewster, Pelham
Obama is no shill for the Israel lobby that has us mired in Iraq and headed to Iran, but because of that he likely can't get elected. Too bad, but any Dem is far better than any chickenhawk neocon.
- Stacy Reams, Bedford
Superb analysis by Barack Obama. Clinton apologists will try to paint this as some sort of unwarranted attack and/or giving up on the "politics of hope" in a vain attempt to deflect attention from this significant lapse in judgment by Senator Clinton. However, this is in no way an ad hominem attack. It is fair to point out policy differences and illustrate leadership qualities (or lack thereof in the case of Ms. Clinton). Barack Obama is ready to lead this nation. He has the experience, judgment, character and integrity to be a great president and he should not have to wait in line behind an inferior candidate such as Hillary. Vote Obama!!!
- Michael James, Peoria, Illinois
Sen. Obama says the right things about the war, but his closing line is a bit disingenuous; he has practically no record on national or foreign policy matters to run either on *or* from.
- Kevin, Lancaster
Source: Union Leader : http://www.unionleader.com/default.aspx
Go to the bottom of the page for the link.