like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political
powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting
advances.
THE WAR IN IRAQ
Let's start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed
messages at best.
First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he
was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was
at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying,
"There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position
at this stage.
The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute." The Tribune went
on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-
ravaged nation
a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush
\ufffd
administration."
Obama's campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to
stabilize the region. But why wouldn't he have taken the opportunity to urge
withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative
voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate
and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he's done just
that.
Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war
appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He
also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her
complicity in the Bush Administration's various false justifications for going to
war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of "Operation Iraqi
Liberation" the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13
of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.
And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to
reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil
liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on
American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.
And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign
for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned
Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman
"his mentor" and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial
contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called
"Bush s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama have done that
\ufffd
if he was truly against the war?
Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our
combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn t actually saying he wants to get
\ufffd
all of our troops out of Iraq. At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire
primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops
out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated
his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.
At the same event, Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to "carry
out our counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al Qaeda
in Iraq." What he didn't say is this continued warfare will require an estimated
60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the
Leave a Comment