In Speech Today, Obama Will Slam D.C. Pundits And Pols For Supporting Invasion
This is interesting: In a major speech in Iowa today, Barack Obama will ratchet up his criticism of the Beltway pundit and political establishment for supporting the invasion of Iraq, according to advance excerpts of Obama's remarks.
Obama will also take aim at the notion that D.C. "experience" is a quality that should be desired in the next President, saying that such "experience' perversely left pundits and politicos in thrall to the conventional wisdom that to oppose the war would leave them "looking weak."
"Conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war," Obama will say. "The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite -- or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.”
Note Obama's interesting formulation here: That "despite -- or perhaps because of" their Washington experience, pundits and politicos made the wrong choice to support the war. Obama, clearly, is seeking to expand his indictment of the D.C. political and foreign policy establishment, amplifying his argument that for all their Washington experience, many Beltway elite figures were unable to exercise sound judgment and oppose the Iraq folly. Also noteworthy and unusual in a Presidential candidate: Obama's direct targeting of the D.C. punditry.
Obama will also propose that withdrawal from Iraq begin immediately, to be completed by the end of next year, as well as proposing a new constitutional convention in Iraq, to be convened with the United Nations.
More speech excerpts after the jump.
“Conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite – or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.”“There is something unreal about the debate that’s taking place in Washington… The bar for success is so low that it is almost buried in the sand. The American people have had enough of the shifting spin. We’ve had enough of extended deadlines for benchmarks that go unmet. We’ve had enough of mounting costs in Iraq and missed opportunities around the world. We’ve had enough of a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged.”
"I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now.”
“Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now. We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.”
“Some argue that we should just replace Prime Minister Maliki. But that wouldn’t solve the problem…The problems in Iraq are bigger than one man. Iraq needs a new Constitutional convention that would include representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government. The United Nations should play a central role in convening and participating in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached.”
“The President would have us believe there are two choices: keep all of our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis. I reject this choice... It’s time to form an international working group with the countries in the region, our European and Asian friends, and the United Nations…. We should up our share to at least $2 billion to support this effort; to expand access to social services for refugees in neighboring countries; and to ensure that Iraqis displaced inside their own country can find safe-haven. …. Iraqis must know that those who engage in mass violence will be brought to justice. We should lead in forming a commission at the U.N. to monitor and hold accountable perpetrators of war crimes within Iraq.”
“I’m here today because it’s not too late to come together as Americans. Because we’re not going to be able to deal with the challenges that confront us until we end this war. What we can do is say that we will not be prisoners of uncertainty. That we reject the conventional thinking that led us into Iraq and that didn’t ask hard questions until it was too late. What we can say is that we are ready for something new and something bold and something principled."
Comments (37)
American1989 wrote on September 12, 2007 7:35 AM:It is interesting that Obama often chides Hillary that she is looking backwards (1990s) rather than the future; now, he is going back to the past and talking about the initial vote to go to war, when the voters in IA, NH and SC have understood that and know that Hillary and many others voted for it while Obama was against it; yet, they want a leader who is ready to be C-I-C tomorrow, and Hillary has those credentials, which is prevalent in those polls in the recent LAT poll which show people trusting Hillary to bring change, end the war and be tough on terror.
Focus, Obama, Focus!
DTM wrote on September 12, 2007 7:56 AM:Obama is indeed focused on the right issue, because he has to make the argument that whatever additional national security experience the likes of Senator Clinton might have (although more accurately, the additional experience Senators Biden and Dodd might have--Senator Clinton does not actually have substantially more extensive national security credentials than Obama), it has not translated into good judgment on key issues in the past, and there is little reason to believe that will change in the future. The current polling only underscores that he needs to make that argument, not that he should avoid it.
Of course, it is understandable that Senators Clinton, Biden, Dodd, and Edwards want a free pass on their Iraq Resolution vote, but Senators inevitably have to defend their voting record when running for President, something those four were undoubtedly considering at the time of their vote (it just turns out that they badly miscalculated). Indeed, those four should expect to have to defend their vote in the general as well, and it frankly baffles me why the Democrats would even consider repeating the mistake of nominating someone who will have to explain why they voted for the Iraq war resolution while styling themselves as an anti-war candidate.
Hatch wrote on September 12, 2007 8:18 AM:If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.
So is this good enough for the people who are complaining about Obama's lack of support for a "date certain," or will Chris Dodd (and Markos Moulitsas) complain that Barack should have said December 31, 2008?
joejoejoe wrote on September 12, 2007 9:05 AM:"Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves."
That's a dig at Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, and Biden not reading the classified NIE in the secure reading room, ignoring the pleadings of then Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham.
Henry wrote on September 12, 2007 9:16 AM:If we could count on this rationality, decisiveness and eloquence from him as president, he'd have a lock on the White House. He has to make this sort of statement in order to to move upon Hillary, but the clarity of his argument, its basis in both principle and reality is really impressive. I hope it gets the attention that it deserves.
corinne wrote on September 12, 2007 9:17 AM:So is this good enough for the people who are complaining about Obama's lack of support for a "date certain,"
No. Why stop short? Go all the way to "No timeline, no funding."
"I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now.”
So. While Obama continued to "oppose" the war, he continued voting for bills to fund it. No small contradiction there. And that plan he introduced in January (S.433) is still sitting in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Let's not break out the champagne yet.
corinne wrote on September 12, 2007 9:22 AM:So is this good enough for the people who are complaining about Obama's lack of support for a "date certain,"
No. Why stop short? Go all the way to "No timeline, no funding."
"I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now.”
So what? Ever since he got to the Senate, he's voted for every Iraq funding bill except the one in May where he and Hillary tiptoed in toward the end--when the outcome was a given--and cast their "no" votes. And that plan he introduced in January (S.433) is still sitting in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Don't start celebrating yet. This is just pure rhetoric.
hadenough wrote on September 12, 2007 9:31 AM:Greg Sargent = bamboozled
Sargent:
"Obama will also propose that withdrawal from Iraq begin immediately, to be completed by the end of next year"
obama will say 'combat troops.' Totally different than 'troops.'
Sargent:
"Obama will also take aim at the notion that D.C. "experience" is a quality that should be desired in the next President"
As opposed to obama's Chicago political experience.
obama:
"That we reject the conventional thinking that led us into Iraq and that didn’t ask hard questions until it was too late."
bush threw the UN inspectors out. bush invaded. It's bush's war. Trying to tar dems with bush's war has been and is a loser. What in the world is axelrod thinking? What a disappointment obama has been.
Lizmom23 wrote on September 12, 2007 9:32 AM:I wonder if this position statement from Obama will be greeted as his previous ones were (ie use of force within Pakistan, talks with enemy nations, use of nuclear weapons against terrorists)? Loud protests, knee-jerk criticism, charges of inexperience and naivete. Then (quieter) agreement and acknowledgement that his position is, in fact, reasonable and right.
irishamerican wrote on September 12, 2007 9:38 AM:I am extremely encouraged by this "excerpt" of Obama's upcoming speech today.
Point #1 I absolutely LOVE the way he is deconstructing the BS framing about experiance. He is not just sitting in the corner allowing others to define him. He is truly offering a way out. He is addressing this as if the United States is once again a PART of the Global Community of civilized nations by bringing the UN back into the discussion. He is addressing Global Social Justice (remember how we used to stand for that) by being the first one to mention War Crimes trials. Hallelujah! He is the first one to even MENTION some responsibility for the United States for monetary support for the millions of refugees that our illegal war of aggression has forced out of Iraq and into Syria and Jordan. He is showing strategic global responsibility and leadership in this regard.
He is also making no bones about the fact that he is not just some antiwar dirty hippy, but he makes the point that we have to get out for our OWN security as well as the bordering nations of the region. He is showing great foresight in the sense that the can of worms we have opened there, will be a part our nation going forward.
I am very happy he is taking the beltway talkingheads and politicos to task as well. Perhaps we can turn a corner in the "he said-gotcha" irresponsible crap that we get fed on a daily basis from these idiot talk shows. I also like the fact that he is throwing down a marker to put the beltway pundits on notice that he isn't afraid to take them on.
I really like this speech.
Sounds "Presidential"!
Let us remember the following:
1. Edwards co-sponsored the war resolution along with Lieberman, McCain, Zell Miller and company.
2. Edwards, Hillary, Biden and Dodd all voted for the IWR and voted against a more responsible Levin Amendment. See Chafee's The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice (which would likely have prevented the war.)
reino wrote on September 12, 2007 9:45 AM:Good for Obama. I hope he pushes for this as a Senator as much as he pushes for it as a Presidential candidate--he has not so far.
reino wrote on September 12, 2007 9:48 AM:Don't blame Axelrod for the fact that a Democratic Congress has continued to fund this debacle.
sd wrote on September 12, 2007 10:09 AM:if only he could wind-in the media punditry as also being complicit in propagating this conventional rhetoric, he'd be hitting a grand slam in my book.
JoeCHi wrote on September 12, 2007 10:10 AM:I wonder if Obama is going to address his identical-to-Clinton's Iraq Senate voting record?
mopper wrote on September 12, 2007 10:12 AM:The most important thing he'll say today, IMO, as per the quotes in his PDF white paper on Iraq policy, is:
"President Bush likes to warn of the dire consequences of ending the war….he warns of huge movements of refugees and mass sectarian killing, but that has already taken place. These are not the consequences of a future withdrawal. They are the reality of Iraq’s present. . . . We have a strategic interest – and a moral obligation – to act."
The plan itself reads:
Iraq is Facing a Humanitarian Crisis Right Now: There are two million Iraqis displaced in their own country. There are another two million Iraqi refugees living beyond Iraq's borders. More than 1,000 Iraqi civilians die every month. Sectarian death squads roam Baghdad. The humanitarian crisis that President Bush says would accompany American troop withdrawals is occurring right now.DonnaG wrote on September 12, 2007 10:23 AM:
In a role as a presidential candidate, Barack Obama has already become a leader. This man is at the head of the candidate class on foreign policy, in fact he is the teacher in the class.
Everyone should be thankful that Obama's vision and abilities have already lifted us above the quagmire of conventional thought processes. I do trust that an Obama presidency would provide the safest and most honorable movement out of the Iraq mess made by the Bush presidency with untoward help from those in Congress who went along with Bush.
Well, good.
It's about time Obama started forcefully denouncing DC types for entering into a war as though it were a soccer match without any serious scrutiny of the reasons or consequences of the enterprise. Better late than never. Now, let's see if he will actually support any meaningful measures to actually bring the war to a conclusion. That will be the real test. If he supports continued funding then this is just rhetoric.
corinne wrote on September 12, 2007 10:48 AM:DonnaG wrote on September 12, 2007 10:23 AM
I think I need a side of insulin to go with this post.
Coonsey wrote on September 12, 2007 10:50 AM:To be upfront and honest, I am leaning toward supporting Barack Obama for President in 2008. Why you may ask? Out of all the other candidates (Democrat and Republican), I feel he would be the best person for the job during this time in our history.
While all the candidates claim that they are the ones that can bring the country back together, Senator Obama comes off as being the one that would actually enjoy doing just that.
Why do I say that? During Sunday’s Democratic Debate, Senator Obama was bombarded with criticism over the lack of experience he’s had.
Senator Obama didn’t avoid the questions; he didn’t change the subject as so many politicians do, he responded instead, with a little humor, "To prepare for this debate, I rode in the bumper cars at the state fair." This one statement reminded me so much of a typical Ronald Reagan response, the kind that would always bring a smile to our enemies face.
Contesting the idea that he's not ready to be president, he used facts, he said: "Nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and many of the people on this stage that authorized this war" in Iraq. He added a bit later, "The thing I wish had happened (with respect to Iraq) was that all the people on this stage had asked questions before they authorized us getting in."
The words that were sort of the tipping point for me were, "It is my belief that we need a fundamental change if we're going to dig ourselves out of the hole that George Bush has placed us in. And that's going to require the kind of aggressive diplomacy — preparation, yes, but aggressive diplomacy, the personal diplomacy of the next president — to transform how the world sees us. That is ultimately going to make us safer," Obama said.
At no other time during this or any other debate have I heard, even one of the other candidates, Democrat or Republican, be concerned about how the World sees us. This man cares about America and her reputation.
America’s future depends on how others view her; with respect of course, but also, a bit of envy.
At this moment in time, out of all the candidates running for President (I'm a huge fan/supporter of General Wesley Clark), Senator Obama’s got my vote.
Prorpagandee wrote on September 12, 2007 10:55 AM:As for the experience vs judgment debate, two words:
Bob Shrum
markg8 wrote on September 12, 2007 11:11 AM:You'll notice that one of the plans that's being bandied about now is essentially the same as Obama's January bill.
Hillary has said she'll keep giving George Bush's enemies the finger unless they kiss her ring. I don't know why, maybe she feels she has to prove she's tough enough for the job. Whatever her reasons it's exactly what we don't need.
Obama has it right. If you want oh so serious people like Tom Friedman, Michael O'Hanlon and Dick Cheney driving our discourse then by all means let's keep voting for those with a lot of Washington experience. If you want to change it, then let's change it by voting for Obama.
This is Obama's strongest argument, and he's got to hammer on it if he's going to have a chance. Good to see him bring it out front.
The one fly in the ointment is the idea of getting the UN involved. I frankly don't see it happening, but I suppose the next president could at least ask ...
mopper wrote on September 12, 2007 11:41 AM:Mark8--the funny thing is who true, in a sense, what you said.
Literally, a common-theme among Obama advisers on Foreign Policy is that they were opposed to the war in Iraq. And literally, a common theme among Hillary advisers is that they were for the war on Iraq.
There's no doubt overall her staff is more hawkish and beholden to establishment foreign policy thinking, a valid reflection, I think, of both her and Obama's thinkings in general on FP.
article detailing their FP teams
Jim Gustafson wrote on September 12, 2007 12:10 PM:Clear, strong and on-target. Obama should push this solution along with the costly realities of waiting for the next inaugaural to act. The last election gave the mandate. The current administration's posturing and congressional maneuvering, ignores popular opinion both here and around the world. It isn't too late to begin to repair the damage, but waiting until 2008....
onceler wrote on September 12, 2007 12:14 PM:I got the impression that Obama was going to be offering some new policy proposals, this is pretty much the same rhetoric he's been using all along.
As for saying Obama is responsible for the war because he has voted to authorize the funding for the war already in progess, this is just childish nonsense. Would I prefer it if he had voted 'no' every time? Yes. But since he is the lone top tier candidate who had the sense to oppose the war in the first place, he absolutely gets a pass. There would be no funding votes one way or the other had the Congressional Dems not rolled over for Bush. If Clinton had voted 'no' on the authorization, she would be a shoo-in for President right now. We wouldn't even be talking about Obama. He'd be kissing her butt for the VP nod.
pax tecum wrote on September 12, 2007 12:14 PM:The fact that Obama could not vote for IWR because he wasn't in the Senate is known by most people who read blogs, as is the fact that he continues to vote for funding the war. Perhaps what is not widely known is that there was no political downside for Obama to oppose the Iraq war in Illinois.
While Obama gave one speech in front of an anti-war crowd in Chicago in October, 2002, Sen. Dick Durbin was in the Senate. Durbin was one of the few senators to vote against IWR, even though he was up for re-election a few weeks after his vote. Durbin was re-elected with 60% of the vote. There were other factors involved, like a voter backlash against a corrupt state Republican party, but the point is Durbin's vote certainly didn't hurt his re-election.
I don't doubt that Obama was against the IWR, but it may have been a case where political conscience and political convenience converged.
mopper wrote on September 12, 2007 12:26 PM:onceler:
A new constitutional convention and increased focus and aid for the refugee crisis is not at all the same old rhetoric.
And the troop withdrawal has been updated, which he was criticized for in the past (still mentioning a march deadline when almost 9 months had passed since first introduced that bill)
Chesire111 wrote on September 12, 2007 12:32 PM:I'm not yet committed to supporting Obama for president (I am still torn between several of teh Democratic candidates), but I have to say it's refreshing to hear a candidate actually say something for a change. Most of the time, when a candidate speaks (especially Clinton!) I get the feeling that they have labored diligently to launder their statements of any possible meaning, lest they come back to haunt them or offend a potential voter.
When Obama speaks, he actually says something, and even appears to go so far as to occasionally think aloud during interviews. He conveys a real sense that he is sometimes actually interested in the subject beyond whether it advances his cause - something that can hardly be said of Hilary "Is my grin on straight?" Clinton.
YoloMike wrote on September 12, 2007 12:33 PM:I'm an Obama supporter who has been encouraged by his "controversial" foreign policy statements over the past few months, but this current speech (at least the excerpts I've seen) strikes me as a total disappointment.
Simply saying that he supports drawing down "combat troops" (there's a big equivocation there) over 15 months is an empty gesture that he has no power to enact. Much better would be a statement that he will not vote for any more funding until a strict deadline is imposed, AND that he will take the lead in coordinating Democratic (and a few Republican) congress members to force Bush to comply with the will of the American people.
Short of that, his current position is indistinguishable from most of the other mealy-mouthed "centrists" who are ensuring that this disgusting waste of life, money, and reputation goes on for several more years. I had high hopes for this speech, but it appears Obama has let us down.
I'm really disappointed, though I'll be reading the whole speech to see if I've gotten the wrong impression.
Jinchi wrote on September 12, 2007 12:44 PM:they want a leader who is ready to be C-I-C tomorrow, and Hillary has those credentials
Often stated. Never backed up.
Hillary has a few more years of Senate experience than Barack does. How about giving us one issue where she's shown leadership?
If experience were the true metric, none of the current frontrunners (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Thompson, or Romney) would even be in the race.
Jinchi wrote on September 12, 2007 12:53 PM:Perhaps what is not widely known is that there was no political downside for Obama to oppose the Iraq war in Illinois.
Interesting point. How can you explain Hillary Clinton's vote in the significantly more liberal state of New York? As a high-powered celebrity candidate in one of the bluest states in the country she certainly couldn't have felt worried about her reelection chances.
Obama stands out because he was one of the few Democrats to publicly speak against the war when so many others were rushing to rubber stamp George Bush's war authorization. Senator Clinton gave a very strong statement in support of it.
As for voting to fund the war, neither Clinton nor Obama supported the Iraq Supplemental last May.
pax tecum wrote on September 12, 2007 1:04 PM: I don't know why Clinton voted the way that she did. I don't know if it was a purely politically expedient move or if Clinton advisors really did believe that Saddam posed a serious threat. And you are right. Neither Clinton nor Obama supported the supplemental last May. Good for them, but some of us think that it was a long time coming.
Apparently, even though it is one of the factors in fueling the violence, Obama's plan may still keep a residual force INSIDE Iraq. I see that as a mistake.
http://soundbyte.barackobama.com/Fact%20Sheet%20Iraq%20Final.pdf
john mccutchen wrote on September 12, 2007 1:27 PM:Madeline Albright confessed that Hillary Clinton realized in 2006, after nearly five years of blind support of the greatest strategic disaster in US history, that she'd fallen victim to a George Bush confidence game.
Let's talk experience
Let's make experience the central issue in the Democratic primaries
The reality is that we can't pick up and move 160,000 troops overnight. What Obama is proposing is consistent with reality--it is going to take several months to effect a withdrawal, during which time, things like the diplomatic efforts can be ramped up to ensure that we (and Iraq) suffers as little damage as possible under the circumstances.
I didn't support this war from the start, but we are there now. It doesn't help to pull out in such a way that it further excaerbates a situation that only can be called FUBAR. I would rather we stay an extra six months to effect a safe withdrawal, instead of trying to pull out in 6 months and further deteriorate the situation in Iraq.
Connor Anderson wrote on September 12, 2007 6:02 PM:I just came back from attending the speech in Clinton. I am a Clinton resident. Obama was introduced by Zbignew Brezhinski (sp?) who called the Iraq war, "a colonial war in a post-colonial era," done without the full mobilization of the nation in a world where people are politically aware, active and not disposed towards "foreign domination."
The line regarding pundits and the conventional wisdom was a very small part of the speech and was really there to set Obama apart from those who went along with the CW. A fair accusation in my opinion.
Similarly, the actual pullout plan was a small part of a speech that was focused on the need for a pull out as a prerequisite to re-engage America's dimplomatic and political efforts to secure peace not only in Iraq but in the region. Obama promised to personally conduct diplomacy to this end.
Obama also stated that a final resolution must come from the Iraqi people as part of a new constitutional order. He mentioned a soft partition as a possible solution but stressed that it must be the Iraqis' decision, not one imposed from above.
He focused on the cost of the war in both lives, money and in the things not done: education, healthcare, etc.
Good speech. Rational and as many have said, there are bad choices and awful choices in Iraq. A lot of this is straight out of the ISG proposals. The rest just common sense.
