.jpg)
Respecting the rights of all means that I respect your right not to eat meat or to eat meat from a supermarket and not to hunt. I expect the same respect.
Democrats' health bills depend on forcing individuals to buy insurance or face severe fines or imprisonment.
More Columns >>>
- > Charles M. Arlinghaus: The new health care bureaucracy (18)
- > Kathy Sulivan: Don't read too much into recent election results (18)
- > Joe McQuaid: Not to be outdone, the Granite State must have a fossil to call its own (8)
- > Two stories for the book on hunting (7)
- > Fergus Cullen: Is Lamontagne too good for politics? (6)
- > Garth Corriveau: Time to deliver better government for Manchester (19)
- > Douglas J. Wenners: Congress' proposed reforms will raise health insurance rates (35)
- > Charles M. Arlinghaus: City's revenue sharing loss was inevitable (12)
- > Deroy Murdock: Pelosi's health care bill is the nanny state run amok (31)
- > Joe McQuaid: Contemplating a misplaced grandkid, Kathleen Parker's visit
- > John Clayton: Dad takes on 'Naked Baby Syndrome' (14)
- > John Harrigan: We can't let this go without a challenge (21)
- > Greg Moore: Tuesday's message from voters: Butt out, party bosses (8)
- > Kathleen Parker: Saving the news (11)
- > Grace Mattern: Domestic violence is a bigger problem than many realize (9)
Andrew Cline has been editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader since October of 2001. His writing has appeared in more than 100 newspapers and magazines, including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and National Review.Sen. Barack Obama: Five years after Iraq war vote, we're still foolishly rattling our sabers
Print
Email
Mobile
Reader comments
By SEN. BARACK OBAMA
Thursday, Oct. 11, 2007
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
►A Union Leader editorial: The Iraq war, an assessment five years on
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. © 1997-2009.
YOUR COMMENTS
The posts on this list are better reasoned and less purely partisan than I have seen in response to any other political article. Could it be that the way Obama develops his reasoning actually elevates the discussion?
- John Ward, Lancaster
Senator Obama's analysis and critique is absolutely correct, but labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Qods Guard a terrorist organization has another ugly twist that should be noted.
Since when did the US Senate, or the US President for that matter, get the right to declare that some of the soldiers in another sovereign nation's armed forces are not really soldiers, but rather are terrorists? Sure enough, the knee jerk reaction of the Iranian Parliament to Kyl-Lieberman was to pass its own mirror image, equally adolescent resolution, the Persian legislators proclaiming that the US Marine Corps is a terrorist organization.
All that would be largely farce, but for the dirty background fact that George Bush has gutted the historic protections of the Geneva Conventions by coining the term "enemy combatants", and then applying that label to Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters taken captive and held by American troops, thereby denying them POW status under international law.
Heaven forbid that the lame duck Bush/Cheney regime proves reckless enough launch a bombing attack upon Iran before leaving office, as many knowledgeable people warn. Worse yet, what happens next, when Iran retaliates against the vulnerable US ground troops stationed inside Iraq?
Again, heaven forbid. But if we're ever subjected to the spectacle of a captured US Marine beheaded in a Shiite militia snuff video, Senator Kyl, Senator Lieberman, and yes, Senator Clinton, should be held to some measure of political accountability.
Like chickens, chicken hawks too can come home to roost.
- William T. Street, Saginaw, Michigan
Barack Obama is by far the most reasoned and forward thinking of any of the candidates.
While Hillary and Edwards and the rest come up with their "answers" to tough questions, Obama is standing in the front of the room saying "WHY ISN'T ANYONE ASKING THIS??". He has been doing this well before the candidacy, and he will continue even if he loses the nomination.
Anyone who looks at his record in the senate can see that he has accomplished a great deal, but more than that he has become a defining presence in the senate with regard to course and policy.
When Clinton tries to defend herself with "what happened to the politics of hope", what is she saying? that "Hope" means a quiet leader? Barack has been positive in his campaign, but critical of policies from others he sees as mistakes. I'm not "Hopeful" for a leader who keeps quiet on important issues. I'm hopeful for someone authentic, intelligent, open to all options, and willing to speak out about what they see as wrong.
Obama is putting it all out there for us to judge him on. Some of the others think the appearance of looking presidential is more important.
- Adam, Medford, MA
What Barack Obama fails to acknowledge is that the Europeans already tried "tough diplomacy" for the last 4 years, with the encouragement of the Bush Administration, but it got absolutely nowhere. In fact, ever since the Khomeini revolution of 1979, for nearly three decades now, diplomats from Western countries and several American administrations have tried diplomacy with Iran, but not one of these attempts ever succeeded.
Why? Because the militant Iranian leaders are religious fanatics, every bit as much as the terrorists of al-Qaeda, and fanatics don't negotiate anything except your surrender.
Whoever becomes President is going to face crunch time: Will we use military force to prevent Iran from stockpiling nuclear weapons? Barack Obama has not said he would. For that matter, neither has Hillary. I'm supporting Rudy Giuliani for President because he's the only one I can reliably count on to pull that trigger.
- Steven, Lowell, MA
Hindsight IS 20/20. Having put up with Bush and his jolly gang for near 8 years casts a whole new light on the current field of candidates. That includes both sides of the aisle. "Anybody But Bush" may be a joke slogan but seriously it's an excellent starting criteria. There is NO perfect candidate but there are plenty of solid ones. I think what makes chosing a single candidate such a chore is the status quo. The current administration has this country so distrought on so many levels and the individual with the ability to restore us simply does not exist (Superman isn't running is he?). We need to elect someone who, with the help of Congress, can start us back on track. The U.S.'s race to recovery will be relay and will not be won under a single adminstration even if it took only one to bring us down. These posts are always full of negativity but I believe America is better than that. I'm still hopeful we won't repeat the Bush/Cheney era no matter which side gets elected.
- Pete, Manchester
This is a great piece. Yes, Senator Obama can run on his record of sound judgment, of being opposed to attacking Iraq, and much more, all recorded, waiting for those of genuine interest to look up about him.
- RuthieM, E Stroudsburg, PA
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
NOTE: If you have visited this page before, newer comments may be hidden. Press F5, or hold down the Ctrl key while reloading or refreshing the page. (Another option for Firefox users is the Clear Cache add-on.)