Is Obama Just Pandering?
Now, you the reader might respond here: "Well, of course he's going to talk that way, since he's speaking before AIPAC."
A few thoughts on that. First, in making this argument, you're basically saying that presidential candidates need to lie in order to get elected. One should be suspicious right off the bat of any system of "change" in which dishonesty is a necessity.
Secondly, it speaks volumes that -at a time of escalating U.S. and Israeli threats against Iran- Obama chose to address AIPAC to reassure them of U.S. commitment to Israel; rather than addressing the Iranian people or anti-war groups and promising not to attack Iran.
Third, it's not as if Obama's speech to AIPAC were out of step with the foreign policy stance he has repeatedly articulated. For instance, in an April 24, 2007 speech to the Chicago Council for Global Affairs, Obama said, "The world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and work to eliminate North Korea’s weapons program…. In pursuit of that goal, we must never take the military option off the table.” [emphasis added]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam.htm
As was the case with his recent AIPAC speech, Obama did advocate diplomacy as a first resort, adding, “Our first line of offense here must be sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy.” But hearing the “candidate of change” baldly declare that he would consider launching yet another illegal, preemptive war should send shivers up the spine of anyone concerned who wants to bring the Bush program to a halt. And lest anyone think Obama’s diplomacy-first position is cause for relief, consider that George W. Bush has repeatedly—and as recently as June 11—articulated the same stance.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/11/europe/EU-GEN-Europe-Bush.php
In fact, one can look to that same April 2007 speech to get a fuller sense of the relationship Obama sees between diplomacy and military force: “No President should ever hesitate to use force - unilaterally if necessary - to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened,” Obama said. “But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others - the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm.” [emphasis added]
And perhaps most damning is what Obama did in the midst of Israel's 2006 attack on Lebanon-which killed thousands of Lebanese civilians, including hundreds of children, and displaced millions: Obama co-sponsored a resolution supporting Israel's actions, which he is eager to brag about on his Web site.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#onisrael
This is the guy who's going to save us from war with Iran?
If you want to argue that all of these actions and comments do not reflect Obama's real sentiments-that he has no choice but to express these viewpoints because any candidate who wants to be president has to articulate unqualified support for Israel-then I urge you to follow through on the implication of this idea: If hawkishly supporting Israel and threatening Iran is a requirement for any candidate who even hopes to be elected… then remind me how the elections are going to prevent war with Iran?
And if you are of the opinion that Obama is just "talking tough" to get elected, so that he can pursue his "actual" agenda of peace once his term begins, consider these hypothetical scenarios: Let’s say Obama is in the Oval Office, and Israel launches war against Iran. Or let’s say Israel has already launched an attack on Iran when Obama is sworn in. In either of these instances, do you really believe that Obama is suddenly going to go against a decades-long "bipartisan consensus" and refuse to get on board in support of Israel's actions? That he will condemn Israel’s actions, or even allow the U.S. to stand on the sidelines?
Finally, let's return to the comments cited earlier in this article; the ones that sound more promising and lead people to think that Obama opposes war with Iran. In the speech referenced on his Web site, he says that nobody will be able to accuse him of giving Bush and Cheney the benefit of the doubt on Iran. He did not say, "If I am the Democratic nominee, no one will be able to say that I advocated attacking, or threatened to attack Iran." More to the point, he did not say-and has never said-that if elected, he will not attack Iran.
Are we to take comfort in knowing that if Obama does attack Iran, it won't be because Bush and Cheney said so?
