You missed the point

We all know that Obama voted to fund the war once it started.   Part of the reason he did that was it's dangerous to stop funding a war, cold, once in its in progress.  Part of the reason is that, yes, Obama is by no means perfect on the war (or anything else).

But the point of my post is that, had it been up to him, we would not have gone to war in Iraq in the first place.   Your attack on Lessig has little do with that point.

by Paul Levinson (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, February 17, 2008 at 6:00:09 PM
 

How so?

Actually, Paul, I think you have missed or obfuscated the point, as do many Obama supporters. Have you ever read Obama’s speech that gained him the reputation of being against the war? It’s on his website:

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

In the speech he says “Iraq” or “Iraqi” a total of six times. Never once does he say “I am against the war against Iraq.” Nor does he say anything similar. He does say he’s against dumb wars. That’s it. I imagine George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and their ilk would also say they are against dumb wars.

Obama has been great at making vague statements and letting people read into those statements what they want to hear. And people have been more than willing to read into them what they want to hear.

by Gregory Stricherz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 8:20:50 AM
 

you must be kidding

Gregor - you must be kidding.  Surely, you're not saying that Obama - or anyone - has to explictly say these words, "I am against the war in Iraq," to indicate that they are against the war.

Here are some quotes from Obama's speech at the link you supplied:

"What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

"Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors..."

"The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly."

Now, if after reading that, you still want to say that Obama did not oppose the war from the beginning, you're either (a) illiterate, (b) incapable of understanding a not very complicated point, or (c) a liar.

by Paul Levinson (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 8 comments) on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 1:33:52 PM
 

you must be kidding

Quoting Paul "Now, if after reading that, you still want to say that Obama did not oppose the war from the beginning, you're either (a) illiterate, (b) incapable of understanding a not very complicated point, or (c) a liar."

Your choice, Paul. Your choice. 

by Gregory Stricherz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 4:32:12 PM
 

Right!

More people need to wake up to this.

by fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 at 10:55:30 AM
 

Look how he's changed

He did speak out against the war from the start, and in his Senate campaign promised to vote against funding it.  Once elected, he switched sides and voted for Iraq War funding, and he has said that he doesn't know how he would have voted for the original resolution authorizing the War.

He has continued to evolve.  Now he says he's worried about leaving Iraq too quickly, and says he may keep troops in throughout his term in office.  So while the country has become more and more against the war, he has become more and more favorable to it.

Maybe his initial instincts on the War were good, but should we support someone who now mistrusts those instincts?

And what about future wars?  He's been fairly bellicose, being for example the only Presidential candidate to come out for military attacks on Pakistan.  He's surrounded himself with military interventionist inclined advisors.  He supports a larger military budget and increasing the size of the active duty military forces.

If anything distinguishes Obama besides his obvious rhetorical gifts, it is that his history is of steady movement in his political inclinations in the wrong direction.  If he keeps going in the direction he has been, would he ignite World War III if elected? 

by Bill Samuel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 273 comments) on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 2:35:49 PM
 

BO and the War

He may have made anti-war squeaks in 2002 when he wasn't in the Senate and had nothing to lose or gain.

After his "hard fought" win against the lunatic A. Keyes (whom anyone even a rock could have beaten) BO changed his tune.

In 2004 he said he'd have probably voted as Clinton and Kerry voted on the, now infamous, bill.

And, he's voted for funding the war right down the line ever since.

Wake up, people.

by fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 at 11:00:12 AM