WP, Cohen: Why Not Obama?

Why Not Obama?
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, October 24, 2006; Page A19

....I cheer his announcement that he might announce he is going to announce -- something like that. I say this not just because I have been following his career out of the corner of my eye -- my, my, ain't he a natural! -- but because I've actually been reading his speeches. The one he gave on the role of religion in politics was as smart a speech as I've ever read. It's the sort of thing John F. Kennedy could have given, only his would have been written by someone else, probably Ted Sorensen.

I cheer also because Obama is an African American -- an African father, an American mother. For someone like him to be a presidential candidate -- maybe even president -- says oodles about this country. After eight years of George W. Bush and his narcissistic foreign policy -- me, me, us, us -- it would be great to have a president who presents a different message just by his complexion and who compensates, if anything can, for how Iraq has tarnished America's reputation, particularly in the Third World.

But mostly I want Obama to run because he would come into the race with no baggage on Iraq. Not from him would we hear excuses about how he was misled by the Bush administration into thinking there were weapons of mass destruction there. Obama not only was against the war when he ran for the Senate but he can claim -- as could the 21 Democratic senators who voted against the war resolution -- that it was possible to accept the "facts" at the time and still see that the war was unnecessary, if not downright stupid. It just makes me wince every time I hear John Kerry or John Edwards or Joe Biden or Chris Dodd or Hillary Clinton say they were misled, fooled, lied to or some other version of seduced and abandoned -- otherwise they would have voted the right way. This is disingenuous....

***

In some respects -- in the Roman way of cursus honorum -- an Obama candidacy would be a joke. He has no executive experience, and I don't know -- neither does he -- if he can make a decision. But if he could sharpen the focus of the other candidates about Iraq, if he could somehow disengage the United States from Iraq -- if he could, in other words, stop wasting American (and other) lives -- then his candidacy would hardly be an insult to the system, as some insist, but a gift.

I, for one, accept.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301033.html

Is he the best candidate in terms of experience? No, but that may not matter anymore. What matters is that he's liked. What matters more is that he's trusted.

back in 2002, when it counted.

I prefer national security experience....cause I believe that it would give us a huge advantage against the opponent.......but if I had to choose between the Pundit's hand picked "Frontrunners" (and since all lack foreign policy and/or national security experience), he's by far the best.

However, I haven't seen his statements from 2002 on the war. Does anyone have links on that?

statement was fully cognizant that the resolution did NOT give him war powers even though they and the media spun it as if it did.

The investigation into the Downing Street Memos was a MOST significant action that Obama refused to support, while also refusing to support a withdrawal timeline for Iraq last June - just now more senators and editorial columns are acknowledging a timeline as necessary.

So actions he was in POWER to effect, he chose not to.

No matter how much it's explained, people, for the most part, are like water: they follow the path of least resistance.

Therefore, most people think a vote for the resolution was a vote for the war. Period.

You can TRY to educate people to the truth, but, honestly, the nuance is too much for them - which is why Democrats have been losing as of late.

America's poor educational system and even worse news media has made the average American pretty damn stupid.

just happened in a vacuum. I think both were deliberate to the intent of controlling Americans through disinformation and demagoguery.

So glad that more people are awakening to the tactics of fascism.

Obama may not have the vaunted "national security" credentials some people say are necessary, but, as we can now see, those credentials don't necessarily guarantee good judgment, John Kerry and Jack Murtha being two cases in point.


Now, to answer your question:

WAR WITH IRAQ UNDERMINES U.N.
Chicago Defender, October 3, 2002

Nearly 3,000 people attended an anti-Iraq war rally Wednesday where the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr. and Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D-13th) warned the Bush administration that a war against Iraq undermines U.N. protocol.

Held at the Federal Plaza, 230 S. Dearborn, the anti-war protesters urged
Congress not to give Bush "a blank check" to declare war on Iraq. It is a war federal officials admit will cost U.S. taxpayers more than 9 billion a month to wage.


OPPOSITION TO WAR MOUNTS
Chicago Defender, September 26, 2002

Pressure is mounting against President Bush who continues to turn a deaf ear to pleas from Congress, Democrats and some Republicans to drop his plans for an all out assault against Iraq.
. . .

"The president has not made his case for going into Iraq," said Obama. "What is clear is that we have severe problems here at home."

Having traveled downstate, Obama said people are talking about health
care and how their pensions have melted away through corporate scandals.
"I think the president has an obligation to focus on critical foreign
policies. I also think his neglect of the economy does nothing to enhance
America's long-term security."

Obama challenges opponents to speak out on war
AP, March 3, 2003

Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question . . . Issuing the challenge at a weekend speech in Champaign, Obama said he does not oppose war if it's necessary. But he believes Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that, with Iraq's economy in shambles, he can be "contained" until internal pressures force him out.

Obama said candidates wishing to unseat Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald in 2004 should speak up now as the Bush administration moves closer to using military force against Iraq.

"What's tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself out," said Obama, a state senator from Chicago.

I want to archive them.....just in case I need them later on. Thank you though.....these reports confirmed what I had heard! :hi:

I got them from Nexis, which requires an account, but I will see if I can find links on the web.

is going to see Barak Obama tomorrow round lunchtime at the Marine Civic Auditorium, here in the Bay Area. One of his business associates just invited him to come with him. Unfortunately, the associate only had one extra ticket (valued @ $250.00 ea)....and of course, I've not been invited! :( However, it is nice that my husband is going....cause he's brutally honest when it comes to politicians, and he ain't a partisan either! Plus he's a good looking Black man like Obama, and so) It will be very interesting to hear his report. My Hubby is the typical Black Baptist Minister "not that involved in politics nor that concerned about -values-" business type Democrat who would cross party lines if it suits him (OK, so maybe he's not that typical!)

Anyways, just thought I'd tell you!

Damn......I'm mad that I can't go! Damn! :cry:

the exact position of most IWR Dem supporters.

IWR did not take this country to war - Bush lied and said it was NECESSARY. Obama AS SENATOR chose to not PURSUE closer scrutiny of those lies when presented with the opportunity.

Both Kerry and Murtha drafted withdrawal plans - Obama weighed in AGAINST those plans, too.

The difference is that from the beginning, Obama didn't buy into the myth that it was necessary for us to go into Iraq.

The question was asked what Obama said about the war in 2002. The question was answered. He opposed the war from Day 1, your obvious disdain for him notwithstanding.

sentiment - that weapons inspections and diplomacy measures should be enacted FIRST and then war IF NECESSARY.

That's the point - Bush LIED to say war was necessary AFTER the weapon inspections and diplomatic efforts.

My disdain is not for Obama, he is who he is - my disdain is for those who try to claim he has some special insight and standards for truthtelling that haven't been placed into evidence yet.

Big difference.

He is too slick for my taste. I haven't yet figured out what he actually believes in.

support the withdrawal plan for Iraq OR sign the letter of inquiry on the Downing Street Memos?

And those are acts he COULD have taken as a senator.

Cohen isn't so dumb to believe that the IWR is what took us to war - so he must have other reasons.

BTW - I am all for Obama running if he believes he can lead an embattled world at this time, and I welcome his voice in ANY debate - what I fear is that he isn't interested in open government - as his DSM actions made apparent.

and in fact wrote an editorial at one point that he KNEW in February 2003 that there were no WMD after the inspectors' reports and that the Congressmen should have known too. (except the vote was in October 2002).

"Take, for instance, Carl Levin of Michigan. To read his statements from the time (September and October 2002) is to see someone who accepted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but still saw no immediate need for war -- especially not without widespread international support. Levin, in retrospect, had it about right. The others (not to mention myself) did not."

Far more than some who he castigates now.

Cohen could have made a huge difference on the Downing Street Memos that would have made a greater impact at the time.

n/t

He is only USING Obama here to attack other Dems. Standard operations for complicit media whores.

I like Obama- but having this twerp endorse him does not help him for me at all.

Cohen endorsed Bush in 2000 (he predicted Bush could unite us) and was a vocal (and very silly) critic of netroots folk-hero, Steve Colbert(In other words, he opposes speaking out against the GOP/media in a blunt manner.)

I'm sure he got most of the war and the major issues wrong in his columns too. (Just like the rest of the media)

I like Obama just fine, but I dont see how Cohen's opinion means diddly squat to anyone- he has been wrong about some of the biggest things.

I don't think so.
Timing for this is crass, and manufacturing of candidacies is repellant.