Is Obama really the "peace candidate" vs Hillary the "war candidate"?

[bidenista]

A lot of people on DU have been writing as if Hillary represents more of the same "democracy-building" wars, whereas Obama would break with this and approach the question of spreading good government by non-violent means. As evidence, they've pointed to Hillary's vote for the IWR. (Obama didn't vote as he was not yet a senator, but says he opposed the IWR.)

In 2007, Robert Kagan - co-founder of the PNAC - wrote an account (worth reading in full) of an Obama speech he attended.

Some DUers will, I think, be disappointed:

Obama the Interventionist

By Robert Kagan
Sunday, April 29, 2007

...Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.

He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world."

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened." Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others." Make every effort? Conspicuously absent from Obama's discussion of the use of force are four words: United Nations Security Council.

Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent." He talks about how we need to "seize" the "American moment." We must "begin the world anew." This is realism? This is a left-liberal foreign policy?

Ask Noam Chomsky the next time you see him....

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html

[Orsino]

1. Neither one has been willing to defund the war...

...so I'm no longer quite as impressed by Obama's pre-Senate antiwar stance.

[zabet]

8. True that neither has been willing to defund.

I find little credibility in Obama's
pre-Senate antiwar stance. He voted
wrong at least 5 times by his own account,
his fence straddling/political posturing
present votes and most of all, he has said
he didn't know how he would have voted.

[dailykoff]

2. In a word, yes.

Here's how Tom Hayden explained it in an interview he gave right after endorsing Obama: Obama is not anti-war, but he's much more likely to listen to the anti-war movement than Hillary.

Also, the details of Hilly's belated Iraqi withdrawal plan are much vaguer than Obama's, for example with respect to the bases. I'll see if I can find anything to document that.

[BlackVelvet04]

14. And you know that how?

Obama is not anti-war, but he's much more likely to listen to the anti-war movement than Hillary.

[dailykoff]

17. That was Tom Hayden's reason for endorsing Obama as the PEACE candidate.

Just telling you what he said.

[MagsDem]

21. Okay, I have to call bullshit on that

First, there is nothing belated about Clinton's withdrawal plan. If her's is belated his is super belated. And in fact, her plan calls for immediate withdrawal, where his is completely non-specific on that point.

In addition, he voted AGAINST ALL withdrawal plans proposed by Dems until he decided to run for President. Enough with these bullshit myths about Obama. If his supporters can't handle the truth about him maybe they should just be quiet. Lying or complete willfull ignorance is not a democratic value.

[Cant trust em]

26. The speed at which they present their plans doesn't matter to me much

I'm much more interested that they take the right position. Here are some clips from their website.

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families.

[Cant trust em]

3. "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."

- Ill. state senator, Barack Obama

[bidenista]

4. which reason? which principle?

Does he share the reason and principles of the PNACers? Does that explain why people like Kagan and Kristol are giving him two thumbs up?

Not much substance in that quote unless there's some explanation of what it means.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Huh?

"Does he share the reason and principles of the PNACers?"

If he did, he'd have supported the war in Iraq, like Clinton.

[bidenista]

11. again, I ask: which reason? which principles?

When President Obama goes to pre-emptive war, what does he consider a good reason? A principled reason?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. I don't speak for Obama, but I'd have to presume...

things like self-defense, or to stop genocides.

[Orsino]

24. Good God. I hope we don't have to base our support for a candidate...

...on which wars we think he might start. There are real wars going on right now by which we can judge them.

Obama's statement wasn't quibbling over when preemptive war is okay. It clearly derides this preemptive war as being based on passion rather than principle.

[Cant trust em]

19. He's talking abour creating opportunities for people

within their countries to make them not want to attack us. I think that this quote from the article says a lot.

"We must build up "the capacity of the world's weakest states" and provide them "what they need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, . . . generate wealth . . . fight terrorism"

I'm strongly in the belief that people want to attack us, not because we have freedom, but it's because they don't. It's much easier to recruit terrorists when they are poor and starving than if they are healthy and happy.

[Cant trust em]

20. The reasons are pretty obvious in the context of Iraq

We all know how the war was started. It began on the heels of the hysteria after 9/11 and on the politics of fear. Testimony of international experts was ignored. We rushed into the whole affair without a proper plan.

I think that his comments are totally fair. Before we enter into an entirely new phase of American foreign policy we needed to do a better job of making the case for war. The principle is going into war based on facts, not on fear. It would be irresponsible to say that we're never going to enter into an armed struggle ever. The best we can do is to make sure that all of our questions are answered beforehand.

[MagsDem]

22. Exactly. ALL Obama supporters should read your post

It is way past time they opened their blissfully ignorant eyes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Yes.

[DURHAM D]

6. This will be totally ignored by his followers.

He has repeatedly "Hawked It Up" but no one pays it any attention.

[denem]

9. The Truman Doctrine

ever heard of the Truman Doctrine. US Policy for 60 years. Obama is expressing nothing more no less than that.

[Thrill]

10. Why did Hillary vote for Kyl-Liberman?

Is she a bigger warmonger than McCain?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular alliances" same same

[Lerkfish]

13. obama is only slightly better on record concerning the war

but they have both been abysmal. Clinton is just absymal-er.
I would have preferred Kucinich, but lets face it, this primary literally is picking the better of the two.

[yardwork]

16. Hillary and Obama are virtually identical on the war and other policies.

Choose the one you prefer. I hope that one of them is elected president this fall, as either would be far preferable than any Republican.

There's very little difference between Obama and Hillary.

[MagsDem]

23. Bullshit

She has been honest; he has changed his vote based on his presidential aspirations. Her plan calls for an immediate withdrawal; his is non-specific. He says he will 'work' with rethugs, she says she will fight their agenda on our behalf (and she has her whole life). His healthcare plan covers half the people hers does at almost the same costs.

Those are just the 3 big differences. Yes, I know the media has told you there is no difference, so please vote for the charismatic black guy (so the rethugs can cream him in the general), but THERE IS a huge difference between them.

[yardwork]

25. Actually, I support Hillary.

[Iceburg]

18. A man that can't decide whether to enter a debate,says he will unilaterally&pre-emptively invade ...

Pakistan.
America has a chance to establish a new direction with the rest of the world and this man just took us back 4 years.
Not even GWB made such foolish mistakes in his debut.

[Freida5]

27. Why can't we just get all the dictators together and sing?