Is It Time for the Peace Movement to Start Protesting Senator Obama?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Some peace advocates had already given up on Sen. Obama because of his record since he came to the U.S. Senate. His voting record on Iraq and foreign policy is very similar to Sen. Clinton. Obama did make a great speech before the war began, saying much the same thing that peace advocates were saying, but that seems to have been the peak of his peace advocacy. Indeed, Black Agenda Report described how Obama took his anti-war speech off his website once he began running for the senate. And since coming to the senate he has voted for Iraq funding, giving Bush hundreds of billions of dollars. Further, he is calling for nearly 100,000 more U.S. troops as well as keeping the military option on the table for Iran.

But in the last two weeks he has moved to the right. On April 1, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviewed Obama about what type of U.S. residual forces he would leave behind in Iraq. First, Obama acknowledged combat troops would be left behind as “a strike force in the region.” Where would this strike force be based? Obama said “It doesn't necessarily have to be in Iraq; it could be in Kuwait or other places.”
Of even greater concern was the 140,000 civilian troops who are in Iraq – contractors, mercenaries, whatever label you put on them they are a privatized military for the U.S. With regard to these Obama said: “we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can't draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops.” When Goodman pressed him on whether he would support a ban on private military forces Obama said “Well, I don't want to replace those contractors with more U.S. troops, because we don't have them, alright?”

Obama seems to be choosing his words very carefully when he talks of his Iraq plan. He always talks in terms of only “withdrawing” “combat” troops and ending “the war.” Withdrawal is not the same as bringing troops home as it could mean moving the troops somewhere else in the region and into Afghanistan. Combat troops are a minority of the 150,000 troops in Iraq. And, ending the “war” is not the same as ending the occupation. Indeed, Obama plans to keep the massive U.S. Embassy as well as the long-term military bases being built in Iraq. No wonder he does not talk about ending the occupation as it does not seem that is his intent.

What are the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the Iraq war and want to see U.S. forces brought home to think? It sounds like Obama would leave more than 100,000 and perhaps even more than 200,000 public and private military troops in Iraq. And, he would leave strike forces in the region “not necessarily in Iraq” who could strike in Iraq when needed. Is this what he means by withdrawal?

...

For those who like Obama’s message of “hope” and “change” it is important to realize his foreign policy, as he is beginning to define it, brings neither. Obama is risking the loss of votes to three strong alternatives to the two parties. If Obama is not pulled back toward his pre-Senate position more and more peace voters will desert him for either former Representative Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez’s independent campaign, or possible Libertarian candidates Mike Gravel or former congressman Bob Barr. These are all candidates who are strongly opposed to military intervention and the Iraq occupation. In November there will be choices of real peace candidates or a major party nominee who is no longer promising real change. Pressure now from the peace movement, if heeded by Sen. Obama, will make him a stronger candidate. Is it time to for the peace movement to protest Obama?

...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/opedne_kevin_ze_080403_is_it_time_for_the_p.htm

[AX10]

1. Prepare for incoming fire!

You just questioned "Messiah"!

Obama is a centerist calculating political-type, just like the other 99.9% of politicians.

[DerekJ]

3. Wasn't he too left before ... and too liberal!!!

:rofl:

[Fredda Weinberg]

5. No, too inexperienced and lacks diplomatic skills n/t

[DerekJ]

10. You again.

I am still waiting for you to answer my question from the other thread.
Go answer that first, before I reply to you.

[papau]

17. Well said - Duers bought the con about Iraq, social programs being passed, and Nafta being changed -

despite the revelations by his highest place advisers speaking for him to Canada (on NAFTA - he won't force a change by ending the treaty if no change - but Hillary would), or on social programs (including universal health and all the others where his spokesperson said there would be no additional cost in the budget as Obama did not expect to get any passed - its just campaign talk - so Kudlow at CNBC need not worry), or on getting out of Iraq in 16 months (as told to the EU paper it is again just campaign talk and should only be considered a best case option that will be part of review - same review Hillary wants - when he takes office).

[Orwellian_Ghost]

9. Not to me

Not to anyone who understands politics.

He is a centrist in a context where the political spectrum has swung very far to the right.

It is important that you understand that and have the theoretical and historical background to examine the situation clearly.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

4. I'm ready

Obama is preferable to Hillary by 1/10th of a percent but the truth trumps them both.

[AX10]

7. I give you credit for...

not making Obama into a saint as all too many within the left wing activist crowd have done.

I respect your preference of Obama over HRC. I don't agree with your preference though.

:thumbsup:

[NanceGreggs]

14. Noticing an unmistakble trend here ...

... it's the non-Obama supporters who always refer to him as a messiah, while his supporters never do.

Apparently you non-supporters see something we supporters don't - why do you think that is?

[Mushroom]

38. "non-Obama supporters"

"you non-supporters" "we supporters"

The trend began with show don't tell posts.

Why do you think non-supporters see something Obama supporters don't?

[NanceGreggs]

41. Translation, please?

"The trend began with show don't tell posts."

[Orwellian_Ghost]

2. Obama Would Leave More Than 100,000 Troop -- Public and Private -- in Iraq

Obama Would Leave More Than 100,000 Troop -- Public and Private -- in Iraq

Obama's credentials as a peace candidate are shrinking quickly. Late last week he desribed his approach to foreign policy as like George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and JFK. Those president's were involved in many wars. The escalation of Vietnam into a quagmire occurred under JFK. Reagan found in Latin American, Nicaragua and El Salvador, and his administration was involved in the Iran-Conta violations. And George H.W. Bush's Gulf War laid the ground work for Clinton's sanctions which led into George W. Bush's invasion and occupation. Now, Obama describes with greater detail what he would do in Iraq and it sounds like he would leave more than 100,000 troops, close to 200,000 in Iraq. Troops meaning U.S. soldiers and military contractors which some call mercanaries. See below. Is he beginning to run to the center-right thinking he has the nomination sewed up? Sadly, other than his initial speech before he was a U.S. senator his voting record has included support for the war.

UPDATE: OBAMA'S POSITION ON IRAQ
April 1, 2008

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Obama, quick question: 70 percent of Iraqis say they want the US to withdraw completely; why don't you call for a total withdrawal?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, I do, except for our embassy. I call for amnesty and protecting our civilian contractors there.

AMY GOODMAN: You've said a residual force-

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Yeah, but-

AMY GOODMAN: -which means thousands .

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, no. I mean, I don't think that you've read exactly what I've said. What I said is that we do need to have a strike force in the region. It doesn't necessarily have to be in Iraq; it could be in Kuwait or other places. But we do have to have some presence in order to not only protect them, but also potentially to protect their territorial integrity.

...

http://votersforpeace.us/press/index.php?itemid=142

[DerekJ]

6. " His voting record on Iraq and foreign policy is very similar to Sen. Clinton"

As in he voted for the war, too?!!

Or do you consider sending money to fund the troops equivalent to voting for the war?

Let me know.

Edit: Typo

[Orwellian_Ghost]

13. Yes he is an ardent militarist

which goes beyond his votes for what is not a war but is properly called an illegal colonial occupation. He has advanced that agenda you do understand?

Of course some are okay with his earmarks for hybrid military hummers. Are you?

The US invasion and subsequent massacre is a massive war crime by any standards. Have you ever heard Obama hint at that? Of course not.

Ask yourself why.

Ask yourself if that is okay.

[DerekJ]

16. You still haven't answered my questions.

Nice deflection, but I am not biting. Answer the questions please.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

22. The contortions and avoidance are amazing

but not surprising.

Look over the thread in total.

Noone is actually even daring to touch the OP.

It is a very hollow discussion.

[DerekJ]

23. Please let me know if you are on disability before I start calling you blind.

I have 2 more posts down refuting his premise.

You utter stupidity marvels only your blindness

[Orwellian_Ghost]

29. Tell me what you think

Obama will do if he is elected as regards Iraq.

I will tell you my educated guess.

We can work out the details as to how we collect and then we will make a wager with me giving you good odds.

Best to ignore faith-based politics which is du jour with the Obama adulants.

No I am not on disability but your crude slur upon those who are is duly noted.

[DerekJ]

31. This is not faith based anything. And the irony is, it's what the OP said what made me confident he

has the ability to withdraw.

Obama's means are pragmatic. Thinking that you can withdraw without leaving some sort of a force to protect your interests, or eliminate the threats against the elected Iraqi government, is as bad as "They will great us with roses".

[Orwellian_Ghost]

34. Again

What do you think Obama will do as regards Iraq if elected?

A simple question.

Be specific.

[DerekJ]

40. I think he willl do what he said he will do:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Read it.

but in a nutshell.

1- I expect him to take into account the voice of the military commanders on the grounds, and to important studies like "The Iraq Study Group" (http://www.usip.org/isg/)

2- Like what the ISG calls for, I expect him to work with Syria, and Iran to end the violence, and help stabilize the country.

3- I expect him to withdraw slowly but surely, any quick withdrawal IS a disaster. You need 2 - 3 years at least.

4- I expect him to continue and increase the humanitarian aid, and rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure.

5- I expect him to negotiate with the major political forces in Iraq that are fighting over power.

6- I expect him to keep a non-permanent force to help intervene in case of emergencies.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

42. Rapid Withdrawal Is Only Solution

Rapid Withdrawal Is Only Solution

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON IRAQ

By William E. Odom, LT General, USA, Ret.

2 April 2008

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success.

I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims.

Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant inseveral other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province.

More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic.

No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities.

...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19671.htm

Quite simply you are a proponent of an illegal occupation.

Obama is quite hawkish as you know. This is what you defend as it appears to fit your ideology. Thanks for the insight.

[Rydz777]

44. Yes, immediate withdrawal. Odom has been one of the few

voices of sanity. We are told that if we leave there will be bloodshed. Yes, there may very well be, but our youth will not be in the middle of it. Out NOW!

[walldude]

8. You know I have a crazy idea

why don't we protest the REPUBLICAN!!

Oh nevermind, what the hell am I thinking :eyes:

[Muttocracy]

20. that's crazy talk!

much more important to nitpick ourselves to death about military plans that generals say cannot be made 9 months in advance!

[undeterred]

11. Sometimes the people in the peace movement are CLUELESS.

You don't protest people when they are running for office.

[Connie_Corleone]

12. Why even bother voting if we're going to shoot ourselves in the foot?

That's a good idea. Protest the Democrat and let McCain become president and start another war in Iran. Then we can bitch and moan for 4 or 8 more years so we can shoot ourselves in the foot AGAIN in 2012 or 2016.

[sandnsea]

15. Everybody has called for troops in the region

Do you pay any attention at all to what Murtha and Feingold and Kerry and Biden and Edwards have proposed??

Just because it isn't Kucinich's plan, it doesn't mean that Obama has moved right.

[DerekJ]

18. When Goodman pressed him on whether he would support a ban on private military forces Obama said “We

When Goodman pressed him on whether he would support a ban on private military forces Obama said “Well, I don't want to replace those contractors with more U.S. troops, because we don't have them, alright?”


"Further, he is calling for nearly 100,000 more U.S. troops "


Did you see you just contradicted your own critique?!!

Did you just notice why he needs more troops.


The Iraq war has just proved, that the amount of troops the U.S currently maintains, is not even enough to hold on to a country like Iraq. Imagine an actual threat.

Calling for more U.S troops is not a preparation for more illegal wars. It came as a result of the poor showing of the U.S. Army in Iraq, and obvious lack of troops having to endure more, and more rotations.

[OzarkDem]

19. Yes, he won't answer questions about Iraq

He talks of wanting to be stong on defense, appealing to conservative male voters.

He needs to be open and honest about what he plans to do.

[DerekJ]

21. "First, Obama acknowledged combat troops would be left behind as “a strike force in the region.”

And this is such a bad thing because?!!

Look, when you leave the country some terrorist groups, and organizations that have benefited from the chaos will try to keep the keep mayhem going.

Without a strike group capable of eliminating those factions, Iraq will take a much longer time to stabilize.

You can't leave the country, and give them the finger.

This is a brilliant move, not a stupid move.

[madrchsod]

25. both hillary and barack will do this

kuwait is another option for a middle east/gulf base. remember jimmy carter started this and it`s not going to end till the oil is gone

[Orwellian_Ghost]

27. Because

it is a direct violation of international law.

Did you not know that?

What you are calling brilliance is murderous.

Please get beyond adulation and actually study even the most recent history.

This is embarassing.

You are endorsing an illegal occupation in so many words.

[DerekJ]

30. AL Qaeda is not Iraqi you Moron.

This is not an endowment of an illegal occupation dimwit.

This is how you withdraw without leaving the country in complete chaos.

Obama didn't say the strike force will be permanent. There are some global forces (think of two countries in the neighborhood of Iraq) in its best interest to see the country continue its self destruction.

Add to that AL-Qaeda, certain Sunni and Shia leaders that will be fighting for power, and you have enough gangs to destabilize the country for decades to come.

The strike force is needed to intervene only in dire situation to help the Iraqi government control the situation, especially when they don't have any armed force, or enough police forces ( they're being murdered if you haven't noticed) to insure civil obedience.

You have no idea what you are talking about. ZERO NADA

[Orwellian_Ghost]

33. Is this the same Obama

who along with Hil and John said they could not promise US forces would be out of Iraq by 2013.

It is.

Insults prove the weakness of your position.

You see it certainly is an illegal occupation unless you go along with Bush-Cheney on the al-Qaida in Iraq bit.

Do you?

The chaos will subside immeasurably the moment the occupying force departs. The State Department continues to promote the lie that US forces are necessary to prevent such "chaos", the very thing created by the illegal slaughter and occupatin which you seem to have forgotten.

You obviously do not know even a bit about the history of Sunni-Shia relations in Iraq. If you did you could not iterate such nonsense as you have.

You did mean the US installed puppet government I'm guesssing, that is if you were to be accurate with your language.

Your in-depth analysis is greatly appreciated.

Any chance you could help out with a brief history of US/UK intervention in Iraq?

Relate it to the present.

An opportunity to display your scope of knowledge.

[DerekJ]

37. Hehehehe I don't know about the history of Sunni and Shia?!! Really?!!

Not only do I know their history, I read the full Quran twice. I studied Islam, and I actually visited the Middle East (Egypt)(Let me know if you have done any of those, so I can take this discussion to another level).

I know exactly where they differ on religion, and how the separation happened, and I know their feud has always been POLITICAL not religious.

Since the Muslims split to Sunni and Shia, because of the Shia of Ali ( or the SUPPORTERS of Ali) wanted Ali to be in power as "khalifa", it has always been a struggle of politics.

Don't expect this to stop.

And you haven't refuted the fact that the Iraqi government is still weak, and if you are planning to withdraw in 16 month, it gives them no time to prepare a strong police force, and military force to curb the civil disobedience.

Without those forces, the government will be overturned in a week, and while I know damn well it’s a puppet government, the ones that will replace them could be much worse.

You have to have a strike force to help with emergencies. Just imagine the global community saying :” The Americans left the country to burn” should any big civil violence start.

Edit: Typo

[madrchsod]

24. we are doomed ......yes...... we are doomed

well i guess there`s no one to vote for.

[Bright Eyes]

26. The alternative is McInsanity and Clinton.

Yeah, I'll stick to Obama, thanks.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

28. That does not address anything in the OP

You are rationalizing without taking the time to actually use your critical thinking skills as relates to the OP.

That is very curious.

We weren't talking about "the alternatives" you are using that as a deflection.

[newspeak]

32. Obama or Clinton?

We are left in a dilemma. Since Bill's presidency, I do not look forward to Hillary. When Bill first was elected, I was so excited that now the truth would finally be exposed about Iran-Contra, the BCCI scandal, the PROMIS software alleged theft and those who were involved would be tried and punished. Instead, it seemed all scandal was swept under the rug, to rear its ugly head with *. Some of the same players became players in this administration. I remember praying fervently for a Democratic president because NAFTA-GATT was being discussed under Poppy's presidency and knowing the possibility of corporations having a free reign (corporations over people) in not only our country, but other countries, I knew we were going to be in trouble. I remember Bill stating publicly that we were going to be the service sector in our new economy. Then, there was the passing of the Welfare (D)eform Act, the Telecommunications Act (deregulation), the rescinding of the Fairness Doctrine.

If Hillary is nominated, I fear another sweeping under the rug of corruption that has become more vile than the Iran-Contra days. Unless there is some justice for all that has happened (lying to war, acts against the Geneva Convention, war profiteering, corporate fraud, outing Brewster-Jennings, desecrating the Constitution, election fraud, etc...), the corruption will escalate like a snowball tumbling downhill until it grows so massive that we, the American people will be crushed by its weight.

Obama, to me, is not a progressive, but a centrist like Hillary. But, I know more about the mechanisms of the Clintons' than I do Obama. I will vote for Obama with the HOPE that he will prove that he cares about justice, about the American people, about choosing diplomacy over aggression. He is not my choice but I will vote for him and HOPE!!!!

[MagickMuffin]

35. Obama says "Change starts from the bottom Up, Not the Top to the Bottom."

So, I suggest the Peace Movement work within his campaign to change his perceptions about the Iraq war.

I will be voting for the Democratic nominee in November. No if ands or buts.

If the Peace Movement chooses to vote third party then they will only have themselves to blame if the republicons win the WH, which no one really knows how many wars will be started by McCaineyBush.

Is that what they really want?.?.?

Do I like the idea of contractors staying in Iraq? Hell NO, but as it stands right now I don't have any other viable options.

I will not throw my support to a third party candidate. Sorry, but I cannot do that with a clear conscience.

[MadBadger]

36. Obama never said he was anti-War, He said in the speech he was against dumb wars.

[zulchzulu]

39. So should Obama vote against the troops having protection or vets having coverage?

Yeah, I know... he should vote against the war even if it means leaving the troops sent there stranded, unprotected and perhaps left for dead.

Yeah, that works like a fucking charm.

Same with the vets.

Fuck them, right?

So what if they need help and assistance for their problems due to being in battle, right? Who needs bandaids. Here's some fucking duct tape, soldier.

Make sure to spit on a homeless vet when you see him begging in the fucking rain. Tell his crippled ass to get a job...

Yeah, I get it now...

:crazy:

[Rydz777]

43. Out NOW! If we get a Democratic President who is just

Bush-lite, it will be a disaster for the Party and for the country. Before I cast my vote in November, I am going to closely examine what is being said about Iraq. If I detect any ambiguity, I'll skip the top of the ticket and vote the rest of the Democratic list.

Thanks for the post and thanks to Amy Goodman for the interview.