Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Obama To Bush: "You Don't Have Our Authorization" For Iran War

Posted by Nico Pitney at 11:00 AM on September 12, 2007.


Nico Pitney: Obama calls for an immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and speaks out against preemptive war with Iran.
amdbarackobama
Obama

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Nico Pitney, originally appeared on The Huffington Post

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is set to deliver a "major policy speech" on Iraq today in Clinton, Iowa. Below, an excerpt of the speech obtained by the Huffington Post:

We hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud and clear - from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war.

More from the speech, titled "Turning the Page in Iraq":

"Conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost."

"There is something unreal about the debate that's taking place in Washington... The bar for success is so low that it is almost buried in the sand. The American people have had enough of the shifting spin. We've had enough of extended deadlines for benchmarks that go unmet. We've had enough of mounting costs in Iraq and missed opportunities around the world. We've had enough of a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged."

"I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now."

"Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now. We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year."

"Some argue that we should just replace Prime Minister Maliki. But that wouldn't solve the problem...The problems in Iraq are bigger than one man. Iraq needs a new Constitutional convention that would include representatives from all levels of Iraqi society - in and out of government. The United Nations should play a central role in convening and participating in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached."

"The President would have us believe there are two choices: keep all of our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis. I reject this choice... It's time to form an international working group with the countries in the region, our European and Asian friends, and the United Nations.... We should up our share to at least $2 billion to support this effort; to expand access to social services for refugees in neighboring countries; and to ensure that Iraqis displaced inside their own country can find safe-haven. .... Iraqis must know that those who engage in mass violence will be brought to justice. We should lead in forming a commission at the U.N. to monitor and hold accountable perpetrators of war crimes within Iraq."

"I'm here today because it's not too late to come together as Americans. Because we're not going to be able to deal with the challenges that confront us until we end this war. What we can do is say that we will not be prisoners of uncertainty. That we reject the conventional thinking that led us into Iraq and that didn't ask hard questions until it was too late. What we can say is that we are ready for something new and something bold and something principled."

Digg!

Tagged as: iraq war, obama, election08

Nico Pitney is the blog editor for The Huffington Post


More Right-Wing Whining Over Media's Coverage of Sarah Palin
Ho-hum, the poor misunderstood woman.
Post by Eric Boehlert. July 10, 2009.
Hey Netherlands: Fox "News" Hates You! (VIDEO)
Oh, it's not just the pot and the hookers ...
Post by PZ Myers. July 10, 2009.
Hitler, Darwin and the Sasquatch
They're all inter-related, you know.
Post by General JC Christian. July 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It would be interesting to see how many members...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Sep 12, 2007 11:44 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...of the U.N. that would beg to participate in any such endeavors.

...The United Nations should play a central role in convening and participating in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached."

...It's time to form an international working group with the countries in the region, our European and Asian friends, and the United Nations....


How many nations have asked so far? How would Obama persuade more of them?

It sounds a lot like he's simply saying that Iraq should be turned over to (waves hand off in the distance) "them", absent any concrete iteration of "them". Most folks don't need to have mythological "peacekeepers" or quasi-substantial bureaucracies such as the "U.N." invoked to recognize that Iraq poses no credible threat to our people. No threat; no justifiable deployment of our people to a region where we are not invited.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

if i won a million dollars i'd still work
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Sep 12, 2007 12:01 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
obama seems like someone who might say something like that.

naive.

that's why, given the choice of the 2, clinton is the stronger candidate (i did not say the 'right' candidate or the 'better' candidate. clinton has a better idea of how things work (not that that is a positive thing). edwards is the better of the 2 candidates, between obama and himself. he at least knows the power of, and how to measure, his words. obama lost me when he mentioned invading pakistan. very naive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peoria Teacher
Posted by: Ginga on Sep 13, 2007 1:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is as specific as he can be - since he is not the president now. I believe that when he is president, he will be able to work with the UN & gain cooperation in solving the Iraq quagmire. He is uniquely qualified to bring people and nations together. He is unquestionably the most intelligent of all the candidates and can see the whole picture of our role in the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama stands against Bush and Hillary Clinton
Posted by: herbal on Sep 13, 2007 5:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I reprint a past response because it is most relevant. Good for Obama because he is confronting, in a timely way, the vainglorious wartin Iran. He stands in diametric opposition to Hillary Clinton as can be seen below. WE have a clear choice between war and peace at this juncture.

For peace activists there is no more urgent issue than this concerning the Primaries:

Hillary addressing AIPAC (3 min.):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVWagtd8uwM&mode=related&search=

Hillary's "No options left on the table..." nuclear threat.

Then consider the company she keeps at AIPAC:
Rev. Hagee the self-described Christian Zionist. rapture cultist: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDRxmqOn7x4&mode=related&search=

"The Israel Lobby (excerpt from Tikkun newsletter)
"In this Issue Tikkun Editor Rabbi Michael Lerner responds to the recent publication of The Israel Lobby by John Walt and Stephen Mearsheimer by giving an in-depth analysis of one of the most important issues in U.S. politics today: The power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to control the relationship between the United States and Israel.

"He comes to one conclusion: AIPAC is bad for the Jews, bad for the U.S., and bad for the world and he tells why.
This is not only a Jewish issue. Lerner presents ideas for how the Network of Spiritual Progressives can become the interfaith alternative to the Israel Lobby and shows that it can only do so with the help of non-Jews as well as Jews.

"Walt and Mearsheimer will be speaking at a series of Tikkun forums. The first will be held September 19th in Berkeley, California at 2345 Channing Way at 7:00 p.m. (reservations through Cody's bookstore)."

Editorial comment: Will US foreign policy continue to be directed by AIPAC under Hillary Clinton? All the candidates need to be asked if they have accepted donations from foreign agencies and lobbies like AIPAC. It is time to join with the Jewish peace activists here and in Israel, and not fear the Lukid zionist backlash of AIPAC. Israelis are deeply divided over war and peace issues; we simply don't get their news past the US corporate media censors. Hillary Clinton represents a travesty of an added 4 to 8 years of the same world hegemony as Bush Jr. Let us not forget her perfect Bush agenda voting record up until the day her campaign began! There should be no options left on the table to defeat Hillary Clinton in the Primaries. We certainly must remember the Republican media campaign to declare all candidates as "unelectable" with the exception of Kerry (Yale, Skull and Bones, Wall St.) in 2004. This article seems to be cast in that mold that we see being cast in the TV "debates"; downplaying the most progressive candidates while focusing on the least threatening to the status quo. What do Carl Rove, Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton have in common? Invasion of Iran fixation.

Hillary AIPAC video address:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVWagtd8uwM&mode=related&search=

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]