article tools

• Email
• Comments (0)
• Share
• Print

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is asking voters to focus on past differences, not present similarities, between himself and his chief Democratic rivals on the Iraq war.

In an interview with the Monitor yesterday, Obama called the current Iraq policies of the Democratic candidates "variations on the same theme." He said, "Now that they've determined we need to bring an end to the war, there are only so many ways we can do it."

Obama asked voters instead to focus on the original decision to go to war. "It was the most important foreign policy decision in a generation, and who got it right and wrong is relevant in determining who's got the experience and judgment to move forward," he said.

Five years ago yesterday, Obama spoke at an anti-war rally in Chicago, where he opposed the impending war in Iraq as a "dumb war" and a "rash war" based "not on principle but on politics." He stated that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein "poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States," and said, "Even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Obama's campaign released a DVD, shown yesterday across the state, that included several clips of Obama opposing the war, including one of a November 2002 talk show appearance in which Obama called rushing into war a mistake, saying there needed to be a debate over the cost of the war, a plan for rebuilding the country, and a way to ensure Iraq does not split into factions.

In contrast, Democratic presidential candidates and U.S. Senators Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd voted in favor of giving the president authority to go to war in Iraq in 2002.

The differences have lessened since then. All the Democratic candidates vehemently oppose the war and criticize President Bush. Clinton, Edwards and Obama all opposed a troop increase and advocate withdrawing U.S. combat troops, while leaving a reduced force for maintaining security and training Iraqi forces. They have talked about political solutions, using diplomacy or benchmarks. Obama and Clinton's voting records on Iraq in the Senate are similar.

In his campaign, Obama uses his early opposition to the war to address questions about his lack of experience as a first-term senator. He has said repeatedly that his judgment is more important than the Washington experience of his rivals.

In a speech yesterday in Chicago, Obama criticized those who voted to authorize the war. "Without that vote, there would be no war," Obama said. "We need to ask those who voted for the war: How can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?"

The Clinton and Edwards campaigns both countered Obama's implicit criticism. "Senator Obama likes to talk about his speech on Iraq years ago, but the truth is he did support past funding requests that only helped prolong this war," said Edwards spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield. Edwards, she said, would not vote to further fund the war without a timeline for troop withdrawal.

Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand said, "We believe voters are focused on the future and on ending the war in Iraq. Increasingly, Americans think Senator Clinton is the candidate with the strength and experience to do so."

Obama's opposition to the war came in a different political environment than that of the U.S. senators. Obama was an Illinois state senator running for U.S. Senate. A poll cited in the Chicago Sun-Times in 2002 found that only 17 percent of Illinois voters thought the U.S. should attack Iraq without a broad coalition. More than half wanted more proof that Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, and 18 percent wanted no attack at all. The Sun-Times wrote that the survey "puts Illinois somewhat at odds with the nation as a whole." (next page »)