2008 Woodie Awards
Commentary: Obama support misplaced
Issue date: 7/2/08 Section: Editorial
Sen. Barack Obama seems like a pleasant guy. It would probably be fun to shoot some hoops with him.
But I'd have to call a foul for some of Obama's blunders in foreign policy development. He postures as the peace player in this upcoming presidential election but his actions are in many ways hypocritical.
He's offered too many assists to the military-industrial complex during his historic presidential campaign, for my liking.
And that scares me. Consider the inexorable nature of the US power structure accurately described by current White House Press Secretary Dana Perino when rebutting an assertion that concerned citizens want this war to stop: "You had input. The American people have input every four years, and that's the way our system is set up."
Before Obama was a US Senator, that is before he had privileged access to Colin Powell's "info" supporting the authorization of military force in Iraq, he made a rousing speech during a re-election campaign, for an Illinois Senate seat in the the state's most liberal district, declaring the invasion of Iraq to be "dumb." Shortly after, Obama was behind the endless occupation.
On July 24, 2004, Obama told the Chicago Tribune about his stance on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."
So he supported a criminal war? Well, he certainly funded the raging disaster.
Now that he's running for president, Obama claims he will remove US combat troops within 16 months of taking office. Sometimes he seems to shorten it to 11 months to hit the 2009 mark (his Republican opponent Sen. John McCain says 2013). There are several caveats including an unspecified number of indefinite "residual forces" in Iraq, setting up a strike force for the region, setting up bases, controlling prisons, etc.
Sometimes I wonder if all this is to make himself look tough for his upcoming presidential battle with the hawkish McCain. Obama has been engaged in some serious rhetorical fist thumping about Pakistan and Afghanistan. Sorry, Obama, the United States doesn't want another cowboy in charge.
Just think: How would you like invaders from what seems to be a monolithic empire marching down your street with machine guns?
In May, I was watching a live broadcast from Fox News of a McCain speech on nuclear proliferation in Colorado. The program was interrupted when several protesters stood up and chanted, sardonically: "Endless war! Endless war! Endless war!"
We could use more of the same pressure at Obama events. He is not going to alter America's interventionist, expansionist foreign policy. He's just going to keep pandering to the right and to the left and to whoever gives him power. There's not enough space to list the problems I have with Obama: his quiet absenteeism during important votes, his approval of the Patriot Act II and his doubletalk on NAFTA, among other issues. What pains me most is that Obama will not bring the troops home, now, despite his antiwar rhetoric.
That's not "change you can believe in." At best, it's change you can vote for.
- Marc Larocque is a junior journalism major and member of The News Staff.
But I'd have to call a foul for some of Obama's blunders in foreign policy development. He postures as the peace player in this upcoming presidential election but his actions are in many ways hypocritical.
He's offered too many assists to the military-industrial complex during his historic presidential campaign, for my liking.
And that scares me. Consider the inexorable nature of the US power structure accurately described by current White House Press Secretary Dana Perino when rebutting an assertion that concerned citizens want this war to stop: "You had input. The American people have input every four years, and that's the way our system is set up."
Before Obama was a US Senator, that is before he had privileged access to Colin Powell's "info" supporting the authorization of military force in Iraq, he made a rousing speech during a re-election campaign, for an Illinois Senate seat in the the state's most liberal district, declaring the invasion of Iraq to be "dumb." Shortly after, Obama was behind the endless occupation.
On July 24, 2004, Obama told the Chicago Tribune about his stance on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."
So he supported a criminal war? Well, he certainly funded the raging disaster.
Now that he's running for president, Obama claims he will remove US combat troops within 16 months of taking office. Sometimes he seems to shorten it to 11 months to hit the 2009 mark (his Republican opponent Sen. John McCain says 2013). There are several caveats including an unspecified number of indefinite "residual forces" in Iraq, setting up a strike force for the region, setting up bases, controlling prisons, etc.
Sometimes I wonder if all this is to make himself look tough for his upcoming presidential battle with the hawkish McCain. Obama has been engaged in some serious rhetorical fist thumping about Pakistan and Afghanistan. Sorry, Obama, the United States doesn't want another cowboy in charge.
Just think: How would you like invaders from what seems to be a monolithic empire marching down your street with machine guns?
In May, I was watching a live broadcast from Fox News of a McCain speech on nuclear proliferation in Colorado. The program was interrupted when several protesters stood up and chanted, sardonically: "Endless war! Endless war! Endless war!"
We could use more of the same pressure at Obama events. He is not going to alter America's interventionist, expansionist foreign policy. He's just going to keep pandering to the right and to the left and to whoever gives him power. There's not enough space to list the problems I have with Obama: his quiet absenteeism during important votes, his approval of the Patriot Act II and his doubletalk on NAFTA, among other issues. What pains me most is that Obama will not bring the troops home, now, despite his antiwar rhetoric.
That's not "change you can believe in." At best, it's change you can vote for.
- Marc Larocque is a junior journalism major and member of The News Staff.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 10
Sarcastic Steve
posted 7/02/08 @ 3:11 PM EST
You don't want another cowboy in charge? I guess you're voting for a third party candidate then, if you cast Obama as a cowboy.
Then you take a quote from July 2004 about his stance on Iraq? You realize that's a year after the war started right? If he's in the white house and he's against starting a war then a year later there will be no war to speak of. (Continued…)
Gerard
posted 7/02/08 @ 8:48 PM EST
Play your games.
Obama is lame
posted 7/04/08 @ 12:24 PM EST
ENDLESS WAR
Wake up
posted 7/06/08 @ 12:35 AM EST
Mr. Obama, we are NOT 100 percent behind you. Our brand of freedom IS "our most powerful expert," but it's one that comes with cluster bombs and massacre. (Continued…)
Katie
posted 7/06/08 @ 3:45 PM EST
Marc,
THANK YOU.
This is brilliant.
Sarcastic Steve needs a lesson in what sarcasm is. I don't think there's a single instance of sarcasm in his comment. (Continued…)
Moberg
posted 7/08/08 @ 1:31 PM EST
"I am Iron Man
da-na-na-na-na-na-na vote for me!"
$10 to anyone who can name the source of that!
Post a Comment