Let me start by saying that Kid Oakland's endorsement is as powerful and well thought out as any establishment politicians endorsement I've seen to date, if not moreso. He embodies the progressive, netroots movement with his words, and gives better reason for us to find common cause with Barack Obama than any I've seen to date.
He points, as a large part of his decision, to Barack's opposition to the war in Iraq. And the speech. Yes, you know which speech I mean.
But I think many people missed his point. He posted that section of the speech for a reason, and I wanted to highlight that. This was originally going to be a comment on his post, but it got way too long for just a comment.
Please, follow me beneath the fold for an explanation...
I really want to dissect the speech in it's entirety, because I feel there's a point here that's easy to overlook.
Many of us opposed this war from the beginning. But how many of you can claim to have been as prescient in terms of the finer details as Barack was in that speech?
Let's dissect...
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
A good start. Many of us felt this way.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.
So far, so good.
What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
Here is where it starts to get interesting. He begins to get into specifics. Who were the masterminds? What was there reasoning for going to war? What was the cost?
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
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.
Again, what was the purpose of this war? What was being obfuscated by the focus on it, and what were we, as a country, missing out on because of it?
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
He addressed the administration's main reasoning for going to war. He shows you that he understands the fear and the evil perpetrated and caused by Saddam Hussein's regime.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
Here's where it really takes off. The insight into historical perspective. The ability to step out of the moment and rationally deal with the issue at hand. The analysis of the current state of Iraq and the feasibility of the arguments being made by the administration, and, ultimately, their rejection.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
Well, he nailed this one. Many people might not have realized this was going to be long and expensive. We were told there would be "shock and awe", and many of us thought that very well might happen even if we didn't think there was cause to justify it.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
Fan the flames of the middle east? Check.
Encourage the worst impulses of the Arab world? Check.
Strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda? Check.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
And that about sums it up. Not opposed to all wars. Opposed to dumb wars.
In other words, many people who are against this war are against all war. They are reflexively pacifist. That is not me. I have rationally thought through the case for war, the possible consequences, and the possible gains, and have found it to be thoroughly lacking.
Barack Obama didn't just oppose the war. Barack Obama had the judgement to understand in a very specific and realistic way why this particular war was wrong and what the cost would be. And you would do well to understand the distinction and what it means for his judgment, character, and ultimately for what kind of President he could be...