Who Said It?
It was October 2002 when these prescient words were uttered by someone whose views on the Iraq war some people are now trying to discredit:
“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.
“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. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. 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. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”
Who said it? (No Googling allowed!) I’ll identify the person tonight.
18 Responses to “Who Said It?”
I can’t know for sure but I’m guessing Hillary, mostly because she fits the description of being discredited for the Iraq war without being a Republican. It’s widely known that Obama opposed it from the start so he wouldn’t be interesting.
Still, if she did say that, why did she vote for the war hmmm? She’s opposed to dumb wars…good, but then she votes for them?
I don’t think it was Hillary. My guess would be Ron Paul.
I think that WAS Obama.
The naive & inexperienced Barack Obama.
Since I backed up the articles from before the invasion that I found of interest to me. I had to restore them. After searching them I found the quote that Shaun used.
During the primary debates somebody should ask the 2 questions that Lynx proposes.
It is Obama. The “I’m not opposed to all wars, just dumb wars” is a common saying of his.
I am pretty sure I said that several times during the insufferable and inexorable up run-up to the war.
Just watched a repeat on PBS of the Bill Moyer’s Selling the War special.
That damning look at the MSM gave me PTSD-like flashbacks.
I can’t know for sure but I’m guessing Hillary
Boy Hillary has done a good job covering up her Iraq war vote if many people believe that one.
My first guess was Howard Dean, but then, of course I remembered the little known State Senator from Illinois was a vocal critic of the war before it started.
Mikef, I thought of Hillary because it’s my understanding that Obama has a squeaky clean Iraq record, having opposed it from the start and predicted much of what was to come. To me it followed that no one would be trying to discredit him on Iraq since that task would be near-impossible. It would also be a more interesting twist if it were Hillary. I think her perfectly capable of saying something like that and THEN voting for the war. My guess is not a sign of my admiration, quite the contrary.
Here were Hillary Clinton’s arguments:
Astonishing how many undisputed facts turned out to be just flat wrong.
I would go with Cheney in 93 or 94 except it doesn’t sound like him.
“I think that WAS Obama. The naive & inexperienced Barack Obama.”
Exactly my thoughts.
Which is why Hillary couldn’t run with the “Bush lied” theme as some of the other candidates have. Between her own record in the Senate and her husband’s record in the WH, it was patently obvious that the errors were in how the intel had been gathered and analyzed by CIA for years, not by Bush and Co. twisting the facts.
The answer is: Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, 2002.
I just donated $25 to his campaign. He earned it with that speech. I’d really like to see what he can do in the oval office.
Should have gone with my first instinct, obviously, but it seemed too obvious.
I can only hope that “conventional wisdom” is a crock for once and he gets the nomination instead of Hillary.
I give him credit for having a contrarian opinion which has now been somewhat validated; I say ‘somewhat’ though because the truth is that we’ll never know whether or not Saddam would have been relegated to history’s dustbin or not. I certainly don’t think that the containment policy that we were undertaking in the 90s was sustainable (esp given UN malfeasance and willingness of some allies to put financial interests above the interest of containment.)
This seems to fit a pattern where I agree with a good bit of Obama’s statements but then he comes up just a bit short- always lacking a bit in global/regional balance of power strategy. Had he more seriously addressed alternatives to the invasion, he’d have gotten an A+ in my gradebook.
Just goes to show, even when someone hits the ball clean and square and knocks it out of the part, there will always be someone around to say, “Nah, that wasn’t a real home run. Sure, he scored and all. Even drove in everyone that was on base. But it just wasn’t a real home run.”
Lol seriously. Remember just the provable stuff was 100% on, he was only partially correct about what happened in the alternate universe earth.