Obama said “US should not rule out strikes on Iran” during 2004 campaign
Apparently Obama is ready to talk with Iran, but that seems a bit strange, because several months ago Obama was reiterating his plan to attack Pakistan during the search for terrorists.
Let’s look back at a Chicago Tribune article from 2004:
“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked.
Obama’s news of wanting to talk to Iran is only partially true. Obama wants to talk to Iran in much the same way the Bush administration does: economic sanctions and “threatening” diplomacy. If all else fails, we’re going to war with the horrible enemy Iran.
The presidential candidate goes through the motions of why it is a bad idea to get involved in the Middle East–sound advice–but he goes back to a neocon supposition of preemptive war:
“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point.
I know Obama is charismatic and charming to a lot of people, but this is no laughing matter. If he said it in 2004, why would he change his mind suddenly [i]now[/i]? It was as stupid to attack Iran in 2004 as it is in 2007. If he, as an “anti-war” Democrat, couldn’t see the problem then, it becomes obvious he doesn’t see it now.
Here is the full article which I linked to above:
Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
|Tribune staff reporter
- September 25, 2004
U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.
Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. Obama’s Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same session but declined.
Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.
Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.
But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.
“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked.
Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.
“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.
“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”
As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf’s troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.
Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.
“With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain,” Obama said. “I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.
“… I think there are elements within Pakistan right now–if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don’t think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.”
Filed under: Democrats, Iran, News, Politics | Tagged: barack, obama
Um, if by “several months” you mean three years ago, then yes, Obama thinks we should attack Iran.
It’s a bad idea to pull quotes out of context for political purpose. Politicians do it enough. As we attempt to sort through the politicians, we should try to present and debate the facts. Doing otherwise puts us at odds when we otherwise might not be.
What is out of context? You can read the Chicago Tribune article for yourself. It may be sugar coated a little but what I put in here is exactly what he said in 2004.
Lance, he said that in 2004.
Three years ago.
In three years opinions can change and insights can be gained. It would be one thing if Obama had said that a few months ago, or even last year. But three years is an entirely different story.
geopoliticalrooster is right, this is more like a game of gotcha than an honest examination of an issue.
ISLAMOFASCIST AND JUDEOFASCIST SYMBIOSIS
The Islamofascists, in perpetual quest of greater wealth and power, rant to incite the impoverished Islamic peoples to violence against the notorious injustices of the powerful Judeofascist land robbers. The Judeofascists, in perpetual quest for greater wealth and power, wail and lobby to incite the American People into providing military protection against this persecution by outraged Islamofascists. To add credibility to these incessant rantings and wailings, intermittent battles are performed. The result is that these clever Islamofascists and Judeofascists do gain great wealth and power, at the expense of the Arab, Persian, and American peoples.
The great sacrifice of the wealth and blood of the American People on behalf Israel is all that perpetuates this destructive symbiotic relationship between the Islamofascists and the Judeofascists. But when, in the normal course of the American Cultural War, the Neo-Cons/Neo-Libs are finally expelled by the Reagan Conservatives and Kennedy Liberals from their positions of power, the economic and military support for the Judeofascists will finally end; and that will end the support for the Islamofascists. The end of the era of Neo-Con/Neo-Lib military intervention in the affairs of the Arab and Persian peoples shall be the start of an era of constructive relations with the American People.
The Judeofascists, who live in a glass house surrounded by Islamofascists, could continue to fight for survival militarily, until nuclear armed Israel finally becomes the site of Holocaust II; or, they could resort to land reparations and diplomacy, to finally win for themselves by just and peaceful means, what they cannot win by unjust and violent means. Shall the World be cheering, and the Diaspora wailing; or, shall the World and the Diaspora be cheering?
[...] Taranto points us to a 2004 article which indicates he would: U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to [...]
[...] Compare the Obama I highlighted this week with the Obama from 2004. Political expediency [...]
[...] with Iran. Yesterday, James Taranto in his Best of the Web column noted that blogger Lance Adams reported on Barack Obama expressing a different perspective toward Iran in a 2004 Chicago Tribune [...]
ISRAEL LOBBY AND LEIBERMAN NEO-LIBS HAVE STARTED OBAMAS OBEDIENCE TRAINING
The desperate Leiberman Neo-Libs and Jewish Lobby have evidently started obedience training on Obama. An all consuming obsession with Israel’s survival is the first step in his political enslavement. The risk for Obama is that the Kennedy Democrats will disown him; and the risk for the Judeofascists, being notorious haters of the Christian and Muslim cultures, is that Obama will lead a revolt against them.