Barack Obama’s March 2003 Public Statements Opposing the Iraq War

This is a guest post with a few of my additions, by commenter, Lincoln Duncan.

Duncan writes:

In addition to his now famous October 2002 speech against the war, and his somewhat well known appearance in November 2002 on an Illinois public broadcasting show, Obama also — and this is not well known at all — spoke out forcefully against the war in the critical first three weeks of March 2003 just before the war was launched on March 20, 2003.

“Obama Challenges Opponents to Speak Out on War,” The Associated Press, March 3, 2003

Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question.

Issuing the challenge at a weekend speech in Champaign, Obama said he does not oppose war if it’s necessary. But he believes Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that, with Iraq’ economy in shambles, he can be “contained” until internal pressures force him out.

“What’s tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself out,” said Obama, a state senator from Chicago.

Anti-War Rally Here Draws Thousands, Chicago Sun-Times, March 17, 2003,

State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) told the crowd, “It’s not too late” to stop the war.”

*****On March 20, 2003 the War Started******

“Some Illinoisans Cheer, Others Protest War on Iraq,” Associated Press, March 20, 2003.

“Once the president makes the decision to go in, our priority has to be with the safety and success of our troops,” state Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago, said from Springfield, where the state Legislature is in its spring session.

“Our prayers are with the families, and we have to hope for the best possible outcome in the shortest possible time.”

CNN Newsnight with Aaron Brown, March 28, 2003

BARACK OBAMA, ILLINOIS STATE LEGISLATURE: Well, I think that, obviously, the overriding concern right now is safety of the troops. And, you know, I’ve been traveling around the state and at least once or twice a day, I’ll have people come up to me whose son’s were reservists who have been called up, daughters who have been called up. And, obviously, people really are concerned about making sure they’re safe. And that’s true across the board, whether people support or do not support the war. But I do think there’s an underlying anxiety, in part because of their concerns about America’s role in the world and the aftermath of the war. And, in part, because they’re concerned about domestic policy and how this war is going to impact the economy, which is going through very tough times in Illinois.

I’ll let Lincoln Duncan explain why these quotes are important. Duncan writes:

This is relevant for two reasons. First, it shows that Bill Clinton is being deceptive when he tries to plant the idea that Obama equivocated about the war or was not against the war at all relevant times prior to its being launched by George W. Bush. Second, it draws attention to Hillary Clinton’s own contradictions on the war. From the beginning of her Presidential campaign, Senator Clinton has said that “If I had been president in 2003, I would never have started this war.” See Feb. 11 Concord Monitor, “Clinton Reintroduces Herself as Presidential Candidate.” But no one has asked her – at any of the fifteen debates – whether why, if she harbored objections to Bush’s decision to pull the trigger on the war on March 18, 2003, she did not – in the critical March 2003 period – use her very prominent platform to speak out against the invasion and claim that it would be a misuse of the authority she voted to grant Bush. If we credit Hillary’s assertion that she had objections to Bush’s decision to invade, then once we recognize that she did not voice those objections publicly, she is worse than someone who just happened to have had bad judgment, she is someone who is claiming the mantle of the real leader and doer in this race and yet who was abjectly craven at the single most important moment of her Senate career.

So the real “fairytale” is the one Bill Clinton is trying to propagate by attempting to strip from Obama his rightful advantage as the one who had both judgment and courage on the Iraq war.

I’ll add that I think the last two quotes are important because they show that after the troops were sent in, Obama’s concern was about looking for the best way to get the troops home as safely and successfully as possible. For the Clintons to interpret any of his actions after the troops were on the ground as equivocation on his early opposition is an insult to our intelligence.

2 Responses to “Barack Obama’s March 2003 Public Statements Opposing the Iraq War”

  1. vwcat Says:

    Sagereader, Please send this around to places like Politico – email ben smith, msnbc – maybe to morning joe or chris matthews, ect.
    To places where the msm can see this.
    It’s important that they see this. Then they maybe can catch Hillary in a lie on national tv.
    It would go along way to showing a pattern with the Clintons in their trying to smear Obama’s character and let voters know the real Hillary.
    Voters won’t know if this is just posted here. You have to email it around please.
    She is seriously trying to damage Obama’s name and his reputation and slime it with her dirt. And if she is embarrassed now maybe she’ll think twice before too much damage is done.
    Especially with her having her surrogates trying to start a racial thing.

  2. sagereader Says:

    vw,

    as site admin, let me let you in on a little secret–the major msm outlets read this blog and many of the major bloggers do too. for every comment you see posted, there are hundreds of other people who read but don’t post. the media just choose to report what they want to report and to write “he said-she said” “campaign press release” journalism rather than calling candidates out for their lies.

    tim russert had every opportunity yesterday to call clinton out on her lies about obama’s iraq record, yet he just said “we’ll let the viewers interpret that.” if russert won’t call her out to her face, knowing that he was the very one who asked obama the questions bill clinton is saying obama wasn’t asked, then who will?

    And why aren’t the Chicago Sun-Times, the journalists who were at the rallies with Obama in 2002 and 2003 covering his opposition, coming forward to correct the journalistic record? They reported on it directly from the scene in 2003 and now they are mindlessly publishing Bill Clinton’s insinuations that Obama wasn’t against the war.

    And why is Ben Smith at Politico writing comments about “Obama surrogates angrily charging racism”? He was the one who actually BROKE the story about Clinton’s MLK comments and he saw the backlash on his blog. He KNOWS that the backlash started before anybody from the Obama campaign began talking about. Yet even he isn’t stepping forward to call the Clintons out about that lie. What’s worse, he’s taking up the Clinton campaign talking point.

    I mean, we’re talking about people who were actually THERE for Obama’s protests and for his answers to the Clintons’ questions about his Iraq War Record, and to break the story about Clinton’s MLK comments, and even they won’t just tell Bill and Hill to their face that they are lying.

    I wish it were as easy as–if the mainstream media/bloggers only knew the truth, they would report it.

Leave a Reply