During the rush to war in 2002, an IL state senator said the following:
I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, 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.
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.
*
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...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 U.S. 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.
The speech (which is worth reading in its entirety) is as important for what it doesn't say as much as for what it does say. It doesn't warn of potential "mushroom clouds." It doesn't mention centrifuges or mobile labs. While it recognizes the brutality of SH, it doesn't compare him to Hitler. It doesn't predict that American forces will be greeted as liberators, and it does warn of the likely downsides of occupation.
When most of the Beltway in true bipartisan fashion was losing its collective mind, Obama kept his head about him. Had his position been followed, we wouldn't have lost over 4,000 American lives, nor would we have pissed away $2 trillion thus far and probably a few trillion more to come. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis wouldn't have been killed in a civil war that rages on w/o a foreseeable end.
The main issue that helped Obama win a tough nomination battle in 2008 was the contrasting positions that the 2 viable candidates took on the IWR. His 2002 position helped him roll to a convincing general election win in a war-weary nation. It showed a maturity, a judgment, and an intellectual depth that is sorely lacking in so many Beltway corridors.
W, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, Wolfie, Powell, Kagan, Kristol, McCain, and all the others were hopelessly wrong on every count as they beat the war drums then. Why the hell should anyone listen to any of them now? Why doesn't the president tell them that, if his position been followed instead of theirs when it mattered, we wouldn't need to have this discussion now? Why doesn't he tell them to STFU under such circumstances?
Yes, I understand that no president (esp. this one) tells critics to STFU. He can and should be more diplomatic in his language. There is, however, no reason for him not to say that arsonists shouldn't be taken seriously when they offer fire-fighting advice. There is every reason for him to point out that, since his judgment proved to be radically better than theirs then, it just might be better now, too.
It ain't rocket science.