Be sure to follow me on Twitter @leftiblog

Sunday, April 29, 2007


The phony "antiwar" Obama

I've written about the phony "antiwar" Barack Obama before, but Thursday's Democratic Presidential debate (transcript) provided another bit of evidence. The first time the subject came up with him, he repeated a variation of what we had heard before:
Well, Brian, I am proud that I opposed this war from the start, because I thought that it would lead to the disastrous conditions that we've seen on the ground in Iraq.
In other words, he wasn't opposed to the war per se, and certainly not to the idea of launching an unprovoked war against a supposed "enemy" on specious grounds as part of an equally specious "war on terror" (on that subject, make sure to read the fascinating article by the otherwise execrable Zbigniew Brzezinski, arguably the single man most responsible for 9/11 outside of Osama bin Laden, on the bogosity of the "war on terror" and the very real climate of fear it has engendered with all its consequences). He was only opposed to launching an ill-planned, poorly led, and under equipped war. He'll do better.

And where will he do better? Quite possibly Iran. And why do I say that? Because for all his bluster about his pride about how he wouldn't have voted for the war against Iraq, here he is on the subject of Iran:

But, have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region.

Kucinich: (Interrupts to say they have no nuclear weapons)

Obama: I understand that, but they're in the process of developing it. And I don't think that's disputed by any expert.

Kucinich: It is disputed...
So here's Obama, repeating for all the world to see precisely the same sort of "mistake" that led to the war in Iraq - believing (or claiming to believe, anyway) "all the experts" (all the ones that the corporate media allows to appear on Meet the Press and similar talk fests) without considering the complete lack of actual evidence, willing to push this kind of nonsense on the susceptible American public. So even though he prefaced his remark by claiming, "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran," we can see where his thinking lies, and the fact is, when push comes to shove, he'll claim, just like Bush, that it was Iran who "initiated" the war by daring to exert its national sovereignty to develop nuclear power (or even, should they decide to, nuclear weapons). Because, in the end, this is the rationale that will determine his actions when in office:
I think it is important for us to also recognize that if we have nuclear proliferators around the world that potentially can place a nuclear weapon into the hands of terrorists, that is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to take seriously.
And remember, "all options are on the table." But don't worry. He's "not planning to nuke anybody...right now." After Iran has tens of thousands of centrifuges enriching uranium, who knows? That just might be the time the "antiwar" Obama will decide it is time.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com High Class Blogs: News and Media