Obama biographer Mendell claimed "anti-war" Obama "sent some mixed messages"
SUMMARY: Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell stated on Hardball that Barack Obama -- who has said if he were president, the United States would act "[i]f we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets" in Pakistan -- "sent some mixed messages to some of his true believers ... since he was the anti-war candidate early on." However, contrary to Mendell's characterization of Obama as "anti-war," Obama said in 2002, "I don't oppose all wars" -- a position he elaborated on in an August 1 speech.
On the August 15 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell, author of Obama: From Promise to Power (Amistad, August 2007), commented on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) August 1 statement that "[i]f we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will," saying: "I think that maybe he has sent some mixed messages to some of his true believers who think that he -- since he was the anti-war candidate early on that he was much more of a dove than he is." In fact, while Obama has always said he opposed the Iraq war, he is not, as Mendell suggested, "anti-war" with respect to all military conflicts. He was quoted in an October 17, 2001, Chicago Defender article -- a year before his speech declaring his opposition to the Iraq war -- stating that a "military response and a criminal investigation" were necessary to "dismantle" terrorist organizations following the September 11, 2001, attacks. Further, in his October 2, 2002, speech, Obama specifically stated: "I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war." In an August 1 speech, he elaborated on the 2002 speech: "I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support 'a dumb war, a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about a 'U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences' in the heart of the Muslim world."
From the 7 p.m. ET hour of the August 15 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews:
CHRIS MATTHEWS (host): OK, let's go, let's go to David Mendell. Congratulations on your book.
Let me ask you about the candidate you've written about in here, Obama. Obama called for direct action -- unilateral American action to go after [Al Qaeda leader Osama] bin Laden in where we think he is, in northwest Pakistan, with or without the help of Musharraf, the president of that country, the dictator of that country. Now, today, John Edwards said the same thing to me independently. He said we ought to go after bin Laden with or without Musharraf. What do you make of that very aggressive statement by the guy you covered in your book?
MENDELL: Right. Well, I heard former Senator Edwards say that on your program earlier today, and it did remind me of the statement. It was almost right in tune with what Senator Obama said a little while ago, and caught some heat from that. Senator Obama I think has tried to position himself neither as a dove nor a hawk. I think that maybe he has sent some mixed messages to some of his true believers who think that he -- since he was the anti-war candidate early on that he was much more of a dove than he is.
As Obama explained in his August 1 speech:
OBAMA: We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists' base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.
Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century's stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq. I worried about a " U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we "finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda."
The political winds were blowing in a different direction. The President was determined to go to war. There was just one obstacle: the U.S. Congress. Nine days after I spoke, that obstacle was removed. Congress rubber-stamped the rush to war, giving the President the broad and open-ended authority he uses to this day. With that vote, Congress became co-author of a catastrophic war. And we went off to fight on the wrong battlefield, with no appreciation of how many enemies we would create, and no plan for how to get out.
Obama said in his October 2, 2002, speech:
OBAMA: After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
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.
[...]
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?
From the October 17, 2001, Chicago Defender article, retrieved from the Nexis database:
Asked what should the U.S. do, Obama said: "We're engaged in a military operation. I don't know how effective that operation is, but it's absolutely vital that we pursue a military response and a criminal investigation to dismantle these organizations of violence that have cropped up.
"We should also examine the foreign policies of the U.S. to make sure that we occupy the moral high ground in these conflicts. In particularly, we have to examine some of the root causes of this terrorist activity," Obama said, referring to terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and his "sleeper" cells throughout the world.
Yes, point out that Obama is pro-war. But then I never expected too much from him, he has no military training at all, understands nothing of war or history. He's another who sees only himself in the White House and not the Big Picture he'll be dealing with. His relationship with corporations and AIPAC is too cordial to see this war crime ending any time under his command. He may be sepaking peace to the people's faces, but where he votes and what he speaks in the backrooms with the big money are two different things.Obama is the most plasticene of all the candidates. Mr. Amorphous.
The realistic operation to clean up the Taliban and capture Zawahiri is very simple. Three brigades, mixed with Nato, US and Afghan troops push into the Taliban stronghold along three thrust lines. Iranian and Pakistani brigades reinforce their Afghan fronteirs at that point, and the attacking brigades drive them right into the net. Classic cordon-n-sweep, very effective. Game over.
Obama will never figure this out. Our generals can't even figure this out. That's the scariest part. That's why we will lose this war under current parties. Both appoint generals politically and those guys are proving to be total idiots. With the liberal candidates who believe in promoting for merit, not for pork projects, we got more chance of better generals. The whole machine needs re-engineered. Back to meritocracy.
I would appreciate knowing your credentials for the proposals you are making on armed conflicts with the Taliban etc. Thanks.
At least they didn't say that Obama threatened to bomb Musharraff. That's progress.
This is pretty shallow stuff. Obama never claimed to be a friggin' pacifist. The remarks seem to demonstrate a pretty generalized and fundamental misunderstanding on the right of the reasons people don't support this war. The pacifists may have been among the very first objectors, but this war has gradually been rejected more and more by people who view this particular war as flawed for more pragmatic than ideological reasons.
Maybe the difficulty lies in the idea that the few conservatives left to defend this war are doing so more from presumably ideological reasons and they wrongly presume the objection to the war is similarly ideological.
If the Dems aren't prepared to wage a presidential campaign devoid of grey areas, with every issue shriveled down to the black and white world of the GOP, then they had better start taking a stand and shooting for the Americans that are paying attention, and can do a little critical thinking , to swing their vote.
Fighting over the pinhead vote is a pretty sad way to determine the future of this nation.Pretty much ensures something resembling the Republican party in power.
They are lacking in the preparation dept, yes. Very few definitive plans, and the ones they have are not worth much. Their Iraq plan stinks. Their Iran policy leaves the door open for Cheney firing nukes. Firmly committed to the Israeli alliance. Total losers.
"This is pretty shallow stuff. Obama never claimed to be a friggin' pacifist."
Some people equate being Anti-Iraq war with being a pacifist which is inane. I just don't agree with the philosophy of unprovoked aggression.
Ding ding ding! Yes. I like the way you say that Open Mind. You hit on a major facet of the right. It's not just that they function from a purely ideological standpoint, it's that they can't imagine anyone doing anything else. Contemplate that scenario and you begin to grasp the depth of cynicism the country has sunk into. They succeeded in taking power in every branch of government because of their single-mindedness. Rove didn't invent it, he just epitomized it. Hypocricy is meaningless, power is the only value. Lying is only bad if you get caught and then it's not always bad if it doesn't bother you. Just portray it as a strength. Use sleazy tactics like slanderous 'whisper' campaigns and then label yourself a 'master-mind.' It seems people can't conceive of a politician losing because he/she is too principled to win. They have created a situation where it seems ONLY the unprincipled can win. OK, it's a tangent, but this assumption that everyone is acting in some cold, machiavellian world is helping create a cold machiavellian world and I think you hit on that.
I am a volunteer and contributor to Barack Obama precisely because of the type of reasoning, and willingness to express it, that this post indicates. He is direct, honest and brilliant.
I second that. He has my vote.