Monday, October 20, 2008

Why I'm Voting for Barack Obama: Part 1

I know I can come across as a hard-core Obama supporter on this blog, but in real life I remain suspicious. I do so because, while I like much of what he says in his speeches, believe his policies are better than McCain's and like the overall vision of America he represents, in the end, he is a politician. And politicians will say and do whatever they need to to get a vote; especially this time of year. I look at his voting record, for instance, and it doesn't really represent change. Instead, it represents the same in that Obama is a Democrat and he votes with Democrats 95% of the time. To be fair, Obama came from obscurity into the national spotlight in a short amount of time, and that would require strong party loyalty. Just look how long it took McCain to get his party's nomination. Yet I still find myself questioning: "Really Barry? Line by line? You're gonna be just as into cutting as you are into spending? We'll see..." But with that said, here's why I'm voting for him.

Foreign Policy
Foreign policy is the issue for me when it comes to this election. Iraq is the reason why I said, "HELL NO. I refuse to vote Republican this year." Sadly, there was a time when I argued for going to war in Iraq. I knew all the reasons. I had an air tight argument. But even that night when the news stations interrupted regular programming to tell the American people we had begun bombing, I had a queasiness in my stomach. "I hope this was the right decision" I thought. I was wrong. The war in Iraq was criminal. Members of the administration had wanted to invade Iraq since the Clinton years, and they used 911 to accomplish that end. It was a war based on ideology and blind faith. Because the administration had blinders on, it refused to listen to any dissenting information or intelligence. Bush was dead certain. Because of this abhorrent decision, over 4,000 young men and women are dead, and thousands more are coming back, their lives changed, from injuries sustained in combat. I won't even get into the hundreds of thousands who were killed in Iraq. And for what? Bin Laden is still out there. Afghanistan is going down the toilet. Iran is building nukes, and our hands are tied because we removed her enemy in Iraq. We are arguably less safer than when we initially invaded. And we have hurt our relations with our allies.

This last point was why I started questioning the war in the first place. After 911 we had the support of the world behind us. Some of our biggest critics were saying, "we are all Americans now." There was so much good that could have come from 911, but the administration squandered it's political capital on Iraq. And this leads me to Obama. In an increasingly globalized and pluralized world where America is on it's way to becoming one of many super powers, we need someone who can forge a strong relationship with the global community. McCain, with his support of the foreign policy of the last eight years, is not in the position to do this. Obama is the perfect person to accomplish this, with his stunning rhetorical skills and ability to mobilize the masses, he is the charismatic figure America needs to represent her to the world. He also has never supported the war in Iraq, and therefore does not carry it's baggage. His foreign policy views are complex and he refuses to see the world in the manachean way of the Bush administration. Fareed Zakaria says this:

"Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths. When speaking to me about Islamic extremism, for example, he repeatedly emphasized the diversity within the Islamic world, speaking of Arabs, Persians, Africans, Southeast Asians, Shiites and Sunnis, all of whom have their own interests and agendas."

And, also, because of this last point, if we are attacked again, I will feel much safer with a President Obama in the White House. I am confident he'll provide sane leadership in a time when the populace is seeing red.

7 comments:

Heath Countryman said...

Really? You are voting for Obama? I must say I am shocked!

Guess what? I think I might vote McCain... Shocking, too, I know.

I would like to address one statement that I think is a bit over the top, almost "conspiracy theory," type language. That is: calling the war "criminal."

Now, hear me out on this before you start thinking of what to write back...

Technically, Bush could have invaded Iraq before 9/11 using existing UN resolutions as support. Clinton attacked Iraq using those same resolutions. Were those attacks criminal as well? (And remember, he said he was attacking chemical weapons facilities at the time...) Democrats and Republicans alike were convinced that Saddam had WMD's.

The way I see it, we had very good reason to suspect Saddam. He was purposefully trying to act like he was tough by refusing inspections in order to remain a player on the world stage. He miscalculated our resolve following 9-11 and the fault for our invasion really does lie at his feet. He surrendered in 1991 and was allowed to remain in power on condition of UN inspections. So the whole chess match that he was playing with W really did lead everyone (including the great Colin Powell) to believe that he had weapons.

We had bad intelligence. But that is not a first and will not be a last. However, the intelligence that we did have, combined with the posture that Hussain was taking, really does lead to the conclusion that we were on target.

OK, so we invaded and didn't find any WMD's. (Well, actually we did find nerve gas, but no one seems to think that counts...) But that doesn't necessarily mean they were not there, or that Hussain wasn't trying to make us think they were there. We took a long time to build up to the war and I am sure that Hussain could have moved them up to Syria or dismantled them and destroyed the evidence.

At any rate, whether or not the war was a good idea is a moot point. We are there now and bear the responsibility of it. But to call it "criminal" is not only unfair, it is inaccurate. The war was not only legal, but given the response of Hussain and the lesson we learned on 9-11, looking back now I still don't see any way for us to have avoided the conflict.

The only thing I think we should have done diffrently was go in there with about 3 times as many troops... That would have saved lives. My brother almost died in Iraq and he will be the first to tell you that we have made a positive diffrence over there. All war is tragic. But that doesn't mean that it can always be avoided.

Heath Countryman said...

Oh, one more thought. Following 9-11, the Democrats took one look at the polls and realized that a president with 90% approval rating would be disasterous to their party. Their show of "unity" lasted about 2 weeks. This myth that democrats and republicans were "united" after 9-11 is just that: a myth. The divisiveness that we now have still stems back to the 2000 election. No self-respecting democrat was ever going to follow George Bush, especially after 9-11.

Anonymous said...

Technically, Bush could have invaded Iraq before 9/11 using existing UN resolutions as support. Clinton attacked Iraq using those same resolutions. Were those attacks criminal as well? (And remember, he said he was attacking chemical weapons facilities at the time...) Democrats and Republicans alike were convinced that Saddam had WMD's.

-airstrikes on chem weapons facilities and taking over the country are two seperate issues. PNAC, which included several bush administration offials -cheney, rumsfeld, perle, and wolfowitz just to name a few- wrote president clinton pleading with his administration to invade iraq in '98 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_new_american_century. invading iraq was on the agenda of the bush administration from day one.

The way I see it, we had very good reason to suspect Saddam. He was purposefully trying to act like he was tough by refusing inspections in order to remain a player on the world stage. He miscalculated our resolve following 9-11 and the fault for our invasion really does lie at his feet. He surrendered in 1991 and was allowed to remain in power on condition of UN inspections. So the whole chess match that he was playing with W really did lead everyone (including the great Colin Powell) to believe that he had weapons.

-he was speaking out of both sides of his mouth telling the world he had no weapons, yet behaving like he did because of iran, not us. saddam, at that point, had no plans on attacking the U.S. he was not a threat and containment was working. inspectors were in iraq up until the time of the invasion. saddam did not force us to invade; we chose to invade. as i already pointed out, key people in the administration were itching for war. and colin powell was skeptical, as well, and was critical of the presentation he did in front of the U.N.

We had bad intelligence. But that is not a first and will not be a last. However, the intelligence that we did have, combined with the posture that Hussain was taking, really does lead to the conclusion that we were on target.

-concerning the reasons we went: iraq-al qaeda connections, aluminum tubes for nuclear centrifuges, uranium procurment in niger and mobile bio-weapons labs- the intelligence was abysmal.

OK, so we invaded and didn't find any WMD's. (Well, actually we did find nerve gas, but no one seems to think that counts...) But that doesn't necessarily mean they were not there, or that Hussain wasn't trying to make us think they were there. We took a long time to build up to the war and I am sure that Hussain could have moved them up to Syria or dismantled them and destroyed the evidence.

-that's all speculation and lame excuses, not reasons to go to war.

At any rate, whether or not the war was a good idea is a moot point. We are there now and bear the responsibility of it. But to call it "criminal" is not only unfair, it is inaccurate. The war was not only legal, but given the response of Hussain and the lesson we learned on 9-11, looking back now I still don't see any way for us to have avoided the conflict.

-i stand by my words. we invaded a sovereign country for no reason. cheney and others knew their intelligence was questionable at best, but believed with all their hearts there would be weapons, or at worst there wouldn't but we would be greeted as liberators and have a new ally in the region. the war isn't a moot point. john mccain still says that it was the right thing to do, and i cannot trust a president on foreign policy issues who believes such.
saddam could have been removed by other means. it didn't have to happen the way it did.

Heath Countryman said...

Yet even you admit yoy were for the war when we went in. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say, and it looks like you have a pretty good handle on the monday morning quarterbacking... I still say there was no way to know for sure without going in on our own. But hey, looks like the war is going to get your guy elected, so you gotta be happy about that...

Anonymous said...

but that's my whole point: i idea that we just didn't know is b.s. there was ample criticism of the intelligence at that time; they just didn't want to listen.
and that's real nice of you to imply that i would be happy about going to war because it'll get "my guy" elected. and i thought obama was ahead because of the economic crisis and because mccain made a stupid choice for vp. mccain's the "national security" guy, remember?

Heath Countryman said...

Mccain is losing because he is an inept politician. The only reason he isn't down by 20 is because of Palin. Without her, conservatives would be voting 3rd party this year.

Heath Countryman said...

oh, and i meant happy about obama, not happy about war. sorry...