Does the Judgment Make The Grade

As Obama swings his campaign toward the general election I keep hearing how Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq. Why, "(a)s a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq," when he gave his, "Dumb War," speech. (In January 2003 Obama formally announced he was running for the US Senate seat --- wait, 2003, well in 2002 he really was risking it all wasn't he.)

What I don't hear is what he actually said in that famous speech.

What did he say that confirms his judgment claims today? Was he accurate and knowledgeable and is he consistent today? Does that speech demonstrate that Barack Obama knew the right thing to do when all the rest were flailing around for an answer?

Lets take a look at the key points in Barack Obama's now famous (but rarely quoted) 2002 Iraq speech:

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

Check, We know today that that Obama was right about one thing, Saddam was a brutal, ruthless, butcher and the world would be better without him!

(+1 Obama Judgment point (OJP))

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, 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.

Obama was wrong about the containment policy working against Saddam. In addition Saddam's hold on his people wasn't even close to weakening. As a matter of fact thanks to Oil for Food the only thing that was weakening was the resolve of the UN.

We also know that petty dictators:

For the most part, dictators tend to stay in power for a very long time. Or they're deposed only to be replaced by another dictator. It takes a long time to change an entire governmental structure, and often it doesn't happen without the intervention of the United Nations, the United States or other governmental organizations. Currently, more than 70 countries in the world are ruled by dictators. Many of them are guilty of atrocities against their own people. (How Stuff Works -- To End Dictatorships)

(Oow, sorry that is -1 OJP. Since the President said we needed to act before Saddam was an imminent and direct threat that is not scored.)

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

Well, he was right about that -- but strangely he is willing to ignore his own judgment on this one. He said REQUIRE, but is now willing to forgo that requirement for the sake of political posturing.

(-1 OJP = +1 for accuracy, -2 for ignoring his own advice)

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 Queda.

Well, the middle east didn't erupt in flames, to the contrary, the Arab world proved quite rational overall.

(-1 OJP)

This week the US Ambassador to Iraq stated that Al Qaeda in Iraq has nearly been eliminated (something time will tell) and Bin Laden's most recent tape indicated he was diverting his resources from Iraq, what he had called the central battle against the US, to the support of the Palestinians.

Recruiting of foreign fighters may have increased as they went to Iraq to help the Jihad, however this appears to have had the affect of draining the jihadi swamp in a manner advantageous to the US as our trained forces were able to deal with them in Iraq rather then worldwide or at home. In addition many, including Bin Laden himself believe a defeat in Iraq will damage al Qaeda.,

(-1 OJP)

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

(Huh?)

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.

The key word in this sentence is WORLD. Let's remember what Obama said earlier, a few short paragraphs earlier:

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

Would leaving a brutal, ruthless, butcherer who thwarted the world's attempts at eliminating the danger, developed chemical weapons and coveted nuclear capacity -- A BAD GUY who the world would be better off without -- really have left a just more secure world? Does Obama really believe that? How DOES he define just and more secure, because it seems he really mucks this one up.

Is this the lesson he took away from the stories of his Grandfather and Great Uncle liberating Nazi death camps in Europe? Is that the lesson you or I would have gotten from their honorable service in a horrific liberation of people oppressed by a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butched his own people. A man who repeatedly thwarted the world's attempts at peace?

(-3 OJP = -1 for just and -1 for secure and -1 for his interpretation of his own family history!)

So, as far as the infamous speech that has made Obama the candidate with the judgment, how does he score?

Final Score -- Minus 6 -- Obama Judgment Points.

Sorry, but even in public school that is a failing grade.
DKK