Obama’s Iraq Speech: Utopia Lost

Today Barack Obama delivered a long, rambling speech on “national security.” This is the first in a series of posts that will analyze his remarks.

.

After claiming to have been inspired by America’s initial efforts to win the cold war, Senator Obama referred to the the 9-11 attacks:

The attacks of September 11 brought this new reality into a terrible and ominous focus…But the depth of this tragedy also drew out the decency and determination of our nation. At blood banks and vigils; in schools and in the United States Congress, Americans were united..The world, too, was united against the perpetrators of this evil act, as old allies, new friends, and even long-time adversaries stood by our side.

He went on to assert that If only the President and Congress had decided not to upset the status quo and had just left Saddam and his two maniacal sons in charge of Iraq, that in the months and years after 9/11 “WE,” which apparently means the government, could have accomplished all of the following…

• Hunted down and destroyed Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11,
• Supported real security in Afghanistan.
• Secured loose nuclear materials around the world.
• updated a 20th century nuclear non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.
• Invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy.
• Strengthened old alliances.
• formed new partnerships.
• Renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.
• Called on a new generation to…serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.
• Secured our homeland—investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.
• Rebuilt roads and bridges.
• Laid down new rail.
• Built new broadband systems.
• Built new electricity systems.
• Made college affordable for every American.

But alas, according to Barack Obama, none of these wonderful things happened, and all these needs cry out, only because The President and the Congress decided to depose Saddam’s regime and take on the challenge of birthing and nurturing a new democracy and ally against terror, in the heart of the Middle east.

.

Unfortunately, nobody in the media herd will ask any of the obvious questions:

Is there a broadband shortage? If so, are communication companies unwilling to invest in broadband because Saddam isn’t still running Iraq?

Is there a need for more railroads? If so, how has the Iraq operation prevented investors from building railroads?

What keeps investors from building electric power plants? Is it the mission to create a new Iraqi nation? Or, is it the same Congressionally imposed barriers that keep oil companies from extracting any more of America’s plentiful crude oil?

Would there be fewer unsecured nuclear materials around the world if Saddam still ran Iraq?

Would college be less expensive if Saddam was still running Iraq?

Several companies are investing Billions in new sources of energy. Were they investing more before the Iraq operation?

The recently elected leaders of France, Germany and England have each made high-visibility trips to America to affirm their nation’s alliance with the US and express solidarity with President bush. Didn’t Obama notice?

If the homeland isn’t secure then why haven’t we suffered the follow-up attacks every knowledgeable authority predicted were virtually certain after 9-11?

Are there lose nuclear materials because Saddam is no longer in power?

Is Obama saying there aren’t enough young people to fill openings for soldiers, teachers, police officers and peace corps? Does he think more young people would be interested in those jobs if Saddam were still in power?

.

It all comes from one, single poll question

In recent months Iraq has calmed down and other matters, such as gas prices and mortgage misery have forced Obama to modify his campaign messages. But in the beginning the foundation of Obama’s campaign for President was the response to one opinion poll question, that has been asked a over and over by every pollster. The most recent ABC news/Washington Post Poll’s version of the question is:

All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the was with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?

The most recent data, from 1,119 random adults (not prequalified as registered or likely voters) was:

Worth It: 36%;

Not Worth It: 63%

Barack Obama’s initial primary and caucus victories were achieved by fully exploiting this one bit of polling data, by claiming that he was against the Iraq operation before it began.   He designed this speech to attach powerful emotion to the “not worth it” sentiment, to plant in the minds of voters the notion that a virtual utopia would have emerged from the rubble of 9-11, if only we had left Saddam’s Iraq as it was.

It will be interesting to see if the voters make this leap with him.

More analysis in the next post.

Comments Welcome!