Posts with the tag 2002

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

WEBMASTER — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:26:14 EST

The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.

Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.

Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when

individuals and organizations understand that alternative energy technology exists and
when people see the economic benefits of using alternative energy technologies

Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.

Alternative Energy
Source: David Apperson

url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy

100 Speeches in 100 Days - Sen. Obama's 2002 Remarks Against Going to War with Iraq

RhOrdway — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:27:06 EDT

I read Senator Barak Obama's 2002 Remarks Against Going to War with Iraq; and I re-read it several times. I am struck that his comments were made nearly 6 years ago yet the content of this speech is still relevant. Senator Barack's response to this war "a rash war" speaks to me still today.

"Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

Thank you Brenda for putting this event together to encourage everyone to read this speech. I encourage everyone to participate in "100 Speeches in 100 Days"

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4434s

Obama's Speech Against Going to War in Iraq (2002)

Barbara Hussein — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:36:11 EDT

With all that has happened in the past week or two, I felt the need to go and read "the speech," the one Barack Obama gave on October 2, 2002, at an anti-war rally in Chicago, opposing the impending war in Iraq, even as Congress and President Bush were coming to an accommodation on the resolution.

I found the speech on Wikipedia, and it is pasted in below for all who wish to read it. (I am shame-faced to say that I had never taken the time to read it before.) After reading it, I was overwhelmed by how accurate were his predictions about what would happen in such an ill-conceived war. He predicted that the war would be of indeterminate length (100 years, anyone?), unknown cost ($2 trillion and counting), and untold sacrifice (as of today, 4000+ deaths, over 20,000 injured). He also predicted that the war would create new opportunities for al-Qaeda.

One tends to forget how difficult a stance this was at the time. The drumbeat for war was incessant. It was really considered almost unpatriotic not to favor war. No one I knew outside of my family did not support the idea of going to war.

So, I advise you to read the speech. Remember the time. Think of the kind of courage it takes for a man to swim against the tide and the time, and speak out for what he truly believes in.

Then, after you have done all that, think of the character of a person who had not done all they could to prevent this awful war -- a person who had, in fact, greased the wheels for this war -- coming out 6 years later with the following statement:

"No one who hasn’t been president has done that [i.e. made a '3 a.m. decision']. That’s not the right question. The question is what have you done over the course of a lifetime to equip you for that moment. Now I think you will be able to imagine many things Sen. McCain will be able to say. He has never been the president. He will put forth his experience. I will put forth my experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

(http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/clinton-reduces.html)

Yup. To Hillary Clinton, this is just "a speech he made in 2002." Yet, it's a speech of such courage, conviction, and intelligence as to be rarely seen in our politicians.

So here it is.

Against Going to War with Iraq (2002)
by Barack Obama

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

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 a 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 arm-chair, 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.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

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.

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.

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

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

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? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

(http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if you wish to compare this speech to what Hillary was saying on the Senate floor about the same time, right around the time she voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, go here.

Hillary's Worst Fear -- Obama's Patriotic 2002 Iraq Speech

Stephen from Missoula, MT — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:47:41 EDT

This 2002 speech by Barack Obama puts an end to the notion that opposing a war is unpatriotic, and that the only way one can fight for the greater good of one's country is to blindly put on its uniform and follow a misguided leader down a path of destruction and financial ruin. Many of you may have read or heard this speech already, but if you haven't or your friends haven't, then it is well worth reading again. This version is printed on Blue Meme but is reprinted from Ameriblog.

Reading it, you can understand why Hillary Clinton is so afraid of this speech and why she has taken it on as her personal mission to mock it day in and day out--because if people actually read the speech, then she's even toastier than she already is, and this could even include Pennsylvania.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/2002-speech-that-hillary-is-afraid-of.html
Speech on Possible Iraq War by Barack Obama, October 2, 2002
"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

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.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. 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.

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. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. 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 Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

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?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."

Send this speech to your friends and colleagues. Remember, in 2002 at a time when he was running for the US Senate and was very vulnerable to charges of being anti-American, Barack Obama stood up and gave a great and brave speech that Hillary Clinton--and a now far sadder and poorer America--would have been far, far wiser to have heeded then.

Will Barak Acknowledge Ron Paul?

Suhail from Alpharetta, GA — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:30:04 EST

Perhaps 1 of the most important speeches uttered in congress during Bush's time in office was conducted by congressman Ron Paul. His speech can be found here: http://www..com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY

Please view this speech and tell me your thoughts as to why both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton both do not acknowledge the facts that he was right back then. As a Ron Paul supporter, I am also well aware of Barak's 2002 speech protesting against the Iraq war, however how many Barak Obama supporters acknowledge Ron Paul's lone stand against the GOP?

In order to truly fix our country, we need to acknowledge the few who were right while the majority were wrong. Barak was 1 of the few who was right, and I hope he will continue to be right by acknowledging the wisdom of Dr. Ron Paul.

Pass It On: Right on Day One

Sarah Ramey — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:29:53 EST

On October 2nd of 2007, Barack Obama gave an exceptional foreign policy speech at DePaul University, commemorating the day he originally stood five years before and spoke out strongly against the Iraq War. Consistent in character and conviction five years later, it's clear that Senator Obama alone has the foreign policy judgment to lead this country:

Click here to learn more about Barack Obama's policies on Iraq.

It wasn't easy to speak out against the Iraq War in 2002. He did it anyways. Here's his speech, delivered by Obama supporters from all over the country:

It's as clear now as it was then: Barack Obama has the judgment to be right on day one.

Email the people you know.

Pass it on.

You want a fight about the 2002 speech? Here it is.

Michael Blackburn — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:50:17 EST

One of the innuendos spread about Obama recently is that he "took down" the speech he made in 2002. Which is true, but not for the reason implied, that he no longer stands by those sentiments. It's still a public record, and can be found relatively easily. I'm an Obamaholic, so I've been looking around youtube for a video of it. I finally found the text of the speech, and I see now why he took it down: it's calling out the "Masters of War" by name, making it a bit more "partisan red meat" and not in line with the tone of the campaign today. He routinely uses the less partisan segments of it in campaign videos. Anyway, here's the link I found, judge for yourself:

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

Five Years Ago

Tim Foley — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:25:10 EDT

Five years ago today, Congress voted to authorize the war in Iraq, a war that should never have been waged. Barack opposed the war from the start, and in today’s Union Leader he writes about the judgment and leadership he showed five years ago—and that he continues to show on foreign policy questions today.

"I felt strongly that a war in Iraq would lead to an open-ended and destructive occupation of Iraq, and weaken us in the fight against al-Qaida in Afghanistan. And I felt a responsibility to say so.

"Now, the Senate has once again voted for an amendment that goes out of its way to draw connections between distinct threats, and that replaces judicious policy-making with unnecessary saber-rattling. And once again, we hear that it is not really a vote for more war, it is a vote for more diplomacy."

In New Hampshire this morning, Obama supporters are holding visibility events around the state to mark the fifth anniversary of the war vote and remind voters that Barack offers the judgment, vision, and leadership we need to turn the page in Iraq.

I Remember

Kristian "I Ain't Afraid of No GOPs" Idol — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:03:15 EDT

First, Iraq was part of "The Axis of Evil".

When we argued that you can't make a value judgement about an entire country, they said, "He even killed his own people!" (The Kurds, some ten years previous.) Next,

THIS TUESDAY "COMMERATE BARACK OBAMA'S 5 YRS ANNIVERSARY OF HIS 2002 ANTI-WAR SPEECH" In Philadelphia Pa with his Grassroot supporters

Danielle Clarke USA Vietnam Vet — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:33:08 EDT

Phila Pa October 2nd 30 minute speech + Rally in
center city Commemorate Baracks 5 yr aniversay of his
2002 speech

Turn the Page on Iraq Rally
Time: Tuesday, October 2 at 5:15 PM - 30 minutes
Host: Monique Sherman
Location: Outside Independence Park Visitor's Center
(Philadelphia, PA )
599 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19106

Monique Sherman has sent you an invitation to 'Turn
the
Page on Iraq Rally' -- click here to view the
invitation
and submit your response:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4v3ht

PS: I will have a new banner with official logo on it
there and this message will reach over 100 people who
will also bring their friends.

I will also be out tuesday before the event alerting
the public in that area.

Please tell your friends and lets make this a big
event and thanks to monique for doing her job setting
this up and getting the permit.

Something forgotten in the Iraq debate

Matthew from California — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:55:20 EDT

OK, so, we all know that many of the Senators running for President this year didn't read the Iraq intelligence assessment before casting their vote to authorize the war. Their opinions were informed by briefings and committee hearings, all of them set up by the Republican leadership, which led to a fundamental misunderstanding of what they were voting for.

We also all know that Senator Obama opposed the war not just from the start, but before it was even authorized.

Here are a few points that the candidate, and the media, ought to be talking about.

There's been a lot of media nonsense about how Obama didn't have to vote on the authorization, so he got off easy, but some people appear to be missing the point- at a time when the war was immensely popular, and Obama was preparing to run for the U.S. Senate, he took a great political risk by opposing the war. Conversely, those other senators, including the media-anointed Democratic front-runner, were already safely elected, and chose to vote with the public opinion polls anyway. Obama had substantially more to lose than those other Senators.

Secondly, while the senators who cast their vote for Iraq didn't even read the information in front of them before they voted, Obama not only opposed the war but correctly predicted the outcome, without even seeing the intelligence assessment. So we know that not only did the senators who voted to authorize the war have information right in front of them saying that the postwar situation would turn nasty, they didn't even need it in order to know better.

Why the news media isn't hammering on this is beyond me. Our United States Senators, with access to the entire National Security and Intelligence establishments, could not determine what Obama was able to figure out on his own from his state senate office in Chicago.

Clearly, he lacks the experience and aplomb needed to run this country.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the War in Iraq

Tim from Rixford, PA — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:05:28 EST

What can we learn about the differences between these two presidential candidates from their own words in 2002?

- Hillary Clinton failed to recognize that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the US.
- Barack Obama did.

- Hillary Clinton failed to recognize the fundamental rashness and stupidity of going to war with Iraq.
- Barack Obama did.

- Hillary Clinton trusted President G. W. Bush and his administration to wisely use the power to make war with Iraq.
- Barack Obama didn't.

- By calling for a broad base of international support, Hillary argued that a larger number of people pursuing a war with Iraq would legitimize it.
- By calling this call to war "rash" and "dumb," by stating that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the US, Barack Obama clearly argued the illegitimacy of this war.
- Now which candidate showed greater prescience? Which candidate shows a greater capacity for independent reason, a greater resistance to herd mentality, and a greater forthrightness of speech? Which candidate would make a better Democratic presidential nominee and a wiser US President?