Why doesn’t Senator Barack Obama want to help the people of Iraq?

Posted by: ST on February 14, 2008 at 11:00 pm

In Barack Obama’s victory speech on Tuesday night after his three state Potomac Primary sweep, he asserted something he has often while on the campaign trail as it relates to the issue of Iraq:

If we had chosen a different path, the right path, we could have finished the job in Afghanistan and put more resources into the fight against bin Laden. And instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Baghdad, we could have put that money into our schools and our hospitals, rebuilding our roads and our bridges, and that’s what the American people need us to do right now.

He repeated it again in his “economic address” yesterday (via Memeo):

It’s a Washington where politicians like John McCain and Hillary Clinton voted for a war in Iraq that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged – a war that is costing us thousands of precious lives and billions of dollars a week that could’ve been used to rebuild crumbling schools and bridges; roads and buildings; that could’ve been invested in job training and child care; in making health care affordable or putting college within reach.

Clearly, the Senator believes that money the US is spending overseas in Iraq to rebuild roads, schools, and bridges in places like Baghdad would better be used here on our own roads, schools and bridges. It’s one of the reasons he wants us out of Iraq.

Yet just today, Senator Obama hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s passage of his “Global Poverty Act.” What is the “Global Poverty Act”? Cliff Kincaid explains:

The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

The bill, which is item number four on the committee’s business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn’t realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.

A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, “In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day.”

The legislation itself requires the President “to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.”

The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

Read the whole thing.

Note to the Senator: Why are all the poor people in this world entitled to billions in US aid but the people in Iraq are not? Furthermore, by your logic, couldn’t that money you want to be used towards fighting global poverty be better used here building roads, schools, and bridges? Isn’t it being just a teensy bit hypocritical to call for the US to spend mega-bucks helping to eliminate poverty worldwide while at the same time criticizing how much we’re spending in Iraq – money we’re using to train security forces, build and rebuild roads, schools, and bridges, money we’re hoping to see a “return” on in the form of a valuable ally in the Middle East for decades to come?

Whether or not he supported the war, we are there now and the US has a duty to fulfill its promises, and we promised not to leave Iraq until it was stable, secure, and well on its way to becoming a democratic state. Doing so serves in not just the short-term interests of the US, but the long-term interests as well. Any future Commander in Chief should know, understand, and believe in this. And if he envisions himself as a CIC with any sense of compassion whatsoever, he’ll stop being a hypocrite and get on board not just with helping the needy on a global scale, but also those who need us in Iraq, too.

This is one of the biggest flaws in arguments used by people who claim we should “take care of our own needs first” – most of these same people don’t mind pouring money into overseas “poverty initiatives,” don’t mind using billions of US tax dollars to fund international abortions and AIDS programs, yet when it comes to something other than their pet global projects, the money we’re using to build a stable and democratic Iraq becomes money we should “use to fix our own problems.”

Shocking, I know – I mean, I bet you never knew before now that many a liberal’s compassion is confined to whatever cause they find worthy. Anyone else needing help beyond that? Well, they’ll just have to suffer.

Related reading:

Senators Obama and Clinton desperately want the votes of the “super delegates” – even if they have to buy them.

Is Obama Bad For Business?

Uncle Jimbo had a brush with greatness at the O-man’s speech in Wisconsin Tuesday night.

Ken Blackwell writes about “the real Barack Obama.”

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

8 Responses to “Why doesn’t Senator Barack Obama want to help the people of Iraq?”

Comments

  1. Jay In Md. says:

    I DO NOT support obama. Now having said that…

    He’s not against helpng Iraqis. What he is saying is that the US spent money to buy the bombs that blew up the bridge that the US is now paying to rebuild. (we had to destroy the village in order to save it) While the I35 bridge in the US went into the drink. And remeber he is talking to the pull out of Iraq yesterday, Bush is Hitler, uber leftists that are so enraptured by his smoke and mirrors rhetoric.

  2. Steve Skubinna says:

    It takes a special kind of idiocy to link the I35 bridge collapse to the war in Iraq, and that kind of idiocy has been amply displayed by politicians who couldn’t wait to blame Bush.

    If only the evil Bu$Hitler hadn’t taken all the bridge maintenance money to spend on the illegal and imoral yada yada yada goes the asinine refrain, and of course the media is more than happy to parrot the claims. Because of course every dollar spent on Defense is one less dollar to hold up bridges throughout the nation.

    Remember during the Second World War, when bridges across America were tumbling into the stream? And during Vietnam when it was unsafe to enter any building over two stories tall? During the Korean War entire cities were crumbling into dust.

    This is the same sort of stupidity displayed by the classic “Air FOrce bake sale to buy a bomber” tee shirt.

  3. Jay In Md. says:

    Steve,

    never said Obama was logical or rational. Just reportin’ it as I see it.

    But you are correct, that is how the uber left thinks. The war in Iraq means kids are starving at home. This is based on their belief that the “pie” is only so big. And if one person (the evil, greedy rich for example) has more, than someone else must have less. Of course when the gov’t takes more, well then, that’s OK. The pie can support more gov’t without someone else getting less.

    One comment by Obama that show the man is incompetent in both foreign and domesic policy. A two fer!!!

  4. T-Steel says:

    OK folks. Be honest with me, if the United States stop giving aid to poor countries for a year to concentrate ONLY on domestic issues, would it be a bad thing.

    NOTE: I’m not saying this is what Senator Obama has said. Just asking.

    And you know what Senator Obama is saying: if we didn’t go to war in the first place, we would have more money domestically. It fits his entire “I was against the Iraq War from the start” angle.

  5. T-Steel, Obama’s argument is that we have “wasted” money on a war that is a failure, money that should be used here at home. If we based decisions regarding how our money should be spent overseas on whether or not what we’ve done so far in those countries has failed, then we’d never give another dime to Africa. But you never hear politicians like Obama, who routinely invoke the “war’s a failure, we should spend that money here” arguments, saying anything related to where we’ve really failed overseas. Why? Because it would be politically unpopular to do so.

    Obama saying what he says about money being spent in Iraq is a safe statement for him to make, and one that generates applause and screams from the crowd, but if he really wanted to put his money where his mouth was, he’d call for no more funding for Africa, too, and many other places where we send aid and don’t see any return for our “investment.”

  6. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    I cannot help but get the creeps when folks like Obama calls for the US to bug out of Iraq (and giving al Qaeda a free hand) in order to spend more money on domestic issues. Have they forgotten how we lost the War on Poverty by trying to spend ourselves into oblivion? How about the growing black hole of Social Security and the periodic “fixes” that require gigantic tax increases without repairing anything? What about the nightmare of “free” health care in Canada and Europe? As a teacher I can personally attest to the disastrous effects that out-of-control spending on education has caused.

    In some ways Obama reminds me of a meth addict who claims his “cure” depends upon obtaining a limitless supply of meth. It would seem that the Democrat Party has not yet run out of dolts willing to buy that logic.

  7. Great White Rat says:

    ST says,

    If we based decisions regarding how our money should be spent overseas on whether or not what we’ve done so far in those countries has failed, then we’d never give another dime to Africa.

    For that matter, most of the programs Obama favors pouring money into here at home have been total failures. The entire Great Society boondoggle from 40 years ago has bequeathed us nothing but shattered families, rancidly substandard education, and lawless deteriorating neighborhoods. MD is right – that’s money that has been largely wasted.

    If success or failure were his the standard of whether we should fund something, Obama would be calling for dismantling our entire entitlement bureaucracy – “within 60 days of taking office” – and using that money to fund the WOT and Iraq. Don’t count on it.

    The surge in Iraq has been successful beyond all expectations – yet Obama sees that as a failure. Nationalized health care abroad has been a disaster, with anyone who can afford it coming to the US for treatment – but Obama thinks that’s a success and wants the same for us. It’s the same old backwards thinking we’ve come to expect from the left, and it’s why none of them are qualfied to lead this country.