Home > Politics > Political Punch
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Obama in Never-Before-Aired 'Nightline' Interview From 2004: Praises John Kerry's Experience, Disses 'Cut and Run' Proposals From Iraq

August 27, 2008 7:50 PM

It was a very different time, the Iraq war was just over a year old, and then-State Sen. Barack Obama was in a very different place.

In 2004, former "Nightline" anchor Ted Koppel interviewed the keynote speaker of the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

It never aired, though it will air tonight.

Some very interesting stuff.

Koppel asked Obama about comments he'd made to the Chicago Tribune about the convention focusing on the war.

"There were people who supported the war and people who opposed the war inside that convention hall," Obama said. "But what people are unified about is that, when we make a decision to go to war, that it should not be ideologically driven, that it should be driven by a set of facts and common sense with regards to how we mobilize our country and our national interest.

"And I think that there is a strong feeling that, even among those that supported George Bush’s decision initially to go in, that there was some fudging of the numbers and shading of the truth, and that, as a consequence of our inability to create a strong alliance around our actions, that we are now stuck in a quagmire that is going to cost us not only billions of dollars, but thousands of lives, and will require a much longer-term commitment than the American voters had intended when they rallied behind the president."

Asked Koppel: "Well, how does electing John Kerry resolve that dilemma for America?"

Obama said, "If you look at what has happened over the last several months, I think there is a convergence. Basically, the Bush administration has moved in the direction of its critics in trying to internationalize the reconstruction process. So, I am not sure that, on paper, the differences between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration would be significant."

Obama continued, "All of us assume that when we make that commitment, that we have to finish the job, we owe it not only to the troops who sacrificed their lives, but also the Iraqi people. The question is, who can execute. Who has the credibility to gather its allies together and to make sure that they are willing to expand their political capital, domestically, to invest into Iraq, to send their own troops into Iraq, to pressure countries, like Iran, to deal with issues of proliferation?

"And I think that there is a strong impression that the Bush administration has squandered its will on the international stage, and that John Kerry would come in with a broader vision and the possibility of bringing people onboard in a way that is necessary for our long-term success," Obama said.

Koppel said, "Presidents often talk about the importance of their personal relations with other leaders, but essentially that is a lot of hooey. You know, nations do things because of national interest."

"Absolutely," agreed Obama.

"And so," Koppel continued, "whether John Kerry is in the White House or George Bush is in the White House, that is not going to cause the French, or the Germans, or the Russians, or others who do not see it in their national interest to be engaged in Iraq right now, to suddenly say, 'Well, John, I like you a lot better than I liked George!'"

Obama said, "I do not think that it is a function of like or dislike. I think that what our allies look at is a consistent disdain for world opinion that culminated in Iraq, but that did not start in Iraq. Unilateral rejection of the Kyoto protocol, or the unilateral rejection of the International Criminal Court. Unilateral rejection of the land mines treaty.

"All of this culminating in Iraq, leading up to Iraq, but a pattern established that 'the United States is not interested in our national interest, that they do not want to sit down at our table and how to figure out how this is good for us as well as the United States, they’re willing to make their own decisions,'" Obama said. "It is that pattern on the part of the Bush administration that I think has made it so difficult for us to craft the kind of strategies that we need in hot areas like the Middle East."

Koppel asked, "But do you think that most the delegates on the floor really understand that President Kerry is not going to pursue a policy in Iraq that is essentially different from the one that George Bush is pursuing?"

"Oh, I think that they understand that," Obama said. "I think that they recognize that we cannot afford to simply cut and run in Iraq, and that we are in a difficult situation right now. And I think that what they are hoping for is somebody who is going to bring a thoughtfulness and a base of experience to decision-making in the White House, which John Kerry possesses, and I think that George Bush does not."

Koppel asked Obama, "Why can we not cut and run? When you freeze it that way, you determine the outcome. Why is it inappropriate to say, 'We’ll stay for another six months so that Iraq can take over their own affairs and their own defence and their own security, but in six months, we are pulling our troops out of there.'"

"Well, Ted, you have been there and I have not," said Obama. "I do not know whether or not we can accomplish that in six months. If we can, then I think John Kerry will bring our troops home. ...

"My assumption would be that if we could actually stabilize Iraq in such a way that you do not have warfare between the Sunnis the Shii’as and the Kurds, some semblance of law and order in that country, then I think that there is no doubt that the Kerry administration is going to be interested in bringing back the reservists and the National Guardsmen who are currently there, but --"

"If all of those things were true, Mr. Obama," Koppel interrupted, "I think it is also true that the Bush administration would bring the troops back."

"Absolutely," Obama said.

"Again, no difference between the two," Koppel said.

"Well, but as I said before, part of what we are struggling with here, part of what is at stake, is not simply the decision-making in Iraq," Obama said. "What is at stake is an overall approach to foreign policy that has been characterized in the Bush administration by unilateralism and a disdain for world opinion. That has concrete consequences over time. ...

"We got a driver who drove the bus into the ditch; now we can argue about how that happened, but we’ve got to get the bus out of the ditch. That does not mean you don’t fire the driver. And the question is: who do we trust over the long term to direct our foreign policy in a way that meets international interests, makes us strong here at home, creates the kind of, or restores us to kind of respect that we’ve had in the past, abroad, and I think that the estimation of those in the convention is that they trust John Kerry to make those decisions better than George Bush will make those decisions."

The interview will air on "Nightline" tonight. Four years late -- but quite relevant, in its way.

- jpt

August 27, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (91)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Danny: Wright, Ayers and Rezco....
Have you heard that "you are judged by the company you keep"? Guess that only applies the certain folks. Obama
allowed his children to attend this church. Did he make them wear earplugs?

Posted by: MEW | Aug 28, 2008 10:38:09 AM

I guess the republicans will have an ad now saying how Obama is really the Messiah for being so correct in predicting all this four years ahead? Boy, these people know how to make fun of the American people. You have to understand this: when they ran such ads, it's not about Obama-it's the people they're calling ignorant for believing in the guy. Well, I guess they're right because some will not see the wisdom in this conversation with Ted Koppel here. No wonder the president ask you all to go shopping after 9/11. They think we're a bunch of immature beings who cannot make good decisions and sacrifices. So they tell you to go shopping and they will take care of you.

Posted by: D | Aug 28, 2008 10:36:49 AM

I love it! The more he trips himself with that double edged tongue of his the more McCain goes up in the polls! lolol I will dance in the streets when Obama is defeated in November by John McCain. Obama is such a liar and hypocrite! I will be voting for John MCCain and campaigning very hard for him. I don't care what Hillary has said or what she chose to do with her delegates at the convention. The answer is still no. She has not done anything to sweeten the deal regarding Obama and his bossy big mouth wife and big mouth bully vice-president! They are done in November! I hope that they can't even get elected to dog catcher when we get done with them. Good riddance!

Posted by: Mary Anne | Aug 28, 2008 10:30:39 AM

Obama Said:
"My assumption would be that if we could actually stabilize Iraq in such a way that you do not have warfare between the Sunnis the Shii’as and the Kurds, some semblance of law and order in that country, then I think that there is no doubt that the Kerry administration is going to be interested in bringing back the reservists and the National Guardsmen who are currently there, but --"

so i thought we have done that, that's why he is calling for a timetable and bush and malike are FOLLOWING him on that. What is so new here?

Posted by: johnosahon | Aug 28, 2008 10:28:19 AM

Hillary, anybody but
Obama, no matter what

Obama adapted another of Senator Kerry's lines...I voted against Fla. & Mich. votes counting, before I voted for them to count...

Obama has decided to allow Fla. & Mich. to vote after he has locked up the nomination & they have no one else to vote for....What a Guy!
What was that about Germany? Naw sounds more like Russia.


Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry, Senator McGovern (retired) Senator Biden, Senator Edwards, SO THE CHANGE is a Senator will be president instead of a Harvard educated Governor! Like Washington insiders haven't pulled the ELECTION PUPPET'S strings again!

Senators Kennedy, Kerry, McGovern, Biden, are northeastern Ivy Leaguers (where did Edwards go to law school)who have in common their failed attempts at becoming president, also, they joined forces to support a junior senator, whose only claim to fame is his paternal ancestory, what do they have against Senator Clinton? Seems to me she at least earned HER stripes. Guess SHE is just not cut out to be a good ole BOY.

I have been a registered, voting Democrat since the early 60's but I am begining to question the value of our two party system that determines what candidates & issues the people can vote for---hey! sounds like Obama does fit in Washington!

Billy Bob, Florida where we can once again vote....for the MAN

Posted by: Billy Bob | Aug 28, 2008 10:12:42 AM

So what's knew? Saint O talks out of both sides of his mouth every day. It must get tiring for him to do so. No drilling, well maybe drilling. No FISA, well FISA ok. Iran tiny threat, Iran grave threat. NAFTA no good, NAFTA ok. He is never wrong on an issue because he is on both sides of every issue.

Posted by: Kabookey | Aug 28, 2008 9:55:38 AM

slick,
There is no, flip-flop, or contradiction. This proves the opposite - that Obama has been consistent in his position and analysis from before the war, to 2004, to today. In 2002-3, he opposed the war b/c he said it might cost a lot in lives and dollars and last a long time, in 2004 he asserted that these consequences will in fact happen, and now he has been proved right.

Posted by: Malcolm | Aug 28, 2008 9:10:33 AM

A Hitler reference? Really?

Posted by: acm | Aug 28, 2008 8:14:30 AM

Why do some people here think John McCain was a prisoner of Germany?

Posted by: drjohn | Aug 28, 2008 7:02:38 AM

What's this supposed to prove? That Obama's a liar - like all poiticians? We already knew that! "who do we trust over the long term to direct our foreign policy in a way that meets international interests," Did he really say that!?! International interests - ahead of NATIONAL interests? Wow.

Posted by: slick | Aug 28, 2008 5:55:07 AM

Goebbels - it was close enough.

Posted by: kat | Aug 28, 2008 2:47:47 AM

Well, he did say that the Kerry and Bush policies would be indistinguishable from one another if Kerry won. Doesn't that mean anything when you are criticizing the policy of remaining in Iraq until stability is achieved?

Posted by: Wade | Aug 28, 2008 2:28:00 AM

You know I think being a prisoner makes John McCain a powerful leader -- look what it did for Germany.

Posted by: Mr. Coffee | Aug 28, 2008 1:48:21 AM

"I don't think I've ever heard McCain speak about foreign policy in any pragmatic, realistic complexity in a global manner."

And what's more, not only has Obama the correct judgement. He has the ability to explain it to everybody who has the ability to rub more than two braincells together.

Kerry had the judgement too, but he was too civil in making his case in 2004.
Gore had the same judgement too in 2000, but people were jealous of his intelligence and were nitpicking every syllable he uttered to death.

Posted by: Willem van Oranje | Aug 28, 2008 1:32:36 AM

Here's another example of the level of insight in national security and an understanding of how the world works.

On 9/11, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was set to deliver a speech that focused “largely on missile defense.” Joe Cirincione — president of the Ploughshares Fund — recalls this quote from Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) on *Sept. 10, 2001*, warning against the Bush administration’s approach:

"We will have diverted all that money to address the least likely threat while the real threats come into this country in the hold of a ship, or *the belly of a plane*, or are smuggled into a city in the middle of the night in a vial in a backpack."

What more do you need to know?

Posted by: Willem van Oranje | Aug 28, 2008 1:17:30 AM

The judgment we need indeed.

Obama/Biden '08!

Posted by: cincyr | Aug 28, 2008 1:09:47 AM

J: "Obama gets the majority of "delegates" from Michigan even though his name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Hmmm.. Is this even legal???"

This socalled Hillary-backer obviously hasn't listened to what Hillary told him/her. Hillary had released her delegates. That means, Hillary's delegates were not obliged to vote for her but were free to cast their vote for whomever they wanted.

You should listen to Hillary more carefully next time.

Posted by: Willem van Oranje | Aug 28, 2008 1:07:51 AM

Damiano: Obama hit it out of the ballpark back then and he is saying the EXACT same thing in 2008:

(FYI, Obama is talking about those other nations who are acting out of their own self-interest, like France, Germany, China and Russia. Just as the US is acting in its own self-interest)

"the United States is not interested in our national interest, that they do not want to sit down at our table and how to figure out how this is good for us as well as the United States, they’re willing to make their own decisions,'" Obama said. "It is that pattern on the part of the Bush administration that I think has made it so difficult for us to craft the kind of strategies that we need in hot areas like the Middle East."

Obama is SPOT on. I'm looking forward to that interview.

Posted by: Willem van Oranje | Aug 28, 2008 1:00:47 AM

Sally: "This will make great fodder for many ads against Obama."

You've obviously haven't read it.

Posted by: Willem van Oranje | Aug 28, 2008 12:49:07 AM

This early interview just goes to prove, that even back then Obama had the cool headed judgment to lead and be commander and chief!!

What do have to say now McBush supporters???

Obama/Biden 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Davis | Aug 28, 2008 12:45:20 AM

« Previous Comments | Next Comments »

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS