TPM's The Horse's Mouth: Obama Quote That's Upsetting Bill Clinton Unearthed

[Pirate Smile]

Obama Quote That's Upsetting Bill Clinton Unearthed

Okay, I think I've unearthed the Barack Obama quote that Bill Clinton is criticizing The New York Times for not giving more attention to. It's from July of 2004.

As reported below, Clinton sharply criticized The Times at a private fundraiser the other day. His gripe was that the paper spends too much time dwelling on Hillary's refusal to say her war vote was a "mistake," and not enough time on certain past Barack Obama quotations about the war. The former President didn't specify exactly which quote he was referring to, but I'm certain that I've found it. It actually ran in a Times piece about Obama from July 26, 2004 (via Nexis):

In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.
''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said.

Judging by what my witness told me of the former President's remarks, Clinton's thinking is this: If Obama is going to make an issue during the current Presidential campaign out of the fact that he didn't vote for the war, then more attention should be paid to the fact that Obama -- by his own admission -- didn't have to grapple with the intel that Senators such as Hillary had to deal with, and can't be certain what he would have done if he had. Clinton presumably thinks that this quote should be a part of the current dialogue -- in The Times and elsewhere -- if Obama's going to tout his early opposition to the war.

Anyway, I'm not endorsing this position. I'm merely passing along the quote for your edification and enjoyment -- and debate. Have at it.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/03/obama_quote_tha.php

[TheConstantGardener]

1. It is quite irrelevant now

We know who was masturbating over their support for the war (and voted for IWR) and who didn't. Who is supporting withdrawal now and who isn't. Who said they'd keep troops there even if they are President and who isn't. Who supports the Oil Privatization of Iraq (Oil Theft, essentially) and who doesn't.

We have the facts, let's stop arguing about one sentence one guy said a long time ago.

[Cha]

2. The case was most certainly not

made. And in retrospect..I wonder why? :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[IndyOp]

3. IMO, Obama is responsibly saying he would *not* have voted for the IWR...

None of us can know what was in the Senate reports - unless we saw them - and this is why I temper my criticism of Edwards. Still, other Senators saw the same information and took the more courageous stance in opposition to the President and sheep-like public.

[sandnsea]

4. Obama tries to support the 2004 Candidate

By tempering his criticism of the IWR vote - and Hillary uses it against him. Typical.

I personally think the entirety of the vote and statements made in the months after is what should be considered. Hillary's current statements about wanting to keep US troops in Iraq long term coincides with her support for the war all along. For whatever reason, the Clintons decided to go along with Bush on his war and still haven't backed completely away from it. Obama never supported the war and continues to want to move towards ending it. That's the bottom line.

[adigal]

5. Unless we want the War of the Roses, and rule of two Houses

Bill and Hillary need to get out of presidential politics. Enough. I cannot imagine the ZOO if she were to win, which she won't. Vince Foster, Monica, gate, gate, gate, she would get nothing done.

[patrice]

6. Related question please: Something I've never been quite clear on is:

Didn't it turn out that those Senate Intelligence reports contained NOTHING MORE than what "everyone" already knew at that point?

[Seabiscuit]

9. I'm not *at all* clear about what your question is asking;

perhaps that's the source of your own confustion.

Who is "everyone" and what is the "nothing more" that "everyone" knew at that "point" (the time of the IWR vote?)?

What exactly are you trying to say/suggest? And what exactly is the question about it? And what does it have to do with Hillary and Obama?

[patrice]

12. Didn't we know everything Congress knew about the aluminum tubes, the possibility

that the Niger documents were forged, Wilson's report on uranium sales from Niger and the chemical weapons SH had were over 20 years old and quite likely degraded, etc.? To my knowledge, they didn't have any knowledge of anything about SH that the rest of us didn't also have.

Part of the justifications, at the time of the vote, were these "special classified briefings" congress critters received, in which it was implied that there was information that was not public that affected their decisions about how to vote. Of course, the briefings were classified, so we don't know exactly what WAS in those briefings, but as near as I can tell from any information that has come out since, those briefings did NOT contain anything new, nothing additional, nothing more convincing than what many of us already knew at the time.

[patrice]

13. What I'm suggesting is: IF those briefings had contained ANYTHING

helpful to Bush's case, it would have been leaked by now, so apparently they didn't contain anything that would "explain" the mistake, ergo the YEAS were based on nothing more than what lots of people already knew. It wasn't special knowledge; it was only a difference in their attitude about risk to others.

[Seabiscuit]

17. I think the briefings only contained manipulated intelligence supporting Bush's case.

And as such, Bush will never while in office release those briefings to the public. He will claim executive privilege and will also claim that it is based on classified intelligence. Of course, his position would be absurd, but that's never stopped him before.

I think the Senators and Congressmen who got the briefings were presented with administration lies about the issues - i.e., fudged intelligence which supported Bush's claims about Iraq. Perhaps by then there was nothing in there claiming that Saddam was purchasing yellowcake from Niger, but the aluminum tube revelations came up during the U.N. discussions, well after the IWR vote.

I do agree that many of the "yea" votes were made just to make those voting "yea" appear "strong" on national defense - i.e., they were spineless votes, putting personal political concerns above the welfare of the country and the world.

As an attorney, I'm personally appalled that Congressmen and Senators who were attorneys themselves who received the briefings didn't ask the kinds of questions about the manipulated intelligence that any good attorney would - if they had, they could not have trusted what they were being told, and could not in good conscience have voted for the IWR. That's something that's always bothered me about Kerry and Edwards, for instance. I wasn't briefed and I smelled fishiness just based on the way it was presented, the words chosen by the administration spokespeople (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell) and what I knew of the history of the Iraq problem, the fact that Bin Laden viewed Saddam as a secular enemy to his jihadist al queda movement, and what I knew about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice. Powell himself had come out in 2001, I think, and declared publicly that Iraq did not possess any WMDs according to intelligence possessed by the State Department. As it turns out, of course, all the WMDs were destroyed by 1991 and Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies.

[Larkspur]

7. Hillary's problem: two thirds of Dems in Congress voted AGAINST IWR

They saw the intelligence reports too and voted against IWR. Those who voted for it are either pro-war or wanting to enhance their Prez ambitions by looking tough.

[TheConstantGardener]

8. Dead Iraqi Kids less important than Political Calculations

That's what it comes down to.

[OHdem10]

10. It istime for all the Senators and Everyone Concerned

to just cool it . The fact is All the Senators who
voted for the war did so because it was time to begin
the campaign. They had come to one of their IMO most
questionable "Concensus". Remember Guys, back at that
time they had this ill-conceived notion that by standing
with the Republicans on the war--it would make them, the
Democrats "look strong". They invariably voted with Bush(popular
at that time) and explain it made them "look strong".
I can remember tearing my hair out. That was the most
illogical reasoning I had ever heard. To be fair, Bush
and the Media had a way of bullying but the Dems were
not ready to fight back. They quickly voted hoping to get
the war out of the Media, so they could present other
things in Campaign. Needless to say "Bush fixed them"

When it comes to war only a Few Dems, mostly in the House
can speak with any credibility.

Throwing Mud about the war does not help any Democrat.

They will look strong when they stand and speak with
one voice.

Following the crowd is often not the besrt idea--just a thought.

[patrice]

14. This is a sincere question. Something I'm trying to understand . . .

They knew they could not afford to look "weak on Defense". They are not stupid people. Why was it NOT possible for them to say something such as "I am voting against this bill because I AM Strong on Defense and this bill hurts the defense of this country, because _______________." I just need to know why that wasn't possible.

I don't remember all of the speeches, but I suppose a few of the NAYS said things similar to this, but I'm really, honestly puzzled why more of them couldn't/didn't see the risk to National Defense. Are they THAT dependent upon their political consultants?

[Pirate Smile]

16. Remember the political and media atmosphere at the time. It was

October 2002 - just over a year after 9/11. Bush was popular, the media parroted the Rove, Cheney talking points. It was difficult BUT many Democrats did vote against it; Webb and Gore both spoke out against it. Gore was vilified, he was "crazy" and "unhinged".

I always remember 2002 and 2003 as being terrible years. It didn't really matter if they said "I am voting against this bill because I AM Strong on Defense ..." because they would get smeared terribly - and people did get smeared which is why it looks courageous now to have taken that stand.

[JI7]

11. yes Bill Clinton is so willing to give Bush the benefit

on what he thought or reasons to go to war.

[flpoljunkie]

15. Bill ought to check with Sen Bob Graham before he whines to NYT. Graham saw all the intel, voted NO.