Hillary advisor's Obama attack a Mark of desperation?

[BeyondGeography]

At a public forum yesterday at Harvard, HRC advisor Mark Penn tries to get Obama advisor David Axelrod to play defense on Obama's opposition to IWR and the Iraq war. Here's the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Penn and other HRC defenders are trying to use Obama's good soldier quotes once he reached the Senate that he didn't see the same intelligence as proof that his position on the war isn't any different than hers:

<The Clinton campaign also distributed an e-mail citing an Obama interview from the week of the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and was asked by moderator Tim Russert: "How could they have been so wrong and you so right as a state legislator in Illinois and they're on the Foreign Relations and intelligence committees in Washington?"

<Obama replied, "Well, I think they have access to information that I did not have."

<Russert then asked whether Obama would have voted for the resolution authorizing the war. "I would have voted not to authorize the president, given the facts as I saw them at that time." Asked if he therefore disagreed with Kerry and Edwards, he said: "At that time, but, as I said, I wasn't there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don't have a change in tone and a change in administration, I think we're going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq.">

Obama has consistently said he would not have voted for IWR. In my view, the "given the facts as I saw them at the time" and "I didn't see the same intelligence," are nuances that any rookie Senator who was trying to fit into the new fraternity would deploy. "I can't believe these fools authorized that war," wouldn't have earned him any stars in the time-honored ritual of senatorial collegial respect. Of course, no good deed goes unpunished, especially when your history of opposition to IWR and the Iraq war is undermining someone else's candidacy.

In fact, there is no questioning Obama's opposition to the war and the soundness of his instincts on the question of IWR. Here is Martin Schram's column on Obama's gutsy Oct. 26, 2002, speech, one of the strongest anti-IWR, ant-Iraq war speeches made by anyone in this party at the time:

<"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," Obama said.

<He spoke eloquently of the importance of the Civil War, World War II ("My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army.") and the War on Terror.

<On that day, Obama ended his uncommon anti-war-rally speech not with a fist-shaking warning but with a heart-tugging reminder about who would pay the ultimate price for a federal folly."After September 11, 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," Obama said.

<"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war."

<After warning us not to "travel down that hellish path blindly" by invading Iraq without global consensus, he added: "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://www.metrowestdailynews.com/columnists/x486488841

It's fair to criticize certain of Obama's post-Senatorial election quotes as overly calculating and the mark of a man that had broader ambitions than the state legislator who spoke in October of 2002. But that doesn't get Hillary off the hook for what she actually did when she had those broader ambitions and neither should her supporters be surprised that many voters are inclined to make her pay for it.

[ShaneGR]

1. Why the comment about slip showing?

Seems a bad choice of phrase.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Err slipping in the polls

learn to love the double entendre...you are now free to address the substance of the post. Less inflammatory double entendre now inserted so we can stay on point.

[Tellurian]

3. After the Q&A w/Larry King last night..

BHO seems to be in way over his head. Never mind what else he's said. He doesn't seem to have formulated a firm plan on what to with Iraq except for his previous statement of troop withdrawal. Last night on LKL, He would not admit that he concurred with HRC's plan to leaves troops in Iraq after their redeployment; which I thought was a major error on his part, not owning up to the fact that he had agreed with HRC in the first place. Pretty high school logic being applied here and my reason for reinforcing his fatal flaw, lack of experience in the political arena.

[BeyondGeography]

4. There is no firm plan for Iraq...it's an utter disaster

which your candidate authorized.

[jefferson_dem]

5. Yup. Hillary helped break it and now they are criticizing Obama for not offering a

*foolproof* plan to fix it. Please...

[Tellurian]

6. That wasn't the point of my post..

If you'll reread my post, my concern is his avoidance of agreeing with his original statement of leaving troops in Iraq as was exactly Hillary's statement. This pattern of behavior is becoming a habit with this candidate.

[jefferson_dem]

7. It seems as if you're trying to concoct an inconsistency that doesn't really exist.

Below is a transcript from last night's show. Please show where this contradict earlier statements. Being accused of such by a supporter of Hillary is quite astounding. Documenting her flipitty-floppity inconsistencies and fence-sitting equivocations shouldn't be too challengin... ;-).

KING: Senator Clinton has said if she were president, she would leave some troops in Iraq to fight al Qaeda, much after the rest come home.

What do you think?

OBAMA: You know, I'm not familiar exactly with what Senator Clinton's proposal is, so I don't want to characterize that.

I think that there is room for providing logistical training, counter-terrorism support for Iraqis if they have met various benchmarks that would allow our -- our assistance to be effective.

The same is true, by the way, economically. One of the things that I've said is that we should help Iraqi -- Iraqis rebuild, but it doesn't make any sense for us to pour money into ministries that are rife with corruption and are not actually delivering electricity or proper sanitation and sewage treatment to the Iraqi people.

And I think the same is true when it comes to the military.

The bottom line, the precondition for any continuing involvement by the United States in Iraq has to be a willingness on the part of Iraqi leadership and the heads of various Iraqi factions to come together and want to make Iraqi work as a unified country.

KING: And if they showed you that willingness as President Obama, then you would provide not only economic aid, but you would leave troops there?

OBAMA: Well, I think we would have to examine what would be helpful in actually advancing the cause of stability in the region.

What I don't want to do is make commitments to the Iraqi government of American troops being there indefinitely when the Iraqis themselves have not shown that having American troops there is going to make a significant difference.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/19/lkl.01.html

[Tellurian]

8. Do you really belive BHO is NOT aware of Sen Clinton's Iraq proposal?

That alone doesn't speak of him doing his home work. No one asked him to characterize anything. LK asked him about leaving troops in Iraq.. Read the response you posted. If he were dancing any faster around the issue, he'd be invisisble. It was a simple yes or no answer. Especially, when it's documented he aready made a statement to that effect:

"Some politicians have argued for a complete pull-out. Others, including Democratic presidential contenders Sen. ">Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barrack Obama and GOP Sen. John E. Sununu of New Hampshire, argue for a "phased withdrawal" that would pull out combat brigades first, leaving in place the tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel serving with Iraqi units as trainers and advisers, and supporting the Iraqi army with logistics, air cover, intelligence and medical treatment."

edited adding link:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.withdrawal20mar20,0,7528952.story?coll=bal-iraq-headlines

[BeyondGeography]

9. He's being careful, which, in this case is highly warranted

Any signal to the Iraqis that we are going to leave troops there will be seized upon by them as a sign that, for all the talk of withdrawal, America still intends to control their country. The key term is leaving troops there "indefinitely," which is something HRC should renounce as well.

Also, as much as you want to talk about Larry King last night, I'm interested in why you think head Hillarista Mark Penn wanted to dredge up the past yesterday by baiting Axelrod into a discussion of Obama's history re. Iraq. Could it be that her IWR vote continues to cost her dearly?

[Tellurian]

11. Parroting a RW talking point..

Tom Delay said something similar this morning on the Today Show. I provided a link directly refuting BHO's statement and yet you do not have the courtesy to admit you are wrong...Give me a reason to continue this conversation.

[DemDogs]

15. Careful? Or lacking any courage or conviction?

Besides himself, what does this guy really care about? Anyone know? Anyone know for Hillary either by the way?

[Tellurian]

17. Here is a Link to Hillary's thread for easy reading..

I've chosen her plan to End the War in Iraq and her Troop Reduction and Protection Act proposal in this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3147704#3156632

[jefferson_dem]

10. Geesh. You cite a reporter's assessment of what Obama's plan is...

and it's exactly what he said to LK.

FROM YOUR CITE, FROM THE SUN REPORTER -
"leaving in place the tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel serving with Iraqi units as trainers and advisers, and supporting the Iraqi army with logistics, air cover, intelligence and medical treatment."

FROM OBAMA ON LK LAST NIGHT -
"I think that there is room for providing logistical training, counter-terrorism support for Iraqis if they have met various benchmarks that would allow our -- our assistance to be effective."

At any rate, I can see how Obama would be challenged to keep up with Hillary's plans from day-to-day. What exactly is it *today*, again?

[Dawgs]

12. What I don't understand is why Hillary, or her supporters, feel the need...

to attack Obama on every comment.

It makes her and her supporters look childish and desperate.

Obama is an anti-war candidate that came up with a plan to start bringing the troops home within the next few months, and what do the Hillary supporters do; attack him for it. Explain to me who's being pathetic here?

[Nedsdag]

14. Three words:

Falling.poll.numbers.

[Tellurian]

16. Thats what discussion is all about.. Pointing out inconsistencies

in a candidates statement. After all, we're talking about a candidate looking to lead the World's only super power. We're not interested in electing a leadership of inconsistencies similar to what we have now, are we?

My response was not an attack...attacks are baseless. I provided a genuine link backing my statement.
If every little negative against your candidate is seen as an attack, your playing in the wrong arena..

[Dawgs]

19. Really?

You're desire to find fault in Obama's statements are a clearly an effort to attack his position. I have found nothing in any of your responses or links that show any inconsistencies. Anyone that would is clearly trying to find a fault that doesn't exist.

Since you are so interested in a candidate that can lead the world, why are you for a candidate that supported one of the biggest blunders of the past 100 years, and not support one that figured out that it was wrong? If more people in Congress felt like Obama we would have not had this war. Unfortunately, most people in Congress voted like Hillary. That's all I need to know.

I'll take Obama, and you can have Hillary.

[SOS]

36. Rather than citing a Baltimore Sun reporter's

incorrect assesments, why not take an actual look at Obama's official position on Iraq, posted on his web site?

"At the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in November 2005, Senator Obama called for: (1) a reduction in the number of U.S. troops;
(2) a time frame for a phased withdrawal; (3) the Iraqi government to make progress on forming a political solution;
(4) improved reconstruction efforts to restore basic services in Iraq; and (5) engaging the international community, particularly key neighboring states and Arab nations, to become more involved in Iraq. In January 2006 he traveled to Iraq and met with senior U.S. military commanders, Iraqi officials and U.S. troops in Baghdad and Fallujah.
Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy.
The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Does "limited number" = 75,000?
No.

[ElizabethDC]

18. Right, because Obama supporters *never* attack Hillary

for anything she says.

[Dawgs]

20. Let me explain, and there is a difference.

Hillary supporters are supporting HER attacks on Obama.

Obama supporters are attacking her remarks on their own.

[Tellurian]

23. You presume too much..

and presume to speak for me...which is not only unacceptable, but will not go unnoticed and remediated.
I am speaking in support of my own fact finding and now that Senator Clinton has made note of the same issue, we are aligned for the same reasons.

[jefferson_dem]

24. Why the hostility? I debunked your claim about Obama's inconsistency above.

:shrug:

[Tellurian]

26. If thats what you call debunking, never go pro se in a court action..

because you'll lose hands down..

[jefferson_dem]

30. So tell us again, how is Obama inconsistent? That was, after all, your point.

Here it is again...

FROM THE Baltimore Sun REPORTER -
Obama supports "leaving in place the tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel serving with Iraqi units as trainers and advisers, and supporting the Iraqi army with logistics, air cover, intelligence and medical treatment."

FROM OBAMA ON LK LAST NIGHT -
"I think that there is room for providing logistical training, counter-terrorism support for Iraqis if they have met various benchmarks that would allow our -- our assistance to be effective."

[Dawgs]

35. Boy, you are desperate.

I was not making a judgement on you, and I was not generalizing. I'm going by what I've witnessed over the past few months. Obama, and his people, have not made cooridinated attacks against Hillary. She has against him. Hillary supporters seem to go after Obama because he is a legitimate opponent, while Obama supporters disagree with what Hillary says and does. Again, there is a difference.

[DemDogs]

13. Obama a fraud - he knows what he said

He gets out there now and refers constantly to am antiwar speech he gave when he was State Senator from a liberal district. A real statement of courage. He ignores what he has said since and how he has voted since in the Senate. Mark Penn will say anything but the article refers at the end to actual quotations from Obama:

The New York Times reported July 26, 2004, ''When asked about Senators (John) Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know.'''

At the same time, amid the Democratic National Convention in Boston where Obama was the keynote speaker, Obama told the Chicago Tribune, ''There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.''

Support him if you want to but give us real reasons why any of us should. And the war ain't it.

[Dawgs]

21. He's not a Clinton, he speaks for my generation, and gives us hope.

How's that?

[Tellurian]

25. Might be 'False Hope'...theres nothing worse than that...imo..

[Nedsdag]

27. That was uncalled for.

He's never said anything negative against her.

Responses like yours may send me into his camp even though I'm undecided and it is still early in the game.

[Tellurian]

29. It does nothing for your candidate's cause to threaten people..

just because you're unhappy with an "inconvenient Truth".

In case, you're not aware, we've lost two of the last elections.

You may not have suffered with us...but we've already been there and done that..endured false hope.

So, spare me your threats of going with another candidate. My response has nothing to do with a responsible choice for the strongest candidate to face the GOP Hate Machine!

[Nedsdag]

34. If Hillary's the strongest candidate.....

then say hello to President Fred Thompson.

[zulchzulu]

28. Nice...calling Obama a "fraud" because he came out against the war from the beginning

It wasn't necessarily popular to come out against the war when it started. Obama didn't market-test his opinion. Obama expressed his opinion on the war. He was correct then and he's correct now. He has no need to apologize for having blood on his hands.

It sounds like by calling Obama a "fraud" that you are perhaps jealous that he was correct...

[jefferson_dem]

31. Right. He exercised much better judgement with much less so-called "intelligence."

Now four years later, we're engaged in this clusterfuck, in part, because of her rubber stamping of Chimpy's "authority." It's understandable how Hillary and her supporters are feeling desperate.

[SOS]

37. Nice edit on the Times article

You call him a fraud and then pull out the one sentence that backs your point.
Here's a more complete look at that article:

"One point listeners are unlikely to hear is his opposition in 2002 to Congress's approval of the war in Iraq. Senators John Kerry and John Edwards voted to authorize it.
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."

When not parsed down to one sentence that backs your point, it reads rather differently.

[SOS]

33. Incorrect:

"the fact that he had agreed with HRC in the first place"

Obama has endorsed the Iraq Study Group recommendations.
Clinton has adopted the plan advanced by Rumsfeld comptroller and PNAC signatory Dov Zakheim.

Read the military recommendations in the ISG report and contrast them with the recent Times article about Hillary's Iraq policy.

Do the following recommendations include leaving 75,000 US troops in Iraq past 2009? Where is the "agreement" you speak of?

RECOMMENDATION 40: The United States should not make an open-ended commitment to
keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.
RECOMMENDATION 41: The United States must make it clear to the Iraqi government that
the United States could carry out its plans, including planned redeployments, even if Iraq does
not implement its planned changes. America’s other security needs and the future of our military
cannot be made hostage to the actions or inactions of the Iraqi government.
RECOMMENDATION 42: We should seek to complete the training and equipping mission by
the first quarter of 2008, as stated by General George Casey on October 24, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION 43: Military priorities in Iraq must change, with the highest priority
given to the training, equipping, advising, and support mission and to counterterrorism
operations.
RECOMMENDATION 44: The most highly qualified U.S. officers and military personnel
should be assigned to the imbedded teams, and American teams should be present with Iraqi
units down to the company level. The U.S. military should establish suitable career-enhancing
incentives for these officers and personnel.
RECOMMENDATION 45: The United States should support more and better equipment for
the Iraqi Army by encouraging the Iraqi government to accelerate its Foreign Military Sales
requests and, as American combat brigades move out of Iraq, by leaving behind some American
equipment for Iraqi forces.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

22. It is way too early in the campaign cycle for this kind of BS, only turns off voters towards both.

[Adelante]

32. I dunno, BG

I guess I don't see this as much of an "attack" - I mean they are running against each other for public office, so capitalizing on each other's statements is pretty much the way it goes. It's up to Obama to respond in the way that works best for him. It's the stealth attacks you want to watch out for, the ones you don't see coming. This type is really to be expected in a primary race. IMHO

[BeyondGeography]

38. Absolutely, Wes

My question is what does it tell us that they are mounting this kind of attack against Obama? In my view, it says they are paying dearly for IWR and for Obama's early opposition to the war, hence they are trying to re-write history by saying that Obama's views on Iraq and IWR really aren't substantially different than Hillary's. Not gonna work.