Will the real Obama please stand up.

[Skip Intro]

This is one instance of doubletalk from Obama. Feel free to post others in this thread, there are many.

I posted this as a reply to an Obama supporter in another thread, but felt it might be better to let the whole team try to explain this one to me. This concerns the K/L vote. I am not supporting the bill here. And I'm not taking him to task for missing (yet another) vote, but rather looking at Obama's position(s) on it.

We all know Obama supported naming the IRG a terrorist org, but cited his problem with Kyl/Lieberman as being that it tied our actions in Iraq to the Iranian "threat."

He sums up reasons he opposes the amendment in this snip from his op/ed in the Union Leader:

-------------------
The amendment, offered by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl, directly links the ongoing war in Iraq -- including our troop presence -- to checking the threat from Iran. The amendment opens with 17 findings that highlight Iranian influence within Iraq. It then states that we have to "transition(s) and structure" our "military presence in Iraq" to counter the threat from Iran, and states that it is "a critical national interest of the United States" to prevent the Iranian government from exerting influence inside Iraq.

http://www.unionleader.com/pda-article.aspx?articleId=a41d44e5-0c56-4353-b9f6-5eda09c81236
-------------------

So that's his problem with the K/L bill. Yet, from his website, you find the following from a year ago, where he seems to think it a good idea to use our military presence in Iraq to send a signal to the Iranians:

-------------------
In such a scenario, it is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time. But only if U.S. commanders think such a force would be effective; if there is substantial movement towards a political solution among Iraqi factions; if the Iraqi government showed a serious commitment to disbanding the militias; and if the Iraqi government asked us - in a public and unambiguous way - for such continued support. We would make clear in such a scenario that the United States would not be maintaining permanent military bases in Iraq, but would do what was necessary to help prevent a total collapse of the Iraqi state and further polarization of Iraqi society. Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region.

snip

Make no mistake - if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening. We should also make it clear that, even after we begin to drawdown forces, we will still work with our allies in the region to combat international terrorism and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It is simply not productive for us not to engage in discussions with Iran and Syria on an issue of such fundamental importance to all of us.

http://www.barackobama.com/2006/11/20/a_way_forward_in_iraq.php
-------------------


So I am left wondering, what exactly is his position on this important matter? Which is the real Obama? Leave troops in Iraq for the sake of blunting an Iranian threat, or not?

[Progress And Change]

1. good question, great thread

:kick:

[BenDavid]

2. Answer? You got me and Obama does not know. Obama is

doing the old potomac two step.

[wyldwolf]

3. How about this one

Obama and his supporters, when they take a break from using right wing talking points on health care, demand to know how Clinton (and Edwards) will enforce their mandates. Yet, they never answer the question about Obama's plan. You say his plan doesn't have a mandate? Sure it does - for children.

If you can enforce a mandate on children like Obama's plan calls for, that means you enforce the mandate on the parents of the children to enroll the children.

So, how does Obama enforce the mandate?

[Progress And Change]

5. Post a thread on it

$100 says no Obama supporter will be able to explain 1) how Obama will enforce his mandate for children 2) how mandates (which they call "forcing" people to buy insurance, using the Republican playbook) are wrong for all adults but a great idea for millions of parents.

[durrrty libby]

4. K & R

[Bitwit1234]

6. Of course Obamaites don't like it but I posted the link to the article

in the Chicago Tribune, where he can an interview to this reporter saying he would use missiles on Iran and he thought it was a good idea. AND yet he spew and flames Hillary Clinton because she showed up the vote and wanted to declare THAT THE IRANIAN GUARD WERE TERRORIST. She didn't say and has never said she wanted to bomb Iran, Obama did that.

[progressoid]

7. ...

...oops sorry. Different song.

[femrap]

8. Obama doesn't seem to be a person

of conviction...he's so strategic. This 'not voting/present' strategy bugs me.

Looking at the state of our country, I believe we need a Fighter in the White House to put a stop to the GREED and CORRUPTION which is killing our nation. Always remember 'War is a Racket.'

I believe the Greed Boys would eat Obama up and then spit him out....imho

[MethuenProgressive]

9. OabmaNation is voting "absent" on his flip flop flip

:kick:

[Progress And Change]

13. Damn you!

I need a new keyboard because of you! :spray:

[Progress And Change]

14. Damn you!

I need a new keyboard because of you! :spray:

[AtomicKitten]

10. Synopsis: K-L was an ACTUAL bill that Hillary ACTUALLY voted YES on.

[Progress And Change]

15. What does that have to do with Obama's double talk?

:wtf:

[MethuenProgressive]

17. Nothing. They'll post about her cats next...

Or Vince Foster, which ever is in rotation.

[SIMPLYB1980]

42. LoL!

:spray:

[AtomicKitten]

18. the allegation of "double talk" is carefully arranged quotes as subterfuge

to try to distract from the REAL issue which is Hillary is the only candidate that voted for war with the IWR and for more war with K-L and then announced on NPR that K-L which is only 70-some days old is responsible for something in 2003 and that K-L is "working," a claim Biden could only laugh at.

That is the point.

[Progress And Change]

19. The real issue is Obama's double talk

This is a thread about Obama's double talk, not Clinton, and no Obama supporter has been able to defend his double talk yet.

[AtomicKitten]

24. look everyone - a shiny penny to distract

[Progress And Change]

26. that summarizes your contributions to this thread

;)

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Progress And Change]

34. first divert the issue from Obama, then attack posters

Whatever happened to the politics of hope? :(

[SIMPLYB1980]

44. Hear kitty kitty.

[AtomicKitten]

47. Yes, I will speak up in the face of war-mongers that use scare tactics.

The rest of you will have to be content in your smugness knowing you are protecting and promoting a war-monger disguised as a Democrat.

[MethuenProgressive]

50. Hillary's a "warmonger"? Kitten, you have no idea what a warmonger is...

Find a night school nearby, and enroll.

[AtomicKitten]

52. A war-monger is a candidate that votes YES for war and more war ....

and then tries to sell it as "diplomacy."

[MethuenProgressive]

54. What are these "votes for war" you speak of?

They had a "War. Yes or No?" bill that no one but you knows of?
Did BO skip out on that vote too?

[SIMPLYB1980]

51. LoL!

Hillary is no war monger and trying to present her as such is a bald face lie.

[AtomicKitten]

53. he who smelt it dealt it ;)

and the truth shall set you free

[SIMPLYB1980]

55. And I'm rubber and your glue!

[Tellurian]

75. K&R

[cuke]

29. Another Obama supporter who can't defend Obama's lie

All they do is attack and deny

[Lucinda]

21. Because there are ACTUAL IRG people helping to kill ACTUAL Americans and Iraqis

in Iraq.

[AtomicKitten]

27. keep beating those war drums

America LOVES it when government lies its way into war.

[cuke]

31. And you still can't defend Obama's lies and double talk

Just attack and deny

[Lucinda]

36. That's all they got cuke.

[cuke]

73. It's incredible. They can NEVER defend Obama's lies and rightwing rhetoric

On issue after issue, all they do is deny and attack.

[Lucinda]

74. That has been my observation as well....Scary stuff . I love it when people are psyched about

their candidate...but blind hero-worship and politics are a dangerous mix.

[Lucinda]

35. Thats absolute BS. People are dying as a result of what's happening, and even your candidate is for

putting diplomatic pressure on Iran.

[AtomicKitten]

37. you and your candidate need to stop politicizing war by using scare tactics

We've seen enough of politicians using war to further their own political careers.

[Progress And Change]

38. Obama, not Clinton, has advocated bombing Iran

[AtomicKitten]

41. Hillary voted YES on K-L which was an ACTUAL bill.

ACTUAL bills for war and more war start wars. You can excavate quotes til the cows come home and arrange them like an elaborate game of Jenga to promote the dig de jour on Obama, but the bottom line is Hillary voted YES on K-L which was an ACTUAL bill for more war. The rest of this nonsense is flogged daily to distract. But of course you already know that because it is only your screen name that is new, right?

[SIMPLYB1980]

45. And Pakistan.

[Lucinda]

39. Give me ONE example of anyone saying the IRG isn't doing what is claimed. Just one.

I've been looking since the vote, and I cannot find one instance of anyone having evidence that it's not happening. The only criticism i've seen is that she was foolish to think Bush wouldn't take advantage. So from where I sit...the others are just making political noise.

[Progress And Change]

11. kick

:kick:

[zulchzulu]

12. Hillary voted for Bush to be able to attack the Iranians...period

It was reported:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton? She voted in favor of the measure in question, which asked the Bush administration to declare Iran’s 125,000-member Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. Such a move — more hawkish than even most of the Bush administration has been willing to venture so far — would intensify America’s continuing confrontation with Iran, many foreign policy experts say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/weekinreview/14cooper.html

What part of voting in the wrong fashion do you need to see as evidence?

[Progress And Change]

16. So if it was a vote for war why did Obama not even bother to show up for it?

And what does Clinton have to do with Obama's double talk on this important issue?

[AtomicKitten]

22. please tell us the one about how voting YES on war is BETTER than not voting

I love that story.

[Progress And Change]

25. Why do you keep brining up red herrings?

If it was a vote for war why did Obama not even bother to show up for it?

[AtomicKitten]

28. more like the elephant in the room you are trying to distract from

[Progress And Change]

30. Obama's cowardice and deception?

[cuke]

33. And you still can't defend Obama's lies and double talk

Just attack and deny

[leftynyc]

56. Not voting is cowardly

How is that better than taking a stand?

[SIMPLYB1980]

46. That is a very good question.

Wonder if you'll get a straight answer?

[MethuenProgressive]

20. Not according to your own link, zulchzulu

It was reported in your link, but conviently left out by you:

]In the statement she released after the vote, Mrs. Clinton spoke of the need for “robust diplomacy” with Iran, and warned President Bush that he shouldn’t think that “the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.”

Mrs. Clinton concluded: “Nothing in this resolution changes that.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/weekinreview/14cooper.html?_r=1&oref=sloginText

What part of "changes nothing" don't you understand?

[cali]

43. oh for fuck's sake, it was a lousy vote, but it was not a vote to go to

war. not even remotely. do you know what a sense of the senate resolution is? can you grasp that it has no force of law? do you understand that this resolution expressly stated that it wasn't to be construed as support for war, let alone authorization of it.

Why not just stick with the truth, which is hardly flattering to her?

[BootinUp]

49. When do suppose

we will be attacking, us warmongers are getting pretty bored lately.

[Armstead]

23. IMO, Clinton, Edwards and Obama all screwed the pooch on this

The whole flare up about Iran shows the dangers of trying to kowtow to the Bush effort to generate momentum for war with an artificial crisis.

Any Democrats who bought into it were wrong. They are now all twisting and doing gyrations to backtrack.

Biden and Kucinich got it right from the beginning. Thus they now do not have to scramble to be wiping egg off their faces.

[SIMPLYB1980]

40. K&R

[BeyondGeography]

48. The answer I gave to you is simple, and you should have mentioned it in the OP

If Obama says as President he will take steps to use U.S. forces to oppose terrorism in the Middle East, why does that mean he should automatically sign on to legislation that entrusts Bush with the same authority? Especially legislation that he, Biden and Dodd all say can be used to justify war with Iran. He doesn't trust giving Bush expanded powers, Clinton repeatedly does. Therein lies the difference.

Newsflash: Obama trusts himself more than he trusts Bush. Run with it.

[emilyg]

57. K&R

[jgraz]

58. Still not as bad as Hillary

And yes, that's a completely valid defense.

Disagree? Then please quit defending your candidate by pointing out that she's not as bad as a (real) Republican.

[Skip Intro]

65. LOL! Vote Obama, he's not as bad as Hillary.

:rofl:

Where did I make the argument that Hillary was not as bad as a repuke?


She's a hell of a big improvement over anything the repuke side is offering. The fact that that even has to be said is a sad commentary on the state of this party.

[jgraz]

72. Did I say "vote Obama"?

Because I certainly don't plan to -- not unless he's the only non-Hillary candidate left.

"Where did I make the argument that Hillary was not as bad as a repuke?"

See below.

"She's a hell of a big improvement over anything the repuke side is offering. The fact that that even has to be said is a sad commentary on the state of this party."

The fact that the argument has to be made is a sad commentary on the state of your candidate. What's even sadder is that it's not entirely clear that Hillary is better than a repuke. At least with them you know what you're getting. With Hillary -- as with Lieberman and Feinstein (and Pelosi and Reid) -- you don't see the knife coming until it's wedged between your ribs.

[CyberPieHole]

59. Obama is the Mitt Romney of the Democratic Party...

He'll say whatever it takes to get elected.

:kick: and recommend

[ClarkUSA]

60. No, Bill Clinton is... remember, he was against the Iraq war "from the beginning"

:eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

61. Will the real Hillary please stand up: Voting for Kyl-Lieberman AND supporting Webb's amendment?

It's Clintonian triangulation at its best.

Trying to distract from Hillary's neocon warmongering vote for Kyl-Lieberman again?

Obama is consistently against blank check votes for Bush wars, unlike Hillary. That's a fact you'll never be able to spin, no matter how hard Hillaryworlders try.

[Progress And Change]

62. if it was a vote for war and he was "against" it why did he not even bother to vote?

[Progress And Change]

63. if it was a vote for war and he was "against" it why did he not even bother to vote?

[PATRICK]

64. There may be some calculation

but it seems to me to add up to someone conflicted who sincerely wants to espouse and believe the old center right and DLC ideas. It gives me some hope he might learn better along the way but this is hardly the time when we need a president of clear progressive stands. It seems his early soft start into a sort of slump necessitated an uncomfortable shake up of strategy. then, in the heat of things, as with hillary unfortunately, things start being said that are unintentionally revealing, conflicting with any notions that these two want to represent any sort of progressive mandate ever were it handed them on a platter.

This alone is the one reason I am not merely satisfied that Obama is someone new and more effective, because he keeps trying so hard and gratuitously to signal otherwise, heat of the moment or not. As long as I have a choice it will be Edwards or DK or leadership means leadership of the ignorant to nowhere to no good purpose. The candidate of change, that useless aphorism of the current season, needs some development himself. If we could forego the roller coaster of how that might work out in the mess coming up it would be for the benefit of all. As comparisons with JFK abound let us remember how unsteady he was in directing foreign policy and agenda legislation and how conflicted and even dangerous were forays into defense spending and the Cold War. Some historians even say a different more experienced candidate would not have led us into various crises with the ailing Soviet Union.

The only thing that we are sure of repeating in this year's primary are all the various mistakes of the past. (My recent journal entry about Udall and Carter mentions more on this).

[dugggy]

66. My political science undergrads know more about foreign policy

than Mr. Obama. But the buzz is for Barack. It is politics you know.

[Lord Helmet]

67. Most polling shows people think Obama is the most authentic of the bunch.

I'm seeing a whole lotta hatred for the brother here at DemUnd that doesn't match the love he's getting out there.

[Skip Intro]

68. Obama may be my brother, but Hillary is my sister.

When you're in the spotlight, you gotta be able to withstand scrutiny.

Hypocrisy knows no color.

[Lord Helmet]

70. I agree that Hillary has shown much hypocrisy but voters are catching on.

[Skip Intro]

71. Well let's spin right off the bat! Hey mods, can we get a spinning smilie?

Or at least some cyberboots. It's gettin' deep in here.

[calteacherguy]

69. It seems to me there is a difference

between this:

"transitioning and structuring our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran...preventing the Iranian government from excerting influence inside Iraq" (Kyl-Lieberman)

and this:

"remaining a key player in the region," thus preventing the Iranians or Syrians from using "Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries.... working with our allies in the region to combat international terrorism and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction" (Obama)

It seems to me the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was in a far different tone that what Obama was saying. It implied any kind of Iranian influence inside Iraq could be used as a pretense for regime change in Iran.