Here's a statement from Barack on the Iraq war in 2002. Spin this, Hillary fans.

[Bonobo]

"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

Full speech here:
http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/barack-obamas-speech-on-iraq-2002/

Looking forward to hear why this can be interpreted as anything but a very early statement AGAINST the war.

[Colobo]

1. Hillary's judgement will always be in question thanks to that vote.

[OzarkDem]

2. So why did he vote for it?

[Bonobo]

5. Vote for what? The "war"? Didn't everyone and they just said it was a vote for "funding"?

[dsc]

3. What the Hillary campaign is saying

is that Obama's actions (voting for money for the war for example) contradict that early opposition.

[Colobo]

15. Our soldiers needed equipment. Had he voted against funding

she would be eating him alive today.

[ClericJohnPreston]

23. Ahhhh

Mere political expediency paid in lives. I see.

[FrenchieCat]

29. But what should be asked of Hillary is why DID she vote to "fund" the War

It's one thing to criticize about what she hopes will be perceived as an Obama contradiction,
But what about her hypocrisy?

So the unanswered question is, how can Hillary point the finger about what someone else did, when she did the exact same thing PLUS failed to exercises sound judgment in reference to the event that was the catalyst that led to all that followed?

How can Obama's rationale to vote to fund the war be rejected, when it is the rationale that she herself has been utilizing?

[Nedsdag]

41. FrenchieCat, you are on the mark.

She kept funding the war as well.

In the general election, she will be eaten alive by McCain.

Be careful what you wish for, Clinton supporters.

[antiimperialist]

4. We know he said that in '02, but in '04 he said he didn't know how he would have voted

A round of applause to Obama for giving this wonderful speech back in '02 when he wasn't close to running for president.
In 2004 however, he said that because he didn't posess the senate intelligence in '02, he doesn't know how he had voted.

...but if having senate intelligence at hand was so necessary, how did he know the war was dumb back in '02?

In an interview with The New York Times in July 2004, he declined to criticize Mr. Kerry or Mr. Edwards over the Iraq vote, but also said that he would not have voted as they had based on the information he had at the time.

''But, I'm not privy to the 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."

[Bonobo]

6. Obviously we all knew it was dumb, so senate intelligence was not needed.

He said it apparently to spare the Clinton's the political embarrassment. It is called being "decorous".

[antiimperialist]

9. So Obama lied because he felt sorry about the Clintons? lol

That's a very unique theory let me tell you.

[Bonobo]

10. It's Barack's own statement. It's called party loyalty.

[rodeodance]

16. yes, Obama can not run from his words--whatever the motives were.

[antiimperialist]

21. So his words in 2002 were party disloyalty?

Your theory is very complicated.

[Bonobo]

22. Just to you. 2002 was not immediately before the Dem Convention. Get it now?

[antiimperialist]

24. So Obama is a calculating politician? That neutralizes the charges against Clinton. Thanks n/t

[Bonobo]

25. Non sequitor. nt

[antiimperialist]

28. Not really. It shows Obama support for an issue is not sincere, only depends on circumstances n/t

[antiimperialist]

30. And I hope you realize you called Obama a liar

You argue that he knew how he would have voted in '02, but he said in 2004 that he didn't know.
I think it's very significant that this thread has resulted in the discovery of the fact that Obama is a liar.

[Bluerthanblue]

the stand he took in '02 COULD have killed any future hopes for

the Presidency. He was willing to risk it.- He didn't have to be as clear and firm on his opposition in his speech-

[Bonobo]

11. Yup.

[antiimperialist]

31. Hillary's yes vote didn't kill her future hopes. Bush won in '04 and he's a top warmonger n/t

[goldcanyonaz]

7. 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know,'

[Bonobo]

8. Next statement is: "The case was not made".

[Bluerthanblue]

12. and the question itself should elicit an objection- Speculating on

what you would have done "if" you were in another persons shoes???

He knew enough to know the war was WRONG- and he was willing to put his political voice out there saying as much.

:shrug:

What is so hard for people to understand about this?

[Bonobo]

13. If Hillary made such a forceful anti-war speech in 2002, I want to hear it!

Where is it?

[Bluerthanblue]

18. me too-

:hi:

[Fredda Weinberg]

14. You left out this part, "What would I have done? I don't know." n/t

[Bonobo]

17. Read much? It was quoted by the person I responded to, Freeeeeda.

[Fredda Weinberg]

19. Yo, Bobo ... but it is the main predicate. Can't argue w/indecision n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

33. no- can't dispute an honest answer- YOU cannot say with

complete certainty what you would 'have done' in a past situation, under altered circumstances.

If you claim you can, you are being disingenuous.

[acmavm]

20. Everyone just relax. Give the man some time and he'll eventually be on

both sides of every issue. That's what he does best.

[ginchinchili]

26. The truth is, Obama can't really say HOW he would have voted.

As I stated in another post, Obama can't really know how he would have voted, and most likely would have voted in favor of it given his presidential ambitions and the absence of any history of political risk taking. Remember, at the time any Congressional lawmaker who came out voicing criticism of the resolution was publicly charged with being anti-American, etc., and this was shortly after 9/11 when such charges were having an impact.

I tip my hat to brave federal lawmakers like Senators Feingold and Leahy, who both have a history of swimming against the political currents and both voted against the IWR. I doubt that either lawmaker will ever make a serious bid for the presidency--which is our loss--but these federal lawmakers have decided that being true to themselves and the people they represent takes first priority. Obama wasn't on the national stage at the time, nor was he privy to all of the intelligence that the Bush administration showed Congress. The vote was certainly wrong, but all the intelligence that was presented to Congress made a strong case for Iraq's non-existent WMDs and Obama didn't have the responsibility of keeping the nation safe--he was just a state legislator at the time. It underscores one of Obama's greatest weaknesses: lack of experience on the national and international stages, so neither we nor Obama can be certain how he'd react in certain circumstances.

It was safe for him to take the position he did on this particular issue, but to be quite honest he wasn't just out of the loop; he wasn't even near the loop. So to run around claiming that he definitely would have voted against the IWR and using that as an example of his good judgment is, as Bill Clinton has said, disingenuous, and demonstrates an example of his dishonesty and the poor judgment of not being honest with the people. The truth takes courage and the truth is that he can't honestly say for sure that he would have voted against the resolution any more than we can say what we'd do if we had been senators at the time. I was against invading Iraq from the start, but I can't honestly say how I would have voted because I wasn't a US senator at the time. I'd like to think I would have voted against it, but I can't say with certainty any more than I could say exactly what I'd do in certain life-threatening emergency situations.

I'm not particularly a fan of Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's. I think either candidate will have a very difficult time winning in the fall, but Obama's positioning and use of this issue causes me to lose respect for him and makes it less likely that I'd vote for him at any time in the future, in this election or in future elections. I'd be more impressed if he stuck to his claim that he couldn't say for sure how he would have voted. I'd respect his honesty.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Obama did say how he would have voted......at the time......

and stated so, not only in 2002, but in 2003 and 2004.

To take advantage of Obama accepting the request to toe the line during the convention (where instructions were given not to talk about antiwar sentiments as well as to stay away from George Bush)is ludicrous.

"As the keynote speaker, Obama was trying to be loyal to the Democratic nominees, John Kerry and John Edwards, both of whom had voted in favor of the war authorization resolution, along with Hillary Clinton.

on the first day of the convention, he reiterated his opposition to the war but declined to criticize Kerry and Edwards, saying he was "not privy to Senate intelligence reports."

He then continued: "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/obama_and_iraq.html#more

If somebody did that shit to me....try to throw my requested loyalty back at my face as some kind of negative act, when the only real purpose to it was to save the embarassement of others, all done with the expressed purpose of defeating George Bush and removing him from the White House, I'd want to kick their ass.

Obama is being stabbed in the Back, and it stinks? :shrug:

[ginchinchili]

34. You've missed the main point of my post.

Again, Obama can't say how he would have voted because he wasn't a US Senator at the time. He wasn't privy to the intelligence that was given to the Senate; he didn't have the responsibility of protecting the nation at the time; there were no political consequences for him to pay, and; there is nothing in his political resume that would suggest that he'd take such a bold and politically risky stand, especially given his presidential aspirations. I think he's being disingenuous and typically political.

[Bonobo]

35. He made a strong statement against the war in 2002!!!! What part of that is ambiguous?

[ginchinchili]

37. You're trying to dodge and weave like your candidate.

I won't bother repeating myself a 3rd time.

[FrenchieCat]

36. The main point is to now find that Democrats who support Hillary Clinton

have to rationalize themselves into being disingenuous as to what really happened.

To be forced to have to get into the technicalities of it all in order to try to make sense has got to be a bitch.

It doesn't bode well for this party nor to the art of critical thinking to have an entire wing of our party turn into dumbasses out of the blue!

Anyone so fucking stupid as to feel compelled to sell bullshit and intellectual dishonesty in order to make their case for their candidate, who with all of her "experience" has made so many mistakes until it ain't even funny.

Maybe Bush sold clueless Americans a war, but I'll be damned if Democrats at DU believe that they can sell other DUers this bullshit. I fucking marched against that War. And part of why I did it was exactly because I wasn't going to let anyone play me for a fool. That's what you are trying to do now, and be warned that you are embarking on a dangerous path.

Ask Al Gore about 2002 and the Iraq War and his opposition. Ask Al Gore if his speech didn't matter, just because he wasn't voting? Tell millions who marched that they should have simply sat on their asses in front of the TeeVee instead of taking to the streets, cause the only thing that counted were those votes in congress. They will tell you to kiss their collective asses....which is what I am asking you to do to mine.

[ginchinchili]

38. Democrats "art of critical thinking" went out the window at the start...

of this primary process. You talk about critical thinking and support a candidate who has had zero foreign policy experience at a time when our nation is involved in two wars and our foreign "policy" is near collapse, just because he can give a good talk about the word change. And spare me the speech about how experience is bad and the Bush administration is proof. You might as well argue that democracy is bad and point to our country as proof. If Democrats were really thinking critically they would have focused on the importance of not taking chances in this election and supported the most qualified and most nationally electable candidate, Joe Biden. I will take no pleasure in saying I told you so in the fall.

[FrenchieCat]

39. Hillary has voted for so much that is wrong with this country.....

that her experience is pointless. period.

[ginchinchili]

40. You'll have to find someone else to defend Hillary...

because I think she, too, will lose in a general election. Yes, time spent in office doesn't automatically equal experience. My biggest problem with Hillary is her electability, but also, like you, I don't agree with many of her judgment calls and I think she's too closely aligned with big business.

[unc70]

42. I call BS on Clinton and Obama

Check out this thread that followed a debate in Oct. Whether either Clinton or Obama lied is definitional, but deliberately mislead applies to both candidates. I join the discussion at #48 and there is a second related subtree.

The short version: Obama and Clinton have nearly identical positions on Iraq, excepting the vote/absence on K-L. Both would leave troops in Iraq and would continue special ops for "anti-terrorism" indefinitely. Each talks about immediately beginning to withdraw troops, but never say all troops.

Don't believe me? Fine. Go read my posts in that thread. If you still don't see how Clinton and particularly Obama try to mislead everyone, then come back with your proof that I am wrong and I will gladly help with reading comprehension.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3578214

[Skip Intro]

27. It's that quote against his opposite 2004 quotes (and his reasoning for his duplicity - political!)

He said so himself: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4048089&mesg_id=4048089