Obama, Clinton & Iraq: You Make the Call

Hillary Clinton today used her appearance on NBC's Meet the Press to question whether Barack Obama really has strongly opposed the Iraq War. You can watch the video here and then read Obama's response here. Getting past the sheer absurdity of Clinton - one of the chief proponents of the war - attacking Obama for not opposing the war enough, let's just take a look at the record and ask a simple question: Who is correct? As you'll see, it's not such a cut-and-dry issue.

Here's what I reported back in 2006 in my profile of Obama for The Nation:

Then there is the Iraq War. Obama says that during his 2004 election campaign he "loudly and vigorously" opposed the war. As The New Yorker noted, "many had been drawn initially by Obama's early opposition to the invasion." But "when his speech at the antiwar rally in 2002 was quietly removed from his campaign Web site," the magazine reported, "activists found that to be an ominous sign"-one that foreshadowed Obama's first months in the Senate. Indeed, through much of 2005, Obama said little about Iraq, displaying a noticeable deference to Washington's bipartisan foreign policy elite, which had pushed the war. One of Obama's first votes as a senator was to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her integral role in pushing the now-debunked propaganda about Iraq's WMD.

In November Obama's reticence on the war ended. Five days after hawkish Democratic Representative Jack Murtha famously called for a withdrawal, Obama gave a speech calling for a drawdown of troops in 2006. "Those of us in Washington have fallen behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq," he said. But then he retreated. On Meet the Press in January Obama regurgitated catchphrases often employed by neoconservatives to caricature those demanding a timetable for withdrawal. "It would not be responsible for us to unilaterally and precipitously draw troops down," he said. Then, as polls showed support for the war further eroding, Obama tacked again, giving a speech in May attacking the war and mocking the "idea that somehow if you say the words 'plan for victory' and 'stay the course' over and over and over and over again...that somehow people are not going to notice the 2,400 flag-draped coffins that have arrived at the Dover Air Force Base." (emphasis added)

In April of 2007, I wrote this small piece for Radar Magazine, noting some more back-and-forth:

When it comes to his Iraq dance, has Barack Obama stolen his moves from Hillary Clinton? The freshman senator has been trying to position himself as the antiwar candidate in the Democratic presidential primary, but this weekend he told the Associated Press that he will support continued funding for the war--even if President Bush follows through on a pledge to veto any hard withdrawal date.

That move puts Obama in lonely, treacherous waters--directly in opposition to Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who announced he will push to cut off funding for the war within a year.

But it's not the first time Obama has bounced around on Iraq. He regularly says he's against the Iraq war, for example, but when asked by the New York Times in July 2004 how he would have voted in 2002, he said, "What would I have done? I don't know." Fast forward to 2006 when he told the New Yorker's David Remnick that senators who saw intelligence reports on Iraq may have been justified in voting for the invasion. "I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence," he said. "And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices." (emphasis added)

So yes, Obama did oppose the war back in 2002. But yes, between that speech and the announcement of his presidential run when loud opposition to the war became a Democratic primary necessity, he has dithered between not talking about the war, supporting funding for the war, and even suggesting that he might have voted for the war had he been in the U.S. Senate at the time.

Clinton, as I suggested to start, is making a fool out of herself by attacking Obama for not opposing the war more strongly. As Obama himself today correctly pointed out, he "stood up against the war when she was voting for it, at a time when she didn't read the intelligence reports or give diplomacy a chance." At the very moment Obama was speaking out against the war, she was actually IN the U.S. Senate helping drive the country into war by being the most famous Democrat in America pushing it.

All of that said, however,, outside of this particular campaign scuffle, those who want the war to end should be cognizant of Obama's full record. While it is true that, as Obama said, he "clearly and unambiguously oppose[d] the war in Iraq," it is also true that he did not always clearly and uambiguously use his position or platform to help actually end the war in Iraq. And just as Clinton's strong support of the Iraq War is relevant, so to is Obama's behavior, as both records may indicate what these candidates would - and would not - do as president.

Cross-posted from Credo Action

Comments

[OSUMercutio]

You excluded the last line of his 2004 quote. If you read the rest of his statement it puts things in better context.

"I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

[freespeach]

On the money as usual David.

The two DLC approved candidates are very similar in the way they play ball with corporate America.
Any person who believes these two back the people over their corporate masters needs to wake up.

The real voices for change Kucinich, Richardson, Dodd, Edwards(?) have all been silenced or ignored or slandered. Kucinich is still the only one in the race who is right on the war.

If progressives think they got screwed and let down by Nancy Pelosi, they damn well better fasten their seat belts for Obama OR Hillary. It will be far worse when people see these two continue the quest to steal the $trillion dollar oil prize formerly known as Iraq on behalf of Exxon & pals.

[plutorage]

Obama is a smart man and he says Hilary voted for teh resolution authorizing invasion of Iraq without reading intelligence estimates.

so what was the basis for Hilary's decision. We have to admit to ourselves that Hilary did not care about the facts because she was only interested in the politics of the situation which would send thousands to their deaths.

That is what we must expect when she is President. We must expect that she will say she doesn't want the intelligence because she has a political position on war and that is that.

[MinuteMan]

> ... even suggesting that he might have voted for the war had he been in the U.S. Senate at the time.

My understanding is that he gave that quote while being interviewed at the Kerry convention. Obama could perhaps be given a pass on that one since it would have been impolitic to implicitly point out Kerry's mistaken vote.

However, I think that Obama and Clinton are very similar on most issues probably by design. Clinton hopes to carry the day with her association with Bill Clinton and Obama through his charisma and gauzey rhetoric. The only credible progressive in the race is Edwards.

[PulSamsara]

Barack Obama TOOK A STAND against the IRAQ INVASION when it MATTERED.

Hillary Clinton PLAYED politics when it MATTERED.

Everything else is just BUNK !

[schoolmaster]

Following 9/11, congress, and senae ae in a bind giving more credence to the president who came out swinging as though he is going to be the saviour. So in that context while republicans are pushing Bush's agenda, only a few democrats could stand against it, while majority did not. Hillary Clinton is amongst those who did not irrespective of personal convictions. Obama did not have to face such a challenge. Besides, he has a leaning towards middle east because of his upbringing in Indonasia. That seems to be the reason for the speech he gave. Once he became a senator, the scene has changed. He wanted to be a team player. The so called convictions went out of the door. Now as a presidential candidate, he aturally has to bring forward his positives and those which can give a striking blow to the opponent. The voters and even the press for that matter are mesmerised by Obama's oration, and to some extent are indoctrinated By Oprah's statement that 'He is the One'(the chosen one). Hillary Clinton did respond to Tim Russert well in 'Meet The Press' interview, and seemed to have tamed him by bring out all the facts and explaining her position eloquently.

[ajax2]

Excellent analysis. The gist of the argument is that Hillary's corporate backers won't let her move an inch on Iraq, so she's trying to move Obama's position.
The easy counter for Barack is that Hillary was and is unapologetic for the Bush murders in Iraq. Her corporate backers will not let her go there.

[leftLibertarian]

For a change, why don't the Democrats vote for their principles?

If a majority of the Democrats are truly against the Iraq war and want an immediate withdrawal of ALL US forces, why isn't Mr. Kucinich doing better?

[yappnmutt]

obama, like all professional politicians, will commit to anything the electorate wants during an election cycle and deliver what the party wants while in office. the leadership of both parties want war. ironically the republicans are a lot more honest about it. perpetual war is here perpetually.

[placidwilbur]

"Indeed, through much of 2005, Obama said little about Iraq, displaying a noticeable deference to Washington's bipartisan foreign policy elite, which had pushed the war."

Are you suggesting that the 2005 quotes on his campaign website are fabricated or wrongly dated, or merely that they constitute "little" about Iraq?

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/13/comparing_iraq_records.php

[DavidJames]

It really comes down to this single critical vote.

Senator Clinton voted for the Oct. 2002 resolution giving Bush authorization for waging preemptive war on Iraq based on lies and fraud. Senator Obama voted against it in the House.

Senator Clinton and every other Senator knew that the resolution authorized Bush to wage premptive war on Iraq, with no limits of any kind. 20 Senators voted against the resolution. All 100 of them knew what they were doing, but an election was coming up and 80 of them, well they were more worried about getting reelected than the life or death decision of going to war. This is all documented in Byrd's book "Losing America".

Think back. They knew the evidence for war was suspect and so did we. Here is a link to "The War Debate" published Oct. 9 2002(before the vote) in the LA Times, by Robert C. Byrd:

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1009-07.htm

Given Senator Clinton's well documented vote on this resolution, I do not see how anyone can consider her presidential material.

[Serfie]

David Sirota is the most honest columnist in America.

Just read his column about Mike Huckabee and class.

No liberal would go out on a limb to defend a conservative like that, and no conservative would do the same for a Democrat.

David Sirota is a class act, willing to cut through the bull in defense of America and Americans.

Those liberals who have a litmus test for the candidates because of votes on Iraq six years need to pull their heads out of their backsides. The past is the past and it won't come back.

[IanOC]

Barack Obama is the only major candidate who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. He is not as far left as David Sirota, but further left than Hillary Clinton. He is also being supported by Cornel West, who is a democratic socialist. As a progressive, I'm voting for Obama and hoping we get an Obama-Edwards ticket. The DLC's time has come and gone.

[Budh]

Hillary Rodham's dirty tricks campaign again Barak Obama shows she is still a "Goldwater Girl" and is using the same old republican talking points and dirty tricks she learned as a republican. Once a republican always a republican, a leopard does not change its spots. I wonder if Karl Rove is coaching her. If the democrats are crazy enough to nominate her they will have another Bush on their hands and a worse one at that.

[MagisterLudi]

Obama is an empty suit peddling Dysney-esque and and equally meaningless drivel of "hope" and "change."
If god forbid he becomes a president, the Republicans in the Congress will quickly teaching the meaning of the term "wuss."
At least Hillary been fighting the Republican machine for 35 years and she can give just as good as she gets.
Bottom line: Clinton in a crisis over the wuss Obama. You can bet on that.