Senator Obama's Curious Comments on Meet the Press

I support Senator Clinton's White House bid because I believe she is the one candidate with the strength and experience to actually end the war in Iraq.

I thought Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time and have been fighting to get the Administration to stop its failed policy and bring our troops home.

In 2005, I was the first member of Congress to introduce legislation calling for an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

Senator Obama has been trying to use his early opposition to the 2002 authorization to use military force as a way to bring attention to his campaign. And that's fine -- that's politics.

I have great respect and admiration for Senator Obama. But he should be more careful, because his record doesn't always line up with his rhetoric.

That became clear when Sen. Obama appeared on Meet the Press last Sunday, Tim Russert reminded him of comments he made about Iraq during the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Talking about how he would have voted on the '02 authorization, Mr. Russert flashed a quote from then-State Senator Obama on the screen that said: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." In response, Senator Obama said it was probably the wrong time for him to speak out on the war.

I simply disagree. I don't believe there has ever been a wrong time to oppose this war.

Mr. Russert also reminded Senator Obama about this comment he made in July of 2004: "There's not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush's position at this stage."

Sen. Obama now likes to say that people shouldn't act like George Bush on national security. It's one thing to keep quiet about the war during a convention, it's quite another to say you support what George Bush is doing.

All the Democratic candidates for president say they are for ending the war in Iraq. That is a welcome development. But, as LBJ said, it's easy to get into a war, but hard as hell to get out of one.

I'm not interested in who was "first" to oppose this awful war. I'm more interested in what's next.

When it comes to ending the war, the question needs to be: Which candidate has the experience, maturity, skill and ability to safely get our troops out of Iraq and bring this sad chapter in our history to an end?

I believe Hillary Clinton not only wants to end the war, she can end the war. If I didn't believe that, there is no way I would be supporting her.

We could argue until we're blue in the face about the past, but our focus must be on how can better shape the future.

Comments

[Khc12]

07:22 PM on 11/21/2007

I find Rep. McGovern's comments about Senator Obama not to be totally truthful. When he quoted Obama's statement on Meet the Press in 2004, he neglected to include what the Senator said about it on the Meet the Press of November 11, 2007. Senatort Obama stated that when he said that he was not privy to the intelligence in 2003, he was making that statement during the 2004 Democratic Convention, which had just nominated Senators Kerry & Edwards for the President and Vice-President slots. Obama said that he didn't want to criticize the party nominees, who had voted for the war with Iraq resolution. If McGovern is going to quote Senator Obama, he should make sure that he quotes him in his entirety.

[Dajo]

09:57 PM on 11/19/2007

Rep. Jim McGovern is right. Hillary is the strongest candidate and I also support her.
I would support any of the Democratic Candidates over and of the Republicans but Hillary is the best of the lot that can beat all the Republican candidates.
Our first priority should be to defeat the Republicans and get our Nation back on the right path toward Democracy.

[SaintSatinStain]

10:25 PM on 11/18/2007

I confess that I am a Republican; yet I proclaim that I follow the beliefs of my paternal grandmother who revered Lincoln, voted for Ike. I supported Senator Goldwater in '64, but supported Senator Smith until Senator Goldwater won the nomination. I support Representative Ron Paul; although he may not get the nomination. If he doesn't I am forced by circumstances, history, and the infamy these last several years of my party to support and vote for Senator Clinton. She is not a libertarian, but she is closer to Constitutional principles than the leadership, and a majority of my party. My friends say that I am not a libertarian anymore, but that I am a Constitutionalist and pragmatist - a constitutional pragmatist. Senator Clinton may the last best hope to save our republic.

[talkstocoyotes]

08:18 AM on 11/16/2007

Judging from the advance buzz about upcoming debates, we're going to hear precious little about what either Obama or Edwards would do to end the war -- for that matter, precious little about **anything** pertaining to what either of them would do in the White House. All we'll hear is what they think is wrong with Senator Clinton as a candidate.

Fat lot of good that info will do any of us if either of them get into office. I'll retain my intention to vote for Senator Clinton until such time as Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee come up with something substantial.

[Kirby]

03:55 AM on 11/16/2007

You make your remarks from foregone decisions previously made, and for your own personal reasons. That's okay, of course, but you do not sound too objective about it all. Obama has something very pertinent to say for the American People. He does not stand for business to be done in the old way, i.e, everything running through AIPAC to get approval and support forced upon the Congress.

[Pandorasbox]

09:23 PM on 11/15/2007

What I hope, at the end of all this campaign trail wrangling, is the the nominating committee and whatever powers that be will choose someone who has been consistent throughout this exhuastive process and looks as though that person will remain consistent through the election and beyond. I also hope that whomever that is carefully choses a running mate, because I think once any two of them stop bickering with each other, they could actually be quite powerful as a matched set.

[Garvagh]

07:02 PM on 11/15/2007

The Bush administration has foolishly spurned Iranian offers of help with stabilizing Iraq to enable a relatively smooth departure of US forces. I agree Hillary Clinton has the experience to withdraw American forces sooner rather than later. The best intelligence available shows that Saddam Hussein ordered to destruction of his nerve gas, biological weapons, and the nuclear weapons program, in the fall of 1991. No resort to classied information is needed to establish that WMDs were a pretext for the invasion of Iraq, in the same way the Israeli smashing of Lebanon during the summer of 2006 was based on a spurious pretext of reacting to a provocation.

[Star2000dancer]

06:42 PM on 11/15/2007

SAY WHAT? Doesn't anyone remember Bill Clinton was always refered to as Mrs. Clinton because it appeared that his wife was running his choices, not him? Hillary has always been the strong one. ALWAYS!

[CLYDEFOROBAMA63]

05:56 PM on 11/15/2007

Sadly, in your article, you have made the same mistake Tim Russert did by not completeing the rest of the quote. Senator Obama finished the quote by saying this:"What I know is that from my
vantage point the case was not made" for authorizing the war. Unfortunately people in the media do this to the senator all the time because they are all in love with Hillary. Truth in journalism would really be refreshing. Or maybe just someone who will really do thier homework so they don't base thier opinions on false info.

[Charidan]

04:55 PM on 11/15/2007

I am very disappointed at Senator Diane Feinstein. Because of age, it is likely she will not seek reelection when her term comes up and that has essentially set her free to show her true sentiments. I am her constituent even way back when she was Supervisor of San Francisco, and became Mayor when Moscone was shot. She is a Democrat only by convenience because she had no chance of being elected to any kind of position in SF if she were a Republican. In ideology and in practice, she is for all intents and purposes a Republican. The Democratic Party at both State and National levels should censure her and put her in line. It is so disconcerting that the Democrats after a hard earned victory in 2006 to gain Congress will have to deal with the likes of Lieberman and Feinstein who do not appear to be Democrats at all. Even if the Democrats increase their majority in 2008, these Republicans in Democrat's clothing will still be there to sabotage the people's agenda. Something must be done about this.
Charidan

[ButterflyWeed]

04:24 PM on 11/15/2007

When it comes to ending the Iraq War, the question ought to be: Which candidate has the skills to diplomatically negotiate withdrawal and post-war order. I'm not finding any HRC resoluteness on this issue while her campaign is simultaneously being most funded by the defense industry.

[mick3]

02:37 PM on 11/15/2007

I don't know whether that was satire or not. Have to hope so.

[Spider53]

02:37 PM on 11/15/2007

Hillary Clinton cannot end this war and will not end it for the same reason she voted for the war in the first place--because as a female she did not wish to appear weak. She would rather be perceived as another Golda Meir: tough, resolute, courageous, stubborn, fearless or in other words JUST LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH.

[DKLA]

02:30 PM on 11/15/2007

IMPEACHMENT STARTS AT HOME! BUSH & CHENEY ARE CRIMINAL's,
call Nancy Pelosi [phone], she was not elected to void the most valuable portion of OUR Constitution.
A failed impeachment is better than none at all.
Call Nancy TODAY!! THE WORLD MUST KNOW WE AT LEAST TRIED!!

[mommamia526]

02:24 PM on 11/15/2007

All of you here with a Hill aversion, be certain to watch the debates in Vegas tonight on the tube. A full scale attack has been planned on the frontrunner, Hillary, so get the popcorn, cookies and beer out, and enjoy yourself. I will be watching too. I, however, like Hillary. I am a little older than she is, but not much. I know how difficult it is here in the U.S. for a woman, as opposed to elsewhere, for example in the Middle East. Oh, yes, I know, they wear jihabs there, however, in the Middle East and the far East there have been a few women in charge, and in the U.S. that is still difficult. And, on some occasions I might have wanted to wear a jihab, or whatever it is called. After all, it is the eyes, that are the portals to the soul, and my hairdo has nothing to do with the debate. CAN we get some rational discussions going here?