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

[Booky]

If Senator Hillary Clinton hadn't voted (along with her other congress cowards) for the Iraq War Resolution in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess. I want to know how she plans to stop the war she voted for?

[SensibleCentrist]

Sure Hillary has experience. Sure, she has been tested. She was put in charge of health care reform and totally bombed, and most observers on the inside would tell you it was totally her fault, as her ego got in the way of progress. So the bottom line is she has very little on her resume that qualifies her for the job.
And lets remember why we want experience...it is supposed to lead to good judgment. Experience alone is worthless...look at Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Obama's experience is longer in public office than Hillary's, and he clearly offers good judgment. I'd take his judgment in the Oval Office over any of the other candidates in the race. He isn't perfect, but none of them are. And his experience bridging race, politics, multicultural gaps, ideologies, brings so much to the job. We really should consider his experience superior to any others in the race.

[Opus007]

Sorry- I don't like Hillary. She's out front because of name recognition. I don't think the country needs the drama of another Clinton White House.

[NoDrama]

Fortunately, although I don't know the context of the quote, here are differences between Senator Obama's position on Iraq and George Bush's at this stage. I do know that Mr. Russert left out the context of the one you opened with. The following sentence, as you probably know, creates a very different sense to the Senator's statement.

But I don't blame you, Mr. McGovern: One you've hitched your cart to the horse of your choosing columns such as this are just politics.

[TheSecularist]

To your credit, Rep. McGovern, you voted against the Iraq war and for that I thank you. However, that you would support a candidate who did vote for the war and claims not to have known as much as the 23 Senators and the 133 Representatives who voted no, is baffling. Especially since Senator Clinton has often voted with Dictator George. You shouldn't hitch your wagon to hers as there are a lot of people (and not just neocon nuts) who will not vote for her. She will do and say anything to get elected. Obama, on the other hands, seems to be guided by personal principles (When's the last time you saw that in a Democrat?). I'm for Obama and there is nothing that's going to persuade this progressive voter to vote for Clinton. Even if she won the nomination and chose Obama as her running mate, I would not vote for Clinton. She's the same old style of Democratic politician I've seen over the past four decades. It's time for real leadership from a real leader and Clinton is not that person.

[nomobull]

there is an old saying aboutthe past being important because if you don't acknowledge the past. you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. so although i am still unsure as to who to vote for, my choice will not be based on sex,race, religion ,the media or polls.but on the issues integrity and how well they have represented me in the past which is an indicator of the future no matter what you say.two things i am tired of hearing though are; vote for hrc because she is the only one to beat the repub. because they fear her.please!and vote against obama because he skips vote .this one does not hold water because he is not the only one that has done this and not the only one for president who has done this.

[skyblu]

As for me, I am writing in my candidate; Chancey Gardner!

[shelbinator]

While their country was in chaos, who did Benazir Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf call? George Bush? No. Hillary Clinton? No. They called Joe Biden.

You can say you think HRC is the "best" candidate to end the war in Iraq, Rep. McGovern, but to say she is the "one" candidate to do it really makes one question your grasp on reality. I'd love to see her Iraq Plan. If she wants to agree with Joe Biden, as she always does in the debates, she can crib his notes at planforiraq.com.

And then, Jim, you go on to crop Obama's statements. Way to emulate Fox News! Outstanding Democratic behavior. Here's how Media Matters points out your mudslinging:
"Obama made his comment in an interview reported by The New York Times in a July 27, 2004, article: "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.'' The Times also reported that Obama "declined to criticize Senators [John] Kerry [D-MA] and [John] Edwards [D-NC] 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""

Enjoy the Borg.

[ibsteve2u]

Selective Monday morning quarterbacking in order to promote your candidate is sleazy.

[Kane]

During his November 11 Meet the Press interview with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (IL) on NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asserted that "critics will say you've not been a leader against the war," and then read a quote he attributed to Obama: "In July of 2004, Barack Obama: 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know,' in terms of how you would have voted on the war." After quoting two other Obama statements on the war, Russert concluded: "It doesn't seem that you were firmly wedded against the war and that you left some wiggle room that, if you were in the Senate, you may have voted for it." However, in citing Obama's comment "What would I have done? I don't know," Russert did not quote the very next sentence of Obama's statement, which was, "What I know is that from my vantage point the case [for authorizing the war] was not made."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004?f=s_search

[philohoratio]

The first assumption that Tim Russert has any cogent point to make under any circumstance is fallacious. The second assumption that Obama's verbal record on being absolutely opposed to an Iraqi occupation is somehow suspect while maintaining that Clinton's is not, is simple foolishness. Both are politicians, true? Both will say what they think needs to be said at any given time to influence as many people as they think possible while distancing as few people as they think probable. As you say, that is politics.

The difference, for my piece of mind, is that I think Mr. Obama will say and do those political things only so far in that they are true to his character, be that as it may. Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, will say or do anything to get elected and that is what defines her character.

You are free to support whomever you like, but your rhetoric is faulty.

[Nutcase]

"I believe she is the one candidate with the strength and experience to actually end the war in Iraq."

Perhaps you should find out what her position actually is before embarrassing yourself by making such a statement.

Hillary wants to gets mostly out by the end of her first term, at least according to her.

[DANIELLECLARKE]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html007-06-13.html

Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks By Roxana Tiron and Ilan Wurman June 13, 2007 Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill than any other Democrat except for panel Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

The bill contains about $5.4 billion in earmarks, or projects not requested by the Pentagon. With their slim majority, the Democrats on the panel claimed two-thirds of that sum. Clinton is among their more junior members.

By contrast, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), also a Democratic presidential candidate and Clinton’s rival for the nomination, has only one request in the defense bill.

Obama, who is not a member of the committee, made a request along with several other members for a Department of Education program for children with severe disabilities.

[DANIELLECLARKE]

*ON SECURING NUCLEAR THREATS *



"I've been pleased by Senator Obama's effective leadership with Senator

Lugar on strengthening and broadening the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat

Reduction concept. I'm also pleased with his commitment and dedication

to getting nuclear materials secured and safeguarded globally." [Sam
Nunn, Former United States Senator (D-GA, 1972-19970]



"Barack Obama is once again showing why he is the right man for the
times. He recognizes that we need a 21st century national security
policy for a 21st century world - most importantly by insisting that
America now lead the effort to deal with the gravest threat we face:
the
possibility that a nuclear weapon might fall into dangerous hands.

[DANIELLECLARKE]

Clinton lack any plan to end the Iraq War (2.00 / 1)



Clinton has never called for a prompt and complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. When questioned on whether she will commit to specific date for the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, as noted by Helen Thomas, Clinton reverts to "her usual cautious equivocation." She leaves open the possibility our troops will remain until 2013. David Broder accurately commented that Clinton plays "dodgeball" on the question of leaving Iraq:



During the debate, she rarely came out of a defensive crouch, as if determined to protect her favored position. Answering the first question, she said her goal would be to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by 2013, but "it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting" from the Bush administration, so she cannot make any pledge -- as Richardson and others feel free to do. Troops might be needed for counterterrorism work for many years.
What circumstances must exist in Iraq in 2009 to permit a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq? Clinton is silent on this critical point.


What is Clinton's actual plan for leaving Iraq? In the time honored tradition of politicians that recognize an issue must be addressed but lack any understanding to how to do so, Clinton calls for a study. As explained on her campaign website: