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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You're looking at this like an activist. Obama was looking at it like a philosopher. There's a huge difference, and it's something that no blog poster on HuffPo has figured out yet, unfortunately. "There's never been a wrong time", from an activist's standpoint, that's true. However, if you listened and read the entire comment, what it sounds like is Obama taking a philosophical approach to the issue rather than what you probably consider to be a "carefully crafted scheme" to endear himself to other Democrats in the Senate that DID vote for the war.
What he was postulating was that he simply didn't know if, presented with information that he hadn't been presented with (to our knowledge) at that time, would he have voted to authorize it? Would you? If you could put your opinions out of the picture, go back in time, and if you were told by Colin Powell (whom at the time still carried a great deal of credibility with a whole lot of people) that Iraq had nuclear weaponry and was planning to sell it to people who wanted to use it on other countries.
The fact is, this is all the more reason to put the Bush administration behind bars. This was fraud, pure and simple. To flat out lie about intelligence in order to start a war, in which you were about to make a fortune on it, is a criminal act. It's like insider trading combined with high treason. What we would have done, facing that same fraudulent information, one could wonder. Sure, there were alarm bells...in hindsight, those bells are much louder now than they were back then. The media twisted the facts, making the weapons inspectors appear to be incompetent, and refusing to report on serious reports that contradicted Bush's war "evidence". There are a whole LOT of folks that should pay for all that.
Rep. McGovern's post, briefly:
A comment made three years ago about Iraq is more significant than a vote by an influential Senator to authorize the war in Iraq, in terms of who gets his support for the presidency.
The Gentleman from Massachusetts certainly knows upon which side his bread is buttered.
It's perfectly reasonable to criticize Senator Obama for his comment. But Rep. McGovern's confidence that Senator Clinton will end the war -- when only a year ago she did "not think it is a smart policy ... to set a date certain [for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq]." (June 15, 2006) -- is foolish and misplaced and smacks of calculation. No, congressman, *that's* politics.
When the Iran vote was taken, it was rushed, and Obama had just taken a plane to campaign elsewhere. He DID have time to take a plane back and vote on this (as he puts it) important issue.
He chose not to.
It's so much easier not to have a vote on the record, isn't it, while haranguing other candidates who did vote as to what he WOULD have voted. Sure. It's an old trick. He gets away with it.
Rep. McGovern you should
look at what is on the record before you speak
up.HRC says she will definitely NOT stop the war.
She promises to keep combat troops in Iraq
to fight Al Qeada. There will never be a time
when Al Qeada will not be in Iraq now that
Saddam Hussein is gone., making this another
endless war promise. She'll say the war's over
but that won't bring the combat troops home.
What Obama said to Russert is that the
question was asked at the Democratic
Presidential Convention. And it would have
made the ticket look awful had he embarrassed
them at that time. Obama, unlike Clinton, has
never wavered in his opposition to the war.
Curious? I don't see curious!
WOW! It's very clear
Even as horrendous these last 7 years have been.
We have watched the dissolution of the constitution and our country. It's obvious.
NO ONE WANTS HILLARY.
I could not bring myself to vote for her. can't do it...Obama
Heck Draft Al
Just say no to Clinton
"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."
Yes, and that's why we should support your colleague Dennis Kucinich for President.
Dennis has stood diametrically opposed to the president's neocon and plutocratic agenda from the beginning, and he is the only candidate who proposes solutions equally diametrically opposed.
He's the best candidate to bring peace, fight the cartels, accomplish universal health care, and end the war.
His principles are clear, he stands by them consistently, and his integrity is unquestionable.
He's exactly what we need after eight years of Bush.
The article revolves around how Obama "could" have voted on the Iraq War Resolution had he been in the Senate at the time. At the time he made a speech in which he clearly stated he was against it. You reference a statement he made in which you felt he left the door open. Here is what DO know - Hillary Clinton voted FOR the resolution. Hillary Clinton supported Kyl/Lieberman. Hillary Clinton was supporting the Iraq was up until a year ago. She says she is for keeping troops in Iraq to train the Iraqi security forces, protect our embassies, fight Al Queda and THWART THE INTERFERANCE OF IRAN WITH IRAQ. Iran will always interfere in Iraq! Why wouldn't they? It is in their interest to do such. Under Hillary Clinton our troops will be fighting that battle. Bill Kristol seems to be a big fan of Hillary's these days and I find that troubling. Of all the Democratic candidates I find her to be the least likely to end the war.
Jim. I applaud you for having opened a box of contradictory positions by Senator Obama. If you write on this issue again you might delve into the 1990 US Supreme Court ruling in Campbell vs. Clinton which, in essence, states that Congressional funding for a specific war is the equivalent of a Congressional declaration of war. Senator Obama has several times voted for funding of the war in Iraq. He has therefore voted for continuation of the war at the discretion of the commander-in-chief. You might also delve into several past imperialistic statements by Senator Obama on Iran.
Normally one would accept the current positions of the wannabes as indication of what they plan to do and forget about past positions. However, Senator Obama claims that he "has always been right". Well, that is not so and should therefore be fully exposed.
Thanks for your service. But you are using the same punch lines about Hillary's "experience" that are getting old. She has served in public office shorter than anyone else on either side. She triangulates and doesn't give straight answers. She voted for the war and then said she was voting for diplomacy instead of taking responsibility. She is taking money from lobbyists, is running a highly scripted campaign, doesn't give straight answers to questions in the debates (and then blames it on the "boys" or Tim Russert), and she plants people to ask softball questions that go well with her generic questions. It is no surprise that establishment politicians like her style; they are afraid of a president who is determined to change things, so Hillary works out perfectly for them.
Obama is the agent of competence and change, and he should be our party's candidate.
Jim;
No matter how you try to put left hand english on the ball we (people) know who voted for the war, we know who signed off on the Iran measure which helped George Bush in his efforts to go to war with Iran. We also know who did not vote, as you pointed out it was Obama.
Jim we can't effort anymore of the dynasty families, we need smarts and not spin, we need to Obama.....
If Hillary Clinton had the strength and experience that you speak of, she wouldn't have started the war in Iraq.
Any president can end the war with a stroke of a pen.
Doing it well requires a new approach..
Obama is willing to speak to all involved while Hillary makes negotiations more difficult in her hesitancy and support for Kyl-Lieberman.
Anybody who voted for the war was wrong and none who did so deserve to be president. Hillary's full throated support, belief in an Al Quaida connection, failure to read beyond the intelligence summary, and promise to keep 60,000 troops in Iraq make her in particular the worst choice to lead a real effort out.
Your use of a corporate media attack dog's quotes to frame your argument show how out of touch you are with a majority on HuffPo.
And if frogs had longer legs, you must have voted for the war right along with Mrs. Clinton. She was wrong and she is still wrong, why she would vote in favor of the Iran measure is still confusing to me but it damn well is wrong. No spin, she made voted yes and she should have voted NO.
Once again Obama did not vote in favor of it, he did not give Bush one inch in regards to war with Iran. So no matter how much you SPIN you can't make it right and we know it........
Your a great waeeior in the house sir.I watch C-Span on a regular basis and you are one who is a voice of sanity in the bedlam we call the "people's house"Please continue to be as direct and intelligetn as you have been in the past.We need more like you .I am glad to have an opportunity to adress you here.Stay sane we need you more now than ever.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
