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

[Zennie]

Hey,

Maybe you're not aware, but Russert misquoted Obama. See:

http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2007/11/meet-press-tim-russert-misquotes.html

[Hubert]

"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."

There is no argument about the past:
1) Obama called the war "stupid" in 2002.
2) Hillary voted to authorize the war, and she recently voted to inflame relations with Iran.

There is also no argument about the future in Iraq:
1) Obama wants to get out earlier and leave fewer troop than Hillary.

McGovern can nitpick at Obama's statements until he is blue in the face- it will not confuse voters about who is the hawk and who is the dove.

[YankeeCanuck]

?? Hillary the only candidate with the strength and experience to end the war in Iraq? Highly doubtful.S­he has been ambiguous about her plans for Iraq and her attitude toward Iran. And her understanding of Pakistan, while she seems to agree Musharaf should take off the uniform, has not yet shown substance.
On issues of foriegn policy she has been heard to say "Joe (Biden) is right."
Biden has not only the strength and experience, but the plan. As chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, he's studied the region for years.Worl­d leaders trust Biden, and know where they stand with him.So can the American people.

Why not support the most qualified candidate?

[rwinstl]

You know, I would support Hillary if I actually trusted her to tell us what she really thinks or had any idea about what she really stands for. She is a hawk and a dove, a big spender that cares about fiscal responsibility, she was in charge of the 90's health care charge but it was Bill that made all the mistakes, on an on. WTF? How can someone that has strong progressive beliefs like you Rep. McGovern, support someone like that? She plays both sides to get elected...­is she a Goldwater girl or a liberal? I think a large number of her supporters have "faith" that she will do all these things, but no evidence. They have "faith" that it will really be a co-preside­ncy/dynast­y. She is so anti-democratic the party will have to change their name. Hidden documents, cover-ups, staged questions? Give me a break.

[centralmnusa]

Good reasons to support John Edwards.

[Jersey3455]

I think the author of this post glosses over or misses the most telling thing about Obama's appearance on Meet the Press. When he explained one of his quotes on the war away, he said he didn't speak out at the convention for political reasons, because it wouldn't have been politically advantageous or wise at the time.

Obama is running almost exclusively on the idea that he embodies a new way in Washington, and is the only one that can bring change. He repeatedly says that he will tell people "what they need to hear, not what they want to hear." But this quote proved exactly the opposite -- Obama didn't speak out because he was politically posturing, the same thing he now criticizes other candidates for and claims he will not do. He told people exactly what they wanted to hear and what he thought would help him politically, not what they needed to hear or what he (apparently) really believed.

Ignore the Clinton endorsement in this post -- it says much more about Obama then Clinton, and is significant for that alone. There are other candidates in the race to consider than Clinton, but this speaks very poorly to Obama's actions meeting his rhetoric.

[bleek]

Hillary ending the occupation of Iraq? Hah !

That would be like a hyena giving away a fresh wildebeast carcass.

Why do you believe this, because she says so while she's on the campaign trail?

Do us a favor and go back to review all the things that Bill promised on his first campaign trail that were quickly forgotten once he set off on his way to the White House.

Have you ever heard of AIPAC, Mr. McGovern. Go check their web site to reveal Hillary's true presidential aspirations.

[eggman]

Consensus of responders here is that Rep. McGovern has not made a persuasive case for Sen. Clinton ending the war. Certainly her rhetoric does not indicate that she will. As Obama might say, "I'm not privy" to communications the Senator may have had with Rep. McGovern. You have our ear, sir. Please explain why we should believe you and not Sen. Clinton's double-talking lips.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

At least you come right out and say you support Hillary Clinton. Maybe Huffington Post should endorse her too and just get it over with. But what does make a candidate trailing by 19 points inspire such an avalanche of criticism?

Obviously, you have a right to your opinion on Obama. The only issue I have is-- why the heck did you watch Tim Russert? He thinks he's St. Peter with the keys to Heaven's gates (or the White House rather, and its more infernal associations).

I saw Russert interviewed once by O'Reilly (not sure why I watched that either)-- or maybe the other way around. Anyway, the question came up if O'Reilly would run for president. Russert said, "If you want to be president, you'll have to come on my show."

That's Russert's arrogance. He was honorable during the Libby trial, but otherwise he's a General Electric hack made cynical by being in Washington too long, most of the time digging up irrelevant quotes from the distant past like it's all merely a game. Twelve rounds with Russert, and next week David Broder's boring Beltway analysis. C-SPAN anyone?

[otaa]

the clinton weekly campaign memo isn't selling no matter who the surrogate is. the product ain't good, the messenger's quality,no­netheless.

[NABNYC]

What an odd comment. Hillary has the "strength and experience" to end the war in Iraq? Based upon what?

First, Hillary does not want to end the war in Iraq. She has never once said she wants to end that war. To the contrary, she voted for the war, she has never once said that her vote was wrong, she has never once said that it was wrong for the U.S. to begin a war of aggression against another country, she has never once said it was wrong for the U.S. to start this war. Her only criticism has been that she didn't think Bush did a good enough job waging this illegal war. Presumably she would have killed more Iraqis, blown up more buildings, used more troops to accomplish the illegal attack, invasion, and occupation of Iraq. She has also said she will keep this war going for at least another six years. No girl scout medals for international war criminals Hillary. Try again.

She also wants to go to war against Iran. She just voted to get George to do that too. But if he doesn't, she surely will. She has also pledged to go to war against Hamas and Hezbollah.

As for her "experience," which would lead to an end to this war: come again?? She spent years in a big law firm representing real estate investors. She was the spouse of a politician. So are all the ex-Mrs.-Gu­ilianis. So what? She has absolutely zero experience with the military or with war or with foreign affairs except voting to start and fund illegal wars. I do not see any peace prizes in her future. Nor do I see any relevant experience.

Now that we're all stupid fifth graders again, will the other candidates come out and whine that Hillary's friends are saying bad things about them? Or is that a nauseating corner of this campaign that has been staked out exclusively for Hillary?

Hillary Clinton: wrong on Iraq, wrong for America.

[kj593]

Here's the link if anyone is interested in reading the full piece:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0407270351jul27,1,2375354.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

[kj593]

Mr. McGovern, did anyone happen to get you a copy of the Chicago Tribune article you (and Tim Russert were reading from)? No? Here's some more context for you:

"Obama, a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, opposed the Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation--a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.

The problem, Obama said, is the low regard for Bush in the international community.

"How do you stabilize a country that is made up of three different religious and in some cases ethnic groups, with minimal loss of life and minimum burden to the taxpayers?" Obama said. "I am skeptical that the Bush administration, given baggage from the past three years, not just on Iraq. . . . I don't see them having the credibility to be able to execute. I mean, you have to have a new administration to execute what the Bush administration acknowledges has to happen."

[rixhex56]

Clinton is committed to staying in Iraq past 2013
-- see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/iraq-2013

She is supported by the most hawkish Dems. She does not commit herself to any solid positions.

The vote to which people refer as being a vote for war, was in reality not. However, it was a mistake, and Edwards has at least admitted as much. Those who say "the Dems are just as much to blame for this war as the Republicans" are simply delusional. Republicans controlled all 3 houses at the time (W.H., Senate, H. of Reps.), so to say the Dems are equally responsible is just silliness.

One theme keeps coming up, though, and it's this: Edwards is the only candidate, among the media-annointed top 3, who is not mincing words and evading the issues -- he is speaking truth, and at least some are hearing it. Corporations are our greatest enemy -- they are the cancer that is destroying us from within.

[dukeman]

Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel wnt to get out of Iraq ASAP.

Other candidates want to leave unspecified numbers of troops behind.

That will place these troops in a situation where they will be in even more danger than with the troop levels we have now.

We should be all in or all out.