The Real Fairytale In This Campaign

Hillary Clinton was wrong on Iraq when she voted to give George Bush the authority to use force in 2003. So with war having turned out to be the biggest foreign policy disaster since World War II, one would think that the smartest thing she can do is to try to talk about anything but the war. But instead, she and Bill Clinton have decided to embark on an astounding mission to revise history and question Senator Obama's consistent opposition to the war.

A few weeks before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and as Senator Clinton was about to give her support for the use of force against Saddam, Barack Obama gave a major speech in which he said that while he did not oppose all wars, he opposed the Iraq was because it was a "dumb war." When he made the speech, he was running for the U.S. Senate and had everything to lose. But instead of poll-driven calculation, he demonstrated courage and sound judgment. Ever since, Obama has been consistent on his opposition to the war.

In a recent tirade, Bill Clinton questioned Obama's claim that he opposed the war from the beginning. First, he said that while Obama gave his 2003 speech, he later said during the convention that he didn't know how he would have voted for the war if he was in the Senate. But that is not the whole truth. It is true that Obama told Tim Russert during the interview on Iraq that "what would I have done? I don't know." But he did follow by saying that in his view, "the case for war has not been made." What President Clinton willfully ignores is that when Obama made his statement, he was about to speak at the convention where both Senators Kerry and Edwards had also voted for the war. Does Bill Clinton think the convention was an appropriate venue for Senator Obama to have made a strong case against the war? Obviously not. Now if former President Clinton thinks he can take advantage of Obama's statement and turn in against him in order to support his wife's bid for the White House, that is fine, but he should expect to be called out on it.

Another point that President Clinton raised to question Senator Obama's consistency on the war was the fact he had voted to support the funding for the war. But the fact is that these are two different issues. Obama opposed the war from the beginning because he thought that the case had not been made. But by the time he got to the Senate, the country was already at war. With American soldiers on the ground and in need of body armors and other equipment to keep safe, he did not think that cutting funding was the right thing to do. The suggestion that if one opposes the war, one has to oppose funding for our troops is flawed because it implies that if our political leaders in the White House and Congress take us into a war based on fictitious reasons, the troops have to pay the price for it. That's not right.

Bill Clinton's aggressive support for his wife can be due to a number of reasons, such as the idea that he sees this nomination as a referendum on his own presidency or the possibility that he thinks by supporting his wife so strongly, he can prove his loyalty and repair the damage to his character following the Lewinsky affair in the eyes of the public. But engaging in revisionism and distortion of other candidates' positions and turning the arguments fellow democrats have made to support past party nominees against them are frankly below a former president. The biggest fairytale in this campaign is the idea that the Clintons who were for the war before they were against it are in the position to criticize Senator Obama who consistently opposed the war from the beginning.

Comments

[LizM]

Sam,

You continue to look at the Iraq Resolution (October 2002) in terms that are far too simplistic for any real understanding of what that resolution was all about.

Senator Obama has, in fact, been the most disingenous about the resolution, what it was all about, and he has very deliberately and wholly inaccurately claimed that a vote in favor of it is equivalent to a vote for war. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, Senator Obama knows that...or, he is not competent to be the next POTUS.

[hulka37]

Great OpEd, Sam.

[LeeFromVA]

Sam, You are exactly right.

I think the Clintons stole this tactic from Kar Rove--Take someone's strength and turn it around as a weakness. It's the same thing that was done to Kerry, turned his military service into a liability.

Hopefully this backfires. Drawing attention to their stances on the Iraq war Should work in Obama's favor.

[DasBoot]

Bill Clinton's attack on Obama for what everybody knows was an act of loyalty to John Kerry is the real low point, so far!, of this campaign.

However, it might come back to haunt the Clintons, since it gives Obama a chance to repeat his strongest argument against Hillary (his early opposition against the war) and forces Hillary to, again, defend the indefensible, her pro-war vote in 2002.

Also, somebody told me that the reason Obama did not show up for the Kyl-Lieberman vote was so that Hillary could not wait him out again and was forced to vote her true conviction, which promptly came back to bite her in the butt. If true, it was a brilliant move.

[chery]

The Clinton's are using the same dirty tricks they learned at the hands of the far right. Unfortunately, they can no longer tell the difference between friend or foe. The Democratic Party has to be unified when we reach the national election. At this rate, Bill/Hill will have destroyed what is left of our party in favor of trying to desperately eek out the last few votes for Hillary. That level of self serving behavior is what got us as a nation in the trouble we're in today! It's time to turn a new page, and focus on what we want for this nation, instead of what the last dynasty wants for their legacy! The days of King George and Emperor Bill are over! It's a revolution!!!

[Rescisco]

Yes, isn't politics nasty. The "fairytale" is that any of these people are playing fair and speaking truthfully. Its about winning, and that has nothing to do with reality. Every campaign is won by the candidate who is the most successful at manipulating symbols and distorting reality. Political campaigns are, and always have been, vehicles of distortion and manipulation of the masses. The good ones are those that so totally distract us from reality that we will not tolerate any truth but the one they fabricate.

[krissymax]

Yes let's look closer at Obama's ties to Rezko and his land deal in Chicago. I kept asking myself is Obama for real when he talks the anti corruption talk and tells us the he is going to change Washington. Then I read the details on the Rezko's connection to Obama. What a huge disappointment! Now I understand that his clean record is NOT clean and I can't understand why the press and the bloggers here continue to give him a free pass. He will be the Republican dream opponent.

[knosiswar]

Thanks Sam, for making the point that when Bill Clinton made the Fairy Tale Comment, it was about the Fairy Tail he was trying to fabricate by taking a partial quote from Barack out of context and fabricating a War Apologist policy like His and Hillary's. You should point out how Hillary dodged it by rewriting the context for MTP.

Your next story should be about Tim Russert taking it to Hillary for the lie that Bill keeps repeating that nobody from the MSM asked Barack the hard questions Bill says nobody asking, and that MSM is picking on Hill-bear and giving Barack a free pass. There's no 'CRYING' In Presidential Elections, oh yea, that's Baseball.

[Lon]

A good clear account of Obama's record, and why it is embarassing that the Clinton's are trying to distort it. There were difficult decisions to be made with regard to Iraq. Hilary consistently made the wrong one. Obama generally made the right ones, and his most debatable calls are precisely where things were most difficult.

There really is no comparison between them on this point. (I do wish that Obama had made it back to vote against Kyl-Lieberman though. But even here Hilary was more wrong).

[LeftRight]

Sam,

While you may be right that it wouldn't be right for the Senate and House to vote against funding, I personally find it a wrong point of view. First, the DoD has wasted more money than in history precisely BECAUSE they have continued to come out for more money. Further, in every other war we've had (possibly excepting Gulf I, I don't know) we've had the budget for the war included in our annual military budget, so there's no reason to allow goergie to continue asking for more above and beyond. And finally, were the Senate and House to actually stand up to the man, after a while, he would have no choice but to end the war.

Having said all that, I still agree with you that Barack Obama is one of our better choices, and I also think that Bill is stooping very, very low to attempt to cast Obama in this light.