Obama Was Right on the War From the Start

Barack Obama put his political career on the line in 2002 to speak out against a "dumb war" and "a rash war" in Iraq. He warned of, "an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined costs, with undetermined consequences." Read this speech - he got it right.

In his rush to misrepresent Senator Obama's record, Congressman McGovern forgot to include the last sentence of the quote that Obama gave to Tim Russert in 2004: "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made." He then said, "What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the President a pass on this." And when Wolf Blitzer asked him a similar question at the time, he said, "I would've voted no."

Hillary Clinton made a different choice. For starters, she refused to even read the National Intelligence Estimate that was made available to Senators before the vote for war - an NIE that was so thin that Bob Graham, the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, decided to vote against the war when he read it.

In defending her vote for war on the floor of the United States Senate, Clinton invoked connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that did not exist, and took a card out of George Bush and Rudy Giuliani's playbook, invoking 9/11 as a reason to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11: "I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more in tune to the risk of not acting. I know that I am." She even refused to vote for an alternative resolution that would have required the President to try diplomacy before war.

Indeed, Senator Clinton continued to serve as one of President Bush's chief Democratic cheerleaders, issuing a statement on the eve of war saying the she, "fully supports the steps the president has taken to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction." On the President's failure to achieve meaningful international support, she said, "I don't think it's useful now to go back and Monday morning quarterback."

Instead of speaking out when the war polled well, she waited until she was preparing to run for President to discover that she opposed the war. Congressman McGovern says he'd rather focus on what's next. Fair enough. Even today, Senator Clinton still has not advocated any timeline for removing our troops, and envisions the most expansive mission for our troops in Iraq of all the Democratic candidates: countering Iran, force protection, training Iraqis, countering al Qaeda, and striking "other terrorist organizations in the region." She is also the only Democratic candidate to follow John Kyl and Joe Lieberman's leadership in voting for an amendment that could be used to justify using our troops in Iraq against Iran.

So Congressman McGovern makes a curious case in citing Senator Clinton as the candidate with the best "experience" to end the war in Iraq. Her "experience" in her seven years in elected office includes voting for war, vocal support for war, advocating an expansive military role for the United States in Iraq for years to come, and giving George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, opposed the war in Iraq in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. Just this morning, the Washington Post feature "The Facts" found, "Of the major Democratic candidates, Barack Obama has been the most consistent on Iraq." Obama introduced comprehensive legislation to bring our troops home in January. He voted earlier this year to stop giving George Bush a blank check (Senator Clinton waited until after he voted, before casting her own vote). And he has proposed removing all of our combat brigades in sixteen months, and opposes using our troops in Iraq to counter Iran.

If the American people are looking for who has the strength and experience to end the war, they should look very carefully at who had the strength and experience to get Iraq right from the beginning. Because the Clinton campaign may be able to plant Senator Clinton's questions, but they can't change her record, or Senator Obama's answers.

Comments

[BUSHsurvivor]

With all due respect, being a backseat "voter" on whether to invade Iraq or not is moot. Mr. Obama did not have the inside information or the inside-colleague banter that was needed for this decision. Who would've thought that with something so internationally major, that our President and his administration would LIE and distort facts? Remember, this is 2003, when we as a nation were still trying to recover from 9/11 and New York, Senator Clinton's state was still in disarray trying to get needed funding from the republican controlled government.

The war vote thing...not an issue for me. But the constant use of what someone would do, not knowing the information that was put in front of the Congress and Senate, as proof that one would make the same determination to instill that he knew it from the beginning is ridiculous.

[poopdeck]

If you are against "dumb" wars, do you favor "intelligent" wars? That particular statement shows what a doozy Obama was already then. Furthermore, Senator Obama has repeatedly voted funds for the war in Iraq. His public justification was "I must support the troops". Fair enough, but by supporting the troops in Iraq you supported what they were doing there namely waging war. This is a typical Obama obfuscation which he cannot use with me. Moreover, the 1990 US Supreme Court ruling in Hamilton vs. Clinton which nobody seems to know about clearly stated that voting funds for a specific war is equivalent to a Congressional declaration of war. Senator Obama has predicted fairly correctly what would happen in Iraq but as a Senator he contributed to the realization of his own prediction. The fundamental question that Obama has never been asked nor has he answered voluntarily is: why did he run for the Senate when he could anticipate that he would have to vote funds for the war in Iraq? I know the answer: the Senate was a stepping stone to the White House. It is ridiculous that this wannabe demands that other wannabes "speak the truth". They are all trying to hide their past missteps.

[GailD]

Are you kidding me? Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate to not only have spoken out against the war before it began, voted against every subsequent reauthorization of the war, and has consistently maintained that the way to end the war is to stop funding it. It's really easy for Obama to now say he was against the war, when he wasn't even in a position to vote for or against it. And if he was so against it, why did he vote to reauthorize and keep funding it as soon as he had the opportunity to vote against it?

[marcialosangeles]

Obama was 1000 miles away in Springfied Il when the Iraq vote was taken. I really don't think I or you know how he would have actually voted had he actually been in the US Senate--I do know, once he got in the US senate, his votes are almost identical to Hillary's--both of them did not vote at all on AG nominee Mukasey (despite many concerns about waterboarding) and Obama also did not vote at all on the Iranian Guards being declared a terriorist group--tho he was very vocal in criticizing Hillary's vote to do so.(he seemed to forget he spoke about this in April, 07,on the floor of the US Senate referring to them as terrorists! In short--Obama gets way too much credit for talking about his opposition to the war--it is easy to take any position when your not in the room.

[Abernatchie]

Dennis Kucinich was the lone voice - FROM the GETGO - "who put his political career on the line to speak out against the war", and he has voted accordingly & consistently (w/ integrity) - not to fund that war - ever since. Obama cannot claim same.
To the person who said, "Obama (has)demonstrated the ability to get things done."
Obama has great flair and charisma, but lacks substance, when push comes to shove. Think: Nuclear Weapons on the proverbial table. This is why I abandoned OBama to vote Kucinich all-the-way 2008!
Stopping corporate control of our healthcare system, before they completely take over Medicare, too! Don't believe it, then sit back and "wait for it. . ."
Bringing our heroic troops home toot-sweet! What's Obama's timeline again? Right, there isn't one, exactly, but it too is on his table.
Diplomacy 1st, because war has proven itself to be in vain and ineffective. We will be paying for this one for decades - think: wounded, when the wounded from one month of Desert Storm (disability benies) are costing a cool billion. . .
End NAFTA, WTO, Patriotic Act, wiretapping, etc. Restore the constitution - for real!
True Equality and liberty for all.
Kucinich is the answer. Forget the pundits and those who are easily swooned by good looks and charm - how High School of them. . .and vote your heart, vote the issues, and VOTE KUCINICH!
A kucinich 1st family will put YOUR family first.
How can those who want/demand (true/actual) change, when they themselves won't demonstrate it by voting their hearts, voting based on the issues, and instead voting on looks and for the "smoothest operator."
Think Govt. doesn't work, as Kucinich explains . . .it sure as heck is working for someone - corporate interests, fat cats, CEOs, et al. Want it to work for we-the-ppl? Kucinich will fight tooth n' nail for each and everyone of us. He's a scrapper who has been fighting the naysayers, since the day he was born.

[wrabbitt]

such timing! to release it after Hillary falters,god bless our way of electing the royalty. Obama has not been brought up to snuff with the act of promise making, promise breaking. we need a nice clean election with no mudslinging. his health care plan sounds great but, we already know insurance companys are the problem not the answer.He like all higher elected officials don't have Social Security so whats the difference if all the moneys gone.there retirement is paid for by us but, like health care we don't get it. whats his copay? does it go up 14% every year?

[visionar7]

I heard on the News that Obama wasn't even eligible to vote in the first vote against the war in Iraq...so he may have been against it; but he never voted! He has only been a senator for 3 years

[spectator27]

I think we need to make the point that we are not in Iraq because of Hilliary Clinton. Bush and Cheney were gouing to have this war come what may.

[RuthieM]

Thank you, General! Finally, not another Clinton 'plant' but the real deal on Barack Obama! Go OBAMA '08!!!

[Wanjiru]

..Excellent post, General Tony McPeak, and thank you, sir, for your service...


.

[LoriAnn]

Barack Obama is the man if we want substanitive change in this country and the rebuilding of the American Image abroad we need a fresh face, fresh ideas and an intelligent approach to all issues...IE: Obama

[ljsfolly]

Hillary has stood by her Iraq vote too many times and obama has been consistant in his speaking againest what has been given bush. She has long been known like Bill to have someone slse hold their finger up and tell her which way the wind is blowing before she says or does anything. It is not decisive but evasive and she will run the oval office the same way all politically motivated so she can get elected one more time.

[Robert59]

Glad you set Congressman McGovern straight.
Senator Clinton continues to be a hawk and I have no idea why she supported labeling a branch of Iran's military terrorists, especially in light of what we know about our president.

Too bad you're not leading the Air Force today. I wonder if you would have prevented the tanker scandal, insisted on jail for now BG Fiscus for his misconduct, made our modernization program affordable and still capable, and kept us sharp at our core competencies (ref the disgraceful performance by the folks at Minot).

It was an honor to have you as CSAF and I might be the only one who loved the uniform you introduced.

[jcc173]

That may well be, but isn't it sad that so few of our General Staff had the courage to speak out against this war from the start? Other then Gen. Shinseki, the rest of you were covering your own asses. That is the thing as a Veteran that I find most disturbing. Where have all the true Patriots gone?

[LizM]

And, on another point...

Let's set aside, for a moment, the question about whether or not Senator Obama is being disingenuous about what the vote on the Iraq Resolution 2002 was all about - I believe he knows EXACTLY what this vote was all about but to say so publically, now, would not be the 'politically expedient' course to take - that is not the most important issue now.

The most important issue now is whether or not he supports Senator Biden's Iraq exit strategy - the ONLY political solution that has been placed on the table. Does anyone know where he stands on this issue?