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

[GreatFutureForAll]

General MCPeak:

Thank you for your service to this country.

Senator Obama is right: There are moments in our nation's history where we must make the right decision. If we do not make the correct choice because of our own selfish flaws or weaknesses, then we only compound and greatly further the many problems that will effect this country for decades (foremost among them the ever increasing, 2 trillion dollar Iraq war bill that threatens to get larger by the minute; a bill that our children's children will likely pay).

Most parents are able to leave their children an inheritance that aids them when the reach adulthood and try to make their way in the world.

Thanks to the Iraq war, which, as you correctly point out, was loudly supported by Hillary Clinton and then defended by her all the way through 2006 (her stance changed a bit when she began running for president just as she changes positions on many other subjects), we will go down in history as the generation that left all of our children with an enormous loan to pay back.

Senator Barack Obama provides us with the needed change to steer us away from one of the architects of our current foreign policy and domestic budget disasters. His willingness to use diplomacy as quickly as others willingness to scream international threats displays his strength as a world leader.

In short, his timing could not be better. Even his earlier campaign "dust-up" with Pakistani leader Musharraf appears right on point (in retrospect).

Obama's mistakes are smarter than Clinton's choices. He can clearly move our nation to a much better place.

The only question remains are we smart enough to overcome our flawed voting patterns and albe to overcome our "weaknesses" to save ourselves and our children's future.

[janmB]

What OBAMA omits and and what many do not say is that it wasn't a VOTE to go to WAR with IRAQ at all --
It was a RESOLUTION against SADDAM --a threat if you like --formal statement of consesus and opinion that Bush might use to negotiate with Saddam.
Who knew at the time that the Saddam threats were based on false intelligence and that Bush would MISUSE the authority.

[Macready]

Dear General McPeak thank you so much for posting and taking McGovern to task about Obama and mz hillary . . .

the only thing mz hillary has ever shown is that she is a bush supporter . . . she has backed him repeatedly . . . she is a neo-con masquerading as a Democrat . . . how any self-respecting Democrat could even consider voting for her is a mystery . . . for all her so-called "experience" one would have supposed that she would have at least read the intelligence report . . . my Republican Senator did and he was the only GOP Senator to vote against the invasion of Iraq . . . he displayed tremendous moral courage . . . something I find completely lacking in mz hillary . . . her voting record and subsequent statements about her vote prove this.

[MRb1000]

I served under this General for most of most of my career and one thing I can say he speak his mind. Most people in the military can read the righting on the wall before most. However, we cannot say much while in uniform except solute smartly and carry out order as if they were our own. Read very closely what he is saying. He is give you the unvarnished truth. Most people cannot handle the truth. Open your eyes America!!!! Open your ears America!!!! 4000 dead could climb to 50,000 dead easily. Playing politic with military men and women lives. Give us a mission we can complete not a pipe dream. You cannot make any body like you. We can turn any country into a parking lot.

If you ask this man how she treated his troop while he served under the Clintons. I do not know it maybe an ear full, but from what I know she was less that kind!!!!

[gingershot]

Guliani - along with Hillary - are the neocon standard bearers of their party. They are not Bush-lite, -heavy, or whatever euphemism one might hear - what they are is simply the current crop of Republican and Democrat 'neocons'. These are the Neocon candidates - Republican and Democrat - of what might now be called the'Neocon War Party'. William Krystol don't mind, either one is fine, Hillary is Krystol's gal and Guilani is Neocon central and 'Potential Office of Extreme Judeofacist Special Plans' for executing Iran. Then Syria and Lebanon. And then Somalia and then Saudi Arabia and finally Egypt. Perpetual War for Israel

This is what we slaves - we slaves of AIPAC/AEI/and Israel and our current Neocon coup led-facist state, have become. That is who we are, these are our American values. If it's the last thing America ever did, to reduce Israels enemies to rubble, then it will have been worth it?

There is no longer an America - there is a slavish, blackmailed, cowardly group of trash - land of the slaves, home of the cowards. Those are our 'American values' - that is who we are. Our attack on Iran will be the END of America - we deserve everything we get - for the centuries it takes - to avenge the war crimes that have been committed in our names, with our tax dollars, with the perverts we have elected. fini America - we never faced down Krystol and Dershowitz and called them the Judeofacist semites they are until it was too late. How cute. How cowardly. How pathetic.
It might have destroyed our political or academic careers if we had. haha

Blow your mind with Edward's anti-neocon speech of 11 5 07 at U of Iowa http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071105-a-new-strategy-for-iran/

[LisainNYC]

Thank you, General, for clearly stating the facts and smacking down McGovern's attempted distortion of Obama's anti-war stance.

[Boadicea]

General McPeak, I neglected to thank you for posting here in my previous comment.

Thank you! Please do it often.

[LizM]

I have come to the conclusion that there is one issue upon which many people appear to be basing their decisions regarding which Democratic candidate to support.

Unfortunately, this issue seems to be very poorly understood, at best, and relates to the Iraq Resolution (October 2002) on the authorization for use of US military force in Iraq...everyone seems to be forgetting what comes next - after the title and within the body of the final draft of that resolution - and what the vote on that resolution was all about, not to mention the context within which that vote took place.

I would hazard a guess and say that most Americans believe that a vote for that Iraq resolution was the equivalent of voting for, or supporting, war with Iraq. Most people fail or refuse to understand that a vote in favor of that resolution (in conjunction with a vote against the Levin amendment, by the way) can be more accurately characterized as, NOT a rush to war, but a MARCH TO PEACE!

I cannot believe the amount of traction that Senator Obama has been able to get out of this issue and the degree to which he will stoop to spin that vote as a vote for war. Heck, he's been so successful with this spin that he has Senator Edwards believing that he voted FOR war, himself!

Senators Clinton, Edwards and Obama have, between the three of them, spun this issue so tight, I am sure that they don't even know what the truth of this particular matter is anymore.

Senator Biden, on the other hand, has been the only one who has been completely honest and straight up when explaining his vote in favour of the resolution and against the Levin amendment. He should be challenging them all on their misleading statements, mischaracterizations and outright lies about the 2002 Iraq Resolution and what that vote was really all about.

[Vik]

Thank you General McPeak. The point is not only about being right then, it is showing who has the judgment to lead when a crisis comes up in the future. Past judgment shows good future judgment.

All Obama supporters should bookmark this page and email it to all the weasels and spinners out there.

Congressman McGovern should be embarrassed by his misleading Clinton shilling. He embodies the reason why we need a change in politics.

[vote4kucinich]

I'm scrolling down the comments and haven't seen a mention of Dennis Kucinich. He actually was in Congress in 2002 and voted no on the war. Not only that, he tried to convince his fellow reps that the case was too weak and didn't make sense. Not only that, he sued in federal court to get an injunction to prevent the war. Not only that, he has voted no to funding this war every single time. Why are people tying themselves up in knots trying to find the real anti-war candidate? Dennis Kucinich is the real deal, on the war, on health care, and every other issue. He does his homework. He tells the truth. He doesn't play games. He is the only one with enough courage to br ing a bill of impeachment against the chief architect of this illegal war. So he comes up a little 'short' on height. Deal with it.

[cognate]

Ron Paul voted against the Iraq war. And against the Patriot Act.

He says it's time we brought our boys and girls home not only from Iraq and Afghanistan but also from Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Germany.

He says they won't follow us here. He says the neocons are trying their best to get us to attack Iran on false premises.

I believe him.

[RileysMom]

This is for lack of a better word HOGWASH....

Obama is so much hype, I mean hope

He has voted right alongside Sn Clinton since he was invited from the kids table in Springfield IL to the big kids table in Washington - this is trumped up indignation.

and PLEASE get off the moral highhorse already Reverend Obama - I don't want a preacher I want a leader. you can HONESTLY say, NONE, and I mean NONE of your questions were 'suggested' - its a common practice from one side to the other.

get real. the honest fact is the only way the Reverend Obama and John Edwards or the rest of them for that matter can even hope to compete with Hillary is to take PETTY and I mean PETTY swipes at her. NONE and especially not Obama can stand on their own two feet on their own platform and positions and prove to the majority of Democrats that they are best suited for the job. and thats gotta sting......

[Boadicea]

It boggles my mind that some people don't see the importance of evaluating a potential leader on his/her past judgments and actions. The rhetoric of Biden, Dodd, Clinton and Edwards regarding the war has half of Democrats completely snowed. And we're supposed to be the smart ones!

Obama, Kucinich, Gravel and Richardson are the only potential candidates who had the good judgment to predict the fiasco we've created in Iraq. The rest are just following the polls and giving up on the ill-advised adventure they championed for years. Yes, years.

WE have in Obama an incredible candidate, right for the times, proven to get things done. Let's nominate the best we've got.

[lafrance]

I am an Obama supporter and yes, he is right.
Thanks for posting this as it is important to have other voices out there for him.
Gobama!

[ScooterLiddy]

Well said General. Glad to see you on HuffPo. I retired from the Air Force last year after 24 years. I remember well your visionary leadership to realign the Air Force following the end of the Cold War. Keep speaking truth.