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

[dotme]

Excellent response, General.

Dont let them get away with fluff stuff! It's time the record stand for itself.

Thank you!

[Jalenth]

Yes, Yes and Yes General Tony McPeak. Thank you for setting the good senator's record straight. Camp Hilary sent out her surrogates to discredit Senator Obama, and Camp Obama sent out their surrogates to correct the misrepresentation. He will not Yield! Fired Up Ready to Go! Obama08

[SallyLee]

I am very confused at this point about the credibility of all of the candidates for President both Democratic and Republcan. I think some impartial group (if there is such a thing) such as the League of Womin Voters (or an all-knowing Google-like computer server) should conduct an in-depth analysis of all the known facts about the various candidates and publish the information for all to see and understand with continuous updates. How could this be funded? Ideas?

[Oldtimer]

Clinton is gaming the system with planted
questions and big money contributions. I will
still vote for her before a Republican but I think Biden and Gore would be an unbeatable
ticket that would bring a million Republicans to the Democrat side. Clinton on the other hand will galvanize Repug opposition. Clinton could lose this election and that is shocking. How
ambitious does Hillary have to be before she understands that her candidacy will NOT win
over Republicans. Democrats have an enormous
opportunity to turn millions of Repugs into Dems but Clinton will blow it. we won't see
the giant shift in power and coattails on Capitol Hill. What a cryin shame.

[trailrunner9]

If O'Bama was so against the war, why didn't he take any kind of proactive anti-war stance since coming to the Senate? Why did he vote time and time again to continue funding the war? Real principle. He was against the war from the beginning - you mean prior to being in the senate when he suddenly wasn't so against anymore.

Wake up Dems. At this critical time in our nation's history, we're going to contemplate supporting a wet-behind-ears junior senator who is an all but definitely un-electable candidate????? I mean, I'm incredulous here. We're going to gamble on a largely unknown Democratic African American country that is still rife with prejudice or possibly a "liberal" (reputation wise) female candidate with tremendous negative baggage and who is largely despised by a significant portion of the electorate? And you say we want to win this election? I'm already resigned to the fact that we're most likely headed to an 8-year run of President Rudy. Real tragic that this is what people want to gamble on when our whole country is at stake.

I believe John Edwards to have the right positions and be electable, but the Dems are going to be led off the cliff once again by the media indoctrination of who their candidates will be. Iraq all over again.

[LaFilleEnRose]

Dick Cheney (and Hillary) have Washington experience. Barack, however, was the one right about only the biggest mistake we've made in a century. So he's got experience -- just not in Washington. A location doesn't give you what you need in times of peril. Barak clearly has judgment, integrity, foresight, analytical skills. And he's got something even more marvelous. When the winds -- hurricanes -- were blowing in one direction, that skinny lad held his ground. His future was at stake, too, but he wasn't willing to throw away American lives in order to appear tough when running for higher office. Having the ability to know what's right and then doing it no matter what -- surely that's what we're looking for in a president. We've had the other for nearly 8 years. Surely we're ready for something better.

[OhPlease2007]

Obama's Iraq Card: Like Rudy's 9/11 Card, it's the Only Card Obama Has To Play

Obama playing the Iraq card -- the only card he really has to play in this election -- spends more time on the campaign trail than fighting on the Senate floor trying to end the Iraq war and bring our troops home, like Obama 'claims' he wants to do.

Obama playing the 'Iraq card' without showing up to work more often to fight to end the Iraq war, is as they say, a weak hand.

For Mr. Obama, his 'Iraq card' bluff has worked ... up until now, but when Obama has clearly shown he can't, 'walk his talk', then it's time for Mr. Obama to fold before he loses badly in this election.

The voters whom are 'awake' are not stupid. And most of them are, 'babyboomers', a demographic that Obama cavalierly writes off.

John Edwards has my vote.

[Ifeomamn]

Right on the money General.

[bklynsam]

Thank you, General McPeak. The misinformation sliming its way through cyberspace and through Hillary's attack dogs is getting pretty thick.

I appreciate a person of your stature taking the time to cut through it.

[RAMHaiti]

This is one of the strongest line ups of Democratic candidates in recent history. Between Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, and Biden, I'ld say Edwards and Obama are the weakest on foreign policy.

[Spoons]

Yes but he's blowing smoke and mirrors on health care (very deceptively too, if you really dig), and that tells me all I need to know. I call him "Hopeful Hero Who Disappoints Payers of Attention"....(sigh). I was hopeful too. Now I'm disappointed.

[ButterflyWeed]

Thank you General McPeak, for taking a public stance at a critical time in American policy-making. One would hope yours is a qualified opinion.

[UncleDave]

Barack Obamo will NEVER be elected president of the United States. Hillary Clinton will NEVER be elected president of the United States. Put your brains before heart and work to elect someone who people will vote for .OR You will get one of those RePug clowns. It's just that simple.

[dantheman]

General, job well done! It's great to have some of our military leaders on thes ide of the truth.

[UncleDave]

So the good senator was against the war? Like millions of US years ago? Cool! ME for president! Please. what a non issue.