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

[Tellmethetruth]

Notice Obama made this comment in 2004 - two years after the Fall of 2002 when the Democrats were asked to vote and one year after the war began and it was evident there were no WMD- seems fairly convenient to say he was against the war.

Howard Dean was the real Democrat who was against the war and took the heat for doing so at the time. The Republicans went after him. Not like now when the Republican controlled media is championing Obama because they know he is a guaranteed failure and the one Democrat nominee who they can beat in the general election.

To vote for Obama is to put a Republican president back into office for 4 more years. He has zero chance of winning a national election.

[vbond]

Excellent post.

By the way, some continue to hold that Obama took no risk to oppose the war so strenuously ("dumb war") in 2002 because he had a "safe" seat.

The relative safety of his seat completely aside... does anyone remember the prevailing atmosphere in this country at that time?

The taste of 911 was still in our mouths... people were still buying gas masks and hyperventilating when a letter from an unknown sender landed in their mailboxes.

Many far more powerful politicians in "safe" seats were intimidated by the times and the infowar bum's rush from the Bush Administration and supported a war that they did not adequately research with the tools at their disposal (including the National Intelligence Estimate).

Listing their names would only make the point that Barack Obama's was not among them.

[Superfelo]

I SAY DOES ANYONE NEEDS TO SAY MORE THAN THIS?:

" (Senator Clinton waited until after he-OBAMA- voted, before casting her own vote)."

ENOUGH SAID.

[SensibleAmerican]

This hardly sounds like a "smack down" but an apology for Obama's pronouncements contradicting his voting record in the Senate. It is easy to stand outside and say something but he fell in line fast once he got into the Senate! Even at one of the debates, he could not guarantee that all our troops will be out by 2013!

The fluff continues ...

[otaa]

it's important that the Obama campaign responds quickly to these Mark Penn Memos.

thank you, general.

[Obama2008]

Thank you General McPeak for setting the record straight.

[jeffmorgan]

Nice contribution.

[williamg]

Hillary's supporters are now writing their very own rebuttal. It begins with -

"But bush...."

[dinger]

Thank you! A very thoughtful and powerful rebuttal to Congressman McGovern's ridiculous piece. Can't run from the facts.

[SeanGardner]

Wow!!! Thank you for delivering the smackdown!!!

I am so tired of the talking points designed to misrepresent Senator Obama's position and tarnish his reputation. Many bloggers (some for Clinton and some who aren't) have simply tried to overlook Obama's record on this very important and crucial issue.

I am happy that the young Padawan McGovern got the cyber smackdown from Jedi Master Gen. Tony McSpeak!! You rock sir.

We need to see your perspectives more on this site, as Obama has been tarred and feathered for being a Purple Politician - one seeking to sidestep the ideological excesses of both parties, and bring common ground to the emotionally draining culture wars.

After reading gross misrepresentations in the last week from HUFFPO bloggers about both Barack and Michelle Obama, your post is a welcomed sight.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because of his notable and well-regarded pragmatism, sensibility, diplomacy, and the courage to stand up against the war when it was nationally unpopular.

And, because he come into this race with the depth of LIFE EXPERIENCES and scope of INTERNATIONAL VISION that our world needs. At the end of a Barack Obama presidency, not only would we be able to say "God Bless America", but, also, "God Bless THE WORLD". Imagine that.

You're right General: "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." That man is Barack Obama: the candidate with BLUE STATE credentials and undeniable RED STATE credibility.

OBAMA baby!!!

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

Senator Obama is not only right when it comes to what he has said about the Iraq war, he is the right person to lead America forward from here.

Not to sound like a politician (at least I didn't add "make no mistake" or "slippery slope").

But what I mean is: the most important thing for America, after Bush's distastrous presidency, is to have someone in office we can all admire. We have a mess in Iraq to clean up, and we can't afford to have a president like Hillary Clinton who will spend most of her time warding off Republican attacks.

True, Obama will also have to spend some time dealing with conservatives who just want to make him look bad, but his message of unity, of a "purple" America where we bring together the red and blue states behind a smart, charismatic, fresh young leader-- this will ultimately help us through the many crises left unsolved after sixteen years of ever-increasing partisan bitterness.

[jmpurser]

I have been genuinely interested in Obama and was seriously considering voting for him until last Friday. That day Senators Obama, Dodd, Clinton, and Biden were all absent when the Senate voted to confirm our second (publicly) pro-torture AG.

On that day when so many Americans wanted a chance to speak up on this issue these 4 congressmen, all of whom had not only the opportunity but the DUTY to speak up failed to do so.

And all 4 think they would be just the person to lead the nation though they can't even perform the duties of their current office.

Obama is out of the race in my opinion, as are the other three.

[Desiderata]

Political courage? Puhlease. Obama was a state senator running for the United States Senate against a Republic who had to be imported to Illinois. Obama's election was virtually guaranteed.

It is his record since going to Washington DC that matters. No courage here. He skipped voting on Kyl/Lieberman and the vote on Bush's new attorney general.

Apparently when he couldn't vote, Obama was against the Iraq War, but when he could cast a vote against opening the door for Cheney to attack Iran, he had more important things to do.

Along with Clinton, Obama has adopted the Bush stragedy of having supporters claim he is what he really isn't.

And the beat goes on for the candidates who thinks we voters are easy to scam because we're so damn stupid.

[Stacygs]

It is very difficult for senators and representatives to run away from their extensive voting records, which are often used against them. Perhaps this explains why, if I am not mistaken, the last time we elected a sitting congressmember who was not first a vice-president was Kennedy's election in 1960.
Could make one take a closer look at Bill Richardson.

[mouselion]

This is why Bush has proclaimed that Hillary Clinton to be the next president of the United States.