Obama on Iraq - admits he lied (or is he lying about that?)

[Skip Intro]

Since there's a thread bashing Bill for speaking the truth about Obama, I thought it would be a good thing to see what Obama himself said. Here's a snip from an MTP interview (with the link to all of it). Pay attention:

------------------------------------

MR. RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Senator Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of ‘04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ‘04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432
------------------------------------

Did you catch that? Three times in the queestion Russert quoted Obama as saying things in support of the war or non-critical of the war, saying he didn't know how he would have voted and that there was room for disagreement, and that there was no diff between he and bush. Obama's words. Ok. No arguemnt, right, his words.

And his reasoning, his justification? It wouldn't have been good to speak his convictions because of political expediency. In other words, he betrayed his (supposed) convictions on the war in 04 because of the poitical consequences of being honest. He said things he didn't believe for political reasons. He just said so, it's right up above. No argument, right, his words.

But take this just a small step further - if, as he admitted, Obama will lie for political reasons, betray his own supposed convictions for political expediency, then how can you know when he's telling the truth about what he blieves, and when he's just saying what will score political points?

Was he lying when he was against the war? Or when he said there was no diff between he and bush? Is he lying now? Will he be lying tomorrow? Which times? How can anyone know?

One can bash Bill and Hillary all they like, but facts are stubborn things. And here you have facts. They back up Bill, not Obama.

Flame away, but you can't change the facts.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Vote For Clinton, Because There's No Doubt She Wanted War?

Personally, I find Obama's answers consistant.

[EV_Ares]

4. and if that war is not good enough for you, she will take you into Iran, eom.

[AndyA]

2. Message just intercepted at GOP:

"Note to operatives: pull out the boxes with the "flip flop" stuff from Kerry '04...we're gonna need to dust it all off and use it again."

[NYCGirl]

7. Too bad he was trying to save your candidate's ass when he said that.

It was right before the 2004 election.

And here he is on film explaining it:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lN30M6StFfk

[JackORoses]

9. Note to GOP operatives: Return the Semi trucks full of Anti-Clinton Propaganda,

looks like they won't be needed after all.

[kurth]

3. Minor imperfection

His perfection is not completely 100%. It's only 99.9999%, according to his groupies.

[LucyParsons]

5. “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this...

...stage"

I take that to mean that, well into the war, he was hoping it would go WELL and felt compelled to support the president insofar as that means supporting the troops. 2004 was a long time ago.

I'm a Kucinich supporter who will vote for Edwards if my state's delegates are still in play on election day.

[maximusveritas]

8. Yes, that's exactly what he was saying

Here's what the WP Factchecker said on that point:

On the issue of whether to stay in Iraq , he said "there's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." The context of his remarks makes clear that he was not referring to the original decision to go into Iraq, but the question of whether to remain.

[Qutzupalotl]

15. (just underscoring your post)

!!!!

[maximusveritas]

6. More distortion. Read this: Washington Post FactChecker corrects Bill Clinton on Obama and Iraq

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3992912&mesg_id=3992912

[Little Star]

11. I just saw Obama on tv trying to explain how yes he did say

he would have gone to war but he didn't really mean it. What are you talking about?

[maximusveritas]

13. You just didn't understand it

Go read the information at the link. If you still don't understand, I feel sorry for you.

[Little Star]

10. Yep. He said it but didn't mean it. Reminds me of the

swift-boaters. He is going to get labeled as a flip flopper if he can't come up with a better story than, I only said it to not harm Kerry and Edwards. Would have been better to have been honest right up front.

[1corona4u]

12. ...

[creeksneakers2]

14. It was an honest answer

Obama wasn't under any pressure. Members of the US Senate were facing massive media slime tsunamis calling them backers of Osama if they spoke out against the war. I can't say Obama would have caved or not if he were in the Senate at the time. Obama was honest enough to admit he didn't know. We'll soon find out how much courage he really has.

I don't agree with the way the Clintons are using this. She should start running a positive campaign or drop out. She hurts herself and helps the GOP catch up on sliming Obama.

[jbnow]

16. Wouldn't want to change the facts

Don't need to change the facts.

You say he betrayed his convictions for of political expediency when he refused to bash Kerry/Edwards. You left out the closing line of what he said after he stated he couldn't say how he's have voted had he seen intelligence reports. He made it clear that from what he did know he'd have voted against it.

He was polite enough not to note that Kerry, Edwards and Hillary all didn't bother to look at the classified NIE before their vote so they didn't see it either. He did see the same unclassified version that they saw.

You say bunk "if, as he admitted, Obama will lie for political reasons, betray his own supposed convictions for political expediency, then how can you know when he's telling the truth about what he blieves, and when he's just saying what will score political points?"
Score political points? Just before the election he should have pointed out how wrong they were to make himself look purer? In 2004 when we were already in the war, when what he said could not change it? Two years earlier when his speaking strongly could have had some effect (well when he made the speech) nothing should have mattered more.
But what, you really would have admired him more to maybe lose some votes for Dems in a close presidential election just to make himself sound good and the candidates bad? Right.

As far as once he was in the Senate there is a BIG difference between saying we should not go in and saying once we are in and have disrupted the whole structure of the place that we should just leave-which would have to be done by defunding soldiers. The most peace loving of congress can have strong feelings against defunding.

Then you left off the paragraph of what he said to Tim after the one that you copied.

Look, I was opposed to this war in 2002, 2003, four, five, six and seven. What I was very clear about, even in 2002 in my original opposition, was once we were in, we were going to have to make some decisions to see how we could stabilize the situation and act responsibly. And that’s what I did through 2004, five and six, try to see can we create a workable government in Iraq? Can we make sure that we are minimizing the humanitarian costs in Iraq? Can we make sure that our troops are safe in Iraq? And that’s what I have done. Finally, in 2006, 2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled down and initiated the surge. And at that stage, I said, very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there. And since that time I’ve been absolutely clear in terms of the approach that I would take. I would end this war, and I would have our troops out within 16 months.

There aren't lies here except those you're trying to imply.