Obama Camp Keeps Making False Claims About Sen. Obama’s Record on Troop Withdrawal

[William769]

Press release.

For the second time today, the Obama campaign has incorrectly claimed that Senator Obama has been pushing every year since 2002 for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. This is not true. Clinton National Security Director Lee Feinstein issued the following statement:

"Facts can be stubborn things, especially in the heat of campaign. The reality is that since 2004, Senator Obama explicitly called for keeping troops in Iraq and opposed a timeline for withdrawal, only changing his position when he became a candidate for the White House.

"Senator Clinton will end the war in Iraq the right way. She has put forward the most comprehensive plan to bring our troops home, swiftly and responsibly. She is the candidate best able to end the war and address the challenges that will inevitably arise as we bring our troops home."

Obama's record:

In 2004, Sen. Obama said he was willing to support more troops in Iraq, said withdrawal from Iraq would be 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there." "Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country...'A quick withdrawal would add to the chaos there and make it 'an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity,' said. It would also damage America's international prestige and amount to 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there, he said."

In 2005, Sen. Obama said that 'U.S. forces are still a part of the solution.' "I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq...First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.'"

In 2006, Sen. Obama opposed Sen. Kerry's amendment to withdraw troops, saying he opposed 'a precipitous withdrawal of troops.' Sen. Obama voted against an amendment by Senator Kerry requiring the president to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in 2006 and have complete withdrawal by July 1, 2007. "But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them...A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility" <2006 Vote # 181, S2766, 6/22/06; Obama Remarks, Congressional Record, 06/21/06>

Obama advisor Susan Rice on MSNBC:

"He's been a consistent critic of the war in Iraq, pushing every year since 2002 for a withdrawal of our forces." <10:08AM>

"Since he’s been in the senate, he has called from his very first month in office for the withdrawal and redeployment of American forces. He’s been absolutely consistent and for many years, Senator Clinton resisted any sort of timetable for the withdrawal of American forces. So the record speaks for itself." <12:15PM>

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5183

[Atman]

1. Oh, please William...a Clinton campaign PRESS RELEASE?

You're really reaching, now.

.

[redqueen]

2. deleted

not getting in the middle of it

[jackson_dem]

14. Nothing but truth about Obama's fairy tale in that press release

[skipos]

3. Allow me to ignore any criticism that comes from Hillary and her magic triangulating wind sock

in regards to Iraq and how the other candidates have handled it.

[William769]

4. Feel free to debunk anything sited.

[skipos]

5. No need. I am well aware that Hillary's actions on Iraq have been the worst of the bunch.

The only thing that would change that fact is if Lieberman gets in the race.

[William769]

6. So I take it then there is nothing to debunk. Thanks.

[jenmito]

7. Obama sponsored the Iraq De-Escalation Act.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/iraq/index.html

[William769]

8. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4064564&mesg_id=4064564

[jenmito]

10. I gave an example that proved the OP false.

[Onlooker]

25. No it didn't

He sponsored that in 2007, according to your link, and the OPs point is that Obama has not been calling for de-escalation every year. He changed his tune only recently (which, by the way, is fine by me).

[jackson_dem]

15. As Hillary's press release said, that was only after he began running for the White House

[unc70]

21. Sponsored after he declared his candidacy. Obama and Clinton similar on Iraq

The Act he sponsored and the positions Obama clarified in the October debate are mostly consistent with each other and roughly define his position on Iraq. Everyone wants to withdraw troops from Iraq, but neither Clinton nor Obama will commit to actually doing it in our lifetimes, well at least not in their first term as President. Each of them foresees keeping US troops in Iraq indefinitely, and each would continue operations in the name of "anti-terrorism", possibly past 2013.

Edwards immediately stops combat operations and, by the end of the first year, withdraws all troops except for a larger-than-normal contingent of Marine embassy guards.

I haven't re-checked each candidate, but I believe that Obama and Clinton are the only Dem candidates who would continue combat or special ops operations past their first year in office. (This also includes those who have already dropped out.

The linked thread from last Oct goes into more detail.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3578214

[terisan]

9. The fact is Obama has been inconsistent re Iraq/withdrawal & has voted in Senate to fund the war.

If his campaign is claiming otherwise they and he are not telling the truth.

[Barack_America]

13. So has Hillary, my dear. So has Hillary. n/t

[indimuse]

18. Hillary does NOT LIE about her votes and

she actually shows up to vote ...now there's a concept. Fact! Obama has continued to FUND the WAR since his arrival at the Senate..You can't "change" that...

[durrrty libby]

11. The Obama campaign has become The Distortionist Contortionists

Everything they say has been twisted and taken out of context

It is what they do:eyes:

[Yael]

12. Meow! Hiss!!

Good thing there is a hudna in effect, aye?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

16. It will come up in the debate. You'll hear all those quotes. eom

[Evergreen Emerald]

17. lots of people attacking the messenger to avoid dealing with the facts.

The facts are that both Obama and Clinton have issues on the War. Obama won't admit his and has created a fairy tale around his stances. Clinton admitted hers, but did not grovel enough for some. She voted for IWR and has to live with that.

Obama did not contest the war when he had the opportunity and remained mum during his time in the Senate.

Neither can claim the high road on the war.

[Cha]

19. clinton surrogates keep making false

accusations against Obama and the shit keeps coming. Fuck hillary and her fucking lust for power over the lives of our Soldiers.

[jackson_dem]

20. What was false in the press release?

[FrenchieCat]

22. So many lies, distortions, exaggerations, without questions to Hillary's own record!

MEET THE PRESS
01/13/08

(Videotape, October 10, Clinton's 2002 Iraq speech):
SEN. CLINTON: So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein, this is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Casting your vote for conviction for the authorization for use of military force against Iraq resolution. That same week Senator Obama gave a speech, and this is what he said: "I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors. ... I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that" "invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale" "without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

Who had the better judgment at that time? :shrug:

------------------
MR. RUSSERT: I want to stay with your vote because that same day, Senator Levin offered an amendment, the Levin amendment, and this is how the New York Times reported it. "The amendment called ... for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed." ... Senator Levin said, "Allow Congress to vote only after exhausting all options with the United States." You did not participate in that vote. You voted against Carl Levin, who was saying give diplomacy a chance and yet you said no. You voted to authorize war. The resolution you voted for, Robert Byrd said was a blank check for George Bush. Ted Kennedy says it was a vote for war. James Carville and Paul Begala said anyone who says that vote wasn't a vote for war is bunk.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, if I had a lot of paper in front of me, I could quote people who say something very differently, so I know you're very good at this and I respect it, but let's look at the context here. Number one, the Levin amendment, in my view, gave the Security Council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I don't believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is our president. :eyes:
------------------------------

MR. RUSSERT: But you voted for all the funding for the war.

SEN. CLINTON: I did. I never--I'm not premising my campaign on something different. :wtf:

MR. RUSSERT: And then until '06 was against the timetable.

SEN. CLINTON: But I did what I--my principle concern has always been doing what I thought was best for our country and what I thought was best for our troops. I'm not here saying anything different than that. I'm not giving you a story line that does not hold up...

MR. RUSSERT: But did he have better...

SEN. CLINTON: ...under the facts and the times we were in.

MR. RUSSERT: Did he have better judgment in October of 2002?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, look, judgment is not a single snapshot. Judgment is what you do across the course of your life and your career.

MR. RUSSERT: A vote for war is a very important vote.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, we can have this Jesuitical argument :wtf: about what exactly was meant. You know, when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, :wtf: said it was not a vote for war, when I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, "if you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job," I was told that's exactly what we intended to do.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22634967/page/3/
---------------------------------------------

Sen. Hagel's Proposal indeed! Ha!

So much bullshit, so little time from Ms. Hillary "I did this, and I did that" Clinton, triangulating her distortions....all the while her "experience" is pretty much made up of making mistakes, and doesn't add up to 35 years....except for in her mind. Woman had no security clearance nor attended NS meeting while living at the White House.

Note, anything above the ---------line is straight from the transcript, and there is nothing that I added beyond smilie commentaries, to highlight the bullshit as it was spewed.

[avrdream]

23. Yeah, but in fairness, Frenchie, you aren't addressing the OP.

It is about Barack's inconsistencies....and the fact that he is running as an anti-war candidate. I know I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change mine, so let's just try to stay fair and respond to things appropriately. I give you kudos when I think you are right but you aren't being straight up on this one.

Cheers.

[William769]

24. Frenchie never does.