GOP Debate: "The Democrats Voted for it too" re the Iraq War- Why We need a Candidate who didn't!

[FrenchieCat]

That's the argument currently that the GOP have in their favor to cover their awful judgment in reference to supporting the trillion dollar war, Iraq.


The Dem candidate that can best put each and every one of them in their place to shut them up, is the candidate who strongly opposed us going into Iraq. That wins us the National Security Argument in one fell swoop, because we are less safe because of Iraq AND we are much poorer!

I see it like this!

Nominee Barack Obama and his Attack pit Bull Veep choice, Jim Webb. :patriot:

[Mythsaje]

1. "We were lied to, just like the American People."

"Remember, almost everyone supported it until the truth came out."

[DJ13]

2. "We were lied to, just like the American People."

Hillary should have had adequate knowledge from her husbands administration to have seen through the Bush lies.

This hits at the heart of her supposed "experience" over Obama.

Or is her "experience" a lie?

[Mythsaje]

3. If someone is passed official documentation that's been doctored

as evidence, it's really hard to say. It appears that the more status the person had in the government, the more work was put into fooling them. Or so it seems to me.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Do you know the story about the two NIE intelligence reports?

THe one that those on the Intelligence committee had access to that Edwards didn't read. Nor did he read the declassified one. Nor did Hillary. Each as the nominee, and the IRaq war is off the table, other than how we get out. They will have to argue from a parallel position, not from an elevated one. That will be a real problem. You'll see.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Edwards was on the Intelligence committee along with

Graham & Durbin & Feingold & Levin. What did they understand that he didn't. :shrug:

They all voted NO. Edwards meanwhile, co-sponsored the bill and then voted yes on it, and NO on all other amendments that would have slowed things down.


Both Edwards and Hillary cannot say "we were lied to" as a response. It would show them being gullible if they tried to make that argument. No, if they are elected, the war becomes only about "How it was waged" and gives McCain the advantage in the election....as he is seen as the tough guy who can get it done. However, someone who can argue about how wrong he was.....and it doesn't matter that he claims he can get us out; he will look like he was gullible to being with.

[book_worm]

18. Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, and over 20 other Dem Senators and many

members of the house didn't fall for it.

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. Indeed. His opposition to Iraq is his best asset.

Both Clinton and Edwards can be 'flip-flopped'. OTOH, the republicans will try to turn Obama's opposition into a negative.



Webb might actually be a good choice for him. Hadn't thought about that.

[FrenchieCat]

6. They look great together, both are not seen as Insider.......but both know how Washington works.....

I think this is the ticket that really could win and usher in a brand new dawn.

Plus Webb shields the call that the GOP will ultimately make that Obama is too liberal (because he is, and his record supports that)

[ClericJohnPreston]

8. "brand new dawn"

Bwahahahahahaahhahahhahahahahahahahaha.

Great objectivity....NOT!

Am I wrong, or was that Obama voting to FUND the war??????? Please do tell.
While you're at it, perhaps you can explain your Edwards obsession. You mention his name almost as many times as you mention Obamas.

[jackson_dem]

10. Obama is deceiving folks on his war record

While running for Senate in 2003, Sen. Obama acknowledged that he took his anti-war speech off his campaign website, calling it 'dated.' Specifically, State Senator Obama maintains that an October 2002 anti-war speech was removed from his campaign web site because - the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips."

In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution. When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’ -- Note: No one disputes that Sen. Obama opposed the war from his "vantage point" as a part-time state senator in Illinois. The point we are making is that Sen. Obama acknowledged that he did not know how he would have voted had his vantage point been from the U.S. Senate.

In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush’s position on Iraq. In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, "On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. <...> There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

Until he ran for president, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq, some $300 billion. <2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06, HR5631, 9/7/06>

Sen. Obama waited 18 months to give his first speech on the Senate floor devoted to Iraq, in which he opposed a timeline for withdrawal. Obama said "I'm 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."

Sen. Obama didn't introduce legislation to end the Iraq war until he started running for president.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=516...

[jackson_dem]

9. Kucinich isn't running anymore. You didn't hear the news?

[FrenchieCat]

11. 3 "ignored" on this thread......

:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

12. Shit, I'm smarter than the pundits!

I figured it out early!

[mathewsleep]

35. ditto

i've ignored so many in the last couple of days.

[MagickMuffin]

13. Unfortunately, Al Gore isn't running :-(

Senator Obama wasn't even a US senator at the time.

Who really knows how he would have voted under the circumstances being bantered around during the time?.?.?

I do know he votes in favor of Iraq war spending.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Because he said how he would have voted.....

Where have you been? :shrug:

Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than 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.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

[MagickMuffin]

17. As jackson_dem stated upthread, which I will repost here for you....

While running for Senate in 2003, Sen. Obama acknowledged that he took his anti-war speech off his campaign website, calling it 'dated.' Specifically, State Senator Obama maintains that an October 2002 anti-war speech was removed from his campaign web site because - the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips."

In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution. When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’

In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush’s position on Iraq. In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, "On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. <...> There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

Until he ran for president, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq, some $300 billion. <2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06, HR5631, 9/7/06>

Sen. Obama waited 18 months to give his first speech on the Senate floor devoted to Iraq, in which he opposed a timeline for withdrawal. Obama said "I'm 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."

Sen. Obama didn't introduce legislation to end the Iraq war until he started running for president.

In response to your other thread about Charlie Rose:

I can't comment on a program I did not see. When did this program air?

[FrenchieCat]

19. Bunch of shit, which is why Jackson dem is invisible to me....

Summary: Interviewing Barack Obama on Meet the Press, Tim Russert read a quote he attributed to Obama to suggest that he has "not been a leader against the war": "In July of 2004, 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." Russert did not quote the very next sentence of Obama's statement, which was, "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made" for authorizing the war.

At the time....
The Times also reported that Obama "declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time":
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004

THE FACT CHECKER

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/obama_and_iraq.html#more

As the keynote speaker, Obama was trying to be loyal to the Democratic nominees, John Kerry and John Edwards, both of whom had voted in favor of the war authorization resolution, along with Hillary Clinton.

In an interview reported by the New York Times on July 26, on the first day of the convention, he reiterated his opposition to the war but declined to criticize Kerry and Edwards, saying he was "not privy to Senate intelligence reports."

He then continued: "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

(The Clinton campaign left out that important last sentence when it e-mailed reporters with backup material for the inconsistency claim, which was also made by Hillary Clinton in the televised debate Saturday night.)

In an interview published in the Chicago Tribune the following day (July 27,2004), Obama said that he would have voted "no" on the Senate resolution. But he said he was not in favor of "pulling out now." 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.

His views on whether to stay in Iraq have changed, of course, as he now advocates a phased withdrawal.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/obama_and_iraq.html#more

so because we had candidates that had voted for that fucked up IWR, Obama, not wanting to EMBARASS THE NOMINEES, stayed vague to a degree.

THANK YOU, BARACK OBAMA.

[MagickMuffin]

20. Why does Obama KEEP funding the WAR?.?.?

Even if he had been a US senator he may have been persuaded to vote for it. We really have absolutely no way to predict that he would have voted a certain way. He would have been lobbied very heavily for his support in favor of the war. Of this I have no doubt.

I do have doubts/concerns about ALL our candidates. However, I would rather have an open debate to teach each other about OUR candidates.

:hi:

[Cha]

21. So the Soldiers won't be without

supplies just like a lot of them are funding the Soldiers.

[jackson_dem]

22. This isn't what Obama said when he ran from the left in his 2003 senate primary

And it isn't what he has done since he has been running for president, as the Hillary campaign noted. Since then he has voted against funding.

The Obama excuse has always been bull. His vote was never needed to pass a funding bill. If he truly opposed the war, if he truly was a leader, he would have cast symbolic votes against the war by voting against funding.

[Major Hogwash]

44. Hillary's statements are different now from what she said just 6 months ago, let alone 5 years ago.

And she's had 35 years to get it right!

Yet, just 6 months ago Hillary was willing to let Bush do whatever he wanted to do.
She was too busy worrying about how to win over the independents and the moderates since she was "the inevitable nominee" of the Democratic party.
My, my, how things have changed in just 6 short months.

It's interesting how many people at DU think the war will end if Hillary is the nominee.

Ending the Iraq War is not part of the DLC agenda.

[Cha]

25. Whomever replied to me is on Ignore

so I can imagine they had some lie to spew.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Me Too!

:rofl:

[Cha]

28. I can't resist...I didn't

put anyone on who didn't reap it these last grueling months.

[FrenchieCat]

29. I've been here at DU since 2003, and was not one person on my list.....

till last week.

Now, there are 5 folks living there.

And I'll tell you, ever since this forum looks almost normal and the intellectual honesty meter has risen to an above average level! :)

[Cha]

30. Wow! I had a jubilee..I've

got 20 on and cyber life is pretty good. My threshold is way low these days.

From 0 to 20.

[MagickMuffin]

33. There is ONE problem with the WAR funding, which IS the Soldiers AREN'T getting the FUNDS....

The money for the Funding is going to fund sub contractors such as Blackwater USA, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Rayethon, Halliburton, and other corporations cronies.


How MANY times have you heard that whenever a War Funding Bill come around "The money is to FUND the TROOPS"?.?.?


IIRC, every time the WAR FUNDING MACHINERY starts winding up for a fight from our party, the rethuglicons throws the troops under the bus by claiming the Democrats don't support the troops. Certainly you've heard them suggest this. It's a very old and effective technique the repiglicons have been doing for decades. They do this because it WORKS. This worked very nicely in Florida in 2000.

Yet, I have never heard a Democrat defend these rediculious attacks, and instead proof how THEY are the party that cares and respects the troops more by exposing the republicons as the party that extorts our troops for political gain.

[FrenchieCat]

36. You have a link for that.......?

Well, troops are real people, if you haven't notice. And of course, they are pawns. But they really are in theater of war. They really do bleed, and die and stuff.

The point is that this war should have never been waged, and anyone who was too stupid to fall for that old trick should be crossed off our books. The troops being used and abused is just a bi-product of the complicity of those who gave Bush his blank check. Had more stood in the way, we wouldn't be talking about funding troops, etc....today.

[MagickMuffin]

37. Do I have a link for everything I stated, NO.... there are NO links to what I witnessed

with my own eyes and ears.

Of course I've noticed our troops are pawns in this War and yes I've noticed that they are flesh and blood. It has been this way in our country for a long long long time. The poorer classes get to fight the wars the Wealthy Class engage us in. It's how they make their profits off of the least fortunate. They profit handsomely along with ALL the contractors who see it as an opportunity to bilked our treasury.

We understand this abuse of powers and wars that was waged after 9-11 we were still in shock, and how easily it was to use propaganda to manipulate the citizens and congress. We were lied to as a whole. We KNEW this from the start, but the machine once again was too powerful and drown out our voices. Even elements within our own party was pushing for this WAR. The DLC was behind the scenes pushing buttons.

But the BIG question is where do we go from here?.?.?

I'm actually glad that the Democratic Party had to acknowledge the anti-sentiment to the out of control Iraq war. It forced them to take an Anti-War stance.

What I want to hear from ALL the candidates is that they WILL HOLD THE BUSH/REGIME/CARTEL/CABAL ACCOUNTABLE, for the MESS they created. I want hearings, I want the truth to be known.


Edit to add: Will Marshall is the one who labeled the anti-war movement "the Loony LEFT"........ I thought I would clarify this for you. Will Marshall is also responsible for the PRO WAR stance within the DLC. They are also responsible for attacking Howard Dean in 04.

[FrenchieCat]

39. so in other words,

you are just talking out of your ass.

[MagickMuffin]

41. So, anyone who witnesses something with their own EYES AND EARS are talking out their ass

I guess I can say the SAME EXACT THING ABOUT YOU......lil' Frenchie

If you want to find out if what I stated is crap, then LIL' Frenchie I suggest you do the research yourself. I offered a point of view that I witnessed and ALL you have as a come back is I'm talking out my ass.

I guess if there is a wreck on the highway and a lot of people witnessed it but the info wasn't on the internet and heaven forbid NO links to the story then it NEVER happened, and those who witnessed it is full of crap.

I guess it must be true that you have your head up your ASS.

[jackson_dem]

23. Frenchie has trouble with hearing truth about St. Obama

;)

[Blackhatjack]

43. You're better off ignoring Frenchie... just a waste of time really...

... You won't accomplish anything trying to 'debate' her --except waste some electrons. Forget it.

[FrenchieCat]

26. It's called supporting the troops......

Just like they all did.

And Co-Sponsor of IWR John Edwards' was on the sidelines....so he was just talk. Didn't "apologize" till November 2005.....after the polls had turned.

Desperate in NH: Fibbing About Obama and Iraq?
Campaigning in Dover, New Hampshire the day before the primary, Senator Hillary Clinton once again pounded Barack Obama for being big on talk and small on deeds. And before a crowd that could barely fill half of a modest-sized gymnasium, she continued to claim that Obama is a disingenuous politician, no noble and inspiring force of change. Using the thin opposition research her campaign operatives have managed to unearth on her rival, she recited what's becoming the campaign's regular litany of Obama's alleged hypocrisies. Saying you oppose the Patriot Act and then voting to extend it—"that's not change," she declared. Saying you're against special interest lobbying and then having a lobbyist co-chair your New Hampshire campaign—"that's not change," she thundered. Saying in a campaign speech that you will not vote to fund the Iraq war and then voting for $300 billion in war financing—"that's not change," she exclaimed. After the event, in an interview with Fox News, Clinton was even sharper. She referred to Obama's (and John Edwards') "hypocrisy," and said, "Senator Obama has changed many of his positions." Voters, she insisted, deserved to know this: "Talk is, as they say, cheap."

Her charges against Obama have generally been weak—standard truth-stretchers for standard political campaigns. But in casting Obama as a phony on the Iraq war, Clinton has veered close to outright lying.

Yesterday, in an interview with CNN, Clinton said:

If someone is going to claim that by their very words they are making change, then if those words say... I'm against the war in Iraq and I'll never vote for funding and then, when they go to the Senate, they vote for 300 billion dollars' worth of funding , I think it's time for people to say, "Wait a minute, let's get real here." There's a big difference between talking and acting, between rhetoric and reality.
Did Obama actually vow, as Clinton said, to never vote for funds for the Iraq war? If he had, he would indeed be a major promise-breaker—and a fraud on a critical issue for Democratic voters. This was a powerful allegation.

I sent an email to a Clinton spokesperson who specializes in opposition research, asking for a citation to back up this charge. He quickly replied with a link for a page on a Clinton campaign website that contains a quote from a speech Obama delivered in November 2003, when he was running for Senate:

Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars , I said no. I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.
Is it possible to read that statement as a promise never to vote for Iraq war funds? Not by any reasonable interpretation. In fact, during Obama's Senate campaign, he explained his opposition to this particular war funding bill in detail. From a September 29, 2003 Obama press release:

Obama challenged the Congress to 'stand up to the misplaced priorities of this Administration' by delaying the $87 billion for Iraq until the President provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq. 'It's not just Iraq that needs rebuilding. It's America, too,' Obama said.
Perhaps as an opponent of the Iraq war, Obama could have been expected to vote against funds for the war once he reached the Senate. But he, like Clinton (who now opposes the war) and other Senate Democrats, have continually voted for funds, while attempting (albeit unsuccessfully) to attach conditions and timetables to that funding. Because Clinton cannot attack Obama on the policy—given that they have voted the same—she has accused him of being a hypocrite. But where was the beef?

I sent the Clinton oppo guy a follow-up email:

I looked at the quote . He was clearly speaking about the $87 billion package. But what Sen. Clinton told CNN was that Obama said, "I'll never vote for funding." He doesn't say that in the quote. Was she accurately quoting him?
I received no response.

As Hillary Clinton was leaving Dover, I attempted to put the question to her. She had just finished the interview with Fox and another with a local station. Inside the gym, I was two feet away from her. "Can I ask you one question about Iraq and Senator Obama?" I inquired. She looked at me for a nanosecond and walked away.

During her speech to supporters at Dover, Clinton said, that it's important to disseminate information on all the candidates "so voters can make a well-informed decision.... I will do whatever I can to make sure voters have the information they need." But ascertaining that this information is accurate is apparently not on her to-do list.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6786_desperate_in_nh_1.html

Responding to Clinton’s attack on Iraq

IRAQ: Obama Consistently Opposed the Iraq War. In January of 2005, Obama criticized Condoleezza Rice for not offering a timetable for withdrawal; in February he criticized the Administration’s policy in Iraq while praising our troops; in May and June, he called security in Iraq “horrible” and criticized the Administration for linking the 9/11 attacks and the war in Iraq; and in October and November, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops, saying that we should “get out as soon as we can.” Obama called for a phased withdrawal of our troops in November of 2005 and voted for an amendment stating that the US should not “stay in Iraq indefinitely.” He consistently called for troop withdrawal throughout 2006, and voted for a resolution in June urging the President to begin troop withdrawal during 2006. Obama spoke out against the surge the same night Bush announced it, and introduced his bill to end the war at the end of January, which would have prohibited the surge and set a timetable for withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of March 2008. That bill became the template for the Democratic caucus’ position.

IRAQ: Obama Has Consistently Opposed A Blank Check for Iraq. Since Obama came to Washington in January of 2005, every single Senate Democrat has voted for every single Iraq funding bill that has come to the Senate floor until President Bush vetoed a timetable for withdrawal. After that, Obama voted against funding for the war, stating that “This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one…We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path. With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly.”

IRAQ: Clinton Continues to Unfairly Truncate Obama’s Quote on Iraq. Below is the full excerpt from the New York Times:

“He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. “In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

“‘But, I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’

“But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ‘What I don’t think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,’ he said.”
http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clintons-mtp-iraq-statements/

[jackson_dem]

31. This doesn't pass the smell test

1) Obama ran hard against funding the war when he was in a Senate primary
2) Obama voted against funding the war repeatedly ever since, as Hillary's campaign noted, he began running for president

So Obama was against the troops while running for the Senate, for it when he won, and then against the troops again when running for president? :shrug:

[Cha]

24. Sorry, that's been debunked quite often but the hilarys

never get tired of bringing out the lie and they won't stop, either.

Frenchie has the facts but if you want to close your eyes then you won't know what is the truth and what is a bil clinton smear that the hilarys are running with.

[FrenchieCat]

15. I'll await your comment.

Plus it is on tape in a Charlie Rose interview...in where Barack clearly states...."I wouldn't vote for it".

[Blackhatjack]

16. Geez! Just like 'Groundhog Day' - Do Same People Have To Re-Fight The Same Points Over and Over?

I would rather have a President who is honest and willing to acknowledge he made a mistake than someone who claims to have been perfect and has the ability to always predict the future.

[Hart2008]

32. Frankly, I think that Tom Daschle is more likely to be the V.P. if Obama gets the nomination.

Daschle has been the power in D.C. pushing Obama and will likely want that V.P. post himself.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18040719/

Imagine Daschle as a more benign version of Cheney.

:popcorn:

[FrenchieCat]

34. Sounds speculative. Maybe Gary Hart wants the position.....

after all, he endorsed Obama early.

[Hart2008]

38. I will take Gary Hart back in national office any way I can!

He would bring a experience and gravitas to the ticket.

No one has more credibility on the issues of homeland security than the man who predicted the terrorist attacks.

I don't know that he wants the job, but he would probably take it if he thought it was in the best interests of the party. Secretary of State, or leading Homeland security, are more up his alley.

His achilles heel is that he isn't a good fundraiser; he wouldn't take money from PAC's, etc.

He always hated asking people for money. Daschle can shake the money tree with the best of them.

[FrenchieCat]

40. I think that Obama can take care of traising he funds.......

Don't you worry about that! :)

[Major Hogwash]

42. Hillary's "experience" has been trumped by Obama's "sound decision making ability" about the war.

It's interesting that Bubba has been running around saying it was "a fairy tale" for Obama to get it right on the Iraq War, yet when he was caught having sex in the White House it all depended on what the definition of is "is".

The fact is, Obama was against the Iraq War in 2002, and Bill is a liar.

And that is what is going to cost Hillary the nomination.

[bklyncowgirl]

45. Frenchie, you beat me to this post. It will be a mistake to nominate anyone who voted for the war.

Listen to Republican after Republican last night repeat the mantra "The Democrats agreed that Saddam should be deposed." "The Democrats voted for the war." This is their attack and believe me it will be devestating. Any Democrat who voted for the war and now opposes it will be pilloried as a flip-flopper who plays games with the lives of our men and women in uniform in order to shift with the winds of public opinion. Do we really want to go to "I voted for the war before I voted against it" country again?

The truth is, of course, that the Democratic party was divided over the war but that enough voted for it to give Bush a free hand to invade a country which had not attacked us, allow the Taliban to stage a resurgance in Afganistan and drag the good name of our country through the mud. Unfortunately, two of these Democrats are two of the three leading Democratic candidates for President. Hillary Clinton was a dependable hawk right up until the time she announced for president and began to discover the benefits of staged redeployment. John Edwards was just as avid a supporter of the Iraq War Resolution as he is now a critic of the Iraq War.

The Republicans will not run on subtlety. They most certainly will not run on issues. What they will do is hang this around the neck of the Democrat and pound him or her like a bent nail.

I have issues with Obama's lack of experience but he's the only candidate left standing (after Kucinich's sad withdrawal) who had the good sense to be against this disaster of a war from the beginning.

Oh Crap, did I just say I'd vote for Obama? Sorry Barack, I may have just killed your chances.

[FrenchieCat]

47. LOL!

Good for us. We really need to be able to frame the debate. It looks like only OBama could do it from a moral place.

[BeyondGeography]

46. This was true in 2004 and it remains so