What comes next always matters.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004Obama made his comment in an interview reported by The New York Times in a July 27, 2004, article:
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.
Further, in a July 24, 2004, interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Obama said that while he "didn't have the information that was available to senators," he would have voted against the Iraq war authorization:
BLITZER: Had you been in the Senate when they had a vote on whether to give the president the authority to go to war, how would you have voted?
OBAMA: You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators. I know that, as somebody who was thinking about a U.S. Senate race, I think it was a mistake, and I think I would have voted no.
BLITZER: You would have voted no at the time?
OBAMA: That's correct.
BLITZER: Kerry, of course, and Edwards both voted yes.
OBAMA: But keep in mind, I think this is a tough question and a tough call. What I do think is that if you're going to make these tough calls, you have to do so in a transparent way, in an honest way, talk to the American people, trust their judgment.
I know, I know the argument Hillary made it
SEN. CLINTON: Because by 2004, Tim, by the summer of 2004, Senator Obama said he wasn't sure how he would have voted. And when you asked him about that, he said, well, he didn't want to say something that could have hurt our nominees, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards. Well, the fact is he's always said he doesn't take positions for political reasons. That is a political explanation. If he was against the war in 2002, he should've strongly spoke out in 2004.
snip
MR. RUSSERT: Viewers can read the transcript from November 11 when I did talk to Senator Obama about this. He also added that from his vantage point, the administration had not made the case, but let people read it and make up their own minds.
So it's wrong that "he didn't want to say something that could have hurt our nominees," because that's a political reason?
It really would be more admirable "if he was against the war in 2002, he should've strongly spoke out in 2004."
Really. Some of you would think that was good if a popular politician had publicly spoken strongly against the start of the war that had already started over a year before-Make himself look good, make them look bad and not make one damn bit of difference to the war? If he was a better man he would essentially bash Edwards and Kerry for their voting yes?
You KNOW people would rightly think if he did that it would be wrong, that it would be hurting our chances just for his ego, that he should have used diplomacy.
There is only a pretend issue here. He did the right thing, he told the truth but diplomatically, he didn't build himself up by using the powerful lines of that 2002 speech, he was respectful.
Stop playing. We can deal with our candidates strengths and weaknesses honestly. He did the right thing here.
And yes...his speech went into archives on his state Senate site (it wasn't removed, just not front paged) but it was included on his US Senate Campaign
And yes in 2004 he was pretty much with bush...not wanting to go in doesn't mean you call for immediate withdrawal once they are in.
Defunding would be the only way to force bush's hand. I think they were almost all too patient but defunding a war is a choice few will make, that's not out of weakness.Even if they voted for a time line sooner it is only a statement, they can't make bush do it.
There were amendments in 2002 that would have given them a lot more power over how it went and we were in the majority. Edwards voted against every one, Clinton voted for some of them, Kerry voted for most...none of them passed.
When they didn't pass the power left our hands. I don't know why they did that.
We want different candidates but we all want a good country, the war to end as soon and safely as it can, so do our candidates.
This is a very decent man. Don't vote for him, fine, but don't distort things.
Let's quit making up issues.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
