Kennedy's "Obama opposed the Iraq war from the beginning" is, well, a bald faced "untruth"

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Obama lied during his campaign about opposing the war/funding, then flip flopped once elected.

Notice that Obama equated "funding" with support when he campaigned.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/17/clinton_attacks_put_focus_on_iraq_record/

When he ran for Senate in 2003 and 2004, he continued to oppose the war and said he would "unequivocally" vote against an additional $87 billion of war funding, which Congress was considering at the time. But after taking office in January 2005, Obama voted numerous times to support Iraq funding, to the tune of more than $300 billion

[Apollo11]

1. Let me be among the first to call BS on the OP.

Barack Obama - Speech at Anti-War Rally - October 2, 2002

(...)

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 armchair, 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.

(...)

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://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

[Proud2BAmurkin]

2. Are you denying Obama lied about supporting Iraq/funding and then did it after election?

[Apollo11]

11. I am saying Obama opposed the decision to invade Iraq since 2002.

After the invasion had happened and the situation had changed, then funding the troops became a whole other issue. For more info - e-mail Joe Biden.

But it doesn't make Obama responsible for giving Bush the authorization to launch an attack on Iraq, unlike say for example Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

[joshcryer]

16. What I don't understand is, well, Obama was never in the position to vote against it.

So he should get credit for doing something that he couldn't have done.

[ErnestoG]

29. Yet he was always against it.

This is just spam, dumb thread.

[SammyWinstonJack]

30. ...

:thumbsup: Pretty easy too say you are against what you never were put in a position of voting on, isn't it?

[joshcryer]

34. Indeed. He gets way too much credit for what he "did."

Writing a few speeches is one thing, actually being in a position politically to back that up is another thing entirely.

[frylock]

60. not when you're on the record as staing you are against the war..

prior to a vote on IWR. Would it make you feel better if he stated that he was "misled" into the position he's taken?

[K Gardner]

4. This particular OP does nothing BUT B/S, flamebait and spamming. Honestly surprised DU mods let it

continue as long as they have. But I guess this is what DU has come to.

[ErnestoG]

3. That does NOT equal support of that war, as you know...

so why don't you quit lying about him?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

6. Campaigning against funding as "support" and then funding once elected is support.

[ErnestoG]

26. The fuck it is

Thats the dumbest response on the issue I have seen yet. MANY reps in Congress...even the ones who objected to the war or voted against it, voted to fund the basic troop needs while over there. I suppose they are magically, mystically now in favor of the war too?

You're going to have to try better swiftboat tactics than this, Lee Greenwood.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

50. Nobody else swore in their campaigns not to fund it and then FUNDED it

[ErnestoG]

62. He swore no such thing.

Post the quote where he swore to never vote for a funding bill.

[Lerkfish]

5. are you getting paid by the post, or by the distortion?

either way, I think you should buy us all lunch.

:)

[AGirl]

7. Good Call , I didn't know that

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Not supporting the invasion is different than funding the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

really.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

57. Unless you campaigned saying you would NEVER support funding because funding = pro war

[cali]

9. seriously, do you have any idea what kind of

a disturbed person you look like? It's evident to many of us that you should seek help.

[joshcryer]

14. You can be so insulting sometimes.

I mean, I'd say just how insulting, but then that would be an insult in and of itself. ;)

[cali]

17. the OP is like no one else I've ever seen here

it's beyond bizarre. Hard not to wonder what's wrong with him.

[Occam Bandage]

28. P2BA is in a league of his own.

[joshcryer]

37. I don't consider P2BA anything different than many Obama supporters here.

No, really, I don't.

[Occam Bandage]

39. Of course you don't.

[cali]

40. really? I don't see anyone like murkin anywhere on Du.

And if you look at the responses to his posts, you might note that most people feel exactly as I do. There's something really wrong with that poster. Interesting that you can't see it. Quite interesting.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

47. I'd worry about my mental health if I was crying at political speeches by centrist opportunists but

since that's not happening I feel aight.

[cali]

59. you need to learn what an opinion is and what a fact is.

You already *know* what an asshole is. And yes, you need serious help.

[AGirl]

10. I think this is really telling

"When he ran for Senate in 2003 and 2004, he continued to oppose the war and said he would "unequivocally" vote against an additional $87 billion of war funding, which Congress was considering at the time. But after taking office in January 2005, Obama voted numerous times to support Iraq funding, to the tune of more than $300 billion."

He lied outright.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

12. SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM...

Yeah we get YOUR message already!

[Occam Bandage]

13. Quack

[Bread and Circus]

15. My best friend is serving his second tour of duty in Iraq...

He and I have heated and wholehearted disagreements about the Iraq war. I hate it. He supports. I love my friend and have so since he was in third grade. HE is more like my brother than my brothers though I love them too.

I think Hillary and Obama HAD to vote for funding. Both politically and ethically in today's national climate.

What is true though that while Edwards and Clinton were both making supportive statements for the war back in 2002, Obama's rhetoric was clearly against it.

I can post Edwards and Clinton statement here if you want but it would be very embarrassing for both of them.

What your candidate should have done was stood up to Bush when she had a chance. But once the troops are over there, men and women a great deal of Americans love, the game changed.

[AGirl]

19. The OP proved that Obama lied period. Spin it all you want.

[Bread and Circus]

33. Well, I'm just trying to stick with what really matters...

we can talk about Hillary's lies all day long if you want but I'd rather stick to what really happened.

The bottom line is Edwards and Hillary helped bring Bush's war about and Obama stood against it when it mattered.

I'm hearing you though.

[here_is_to_hope]

48. Nice star B and C!

And my biggest problem with Edwards was/is the support for the invasion in the first place...He is still my man though.
However, my wife, who is the epitome of 'sound bite politics' says that Obama funding the war after being elected is supporting the war, period.
So Obama lied (as well as a host of others).

[milkyway]

18. And if he voted against funding you'd be screaming we can't win with a guy who didn't support the

troops.

You should come up for air once in awhile. You're slowing down all the internets with your non-stop whining. You must be very frustrated.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

35. That might be true but the point here is he lied about not supporting the war.

since he equated funding with support.

[Tulkas]

20. Hillary voted for all the funding .. so your argument is that Obama is almost as bad as Clinton ?

[AGirl]

21. The OP argument is that Obama is a liar.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

22. Clinton never equalted funding with support when campaigning and swore not to do it

[joshcryer]

23. The argument is that he lied about being against funding the war.

When as soon as he took office he funded it.

[Tulkas]

51. We all know that voting against the war was spun into voting against the troops

He was against the war, no Candidate on either side has a record on Iraq that even compares.


It wasn't a lie, he wanted to de fund the war but the political will within Congress did not exist.


Bush won battle after battle on this front.

If Hillary has so much damn experience taking on the conservatives and winning why couldn't she do anything on this issue?

She still won't even admit that her vote was wrong. At least Edwards admitted he was wrong.




If you are against the Iraq war (and other future similar wars) you need to be for Obama. Hillary may make the same mistake again, and again, and again..........

[_Wayne_]

24. If Obama would have been a Senator in 2003, he would have voted for the resolution

[AGirl]

25. I agree, but he lied anyways. The OP proved it.

[ErnestoG]

36. No, in fact, the OP needs to read his own cited article on the subject

Because nowhere in it was a sourcable quote from Obama equating funding with support.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

43. he continued to oppose the war and said he would "unequivocally" vote against an additional $87 b"

[Proud2BAmurkin]

32. nailed it

[arewenotdemo]

45. You've got no data for that, just total speculation.

And in the face of data supporting the exact opposite conclusion.

BTW, were you for the war when it went down?

[mzmolly]

27. Funding Bush's game of chicken with the troops, is not akin to supporting the war.

C'mon enough BS.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

31. I agree UNLESS you equated it with supporting the war which OBAMA did.

[ErnestoG]

38. Where? Not in the article you cited.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

42. "he continued to oppose the war and said he would "unequivocally" vote against an additional $87 b"

?

[ErnestoG]

54. That doesnt say "funding is support", does it?

Is English your third language?

There are many reasons someone would or wouldnt vote for a funding bill, and they dont all rely on opposition to the war. One is the idea that funding will enable more wars. But there are many.

So I'll ask you a third time...where is the Obama quote that clearly states all funding of this war is support? Look since there isnt one, why not just acknowledge that your hatred toward the guy made you fib, and move on to better pursuits?

[mzmolly]

44. Voting against a PARTICULAR funding bill is not the same as voting for another.

Bills contain different language and criteria. I remain un-moved, sorry.

[ErnestoG]

55. Exactly. No matter how much Lee Greenwood wishes it were so.

[jackson_dem]

46. Funding something is not supporting it?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

49. Some can say they were supporting the troops but Obama said funding = pro war

[mzmolly]

52. Funding the troops = supporting them. It is not akin to support for the war.

Sorry, thought my point was clear.

[jackson_dem]

56. So Obama stopped supporting the troops since he began running for president?

He has flip flopped on funding. Again.

[mzmolly]

58. That's for you to decide, isn't it?

As I've indicated, every bill is different, every situation is different. From my perspective this is much ado about nothing.

[earth mom]

41. Most in Congress have BLOOD on their hands for continuing to fund the war.

Deny is all you want naysayers on this thread, but it doesn't change the fact that hundreds of thousands have died for a LIE! :grr:

Obama is just trying to pretty his record up. Sorry, but you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. :puke:

[elixir]

53. Had Obama been in the senate during the vote I suspect he would have voted for the IWR.

[Tatiana]

61. Cause we need more posts form this poster...

:kick:

[agdlp]

63. Obama Anti-war voice muted in Senate.Didn’t make a floor speech on the war until one year in office

Stephen Zunes, the Foreign Policy In Focus Middle East editor, is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).

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

MSM should really do some more research before condemning HRC on her statements on Obama and Iraq war:

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

Iraq in the Illinois State Senate

In October 2002, while Senators Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were in Washington leading Congressional efforts to authorize President George W. Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his choosing, Obama–then an Illinois state senator who had no obligation to take a stand either way–took the initiative to speak at a major anti-war rally in Chicago. While Clinton and Edwards were making false and alarmist statements that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was still a danger to the Middle East and U.S. national security, Obama had a far more realistic understanding of the situation, stating: “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors.”

Recognizing that there were alternatives to using military force, Obama called on the United States to “allow UN inspectors to do their work.” He noted “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.”

Furthermore, unlike the the Iraq War’s initial supporters, Obama recognized that “even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” Understanding the dangerous consequences to regional stability resulting from war, Obama accurately warned 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.”

Iraq in the U.S. Senate

Once elected to the U.S. Senate, however, his anti-war voice became muted. Obama supported unconditional funding for the Iraq War in both 2005 and 2006. And–despite her false testimonies before Congress and her mismanagement of Iraq policy before, during, and after the U.S. invasion in her role as National Security Advisor–Obama broke with most of his liberal colleagues in the Senate by voting to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state during his first weeks in office.

Obama didn’t even make a floor speech on the war until a full year after his election. In it, he called for a reduction in the number of U.S. troops but no timetable for their withdrawal. In June 2006, he voted against an amendment by Senators Russ Feingold and John Kerry for such a timetable.

In addition, during the 2006 Democratic congressional primaries, he campaigned for pro-war incumbents–including Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman against his eventually victorious primary challenger Ned Lamont–and other conservative Democrats fighting back more progressive anti-war challengers.

Iraq as a Presidential Candidate

It was only after the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Representative Lee Hamilton, called for setting a date to withdraw U.S. combat troops, and only after Obama formed his presidential exploratory committee, that he introduced legislation setting a date for troop withdrawal. And it was only this past spring that he began voting against unconditional funding for the war.

In a speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in November 2006, Obama appeared to buy into the Bush administration’s claims that its goal in Iraq was not about oil or empire, but to advance freedom, by criticizing the Bush administration for invading Iraq for unrealistic “dreams of democracy and hopes for a perfect government.” Instead of calling for an end to the increasingly bloody U.S.-led military effort, he instead called for “a pragmatic solution to the real war we’re facing in Iraq,” with repeated references to the need to defeat the insurgency.

Despite polls showing a majority of Americans desiring a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces, he acknowledged that U.S. troops may need to stay in that occupied country for an “extended period of time,” and that “the U.S. may have no choice but to slog it out in Iraq.” Specifically, he called for U.S. forces to maintain a “reduced but active presence,” to “protect logistical supply points” and “American enclaves like the Green Zone” as well as “act as rapid reaction forces to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists.”

Obama has committed to withdraw regular combat troops within 16 months and launch diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives to address some of the underlying issues driving the ongoing conflicts. He has also pledged to launch “a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker and end of the civil war in Iraq, prevent its spread, and limit the suffering of the Iraqi people.”

If elected, as president Obama would almost certainly withdraw the vast majority of U.S. forces from Iraq. Yet thousands of American troops would likely remain to perform such duties as he has described as necessary. Indeed, he has explicitly ruled out any guarantee for a total U.S. withdrawal from Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. At the same time, he has recognized the need to “make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq” and has increasingly emphasized that most U.S. troops that remain in the area should be “over the horizon,” such as in Kuwait, rather than in Iraq itself.


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

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/11/6312 /

[dogman]

64. I sent him a complaint when he voted to confirm Condi.

To me that was an endorsement of the lies that led us to the Iraq War.

[flordehinojos]

65. i think obama served himself to ted kennedy on a silver platter.