Ok, I've Just Gotta Say It: After Last Night, I Believe Obama Would've Voted For The IWR.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

He wasn't in the Senate at the time, so it's real easy for him to claim he would've held the same position as he did if he HAD been in the Senate, but there's no way to know that for sure. All we can do is go by his word.

But last night, there was a part of the debate that glared out at me and got me thinking a lot as to whether he truly would've voted against it and maintained the same judgment. After thinking about it, I no longer think he would've. That moment was when he spoke of the one vote he regrets, which was the Terry Schiavo vote. He made it quite clear that he should've known better. He made it quite clear that if he had stepped aside and thought about it, he should've known it was the wrong move. He spoke quite clearly that with his law background and otherwise knowledgeable capability, he should've absolutely known better and chosen the right path. But he didn't. He was in the Senate. Once in the Senate, the rules change a bit. Thought processes get skewed, peer pressure kicks in, objectivity can get clouded. That's what happened to him as it relates to the Schiavo vote, which at the time I considered to be one of the most embarrassing things our congress has ever done.

But what got me thinking the most, was that nagging thought in my head that had he NOT have been a Senator, that he absolutely would've been giving a speech as to WHY that would be such a bad move and condemning those who voted for it. I'm convinced if he was just a civilian, he WOULD'VE known better. But once he was a Senator, he made the wrong judgment. The situation was too political. He joined the crowd. He chose wrong. That happens in politics. That happens once in the Senate. It happens too often. He was guilty of it there.

But that was just within the context of something as light as the Terry Schiavo case. If he was able to have his perception flawed with that, I ABSOLUTELY think his perception could easily have been clouded as it relates to the IWR vote, HAD HE BEEN A SENATOR. It very well may have been clouded just like SO MANY of our good Dems, who had been duped a bit as well.

But I don't for a second buy the argument that based on his speeches etc, that he most certainly would've stood against the IWR had he actually been in the Senatorial position to do so. Had he been a civilian, I'm convinced he would've given the same type of speech about the Schiavo case. But as a Senator, he DIDN'T give that speech. In fact, he fell hook line and sinker into the political wave. To stand there and think for a second that the same thing couldn't have happened had he been Senator during the IWR, is way naive in my opinion.

Ok, that's all I really have to say about that. Just a thought that's been on my mind since last night.

[Maddy McCall]

1. Of course he would have.

I have very little doubt that he would have.

[FrenchieCat]

56. So why did Obama say, at the time, that he wouldn't have?

How can someone theorize what Barack would have done when he, himself said that he would have voted like Durbin and voted NAY, when he was asked back in 2002 in an interview?

He specifically responds to the question at 2:11 on the video.....and states that he would have voted NAY. That was on 11/25/02.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po


Is this like the fairytale you guys are telling? The one Bill Clinton was talking about?

[JoFerret]

74. He is theorizes about the choice he would have made

He was not there. He did not have to make that choice. he had the luxury of being on the sidelines.
He was against it but before he might have been for it, or not. We don't know. He doesn't know how he might have voted. He was not THERE.

So the holy high ground of perfect judgment does not apply.

[Raejeanowl]

140. Right On Target

He had the luxury of not sweating the IWR decision.

It's like being the parents or spouse of Terry Schiavo vs. being a member of the voting public vs. being a Senator. You sometimes go with the weight of political pressure and expediency. And Obama admitted it. So I have to admire him for that, but he doesn't get to play that violin tune for his benefit alone.

So now he thinks he gets to criticize Clinton's judgment on being hoodwinked or politically strong-armed along with many others (not just Congress) into the nightmarish, costly, bloody boondoggle the war has become. It doesn't work that way.

Everyone needs to re-wind the video back to the White House's and Cabinet members' reassurances that we were going to get in, get the job done, and get out as fast as practicable. And then to the continual dropping of the other shoe when it didn't look so clear-cut a withdrawal.

We'd all be well-advised to keep those things in mind, if not to ameliorate Clinton's part in authorizing the war, then to put any CURRENT assurances of how quickly a withdrawal would be accomplished by anyone's new Administration (once the inauguration takes place) in a more realistic perspective.

"All due haste" may still be months or years even if campaign promises are assiduously kept.

[indimuse]

97. Sorry frenchie... Just WORDZ!

obama missed his chance to be an " honest' antiwar candidate!


Edited on Wed Feb-27-08 03:21 PM by indimuse
HE KNEW! HE KNEW when voting to increase war spending..extending the war,how bad it was already...HE KNEW what that YES vote meant!

He could have come to the US Senate as promised(((HIS WORD.. while running for that seat!!)))and taken a STAND against staying any longer...FLOOR SPEECH.((((WORDS)))) words HE DID NOT SPEAK.. Written legislation...(((WORDS))) WORDS HE DID NOT WRITE!!..against the war..nor to STOP funding it..etc..He did not use his (((WORDS)) to inspire CHANGE or make an independent CHOICE when HE had the opportunity!! (He could have..THEN I would respect what he was touting...very misleading and THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME Obama's (((WORD))) has come under question. He chose to FUND it...He didn't have to..and should not be considered anything more than Hillary regarding the IW.


edit ..changed a (((WORD)))

[FrenchieCat]

142. Full of shit!

div class="excerpt"]
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/

[lastliberalintexas]

127. I'm glad to remember that you gave Dean as much credit in 2004

:)

[jasmine621]

171. Oh, you mean he didn't "get it right the first time?" nt

[GarbagemanLB]

2. From a Hillary supporter? Shocking! Of course you don't believe him.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Nice Knee Jerk Reaction You've Got There. Now Actually Try Reading The OP.

This has nothing to do with bias towards any candidate, and all to do with objectivity. If you can pry your mind open a little, you may be able to understand the quite logical and non-inflammatory points raised in the OP, and then actually respond with some substance as to why you do or don't agree, instead of with your extremely weak ad-hominem attack.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

16. Hillary hates hypotheticals. She told us that last night. But on this one...

I will concede we'll never know. All we know is that she did and he couldn't. And that he spoke out against the war loudly when 85% of the country was banging the drum. Still, I'll concede we'll never know.

[murielm99]

41. This is some of the same reasoning that explains

why we often disagree with judicial decisions or jury decisions.

A judge may have to follow finer points of law than we laymen realize. A jury may not have been allowed to hear some evidence that the public thinks they should have heard.

I think your OP was well-reasoned. Thank you.

I am a Clinton supporter. I also live in Illinois, and I have followed Obama's career since his Senate primary. To be honest, I had never heard of him before that time, and I am a very active Democrat. I leaned Obama initially. But his Senate career, which I have scrutinized, has been very ordinary.

Don't tell me all about his work as an activist and state legislator. I know all that. But the spotlight has been on him since his Senate primary days. For me, he has not lived up to the hype. Maybe he will, if he is the nominee and the President. I will vote for him if he is the nominee, and hope that he can live up to at least some of the promise. No one ever does that completely.

[miceelf]

121. objectivity?

i find that hard to believe. You're a pretty partisan Clinton supporter. So it MAY be possible that you're not completely objective about a distinct advantage Obama has over her.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. Yes. You Might Want To Try It Sometime.

Once you gain that skill, then you'd be able to see how completely ignorant and inaccurate it would be to call me a pretty partisan Clinton supporter, when that's so far from reality it's not even funny. I'm always able to be objective, and it's one of the few things that separates me from others. The OP was based on pure objectivity and raises some valid points. They don't have to be agreed with, but whether one does or doesn't agree doesn't make the logic and objectivity any less sound or valid. These aren't facts I'm claiming in the OP, they are considerations. So often people here tout his war position as if it is so firm that he wouldn't have voted for it. I think that's purely speculative, of course, and that based on his answer last night, it would open the door of reasonable thought that he ABSOLUTELY might've been prone to having a different position if he was on the inside, than he was able to hold while he was on the outside. It's really as simple as that.

[JTFrog]

155. Then I guess you don't know how to portray your reality very well. n/t

[BOSSHOG]

3. Its very easy to say you would have voted one way or another

when you weren't in a position to vote. He could jump in the republican primary and say he supported IWR. Hey, empty suits know no party.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

22. Is "empty suit" the new buzz word?

Do Hillary supporters contact each other every morning to discuss the message of the day?

[BuelahWitch]

135. Psst! It's not new!

[Just-plain-Kathy]

161. Pssssst. Applied to Obama, that fraise has been blazing around here lately.

[SOS]

200. The newest buzzword is "empty pantsuit"

I was contacted this morning!

:)

[Blue_In_AK]

4. I suspect that you're right, OMC.

But there's no way to know for sure.

[THUNDER HANDS]

5. I think if they had to do it over again, she'd still vote for it

she can't be labeled anti-war. she's scared to death of being seen as weak.

[anamandujano]

33. Not being seen as weak is a good reason why Obama would have voted for it.

He is very politically calculating.

His desertion of his constituents with the nuclear leak problem to go with Exelon, one of his biggest bankrollers, shows it's more about advancing his political ambitions than anything vaguely resembling integrity.

[maddiejoan]

6. Obama has said himself

that he doesn't know how he would have voted on IWR, had he been in the Senate.

[Alexander]

11. "From my vantage point, the case was not made."

Hard to spin that.

[maddiejoan]

30. His vantage point?

You mean the cheap seats?

'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know, What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made for authorizing the war."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/battletested_b_86355.html

[Alexander]

38. Of course you ignore the last part, because it destroys your claim.

"What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made for authorizing the war."

That's a fact. Anything about how he might have voted for it in the Senate is just pure speculation.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. "Anything about how he might have voted for it in the Senate is just pure speculation."

So is anything saying he wouldn't have.

[bvar22]

83. Correct.

The only thing we KNOW for sure is:

*Hillary did, in fact, vote FOR the Authorization to use Force in Iraq.

*Obama did NOT vote for the Authorization to use Force in Iraq.

Everything else is pure speculation and rationalization.

[rug]

122. Obama did not vote to declare war on Japan either.

[JAbuchan08]

178. nor did he speak out against it

stupidity

[rug]

201. Get back to me on issues he actually could vote on.

Like funding the war. Like extending the Patriot Act.

[maddiejoan]

50. I don't ignore it

it's meaningless.

His vantage point? Meaningless.

[zulchzulu]

32. You missed the critical last sentence...and it was responded to

[maddiejoan]

51. it's meaningless.

[Unsane]

188. Lame. He said that in an attempt to protect then-nominee Kerry.

[quinnox]

7. He said as much

He is qouted that had he seen the priveleged intelligence, he may have thought differently about Iraq war.

Obama is all smoke and mirrors, and has fooled a lot of people. But you can't fool everyone.

[Alexander]

12. "From my vantage point, the case was not made."

Your pathetic attempts at spinning don't change the facts. He was against it.

[route66left]

164. Agree, he talks out of both sides of his mouth to cover his political "bottom"

[Alexander]

9. What bullshit. You believed this all along. He said "The case was not made".

I can't see how anyone can spin that as him saying he'd vote for it.

Unless you're totally blind.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Another Knee Jerk Reaction. Please Try And Actually Read The OP With The Slightest Hint Of Having

an open mind, ok? Cause your knee jerk reaction shows quite glaringly that your mind was as closed as could be when reading it. The points raised are perfectly valid and legitimate, and there isn't any spin to it whatsoever.

[Alexander]

42. You've always believed this. You said so in previous posts. I don't buy what you're selling.

I know, I know, it sucks to have someone call you out on your bullshit.

"From my vantage point, the case was not made."

That's a fact. Anything else is pure speculation by Hillary supporters, bitter and angry that Obama is light years ahead of her on this issue.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. I May Have Questioned It, But I Don't Believe I Ever Stated I Had Believed He Would've.

Furthermore, anyone saying anything EITHER WAY, whether he would've or wouldn't have voted against it, are using nothing but speculation. What I did in the OP, was supply well reasoned argument as to why that speculation could very well lean towards him having voted for it. If anyone seems bitter here, it's you. My OP was quite rational, reasoned and calm. Your responses haven't been.

[yardwork]

10. Obama was on the wrong side of the Terry Schiavo vote?

I didn't know that. That does zero to increase my respect for him.

And yes, I've always assumed that he would have voted for IWR if he had been in the senate at the time. He has voted the same as Hillary on the war ever since he was elected to the Senate.

Obama is ok, but he's not radical in any way. People who are voting for him purely on the basis of IWR are voting for a fantasy.

[Alexander]

43. No, the Senate voted unanimously to involve themselves with the issue...

And Obama regretted that he didn't take a stand and stop them from doing so.

Then again, Clinton didn't either.

It was a weakness on both of their parts. But one of them apologized and regretted the decision last night. The other one didn't.

[Skittles]

52. these apologies for hideous errors of judgement are just pitiful

they voted for shit that was so, SO obviously wrong - FROM THE START - it tells me our government as a whole seems to have stopped working for the people

[yardwork]

63. That's how I see it. I don't see much to be proud of on the part of either one of them.

That's why neither was my first, second, third, or even fourth choice for president.

[Skittles]

116. you got it, yardwork

that's why I am unable to comprehend the hysteria for either of these candidates - they are nothing to get excited about - not at all

[yardwork]

54. Ok, got it. Nobody in the Senate stood up to it?

What a bunch of wimps. I swear.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. Yes, Yes, You're Right. Hillary Should've Used That As Her TOP Regret As Opposed To The IWR.

Oh my god what a ridiculous argument.

:rofl:

[Usrename]

49. There was no vote.

That is part of the problem I have with the OP.

[yardwork]

57. Was there a vote or not? Now I'm confused again.

[Usrename]

69. It was passed by unanimous consent.

No vote was taken. His regret is that he didn't stand up and object.

That is very differnt than the hypothetical that the OP is comparing it to.

In the second case there were many Senators that voted against the IWR.

[JoFerret]

13. Without a doubt

...there is nothing in his record that suggests taking a stand when the risks are high as they were at that time.

Mr. Accommodation would have rolled just as I fear we will seem him get rolled as president.
forget health care reform. Hillary does not have anywhere near a good enough plan but it is better than his and she knows what it will take to get any progress at all. We will see amelioration at best. Things that can be touted but that fall way too short.

What a tragedy that this opportunity - the best in decades - to elect a real progressive has been wasted.

[SeaLyons]

186. Sad, but True

[saracat]

14. I refuse to watch anymore debates so what did he say about Schiavo? Did he support the

trying to prevent her life support being terminated? If so that has a lot of ramifications.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. He Voted On The Bill That Allowed Congress To Take Up The Issue And Have It Jump To Federal Courts,

instead of remaining in the state courts. The legislation is what allowed the federal government to intrude into such a matter.

on edit: At least that's what I think it was for, anyway.

[Usrename]

53. There was no vote.

[Occam Bandage]

96. OMC, I'm afraid you're ill-informed. It was "passed" 3-0 (Frist, Santorum, Martinez) without quorum.

Obama did not vote on it. Nor did 96 other Senators.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

101. It Was Unanimous Consent. It Could've Easily Been Prevented. I Addressed It Further Down.

I took Obama at his word that he 'voted', but after further research realized that it wasn't an actual vote. But the concept is still the same as to what his judgment/action/inaction was while in the Senate, as opposed to how it may have been out of it. The point is that things change once you're actually in there. Based on his own words last night, and how strongly he stated he should've known better, it occurred to me "ya know what? He should've. Why didn't he? Cause he was in the Senate". I then thought about how he may have reacted had he NOT been in the Senate, and I could see him easily having spoken out against it as he himself says he knows he should've done. Thinking can be more clear and objective when outside of the Senate, as compared to when you're in it. Based on that, and his own words as to how glaring it should've been for him, I can't help thinking that with the pressures, posturing and gravity of the IWR vote, that he very well may have in fact fallen into the same trap so many of our other good Senators fell into. That's the point.

[Occam Bandage]

111. Obama never claimed he "voted" on that, first. But aside from that, don't you see

that, absent our knowledge of the actual vote total, your OP would suggest that not a single Democratic Senator voted against the AUMF?

He indeed should have known better. As should have all Senators. Frankly, the Democrats weren't of much a mind to step in the way of Republicans playing this insane game; we wanted no part of it either way. Leahy, too, should have stopped it. Feingold and Kennedy should have stopped it. I'm going to assume that the same paradigm was at work there, instead of some strange Obama-endemic reasoning.

Failure to launch into a miniature Mr. Smith Goes To Washington is a completely different dynamic from voting along with the majority of your party against a proposal your constituency is not wholly in favor of. I'm not going to say he would certainly have voted against it, but I don't think this is a very strong case. Not one Senator--not even those who voted against the war resolution--moved to stop the Schiavo process. Again, your argument, taken in a vacuum, would imply that Feingold, Leahy, and Kennedy also "probably would have" voted for the IWR.

I agree with your general point--we don't know how Obama would have voted for sure. We simply don't. He very well might have voted in favor of it. I'd give it even odds myself. I just don't think this is the right argument.

[BuelahWitch]

17. All the Senators with Presidential aspirations voted for it

I have no doubt Obama would have voted for it either. People who overlooked Kerry's vote last time around aren't giving Clinton the same benefit of the doubt.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. Throw another gasoline-soaked rag on the barbie.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. Since When Is Objectivity And Sound Logic Flamebait? Get A Grip. For Real.

There isn't a thing within the OP that is flamebait. It is all straightforward logic with an objective basis. Try and pry open your mind a little, ok?

[jgraz]

19. Doesn't matter. The important point is he opposed it when he did

That gives him a crucial advantage over Hillary when taking on McCain.

[mudesi]

21. So you ADMIT THEN, that Clinton made a mistake?

Because I thought you accepted her excuses for it. I'm glad you changed your mind, OPERATIONMINDCRIME.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. I've Never Said Otherwise. And Her Explanations Have More Than Sufficed.

Not sure why you're so obsessed with me and this issue though. It's kinda creepy...

[mudesi]

37. Quote:

I'm convinced if he was just a civilian, he WOULD'VE known better. But once he was a Senator, he made the wrong judgment. The situation was too political. He joined the crowd. He chose wrong. That happens in politics. That happens once in the Senate. It happens too often. He was guilty of it there.

And your comparison of the Terri Schiavo vote with the Iraq war authorization is a ludicrous one.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

66. You're Not Making Any Point. Your Reply Carried With It No Substance Or Meaning.

What exactly are you trying to get at?

Too creepy...

[LisaM]

23. I was surprised by his Terry Schiavo comments as well.

It was not only the wrong vote, it was also clearly a case of political posturing. I've often had doubts that he would have voted 'no' on the IWR, but I like your reasoning.

[The Anti-Bush]

25. Too bad he wasn't. So, you don't get to say he did.

And unless you can go back and change the past, then you have a really empty argument.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. Wrong.

It means his supporters have no right to say he wouldn't have, as so many claim. In fact, after last night, it seems even more apparent to me that though we can never know for certain, that the scales tip probably far more towards the side that he would've in fact voted for it. So no, I can't say he would've. No, others can't say he wouldn't have. We can only go by circumstantial evidence. All I did in my OP, was provide circumstantial evidence that lends itself to the case that he would've in fact voted for it. It's a good point, whether you choose to support the point or not.

[Happyhippychick]

26. My husband and I had this discussion last night as well. I disagree and

the reason is that he didn't just sit quietly by while the vote was happening. He was actively speaking out against the occupation at the time. He wasn't playing Monday morning quarterback.

THat's just my opinion though.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

70. Well You Will Find Some Well Laid Out Reasons In The OP As To Why His Speaking Out While Outside Of

the Senate, may carry little value as to what he would've done if inside. I'd say I'm 99% convinced he would've voted in favor of it.

[zulchzulu]

27. He came out fully against the war when it WASN'T POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT

If it fulfills your delusion to try to make up shit out of vapor to support your candidate, then by all means, enjoy your self-deception.

Would those who voted against the IWR have voted for it if they were somehow in a World now...er....uh...

As for his votes supporting the troops and veterans, what is he supposed to do?

[yardwork]

62. Actually, it was politically expedient for him to do so when and where he did.

Obama was the representative of a very liberal district at the time he publicly opposed the war. It was politically expedient for him to do so - most of his constituents agreed with him.

Since being elected to the Senate, he's done nothing radical to stand up against the war. I'm not blaming him anymore than Hillary or anyone else. I'm saying that he hasn't been out in front on the subject, either.

There may be very good reasons to choose Obama over Hillary, but the IWR, in my opinion, is not one of them.

[Joshua N]

99. He was running a Senate campaign.

Although his district may have supported his stance, you can't say that all of Illinois did. There was risk involved.

[Radical Activist]

105. You're absolutely right.

He was running for Senate and he was the only Democrat in the primary who came out clearly against the war. It was very risky.

[Whisp]

28. . . .

:rofl:

[mudesi]

29. FURTHERMORE, comparing the Schiavo thing with IRAQ??

Because really, voting wrong on the Terri Schiavo thing is so similar to being responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

:eyes:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

46. Those millions aren't dead... I saw their eyes follow a balloon

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. It Shows How With Something Even With Such Less Gravity, He Could Have His Judgment Clouded.

To me, that weighs more towards him possibly succumbing even more to the pressures of the IWR, had he been in the Senate.

There was a lot of political gravity around the schiavo vote at the time, and he allowed the bill to pass. As per his own words, he should've known better. Once in the Senate, there are many other factors that come into play and thought processes aren't quite the same as they are when outside of the Senate. That was shown with his position on the schiavo bill, and it very well may have been shown on the IWR one as well.

[LiberalAndProud]

34. I think you're right. The culture of the Senate trumped U.S.

[HeraldSquare212]

36. Her comment that "A lot of people spoke out against the war" is just not true,

A lot of people did, but how many politicians actually did? in 2002? I don't remember many.

[Whisp]

61. if they did, they sure weren't on TV!

horrible time to think back to, but all I remember hearing was Support for the WAr. Everyone was on the bandwagon. Tons of military dudes interviewed, hardly a spec of the opposing view. Dan rather was even slobbering stupid 'trust my president' shit.

It was a disgrace.
I hope someone has some recordings of those horrid (CNN, and all others I am supposing) days, just to realize how GAWDFUCKINGAWFUL the media was in pumping that fiasco to it's ultimate end.

so thankyou, Obama, for speaking out loudly on the travesty and plans of mass murder. You didn't make it to the News channels, but it is on record. It is on record that you are a thinking man with a conscience

and fuck every last weasel that voted for that war crime.

[Radical Activist]

107. The other Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin did.

IL does a damn good job of picking Senators.

[hfojvt]

39. just keep telling yourself that

The fact is that Obama was not a civilian, and he did not just give one speech any more than Hillary only voted for the IWR. Obama was in the Illinois State Senate AND he was in a primary campaign for the US Senate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/3/74627/10857/761/...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

73. True. I Shouldn't Have Used The Word Civilian. I Just Meant Non-U.S. Senator.

[DURHAM D]

100. Last night he implied that at the time of his speech he was "running" for the Senate.

I don't believe that is accurate as it was several months later that the incumbent decided not to run again. I think Obama is changing his personal history - probably no one will notice however. "He is the One".

[robertpaulsen]

40. Funny, I had the opposite reaction last night.

But that's because after the debate, I watched the special MSNBC has covering the candidates individually (Clinton, Obama, & McCain) and last night the focus was on Obama. I finally saw the speech he gave at the protest in October 2002. Seeing that convinced me that he would have joined Senators Kennedy and Wellstone, who seemed to me to be the most vocal at that time (along with Gore) in their denunciation of IWR.

I understand what you're saying in regard to the Schaivo case, but I think comparing that to Iraq, IMHO, is a case of apples and oranges. Not defending Obama's mistake, just that I think it's easier to look the other way when social reactionaries start humping the near-corpse of a private citizen than it is when millions of lives and billions of dollars are at stake. Yes, I'm oversimplifying it, but that's just my gut reaction after seeing what he said in October of 2002 for the first time last night.

[Bluerthanblue]

44. that is your opinion- and is important to you- I don't think you are

right. And I do think that he has had the desire to run for president since he was a child, and that speaking out against the war could have proven to be his death knell if he had been mistaken.

The difference between speaking out on the Schiavo case, and speaking out on a WAR RESOLOUTION is the difference between night and day-

IMO

peace~

[bigbrother05]

45. All hypothetical

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. No Shit.

[bigbrother05]

86. I hate when poster get on here

and get all pissy, because they can't defend their argument

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

90. There Was Nothing To Defend Against.

Your post contained nothing. In fact, in relation to the OP, it was quite empty and nonsensical, as well as way simplistic in thought process.

[bigbrother05]

95. You want me to pick your brain on a Hypothetical I'll pass

straightforward logic with an objective basis, in your opinion.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

104. Look, You've Got Nuttin. It's That Simple. You Can Only Respond With Empty Reply Because You

don't have the logical prowess to overcome the logic I presented. Basically, you've said nothing in reply whatsoever.

[bigbrother05]

113. Ok, didn't intend to get into a back and forth, but ....

Just because you can string together a series of "if, then" statements to support your "epiphany" is not the same as a logical proof. Do my best to deal in direct observation and label my opinions as such.

Your "proof" of what someone would have hypothetically done in the past hardly justifies what someone else actually did at the time. In my world, I'm willing to defer to the contemporaneous statements of a person's intent over some post event speculation.

Buh, bye. Off to an Obama rally in San Marcos.

[Skittles]

47. I agree n/t

[still_one]

58. Based on what? At the time HE CLEARLY said we should be focusing on Afganistan

NOT Iraq

At the time he said very clearly that it was a mistake to go into Iraq

but if you want to play your hypothetical games, fine, here is something that ISN'T hypothetical:

1. Hillary DID vote for the IWR, which effectively made the War Powers Act Obsolete
2. Obama wasn't in the Senate to vote on it, but DID speak out against that vote
3. Other Democrats also did not vote for the IWR because they KNEW it was flawed

Those are facts, nothing hypothetical

[sfam]

59. Ok, I've Just Gotta Say It: You're full of it.

Truly.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. Full Of What? Intelligence, Logic, Reasoning, Critical Thinking, And Objectivity? You're Right.

[tandot]

64. It is hard to say how he have voted.

I wonder how those Senators and Congressmen who voted against the IWR voted on the funding of the war. Didn't Kucinich vote against the IWR and also consistently against funding the war?

Both Clinton and Obama have voted to fund the war.

[Straight Shooter]

65. I bet he would have voted for it if other Senators made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Someone perhaps like Lieberman, who would have assured him that everything would be "all smoothed over" if his judgment were ever questioned.

New members of the Congress Critters Club have been known to make deals for their votes. And Obama strikes me as a dealmaker of convenient ambitions.

Good post, OMC.

[Lilith Velkor]

137. Especially if he was there when they got anthraxed.

It's amazing how quickly people forget the context of that vote, and the example that was made of Senator Wellstone.

[Usrename]

67. You are wrong about this.

There wasn't any vote on the Terry Schiavo case.

Nobody, in the entire body of the Senate, voted on it. Neither for, nor against. It was unanimous consent.

OTOH, there were (I'm guessing but I go look it up if you want) something like 23 votes against the IWR.

You are just wrong.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

78. You Are Right To A Degree.

I took it for granted since OBAMA HIMSELF said he voted. But it was unanimous consent. But he may have been able to stop it had he spoken out. He didn't. He regrets it. His judgment was clouded. He made the wrong decision. These are his words.

Now contrast that with how you think he would've acted and spoken had he NOT been a Senator. For some reason, I can't shake this strong feeling that he WOULD'VE known better and WOULD'VE spoken out against it. But once a Senator, things change. Once a Senator, judgments can get clouded. Based on the happening so glaringly with the schiavo vote, it would be amazingly naive for anyone to claim that because he gave such a speech against the war while he was OUTSIDE of the Senate, that he would've done the same had he been INSIDE.

[Lerkfish]

88. try to shake that BS feeling in your gut that tells you to smear a democrat

for no good reason.

hey, I got a feeling in my gut that you're talking out a different orifice than most people do.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

91. There Were No Smears Here. Try And Get A Grip, Ok?

[Lilith Velkor]

138. Smear him by calling him a politician?

Bloody hell, man, get a grip.

[Usrename]

89. Sure, I agree with you on part of what you are saying.

If he wasn't in the Senate he certainly would have voiced his opinion about what the Senate did on Schiavo. And he does admit that it was wrong for him not to object, which would have forced a vote, and all of the Senate would have had to go on the record over this. I get that part. And I agree that what he did was lacking in character. I don't think he would argue about that. It was a mistake.

The main problem I have is with the other conclusion that you are trying draw, concerning the IWR vote. There were many Senators that voted against it. I think Obama would have gone along with them. If for no other reason than the presence and persuasiveness of Paul Wellstone. Had Obama ever had the opportunity to serve with him, I honestly think he would have stood shoulder to shoulder with Wellstone.

Of course I don't have any proof or anything, it is just my take on who the guy really is.

[Occam Bandage]

98. Read the transcript. He didn't say he voted. He said "it was not something that I

stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better.... And I think that's an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

106. Since The Question Was "Which VOTE Would You Take Back", That Part Was Implied.

[Occam Bandage]

112. And he explained why he had answered with that instead of a vote by saying

"And I think that’s an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action." It's an understandable mistake; I had to look it up myself. But at the same time, it makes that a wholly different paradigm from the IWR.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

68. givent that even kerry voted for it, i bet obama would. kerry has taken several difiicult and

unpopular decisions. yet even he had to cave on IWR.

[2008]

71. Al Gore would have let up on the bin Laden search in order to invade Iraq

oh, wait, no he wouldn't

[Lerkfish]

76. and I think if I'd have been in WWII, I'd have been a hero! oh, and I'm a pink centaur!

prove me wrong!!!


geez.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. No One Was Asked To Prove Anything. Get A Grip. It Was A Valid Viewpoint.

Try and open your mind sometime. I promise, objectivity doesn't hurt. :hi:

[Lerkfish]

81. valid to you because its your viewpoint, otherwise, to everyone else, not so much

and which is the number of your retort? 4? I lost track.
which one is "if you don't agree with me you don't have an open mind" on the OMC attack randomizer?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

92. It's Valid Because It's Of Sound Logic And Presents A Reasonable Argument.

That does not make it fact, but it does make it a valid point. Unfortunately, you have yet to come up with anything valid in response, other than childish stupidity.

[Lerkfish]

120. is that number 7?

"childish stupidity"?


at any rate, I disagree that mere speculation based on your own assumptions is a valid point. It makes it your opinion, but its validity can only be judged by others, not yourself. You can verify whether it is, indeed, your opinion, but other than that, its validity is beyond your jursidiction to decide, as of course, you have a vested interest in labeling it "valid".

do you understand my point yet? is your mind "open" enough to grasp?

sorry, was that number 5? I lose track.

[terrya]

80. Of course he would have.

Let's get real here. If he was in the Senate at the same time, knowing the same things as Hillary and the other Democratic Senators did, he sure as hell would voted for the IWR.

Good point, OMC.

[BootinUp]

84. I agree, but its

mostly becuase I interpret the whole political situation a bit differently on that vote than most do. I truly believe we would have invaded in Mar '03 no matter how the Oct 02 vote went. Furthermore I think many of the Senators believed that too and were hoping a UN inpsection regime could reduce Bush's public support further for war.

[dansolo]

114. Dick Durbin voted against it

Durbin, Obama's friend, and the senior senator from Illinois, voted against it. He was one of the few Senators facing re-election to vote against it. I believe that Obama would have voted with Durbin against the war.

This same ridiculous assertion was levied against Dean in 2004.

[rateyes]

185. Bullshit. The Senior Senator from Obama's state, and 23 others

voted against the IWR, as well as a majority of the Democrats in the House.

[TheDoorbellRang]

82. This is just living in the land of "What If"

One can speculate all one wants on this, but it still boils down to Obama made a public speech against it during his state senate campaign, and Clinton went along. :shrug:

[endarkenment]

85. you are welcom to your opinion.

The fact is that Obama publicly opposed the war and the IWR that enabled it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

93. The Fact Is That We Don't Know How He Would've Voted Had He The Chance.

What the OP is showing, is that sometimes what one does as a Senator, is different than what they would've done had they not been. That's the point.

[Radical Activist]

108. Sounds like a good reason not to elect someone who has been in the Senate too long.

[endarkenment]

174. And yet in your OP you claim to know.

And you base this certain knowledge on the irrelevant Schiavo sideshow. I'll continue to look at Obama's words on the matter at the time, his consistent opposition to the war, and hold that up against Clinton, about whom we do not have to speculate as she is simply on the record as voting yes for war in Iraq. Obama +1 on the war.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

175. I Claim No Such Thing. Your Perception Was Obviously In Error.

[endarkenment]

180. So you agree your OP was just speculative bullshit. OK.

I'll stick with the known facts: Clinton voted for the war, Obama publicly stated his opposition at the time to the same IWR Clinton voted for. Obama +1 on the war.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

181. Nope. I Agree That Those Saying There's No Way He Would've Voted Are Using Speculative Bullshit.

That's the point. Anyone standing firm that there's no way he would've changed his position had he been in the Senate, and even close off that possibility (as several here have done), are being politically naive fools.

[Lerkfish]

87. Interesting post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4800782&mesg_id=4800782

[Occam Bandage]

94. That's great, except he wasn't talking about a vote; no vote was recorded. He was saying he did not

attempt to single-handedly stop the process (which he very well could have).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Sunday_Compromise

Failure to launch into a miniature Mr. Smith Goes To Washington is a completely different dynamic from voting along with the majority of your party against a proposal your constituency is not wholly in favor of. I'm not going to say he would certainly have voted against it, but I don't think this is a very strong case. Not one Senator--not even those who voted against the war resolution--moved to stop the Schiavo process. Your argument, taken in a vacuum, would imply that Feingold, Leahy, and Kennedy also "probably would have" voted for the IWR.

I agree with your general point--we don't know how Obama would have voted for sure. We simply don't. He very well might have voted in favor of it. I'd give it even odds myself. I just don't think this is the right argument.

[paulk]

102. I've always felt that for Obama to use the IWR to attack the

other candidates was dishonest. It is one of the primary reasons I don't support him.

[Radical Activist]

103. You have nothing to base that assumption except your own prejudices against Obama and speculation.

The clearest indication of what he would have done had he been in the Senate is the fact that he had the courage to not only speak out against the war before it happened, but to do so at an anti-war rally, just the type of event most candidates are too cautious to attend. He showed real political courage.

And the fact that Obama recognized his mistake with Schiavo, regretted it, and apparently learned from it, suggest to me that he isn't going to make the same mistake again. In my mind, that's further evidence that he would have voted the right way on Iraq.

[AZBlue]

139. What you said!

Seriously, I can't add anything to it, your post sums up my thoughts exactly. Thanks!

[Eric J in MN]

109. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) voted against the IWR and...

...so did both the MN Senators of the time (Paul Wellstone and Mark Dayton) and so it's not like the influence on Obama from other Senators would have been entirely in favor of voting for the IWR...

...if Obama had been a US Senator in 2002.

[Forkboy]

110. My feeling is that it's easy to say you would have or would not do something...

...when you know you'll never have to make that decision. While I like that he said he'd have voted against it really doesn't do anything for me one way or the other.

[Justice Is Comin]

115. You can bet your last nickel he would have

voted for it. He was running against a nobody and there was no risk whatsoever for him to side up with jillions of other citizens.

If he had to put his money where his mouth while being lambasted for being a fraidy cat weakling on terror by the puke brigade, he would have trollied right along into the sheep pack where they wanted him. They would have stepped on him like an ant.

Just like he told the country he wouldn't run for president when he wanted to suck up to Illinois after he was first elected, and then after he stuck his finger in the wind and changed 180 degrees, he just sluffed it off.

Just like he said he would take government funds for the general election limiting the amount that can be spent and now he will default on that too.

He's a lying bullshitter of the highest order, always was, and always will be.

[johnnydrama]

118. BALONEY

This is such utter baloney.

The vast majority of the US and the World thought Iraq would be a cakewalk. From the perspective of most people in 2003, in 2008 we would look back at the war and thank George Bush for getting rid of the WMD's and stopping the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.

How would it look now if Barack Obama had voted against it. Do you think he would win a nomination for Senate or President after blowing that vote, and wanting Saddam to keep the WMD's.

No risk, that is so stupid, of course there was a huge risk. His aspirations for higher office would have been doomed if like most people thought, Iraq was a stable Democracy in 2008.

[Justice Is Comin]

133. You don't get it.

He took an anti position to Keyes. It was a free shot. There was no risk whatsoever. He didn't put his name on anything. He was a no name senator with nothing more to his resume than key note speaker.

He hasn't had one original thought. He copies everything. This is a guy who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and hasn't had ONE meeting about the country he is so "passionate" about--Afghanistan. And you're saying woo hoo let's make him president.

It's enough to paralyze the mind.

[AtomicKitten]

117. If you feel that speculation justifies voting for someone who did vote YES, um, well, mazel tov.

[Lerkfish]

119. bravo! short, sweet, and to the point.

I've always admired your posts, atomickitten, btw and unrelated to this thread.
:hug:

[AtomicKitten]

123. cheers ;)

[Orsino]

124. He was too busy smuggling out Saddam's WMDs.

C'mon, folks. This election's in the bag. No need to stoop to freeper tactics.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

126. You're Blathering About What Now?

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Orsino]

128. Oh, is inventing fictitious crimes for Obama now "blathering"?

Interesting admission.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

129. Jeez. More Blathering. Are You Ok?

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Orsino]

152. Can you show us on this doll where Obama touched you? n/t

[MadHound]

130. Yes or no, the fact still remains that Hillary DID vote for the IWR

She not only voted to enable Bushco's illegal, immoral war, she went much further, continuing to support the war and rattling the saber at Iran to boot. Furthermore, she has repeatedly stated that she will be keeping combat troops, going on combat missions, in Iraq, for the foreseeable future, ie quite possibly her entire first term.

Furthermore, it comes down to a matter of accountability. Many, many people, both here and in the real world vowed to hold those who voted for the IWR accountable for their actions. That sentiment still remains, so that means that Hillary's got to go. Perhaps next time(and let's really hope there's not a next time) when Hillary is faced with the choice of voting along the lines of political expediency or actually voting for the right thing, she'll choose the latter instead of the former.

Actions have consequences, consider this a consequence.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

131. Yeah Yeah Yeah I've Heard It All Before. Not At All What The OP Is About.

Guess ya missed the point.

See, the point is not about what Hillary did or didn't do or why you should or shouldn't like her. In fact, nowhere do you see that argument made whatsoever, so I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to go on a tirade about it. See, there ARE other areas to be discussed than that alone, though first a mind has to be open enough to realize it.

This OP is addressing one thing only: That's the fact that some here feel the need to present his position against the war as a rock solid stance that he held that would've been exactly the same had he been in the Senate. They close their minds off to the reality that being inside the Senate and outside the Senate are two completely different things, and that once inside, THINGS CAN CHANGE. Based on his answer to that question last night that I referenced, I think it was a valid point to show that distinction, so that maybe some can see why they are in fact being incredibly narrow minded and naive by declaring he most definitely would've voted no. Such a position is ridiculous. That's the only point the OP is addressing. That and that only. If ya don't get it, ya don't get it. But that's not because the point wasn't made clearly enough.

[MadHound]

132. Oh I get it, quite clearly.

I also get the fact that you and the Clinton campaign have tried to muddy the waters on this issue all along, saying that he did or he would have, all in order to deflect that whole idea of accountability away from Clinton. She knows she fucked up on this one, her campaign knows that she fucked up on this one, and deep down I know that you know she fucked up on this one. But still rather than acknowledging that simple fact, the waters are muddied, shit is stirred, all to try and obscure that simple fact.

What you don't get is it simply doesn't matter for most anti-war folks what Obama would have done. The simple fact of the matter is that Hillary did, and no amount of shit stirring can cover that fact.

One other fact that you're forgetting, and that's the quite real possibility that Obama wouldn't have done the politically expedient thing and voted for the IWR. Twenty one other Senators took a moral stand, so it isn't like such a position was unheard of.

But either way, I still contend that all of this is nothing more than muddying the waters and deflection of blame away from Hillary, when the plain truth of the matter is that she fucked up.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

170. ...

:boring:

[LadyVT]

134. Well said, especially in light of his debate comments on Pakistan and Iraq

and his willingness to "strike" them if, in Iraq, al-Qaeda has established a "base," or in Pakistan, if we have "actionable intelligence" that Bin Laden is there.

[Raejeanowl]

144. Don't Get Me Started!

If anyone has ANY doubts that Obama wants to leave himself as much wiggle room on dealing with these nations as George W. Bush ever had, all they had to do is listen to what he said about sovereign nations asking us to leave vs. (presumably also) sovereign nations "harboring terrorists." I don't think you could equivocate on that, but by golly he did, and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

It shows even more clearly that he's a diplomacy lightweight and a policy tap-dancer than his repeated deferrals to Clinton's remarks.

Now, who got to decide who's a terrorist during the Bush administration?....The Decider. And who got to massage up some discreditable and scapegoat-ready intelligence for the Decider in making the case to Congress (and Senator Clinton) and the American people for whatever the POTUS wanted to do?

So, here is Obama basically stating that he's going to get us out of Iraq and out of the business of waging war on sovereign nations, but leaving the door open to wage war elsewhere on sovereign nations as he may see fit. Why aren't his own supporters calling him out on that?

[yodermon]

136. It is all Speculative, but I Disagree. Here's Why.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/the-iraq-war-vote-was-69_b_50742.html

In October 2002, prior to the October 12, 2002 Iraq war vote, under lock and key, prepared for our Senators and Representatives by our country's top intelligence analysts, lay a 92 page report about Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, and everything we knew about Saddam.

It sat waiting for our elected officials to sign in without staff and read it, 92 pages. No staffers allowed, elected officials only. A five page declassified document was readily available to all but the 92 page document, you had to show up, sign in and read it.

Only six Senators did.

What was in that Classified, 92 page NIE?

"The two Senators who pushed hardest to have the US intelligence community compile an NIE, Senator Bob Graham and Senator Dick Durbin, both voted against authorizing military force against Iraq - largely because the full classified 96-page NIE contained many more caveats and dissents than any of the summaries."

If you are going to suppose that BHO would have voted for the IWR based upon his TS angst, the I'm going to suppose that he would have read the 92 page classified NIE based on his already-stated position against the war -- and then come the same conclusion as Graham and Durbin. Hell, he might have even given a floor statement like this:

"Friends, I encourage you to read the classified intelligence reports :think: which are much sharper than what is available in declassified form," Sen. Graham reports stating on the floor of the Senate in October 2002.

"We are going to be increasing the threat level against the people of the United States." He warned: "Blood is going to be on your hands."

(How can any Dem claim to have been "duped" after hearing this warning?)

:shrug: It doesn't matter. It's speculative and hypothetical and masturbatory. But, ya got a nice loooong thread out of it. :applause:


(another good link.)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

141. Even better that Sen Durbin of Illinois did oppose

thank you so much for posting that, I have bookmarked your comment.

[avrdream]

143. Nice, rational thinking, OMC.

I, for one, sure am glad you are writing a lot more here these days.

[Hippo_Tron]

145. I think that Dick Durbin might've influenced him and he voted against it...

But that's just me.

[eridani]

146. He's foursquare in favor of American imperialism

Don't know about the IWR, though. His chief foreign policy advisor, Brzezinski, was against the war though also a committed imperialist. They both just want smarter imperialism.

[cali]

147. LOL! This kind of speculation is so puerile

and pointless. There's no way of knowing what he would have done, and thus it's just wankerism of the first degree to say that *YOU* know what he would have done. But carry on with the wanking.

[leftofthedial]

148. I believe so too

but Clinton actually did

and supported the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq at every step of the way . . .

until deciding to run for President


and has not been honest about it since

[EmilyAnne]

149. But Terry Schiavo was being kept "alive." While I disagree with govt. involvement in her case,

it was more about prolonging a terrible situation to be absolutely sure that she was brain dead. In the case of the war, it was known that people would die. One stupid decision that MAY have saved a life, another decision that would have most definitely killed many people. I think he would not have been swayed about the IWR, but we will never know for sure. At the time, he did speak out against it.

[casus belli]

150. Can I borrow your magic 8-ball? n/t

[mmonk]

151. I'll take his word on it.

It's always been his position it was bad judgment. He stood up against it when it was at the height of its popularity.

[CyberPieHole]

153. Of course he would have. Obama has never gone out on a limb for anything or anyone...

He just does what is politically expedient.

[JTFrog]

154. But he didn't. And he made a history making speech to prove you wrong. How about your candidate?

Your candidate may have a huge treasure chest, but no amount of money can create a WAYBACK machine yet. As much as you and your candidate would love to be able to change history, there are some cold hard facts already in print:

Did your candidate give a great anti-war speech on the Senate floor or did she interrupt one to push for WAR? She couldn't allow someone else talk sense on the floor, she had to PUSH AND SHOVE this war down our throats:

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm

See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq)
by Scott Ritter

Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election. Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of this war.

This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration.

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq," Senator Clinton said at the time of her vote, in a carefully crafted speech designed to demonstrate her range of knowledge and ability to consider all options. "I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

Hillary would have done well to leave out that last part, the one where her husband, the former President of the United States, used military force as part of a 72-hour bombing campaign ostensibly deemed as a punitive strike in defense of disarmament, but in actuality proved to be a blatant attempt at regime change which used the hyped-up threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for action. Sound familiar? While many Americans today condemn the Bush administration for misleading them with false claims of unsubstantiated threats which resulted in the ongoing debacle we face today in Iraq (count Hillary among this crowd), few have reflected back on the day when the man from Hope, Arkansas sat in the Oval Office and initiated the policies of economic sanctions-based containment and regime change which President Bush later brought to fruition when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.


...much more at link



Scott Ritter served as a former Marine Corps officer from 1984 until 1991, and as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books, including "Iraq Confidential" and "Target Iran". He also co-authored "War on Iraq" with William Pitt.

And she still does not believe she was wrong.

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

*edit link

[Qanisqineq]

156. I believe he would have, too

I don't like how some people IRL has this misconception that he was in the US Senate and did vote against it.

[JTFrog]

157. They don't have that misconception. They KNOW he was not in the Senate but he SPOKE OUT

against it quite passionately.

This is one hole the lady should definitely stop digging.

[Qanisqineq]

158. did I say EVERYONE?

No. Did I say MOST? No. Some people in real life (IRL) DO have that misconception. I know because I HAVE TALKED TO THEM. Jeez, not everyone reads DU and is as informed as the people here.

[JTFrog]

159. Then perhaps the lady should continue to dig the hole until everyone is educated. Somehow I don't

find that to be the best strategy her campaign could come up with for this issue.

[Qanisqineq]

162. That doesn't even make sense

How is Hillary giving people this misconception that Obama was in the US Senate and voted against the war? WHY would Hillary give people the misconception? These are Obama supporters that have this misconception. It isn't even a BAD misconception but people UNAWARE of when exactly he was in the US Senate. Jesus christ, get a grip.

[JTFrog]

163. Her campaign and her supporters here are pushing the misconception that he would have voted for the

war if he were in the Senate. You countered that by saying that people believe he was in the Senate and voted against it and that they were uneducated. So by pushing her misconception that he didn't vote for the war because he wasn't in the Senate, then not many would still be able to believe in what you claim is the real misconception.

My grip is firm. I'm not sure what doesn't make sense to you.

[Qanisqineq]

167. that is the most convoluted thinking I have ever read

I said NOTHING about her campaign pushing the idea that he would have voted for it. I simply gave MY opinion on whether or not he would have. And I simply made a statement that I know some Obama supporters in real life that believe he was already in DC.

You are determined to twist my posts into something you can attack. Have at it!

[JTFrog]

168. How do you not make the connection between your post and the O.P. which you responded to?

I'm merely pointing out that Clinton and her supporters do themselves no favors by trying to push the message in the O.P. and that by doing so, it would counter the misconception that you were encountering. In other words, it would be a step toward the truth. He wasn't in the Senate so he couldn't have voted for or against it but that he did speak out passionately against it. And that doesn't help her position in any way. So I was saying that the results of repeating the message in the O.P. would be unintentionally unfavorable to her campaign imho.

Also, I didn't realize that what you had encountered was a widespread phenomenon. And yes, I do quite frequently forget that not everyone is politically awake.

If I have somehow offended you, I apologize.

*edit for clarity - which if still lacking, I apologize again.

[route66left]

160. An excellent analysis! I tend to think you're right on this!

You've written a thoughtful diary on this. I think your opinion merits a serious consideration! Good thinking!

[polichick]

165. How surprising...

NOT.

[sendero]

166. I think so too..

... how many Dems didn't?

That's not the point, the point is that NOW he acknowledges the whole thing is wrong and should end and HRC won't. That is the difference.

[LWolf]

169. I've always believed the same,

which is why the "I was the only major candidate against the war" bullshit doesn't fly with me.

I don't want either of them, and I don't like you much, OMC, but I don't mind speaking up when you are correct.

If I had to hold my nose and choose between 2 unacceptable candidates, I'd take HRC. At least she presents herself more honestly.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

172. Well,

You should like me. I really am quite the charmer once ya get to know me. :rofl:

But in the meantime, thanks for your support here. :)

[LWolf]

173. Okay, since you put it that way.

I'll reluctantly assume that there is a real person behind the political guy, and agree to disagree, if somewhat vehemently, with you on most political issues.

I don't mind saying you're right, those few times that you ARE. ;)

:hi:

[Raffi Ella]

176. oh,I believe it too.

And after watching him fold like a deck of cards and concede when Hillary showed him the RIGHT way to handle the Farrakhan endorsement my belief that he would've voted for it is even stronger.

That Farrakhan moment and his concession to how it should be handled showed exactly how he will govern:He was and is too inexperienced to do the right thing OR to hold his ground if he thought he was right.
He folded under Hillary's pressure to 'do the right thing' and said what she thought he should say.

After seeing how easily he was played by Hillary?IMAGINE if he'd been on the floor of the Senate with the pressure to give Bush the authorization to use force with ALL of those Senators voting for it and with almost the entire Country behind Bush...Yeah,he would've voted for it ,NO DOUBT about it.

[JAbuchan08]

177. "if" Barak had been in the Senate he might have voted for the war

"if" Hillary Clinton had known then what she knows know, she might not have.

"if" a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

179. You're Right... He Very Well Might Have.

Glad we agree.

:toast:

[JAbuchan08]

182. and "if" a suppositional argument carried any weight

you might have a worthwhile point

;)

[endarkenment]

183. FACT: Clinton actually voted for the IWR.

FACT: Obama publicly stated his opposition to the same IWR at the time.

Everything else is all speculative bullshit.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

187. Those Saying There's No Way He Would've Voted Are Using Speculative Bullshit.

That's the point. Anyone standing firm that there's no way he would've changed his position had he been in the Senate, and even close off that possibility (as several here have done), are being politically naive fools.

[endarkenment]

189. See the headline of your OP.

You are engaged in speculative bullshit. On the facts alone Obama is +1 over Clinton on this issue.

[Radical Activist]

190. The only one speculating here is you.

The rest of us are living in the real world where Obama opposed the war.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

192. Hillary Opposed The War As Well.

:hi:

[Radical Activist]

193. It sure doesn't sound like it when you read her speech at the time

You know, the speech where she repeats Bush's lies about WMD's and Al-Qaeda, thus aiding the push to war.

Why don't you respond to this post?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4800344&mesg_id=4801523

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

194. She Quite Clearly Opposed A Rush To War Unilaterally.

And I'm not responding to that post because of the inherent ignorance within it and the fact I found it to be really stupid.

[Radical Activist]

198. NOW, she opposed it then. Is that her latest position? Hard to keep track.

The consensus of responses is that living in the real world where Barack opposed the war and Hillary voted for it is more intelligent than your OP. Words are cheap. She voted for it and she repeated the lies Bush told the public to promote the war. Obama showed up at an anti-war rally and refuted Bush's lies. Obama showed courage and principles while Hillary showed a complete lack of principles and/or basic sense. Really, what kind of moron votes for a war they oppose?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

202. As Usual, You're Being Disingenuous.

She didn't vote for a war.

And if you were able to comprehend for even a second, you'd know by now that the whole point of the OP is that there's no way to know what he would've done if he was in HER SHOES, and capable of actually VOTING. We don't know whatsoever. The OP is making a case that there is in fact reason to believe that he MAY have in fact voted the SAME as her, rendering all of your points moot. Had he been in the senate, it might be HIS name that you would be referencing in place of hers, and there may have been no showing of courage and principles. You're comparing apples to oranges. If it were apples to apples, it very may well have been a quite different story. But I don't expect you to be able to open your mind enough to comprehend that quite comprehensible point.

[rateyes]

184. Didn't take much to convince you.

considering the fact that he spoke out against the IWR before it was voted upon. The other Senator from Illinois voted against it, so you way you think he would have voted for it based on a vote that had nothing at all to do with the war? :shrug:

[nonconformist]

191. I absolutely believe that as well. Good post! nt

[mudesi]

195. .

[mudesi]

196. Look OPERATIONMINDCRIME, The Vast, VAST Majority Of DU Disagrees With You

:rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

197. Nope. The Vast, VAST Majority Of Closed Minded Obamites Do.

Not really all that shocking, ya know?

Course, your embarrassment earlier was due to bi-partisan condemnation of your completely nonsensical and highly laughable OP, by people who actually WERE thinking. That stands in stark contrast to the knee jerk reactions by obamites in this thread that AREN'T. But I digress... :rofl:


And hey, by the way: How many DU'ers found your topic valuable enough to recommend, during a time when recommends are handed out for just about anything? Oh, none? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Radical Activist]

199. If you were actually thinking

or had anything intelligent to say you wouldn't have to resort to insults as a replacement for actual arguments.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

203. The OP Contains No Insults Whatsoever.

My replies have all been in the tone and towards the context of that which I was replying to. You again, are off base with your perception. It is obviously you who are so bolstered to the hip of your candidate, or so full of hatred towards Hillary, that you are unable to view something objective without having a knee jerk reaction. No biggie though. Many here are guilty of it.

[mudesi]

204. Please!

As if it means anything to get a recommendation for your transparently partisan OP. I could post an "I like candidate X!" thread and get it recommended, too, but I'd rather not because I don't have your validation problems, Mr. I Need To Constantly Kick My Threads To The Top.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

205. Don't Beg.

Begging still won't get your ludicrous and laughable OP a recommend. NO ONE wanted to touch that one.

Vast, VAST majority of Americans aren't sexist or racist ROFLMAO!!!! I still can't get over that one! Ohhhhhh, but I'm sure you meant well and all... :rofl:

See ya! :hi:

[mudesi]

206. Do you actually think I care?

That you think I care whether or not my OP gets a recommendation says more about you than you think.