Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How Obama's Judgement of Hillary & the Iraq War Vote Changed With His Presidential Ambitions

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Egalia Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 12:17 PM
Original message
How Obama's Judgement of Hillary & the Iraq War Vote Changed With His Presidential Ambitions
2006 -- Statement by Senator Barack Obama on the subjects of Senator Hillary Clinton and the Iraq War Vote, New Yorker Magazine:

"You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she’s the most disciplined—one of the most disciplined people—I’ve ever met. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons. She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate.

"I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test."

read more. . .

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obamas-judgement-of-hillary-iraq.html

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. "casting votes is always a difficult test" Yeah. Especially when there's no Present button, Barack.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sadie5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Obama might try keeping his mouth shut
Wonder if he has found out that words can come back to bite you on the ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. Obama was against the war until he had a Senate voteThen he voted for each&every pro-war appropriati
Obama's record is even less defensible then Clintons
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. !
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. Obama's judgment re: determining the cause of war
Obama Mouths Mush On War

In essence, all Obama wants from the Bush regime is that it fess up to having launched the war based on false information, and to henceforth come clean with the Senate on how it plans to proceed in the future. Those Democrats who want to dwell on the past - the actual genesis and rationale for the war, and the real reasons for its continuation - should be quiet. Both sides are wrong, says Obama - deploying the classic triangulation device - for engaging in a "war of talking points" - "one I am not interested in joining." Then Obama positions himself above the fray:

"Iraq was a major issue in last year's election. But that election is now over. We need to stop the campaign." Americans want a "pragmatic solution to the real war we're facing in Iraq." ... "The President could take the politics out of Iraq once and for all if he would simply go on television and say to the American people ‘Yes, we made mistakes. Yes, there are things I would have done differently. But now that we're here, I am willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out.'" ...

"I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq. The strategic goals should be to allow for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops, coupled with a shift to a more effective counter-insurgency strategy that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead and intensifies our efforts to train Iraqi forces. At the same time, sufficient numbers of U.S. troops should be left in place to prevent Iraq from exploding into civil war, ethnic cleansing, and a haven for terrorism."


http://www.blackcommentator.com/161/161_cover_obama_iraq.html

All Obama wants, apparently, is to "take the politics out of Iraq once and for all." And yet what is his campaign fueled on? The politics of Iraq! "We need to stop the campaign," he says. LOL. That's rich.

Does he demand we leave? No, his "strategic goals" are no different than anyone else's. That's why he continues to fund the occupation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
6. recycling?
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/20/14129/0524

Obama on Iraq: Then and Now

by dpg220, Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:12:09 PM EST

Recently, questions have been raised about whether Senator Obama has been consistent on his positions on the war. Below you will find some of the common critiques leveled at Senator Obama, the sources of those critiques, and the Senator's responses.

Although I am a supporter of Senator Obama's, I view this diary as an objective account of the Senator's statements.

Here are the major criticisms being leveled at Senator Obama over his Iraq position, notably by Mark Penn, a senior member of Senator Clinton's campaign. Enclosed are both the full quotes as well as a timeline of Obama statements on Iraq.

WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Obama noted that once the war
began, "...There's not much of a difference between my position and George
Bush's position at this stage."

WHAT OBAMA SAID

"Obama, the U.S. Senate candidate from Illinois, said he believes the Bush administration has lost too much credibility in the world community to administer the policies necessary to stabilize Iraq.

On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago,' Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.'

Stephanie Cutter, communications director for the Kerry campaign, did not dispute Obama's statement, but said the true comparison rests in the differences over the past two years. 'If you look on paper, has come our way, but he has come our way at a significant cost in terms of blood and treasure,' Cutter said Monday. 'Bush finally agreed to go to the
international community, but in voters' minds that doesn't change their opinion as to why we're at war or how the president mismanaged the war from day one.'

Obama, a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, opposed the Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation--a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.

The problem, Obama said, is the low regard for Bush in the international community. 'How do you stabilize a country that is made up of three different religious and in some cases ethnic groups, with minimal loss of life and minimum burden to the taxpayers?' Obama said. 'I am skeptical that the Bush administration, given baggage from the past three years, not just on Iraq. . . . I don't see them having the credibility to be able to execute. I mean, you have to have a new administration to execute what the Bush administration acknowledges has to happen.'"

WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR

BLITZER: "Had you been in the Senate when they had a vote on whether to give the president the authority to go to war, how would you have voted?"

OBAMA: "You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators."

WHAT OBAMA SAID

BLITZER: Had you been in the Senate when they had a vote on whether to give the president the authority to go to war, how would you have voted?

OBAMA: You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators. I know that, as somebody who was thinking about a U.S. Senate race, I think it was a mistake, and I think I would have voted no.

BLITZER: You would have voted no at the time?

OBAMA: That's correct.

BLITZER: Kerry, of course, and Edwards both voted yes.

OBAMA: But keep in mind, I think this is a tough question and a tough call.
What I do think is that if you're going to make these tough calls, you have to do so in a transparent way, in an honest way, talk to the American people, trust their judgment.

WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR

"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."

WHAT OBAMA SAID

"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 SaddamHussein 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." 7/26/2004]

WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR

Asked by NPR about John Kerry and John Edwards voting for the war, Obama said: "I think that there is room for disagreement in that initial decision."

WHAT OBAMA SAID

BLOCK: I've read about a speech you gave in the fall of 2002. It had to dowith the looming war in Iraq.

Sen. OBAMA: Right.

BLOCK: It made quite a splash. Can you tell me about that?

Sen. OBAMA: I delivered a speech to a couple of thousand people at a anti-war rally in Chicago. And I said, `It's not that I'm opposed to all wars. It's just that I think this is not the right war to fight.' I don't consider that to have been an easy decision, and certainly, I wasn't in the
position to actually cast a vote on it. But what I do think is that we need a foreign policy that is less ideologically driven and pays more attention to facts on the ground.

BLOCK: This ticket, obviously, John Kerry and John Edwards, both senatorsvoted for the war.

Sen. OBAMA: Yeah. Well--and I think that there is room for disagreement in that initial decision. Where I think we have to be unified is to recognize that we've got an enormous task ahead in actually making Iraq work. And that is going to take the kind of international cooperation that I think the Bush
administration has shown difficulty pulling off, and I think that the Kerry-Edwards campaign is going to be better prepared to do.

WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR

In "Audacity," Obama allowed that he was: "sympathetic to the pressures Democrats were under" (p. 293), adding: "I didn't consider the case againstwar to be cut-and- dried." (p. 294)

WHAT OBAMA SAID

"And on October 11, 2002, twenty-eight of the Senate's fifty Democrats joined all but one Republican in handing to Bush the power he wanted.

I was disappointed in that vote, although sympathetic to the pressuresDemocrats were under. I had felt some of those same pressures myself. By the fall of 2002, I had already decided to run for the U.S. Senate and knew that possible war with Iraq would loom large in any campaign. When a group of Chicago activists asked if I would speak at a large antiwar rally planned for October, a number of my friends warned me against taking so public a position on such a volatile issue. Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and-dried. Like most analysts, I assumed that Saddam had
chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear arms. I believed that he had repeatedly flouted UN resolutions and weapons inspectors and that such behavior had to have consequences. That Saddam butchered his own people was
undisputed; I had no doubt that the world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

What I sensed, though, was that the threat Saddam posed was not imminent, the Administration's rationales for war were flimsy and ideologically driven, and the war in Afghanistan was far from complete. And I was certain that by choosing precipitous, unilateral military action over the hard slog of diplomacy, coercive inspections, and smart sanctions, America was missing
an opportunity to build a broad base of support for its policies.

In addition, the Obama campaign has posted the jeff Berkowitz interview where he clearly states he would have voted no on the AWR.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/i raq/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. I've noticed that they do this quite a bit
Edited on Sat Mar-01-08 02:51 PM by maximusveritas
Clinton supporters tend to recycle blog posts from months or even years ago and present them for no reason other than to attack Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. there's nothing left in the kitchen sink.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egalia Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. At the last debate
when Obama went off on his 'I Have Superior Judgment' and "I Was Right on Day One' rant, it would have been nice if Russert had actually challenged him.

That's the kind of change I keep hoping for.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
8. Present. Sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
9. "I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence" What did we learn since then?
That Hillary never even read the full intelligence. And that Senator Graham, who did read the whole thing said that was the main reason he voted against the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goletian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
12. obamas stance on the iraq war has always been clear
Edited on Mon Mar-03-08 12:35 AM by goletian
he would have voted the same. we all know the aftermath of the war and that all the evidence and intelligence was insufficient. we know that the bush admin cherry picked the intelligence to death. hillary herself was very reluctant to vote for war, but she caved because it was popular at that time. obama was against it publicly and he was very unashamed of his stance, going so far as to call it a dumb war, even when it was so popular that even hillary gave in to bush. on the issue of being against from the beginning, obama has been consistent. he may have sugar coated a few things to not sound like a jerk, but his stance on the iraq war has always been clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
13. or when the button gets 'stuck'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC