Let's review the facts about the IWR vote.

[DemBones DemBones]

Edit: I am told I'm wrong about the vote numbers. My apologies if that is the case.

In any case, a majority voted for the IWR.

Kerry and Kennedy voted for the IWR and their support of Obama has been welcomed by Obama supporters.



Obama was not in the Senate then.

Obama has admitted that he does not know if he would have voted for or against the IWR if he had been a senator then.

Yet he continues to criticize Clinton for voting for the war, implying that he voted against the IWR or did something to stop it, when all he did was make one speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago in 2002.

In 2004, running for his first term in the U.S. Senate, Obama told the Chicago Tribune that his posiion on the war at that time was basically the same as George W. Bush's.


Say what? That's a mighty big flip-flop Obama made. I don't see that he has any business criticizing Hillary Clinton for the IWR vote.

[stellanoir]

1. He said the case for war was not made.

Chafee voted against it also.

[Ravy]

61. Clinton said the same thing. nt

[bluestateguy]

2. The premise of your whole post is false

The IWR was approved 77-23. 21 Democrats voted no.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

[DemBones DemBones]

23. Thanks, I should not have trusted my memory. HOWEVER, you did not

address Obama's flip-flops.

Don't you think he's being a hypocrite attacking Clinton when he has flip-flopped on the war twice?

[lligrd]

3. BS The Votes Were As Follows:

Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

[DemBones DemBones]

9. Do you have a link for that? Thanks. nt

[JVS]

10. Let's see a link to where you got your shitty OP

[DemBones DemBones]

25. I wrote the OP myself and remembered the vote incorrectly, not intentionally.

Now, what do you have to say about Obama's anti-war/pro-war/anti-war flip-flops???

[lligrd]

11. Sure,. Here Are 2

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[DemBones DemBones]

18. Thank you. It was not

my intention to distort the facts.

I should have looked up the vote, I was probably thinking of another bill. As I recall, only Feingold voted against the PATRIOT Act, but there was another that only Graham voted against.

[AtomicKitten]

4. Oh, a reintroduction of this old chestnut. Listen up: HILLARY VOTED YES ON THE IWR.

20 gallons of whitewash can't dilute that factoid.

FREE RANDI RHODES

[Whisp]

5. bullshit.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catherina]

14. In Hillaryland they're one and the same n/t

[lapfog_1]

7. Your are fact challenged...

From wikipedia on Public Law 107-243, the Iraq War Resolution...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

* 21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).
* 1 of 49 Republican Senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
* The only Independent Senator voted against the resoution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)

[JVS]

8. What kind of fucking bullshit is that? 99/100! CRAP!!!!

You even forgot Paul Wellstone.

[Catherina]

12. Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois; at the same day and hour that President Bush and Congress announced their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, but over a week before it was passed by either body of Congress.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

[DemBones DemBones]

26. What about what he said in 2004 about having basically the same position as Bush?

I think he said "basically the same" but it may have been "essentially" the same.

[Catherina]

31. Your thread is dishonest. He was a talking about troop withdrawal not the war

Obama said his position on TROOP WITHDRAWAL was basically the same as Bush's AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME.

He was also going out of his way to help Kerry who's position on Iraq turned a lot of people off.

2004

July 26. In an interview with the New York Times, prior to his speech at the Democratic Party convention, Obama declines to criticize presidential nominee John Kerry for his 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war. Says he was "not privy to Senate intelligence reports." He then continued: "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

July 27. Obama tells Chicago Tribune that U.S. forces should remain in Iraq to stabilize the war-torn country. Says "there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage," but is critical of Bush for bungling the occupation. Remains opposed to the original decision to invade. In keynote speech to Democratic convention, Obama avoids criticism of the war, saying "there are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq."

September 19. Associated Press reports that Obama, running for Illinois Senate seat, would be willing to send more troops to Iraq if it would create conditions for eventual withdrawal. Says it would be "an extraordinary accomplishment" if U.S. could withdraw from Iraq in four years. Remains opposed to invasion decision.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html

As the keynote speaker, Obama was trying to be loyal to the Democratic nominees, John Kerry and John Edwards, both of whom had voted in favor of the war authorization resolution, along with Hillary Clinton. In an interview reported by the New York Times on July 26, on the first day of the convention, he reiterated his opposition to the war but declined to criticize Kerry and Edwards, saying he was "not privy to Senate intelligence reports."

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

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

In an interview published in the Chicago Tribune the following day (July 27,2004), Obama said that he would have voted "no" on the Senate resolution. But he said he was not in favor of "pulling out now." On the issue of whether to stay in Iraq in 2004, he said "there's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." The context of his remarks makes clear that he was not referring to the original decision to go into Iraq, but the question of whether to remain.

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

[LWolf]

37. Yet he voted repeatedly to spend our blood and our money

on this "dumb" war as soon as he got to Congress.

I don't dispute the fact that he's an eloquent speaker. He did not have the personal or political courage to refuse to fund a "dumb" war.

He doesn't walk his talk on this issue.

[Catherina]

38. There's a huge difference between starting and funding

I'd like to see every troop withdrawn right now but that's as easy as it sounds.

Those soldiers didn't ask to go over there but they were sent without armor or equipment. Now they're there and it'll take a little while logistically to pull them out.

We never should have gone but what do you think our responsibilities are now that we've destroyed the country? I'm aware that keeping them there provides cover for us to keep stealing and I'm not deluded about Iraq getting turned back over to the Iraqi people for the next 50 years but what's a politician's responsibility to the working-class kids over there? No American politician wants to be the one who got people's kids killed because they're over there with no equipment, especially a Black candidate deciding on the lives of alot of Black soldiers since we're over-represented in the grunt ranks.

He gave that speech in 2002 when he was running for office. That speech was proof of personal and political courage.

You know nothing will change with Hillary because she helped get us into the war and is still unapologetic. In her Tuzla-sniper-gate head, she's still right about her vote and she's bonded to the weapons industry and the party's hard right. I think Obama walks his talk as well as he can without making himself as irrelevant as a good man like Kucinich who can't even get 2% of the vote.

[LWolf]

43. A speech is a speech.

All candidates give them. They use whatever it takes to persuade people to believe in them. Obama is good at persuasive speaking.

A speech is not proof of anything but speaking ability. PROOF is walking the talk.

If a senator thinks the war is "dumb," then that senator ought to be fighting to make sure that we don't spend dollars or lives on it. It's not worth the cost.

I think it's our responsibility to get out of Iraq and let the UN do the "peacekeeping." That's their job.

I do understand the shame involved in leaving our mess behind, and the reluctance to do so. The bottom line, though, is that as long as we are there, the situation will not get any better. The only chance Iraq has to end the current mess is for the U.S. to leave. WE are the ones feeding dissent. The sooner we are gone, the sooner conditions will improve for Iraqi citizens, adults and children alike.

I can't, and don't feel the need, to argue with you about HRC. She's just as bad. In today's big "who tells the truth wars" on DU, it's interesting that you find it ok for Obama's walk and talk to be inconsistent, because it keeps him relevant.

I have a different point of view. I want a president who will walk his or her talk. I respect people who do so, and I lose respect for those who don't.

[Catherina]

48. What's the difference between the UN and US forces?

Handing it over to the UN is just asking other countries to clean up our mess and pay for it without changing anything. The UN represents the interests of the big 5 so I don't see the difference other than asking them to fix things when we don't even pay our UN bill :shrug: Don't we still owe the UN something like $600 million?

Edit


It was $688 million in 2007

[LWolf]

51. That's a good question.

Here's my answer:

The UN wanted inspections and sanctions. The US didn't want that. The US did not want to be part of the international community, working together to assess any level of threat and evaluate appropriate action.

The US wanted war, not diplomatic efforts, and wanted to be in charge of that war, not be a part of a UN-led force.

Iraq knows this. Iraqis know this. Any efforts at organized peace and development are hampered when the enemy of the Iraqi people is in charge.

I try to imagine some other nation invading and taking us over on bogus charges because they wanted our resources; would American citizens welcome them with open arms, and help them in the effort to subjugate us and own our resources for their own profit? Or would we resist?

The only way to rebuild a peaceful, productive nation in Iraq is to get the conquerors out. The UN are not the conquerors. They have a better chance of success in Iraq than we do.

Of course, we should pay our UN bill and stop treating the UN like a pesky rubber-stamp that's quit working the way we want it to.

Here's an interesting discussion:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18034

[Catherina]

56. Good points

but I think the main reason the US didn't want to be part of a UN-led force is because it would have had to share the spoils with our buddies. My trust level for most European countries is only slightly higher than my trust level for the US. I think their people do a better job of keeping their governments in line but the governments themselves are just as rotten.

I'd be more in favor of getting the UN in if we paid our UN bill and paid reparations to the Iraqi people before leaving so that it wasn't us washing our hands. I still don't trust UN forces.

Sex charges haunt UN forces
In places like Congo and Kosovo, peacekeepers have been accused of abusing the people they're protecting.

...

• A prostitution ring in Bosnia involved peacekeepers, while Canadian troops there were accused of beatings, rape, and sexually abusing a handicapped girl.

• Local UN staff in West Africa reportedly withheld aid, such as bags of flour, from refugees in exchange for sexual favors.

• Jordanian peacekeepers in East Timor were accused of rape.

• Italian troops in Somalia and Bulgarian troops in Cambodia were accused of sexual abuses.

• In May, Moroccan and Uruguayan peacekeepers in Congo were accused of luring teenage girls into their camp with offers of food for sex. The girls then fed the banana and cake remuneration to their infants, whom media reported had been born as a result of multiple rapes by militiamen.

...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1126/p06s02-wogi.html

Eyewitnesses Describe Massacre by UN Troops in Haitian Slum

...

According to residents the UN troops entered the area at about three in the morning and opened fire. Eyewitnesses reported the UN troops used helicopters, tanks, machine guns and tear gas in the operation. The UN has admitted that its troops killed at least five people. UN military spokesman Colonel Elouafi Boulbars told Agence France Presse, “The bandits tried to fight our men. They suffered serious losses and we found five bodies in what was left of a house.” Local residents put the figure at no less than 20. Some estimates are even higher. Witnesses said innocent civilians were among the victims.

...

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/7/11/eyewitnesses_describe_massacre_by_un_troops

Europe is burying the US financially. I don't think any responsible US leader would turn Iraq over to the UN because it would hasten our economic death and pump up their coffers. I don't see a solution other than for us to stay and fix it or to do what Obama's supporting, which is building up their government and getting out of there when they can take over. I used to think we should immediately leave, beg for forgiveness and throw billions at them so they can rebuild but the problem is WHO will rebuild? Neither the US, the UK, Europe or any other country should profit from the Iraqi people's misery. How do we avoid that :shrug: I trust Obama more than any other world leader or candidate because they're all already proven liars and thieves. Sarkozy is new but we already know where he stands. Getting the conquerors out, as you said, would be a good start. I'm just worried about who would move in. Iraq is quite a "Prize".

[LWolf]

57. I agree with your assessment about our rejection of the UN.

DK introduced HR 1234 in February of '07 that laid out plans to begin an immediate exit, and to bring in international security forces to help with the transition as we exited, and the rebuilding after we were gone. I believe his plan included reparations for the Iraqis.

George McGovern has written a book on the subject: Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan For Withdrawal Now.

http://www.amazon.com/Out-Iraq-Practical-Plan-Withdrawal/dp/1416534563

There are ways to accomplish an orderly exit without leaving Iraq in chaos. Those are just two that have been offered up. We can achieve the goal; it's that TPTB don't want out of Iraq. When candidates can't, or won't, commit to ending the mess ASAP, or when they suggest that "as soon as possible" is years down the road, they are bowing to the power structure that doesn't want us out.

I think the state of our national debt, the loss of American and Iraqi lives, and the will of the people should override that agenda.

[Catherina]

58. It's one of the many things I disagree with Obama on

but for want of a better solution, I'm kind of stuck. Every objection I could raise, I can see a sensible counterargument (except for leaving a presence there which I'm totally against). How much faster is McGovern's plan than Obama's?

I think nothing should override that agenda too. The main reason I'm backing Obama isn't because I think he's drastically different but because he's facing a totally different direction and when you vote for a President, you're voting for more than just one person. You're voting for his/her cabinet and the thousands of people they're going to appoint. Knowing how many people he's surrounded with that the media and establishment hate (Reverend Wright for example), some of them will slip through the cracks and make decisions that will effect millions of people. I'll never insult you by pretending Obama works on water but I know too many people without lifeboats and can't leave them at Hillary or McCain's mercy.

[LWolf]

59. That's as valid a reason as any for

choosing between the two, and I respect it. :thumbsup:

[charlie]

13. You never learn

You've been getting nailed for posting blue sky assertions as fact for years. Do you enjoy looking ridiculous?

[sandnsea]

15. He said as he saw it, the case wasn't made

Everybody always chops off the end of his sentence. He introduced legislation to end the war. He has spoke out regularly that the war needs to end.

Let's see what Hillary did.

Told Code Pink that Saddam needed to cooperate with the weapons inspectors, just days before the invasion.

Supported the invasion, fully, in her remarks at the time of the invasion.

Said we need to "stay the course", when she was in Iraq and Afghanistan in Nov 2003.

Opposed timelines and benchmarks, said Murtha was making a big mistake, opposed Feingold's benchmarks.

Voted against John Kerry's withdrawal amendment in 2006.

A year ago she said “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military; and,
She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?ref=politics

I mean really, give me a break, how can anybody criticize Obama on the war while they support her? It's insane.

[DemBones DemBones]

28. In 2004, while running for the Senate, Obama said

that his position on the war then was basically the same as Bush's.

Obviously, many people in Illinois supported the war in 2004 and so Obama became pro-war long enough to get elected. He's a chameleon.

He did that even though his opponent was Alan Keyes, brought in from MD after the other two potential GOP candidates got smeared when their divorce records somehow became public.

It was a cakewalk for Obama, but that's how he likes it.

Do you know how he won his first election?

[sandnsea]

33. That is absolutely crazy, just plain crazy

His comments in 2004 were right before the convention and you've been told that a cazillion times. They had nothing to do with his campaign.

And yes I know the person who told him he could run for her seat changed her mind at the last minute, so he challenged the signatures she supposedly collected.

I really don't know what you're thinking about. Hillary really is everything the Obama people are trying to tell you. She doesn't deserve your loyalty.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlueIdaho]

17. Reaching...

really really reaching. HRC voted for the war - deal with it.

[DemBones DemBones]

29. I know she did, can you deal with Obama being anti-war, then pro-war, then

anti-war again? How can you trust a chameleon?

[BlueIdaho]

52. Lets try to stick with the facts - shall we?

[goldcanyonaz]

19. He probably would have voted the same as he did on the Kyl-Leiberman bill.

He wouldn't even bother to show up.

[DemBones DemBones]

30. Or he'd have voted "Present" as he often did in the Illinois senate.

:rofl:

[charlie]

20. Time to edit your edit

Kennedy voted against.

[lligrd]

21. Obama Was Wrong

But only because Congress cannot delegate their responsibility to a President ever. I don't care what intelligence they had, the Separation of Powers is Constitutionally driven and the powers may not simply be voted away.

[stevenleser]

24. The argument you make is constitutionally incorrect, think Article 1 Section 8

The necessary and proper clause:


Section 8.


The Congress shall have Power To
.
.
.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

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

In other words, if congress feels that it needs to make a law to make it easier for the President to carry out his Commander in Chief powers or Congress to carry out their own power to declare war, Article 1 Section 8 gives congress the express power to do that.

[lligrd]

27. That Was Not The Intent Of The Article

I think the Constitution makes it implicitly clear that the powers are to remain separated. Hell, why doesn't Congress just make a law declaring that from here on in, the President will make all laws and take it really easy?

[stevenleser]

40. That is the question, isnt it? If congress is using this power, are they creating new abilities or

modifying existing ones to make them easier to carry out. It is decided on a case by case basis.

[DemBones DemBones]

22. PLEASE NOTE THAT I EDITED MY OP & APOLOGIZED FOR MY ERROR

SEVERAL MINUTES AGO.

OBVIOUSLY, I MADE A MISTAKE BY TRUSTING MY MEMORY.

IIRC, FEINGOLD WAS THE ONE VOTE AGAINST THE PATRIOT ACT,

AND THERE WAS A 99-1 VOTE IN WHICH GRAHAM WAS THE ONE.




DO YOU THINK MAYBE YOU COULD ADDRESS OBAMA'S FLIP-FLOPS ABOUT THE WAR?

[hfojvt]

36. perhaps the same as my own flip-flops

I opposed the war as much as any private citizen could, and Obama gave more than one speech against the war. He made the war issue part of his Senate campaign. His statement in 2004 was to provide support for Kerry in Kerry's run for President.

As for the other statement, since the war has been started, I have been on the side of "we need to create stability before we leave" versus the "we need to get out NOW!!" side.

The thing is, one position is, or should be the easy one - don't start the fu$%ing war. Once the war has been started it's a little bit harder to figure out the right way to end it.

Think of the Chicago fire. Once the lantern is kicked over, a nasty and complicated and difficult situation has been created - all of Chicago is on fire. Hillary is to be criticised heavily because she enabled and supported the kicking over of the lantern.

Kerry is to be criticised too, but for some reason the stupid voters in Iowa and New Hampshire chose him to be the nominee instead of an anti-war candidate like Kucinich, Dean, or Clark. Thus, anti-war people who are also party loyalists had to hem and haw.

That was then, this is now. Now even Hillary will admit, sorta, that the anti-war people were right, or pretend to now that the vast majority of the country wants to end the war.

[SOS]

41. First, Kennedy voted no

Second, Obama did not "flip-flop".

He was against the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2002 and still believes it was a mistake.
Once the war was underway, started by Bush with Congressional authorization, do you think he should have voted to cut off supplies to the US military in Iraq?

Can you name one instance in American history where Congress de-funded the military during combat operations?

[Willo]

32. I've heard this said but have never seen it anywhere

I would like to see a link for the context of the question and answer that led to him saying he doesn't know if he would have voted or not.

Or if, it is factual that he even said it.

[LWolf]

35. Here's one link:

http://broadcatching.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/obama-no-difference-between-me-bush-on-iraq/

You can google his exact quote to find more.

[Willo]

45. Thanks LWolf, from your link I found the transcript and video

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/

This is the transcript from the Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert on November 11, 2007. To the right is the full netcast of the interview:

MR. RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Senator Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of ‘04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ‘04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

Look, I was opposed to this war in 2002, 2003, four, five, six and seven. What I was very clear about, even in 2002 in my original opposition, was once we were in, we were going to have to make some decisions to see how we could stabilize the situation and act responsibly. And that’s what I did through 2004, five and six, try to see can we create a workable government in Iraq? Can we make sure that we are minimizing the humanitarian costs in Iraq? Can we make sure that our troops are safe in Iraq? And that’s what I have done. Finally, in 2006, 2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled down and initiated the surge. And at that stage, I said, very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there. And since that time I’ve been absolutely clear in terms of the approach that I would take. I would end this war, and I would have our troops out within 16 months.

__________

I read it then once. Then watched the netcast while reading it.
My interpretation of Obama's explanation in the second paragraph is akin to not being the party pooper at the convention. It was not the right time or place to due battle with the birthday boy, so to speak.

I'd like some other DU views after reading and watching the interview.

[Catherina]

39. See post 31. As usual it's taken out of context

which is why the OP didn't give you a link. It's one of this week's talking points.

[Willo]

46. Key line at the end there.

"What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made"

I did all that homework lol. I was going to save researching the original comment for later. But, you've done it already.
Well, at least I see I came to the same conclusion he stated.

Words, context and intent.
The got him on the words though :shrug: if they want to stick with that.

That explains why its a dead story by most.

Thanks Catherina :)

[Catherina]

50. Talking about words

did you see the video Jazzy062 posted here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5402770 ?

Father Pfleger got assaulted by a Fox "journalist" and one of his excellent points was that you could take a video of Jesus preaching and turn it into a hate video if you wanted. If you haven't watched, watch it. He was so great the HRC people are trying to get him reprimanded by the Bishop.

They can have all the words they want, we'll keep the context ;)

[Willo]

53. Yes, TY, I watched that earlier. I commented on the Fox snippet.

I think we'll have a GE contest on the issues if left to McCain and Obama.

I know the media won't like it.
It will be interesting watching FOX and the like pushing drama on their own.

[LWolf]

34. I agree.

I don't find either of them to be clean on the issue of Iraq.

I don't excuse either's support for the war.

I don't excuse Obama's misleading campaign: "I was against the war from the beginning."


Supporters of both candidates need to find other talking points to make a case for their candidate of choice; I give neither a pass on Iraq.

[rodeodance]

42. BO's campaign is based on a non-existant 'vote" --where he never had to

have the terrible responsibility to actually cast a vote.

Hillary is a NY senator. SHE LIVED the post-9/11 days with the workers and the families. None of us had to do that.
If you read her speech on the floor of the Senate you will note this.


And to judge her so hatefully as so many do on this DU is beyond the pale.

[SOS]

44. What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

Our apartment filled with the acrid smoke of 9/11.
That reality did not alter my view that the US should not attack the wrong country.

[rodeodance]

49. Hillary did not think Bush would either. Her vote was for inspections. she has

said in the last debate she regreted the vote.

[Mooney]

55. If she trusted Bush, then she's a fucking moron who doesn't deserve to be president.

Besides, what does it matter what she said in the last debate? Those are just words, right?

[lligrd]

60. Funny How So Many Of Us Knew Exactly What The Vote Would

mean and yet Hillary couldn't figure it out.

[Willo]

47. From his limited vantage point in 2002 he says he wouldn't have done it.

He learned more and more and still concluded he wouldn't have done it.

Hillary had the information and voted for the war. Not because it was the right war but because she felt it was politically correct thing to do at the time.

His judgment was about Hillary's decision (not of her personally)and it was not hateful.

He disagrees with the judgment she used to make her decision regarding war.

[Mooney]

54. I live in NY, and I lived the post-9/11 days too

Yet somehow I knew from the beginning that the Iraq war was a bunch of bullshit.

As my senator, she cast her vote for the IWR on my behalf. I can judge her as hatefully as I want.