Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama did contradict himself on Iraq

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
 
antiimperialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:05 AM
Original message
Obama did contradict himself on Iraq
Edited on Sun Jan-13-08 11:28 AM by antiimperialist
Let me ask this question. If Obama said in 2004 that he didn't know how he had voted on the Iraq resolution Clinton voted for because he "was not privy to senate intelligence", how did he know that the war was dumb back in 2002 ? I agree it was a dumb war, but If according to Obama, possessing senate intelligence was so key to making a determination, again, how did he know it was it a dumb war in 2002?

From the NY Times
In an interview with The New York Times in July 2004, he declined to criticize Mr. Kerry or Mr. Edwards over the Iraq vote, but also said that he would not have voted as they had based on the information he had at the time.

''But, I'm not privy to the 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.''



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E0DA1430F931A15750C0A9619C8B63
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
origin1286 Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. uh huh
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antiimperialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yeah, we all know he said that, but what about '04? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. You are exaclty right. He has said one thing and done another
he campains on not being political and then has a political excuse and claims he lied to the press about his position, he did not really mean it.

He is running on a speech he made in 2002. He has since made statements supporting the war and has funded the war. And the media has not questioned it. And that IS a fairy tale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. Please supply links...
to the speeches you are referring to. The problem with the murkiness of who said what when, is that no one provides links to the information. How does one argue with facts not in evidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
4. You don't make the point at all! And neither does Clinton-
Edited on Sun Jan-13-08 11:23 AM by Bluerthanblue
He has never said that he made the wrong choice-

He believed the war was wrong in the beginning, and he still believes it was wrong.

The question of condemning Kerry/Edwards for their decision was answered VERY diplomatically. He refused to be drawn into putting them down by a wiley Sunday AM pundit.

He campaigns on the FACT that he was against the war to begin with, and he never has wavered from that stance.

It's simple enough.

Let's at least be honest with ourselves people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antiimperialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Why did he said he didn't know how he had voted in'04?
Shouldn't he have said that he had voted Nay in '02? If you know a war is dumb and make a strong case against it, as in 2002, shouldn't you vote against it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. well I don't know that
he ever DID say that he didn't know "how he had voted"-

How he 'would have voted'? He was saying that he was not Kerry or Edwards, and refused to say they suck for their stand. Both Kerry and Edwards have voiced regret for their votes. Has Clinton? Did Obama start out by going on the offense against Clinton for her vote, or has he been championing one of his positive, popular platforms? If Clinton is trying to use the politics of destruction to erode the very respectable stand that Obama took on the war, then she needs to make the case.

And she fails on this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Um, he wasn't in the Senate in 2002, there was no "how he had voted"
to not know about.

As to why he made the statement that I think you are referring to at the Democratic National Convention, might it be because he wanted the Democratic nominee to win in November and didn't want to give the national media a "controversy" about how Kerry and Edwards voted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
5. how many times are we going 'round on this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Derek Roy Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
7. Kucinich v.s. Simular Platofrms
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say they are for change however they support many policies of the Bush administration. There Platforms are overwhelmingly similar, and include many issues most politically educated people would understand to be a more conservative stance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt0iTWQxykQ

Kucinich has been blocked out of the media and excluded from many debates, it is up to us to educate our selfs on the candidates and not allow the media to foce feed us lies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demnan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Welcome to DU, Derek
:hi:

I agree. Kucinich is the only one who has consistently voted against the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
9. You should bold the next sentence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
10. Here's what I read...
Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
October 26, 2002

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 fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, 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 tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

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

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... 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...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 U.S. 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.

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...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation 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.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/warspeech.pdf

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
13. Where is the contradiction?
Is he contradicting himself by not disparaging all democrats who voted for the war?..who we all know knew..because we knew..that it was all bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
14. Right. Turn any acknowledgement of one's own limits into a contradiction.
That makes us all walking bundles of contradictions. We all make judgments. Those judgments are all subject to the very partial knowledge we each carry.

:hippie:

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 Sat May 04th 2024, 03:14 AM
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