Sen. Obama's Speech In Denver, CO Will Contain Four Misleading Attacks On Hillary In One Sentence

Just 24 hours after pledging to run a positive campaign, Senator Obama’s campaign released excerpts of a speech he will deliver this morning in Denver, CO that distorts Hillary’s record and lays down a number of misleading attacks. In fact, Sen. Obama will issue four misleading attacks on Hillary in a single sentence.



Let’s address Sen. Obama’s allegations one at a time.

First:
Sen. Obama begins by criticizing Hillary on Iraq. Sen. Obama does not mention that -- with the exception of Hillary's opposition to the promotion of Iraq war architect Gen. George Casey -- Sen. Obama and Hillary have identical voting records on the Iraq war.

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5094

Second:
Sen. Obama then misrepresents Hillary’s position on Iran. In fact, Hillary was one of the earliest and staunchest opponents of Bush’s saber rattling on Iran, and spoke out on the issue back in February:



Sen. Obama missed the vote he is now using to attack Hillary. He issued a release 9 hours later and co-sponsored a similar bill in April. The bill was also supported by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), a staunch anti-war Bush critic and prominent Obama supporter.

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4223
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4143


Third:
Sen. Obama then misrepresents Hillary’s position on diplomacy. Hillary criticized Sen. Obama for pre-committing to a personal meeting in his first year with "with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/

She never said that a president should only meet with America's friends. She also promised vigorous diplomatic efforts with all countries, friend and foe.

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5507

Fourth:
Sen. Obama accuses Hillary of changing her policy on torture due to ‘the politics of the moment.’ He couldn’t be more wrong. Hillary met with retired generals, talked with experienced military officers, and read reports commissioned by the Defense Intelligence Agency. She concluded that 'torture cannot be part of American policy, period.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/politics/05text-clinton.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Sen. Obama laments this kind of politics in his book, Audacity of Hope

she voted for Kyl/Lieberman and when called on the carpet, couched it as a diplomatic move.

This is a LOSER for her.

Obama is going to go after her. He must. Spin all you want.

then everyone will hug and make-up.......

:-)

But she has to do it in a way that her defense does not look like an attack.
Oh, I forgot, most anything Hillary says is spun by the media as an attack...but they ease up sometimes and say "veiled attack."

1. Hillary voted YES on the IWR. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
Dick Durbin on the IWR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJeC0snDtao

2. Hillary voted YES on K-L. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349
Jim Webb on K-L: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/webb-kyl-lieb-iran/

3. Hillary scoffed at the idea of speaking to our adversaries.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/07/24/candidates_in_chief.html

4. Hillary argued the exceptions for torture.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212006/postopinion/editorials/hillarys_torture_exception_editorials_.htm

"Sen. Obama begins by criticizing Hillary on Iraq. Sen. Obama does not mention that -- with the exception of Hillary's opposition to the promotion of Iraq war architect Gen. George Casey -- Sen. Obama and Hillary have identical voting records on the Iraq war."

conveniently leave out the fact that Obama was not IN the Senate (had not yet been elected) when the critical "we think George should do whatever he thinks best" IWR was voted on and Hillary voted for it and has never repudiated that vote. So, yeah, other than that and a bunch of other authoritarian bills she voted "aye" on, their records on the Iraq war in the Senate are identical.

Talk about your distortions.

Say anything, do anything.

either voted for it, or just skipped the vote entirely. THAT is his track record over and over again. Sorry, I am not giving the most prolific "present" voter in the senate a pass on the war just because he wasn't elected yet. He has done absolutely NOTHING to join dems that have tried to pass legislation to get us out. NOT A SINGLE DAMN THING.

As for the Present votes that HillShills keep carping on and on about, they were done (at least as far as the anti-abortion bills in the IL assembly, he did those at the request of PP and NARAL, which both groups have published statements to that effect.

But never let the facts prevent you from a good smear.

Fact, Obama wasn't IN the US Senate to vote for or against the IWR. Hillary voted for it.

That vote alone disqualifies her for the Presidency, which is more about judgment than experience. After all, Dick F'ing Cheney had a *lot* of experience.

Let's face it, he's a first class political coward.

The fact is that he didn't vote for the war, whatever the reason is that FACT alone is good enough for me, when weighed against the FACT that Hillary voted for it.

Obama fans should really do some more research before condemning HRC on her statements on Obama and Iraq war:
---------------------------------
Stephen Zunes, the Foreign Policy In Focus Middle East editor, is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).

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

Iraq in the Illinois State Senate

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

Recognizing that there were alternatives to using military force, Obama called on the United States to “allow UN inspectors to do their work.” He noted “that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.”

Furthermore, unlike the the Iraq War’s initial supporters, Obama recognized that “even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” Understanding the dangerous consequences to regional stability resulting from war, Obama accurately warned that “an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”

Iraq in the U.S. Senate

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

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

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

Iraq as a Presidential Candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is the worst, and I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher.

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

.. with your "analysis" is that HRC is big on lip service and little on action. You give her credit for her words, when she does NOTHING to back them up.

She talks and talks and talks and talks and then votes with George.

I'll give credence to action over words every time.

he says one thing, then retracts it. he wants to have a positive campaign then attacks hillary's record with lies. and then he denies that he even attacked her at all, and when she responds, or tries to set the record straight, he complains (or has others complain for him) that she is attacking him.

and the name of the game is the two sided face of one man's soul.

If Obama comes out swinging, I'll pray for a hard blow to the chin. Nice try, though.

But Obama should not talk about a new style of politics when he plays dirty Rove himself

...it's only proper to defend yourself. If he had played nice, I'd probably be leaning toward HRC. The fact that he showed some fight makes me think better of him. My first concern about Barack was that he'd bring a beach ball to the gunfight. Looks like that's not going to happen.

Jabba the Hutt come to life, and as reputable as well.

Surrounds herself with the likes of Penn - doesn't say much for her character, does it?

voted with Bush on Iran, and promised to follow the same course with world dictators as Bush.

Truth.

Deal with it.

http://cosmicwheel.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-hillary-needs-to-distract-from-her_18.html

<snip> Hillary--according to her own explanation--was briefed on all the information that the various U.S. intelligence agencies had--including what did not make it into the NIE--and had access to even more information than the Bush administration. That means that before she decided to vote for the IWR, she knew at least the following:

The NIE never said that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S.
The Air Force concluded that Iraq’s UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) posed no threat to Iraq’s neighbors or the U.S.
The Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that 1) A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions; 2) Iraq retains all the chemicals and equipment to produce the blister agent mustard but its ability for sustained production of G-series nerve agents and VX is constrained by its stockpile of key chemical precursors and by the destruction of all known CW production facilities during Operation Desert Storm and during subsequent UNSCOM inspections; and 3) In the absence of external aid, Iraq will likely experience difficulties in producing nerve agents at the rate executed before Operation Desert Storm.
The Department of Energy and State Department vigorously dissented on many of the key claims that Iraq had WMD, particularly in regard to aluminum tubes to reconstitute a nuclear program.
The information in the NIE showing that Iraq had WMD had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary. <more>

Hillary on Meet The Press

"We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, 'It was not a vote for war,' What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, 'If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job,' I was told that's exactly what we intended to do
"

Then you decide..

If the one men drafting the resolution said it wasnt a vote for war...and when the White House told that they intended to put inspectors back in..

Is this relevant ?

1. Hagel sponsored a different resolution, NOT the one that was voted on
2. Hagel DID say that he regrets his vote

wants to unify the country he sure is attacking a lot.

to articulate those, as long as they are factual.

You see, it is still a campaing.....and a disagreement in policy is exactly what the public need to know about.

it's just making a distinction. LOL

and now you're trying to weasel out of it. What disgusting bullshit. I heard her with my own ears criticize Obama for wanting to talk to world leaders. Stop trying to rewrite history. Not all of us are like most of the lemmings who blindly follow HRC.

:rofl:

My - I'm sure THAT is an unbiased site!

:eyes:

... than simply not show up for the vote at all? That's your Obama. When the going gets tough, he runs away. PRESENT!!!

Did you? What, exactly, did she say?

criticizing them.

Sounds like Joe Lieberman to me.

but does the exact opposite with her votes.

"Sen. Obama and Hillary have identical voting records on the Iraq war"
Umm... Hillary Clinton voted for the war. Barak Obama did not. Maybe he would have voted for it if he was in the senate. Maybe he wouldn't have. The fact is that she DID.

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

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

They do not have exactly the same voting record on Iraq.

even if every vote after Obama became a senator was exactly the same as Clinton's on Iraq, her record is worse.

No amount of backpeddling is going to change that fact.

That was much more succinct than I could put it.

:eyes:

you've got very nice compilation, but I have to bookmark it to read later.

K&R

Super OP.

Hillaryhubbub Lies.

pfft.

There isn't much difference between the two, so they have nothing to talk about but the tiniest, stupid things like Obama taking a speech off his web site.

They're both so ridiculous when they do this, and they both do it.