Other than one speech in Chicago, what did Obama do to try and stop the war??

Did he call Bush? Did he get with the senate, or the house, and try to stop it? What action did he personally take? I mean, if he was so against it, I'd think he would have done a LOT more than give ONE anti-war speech...I'm listening...

:shrug:

something he now claims was so important, wouldn't have ended with ONE speech in Chicago...surely there was something else he could have done?? I mean, he was the great and powerful Obama...

he doesn't seem to have put forth much effort to stop it...

You guys have really lost your minds if you're trying to make him more accountable than the Clintons who enabled the neocons, and did it intentionally in my estimation.

I'm dead serious. If he really felt that strongly about it, he should have stopped at nothing to get his message out there...many more rallies...

or marching in NYC. But he did vote to fund it as soon as he possibly could.

we will never know what O would have done....kind of like his missing votes on KL, and SCHIP....

...with particular legaslation.

Maybe one for Michelle's car, too?

I just can't past his criticizing when he really did nothing to make his voice heard....but now, it's a constant selling point for him?

I don't get it......

there are not too many things bigger than that that you can do

in the mainstream...that's my point...too little, too late. There is a lot he could have done. Go to DC, instead of talking about it from afar.

What could have Obama done as a STATE legislator, rather then a federal one, to stop the war? They have almost zero influence in Washington. Sure he could have maybe called a few senators, etc, but would it have made a difference if some random state legislator no one had ever heard of at the time was shouting "don't go to war in Iraq"? Obama was a nobody at that time.

why should his concern about the war when he was a nobody, carry any weight, or be a viable selling point for him now? I mean, I could say the same thing. I was against it, went to a rally, so if I ran for prez, and used it as a selling point, would that make me a better person, or more qualified for the job?

I don't think so.

He didn't oppose it hard enough.

feel free to go to one of the 10 threads about her.

The Iraq War is about the people who helped make it happen because their decision carried the day.

perhaps you misread it.

:evilgrin:

LOL..

If anything, he has supported it, and even voted against an admendment to require congressional authorization to increase troops there.

What a bullshit post. What did YOU do?

you assume he did nothing? My guess would be he supported anti-war messages in general, and used what political influence to push the message onto other politicians, or to support other people.

Maybe you should e-mail and ask him.

every detail...

no one would care to hear about his phone call conversations, meetings, etc.

Saying he was in staunch opposition is enough.

It's such a force for him now, I just don't see the validity of his argument that 'he was against it', because, as I said before, anyone could have been against it, but it doesn't make them better, or more qualified to be president.

What did YOU do? What did Hillary Clinton do?

:evilfrown:

doesn't matter what I did, or would have done...

me and millions of others around the world took to the street and made our voices heard, as did 22 Senators and many Congress people.

Fear, poor judgement and indifference, my friend.

Cowardice.

cause if they did nothing.....that one thing, but if they helped move the war along....looks like you are still way behind in the leadership getting right department.

Don't you just hate that. Being totally intellectually dishonest, I mean? :rofl:

and didn't vote for the KL bill.

you see, you should have an exit plan before you vote for something named "authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."

At least make sure there is one. 22 democratic senators got it right, Clinton got it wrong. Face the truth.

Not only that, but she always says "knowing what i know know, i would never vote for such a thing." THIS MEAN NOTHING!!! If she learned a lesson she would say "knowing what i know then, i would vote no on that bill today." Because it's not the Bush supplied info that was full of spin, what matters is her judgment and knowing that info was BS. If right now it was October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM SHE WOULD VOTE YEA. She has said nothing to contradict that.

The people who marched in Washington D.C., before and after that vote, knew it was BS and everybody knew what "authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." was all about. We were going to go to war, end of story. She, along with 27 other Democratic Senators failed us that day.

You can debate the fact that Obama was not a senator all you want, at least he was right when the majority of Americans were wrong. 22 Democratic Senators got it right and there is nothing out there that shows Obama would have gotten it wrong knowing what he knew then. Read it, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4327360

You would have a better luck convincing my that he owns a crystal ball then you could convincing me that he would have voted for that bill.

stance. Something that we could all say; 'Oh I remember when Obama fought to stop/end the war'...like that...not just one anti-war rally, in one state...one city...

the parameters of his position while finding a way to make the entire nation recognize his stance on the war for you to support him, but all Hillary has to do is put some spin on her vote in the Senate and she has your support.

Okay, yeah, just like most posts from the Clinton people, this is a red herring.

Obama cult is excused.

and Billary voted her DLC conscience.

Look up DLC and what they stand for, and look up membership.

"A hell of a lot more"...be specific please....

Which is be actively responsible for war crimes, American violation of international law, and unjustifiable mass murder.

he wasn't in a position to have to make that choice, so I don't think it's a fair comparison, to ANYONE, not just Hillary, who had to make the decision to vote for or against.

It's about as moot as you or I being against the war back then. We are nobody, and according to someone else in this thread, Obama was a nobody. Hence, I don't think he should be using it, and touting it, to gain people's confidence based on a facade.

It was your thread that asked what Obama did, and when I explain that I don't care what he did, you start rationalizing Hillary's war vote in all kinds of other ways.

As I said, I don't care what Obama did for the very reason that you state, that he wasn't in the position. In the case of the war, I care about what Clinton did while in a position where she had the power and authority.

and I'm not rationalizing Hillary's vote....I'm trying to find out, why, if Obama felt so strongly about the war, he didn't do more to stop it. Intead of coming up with an answer to what he did, you divert to your sentiments about it.

Obviously you know as well as I do that there is nothing else he did.

Are you trying to excuse Hillary's horrible judgement?

so, what did he do? Exactly?

I care that he didn't actively support it. If there was a candidate out there that actively led the charge against the war, then great. But that's only an added bonus for me.

What I care about more, of the two remaining candidates is that one was not actively responsible - continuously - for this particular instance of American war crimes against humanity.

It was one of the most frustrating things about John Edwards, and with his departure from the race I am thrilled I no longer need to deal with that dichotomy.

I never heard about his one rally before he ran for prez....was there nationwide news coverage? Was it on TV? Did he go to other cities? That would be active.


I'm not going to get an honest answer. And that is, other than his ONE speech, in Chicago, he did nothing.



I'm going to bed.....

I said I care that he did not actively support it.

I did not say, Obama actively did not support it.

My point was that I don't care even if he did nothing. If he had been the great crusader of the ages against the war, that would only be a bonus. I'm not going to engage in a debate with about what he didn't do because I don't care.

Obama wasn't in the Senate to vote on the IWR, so its true I admit that he gets a lucky break where he can say all day long that he would never have voted for it, etc. Sometimes life isn't fair. But unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, she was there and did have a choice, chose poorly, then defended her choice and continues to rationalize and equivocate about it. that matters more to me than the fact that Obama opposed the war, but didn't do a lot to stop it. Neither did I. But I also didn't authorize it.

John Edwards did too, but what was his response? To say, I made a mistake, and I was wrong. To me there is one characteristic I see that George Bush and Hillary Clinton have in common - they're both too stubborn and arrogant to ever admit they were wrong.

opposing the war. it's quite common for politicians to vote one way and make a speech the other way; that way they've got both bases covered. i'm not defending it, but it's standard operating procedure, and people are naive indeed if they think obama's speech amounts to a hill of beans. since he's been in the senate he's voted the same as hillary. anyone who cares about IWR (and i'm not demeaning this concern at all) should write in kucinich.

oh please...it's the one vote hillary can't run from

"At least she showed up...." :wtf:

That really inspires confidence in either her ability to read legislation or tell the truth...

Which of those is lacking do you think?



Laura