BO A calculating and ambitious man.

BO A calculating and ambitious man.

In 2002 Hilary Clinton was a US Senator after the worst tragedy in history had struck our shores, in 9-11-01.

She listened to respected Army General Colin Powell and watched as he waved -a show and tell- vial of fake anthrax to the UN Assembly and then followed up with spy satellite photo’s of mobile chemical labs.

She listened to the SOTUS speeches year after year haranguing the intell that confirmed that Saddam had WMD.

A lot more was at stake for her and indeed she worked in the Senate where the majority firmly held and daily hailed the neo-shrub policy. She was inundated with the WMD belief and she was too close to the white hot core of neo con evil, not to be swayed.

She had many occasions to be given the shr*b version by the experts, the slam dunk lies, the sweet tea and candy in the streets, peace loving Iraqi’s greeting us, where she needed to show toughness as a “cut and run dem”--- everything rode on that vote for her--- NOTHING rode on the street rally speech given to a group of anti war activists, he was preaching to the choir, folks. He had far less weight to his decision, his State Senate vote would be less important, than a US Senators, he was free to cast his net, wide and liberal, with out consequences.

I would give him his due, if he had been a bona fide US Senator with the same weight on his shoulders as Hilary’s at the time of her vote. His speech was one of a local guy, small time, Illinois State Senator, not the most elite “club in the world..”

His speech and her decision are not even apples and oranges, they are apples and cream puffs.

Read what others have to say in the excerpts. Have a good discussion, It’s worth trying to know what the man is about when he is interviewing with us for the most powerful job in the world.

This election, this vote, may be the single most important decision you will ever make for your kids.

I hope every one has a thought provoking discussion.

.....................


SOTU
September 20, 2001
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.


Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred...


January 28, 2003

In all these days of promise and days of reckoning, we can be confident. In a whirlwind of change, and hope, and peril, our faith is sure, our resolve is firm, and our union is strong.



Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror...the gravest danger facing America and the world...is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to their terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation

The 108 UN weapons inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons...lay those weapons out for the world to see...and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax - enough doses to kill several million people. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin - enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands. He has not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed



U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them

..........................
What Would Obama Have Done? Voted for the War and Lied About It – Just Like Hillary
U.S. Politics - The National Security State
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
by Paul Street

>>Barack Obama's sole claim to being an "anti-war" candidate is an October, 2002, speech he delivered in Chicago, opposing the congressional vote to give George Bush Iraq War Powers. No sooner had Obama's U.S. Senate campaign been declared "viable" by the corporate media, than the speech disappeared from Obama's web site.<<


>>On October 2, 2007, the Obama campaign made an obnoxious point of celebrating the "fifth anniversary" of the Chicago speech then State Senator Barack Obama gave in the fall of 2002. That's the Daley Plaza oration where Obama said that "even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences"

"What would I have done? I don't know."

But, as Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd accurately noted, Team Obama "forgot to celebrate another anniversary. Last July 26th marked the third anniversary of the New York Times story in which Obama admitted that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq resolution had he been serving in the United States Senate at the time of the vote." Dodd quoted directly from the Times story:

"In a recent interview, 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'" (New York Times, 26 July, 2004)<<


http://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/583542,CST-NWS-hunter02.article
Obama's touted anti-war stance not so audacious
He's wise to stress his '02 Iraq speech, but it wasn't very risky

>>October 2, 2007
BY JENNIFER HUNTER Sun-Times Columnist
Five years ago today, Barack Obama stood in the midst of a sign-waving, anti-war crowd at the Federal Plaza to denounce the American incursion into Iraq.

"What I am opposed to is a dumb war," he said. "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. ..."


Obama dubbed it "A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics

Obama gave the Federal Plaza speech when he was still ensconced in the Illinois Senate. He gave it nine days before the U.S. Senate voted on Oct. 11, 2002, to authorize sending U.S. troops to Baghdad. So he was an early critic of the war.

The Obama campaign also has organized 18 rallies today across the country in which participants will be reminded of Obama's anti-war stance


But that's a tad disingenuous.

Many prominent Democrats who were already in the U.S. Senate took a risk and voted against the war, including Illinois' senior senator, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Barbara Boxer of California, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Carl Levin of Michigan.

At the time of the vote, the Pew Research Center said Americans were more focused on the economy than on the war and Bush's approval rating was slipping. Polls had been showing that two-thirds of Americans supported military action in Iraq, but by Oct. 30, 2002, Pew reported that overall support was slipping, and "a majority of Democrats oppose the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

He may not like to admit it but Obama is essentially an ambitious pragmatist -- as his decision to invoke his 2002 speech on its anniversary today underlines.<<


.

Get over it.

with no US Senate presence.

He was free to say anything- it had no consequences like Hilary.

He was an armchair quarterback.

sentiment to say, hold on, this is not a good idea. And what he says in his speech was remarkably prescient. You cannot take that away from him, much as you would like to. Hillary fucked it up, because if it was as persuasive a case as you argue, the Senate and the House would have been near-unanimous.

The consequence was that he might have killed his career in the bud. Yet he still took the principled stand.

Hillary, OTOH, voted FOR the war - even as (as you mentioned) the most liberal members voted against it. Then, she did not object when the war started, but was a cheerleader for three years, until it became politically inconvenient to support it any further.

While Obama took a stand against the prevailing passion in the country, Hillary took a calculated stance to keep the most potential voters happy with her, regardless of any principles or ethics.

He was a sitting Senator, who was also up for re-election.

Does anyone even remember the poisonous atmosphere in 2002 the way I do? I applaud anyone who spoke out against that wretched and immoral war in the face of popular support and slurs upon one's patriotism.

Krugman says that they are Republican.
How can Randi Rhodes push a Republican agenda?
These latte liberals are positively NUTS.

but I was more right than he was. I predicted things just as they turned out. Does that qualify me to be President of the United States?

civil-rights attorney? Do you have 11 years of legislative experience, 3 of those as US Senator? Then dammit, you should have run, you missed your window.

By the way "editor" not "president".

the best I could find was a "footnote" with an attribution to Obama noted in a Larry Tribe paper.

(IIRC.. it was for editing and correcting typos)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FPeople%2FO%2FObama%2C%20Barack

The Harvard Law Review, generally considered the most prestigious in the country, elected the first black president in its 104-year history today. The job is considered the highest student position at Harvard Law School.

The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago's South Side before enrolling in law school. His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.

''The fact that I've been elected shows a lot of progress,'' Mr. Obama said today in an interview. ''It's encouraging.

''But it's important that stories like mine aren't used to say that everything is O.K. for blacks. You have to remember that for every one of me, there are hundreds or thousands of black students with at least equal talent who don't get a chance,'' he said, alluding to poverty or growing up in a drug environment.

He has one issue, his is the thinnest Democratic campaign in US history. The left wing media is turning the Democratic party into a sewer in his name. His whole 'Hope' and 'Unity' mantra is a huge lie.

who's a well-regarded former President, and a 20-year political machine with connections at the highest levels of the party. What does that say about YOUR gal's viability as a candidate? :rofl:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
I guess he could have said more about how chatic Iraq would become instead of implying it

He said 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

He said even a successful war against Iraq will require
a US occupation of undetermined length,
at undetermined cost,
with undetermined consequences.
He said 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.

He said Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda

He said let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty

and so on

While I'm at it let me hit on a few other things in original post. This isn't too you in particular.


Do people still believe he said in 2004 he didn't know how he would vote. Do people not fact check anything or is a partial quote OK, however misleading. He never said that without the next sentence going further

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004
for instance


I don't remember if the original poster repeated lie Hillary told Russert his speech being down from his site after war was popular in 2003. That might work if not for the Wayback Machine. I've posted the link to his site through the months of 2003 before, if requested I'll post them again but I'm not sure anyone cares about truth anymore, just proving points.
It was off his front page and on the first page of his news section. It was briefly down in May 2003 as site was remodeled and you can see the new page is very different, easier to read. It was still there in December 2003.

That Wayback Machine is handy.

We know the Senate heard a lot of things, it was a different position, a tough choice because of political consequences. Wellstone was the only one running for office that year that voted against it. Everyone who knew they'd be running for president in the next 6 years voted for it.
That's sad but true. But there were the amendments. Kerry voted for most of them, Edwards voted against all of them, Clinton voted for some of them.

But not the Levin amendment which would have ensured just what she wanted to get done. I know her argument about it but I also read the Senate debate on that amendment. She knew better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/magazine/03Hillary-t.html?pagewanted=4&_r=3
(part on next page)


Now when pushed she said she was fully briefed on the classified NIE. She wasn't, no one could be, bush ensured that by the way he set it up. I'm sure she got briefings but not on those full contents.
That's why Graham made the pleadings for everyone to read it. He couldn't even tell other Senators the contents, not even in committee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/the-iraq-war-vote-was-69_b_50742.html


The second time is reported here
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/magazine/03Hillary-t.html?pagewanted=4&_r=3



I really think she should have read it.

Notice I provided links to what I said about Clinton so whoever wants to can go find them in context.

We don't or shouldn't distort things for good or bad to help or hurt a candidate. We don't need more spin.

I chose my candidate by seeking facts but even now I am willing to look into the good or bad of either candidate. Since I know I am not of better character than the average person I can't believe how many people don't do that. We get too caught up in this foe thing. Truth is always our friend.
Maybe I am just more curious. I like facts a lot.

Dick Durbin voted against it, and he was also running for re-election.

Agree, totally! The 2002 speech hit all of the correct reasons why the reasons for war were wrong.

At the time, it was less clear, however. And, the intelligence pointed towards WMD’s in Iraq.

My concern is that, while BO made o great speech in 2002, it only confirms his power of analysis, not what he would have actually done- had he been in the position of responsibility in the US Senate.

That is critical and it goes to lack of confirmation of his actual preparedness to lead.

For example, politics calls for compromise.

We saw an glimpse of that when OB was a speaker at the Dem convention and endorsed Sen. Kerry- who had also voted for the IWR and there, Sen. Obama not only toned down the rhetoric he side stepped the issue. He certainly did not cahstize Kerry for his vote.

Most recently, his advisor Samantha Power, softened his current 16 month campaign pledge to downplay the time frame- essentially- based upon the realities on the ground. Fair enough- but then, say it that way and say it loud and clear when you have those mega-rallies.




Yes, on July 24, 2004 BO told Blitzer a “qualified” No vote, then, two days later for the NYT he changed it and admitted, he didn’t know what he would have actually done;




About the Levin amendment, she said it ceded power to the UN- and that’s why she didn’t vote for it.

Honestly, I can’t think of a good reason why HRC would have opted out of a good bill, that stressed diplomacy- what was in it for her to push for war?

Does anyone have any good reason why HRC would want to push for the Iraq war?

It goes to motive.

If she didn’t reads the full report- that is unacceptable. Sure, going to the WH in person and asking questions is important- but they have a duty to read the damned bill.



Agree, again. I don’t ant sound bites or media brain worms-steering me and everyone towards the corporate machine candidate du jour.

I, like everyone here, believe this is an important election and I am undecided.

That’s why I am spending hours researching and debating this stuff- I would like to make an informed decision.

I do appreciate the work you put into the links- it helps me move along in my own thinking.

BTW- The NYT article with HRC and Code Pink is fascinating.

You know, we started off with a broad field of dem candidates and we are down to two: an neither are perfect. Geesh.

Maybe we need a separate thread for Hil’s neopig connections:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/magazine/03Hillary-t.html?pagewanted=5&_r=3




Thanks for the good feed back and hard work on the links.

Ok, allow me to play the devils advocate now that we have reviewed many of the documents from the era in question.

Here is how I would defend an attack against Senator Obama’s hypothetical IWR resolution.

United States Senator Barack Obama, while still a Senator from the State of Illinois, assessed the rational for the Iraq War Resolution and the reasons propounded by the Bush administration and found them wanting factually.

U.S. Senator and now Presidential candidate, Obama, correctly analyzed the situation back in 2002, one week before the IWR was put to vote and eventually passed into law, and clearly and correctly stated the reasons why there were major inconsistencies in the reasons for the war, chiefly that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States.

Further, Senator Obama correctly predicted the outcome of such a war, in an unstable region and predicted the consequences, of an easy victory followed by an agonizing, prolonged and costly occupation.

It is precisely because of the enormous potential cost of such a war, in lives and resources that he urged restraint.

The entrance into such an ill advised war, not only further destabilized the region by over throwing a natural enemy and fire wall against Iran, an age old enemy of Iraq which would surely benefit from such a gratuitous coup and would more likely than not enter into the fray with little cost and great opportunity to thwart the best intended US efforts.

The war, a result of inflammatory misstatements about the presence of Al Queda in Iraq, an entity that surely would never have been tolerated while Saddam Hussein kept an iron grip on his nation, actually distracted the United States from the real enemy, Al Quada and the Taliban, who had fled Afghanistan and found safe haven in Pakistan.

Military personnel, materials, and funding were now diverted away from the central war on terror and the enemy disappeared into the Mountains of Afghanistan, intact, only to return another day to fight.

The lessons of history were lost ono ur leadership at the time, that occupying Iraq was fraught with unacceptable cost, if at all possible, as shown by the British experience and occupying and pacifying Afghanistan was a lesson learned by the former USSR, lessons now all but lost on the gung ho advocates who supported the poorly planned post victory occupation of Iraq.

Senator Obama spoke out in clear and certain terms about the reasons he did not support the IWR, even in the face of potential political repercussions and at the risk of being called soft on terror.

Unfortunately, then a State Senator from Illinois, Obama could exert no influence on a national level other speaking truth to power. However, even if only in the hypothetical, he is quite certain that he would have remained consistent in his objections to the war, had he the opportunity to vote in the US Senate then, as he might have today.

While no one could know what they would or what not do in a hypothetical situation, there is every reason to expect that Senator Obama would have remained true to his ideas and to his correct analysis which he did not hesitate to make public, when he spoke out in October of 2002.

If experience is a teacher, then, the lessons learned from the misguided attack on Iraq demonstrate that Senator Obama has the experience to not only learn form the facts, but to lead based on the facts. The experience to make the right decision outweighs a mountain of experience that culminates in the wrong decision.


Thoughts?

I think a closer look at HRC's decisions around this issue would be a good learning project for me, if I can find the hours to spare. again.


peace

If you read his speech then you know he understood the non-classified intelligence that indicated weapons there. He talked about the same type of containment while the inspectors did their work and so on.

Let me share a short article from Mother Jones that talks about that...but also the fine line used with truth that bothers me.

It's true that we don't know how he would have voted, God knows he's a politician too. However war is a unique issue. On a practical level you know he'd have read the Iraq classified NIE if only because Durbin would have insisted and he's Obama's senior Senator.

I know he's made some brave almost stupid votes, some from years ago that he still gets in trouble for. But I keep hearing there's a saying that you don't win by voting against a war.

I'm glad you don't think it was wrong not to bash Kerry for his vote. Many make the same argument that Sen Clinton made on MTP



I have trouble believing any Democrat would have found it more admirable if he'd put Kerry down for the vote or made it an anti-war spiel. That would have been self aggrandizing, we were already at war

Now I wish Clinton had used the fuller quote that you did, ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''
(That's part of what I quoted and in the link I gave.) Now I think saying "from my vantage point the case was not made" differs from saying he didn't know how he would vote and is the same as saying "and I think I would have voted no."
Obviously if there was information that was hidden that showed a real and present danger people should have voted yes. But that's open to debate. However saying simply he didn't know how he's vote and not adding that from his vantage point the case wasn't made is intentionally misleading.
I am glad he made the point about the truck already being in the ditch to talk about his war funding votes. That's something I don't judge anyone harshly on, our kids are there.
Further down the MTP page she discusses the Levin amendment vote.

Now on to Clinton's vote. I have no sense she wanted war. bush was still playing on the fears of Americans. The short of it is I think she wanted to look tough enough. I think it's true for many (and still is true on other things) that politicians are afraid to be called weak or endangering America.
Neither Kerry nor Edwards read the NIE either. I think it's because they all already knew how they were going to vote. Information indicating there were no WMD wouldn't help, they couldn't tell people that was why they voted against it, it was almost better not to see it.

Bush made it hard. If you remember some Senator had leaked (Arlen Specter maybe) some info and bush had put new limits on confidential information, that was part of why they couldn't even talk to each other about certain information.
This report was in a locked room, a congress member couldn't send someone else to read it for them, they were checked to make sure they had nothing to record the info with, they couldn't tell anyone about it.
Only 6 Senators read it. She wasn't alone.

Hillary was quoted saying something similar to what Samantha Power said on Obama's position. Someone brought it up awhile ago and I strongly defended her as it not being a contradiction. I don't think it is for him either, especially having it be an adviser saying it, not a quote from him.
I use the same defense on both...what they say in debates and at rallies really is their plan. However they'd be idiots to make their campaign pledge in iron, they don't have full information now especially of what the situation will be then. I actually liked that Clinton had said it. Of course I don't like that she is using what Power said against him to make him a hypocrite when she's said it herself and it has to be true for both of them.

Should they say at rallies after "and I will start bringing them home..." "unless there is some strong reason not to". I'm not sure. I've "heard" it in Obama saying he'd be as careful bring them out as we were careless putting them in but it's not a direct statement.
I think Clinton leaves it out for the same reason...rallies aren't a place for nuance. Questions and answer meetings are. I'd like to know what they say at those when asked about it. I've heard a couple of Obama's on C-span but he wasn't asked about that.
He was very impressive and I'm sure Clinton is too. He has a beautiful wonk inside him. It's funny that in some articles I found from early in his campaign that wonk was a complaint about his campaign styler. Where was the inspiration?

Happily I heard that even in Ohio he was talking about needing to go back to smaller venues because you can't work the same way with a huge crowd. When the journalist in a panel was discussing that the panel burst into laughter about "poor guy, what a problem having crowds that are too big"
But in some ways it is. Huge rallies are slogan time.

You're right that we have imperfect candidates. I laugh at the experience issue. By the time I gave up on Gore the 3 viable candidates we had were the least experienced.

None had much time in the Senate, not time to be real leaders so I decided to research their past because really it was who they were and choices they had made we had to look at. When I started looking Obama was my last choice. Who was this rookie? I sort of leaned Clinton then and 35 years of experience working for change sounded good.

By the time I finished the choice was easy. On character, style and experience Obama was an easy favorite. (I had to subtract Clinton's 15 years at the corporate Rose Law firm as working for change. Left them both with 20)

I'm going to share a few articles you might not have seen that gave me an interesting view.
You may have seen this one and there are many more articles about his time in the Illinois Senate but this is a pretty short one that says something about how he got hard things through on a bipartisan basis
Judge Him by His Laws

This interview is from 1995 before he was even in office. You can see that some of his grassroots theory of governing have been in his mind a long time
What Makes Obama Run?

Why not go further back? This isn't part of his "20 years" of experience but maybe it should be added. An interesting article on his year as Editor of Harvard Law Review in very tense time on campus. Again it shows his style of working with opposing sides
In Law School, Obama Found Political Voice

A profile in the New Yorker
The Conciliator
Where is Barack Obama coming from?>

Just for fun here's an article from right after the 1992 elections. Obama had agreed to lead a Project Vote right after Law School.
Vote of Confidence

I hadn't hear Obama speak before he became my choice. When I did because of what I knew about his past I knew it wasn't empty rhetoric
The more I found on him the more I was drawn. This is a very thoughtful, focused man.

I "get" his leadership style. I won't go on what I found on Clinton. I don't mean rw hit pieces, just old articles on line. They lessened my confidence in her leadership. So does the campaign comparison.

Whatever you decide I think you'll enjoy the articles.

Actually, I'm glad that Sen. Obama has strong supporters- we need to stay motivated and active after the last eight years of neglect and incompetence.

I do recall that the b8shco were waiving the the flag and inciting the nation against liberals- it was sort of the hey day of rw talk radio and screaming buttresses like MSavage and Limpbags and even Kerry got brought down with the swiftboat smears- so you are probably right on the money, it was a balancing act for dems, trying to not look antiwar at the same time trying to be reasonable about how to proceed.

I actually feel better after this thread because I worked my way around the speech thing to understanding what OB was saying in his speech. It was pretty much verbatim ( OK, more articulate) what I tell folks when I debate and discuss here at home.

I want most of all, to get back the reigns of power to restore sanity to this nation, and I want who ever gets the nom to be successful, I still have some time before any primaries in my State, so I get to mull over things a lot more than people who have already voted and committed.

Also, I think we had a really good field to start with, I like Biden, Kucinich, I heard John Edwards talk in a home setting and he was great.

So, I am looking forward to the primaries eventually being over-so we can all unite and take a big bite out of the repugs @sses.

peace

A speech he made years ago.

He never articulates anything else. His whole campaign is rooted in hating Hillary, which has turned the democratic party into the republican party.

God only knows how many dead civilians, millions of refugees...... How dare he try to make this trivial problem a major centerpiece of his campaign?

.

If you want to post some drivel against Obama at least find something that doesn't fit every single politician on earth, huh?

:eyes:

a great portion of DU behaves like they have never, ever before witnessed politicans in action :o

And I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I'll defend her when people start trashing her for being too "ambitious." (And it does have certain overtones when that criticism is applied so virulently to a woman or a person of color or anyone else who traditionally had a "place" that they ought to "know.")

Yes, they're all calculating and ambitious, Captain Obvious.

Of course he only got there due to resignations.

and plays it as if he were some how special and prescient.

and the cult of charm..just like shr*b-I bet you'd cream your pants to have a beer with Good Old Barrack?

wanted. How does that look for "more experienced" candidate?

just three years later, not to mention about a thousand other events that were more tragic.

Between that and using BO in your subject, I didn't bother to read the rest of your post. Go ahead and support Hillary McCain.

The tsunami was your idea of the worst tragedy in history? Sadly uniformed view of history.

So was Hurricane Katrina. So was the Vietnam War.

And hands-down, the greatest tragedy was The Civil War.

If a US senator did not have access to the same information that was freely available to me or the mental capacity to seek access to good information, then the government itself is a pointless waste of time and real estate. To be blunt, that is.

I read the regular news, I did a bit of uncomplicated research online, and the case of the White house for war in Iraq was clearly worthless.

Supporting it clearly carried many political advantages, however, while failing to support it appeared at the time a political dead-end, in spite of being the right decision. Hillary supported it, while Barack did not - he made the right decision in spite of it being against all personal advantage. That is the critical difference in character that I see, and the quality I look for in a commander in chief.

But there were many Senators like Ted Kennedy, Bob Graham, Dick Durbin, and Paul Wellstone who saw through the bullshit.

Listening to Colin Powell is not an excuse. As respected as Colin Powell was, he was Secretary of State and the Secretary of State's first priority is to do whatever the hell the President tells him to do. As somebody who claims she served as a senior advisor in the Clinton Administration she should know that better than anyone.

If you listened to outside sources like Jim Webb, the warning signs were there.

The stakes weren't as high for Obama but unlike 80% of the American people, he wasn't duped. That's not to say 100% that he would've voted against the IWR in the US Senate but there is good reason to believe that he would not have.

Politicians have to calculating and ambitious...

That's kind of the job description...

And anyone who says Obama is not a politician is just plain naive or deluded...

BTW, I want my president to be calculating and ambitious....

Being calculating means they are thinking before they act...

Didn't think so and anyone who attempts to confuse the two is not fit to lead this country...

2nd, Obama has been quite consistent in his opposition to this war. Hillary, not so much.


Interviewer asks Obama the specific question as to what he would have done, if he were in the senate in this video.
Obama responds that he would have voted like Dick Durbin, Voted Nay.
This video is dated 11/25/02
question is asked at 2:11 ----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po


Tim Russert read a quote he attributed to Obama to suggest that he has "not been a leader against the war": "In July of 2004, 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." Russert did not quote the very next sentence of Obama's statement, which was, "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made" for authorizing the war.

At the time....
The Times also reported that Obama "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":
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004

THE FACT CHECKER

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

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."

again.....

"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 , 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.

again--

(July 27,2004), Obama said that he would have voted "no" on the Senate resolution

His views on whether to stay in Iraq have changed, of course, as he now advocates a phased withdrawal.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/obama_and_iraq.html#more

so because we had candidates that had voted for that fucked up IWR, Obama, not wanting to EMBARASS THE NOMINEES, stayed vague to a degree.

THANK YOU, BARACK OBAMA.

Responding to Clinton’s attack on Iraq

IRAQ: Obama Consistently Opposed the Iraq War.
In January of 2005, Obama criticized Condoleezza Rice for not offering a timetable for withdrawal;

in February he criticized the Administration’s policy in Iraq while praising our troops;

in May and June, he called security in Iraq “horrible” and criticized the Administration for linking the 9/11 attacks and the war in Iraq;

and in October and November, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops, saying that we should “get out as soon as we can.”

Obama called for a phased withdrawal of our troops in November of 2005 and voted for an amendment stating that the US should not “stay in Iraq indefinitely.”

He consistently called for troop withdrawal throughout 2006, and voted for a resolution in June urging the President to begin troop withdrawal during 2006.

Obama spoke out against the surge the same night Bush announced it, and introduced his bill to end the war at the end of January, which would have prohibited the surge and set a timetable for withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of March 2008.

That bill became the template for the Democratic caucus’ position.

IRAQ: Obama Has Consistently Opposed A Blank Check for Iraq.

Since Obama came to Washington in January of 2005, every single Senate Democrat has voted for every single Iraq funding bill that has come to the Senate floor until President Bush vetoed a timetable for withdrawal.

After that, Obama voted against funding for the war, stating that “This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one…We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path. With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly.”

IRAQ: Clinton Continues to Unfairly Truncate Obama’s Quote on Iraq. Below is the full excerpt from the New York Times:

“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 Saddam Hussein 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.

again!

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.”

"What I don’t think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this"

http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clintons-mtp-iraq-statements/

Slick Willie move over ya’ met your match- Slick Barrackster.

The Alpha and Omega of the Dem primaries wants to have it both ways.

Making in a speech in front of anti-war protesters is one thing. It’s called shooting fish in a barrel.

But like every other politician, the A and O of politics tailors his message to suit the expediency of the moment AND he wants to have it both ways.

I was against the war.

But I didn’t have all the intelligence facts about the war...so I don’t know what I would have done ...but based upon the little I know I was against the war.

Of course I did not have to vote for against the war act and have it go on my record- I was able to speechify in Chicago and take my sort of firm anti-war stance- with several stipulations- at a rally. LMAO.

His position was a speech at a rally- yup, that’s grist for the Presidential material mill.

Slick as a greased weasel. He’ll fit right in.

From Chris Dodd’s web site:

http://chrisdodd.com/media/releases/happy-%28belated%29-anniversary,-senator-obama

>>Today, the Obama campaign is celebrating the 5th anniversary of the speech that then-State Senator Barack Obama gave opposing the invasion of Iraq. But unfortunately, they forgot to celebrate another anniversary. July 26th marked the 3rd anniversary of the New York Times story in which Obama admitted that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq resolution had he been serving in the United States Senate at the time of the vote:

"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.'" <<

In 2004, during the NYT article, he wasn’t running interference and giving cover for Kerry, he was running for his first US Senate seat and giving himself cover.

In a Slick Willie move- he appeared anti war- but anti-war- with clauses and conditions:

—>''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports

—>''What would I have done? I don't know.

—>What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

He is saying- in effect- I have an opinion: an if it plays to anti war votes then I am on the right side of the issue.

If, later, it proves to be a losing argument: well, I didn’t know the intelligence.

S-L-I-C-K.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E2DF153DF935A15754C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

>>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 Saddam Hussein 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.<<
..................

The very next day, the A and O gives another version, a stronger version of the same position, to another newspaper.

>>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." <<

>>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 then to cover every and all bases, slick Barrackster, not wanting to be sadlled with the “weak anti war Dem” label- added:

>>On the issue of whether to stay in Iraq , he said "there's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.<<

So, in 2002 he gives an anti-war speech to an anti war rally. Brave!

Then, before the convention speech, he gives a qualified answer, on July 26, 2004:
'What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

Then the nexct day, he gives another version, the strong anti war Obama version: Obama said that he would have voted "no" on the Senate resolution,

All of this from a man who never had to make that important decision in 2002 but has has managed to ride that one 2002 speech into the sunrise- being- as it seems- all things to all people - a tabula rasa - for the true believers.

I don't pay any attention to trolls who hide their profiles. C'ya! Alert to mods.

as many other of Obama's superdelegates.

Anyone with a brain to google of "Bin Laden strategy" knows he's gonna try to the USA what was done to the USSR in Afghanistan. ie Guerilla warfare till their economy implodes.

It's not hard to figure out the beltway dumbshits really are dumbshits.

They haven't got a clue about Grand Strategy.

BTW you dont mention she just went through 8 years witnessing the inspection and eliminating of Iraqs WMD .Bush gave her proof that more existed.It must have been plausible from her perspective.
I dont blame her for being gullible to Bushs lies.
I blame Obama for being irresponsible.He knew nothing about intelligence ,but decided Iraq had no WMDs.
You may think you also knew, but you probably thought the same thing in 1991, and you would have been wrong.
This is a serious job ,not a state Senate position.
Obama gave that one speech while his opponent made him out to be an "elitist".His opponent was a black panther member.
Obama took the expedient path and gave an antiwar speech.
But Obama never lived up to it until popular opinion made it stylish.If the polls were still prowar you would not know about Obamas one speech.
Its like him endorsing Lieberman for his Senate run.
And endorsing his opponent .

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

He was floating bullshit that was widely known to be factually false- like the 16 words re: Uranium Yellowcake- at the time.

Don't give me this "oh, Hillary was in the Senate, she was helpless before this onslaught of evidence" It was crap. We knew it was crap. AT THE TIME.


And Obama would have voted for it, too, huh? Where do you get that? Maybe you don't remember that some Senators managed NOT to be conned by that bullshit.

Here's a little trip down memory lane:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
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)

Oh, yeah. And what did Iraq have to do with 9-11, again?

Obama was only antiwar when it helped him get his state Senate seat.
Now he will leave on the table, bombing Iran,bombing Pakistan ,Escalating Afghanistan ,re-invading Iraq and will not rule out leaving 100,000 mercenaries in Iraq.And his advisers say he is full of SHIT about what he will really do
He wants to add 100,000 troops to the military and up their budget.
If you think he is anti war you are deluded.
Obama is as pro war as Bush.
And antiwar.
What a unifier! Amen

Even if I was inclined to listen to your gibberish, I've already made my choice.

The fact of the matter is, Hillary voted for the IWR. Unlike Edwards, she has been unwilling to acknowledge that vote was a mistake.

Of course Bush was full of shit.
Did you know that before Wilson exposed it?
Of course not, no one knew.
Well Wilson says Obama is a poser phony.
Who tells the truth?

Wilson simply proved that we were right.

in the Whitehouse during the time when Clinton witnessed inspection and destruction of Iraqs WMDs.She had a perspective unique to a sitting president. And was informed ,unlike Obama.

Talk about "calculating".



Whoops!

"... before her vote to authorize military force against Iraq" was left out. Her fellow senator, Bob Graham, implored her to do so, but she failed.

Let's not glorify Hillary's incompetence.

instead of reading summaries, and talking to experts that were involved in the intelligence more than she was would have caused her to change her vote? There was disagreement in the intelligence community over the weapons programs in Iraq so what? She voted for a threat of war to force full unfettered UN inspections. She would have voted the same way you poor numbskull. And Obama would have as well.

You make a good point, though. Given Sen. Clinton's record, reading that the NIE summary was full-of-shit, as Sen. Graham implored and implied, respectively, may have had no effect on her vote, as her hawkish political need to appear strong on defense may have still compelled her to vote as a Republican. Your point makes an even stronger case for her needing to be kept away from the Presidency. Personally, I've had enough of politicians who use the military for their own personal political cause.

Re: "And Obama would have as well." ... By your, what we'll call logic... every Senator would have voted for the AUMF, as well. But reality again collides with your conclusions.

There were 23 Senators who had the guts and the good sense to call it what it was- an unconstituitonal blank check for chimpy to go to war. That's how Pat Leahy put it- well, except for the chimpy part.

And yes, of course Obama is an amitious and calculating politician. Anyone running for President is that. duh.

But he said, he actually didn't know how he would have voted himself.

Now, where have I seen that tactic used before?? :shrug:

Yippieeee vote for the nice young charismatic guy who theoretically would not have voted for a bill that he was never in position of responsibility to vote for. *thud* be still my heart. LMAO.

By now I expected more substance on the stump for the Aplha and OMega of politics.

No where.

I never said he did. Never have. That's the problem- he didn't but the nation believed our flealess leader and his relentless attempts at conflation.

But as long as you opened the door to this-

let’s go back over history.

The history in which the A and O had not participation other than speechifying.

After 9-11, @ss wipe shr#b conflated 9-11 with the so called war on terrorism.

He spent several years, with the help of the neo-pigs- because @$$ hat does not have an original idea if it meant saving the universe- and the neopigs - in that emotional hot house, at a time of national insecurity managed to conflate 9-11 with–wait for it–

“THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR!!!!”

Recall, that the majority of the peepuhl believed that Saddamned had something to do with 9-11.

Now, let me finish- the neopigs created a climate where the lame argument that there were nations that comprised the Axis of Evil and were on our: “ to do list.”

Now, that’s not why HRC or anyone voted for the IWR, but that is the climate in which- and I mentioned this in the OP- it was in this climate that he gave SOTUS after SOTUS prepping the national psyche for extending the war outside of Afghanistan.

The rulers, in the WH, claimed- as you will recall- that the Taliban ( #@##!!! ) was routed, that Karzai had Afghanistan under control. (Check- done).

Then, they began their re-f*cking-rentless campaign to demonize Saddam- whom poppy had left in charge after IW #1.

The same SH, that Rummy had gone over to visit in the early 1980's and practically french kissed in pics.

Now, in this climate of fear and confusion- the neo pigs started with the failed inspections story, they sent Colin Powel to the UN and they made a case for expanding the war. They made a case that the people of Iwreck were awaiting liberation, freedom and would greet us with sweet tea and flowers ( they forgot to mention IED’s being chicken hawks an unaware of ME history it seems).

And yes, if you had debated the notion- at the time- that Al Q was in I-wreck, you would have found that only 500 displaced Al Q, called ansar al Islam had escaped operation Anaconda and fled to Northern Iraq- where- presumably the Kurds (need to check the Kurds shelter bit- my self) - avowed enemies of SH, gave shelter to this scum


So, other than one straggler, Zarqowi (sp?) There was no real presence of AlQ in Iraq. There could not have been- you DID NOT need a secret intell estimate to know this- just a few hours of search on the net at the time. Everyone could know that SH a tyrant, would not have tolerated an opposing faction in his midst.


But no one– not Barrack not HRC- not JC himself, as far as I can tell came out to say that.

In fact, the A and O said:

>>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.<<

And here is where I give kudos, to OB:

>>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.<<

But my point is this: He had no dog in the fight.

He had no stake in the vote.

He was correct in his analysis- but I don’t believe that this speech, correct in it’s analysis, is the same as saying- had I been a US Senator, had I been faced with the intel the Senate received, then, I too would not have voted for the war act.

That’s my problem- the problem of OB being un- proven and untested. He passed the: I made a good speech test, but he was not in a position of responsibility- he was not the guy under pressure to vote.

He has milked this speech for so long now- and it reflects a good speech and proper analysis- but that is not the same as conflating his theoretical objections to what he would have actually done.

The fact that in 2004, for the very issue I mentioned- political expediency he now qualified his position and changed it to the now well documented: I don’t what I would have done, I didn’t have the intel...etc.

Then, the next day he reverses and alleges: he would have voted against it.

I’s time to stop riding the @ss that carried the message in 2002 because it is a nice anecdote- but not reflective of what he may or may not have done.

What he would have done is speculative.

BTW OB's 2002 speech is worth reading, his analysis was spot on : http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech


* corrected for typo's cause I can't type for sh*t.

He is a politician hungry and impatient for power.

The point is....?

And don't tell me Hillary isn't spectacularly calculating and ambitious.

and the media! and YOU KNOW That!

The RW media does not believe a woman or a minority has a right to be ambitious. Ambition is not sexy when worn by a minority or a woman.

Don't forget, we're on the same side here.

We must keep our eyes on the prize.

All politicians are calculating and ambitious. Almost all the Senators planning to run for the Presidency at that time voted for the war, including John Edwards and John Kerry. Many Democrats did not vote for the war, but they were not planning on running for the Presidency. They were all calculating and ambitious. Barack Obama was against the war at that time but it is doubtful that he planned on running for President until later? However, he was against it.

Clinton did not have to vote for the IWR. 23 Senators didn't. She made the wrong decision, whether it was because she was taken in by shrub or because she calculated that it wouldn't be a good idea for someone who wanted to be president to risk looking soft on national security. I believe it is the latter, because I think Clinton is as smart as, say, Bob Graham, but I also think that she is more ambitious and calculating (which is one of the reasons why she still has a chance to win the nomination and Graham was the first one out in 2004; one can't successfully run for president without being ambitious and calculating).

I understand Clinton supporters who rightly place the blame on bush and discount Clinton's vote based on the likelihood that Clinton herself, if she had been president, would not have invaded Iraq. Also, she'd definitely be less of a warmonger than McCain.

Anybody can look in their reverse crystal ball and make assumptions about what someone not in the Senate would have done. But it is pointless, IMO. What happened, happened.

BushInc would have been exposed and in jail by the end of 1994.

in the streets of NYC in 2002 knew we should not go into Iraq.

She failed us all.

by recklessly voting for a war? She played with the lives of thousands because she had to look strong for her future run at POTUS?

And that is supposed to make her look good? Are you kidding me?

She was wrong.

Even his speeches are tailor made and qualified in a nice pat lawyerly way to suit the occasion.

>>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." <<

>>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 then to cover every and all bases, slick Barrackster, not wanting to be sadlled with the “weak anti war Dem” label- added:

>>On the issue of whether to stay in Iraq , he said "there's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.<<

Jackson Stephens (who bankrolled Clintons careers), Dubai and Saudi royals who are lining Clintons bank accounts by the tens of millions.

Care to talk about THAT?

Those BCCI matters just HAPPENED to show up on 9-11 didn't they?

Enough with the BULLSHIT - be honest about 9-11 and the Bushes and the Clintons.

BCCI report is part of the public record, so you should have no problem accessing it, though it will take you at least a month to digest if you are reading it with the intention of understanding it.

But, here's an excerpt about Clinton-Stephens from a book about it - and you have to admit, there is NOTHING in Bill's book at all about BCCI. That should be considered extremely strange, especially after 9-11.


Those Dems who STILL after all these years have never connected the deep-sixing of BCCI with those powerful players who bankrolled Clintons political careers are becoming a danger to our party. It proves you don't do your homework before you vote and can be easily hoodwinked.

"...according to Evil Money by Rachel Ehrenfeld page 180:

>>>>>

"The BCCI debacle made its first intrusion into the US presidential race in 1992 and may be more damaging to the Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton, governor of Arkansas, than his alleged extramarital affair. Clinton's fund-raiser and confidant, Jackson Stephens, a billionaire from Little Rock who owns the controlling interest of Worthen National Bank in Little Rock, was the person who introduced Bert Lance to Abedi. While Stephens might not have known back in 1977 that BCCI was a criminal bank, Bill Clinton had full knowledge of Stephen's involvement with BCCI when he accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Stephens family for his campaign. On the eve of the New Hampshire primary Robert Morganthau was looking into the BCCI/Stephens/Clinton link. In December 1991 The Wall Street Journal reported that Stephens and his bank invested in Harken Energy, a small Texas investment company of which George Bush, Jr, is a board member. The money Stephens invested came through the Swiss BCCI subsidiary."
>>>>>

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/obama_gets_facts_way_wrong_on.html

>>Obama gets facts way wrong on Iraq War vote
by Frank James

When you trash talk your opponent in politics, it's always a good idea to have the facts on your side.

Unfortunately, for Sen. Barack Obama yesterday, he clearly didn't have the facts properly lined up when he talked smack against Sen. Hillary Clinton over her vote to authorize the Iraq War in 2002.

Obama was trying to raise doubts about Clinton's foreign-policy experience by reminding voters that she didn't read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before the crucial 2000 vote, suggesting that if she had read it, she might have also voted against the war vote, just like Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who Obama identified as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time.

The problem is that Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat, who just endorsed Obama, voted for the war authorization. So Obama got that wrong.

Obama was also incorrect in identifying Rockefeller as the intelligence committee chair at the time. The committee was chaired in Oct. 2002 by Sen. Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who voted against the war authorization.<<
...............

http://www.newsweek.com/id/107234/output/print

Factchecking the Love-in in L.A.
Clinton and Obama make an agree-athon of the final Democratic debate.

Brooks Jackson
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 5:07 PM ET Feb 1, 2008

that's if he had gotten his slacker butt back to congress in time for the vote. He fails too often to vote on important legislation or admits that he ended up pushing the wrong button. Obama is not fit for the Presidency.

You're getting smacked down hard (rightfully so) and it's a joy to watch. :rofl:

You mean that something as important as the 2008 elections is nothing more than a WWF circus?

Perhaps you have proven my point.

Thanks. :rofl:

oooppps...someone's verbal slip is showing. :rofl:


"In an interview with BBC's HARDtalk on March 6, 2008, Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power stated that Obama's pledge to "have all combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months"<72> was a "best case scenario" that "he will revisit when he becomes president." She continued, saying that "what we can take seriously is that he will try to get US forces out of Iraq as quickly and responsibly as possible." Power concluded her statement, saying that Obama "will not reply upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator."<73>"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama

Especially when running for the WH. I admire him for that. Hillary is way more calculating. If you dont have that factor noone will take you seriously.

politician who voted to send Thousands to die and be maimed for life when she voted for the Iraqi War Resolution without even reading the 90 page NIE. Her record since of trying to look tough but not regarding the lives of others is shameful.

And her performance on the campaign trail is cementing her say anything to do anything to get her lust for power satisfied.

"There's just no hypocricy like hilary Hyprocricy".

his position on the war is more nuanced then a convention of procrasinators. :rofl:

I was against the war..knowing what I knew...but I couldn't know it all..so I was against the war...but I am not sure what I would have done if I knew all the intel.. but, I would defninitely, maybe, "I think" voted against it... but NOW...I am for what $#@% is doing now...and I endorsed Kerry because I got the national stage and spot light...and I endorsed Kerry who voted for it...but I pillaried Hilary now that I am reaching for the stars and running against her..except I never had to vote because I was just s Senator from Illinois...giving a speech.

What day is it in Obama-land?

Because each day brings a different answer. It has got to be tough balancing act- dancing on the head of a pointy political pin.

Three different interviews in four days and each answer is just a shade enough different so we can hear- what we want to hear, but later- he will always have an out.

July 24,2004
July 26, 2004
July 27, 2004

Three different days, three different answers, swinging like a pendulum.

All, nuanced, lawyerly, qualified answers, all calculated to fit any point of view down the road with out a firm unqualified, position.

Because, let’s face it, if ( a snow ball’s chance in hell with @ss hat in charge) we would have come out clearly winners in Iraq- then, he could have just said: “Well, I wasn’t against the war, in 2002, I said Saddam was a bad man, and I clearly said, from a State Senators point of view- I was against it- but I did say many times- I did not have the intel.”

And,

“I think I would have voted no.”

Nice.

Not simply : “ I would have voted no...”

Rather, the qualified : “ I think I would have voted no.” But, always the "BUT": “ You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators.”

Why is all of this important? Because, candidate Obama has made a nice campaign plank tauting his judgement, but when push comes to shove, we only know that he had the correct analysis- but we- and he admitted this- don’t know how he actually would have voted on that judgement, had he had the full weight of history behind him, the responsibility for VOTING on a national security measure, as opposed to making a speech about it.

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." Always an escape clause. Smart man.



>> July 24, 2004, interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:

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.

(This is where he side steps–>>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.)

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.<<

But according to media matters: The fuller text of the CNN Blitzer interview started off with BO saying, “he didn’t know.” Then, the :from my vantage point caveat.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004

''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.''
and

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.


July 26, 2007 to the NYT:
>>"In a recent interview, 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'" (New York Times, 26 July, 2004)<<


July 27, 2004 to the Chicago trib:

>>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." <<


Even on 7-27-04, he gives himself cover, in case the war goes better than anticipated and in the event his anti war stance comes back to haunt his as a weak Democrat:
“But he said he was not in favor of "pulling out now,” and, he said "there's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage”



Link to the NYT artilce:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E2DF153DF935A15754C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

>>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.<<

if he says he's against it?

I am ambitious; I want to make something more of myself. Anyone with half a brain should be ambitious; otherwise you work at Starbucks your whole life. I do not respect or admire unambitious people. They have no goals or plans to reach any.

As for calculating, well, he's a politician isn't he? So what.

It ended up higher on the page and doesn't reflect the whole discussion and the way I worked through this issue for myself- at least.

So, please allow me to repost:

Ok, allow me to play the devils advocate now that we have reviewed many of the documents from the era in question.

Here is how I would defend an attack against Senator Obama’s hypothetical IWR resolution.

United States Senator Barack Obama, while still a Senator from the State of Illinois, assessed the rational for the Iraq War Resolution and the reasons propounded by the Bush administration and found them wanting factually.

U.S. Senator and now Presidential candidate, Obama, correctly analyzed the situation back in 2002, one week before the IWR was put to vote and eventually passed into law, and clearly and correctly stated the reasons why there were major inconsistencies in the reasons for the war, chiefly that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States.

Further, Senator Obama correctly predicted the outcome of such a war, in an unstable region and predicted the consequences, of an easy victory followed by an agonizing, prolonged and costly occupation.

It is precisely because of the enormous potential cost of such a war, in lives and resources that he urged restraint.

The entrance into such an ill advised war, not only further destabilized the region by over throwing a natural enemy and fire wall against Iran, an age old enemy of Iraq which would surely benefit from such a gratuitous coup and would more likely than not enter into the fray with little cost and great opportunity to thwart the best intended US efforts.

The war, a result of inflammatory misstatements about the presence of Al Queda in Iraq, an entity that surely would never have been tolerated while Saddam Hussein kept an iron grip on his nation, actually distracted the United States from the real enemy, Al Quada and the Taliban, who had fled Afghanistan and found safe haven in Pakistan.

Military personnel, materials, and funding were now diverted away from the central war on terror and the enemy disappeared into the Mountains of Afghanistan, intact, only to return another day to fight.

The lessons of history were lost on our leadership at the time, that occupying Iraq was fraught with unacceptable cost, if at all possible, as shown by the British experience and occupying and pacifying Afghanistan was a lesson learned by the former USSR, lessons now all but lost on the gung ho advocates who supported the poorly planned post victory occupation of Iraq.

Senator Obama spoke out in clear and certain terms about the reasons he did not support the IWR, even in the face of potential political repercussions and at the risk of being called soft on terror.

Unfortunately, then a State Senator from Illinois, Obama could exert no influence on a national level other speaking truth to power. However, even if only in the hypothetical, he is quite certain that he would have remained consistent in his objections to the war, had he the opportunity to vote in the US Senate then, as he might have today.

While no one could know what they would or what not do in a hypothetical situation, there is every reason to expect that Senator Obama would have remained true to his ideas and to his correct analysis which he did not hesitate to make public, when he spoke out in October of 2002.

If experience is a teacher, then, the lessons learned from the misguided attack on Iraq demonstrate that Senator Obama has the experience to not only learn form the facts, but to lead based on the facts. The experience to make the right decision outweighs a mountain of experience that culminates in the wrong decision.


Thoughts?

I think a closer look at HRC's decisions around this issue would be a good learning project for me, if I can find the hours to spare. again.


peace


*typo fix aggggghhh