*** "Clinton stood and cheered, while Obama remained seated and silent." ***

Taken from www.fpif.org Feb 8, 2008 (Foreign Policy in Focus - a think tank without walls )

Iraq as Key Indicator

Perhaps the most important difference between the two foreign policy teams concerns Iraq. Given the similarities in the proposed Iraq policies of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, Obama’s supporters have emphasized that their candidate had the better judgment in opposing the invasion beforehand. Indeed, in the critical months prior to the launch of the war in 2003, Obama openly challenged the Bush administration’s exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat and presciently warned that a war would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism, terrorism, and regional instability, as well as a decline in America’s standing in the world.

Senator Clinton, meanwhile, was repeating as fact the administration’s false claims of an imminent Iraqi threat. She voted to authorize President Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and confidently predicted success. Despite this record and Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote, however, her supporters argue that it no longer relevant and voters need to focus on the present and future.

Indeed, whatever choices the next president makes with regard to Iraq are going to be problematic, and there are no clear answers at this point. Yet one’s position regarding the invasion of Iraq at that time says a lot about how a future president would address such questions as the use of force, international law, relations with allies, and the use of intelligence information.

As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.

Pre-War Positions

During the lead-up to the war, Obama’s advisors were suspicious of the Bush administration’s claims that Iraq somehow threatened U.S. national security to the extent that it required a U.S. invasion and occupation of that country. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor in the Carter administration, argued that public support for war “should not be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy.”

By contrast, Clinton’s top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”

Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America’s leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.” Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.

Another key Obama advisor, Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment, argued that the goal of containing the potential threat from Iraq had been achieved, noting that “Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to any aggression. Inside Iraq, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in WMD capabilities. The status quo is safe for the American people.”

By contrast, Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband’s national security advisor, insisted that “even a contained Saddam” was “harmful to stability and to positive change in the region,” and therefore the United States had to engage in “regime change” in order to “fight terror, avert regional conflict, promote peace, and protect the security of our friends and allies.”

Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors, such as Larry Korb, raised concerns about the human and material costs of invading and occupying a heavily populated country in the Middle East and the risks of chaos and a lengthy counter-insurgency war.

And other top advisors to Senator Clinton – such as her husband’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush’s troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O’Hanlon. Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.

These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposed views in the lead-up to the war.

Thanks for posting.

Michael O'Hanlon? Blech...

for the Obama campaign.

I forgot all about it.

It is amazing that so many are completely blind about this.

reviewed for accuracy.

Your post truly does get to the heart of the matter. How will each candidate shape their F.P.

Thanks for bringing up that illuminating fact!

They say Hillary and Obama are alike on the issues?

Baloney.

Hillary's a war-mongering hawk who would start yet more neocon style wars.

Obama will bring the troops home.

Any questions?

Does Hillary "do body counts"?

THEY DON'T COUNT. Silly they are dead and Hillary couldn't take their vote in good faith. Could she? Please are you saying she doesn't care? :sarcasm:

have died since senator obama voted for his first war funding bill? There is plenty of guilt to go round.

:thumbsup:

And I remember grabbing the barf bag as a result :puke:

Thanks!

K&R

"seated" when, imv, it was important to do that.

Of course, hilary stood and cheered..she's been a cheerleader for the bushits WAr on Iraq from the beginning.

So glad she lost and showed what she was at the same time.

She thought that the pro-war faction would still be the majority and she was laying the groundwork for what was to come. Yet another gross miscalculation on her part. Has this woman ever been right on ANYTHING?

not the right thing to do.

You're right..she's never done anything right and I can't wait until she's metaphorically layed out to pasture.

when she thought to herself, "Gee. I bet crying on tv will win me New Hampshire."

:thumbsup:

You tube?

Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse

by William Clark Published on 2 Aug 2005 by Media Monitors Network. Archived on 8 Aug 2005.

K/R

because of these countries plans to switch to Euro.

I didn't know that! And if correct (as it most likely is) that should be the deal-maker for almost ALL here on DU.

As for myself, up until a few months ago, I didn't really take O'Bama very seriously. I felt that Bush had so DAMAGED the office of Presidency for many years to come, that hope for real change lay in getting a PROGRESSIVE Congress into office. And by a veto-proof majority. That's still very important, but it's even more important to get someone like O'Bama in the Oval Office! And NOW!

And one of his first moves in office, should be to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Go O'Bama GO!:

pnorman
Q: Is O'Bama REALLY Irish? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: frankly, I don't give a Rat's Rectum!

this website, and by the way, although there is plenty to question about both candidates, I prefer Obama.

And though I'm only lately come to Senator Obama, my first choice having been John Edwards, either Senator Obama or Clinton is infinitely preferable to John Sidney mcinane the toid.

"And one of his first moves in office, should be to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission."

AMEN Pnorman!

This country will not be whole until the Bush criminals are brought to justice.

OneHundredMillionthKajillionThousand Percent in support of this office. So long as it is honest and forthright; no matter how painful and embarrassing it might turn out to be.

Cindy Sheeham for Congress '08!

That says it all.

peace~

we should just support the war, (and stfu about excesses, like Bellow Reilly says) cuz our lifestyles of comfort and ease are dependent upon the oil the 'wot' provides us access to. Iow, do DU'ers want us to lack the necessities? It is very important we ALLOW the war on tots to proceeed (but call it war on terrorism, for the politically correct crowd) though the 'let's pretend' protesting probably looks good- does no harm to the cause(?)
btw, the average citizen no longer believes anything the newsmedia says, which makes the phony the new legit...tots, terrs? what's the diff?

her husband, who was far more tactical and prudent.

One wonders how tight she is with them after service is over?

Inquiring minds.....

I don't recall ever reading about this...nice work.
I couldn't find the article on the link, though, so thank you so much for posting.
It really says it all.

peace~

it seems whenever bush talks about the war we get to hear hillary echo his sentiments about fifteen minutes later.

'me too! me too!'

If you don't, Obama is your choice. The current power elite want to bomb Iran, and have been ramping up the rhetoric and planning for over 2 years now. Clinton has bought into the rhetoric and planning, telling reporters that we would "totally obliterate" Iran if they attacked Israel. (wtf does that really mean? Kill every man woman and child with a nuke? really?) Listen folks this is all political straw men and postering. Iran is NOT going to nuke Isreal. Iran has been involved in Iraq, but that is to be expected, given their interest in the region. Obama, it seem to me, although firm on preventing Iran from going nuclear, would more likely take a diplomatic offensive rather than a military one that I believe would have a better result. We all know what McLame would do: "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" and Hillary seems lately on the same rhetorical war path.

will have something to say if we "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." Hilliar Clinton always sides with the military industrial complex. That's where the money that she and Bill love so much after leaving the WH.

You only care 'cause it was Clinton!!!

:sarcasm:

Excellent post Ninga.Thanks for the infos.

Destroying the Democratic Party nominee and complimenting Richard Mellon Scaife and Fox News is not my idea of how to gain Dem support, but good luck.

When will they ever learn...the Clinton sheep that is.

Thanks for refreshing my memory...I did watch the State of the Union address and vividly remembered that.

C'mon grandmas, consider your grandchildren. Remember, she voted to send them to Iraq.

When Hillary opens her mouth...expect lies.

Please, please put an end to her misery. When Obama is inaugurated, in January of 2009, Hillary will run up to the dais, grab the Bible and state..."but, I'm the chosen one, the inevitable one, gimme that."

she will bring the troops home? She is a wolf in sheeps clothing, no thanks Hillary!

but maybe her bigger point was: Where was Obama's big anti-war speech in 2003? Where was Obama's big anti-war speech in 2004, at Kerry's convention? Where was Obama's big anti-war speech in 2005? Where was Obama's big anti-war speech in 2006? Where was Obama's anti-war filibuster in 2007? Was stopping the war worth standing up, Barack? Where was Obama's anti-war filibuster in 2008? Was stopping the war worth standing up, Barack?
Perhaps She was asking, "If he's got more than a 2002 speech - where is it?"

then it's still better to keep quiet about the war than applaud Bush's flawed policy.

fuckin' pathetic doesn't begin to cover it.

is Obama's answer to this assertion in a debate a couple months ago. Not the ABC debate, but a different debate where they focused on those unimportant issues, you know, like the Iraq War.

not TMZ guest-hosted by Charles Gibson?

Wow! You post utter nonsense every time you post.

Fucking wierd!:crazy:

Maybe Obama could have done more. Maybe. So what? What does that have to do with comparing a (you claim passive) position against the war and and active position for it?

This year we're supposed to be selecting a Democratic presidential nominee, correct? It's too late now, but given her kneejerk pro-Bush sentiments, Hillary should make a run for the Republican nomination come 2012.

Any Questions? :)

Here you go Obama, there's your killer ad, run with it...

I'll do it myself if someone can find me the clip.. The media would eat this up, bet I can get Scarborough and Abrams to run it too..

Great stuff, thanks so much!

about not supporting Bush and the neocons. It was obvious what they were up to. I kept screaming at C-Span as the Democrats kissed Bush's ass. They got on their knees and kissed his feet. I was devastated as the Democrats, those that were to do everything in their power to stop the neocon agenda, bowed to his wishes. They yielded and now we are in dire straits. A million Iraqi's dead over 4,000 American soldiers dead. Multiple millions wounded and even more millions displaced with no end in sight. The US economy destined for a major depression.

And Sen Clinton wishes us to forgive and forget. She has no excuse for giving Bush and the neocons authority to illegally invade Iraq. Shame on her. I will never forget.

I am so tired of seeing her point and clap at these photo-op campaign stops.
She looks like a bobblehead, bobbing her head up and down all the time.

John Goodman deserves some sort of Congressional Medal for that movie.

:rofl:

Foreign Policy in Focus is arguably one of the best policy think tanks around. They have checks and balances in place to ensure accuracy and their work is peer reviewed.

But go ahead.... try.

Same difference.

:eyes:

:kick:

My neighbor's son was seriously injured there in Iraq just this past week. Why? For what reason? Stay seated Obama and thank you.

Stephan Zunes annotated a recent Clinton speech that outlines her plans for Iraq. I admit to being aggravated when Clinton declares she would leave Iraq, but like much else that Clinton says, the secret is hidden in the weasel words. "Start"...she would start to remove the troops..."But" she would leave troops to combat Iran. How about that? Zunes enlightens us with this:



More at the link...

The entire piece is not that long, thus, I don't dare cite too much. It's short; read it.

Thanks for the link.

A curious silence when Hillary's neoconservative foreign policy credentials and policy team is identified.

Hillary after the State of the Union address (snubgate?)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0axTE7yjAw

and can across this related video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40vAgaTjUZA

Small wonder why Barack avoided shaking her hand. He couldn't pretend that the war was going marvelously

or that he was going to play along with the deception.

I can't see how anyone can continue their support of Hillary. What are they thinking?

I like to think 'seen the light' and changed their minds about what Hillary represents (herself), what she is

capable of doing (lying with a straight or animated face)and letting Hillary go her own way. It's not as if she'll

have to end up in a women's shelter if she can't become queen, i mean, 'commander in chief' of the armed forces (it

startled me from the beginning when she emphasized that role of the president).

Maybe she and Bill will get presidential pardons from President Obama in the near future, when there is justice

and mercy for ALL and not just some.

Thanks for posting this! :thumbsup:

They knew there were no WMD. Check this out. http://electionfraudnews.com/MoneyParty/TheyKnew.htm

So since they knew WMD was a scam and they voted for it anyway, what does that make them?

and power that Bush has and enabling faux wars is like a winning lotto ticket to these crackpots.

You can't support a war with no money. How many trillion now, war supporters?

Don't keep bitching about the cost of anything if you supported this war. You asked for it, you got it.

There would be two starkly different futures ahead of us. Hopefully, we'll choose wisely.

A collaborator in the Iraq crime, she belongs in the Hague with her Bush peers.

Foreign Policy in Focus is one of the best policy think tanks out there.

If you support Clinton, great. But you need to then be thinking about how to urge your candidate to choose advisors who will not make the same rush to war with Iran. You need to think about addressing these concerns, not ignoring them.

You do that with your candidate on foreign policy, and I'll do that with mine on economics (because some of his economic advisors scare me.) There's no shame in being honest about problems.

""I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq," Obama said at the time, "although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence."

"These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposed views in the lead-up to the war." (which is as close to an outright lie as one can get, and still be claimed as fact)Only in Obamasupporter Bizarro World.

It's a shame that Obama supporters cannot face reality, and instead resort to republican style creative lying. After reading the following from an interview on ABC news, the op, and any who gleefully embrace the deception should be ashamed to call themselves Democrats. They are bush supporter equivalents under a different moniker, and their dispicable tactics are preserved for posterity right here on DU. As far as Obama is concerned, his "opposition" to the war is a cheap shot, and indicative of someone who will decieve the American people, and do so under the mantel of honor. MLK is rolling in his grave to see the fruition of his life work made into a bizarre caricature of his dream. Obama supporters believe hate is more expedient in seeing that dream come true, but there will be no honor in that victory. Thanks.
quickesst


<http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/obama_slams_cli.html>

But this morning, Obama attacked Clinton head-on for her initial support of the war, and even accused her of trying to "revise history" on the vote.

"I think very highly of Sen. Clinton, I think she's a wonderful senator from New York, and I think highly of Bill Clinton, but I think it is fair to say that we had a fundamentally different opinion on the wisdom of this war," said Obama. "I don't think we can revise history when it comes to that."

When asked to respond, the Clinton campaign offered a one-sentence response, saying Clinton is "focused on uniting Democrats and ending the war."

In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. Just last week, in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Obama conceded that his position on the war is not the "polar opposite" of Clinton's.(end)

So, if Obama is such a great candidate, why resort to dishonest, and decietful spin to prop him up? Funny things, facts. And by the way, Obama supporters will, of course, make the excuse that he voted for war funding to "protect the troops", which they have adopted from the republicans slime machine, because any self-respecting democrat knows that the funding would be there for the troops while a withdrawal is completed. It wasn't that long ago that the majority of Dems were clamoring to end the war funding, and who opposed it with "It will put the troops in danger"? Yep, repugs. Obama supporters love Republican talking points when defending their candidate against another democrat, and when they feel it expedient. Will Obama supporters believe the words of their own candidate? Doubtful.

taken from www.fpif.org, and dateline April 8th.

-snip-
For example, in the latter half of 2007 each candidate published an essay on foreign policy in Foreign Affairs magazine. While McCain and Clinton openly charge that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, Obama does not. He recognizes that Iran is enriching uranium and he is clear about his opposition to an Iranian bomb, but in very careful language he avoids saying that Iran wants nuclear weapons. On his website, Obama claims that Iran “has sought” nuclear weapons – notice the past tense – but doesn’t say that Iran is currently doing so.

Obama’s discretion on the nuclear weapons issue may indicate that he recognizes more nuance in Iran’s motivation and actions than he lets on. While he, like Clinton and McCain, has not publicly acknowledged the security threats facing Iran, at least one of his advisors has. Joe Cirincione, an Obama foreign policy advisor with expertise in nuclear weapons policy and national security, has articulated an understanding of the threat environment facing Iran and how nuclear weapons could undermine Iranian security. Although ignored by the mainstream media, this line of argument is of monumental importance.

With 70 million people, vast oil wealth, and a mountainous topography, Iran does not face any serious military threat from countries in the region (unless they are supported by the U.S. military). However, other countries in the region could develop nuclear weapons if Iran obtains them first. Since no amount of conventional strength could protect Iran from a neighboring nuclear bomb, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran could actually decrease Iran’s security. A president who does not understand the relationship between Iran’s security challenges and its nuclear program will have a difficult time engaging the Iranian regime in productive negotiations. By keeping advisors like Cirincione on hand and not assuming that Iran ultimately desires nuclear weapons, Obama shows that he might have that understanding after all, public rhetoric notwithstanding.

For all of Hillary Clinton’s criticism of Obama regarding his supposed naïveté in foreign affairs, she has a remarkably similar position. In 2007 she said that “I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works.” She also believes that Iran might respond to a “carefully calibrated package of incentives.” In a speech made from the Senate floor in February 2007, Clinton declared that the president cannot take military action against Iran without congressional authorization. However, several months later she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that designated the Revolutionary Guard of Iran as a terrorist organization. Clinton immediately found herself under fire from Senate colleagues Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama, as well as others who worried that the amendment would allow the White House to claim authority to attack Iran.

Such episodes, in addition to her authorization of the Iraq war, show that Hillary Clinton has a history of acting tough or making war without a consideration of the consequences. Particularly troubling about the juxtaposition of this approach with her willingness to pursue diplomatic means is that the difference between Clinton the dove and Clinton the hawk seems to be largely contingent on the latest opinion polls. When it was politically expedient for her to support the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman, she did so. When the war in Iraq became unpopular, she became an opponent of the war. Similarly, when the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, she moderated her Iran rhetoric, largely by ceasing to talk about the country.

The footage of her standing ovation and him sitting would make a great commercial.

It doesn't matter how good his body armor is. It doesn't matter how much ammo he has for that M4 in his hands. It doesn't matter how many nutrition bars and water bottles his unit has in storage. It doesn't matter if his buttstock is standard GI or if it's one of those collapsible Vltor or Magpul designs that the Blackwater contractors are sporting on their carbines. It doesn't matter how many letters, packages, and videos of his daughter growing up he receives from home.

No, what really matters is whether or not that soldier even belongs in Iraq in the first place. Cindy Sheehan understood that on a level that transcends all understanding, and she channelled that pain and outrage into an act that helped energize the anti-war movement in America.

But it's going to take a Democratic President to actually pull the troops out of Iraq. That soldier needs to come home at long last.

But the way things are going, that soldier will, in fact, come home (at longer last) like the Soviet soldier got home, simply because the country was broke.

Sadly, that's what's gonna happen.

....THIS would be enough for me to make an informed choice for Obama.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

While I disagree with Hillary on many things, I have a hard time disagreeing with this particular choice. I am angry with her for the original vote to war with Iraq, but now that we are already screwing thing up there, I see no fault in taking responsibility for our actions and preventing a devastating civil war that would have directly resulted from our original involvement.

Is it the OP's opinion that civil war was preferable to the surge? Or do you not believe civil war would have been a result? Please clarify.

Behind Obama and Clinton

Stephen Zunes | February 4, 2008

And only Bush knew at the time that he was lying. You take what we know now and apply it to then. So you start off with a Clinton smear and go from there which makes the whole piece biased. I like Obama but not because I hate Clinton. You take words out of context and apply them to the point you are trying to make which is not what Clinton is about at all. Obama doesn't need this shit to win the nomination. Okay here comes the Clinton hate...Keep in mind that the republican tactic is to keep the dem supporters hating each other so the party will remain divided ensuring that the repubs will hold their nose and vote in locked step for McCain because they want conservatives on the SC and to infuse the DoJ with more Monica Goodlings ensuring Justice will be totally republican while dems bicker over who they won't vote for with their stupid stubbornness to ignore the big picture. Dems are so easy to manipulate because of self righteous anger. Welcome to the USA corporation (formerly known as America)

webite and read for your self. It is posted in the OP.

It is a website that is vetted for accuracy and balance.

It is not shit, it is documentation. It is an opportunity to point out the differences between the two candidates, when so many people say that there are no differences.

If Clinton is the nominee, then all of us will have to defend her, and having all the knowledge we can, will not hurt but help.

If Obama is the nominee, then all of us will have to defend him, and having all the knowledge we ca, will not hurt but help.

Certainly I, as an individual, could not prove the Administration's claims regarding Hussein and Iraq were out and out lies, but I knew. I'd bet that any serious student of history and politics SHOULD have known as well. Whether it was the Belgian babies being impaled on German bayonets in WW I or the Polish border guards whose attacks forced Hitler to invade or the Kuwaiti infants being tossed out of their incubators so the invading Iraqis could take the devices back to Baghdad, the role of blatent lies in the rush to war, ANY WAR, is more than amply documented.
Lusitania, anyone? Claiming that Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 OR had WMD's OR intended to attack Isreal OR was intent on destabilising the region--or whatever reason-de-jour bush/cheney put forth--was clearly in the same catagory, and our supposed leaders, including HRC, SHOULD have known it. The only question is whether they really DID know it--which makes them all war criminals on the scale of Hitler, et al--or were WILLFULLY blind to the facts is a question for the future to answer. Today the question is WHO will actually and in truth bring our troops out of Iraq, and without delay. I beleive Obama is much more likely to do so than HRC, and I support him for that reason.

by perspective equals a result.

The primary season is called a process for a reason. In a perfect world, all voters would take the journey to enlightenment, slowly and with consideration. But it is not.

So, hence the need to bring attention to those who are hungry for information and are willing to sift though it all, to find the food for thought.

Thank you for a morsel.

:kick: