Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama's Iraq War Speech from 2002

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 11:52 PM
Original message
Obama's Iraq War Speech from 2002
Edited on Sat Feb-09-08 12:31 AM by kineta
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech

First, I want to say that I'm *still* undecided and my state caucus is TOMORROW. I'm scouring the interweb for information on BOTH candidates. I like them both and one minute I'm leaning toward Clinton and the next toward Obama. I seriously doubt it will happen, but I'd love to see them on a joint ticket.

ANYWAY, I found Obama's anti-war speech from 2002, months before the start of the war. It's worth reading if you haven't already done so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nightrider767 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 12:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. Bad link.. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Try this one. It goes to the same URL:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. thanks and sorry about that - link fixed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. It's an excellent speech. Since you are making a sincere effort of
Edited on Sat Feb-09-08 12:40 AM by Kurt_and_Hunter
Since you are making a sincere effort of research and consideration, I can offer a Point of view... I would not have voted for the IWR, but it was not ineffective. (Keep in mind that the IWR was almost six months before the invasion)

Before the IWR vote nobody in the world believed Saddam would EVER allow inspectors in. (In fact, Bush was banking on that fact... he went to the UN only because he assumed Saddam would remain defiant, and he could say "I did everything I could.")

One month after the vote, the inspectors were back in. So as "coercive diplomacy", it was a great success... it accomplished exactly what Bush said it was intended to accomplish.

That's why I resented the timing of the vote so much... Bush said, I need a show of bipartisan resolve to convince Saddam he can't look to American politics for an out... essentially saying, "if diplomacy fails, it's your fault."

Then, after the inspectors demonstrated there was nothing there, Bush invaded anyway.

The error of those who voted for the IWR was not recognizing that Bush was a complete psycho. And that's a serious error. That's why I would have voted against it... I thought Bush was nuts.

So the IWR vote is a serious black mark on Clinton's record, but when she says it was a vote to apply pressure, that's true also.

(I opposed the Iraq War 100%, BTW)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
5. Obama fervently backed Israels brutal invasion on Lebanon in 06
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/24/isrlpa13798.htm">In which Israel leveled whole villages with cluster bombs

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3177.html">Obamas position on Israel is so extreme and amateurish that some supporters of Israel find it disturbing

But I guess he gets a pass, right?


Now what is Obama's position on war, again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Does he get a pass?
Thanks for the info, I'll read it. I'm trying to make a decision for the caucus tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Obama on key issues that should matter........to all of us! Here's one:
OBAMA wants to appoint judges empathetic to those being Poor, Old, Gay, Women, Disabled
and minorities.


Speaking at the Planned Parenthood conference in DC this afternoon, Barack Obama leveled harsh words at conservative Supreme Court justices, and he offered his own intention to appoint justices with "empathy." Obama hinted that the court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart -- which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion -- was part of "a concerted effort to steadily roll back" access to abortions. And he ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote that case's majority opinion. "Justice Kennedy knows many things," he declared, "but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor."

Obama also won a laugh at the expense of Chief Justice John Roberts, saying that judgments of Roberts' character during his confirmation hearings were largely superficial. "He loves his wife. He's good to his dog," he joked, adding that judicial philosophy should be weighted more seriously than such evaluations. "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/17/274143.aspx

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

Obama opposes Southwick judicial nomination.
WASHINGTON--The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday votes on a very controversial judicial nominee, Leslie Southwick, a former Mississippi state court appeals judge. According to the Alliance for Justice, Southwick is " hostile to worker, consumer and civil rights.''
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/06/obama_to_oppose_southwick_nomi.html

Obama is not scary, just disappointing. Regarding a matter more serious than vegetables -- a judicial confirmation -- he looks like just another liberal on a leash.
<>
Obama, touching all the Democratic nominating electorate's erogenous zones, concocts a tortured statistic about Southwick's "disappointing record on cases involving consumers, employees, racial minorities, women and gays and lesbians. After reviewing his 7,000 opinions, Judge Southwick could not find one case in which he sided with a civil rights plaintiff in a non-unanimous verdict." Surely the pertinent question is whether Southwick sided with the law.

To some of Southwick's opponents, his merits are irrelevant. They simply say that it is unacceptable that only one of the 17 seats on the 5th Circuit is filled with an African American, although 37 percent of Mississippians are black. This "diversity" argument suggests that courts should be considered representative institutions, like legislatures, and that the theory of categorical representation is valid: People of a particular race, ethnicity or gender can only be understood and properly represented by people of the same category.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070813/ai_n19476124

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


WASHINGTON -- Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin and Barack Obama of Illinois met Friday with the head of the U.S. Marshals Service to voice frustration over what they call a lack of progress in establishing new safety measures to protect federal judges.
<>
The Illinois senators expressed their concerns Friday to John Clark, the acting director of the U.S. Marshals Service. Clark, who recently had a meeting in Chicago with Lefkow and more than 20 other judges about security issues, vowed to resolve the matter.

Obama said he and Durbin told Clark to give them "an immediate written update" for how and when the security systems would be installed.

Don Hines, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service, said officials would meet with the security company next week. "We expect the installations to begin in the near future," he said.
http://obama.senate.gov/news/051217-senators_press/





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Here's another: OBama voted Nay on the Bankruptcy Bill--
Edited on Sat Feb-09-08 12:42 AM by FrenchieCat
Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on S.256, the Bankruptcy Abuse and Prevention Act of 2005

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/050228-floor_statement/


Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to address this pending legislation.

This issue should force us to face a fundamental question about who we are as a country, how we progress as a society, and where our values lie as a people:

How do we treat our fellow Americans who have fallen on hard times, and what is our responsibility to cushion those falls when they occur?

Proponents claim this bill is designed to curb the worst abuses of our bankruptcy system. That's a worthy goal, and we can all agree that bankruptcy was never meant to serve as a Get Out of Jail Free Card, for use when you've foolishly gambled away all your savings and don't feel like taking responsibility for your actions. Business owners and creditors deserve the money they're owed, and anyone who tries to scam the system just because they can should be stopped and forced to pay their debt.

But to accomplish that, this bill would take us from a system where judges weed out the abusers from the honest to a system where all the honest are presumed to be abusers. Where declaring Chapter 7 bankruptcy is made prohibitively expensive for people who already have suffered financial devastation. With this bill, it doesn't matter if you ran up your debt on a trip to Vegas or a trip to the Emergency Room, you're still treated the same under the law and you still face the possibility that you'll never get the chance to start over.

Now, it would be one thing if most people were abusing the system and falling into bankruptcy
because they were irresponsible with their finances.
But we know that's not the case. We know that most people fall into bankruptcy as a result of bad luck. And we know that a recent Harvard study showed that nearly half of all bankruptcies occur because of an illness that ends up sticking families with medical bills they just can't keep up with.

Take the case of Suzanne Gibbons. A few years back, Suzanne had a good job as a nurse and a home on Chicago's Northwest Side. Then she suffered a stroke that left her hospitalized for five-days. And even though she had health insurance through her job, it only covered $4,000 of her $53,000 hospital bill.

Because of her illness, she was soon forced to leave her full-time nursing job and take a temp job that paid less and didn't offer health insurance. Then the collection agencies started coming after her for hospital bills that she just couldn't keep up with. She lost her retirement savings, she lost her house, and eventually, she was forced to declare bankruptcy.

If this bill passes as written, Suzanne would be treated by the law the same as any scam artist who cheats the system. The decision about whether or not she can file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy would never take into account the fact that she fell into financial despair because of her illness. With all that debt, she would have had to hire a lawyer and pay hundreds of dollars more in increased paperwork. And after all that, she still may have been told that she was ineligible for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

And so, as much as we'd like to believe that the face of this bankruptcy crisis is credit card addicts who spend their way into debt, the truth is that it's the face of people like Suzanne Gibbons. It's the face of middle-class America.
Over the last thirty years bankruptcies have gone up 400% -- and we've had more than 2,100 in Illinois just last year. We also know what else has gone up: the cost of child care and the cost of college, the cost home ownership and the cost of health care - which is now at a record high. People are working harder and longer for less, and they're falling further and further behind.

And we're not talking about the poor or even just the working poor here. As bankruptcy professor Elizabeth Warren has noted, these are middle-class families with two parents who both work at good-paying jobs that put a roof over their heads. They're saving every extra penny they have so that their children can someday do better than they did. But with just one illness, emergency, or divorce, those dreams can be wiped out. This bill does a great job helping the credit card industry recover the profits they're losing, but what are we doing to help middle-class families recover the dreams they're losing?

This bill does a great job protecting credit card companies from the few bad apples who try to escape their debt, but what does it do to protect the American public from the credit card companies who try to take advantage of them?

Mr. President, the bankruptcy crisis this bill should address is not just the one facing credit card companies who are enjoying record profits. We should be addressing middle-class families who are dealing with record hardships.

As Senator Dodd, Senator Feinstein, and others have pointed out, this bill also fails to deal with the aggressive marketing practices and hidden fees credit card companies have used to raise their profits and our debt. Charging a penalty to consumers who make a late payment on a completely unrelated credit card is just one example of these tactics. We need to end these practices so that we're making life easier not just for the credit card companies, but for honest, hardworking middle-class families.

And if we're going to crack down on bankruptcy abuse, we should make it clear that we intend to hold the wealthy and the powerful accountable too.
As it is now, this bill makes it easier for a company like Enron who just bilked their employees out of their life savings to declare bankruptcy than for the employees themselves. In my own state, we even had a mining company by the name of Horizon declare bankruptcy and then refuse to pay its employees the health benefits it owed them.

The Mine Workers involved had provided a total of 100,000 years of service and dedication and sacrifice to this company. They spent their lives working hard. They did their part. But Horizon didn't do its part, and it was allowed to hide behind bankruptcy laws to leave these workers without the care they had earned.

This is wrong. It's wrong that this bill would make it harder for these unemployed workers to declare bankruptcy, while doing nothing to prevent the bankrupt company that put them there from shirking its responsibility entirely.

What kind of a message does it send when we tell hardworking, middle-class Americans, "You have to be more responsible with your finances, but the corporations you work for can be as irresponsible as they want with theirs"?

We must reform our bankruptcy code so that corporations keep their promises and meet their obligations to their workers. And while I remain hopeful that our companies want to do the right thing for their workers, doing so should not be a choice - it should be a mandate.

Senator Rockefeller has two amendments to do this that I have co-sponsored and urge my colleagues to support. One would increase the required payments of wages and employee benefit plans to $15,000 per individual from the current level of $4,925. And it would also require companies that emerge from bankruptcy to immediately pay each retiree who lost health benefits an amount of cash equal to what a retiree would be expected to have to pay for COBRA coverage for 18 months. The second amendment would prevent bankruptcy courts from dismissing companies' coal act obligations to pay their workers the benefits they promised them. These companies made a deal to their mine workers, and they should be forced to honor that deal.

Mr. President, this bill gives us a rare chance to ask ourselves who we're here to protect - who we're here to stand up and speak out for.
We should curb bankruptcy abuse and to demand a measure of personal responsibility from people. We all want that.

But there are also millions of middle-class families out there who are struggling to get by. They work hard, they love their children, and they're willing to do anything to give them the best possible shot in life.
And in the ten minutes since I've been talking, about thirty of them have filed for bankruptcy.

We live in a rapidly changing world with an economy that's moving just as fast. We can't always control this and we can't promise that the changes will always leave everyone better off.

But we can do better than one bankruptcy every nineteen seconds. We can do better than forcing people to choose between the cost of health care and the cost of college. We can do better than big corporations using bankruptcy laws to deny health care and benefits to their employees. And we can give people the basic tools and protections they need to believe that in America, your circumstance is no limit to the success you may achieve and the dreams you may fulfill.

And so, while I cannot support this bill the way it is written, I do look forward to working with my colleagues in amending this bill so that we can still keep that promise alive. Thank you.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Here's another difference.....Obama voted in favor to BAN the use of Cluster Bomb
Hillary voted against the BAN of using Cluster Bombs.
--------------------------------
Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal.

Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

Analysts say Clinton did not want to risk appearing "soft on terror," as it would have harmed her electibility.

I'm not a single-issue voter. But as Obama and Clinton share many policy positions, this vote was revelatory for me. After all, Amendment No. 4882 was an easy one to vote against: Who'd want to risk accusation of "tying the hands of the Pentagon" during a never-ending, global War on Terror? As is so often the case, there was no political cost to doing the wrong thing. And there was no political reward for doing the right thing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
22. But he backed Isreals invasion in which they were widely used
Sounds like a conflict of interest
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. But you are distorting the truth....and as I have posted the truth......
from reputable sources, your twist on information leaves one questioning your motives.

Guess you thought no one would go to the links that you provided, hey?

In otherwords, you have fallen short in the realm of honesty, and have only served your candidate badly by highlighting that what you are saying about Obama is actually only true about Hillary Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Obama actually achieved real "change" on the Death Penalty....during his years as a State Senator:

SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (AP) -- Barack Obama can honestly claim to have made a difference on a matter of life and death.

While an Illinois state senator, Obama was key in getting the state's notorious death penalty laws changed, including a requirement that in most cases police interrogations involving capital crimes must be recorded.

The changes enacted in 2003 reformed a system that had sent 13 people to death row, only to have them released because they were later determine to be innocent or had been convicted using improper methods.

"Without Barack's energy, imagination and commitment I do not believe the very substantial and meaningful reforms that became law in Illinois would have taken place," said author Scott Turow, a member of the state commission that recommended many of the changes.

Obama often cites his role in Illinois' death penalty debate as evidence that he can resolve thorny issues through compromise.

"We brought police officers and civil rights advocates together to reform a death penalty system that had sent 13 innocent men to death row," he declare in a recent presidential debate.

Enactment of the 2003 law was a huge political achievement in a state that had been deeply divided over problems with capital punishment.

Obama was at the center of the emotional debate.

Legislators and lobbyists who worked with him describe a lawmaker who was personally involved, refused to abandon some needed changes but also demanded compromises from both law enforcement and death penalty critics.

A proposal to require that police record interrogations of murder suspects was opposed by police, prosecutors and the Democratic governor and considered so touchy it was separated from other legislation. It also was the issue that garnered Obama's special interest.

"I thought the prosecutors and law enforcement would kill it," said Peter Baroni, who was then a Republican aide to the Illinois Senate's judiciary committee. "He (Obama) was the one who kept people at the table."

In the end, police organizations supported the recording mandate, and the measure passed the Senate unanimously.

Illinois' death penalty was an emotional issue in 2003. The courts had released 13 people from death row because evidence had turned up proving their innocence or that their convictions had been tainted.

The previous governor, Republican George Ryan, had halted all executions and commuted the sentences of everyone awaiting execution, giving most of them life in prison.

The families of many murder victims felt betrayed. Police and prosecutors felt their every move was being criticized. Death penalty foes were jubilant but also divided over whether to push for an outright ban.

Lawmakers were looking for way to solve the problems in the law, but also worried being labeled "soft on crime."

For Obama, a student of constitutional law, it was an issue he relished to tackle -- and also one of keen importance to the black voters he would need if he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004.

The idea that people might be executed for crimes they did not commit also enraged him. "At minimum, we should agree that innocent people should not be put to death by the state. At minimum," Obama declared icily during one floor debate.

Obama saw the issue of police interrogations as key.


Among the men released from death row "a consistent pattern was the faulty confession," argued Obama. "It struck me that this was the hardest piece of the puzzle but the one that would ultimately make the most difference and have the most long-lasting effect."

Participants in the negotiations describe Obama as standing firm on some issues, but willing to compromise on others.

They cite his refusal to narrow the law so that only a suspect's confession had to be recorded, insisting that the entire interrogation be put on tape, so a suspect cannot be threatened or beaten off camera.

"That was a first point at which he could have taken the easy route. He said no, we're not doing it that way," recalled Kathryn Saltmarsh, who represented the Illinois Appellate Defender's office in the negotiations.

On other things he was willing to compromise.

He went along with allowing departments to make audio recordings if they couldn't afford video equipment and training, and for a judge to allow an unrecorded statement in some cases -- but then prosecutors would have to prove it had been obtained without coercion.

These exceptions were critical to winning the support of law enforcement, said Laimutis "Limey" Nargelenas, who represented the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police in the discussions.

Obama "could have rammed (the legislation) through, but he was willing to work with us," recalls Nargelenas.

"He is just really a good legislator," says State Sen. John Cullerton, D-Chicago, who oversaw the broad package of reforms including raising standards for death sentences and making it easier for judges to overturn unfair sentences.

"I don't know if that will get you many votes for president, but he was an excellent negotiator."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/12/obama.death.penalty.ap/


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. Your titles do not bear out the stories revealed at the links.....
To begin, your first link has nothing to do with Obama...only the issue of Cluster Bombs..which Obama voted to have banned. Hillary voted against the ban.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html
-------------------------------

The second link, again belies the actual article found when one clicks and reads the story actually there, which bears the title:

Obama's Rhetoric Chills Some Supporters of Israel

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is moving to tamp down concerns among Democratic supporters of Israel with an e-mail from a Florida congressman to Jewish leaders singing the senator’s praises.

“What has always struck me about Senator Obama - and this is one of the reasons that I have endorsed his candidacy for president - is that a love for Israel and a desire to keep the Jewish people secure is evident not just in his work, but also in his heart,” wrote Rep. Robert Wexler (D) in the e-mail, which was sent to a list of Jewish community leaders.

The endorsement, which laid it on thick even by the standards of political communications, reflects a frustration that, despite Obama’s staunch support of the Israeli government in his words and votes, he has been dogged by questions from some of the most vocal and focused representatives of the pro-Israel community.

The root of the matter, as some observers of American Jewish politics see it, may be that Obama’s rhetoric and themes of reconciliation and common ground – the heart of his national popularity – sound off-key and even naïve in the context of a grim, confrontational moment in the Middle East.
<>
“His approach will appeal to a lot of lefty Jews, but it won’t appeal to the serious players,” she said, referring to the better-organized and better funded groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Council, AIPAC, at whose conference Obama put in an appearance earlier this month.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3177.html
--------------
In other words, Obama has a more even handed honest broker approach to the issues concerning Israel and Palestine. He is NOT a AIPAC enthusiast........unlike Hillary Clinton.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. thanks. first link: Hillary FOR cluster bombs, Obama against
instead of that miserable propaganda that was spouted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. Obama VOTES against but CHAMPIONS their use
Like I said, conflict of interest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. You are being shown for who you are.
If I were you, I would retreat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #13
24. Obamas speech on Israel
Made AFTER the invasion

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/ObamaIsrael.htm">Israel: Our Strongest Ally in the Middle East
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #24
30. It is an excellent speech.....and much more even handed that the one
given by Hillary Clinton.

Mama Warbucks
Hillary Clinton brings home the dollars for New York's defense contractors

by Kristen Lombardi
May 3rd, 2005 11:10 AM

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0518,lombardi,63597,5.html


and add this commentary:

While much attention has been given to Senator Hillary Clinton’s support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, her foreign policy record regarding other international conflicts and her apparent eagerness to accept the use of force appears to indicate that her fateful vote authorizing the invasion and her subsequent support for the occupation and counter-insurgency war was no aberration. Indeed, there’s every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration. Despite efforts by some conservative Republicans to portray her as being on the left wing of the Democratic Party, in reality her foreign policy positions bear a far closer resemblance to those of Ronald Reagan than they do of George McGovern.
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4811

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. Meanwhile Hillary's documented reaction on the same 2006 incident was documented
by the New York Times as such....

Clinton Vows to Back Israel in Latest Mideast Conflict

By PATRICK HEALY
Published: July 18, 2006
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday that she supported “whatever steps are necessary” to defend Israel against Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria in the military conflict in the Middle East.
<>
“We will stand with Israel because Israel is standing for American values as well as Israeli ones,” said Mrs. Clinton, who joined two dozen political and religious leaders on a stage a few blocks from the United Nations headquarters on the East Side.

Bringing the threat home, she compared Israel’s military response, which has included heavy bombardment of Lebanon, to a theoretical response by the United States if it faced attacks from neighboring countries. “I want us here in New York to imagine, if extremist terrorists were launching rocket attacks across the Mexican or Canadian border, would we stand by or would we defend America against these attacks from extremists?” she said to roars of approval.

Mrs. Clinton and the other speakers focused almost exclusively on Israel’s right to act militarily and unilaterally, and the speeches were fiery and resolute, with little mention of civilians in Lebanon and Gaza who have been injured in the fighting.
More....
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/nyregion/18hillary.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #14
27. This has nothing to do with Hillary vs Obama
This is Obama vs Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. You don't make up the rules, just like you don't post dishonest information
and then expect not to be called out on it.

If I were you, I'd back off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #5
15. Your link provides no such thing
and the only objection the Israelis show is that he is less agressive.

From the second link in your post, because the first one had nothing with Obama's name in it at all:

"The root of the matter, as some observers of American Jewish politics see it, may be that Obama’s rhetoric and themes of reconciliation and common ground – the heart of his national popularity – sound off-key and even naïve in the context of a grim, confrontational moment in the Middle East."

The Israelis are upset because he isn't confrontational, that he wants to talk first.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #5
16. further, Hillary voted in favor of Cluster Bombs n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
41. To quote the article you posted -
"despite Obama’s staunch support of the Israeli government in his words and votes, he has been dogged by questions from some of the most vocal and focused representatives of the pro-Israel community"

To me, voting record is most important. It's where a politician put their 'money where their mouth is' - so I don't really understand the complaint.

Obama "fails to understand the totalitarian politics and sensibilities of the folks over there, who are not well meaning," said E.J. Kessler, a New York Post editor who’s a longtime observer of American-Jewish politics. "His approach will appeal to a lot of lefty Jews, but it won’t appeal to the serious players,"

Appeals to 'lefty Jews'? I don't have a problem with that I guess. I never much cared for Ariel Sharon's polices, or what he did in Sabra and Chatila. (BTW, is the author implying that only 'righty Jews' are 'serious players')

I do agree with the author that Obama might not (yet) have the depth of understanding of the complexities of Middle East politics or the Israel-Palestine debate that he'll need. I wonder if *any* of the candidates do though. And if so, which ones? Surly NOT McCain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thevoiceofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
6. What is your key isuue? Or issues?
I'd love to discuss Barack's points with you. That's what drives me crazy -- is the "He has no substance" crowd. Goos gracious, she's borrowed half her stances from him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #6
39. Okay, thanks for asking. I have quite a few 'key issues' actually.
The environment might be near the top of the list, and I think both candidate's voting records are pretty even on this.

Universal health care is something I'd like to see, and I'm not impressed by either of their plans for that. I really cringe at Clinton's proposal for 'mandatory' insurance, but on the other hand I've since talked with residents of Massachusetts who love their 'mandatory' coverage, so who knows. I read that when Obama was a State Senator he brought insurance companies to the table when Illinois was considering universal health care and consequently universal coverage was compromised in that state. Getting rid of the insurance layer and going straight for universal coverage is what I'd like to see. Neither candidate is proposing that.

The Iraq war is a big issue - Obama has the advantage here.

Reproduction and gay rights are very important to me also - they are both equally strong on these issues.

I confess, I have strong feelings about voting for Clinton because, as Robin Morgan said, not because she's a woman, but because I am. (Although I wouldn't say that about a woman like Condi Rice). On the other hand I hate to see the development of 'dynastic' political families. I realize neither of these sentiments is rational or fair. Hillary Clinton should be judged on her own merits, not because she's a woman or a Clinton. But still, I'm guilty of being affected by these considerations.

I'm so evenly divided at this point, I feel like sitting the caucus out. If it were a primary I probably would, but perhaps one of my neighbors will say something brilliant that tips the balance...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
9. Wow. Thank You So Much For That. That Was An AMAZING Speech For The Time!!!
Ya know, by the time it's all said and done, I may end up being an Obama supporter yet LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:08 AM
Response to Original message
17. Thanks for posting, follow your heart and mind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnBreauxDemocrat Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:09 AM
Response to Original message
18. This is from wiki and I don't believe it.
Obama was a community organizer in 2002 and was, to my knowledge, tuned out of national politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. You need to provide a link. In 2002, Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in a primary......
He was a community organizer in the early 1990s.

This is one of his achievements while doing this work:



Vote of Confidence
A huge black turnout in November 1992 altered Chicago's electoral landscape—and raised a new political star: a 31-year-old lawyer named Barack Obama.

In the final, climactic buildup to November's general election, with George Bush gaining ground on Bill Clinton in Illinois and the once-unstoppable campaign of senatorial candidate Carol Moseley Braun embroiled in allegations about her mother's Medicare liability, one of the most important local stories managed to go virtually unreported: The number of new voter registrations before the election hit an all-time high. And the majority of those new voters were black. More than 150,000 new African-American voters were added to the city's rolls. In fact, for the first time in Chicago's history-including the heyday of Harold Washington-voter registrations in the 19 predominantly black wards outnumbered those in the city's 19 predominantly white ethnic wards, 676,000 to 526,000.

None of this, of course, was accidental. The most effective minority voter registration drive in memory was the result of careful handiwork by Project Vote!, the local chapter of a not-for-profit national organization.

"It was the most efficient campaign I have seen in my 20 years in politics," says Sam Burrell, alderman of the West Side's 29th Ward and a veteran of many registration drives.

At the head of this effort was a little-known 31-year-old African-American lawyer, community organizer, and writer: Barack Obama.

To understand the full implications of Obama's effort, you first need to understand how voter registration often has worked in Chicago. The Regular Democratic Party spearheaded most drives, doing so using one primary motivator: money. The party would offer bounties to registrars for every new voter they signed up (typically a dollar per registration).

The campaigns did produce new voters. "But bounty systems don't really promote participation," says David Orr, the Cook County clerk, whose office is responsible for voter registration efforts in the Cook County suburbs. "When the money dries up, the voters drop out." Nor did the Democratic Party always vigorously push registration among minorities, Orr says. "It's not that they discouraged it. They just never worked hard to ensure it would happen."
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence



Obama's Community Roots
per the Nation

$13,000 a year, plus $2,000 for a car--a beat-up blue Honda Civic, which Obama drove for the next three years organizing more than twenty congregations to change their neighborhoods.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070416/moberg


More on Project Vote

Project Vote is the voter-mobilization arm of ACORN. It is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization whose professed purpose is to carry out "non-partisan" voter registration drives; to counsel voters on their rights; and to litigate on behalf of voting rights -- focusing on the rights of the poor and the "disenfranchised."

Project Vote’s major program areas include the following:

Voter Participation Program: “, Project Vote has helped more than 4 million Americans in low-income and minority neighborhoods register to vote, including 1.1 million in 2003-04. In the same period, Project Vote reached more than 2.3 million low-income and minority voters to educate them about the importance of voting. Our methodology is based on face-to-face contact between voters and trusted community messengers, generally a representative of a local community organization.”

Election Administration Program: “ encompasses every aspect of election implementation, from voter registration application design to voting booth placement to vote counting and everything in between. Working in neighborhoods nationwide, Project Vote documents voting problems and works closely with elections officials, secretaries of state, and state legislators to enact proactive, pragmatic solutions. A central component of our work is the inclusion of low-income and minority voters through the involvement of our community partners.”

NVRA Implementation Project: “ partnership between Project Vote, ACORN and Demos aims to improve voter registration services at public assistance agencies. Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires states to offer voter registration to public assistance clients upon application, recertification or renewal, and change of addresses. The Project ... offers technical assistance.” The National Voting Rights Institute and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law have recently become co-administrators of this initiative.

The stated purpose of Project Vote is to work within the system, using conventional voter mobilization drives and litigation to secure the rights of minority and low-income voters under the U.S. Constitution. However, the organization's actions indicate that its true agenda is to overwhelm, paralyze, and discredit the voting system through fraud, protests, propaganda and vexatious litigation. In this respect, Project Vote is following the so-called "crisis strategy" or Cloward-Piven Strategy pioneered during the Sixties by Columbia University political scientists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6966

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots organization of low and moderate income people with over 200,000 members in over 90 cities. For 35 years, ACORN members have been organizing in their neighborhoods across the country around local issues such as affordable housing, safety, education, improved city services, and have taken the lead nationally on issues of affordable housing, tenant organizing, fighting banking and insurance discrimination, organizing workfare workers, and winning jobs and living wages.

Over the last decade, ACORN chapters have been involved in over fifteen living wage campaigns in our own cities, leading coalitions that have won living wage or minimum wage ordinances in St. Louis, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Boston, Oakland, Denver, Chicago, Cook County, New Orleans, Detroit, New York City, Long Island, Sacramento and San Francisco.

In addition, we have led coalitions to win statewide minimum wage increases in five states - including the huge 71% ballot victory in Florida in November 2004 - which delivered a raise to an estimated 850,000 workers. ACORN is following up that exciting victory by promoting a National Campaign to Raise the Minimum Wage through states and cities. This campaign includes cutting edge efforts to win citywide minimum wage increases - as well as ambitious statewide minimum wage ballot initiatives in the battleground states of OH, MO, AZ and CO for November 2006.

In 1998, ACORN established the Living Wage Resource Center to track the living wage movement and provide materials and strategies to living wage organizers all over the country.
http://www.livingwagecampaign.org /



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnBreauxDemocrat Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. I need to hear this from an impartial source, which given your Obama ensign, I doubt you are.
Can anyone provide a link to this Obama speech. Bill said it was a fairy tale and I'm beginning to think he's right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. This Obama speech?
Edited on Sat Feb-09-08 01:33 AM by FrenchieCat

Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

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

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

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain. --Barack OBama
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech



I'VE GOT THE FACTS ON MY SIDE, AND BILL CLINTON'S FAIRY TALE RIGHT HERE.....


"That's why I supported the Iraq thing." Bill Clinton, June 23, 2004 (CNN)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html

"I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning." Bill Clinton, 11/27/2007, (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html?ex=1353906000&en=cf3f18a5f01db61b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnBreauxDemocrat Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. What are your thoughts
when Bill Clinton jabs his finger in your face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. That it is those fairytales that Bill tells about himself that I don't believe in?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #29
38. What did Bill Clinton say was a fairy tale?
This speech, or Obama's claim to be opposed to the war from the start?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. That Obama was against the war and has stayed against the war....
OBAMA FIRST ADDRESSED THE IRAQ WAR IN COMMITTEE IN JANUARY 2005 AND ON THE FLOOR IN APRIL 2005, FOUR MONTHS AFTER ENTERING THE US SENATE

1/19/05: Obama Criticized Condoleezza Rice For Not Offering A Timetable, Reiterated That Job Of Senator Is To Confirm That Administration Is Making Decisions Based On Facts. During Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearing, Obama criticized her for not offering a timetable. Obama said, "And I recognize that you are hesitant in your current position to provide a timetable. On the other hand, constituents and families in small towns all across Illinois need some more satisfactory answer than that. And it strikes me that this whole issue of training troops, turning over security functions to the Iraqi government is critical to that...I guess the comment that I'd like to make is that in the activist proactive strategies that you pursue, it seems to me that this administration often asks that we simply go along and have faith that you're making the right decisions. But I think that from the perspective of my constituents in Illinois, at least, a number of people did vote for George Bush and do trust him. But my job as a senator is to make sure that we're basing these decisions on facts and that I probe and not simply take it on faith that good decisions are being made.

4/14/05: Obama First Addressed The War On The Floor Of The Senate. Obama said on the floor, "The other day I had the opportunity to visit some of our wounded heroes at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I know that many of my colleagues have made the same trip and I'd heard about their visits, but there is nothing that can fully prepare you for what you see when you take that first step into the Physical Therapy room. These are kids in there. Our kids. The ones we watched grow up. The ones we hoped would live lives that were happy, healthy, and safe. These kids left their homes and families for a dangerous place halfway around the world. After years of being protected by their parents, these kids risked their lives to protect us. And now, some of them have come home from that war with scars that may change their lives forever -- scars that may never heal. And yet they sit there in that hospital, so full of hope and still so proud of their country. These kids are the best of America. They deserve our highest respect, and they deserve our help."
2005: Obama Spoke Out Against the War Repeatedly. During 2005, Obama continued to criticize the war, saying that security was "horrible", that the war never should have been waged, and that the US should get out of Iraq as "soon as we can."

2006: Obama Spoke Out Against the War Repeatedly. During 2006, Obama continued to criticize the war, saying that we should start phasing down troops soon and calling for an "expeditious yet responsible" exit from Iraq.
RHETORIC: "Yet, like most democrats, Obama voted to keep funding the war until last year."

EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT HAS VOTED TO FUND THE WAR IN IRAQ
2005-2007: Since Obama Came To Washington, Every Single Senate Democrat Has Voted For Every Bill Funding Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Until President Bush Vetoed A Timetable For Withdrawal – Including Both Emergency Supplemental Bills And Defense Appropriations Bills. Since Obama came to Washington in January of 2005, every single Senate Democrat has voted for every bill funding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan until President Bush vetoed a timetable for withdrawal – including both emergency supplemental bills and defense appropriations bills that included bridge funding with the expressed purpose of continuing operations in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck2/2008/01/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #18
37. An easy google search on "Obama Iraq war speech 2002" yields pages of results
Edited on Sat Feb-09-08 02:44 AM by kineta
I know, because I had the same question you're posing. I was doing a search for Obama's stance on the war, because I kept reading that he opposed it from the beginning. I was looking for some proof of that. There are lots and lots of other links and references to that speech.

That search yields this short clip of the speech on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUV69LZbCNQ

I guess the footage could be faked, but that would be seriously messed up...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
20. Hey, have you seen this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
21. Here's another reason to Caucus for Obama --

Obama Says Gitmo Facility Should Close

The Democratic presidential hopeful pledged to work side-by-side with the rest of the world on issues like nuclear proliferation, poverty, economic development in Latin America and the violence in Darfur.

"While we're at it," he said, "we're going to close Guantanamo. And we're going to restore habeas corpus. ... We're going to lead by example _ by not just word but by deed. That's our vision for the future."

Habeas corpus is a tenet of the Constitution that protects people from unlawful imprisonment
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR2007062401046.html

---------------
Human Rights Should Be Bigger than Politics
Senator Barack Obama delivered this speech on the floor of the US Senate, in reaction to Senate passage of S. 3930, Military Commissions Act of 2006, which approved US torture of detainees and strips Constitutional rights away from detainees.
Senator Obama decries the placement of politics over human rights, and condemns S. 3930. He states, "This is not how a serious Administration would approach the problem of terrorism."
http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/ObamaTorture.htm

excerpts from Obama's statement...

In the five years that the President's system of military tribunals has existed, not one terrorist has been tried. Not one has been convicted. And in the end, the Supreme Court of the United found the whole thing unconstitutional, which is why we're here today.

We could have fixed all of this in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay. Easily. This was not an either-or question.

Instead of allowing this President - or any President - to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered.

Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused.

And instead of not just suspending, but eliminating, the right of habeas corpus - the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention, we could have given the accused one chance - one single chance - to ask the government why they are being held and what they are being charged with.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/ObamaTorture.htm


For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

It's hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.

In our own Technology Voters' Guide, when asked whether he supports shielding telecommunications and Internet companies from lawsuits accusing them of illegal spying, Obama gave us a one-word response: "No."
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
33. Here's the General election scenario, and Why Barack
Is more electable against McCain than Hillary.


Iraq War -
McCain’s position:
I’m am a big time War Hero. We were right to go into Iraq. Saddam gone is good. I know what to do to win this war. I wanted to send more troops at the beginning, and I urged for the surge when most were against it. I stood on my principles, and I was right. I want to leave Iraq, but we can leave victorious. It’s important to stay, because if not, there will be genocide, and Al Qeada will be left to rule Iraq, and turn it into a terrorist state.

Clinton’s position:
Cannot argue about how we got into this war. She has said that she wanted Saddam gone and that he being gone was good. She is forced to move on to how the war was fought. She had a lot of problems with Rumsfeld and how the war was conducted. She will only be in agreement with McCain, cause he thinks that the war wasn’t fought correctly either. Hillary was against the surge, and if the surge is still being portrayed as having been successful, Hillary loses points on a technicality, and it weakens the rest of her argument to get us out of Iraq.

McCain wins the Iraq War debate, even though most people want out..

Obama’s Position:
Obama argues that the War should never have been fought or authorized. That as much experience McCain is supposed to have with war, he voted for the debacle that cost trillions and killed hundreds of thousands. The war was based on lies, and there were no WMD. It was a Dumb war, and those who supported it who should have known better. Part of the reason our economy is so terrible is because we are being held hostage by the Chinese and other countries we have to borrow money from because of our forced expenditure in Iraq. Obama’s Iraq War opposition provides backbone to go into the economic issues that progressives want. McCain can talk about Governmental pork....but Obama can point out that the war is the biggest porker. Obama shows without going any further that he has superior judgement on national security decisions.

Obama can then move on with the upper hand on how to get out of Iraq. His argument will have more credibility than McCain’s ...and his argument gets us out of Iraq.

Obama wins the Iraq War debate, and plus we get to get out.



Economy:
McCain Position:
We need to cut the pork. We need to stop the spending. Too much spending. We need fiscal discipline.

Clinton’s Position:
We need to increase taxes on the rich and use the money to fund programs badly needed that I have detail plans on.

Obama's Position: We need to cut out the lobbyist, and I have done just that, and so I am the reformer with results. Also I can bring millions of voters to the polls, and they in turn will allow those running in Dem congressional races while I'm at top of the ticket to win their seats. We need to fund what is required for us to be the kind of society that we each can be proud of. With a super DEM majority in congress, we will be able to do just that, yes we will!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-09-08 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
36. Black Commentator: Obama Mush Mouths On War
U.S. Senator Barack Obama has planted his feet deeply inside the Iraq war-prolongation camp of the Democratic Party, the great swamp that, if not drained, will swallow up any hope of victory over the GOP in next year's congressional elections. In a masterpiece of double-speak before the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, November 22, the Black Illinois lawmaker managed to out-mush-mouth Sen. John Kerry - a prodigious feat, indeed.

Obama's speech had the Democratic Leadership Council's (DLC) brand stamped all over it. Triangulating expertly, Obama first praised the war record of Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), who has called for immediate steps towards U.S. military redeployment out of Iraq, hopefully in six months, then dismissed both Murtha's bill and any hint of "timetables" for withdrawal. In essence, all Obama wants from the Bush regime is that it fess up to having launched the war based on false information, and to henceforth come clean with the Senate on how it plans to proceed in the future. Those Democrats who want to dwell on the past - the actual genesis and rationale for the war, and the real reasons for its continuation - should be quiet.

Both sides are wrong, says Obama - deploying the classic triangulation device - for engaging in a "war of talking points" - "one I am not interested in joining."


Then Obama positions himself above the fray: "Iraq was a major issue in last year's election. But that election is now over. We need to stop the campaign."


http://www.blackcommentator.com/161/161_cover_obama_iraq.html

Now that Obama has no more need for flowery anti-war speeches, he can get down to the nitty-gritty of triangulating. Mush-mouth, indeed. This explains why he voted to confirm Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice, a notorious warmonger. Full disclosure, Hillary voted for her, also, but Hillary hasn't positioned herself as the anti-war candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC