So, the man who said in 2004 that there was no difference between him and Bush on the Iraq war

[journalist3072]

now says we can't trust Sen. Clinton to end the war, but we can trust him?

I don't think so.

Obama's words from today:

"Ask yourself. Who do you trust to end a war: someone who opposed the war from the beginning, or someone who started opposing it when they started preparing a run for president?"

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080319/ap_on_el_pr/obama_iraq;_ylt=AoEiJWEfMpZbteNVeELA_uCs0NUE

Poor Barack. He just doesn't get it.

Back in 2004, he said he didn't know how he would have voted on the Iraq war, and that there was no difference between him and Bush on the war. He said then:

"I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know." He went on to add "There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage."

Then, during the course of this presidential campaign, he was asked by Tim Russert to explain those 2004 remarks, and he said:

"Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq."

Source: http://broadcatching.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/obama-no-difference-between-me-bush-on-iraq/

So basically, he admitted to Tim Russert that he tailored or altered his remarks on Iraq in 2004, for purely political reasons: because John Kerry and John Edwards had voted for the war and he didn't want to hurt them in the general election.

And now he says trust him to end the war? Just as he admitted to Tim Russert that his 2004 remarks were for political expediency, how do we know remarks from today, that he'll end this war, are not for political expediency?

Even more curious is that recently, Obama said:

"Real change isn't about changing your position to fit the politics of the moment."

Source: http://thepage.time.com/obama-remarks-for-saturday/


So ladies and gentlemen, by Barack Obama's own definition, he does not represent real change.

And we cannot and should not trust him to end this war.

He is one of the most disingenuous politicians I have seen in my lifetime.

[Muttocracy]

1. delete - misread part of OP nt

[FrenchieCat]

2. Back in 2004.....it went like this.....

Tim Russert read a quote he attributed to Obama to suggest that he has "not been a leader against the war": "In July of 2004, Barack Obama: 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know,' in terms of how you would have voted on the war." Russert did not quote the very next sentence of Obama's statement, which was, "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made" for authorizing the war.

At the time....
The Times also reported that Obama "declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time":
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004

THE FACT CHECKER

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

As the keynote speaker, Obama was trying to be loyal to the Democratic nominees, John Kerry and John Edwards, both of whom had voted in favor of the war authorization resolution, along with Hillary Clinton.

In an interview reported by the New York Times on July 26, on the first day of the convention, he reiterated his opposition to the war but declined to criticize Kerry and Edwards, saying he was "not privy to Senate intelligence reports."

He then continued: "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

again.....

"from my vantage point the case was not made"

(The Clinton campaign left out that important last sentence when it e-mailed reporters with backup material for the inconsistency claim, which was also made by Hillary Clinton in the televised debate Saturday night.)

In an interview published in the Chicago Tribune the following day (July 27,2004), Obama said that he would have voted "no" on the Senate resolution. But he said he was not in favor of "pulling out now." On the issue of whether to stay in Iraq , he said "there's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." The context of his remarks makes clear that he was not referring to the original decision to go into Iraq, but the question of whether to remain.

again--

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

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

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

THANK YOU, BARACK OBAMA.

Responding to Clinton’s attack on Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. “In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

again!

he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time

“‘But, I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’

“But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ‘What I don’t think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,’ he said.”

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

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

Now contrast that to this:


"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

So who flipped & flopped?

[Muttocracy]

3. thank you - hasn't this gone around about 10 times now? nt

[journalist3072]

6. You need to click on and read the links I've provided you, but I doubt you'll do that. eom

[Muttocracy]

7. Yes, I'm sure you're very worried about educating little old me.

And you know me SO well you can already judge what I do and don't read and what I have and haven't click on and what I did and didn't know before your educational post. Thanks!!!!!!!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

8. And you're what for Hillary?

Just sayin'

[PetraPooh]

11. Excellently presented rebuttal, Frenchie. You ROCK!

[pointsoflight]

12. Thanks, but some people aren't seeking the actual truth.

[jgraz]

15. Now Frenchie, you know Hillary supporters aren't interested in facts. Or math.

[Usrename]

31. that should leave a mark

but somehow I don't think it will

they seem to be immune to facts

[HCE SuiGeneris]

5. Weak.

Go McCain, huh!? Are you that "journalist" for Drudge?

[TomClash]

9. More lies and no journalism

See Frenchie's excellent post.

[Horse with no Name]

34. Frenchie and excellent post are completely antithetical to each other

Of course...she is one of YOUR biggest cheerleader/koolaid drinkers and you all have fawning tendencies...so I can see why you would think that.

[TomClash]

50. Except that - between the cheers and the koolaid - Frenchie was right

You left that part out. Oh, and by the way, America was a fluffy vomit band for ten year old girls.

[Texas Hill Country]

51. those are verifiable statements.

[Justice Is Comin]

10. He paves a long road

with cow pies. And people step right in them.

P-ulease, how the fuck are you going to be against something when you don't have any of the information the others were bludgeoned with.

Sure as this says B-u-l-l-s-h-i-t, he would have voted for the IWR. Anyone that doesn't know it is hallucinating.

He crawled right in a hole when McCain fired at him in their little dust-up. And this is the "president" they want? :rofl:

[LulaMay]

13. Well compiled. Thank you.

[cali]

14. no, it's not. the OP truncated

quotes. In other words, she lied.

[jgraz]

16. That's all they have left. Lies and racism.

[LulaMay]

17. Don't call me racist, or a liar. You folks need to get a grip.

[annie1]

18. ObamaUnderground: anyone who does not like, vote for or agree with barack is racist.

[Texas Hill Country]

52. and a liar... dont forget about liar...

unbelievable... this place is making me hate the democratic party.


when did we all loose sight of reality?

[jgraz]

20. You purposely distorted Obama's statements. What would you call it?

As far as calling you a racist, I wasn't. What I mean is that the only hope for Hillary is for lies and racism to win out and bring down the mathematical winner of the nomination. She has nothing else to hope for at this point.

[LulaMay]

19. You go too far, calling anyone who doesn't support him a racist. That is ugly to do.

There is not a thing remotely racist about this post.

[jgraz]

21. Once again, Susie Sensitive, I didn't call you a racist

My point is that the only hope for Hillary and her supporters is that racism hands her the nomination. That's slightly different than calling you a racist.

But only slightly.

[LulaMay]

22. Yes you did. You said all Hillary supporters have left is lies and racism. Don't play that game.

[Usrename]

24. I don't why you think he was talking about you specifically.

You're reacting like people usually do when they have a guilty conscience.

[jgraz]

37. It's easier to be offended than engage in a real debate

Especially if it's a debate you've already lost.

[jgraz]

25. I happen to be an expert on what I meant. If you don't like it, tough.

[LulaMay]

28. Keep it up and you don't help your candidate. The nomination doesn't belong to anyone.

[jgraz]

35. The nomination belongs to the person who won it

And that happens to be Barack Obama. You just don't want to face reality.

[LulaMay]

43. and it isn't over yet. What if she gets it. What are people like you going to do? Say she STOLE it?

Talk about hurting the party and not being a true Democrat.

You all need to knock it off.

[jgraz]

45. Again, show me a way she gets it WITHOUT stealing it

[LulaMay]

23. That is BS that if she wins it's because of racism. & you admit that you are calling us that anyway

[Usrename]

27. There's no way she can win. She has already lost.

Do the math.

What is the plausible scenario that you think will get her to the Whitehouse?

[jgraz]

32. No, she can "win" by making everyone afraid of the Scary Black Man

[LulaMay]

46. You are revolting. She isn't doing anything of the sort, and you know it.

[jgraz]

47. She's doing EXACTLY that. Need a reminder?

Now tell me, who was circulating this photo?

[LulaMay]

33. Oh, you mathmeticians. You don't wait for anything, do you? Got ants in your pants.

[jgraz]

39. Yeah, that math is so annoying. Especially when it shows your candidate is toast.

[LulaMay]

41. Especially when it's not all that "counts", and all the numbers aren't in!

[jgraz]

44. Still waiting for your reasonable scenario that gives her the nomination

And remember, you can't rely on her frightening superdelegates with Scary Black Preacher stories.

[jgraz]

29. If it's BS, then you should have no problem showing us how she can win

You show me a reasonable scenario where she wins without racism or lies and I'll retract my statement.

[LulaMay]

26. and YES, people don't appreciate being called racists when they've fought it their whole life.

[jgraz]

30. Then quit supporting a candidate who's using racism as a campaign strategy

[LulaMay]

36. How's she doing that exactly? You'd better back up your accustaions with something concrete.

[jgraz]

38. Here's some concrete for ya

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5167713&mesg_id=5167713

Boom. Deal with it.

[LulaMay]

40. She didn't have anything to do with Wright being reported about! You're citing NOTHING

but some supporters and campaign folks discussing it, and what it means to the race.

She has said publicly she was glad he made his speech. She's stayed out of it.

She's not responsible for HIS mistakes, or what the press reveals.


You're only angry because this came about, and you want to blame her for it!

[jgraz]

42. The story is that she's using Wright to pressure the superdelegates

Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, you need to face the fact that your candidate is pushing a racist agenda.

[LulaMay]

48. The Wright debacle is not her doing! If it keeps hurting him in polls, future

elections, do you honestly think for one minute that won't be of any importance to the DNC ?

You can't blame her for discussions about it, or concern about his 'elect-ability'.

[jgraz]

49. Obama's skin color is not her doing either. But she sure the fuck is willing to use it.

I can certainly blame her for pushing the issue, because she's throwing her lot in with the racists in our party. I'm sorry you can't see that, but it's the truth.