Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama's IWR speech will be used against him before November.

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
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 10:54 PM
Original message
Obama's IWR speech will be used against him before November.
It is perhaps not an argument that will convince anyone on this board, in fact, it will probably set your hair on fire, but I believe he will be attacked for his IWR speech, and I believe it will resonate with Independents and moderate Democrats.

Obama consistently refers to his IWR speech as being the product of good judgment.

How exactly did that judgment work without having any briefings or access to the information given to members of Congress? Did he just have a "gut" feeling that the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community was putting out a load of bullshit? Is judgment based on blogs and the media really sound judgment, or was it just a lucky guess?

Obama had referred to this before (in 2004), and said something to the effect that he really couldn't say which way he would have voted without seeing the intelligence. Now, he is promoting it as sure-fire judgement, but he will have to back off on that as soon as someone presses him on that issue. It is out there.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. Um, most of us knew what was up and that didn't require a briefing.
The salient point is that HRC and John McCain made the WRONG decision, HRC without even reading the data.

Obama's speech references "dumb wars, rash wars." He's was right-on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heather MC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. DICK CHENEY EXPLAINED WHY ENVADING BAGDAD WAS A BAD IDEA IN 1994
http://youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I

The reason for not doing it then, were teh same reasons not to do it almost 10 years later!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. yep - Iraq is about to unravel big time for the GOP
Edited on Wed May-28-08 11:18 PM by AtomicKitten
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polpilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-30-08 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #24
120. I knew. Frankly, only the uninformed, through readily available sources, didn't know.The world knew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Window Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
71. Absolutely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
88. I think its one of his greatest assets. its too long past the point of
it being problematic since over 70% of the country feel the same way. mccain can use it but it will redound upon him and show him for the warmonger he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virtualobserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. he described precisely what the environment would be like in IRAQ
he will be just fine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. I didn't get any classified briefings, and I knew we were being lied to
Doesn't take a fucking genius.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kool Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
42. Yep, that's true.
I didn't believe the bullshit either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
80. I could see the lies in Dubya's eyes. And Rumsfled, who'd trust that bastard?
a conspiracy, wrapped up in lies, base on hearsay. PULEEZE!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoldieAZ49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
4. The list of his words and actions that call his 'judgment' into question
are rather long. Once the GE starts it will be a steady drip.

He has already shown he is rather thin skinned when it comes to being criticized. It is going to be a long hot summer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. LOL! compared to hillykins the congenital liar and
the one who's proven her incompetence, overweaning appetite for power and lousy judgment repeatedly, Obama's in great shape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. Don't mean nothin' Cept to the Over the Hill crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
72. Interesting, GoldieAZ, NJSecularist, and the OP are now salivating over Obama's potential loss in GE
Edited on Thu May-29-08 08:18 AM by Leopolds Ghost
And criticizing him for, among other things, his opposition to the capital gains tax cut and NOW -- criticizing him for his opposition to the Iraq war!! Telling isn't it?

"Reagan Democrats" who will not vote Dem until it once again becomes the party of the racist murderer and authoritarian fake-populist, Jackson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #72
109. I am not salivating on anything.
I am posting the truth, as I see it.

If I knew what other people were thinking even half as much as the average Obama supporter claims to, I would put it to better use than typing political commentary on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. I have, well...


NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. I loves me a bunny with some nice PANCAKES!! Who would be against that??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. I guess that's one way to say "I hop."
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kool Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #20
43. Good one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbc5g Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. Comon...the millions of people protesting? Every reasoned person knew what was going on n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. what nonsense.
And you know perfectly well that Obama's 2004 comments were a courtesy to Kerry/Edwards.

One didn't need fucking briefings to know what a load of shit the IW was.

As Patrick Leahy said so many times, the IWR was an illegal BLANK CHECK FOR WAR.

Grab a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:01 PM
Original message
Your political judgement/analysis is sound because...?
I'm just wondering why I or anyone should believe your post.

Who did you back in the primary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
11. You probably shouldn't. I question yours (and practically everyone's)
but most of all I question your skills of deduction when asking me who I backed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
48. I recall that Edwards dropped out and then later endoresed Obama. Are you still backing Edwards for
the Dem primary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. Edwards had not dropped out when I voted.
I am not particularly enamored with anyone who is left in, but will support the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #51
56. I was backing Kucinich, but, like Edwards, I endorsed and started working for Obama. I just
did it sooner than Edwards did.

It was a pretty easy choice for me.

I think Obama's anti- Iraqi war speech will stand the test of time. It will be an asset in the GE. is my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #56
110. Overall, you are probably correct... but as all things of the nature
it will be actually how many he gains by having done that (which is currently a LOT of support) by how much he loses by doing it (which the republicans will try to increase). My post is about one of the ways that they will attack him on it that may not be so obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mindwalker_i Donating Member (836 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. Well, I had even less in the way of briefings
than he did, and I thought this war would suck. Why did I think that? Specifically because I wasn't getting any real information from the Bush admin, just crappy rhetoric. And, I didn't trust them. Given that this was turned out to be a major clusterf***, I'd say I was right.

Obama probably saw the same thing. Hell, I have a hard time believing that Hillary did not see the same thing. Her trust in Bush was wrong and there was plenty of evidence that he was/is untrustworthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. There was something like high sixties, low seventy percent of the
people who favored it, at the time.

McCain has already started down this road, by challenging Obama to go to Iraq and "get current on what is happening there" before he makes the decision to "surrender". Obama will get pressed on this, and he better have a better answer than "I felt Bush was lying".

McCain will blame Bush for the clusterf***, but make the point that we just couldn't take the chance that Saddam wasn't lying when he claimed to have WMD. And, with hindsight on his side (and admittedly some foresight as he advocated many more troops at the time) he will claim that he would have handled it properly and we would have won long ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #18
73. So you're criticizing Obama for being prescient and going against the grain of pro-IWR sentiment?
What a foolish remark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WyLoochka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #18
124. The Inspectors were there
You have amnesia or something? They weren't finding anything because there wasn't anything to find. McCain has no valid "points" to make - NONE.

And your polling cite is wrong - during the "propaganda run-up" 60-70 percent disapproved of invading without the UN on board.

After Bush did the crime anyway - much of the media - as is being confirmed right now with the McClellan confessions fall-out - beat the drums hard to ramp up public support.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
10. Strange....considering that you've been here all along.....that you don't
know anything.

Also kinda of sad.

The interviewer asks Obama this specific question on the video.
Obama responds that he would have voted like Dick Durbin, Voted Nay.

This video is dated 11/25/02
question is asked at 2:11 of the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

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


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."

(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.

Based on changing circumstances on the ground, He now advocates a phased withdrawal.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/obama_and_iraq.html#more



in 2004, because we had candidates that had voted for that fucked up IWR, Obama, not wanting to EMBARASS THE NOMINEES, stayed vague to a degree.

So 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


THANK YOU, BARACK OBAMA.


Desperate in NH: Fibbing About Obama and Iraq?
Campaigning in Dover, New Hampshire the day before the primary, Senator Hillary Clinton once again pounded Barack Obama for being big on talk and small on deeds. And before a crowd that could barely fill half of a modest-sized gymnasium, she continued to claim that Obama is a disingenuous politician, no noble and inspiring force of change. Using the thin opposition research her campaign operatives have managed to unearth on her rival, she recited what's becoming the campaign's regular litany of Obama's alleged hypocrisies. Saying you oppose the Patriot Act and then voting to extend it—"that's not change," she declared. Saying you're against special interest lobbying and then having a lobbyist co-chair your New Hampshire campaign—"that's not change," she thundered. Saying in a campaign speech that you will not vote to fund the Iraq war and then voting for $300 billion in war financing—"that's not change," she exclaimed. After the event, in an interview with Fox News, Clinton was even sharper. She referred to Obama's (and John Edwards') "hypocrisy," and said, "Senator Obama has changed many of his positions." Voters, she insisted, deserved to know this: "Talk is, as they say, cheap."

Her charges against Obama have generally been weak—standard truth-stretchers for standard political campaigns. But in casting Obama as a phony on the Iraq war, Clinton has veered close to outright lying.

Yesterday, in an interview with CNN, Clinton said:

If someone is going to claim that by their very words they are making change, then if those words say... I'm against the war in Iraq and I'll never vote for funding and then, when they go to the Senate, they vote for 300 billion dollars' worth of funding , I think it's time for people to say, "Wait a minute, let's get real here." There's a big difference between talking and acting, between rhetoric and reality.

Did Obama actually vow, as Clinton said, to never vote for funds for the Iraq war? If he had, he would indeed be a major promise-breaker—and a fraud on a critical issue for Democratic voters. This was a powerful allegation.

I sent an email to a Clinton spokesperson who specializes in opposition research, asking for a citation to back up this charge. He quickly replied with a link for a page on a Clinton campaign website that contains a quote from a speech Obama delivered in November 2003, when he was running for Senate:

Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars , I said no. I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.
Is it possible to read that statement as a promise never to vote for Iraq war funds? Not by any reasonable interpretation. In fact, during Obama's Senate campaign, he explained his opposition to this particular war funding bill in detail. From a September 29, 2003 Obama press release:

Obama challenged the Congress to 'stand up to the misplaced priorities of this Administration' by delaying the $87 billion for Iraq until the President provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq. 'It's not just Iraq that needs rebuilding. It's America, too,' Obama said.

Perhaps as an opponent of the Iraq war, Obama could have been expected to vote against funds for the war once he reached the Senate. But he, like Clinton (who now opposes the war) and other Senate Democrats, have continually voted for funds, while attempting (albeit unsuccessfully) to attach conditions and timetables to that funding. Because Clinton cannot attack Obama on the policy—given that they have voted the same—she has accused him of being a hypocrite. But where was the beef?

I sent the Clinton oppo guy a follow-up email:

I looked at the quote . He was clearly speaking about the $87 billion package. But what Sen. Clinton told CNN was that Obama said, "I'll never vote for funding." He doesn't say that in the quote. Was she accurately quoting him?
I received no response.

As Hillary Clinton was leaving Dover, I attempted to put the question to her. She had just finished the interview with Fox and another with a local station. Inside the gym, I was two feet away from her. "Can I ask you one question about Iraq and Senator Obama?" I inquired. She looked at me for a nanosecond and walked away.

During her speech to supporters at Dover, Clinton said, that it's important to disseminate information on all the candidates "so voters can make a well-informed decision.... I will do whatever I can to make sure voters have the information they need." But ascertaining that this information is accurate is apparently not on her to-do list.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6786_desperate_in_nh_1.html



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.

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


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


also:
McCain voted for IRAN resolution. Hillary Voted for IRAN Resolution. Barack Obama didn't vote for IRAN Resolution.

Two are the same, and one is not.

In addition:

JANUARY 2005

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 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.


FEBRUARY 2005

Obama Criticized Iraq War At Town Hall Meeting. The Pantagraph reported that during a town hall meeting, "Asked about the Iraq war, Obama said poor planning by the Bush administration has left Iraq woefully incapable of handling its own security. He expressed hope that more intensive training will be provided for Iraqi forces, saying such measures could allow most American troops to return home next year. While Obama said the recent Iraqi election is an encouraging sign for democracy, he questioned Bush's rationale for the Iraq invasion. 'I didn't see the weapons of mass destruction at the time, I didn't think there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein,' Obama said."

Clinton Said Setting A Deadline For Withdrawal Would Strengthen the Insurgents. Clinton said a deadline for withdrawal would strengthen the hand of the insurgents. "I don't think it's useful to set a deadline because I think it sends a signal to the terrorists and the insurgents that they just have to wait us out," said Clinton.

Despite Declining Security, Clinton Claimed That Many Parts Of Iraq Were "Functioning Quite Well." On Clinton's second trip to Iraq in February 2005, security was so bad she was unable to drive through Baghdad's streets, even in armored cars. "It's regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well," Clinton said.

Clinton Said That A Rash Of Suicide Attacks Meant That The Iraq Insurgency Was Failing. After 55 people died in Iraq on the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Clinton maintained that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing. "The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or overrun," Clinton said. "The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure."


MAY 2005

Obama Said Security In Iraq Was 'Horrible.' At a town hall meeting, "Obama described the security in Iraq as 'horrible.' He said U.S. troops should come home if the Iraqi government is functioning properly and the Iraqi troops are trained correctly. 'Our young men and women have been incredibly brave and effective in very difficult situations.'"

Clinton: I'm Not Comfortable Setting Exit Strategies. In an interview with Judy Woodruff on CNN, Clinton said about Iraq "I am not one who feels comfortable setting exit strategies. We don't know what we're exiting from. We don't know what the situation is moving toward."


OCTOBER 2005

Obama Said US Needed To Get Out Of Iraq "As Soon As We Can." In 2005, Obama said, "We should start phasing out our military presence in Iraq. We have to have a very credible, specific plan to stabilize the country as soon as we can and get out as soon as we can."

Clinton Opposed Setting A Deadline For Withdrawal From Iraq. According to the Associated Press, at a speech in Atlanta, Clinton "said she doesn't support a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq nor does she support leaving our troops there for an open-ended period. Instead, she said the U.S. should encourage the Iraqi people to take more control of their security and let them know American troops won't be there forever."


NOVEMBER 2005

Obama Called for A Phased WIthdrawal From Iraq, A Commitment To Having No U.S. Bases In Iraq Within a Decade. In a speech in the Senate, "First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.' This course of action will help to focus our efforts on a more effective counter-insurgency strategy and take steam out of the insurgency...Second, we need not a time-table, in the sense of a precise date for U.S. troop pull-outs, but a time-frame for such a phased withdrawal. More specifically, we need to be very clear about key issues, such as bases and the level of troops in Iraq. We need to say that there will be no bases in Iraq a decade from now and the United States armed forces cannot stand-up and support an Iraqi government in perpetuity - pushing the Iraqis to take ownership over the situation and placing pressure on various factions to reach the broad based political settlement that is so essential to defeating the insurgency."

DECEMBER 2005

Obama Said He Supported A Phased Withdrawal To Avoid Security Vacuum; Said War In Iraq To Blame For Terrorist Problems. Obama favors starting 'a phased withdrawal process' of troops next year. The process would be based on what happens with the elections, he said. 'What we're engaged in is a difficult balancing act here…Having gone in, how do we step back but ensure that there's not such a vacuum that either chaos occurs or jihadists take over critical areas that can make huge problems elsewhere? The irony, of course, is that there really wasn't a terrorist problem before we went in. There is now.'"

Clinton: America Still Has A "Big Job" To Do In Iraq. In a letter to her constituents, Clinton said, "I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately." She added, "America has a big job to do now. We must set reasonable goals to finish what we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis."


JANUARY 2006

Obama Said It Was Important To Start Phasing Down Troops. The Sun-Times wrote, "Obama said 'if we don't see significant political progress' over the next six months or so, 'we can pour money and troops in here until the cows come home but we are not going to be successful.' It is important, Obama said, 'to start phasing down the troops' and 'to give the Iraqis more ownership.'"

Clinton: Withdrawal From Iraq Could "Make a Bad Situation Worse." At a fundraiser in Portland, Clinton said, a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops "could make a bad situation worse." Instead, Clinton said, the administration needs to do a better job of leveling with Congress and working out timetables for extracting Americans from Iraq. "We need to begin to bring our troops home as they begin to provide for security in Iraq for themselves," she said. "I believe that is the responsible position. I know there is disagreement about it."


MARCH 2006

Obama Said If Iraqis Aren't United, US "Can't Hold That Country Together." The Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote, "'We've reached a point where there are no military solutions to the problems of Iraq. They're all political.'…Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders of the fractured country need to get together and 'decide if they're for a united Iraq…If they're not, we can't hold that country together. We need to move forward toward the beginning of a phased withdrawal.' If Iraqi leaders want to hold a united country, in Obama's opinion, they will have to shoulder the burden 'with technical assistance and some military help' coming from the United States."

Clinton: The U.S. Can't Commit To A Specific Withdrawal Date. In an address to the Long Island Board of Realtors, Clinton said she did not believe that the U.S. can commit to a specific withdrawal date, adding "The Iraqi people cannot expect us to be there for them indefinitely."


APRIL 2006

Obama Said By the End Of The Year "Our Job As The Police And Army Of Iraq Should Be Complete." At a town hall meeting, Obama said, "'If I continue to see what seems to be the case right now--an inability and unwillingness on the part of the various factions to want to live together--we can't be in a position where we're in the middle of a civil war...If we're not seeing a government that is actually committed to working together, then I don't see how our presence there can be helpful,' Obama said. Even if a new government is formed, Obama said, by the end of the year 'our job as the police and army of Iraq should be complete. We will have done our task and we should start phasing down our troops.'"

Clinton Said Setting A Deadline For The Establishment Of An Independent Iraqi Government And The Removal Of U.S. Troops Was Dangerous. Clinton told the Syracuse Post-Standard editorial board, "If you postpone a deadline that you set, you look weak. If you don't meet a deadline that you set, you look weak. You really give a lot of power to the people you don't want to empower."


MAY 2006

Obama Said Bush Rhetoric Cannot Hide "2,400 Flag-Draped Coffins." At an EMILY's List lunch, Obama said, "This idea…that somehow if you say the words 'plan for victory' and 'stay the course' over and over and over and over again, and you put these subliminal messages behind you that say 'victory' and 'victory' and 'victory,' that somehow people are not going to notice the 2,400 flag-draped coffins that have arrived at the Dover Air Force Base."

Clinton Opposed A Timetable For Iraq Withdrawal. Clinton opposed both a timetable for withdrawing troops and an open-ended commitment in Iraq. In a Washington Post interview, Clinton defended herself. "I've said many times I regret how the president has used his authority," she said. "But I think I have a responsibility to look at this as carefully as I can and say what I believe, and what I believe is we're in a very dangerous situation and it doesn't lend itself to sound bites, and therefore I have resisted going along with either my colleagues who feel passionately they need to call for a date certain or colleagues who are 100 percent behind the policy and with the president and Prime Minister Blair."


JUNE 2006

Obama Called For an "Expeditious Yet Responsible Exit from Iraq." In 2006, Obama said, "What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq."

Clinton Said It Was Not "Smart Strategy" To Set A Certain Date For Troop Withdrawal. Clinton said of the war, "we have to work our way out of it" rather than abandoning the effort. Clinton said that she did not "think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interests...of our country." She said "our job is to do everything we can to help this government succeed. It will be difficult and dangerous."


SEPTEMBER 2006

Obama Said US Must Leave Iraq Responsibly. In West Virginia, Obama said, "We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America...We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way."

Obama Said US Must Leave Iraq Responsibly. In West Virginia, Obama said, "We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America...We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way."


OCTOBER 2006

Obama Said US Is Not Going To Baby-Sit Iraq For The Next 50 Years. In 2006, Obama said, "I try not to micromanage military decision-making. But there are a lot of officers on the ground who believe that if we start reducing our footprint in Iraq that we could potentially have some better outcomes." The Rockford Register Star wrote, "Obama, who called President Bush's Iraq policy 'poorly conceived from the start,' said a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops would 'send a signal not just to Iraqis, but to those surrounding the region, that they have a stake in stabilization. This is not something that America is going to baby-sit for the next 50 years.'"

Clinton Distanced Herself From Calls to Begin Withdrawal of Troops. Clinton distanced herself from calls to begin the withdrawal of troops from Iraq by the end of 2006. "You can have a small, phased redeployment to send a message" as long as that's part of a broader plan, she said.


JANUARY 2007

1/30/07: Obama’s De-Escalation Plan Would Pressure Iraqis To Political Accommodations, Bring The War To A Responsible End. “Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said. "That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence…The American people have been asked to be patient too many times, too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent," Obama said. "It's time for a policy that can bring a responsible end to this war and bring our troops home.”

Senate Democratic Leadership Used Obama’s Iraq Bill As The Blueprint For Iraq Redeployment Plan. An Obama press release said, “On Thursday, the Senate Democratic Leadership announced an Iraq redeployment plan that sets a goal for redeploying American combat brigades by March 31, 2008, the same date proposed by Senator Barack Obama in the Iraq De-escalation Act introduced in January. The leadership plan further mirrors the Obama legislation, ensuring that the training of Iraqi forces continues, our troops remain protected during their redeployment, and that counter-terrorism activities proceed. The Obama Plan and the Leadership Plan Share Key Provisions: Obama Legislation The redeployment of the Armed Forces under this section shall be substantial, shall occur in a gradual manner, and shall be executed at a pace to achieve the goal of the complete redeployment of all United States combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group, if all the matters set forth in subsection (b)(1)(B) are not met by such date, subject to the exceptions for retention of forces for force protection, counter-terrorism operations, training of Iraqi forces, and other purposes as contemplated by subsection (g). (S. 433, introduced January 30, 2007) Leadership Legislation - The President shall commence the phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the enactment of this joint resolution, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes: protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.”

Feingold: “Obama Probably Made The Proposal That Was Most Helpful In Moving The Caucus In The Direction I Would Like To See It Go.” Feingold said, “I've been pleased that his opposition has intensified over time. I was not that happy with his initial opposition to a timeline…I regard him as clearly stronger than Sen. Clinton, indeed than Sen. Edwards…Of all the people I've worked with that are running for president, I think Sen. Obama probably made the proposal that was most helpful in moving the Caucus in the direction I would like to see it go.”


OCTOBER 2007

Obama Said That Sanctions On The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Must Not Be Linked To Keeping Troops In Iraq Or Taking Military Action Against Iran. Obama said in a release, “It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which supports terrorism. But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran. Unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran - a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard.”

Kyl-Lieberman Stated That The U.S. Military Presence In Iraq Will Have Long Term Consequences For The Future” Of The Middle East And “In Particular” Iran And That U.S. Military Instruments In Iraq Should Be Used To Support A Policy Of Rolling Back Iran’s Influence. “(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate-- (1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy; (3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies; (4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.”



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 /

See Senator Kennedy's voting record here: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53305
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. This needs to be it's own OP, FrenchieCat!!!!
Unless I missed it - in which case I say THANKS! for bringing it to my attention!!

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErinBerin84 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
28. thanks for this post!
Agree with the other person who said that this should be an OP...I kind of wanted to see how the originator of the thread would respond, but they seem to be ignoring it, lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Youphemism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
34. Yes, but can you support these facts with assertions?
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buck Rabbit Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #34
104. Ok, my first true LOL reading the board in days.
You get a carrot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
90. I'm bookmarking this thread using Google Bookmarks.
Not for the "value" of the OP. That strikes me as just another pathetic attempt to generate a self-fulfilling prophesy ("Obama will LOSE!"). No, it's because of all the solid content in your above posting. I'm a fairly recent convert to Obama, and I want (no, NEED) to be as fully informed as possible. Thanks!

pnorman
PS:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buck Rabbit Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #90
107. THanks for the suggestion. I keep forgetting I have this feature loaded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy823 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
12. Anyone with half a brain
Knew what Bush as doing, and how he was hyping up reasons to go into Iraq. And anyone with half a brain who voted for it in the first place should have had the guts to stand up and admit the were wrong, and that it was a mistake. Those who can't admit their mistakes should not be president, as Bush has clearly proved!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johntao Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
14. His greatest strength
Smelling George Bush's BS from where he was is his greatest asset - his greatest strength. He could have said nothing but he took a risk a lot of ambitious politicians would not have taken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
31. You are perhaps correct...
but the republicans have a way of turning one of an opponent's greatest strengths against them. Ask John Kerry (military). Ask Al Gore (technology).

If it is effectively countered, fine. But he had better be able to say more than "well, if I had seen intelligence on the matter, I might have changed my position". And he will have to defend that against his statement in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paco Donating Member (89 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
16. So what ~
Reasonable intelligent arguments won't stop obamabots from having obamagasms every time bho, aka "the one", utters a word. Enjoy the ride!



:hippie:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SanchoPanza Donating Member (410 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
17. Much of the information on Iraq was public knowledge
McClatchy's reports, largely ignored inside the beltway, as well as data provided by weapons' inspectors and the IAEA all pointed to Iraqi chemical and nuclear programs in utter ruin. They couldn't even sustain their conventional military, let alone the funding required for a secret nuclear program.

The Al-Qaeda link was always flimsy, and was never pushed by the administration outside of evasive equivocations that they could "plausibly deny". Basically, anyone could come to the reasonable judgement that the administration was full of shit (or at least have serious doubts) so long as they weren't scared senseless by 9/11 or were not predisposed to believing "terrorist" is an ethnicity or religious affiliation. Iraq was a terrorist state either because it was in the Middle East or it was majority Muslim, and anyone who is from the Middle East or is Muslim and has any past grievance with the United States (or not, for some) absolutely must be in league with Bin Laden.

The intelligence comment during the 2004 Convention was made so as not to handicap the nominee (and half the Democratic Party, for that matter). Given the necessity of trying to project an atmosphere of unity at the convention, one could easily understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. For whatever reason he made it...
when he gets pressed on it again, he had probably have a better answer than "I knew they were lying". Any weapon's inspectors report would have at least been four years out of date, and we now know that you could buy your way into the nuclear club via Pakistan.

I think Obama will be our nominee. He had better be able to answer this without getting twisted into a pretzel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
21. People Who Turn Out To Have Been Right, Sir
Are not effectively castigated over how they managed it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. And, if he isn't hounded by this question before November,
I shall bow to your superior "judgment" on the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
22. Highschool education sufficient to bring judgment of IWR
Accusation: Iraq has Bioweapons left over from the ones we gave them in the 80's. Easily accessable(HS Bio class notes) fact: shelf life is not that long. End result: accusation stupid.

In the mean time, if they want to argue over the Iraq War, that is a subject I think we should be more than willing to engage on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Middle finga Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
25. Idiot McCain and some people here I guess seem to think
Iraq will be a winning issue. Going into Iraq was the greatest strategic blunder in American history and old senile McCain is stuck to it like flies on fly paper. Now we got Scottie McClellan's bombshell regarding the propaganda used to sell the Iraq war. McCain doesn't have a leg to stand on if he plan on using the Iraq war as his winning strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
29. With 74+% against the Iraq War, you have no freaking idea what you're talking about
I would venture to guess you never heard his speech. If you did, you'd see he was SPOT ON.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PM7nj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
30. Oh please. My 10 year old sister knew.
nMy little sister who was only 10 at the time asked me one day why no one was listening to Hans Blix amd Scott Ritter, since they are the experts. If a 10 year old girl knew the Bush admin was lying just from watching the BBC then I think Obama knew as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Pardon me, but didn't Hans Blix say that we needed a full inspection? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PM7nj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Yes he did.
But he also said that they had no nuclear program and no WMD program at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Before the inspections? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PM7nj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. There was no proof that Iraq had any weapons.
The UN weapon inspectors, who were in Iraq before the invasion, reported that Iraq had no WMDs. Blix said that he wished Baghdad was more cooperative but he specifically stated that they HAD NO WMD. Iraq had a program in the 90s but it was stopped years before the war. France was pushing for more inspections to avoid war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. There were no weapons inspectors in Iraq before the IWR though.
Yeah, it became apparent before the invasion, but before the IWR it was just somewhere between "probably" and "unknown".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PM7nj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. To be honest I don't remember the timeline and all the details.
I do know that there was a lot of evidence that Iraq had no WMDS or ties to al Qaeda. I don't think it is a problem like you do though. Many people knew invading Iraq was a bad idea. Regular people like us and members of congress alike. Besides, most of the country agrees that going into Iraq was a horrible idea. I doubt McCain trying to say Obama SHOULD have supported it because they COULD have been right will work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #45
50. Hope you are right... but just in the off-chance I am
I will be able to perma-link to this thread to show how my "judgment" was superior to almost everyone at DU all along. If I am wrong, I will just hope everyone forgets about it. *grin*

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SanchoPanza Donating Member (410 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #40
52. Yes there were.
The inspectors were in Iraq up until March 16th, 2003, four days before "Shock and Awe", before the United States "suggested" that they leave. In the preceeding weeks, both Blix and ElBaradei were reporting increased compliance with the inspections regime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. Well, read up on it if you want to discuss.
The IWR was in 2002.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-30-08 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #40
119. There were plenty
Bush had to remove the weapons inspectors to start the war

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvDe7Z-ykDo

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #33
78. "Full inspection". There was never going to be an acceptable inspection.
And this is why:

Hillary was one of the most vocal democrats pushing for the IWR. In her speech she proved that not only did she know she was voting for war, but she even laid out the path to being able to use force the same way her husband did.



http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm

See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq)
by Scott Ritter

Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election. Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of this war.

This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration.

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq," Senator Clinton said at the time of her vote, in a carefully crafted speech designed to demonstrate her range of knowledge and ability to consider all options. "I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

Hillary would have done well to leave out that last part, the one where her husband, the former President of the United States, used military force as part of a 72-hour bombing campaign ostensibly deemed as a punitive strike in defense of disarmament, but in actuality proved to be a blatant attempt at regime change which used the hyped-up threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for action. Sound familiar? While many Americans today condemn the Bush administration for misleading them with false claims of unsubstantiated threats which resulted in the ongoing debacle we face today in Iraq (count Hillary among this crowd), few have reflected back on the day when the man from Hope, Arkansas sat in the Oval Office and initiated the policies of economic sanctions-based containment and regime change which President Bush later brought to fruition when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

...much more at link


Scott Ritter served as a former Marine Corps officer from 1984 until 1991, and as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books, including "Iraq Confidential" and "Target Iran". He also co-authored "War on Iraq" with William Pitt.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livingmadness Donating Member (347 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
32. Sorry. McLellan has basically put paid to any efforts in that direction.
Just been listening to the lovely Rachael (Maddow). There'll be no aggressive questioning on the part of the Republican of what people 'knew' before the war. Of course if they want to go down that road ... given the written evidence now at his disposal, I'm sure that is yet another debate Obama will be only too happy to have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. He had better answer the question better than he did in 2004.
That is all I am saying.

They are already starting with "Go over to Iraq and see what it is really like" before you "surrender".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livingmadness Donating Member (347 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #36
44. To which he should respond
Edited on Wed May-28-08 11:46 PM by livingmadness
What is more important to the American people? When I go to Iraq, or when I bring our soldiers back from Iraq. Nuff said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lligrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
39. Hillary Had The Facts But Didn't Bother To Read Them
And you think that would play well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. She was briefed, and we now know the "facts" were cooked anyway. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kool Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. We knew that the "facts" were cooked.
Shit, for that matter, what "facts" were these, anyway? I always got the feeling that the Dems that voted for the IWR were afraid of being called "soft". I really don't think that the Iraq war is going to be the number one issue in November. (Aside from ending it.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PM7nj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. 23 Senators and 133 Representatives made the right choice.
Cooked facts and all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #41
54. The whole rational for going to war with Iraq was a sham. We knew the facts were being cooked
in 2001, 2002, 2003...It's now 2008 and you still don't seem to understand this. Is anybody else surprised at how many Dems to this day won't accept reality? The oddest thing to me is that these same people who bought the bullshit have the audacity to challenge the people who knew what was going on all along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #41
92. Did she read the N.I.E. that was made available- or did she skip
that part, like so many of her Congressional contemporaries? I've read that she did NOT go to read the NIE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucky 13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
49. Hillary didn't even read the intelligence she was given!
Barack knew it was a bad idea the same way most progressives knew it was a bad idea - by listening to the UN weapons inspectors.

Hillary voting for the war places her squarely in one of two catagories: Chickenhawk or Panderbear. Which one do you think she is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconicgnom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 12:05 AM
Response to Original message
55. What's the difference between a pro-war Republican, and a fool?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
57. Again?
been there done that.


http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/12/fact_check_barack_obamas_consi.php
WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR

"‘I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know..'”

WHAT OBAMA SAID

"He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

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

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

"But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ‘What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,' he said.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #57
96. Thank you n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesEtoiles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
58. ALL YOUR VOTES ARE BELONG TO HILLARY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
59. Do you have a link to this part?
"Obama had referred to this before (in 2004), and said something to the effect that he really couldn't say which way he would have voted without seeing the intelligence."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. Post 57 has a link to it, in full context. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indimuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:14 AM
Response to Original message
61. Great Point! Joe Wilson LAYS it out here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L19VAVmAAq0 Joe Wilson (GETS MAD ) on Iraq and Hyde ( HIDE ) Park!

Very interseting and FACT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:21 AM
Response to Original message
62. The more the focus is on the IWR
the more that Obama wins. Even McSame realizes this, which is why his response has been to not live in the past and look forward to the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:24 AM
Response to Original message
63. Freaky Deaky n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:25 AM
Response to Original message
64. BTW, I was present at his October 2002 speech in Federal Plaza
The man was prescient. He described precisely what was going to happen.

Then everything he said happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:44 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. Which one: Oct 2 or Oct 26? Did you record it or know of a recording?
There are only about 14 seconds of video total of Obama at either event. The Obama campaign recreated and rerecorded it about 18 months ago.

I think it likely that on Oct 26 he gave a speech close to the one in his press release.

I was astounded that there was no media or other coverage anywhere that even mentioned that Obama had spoken that day, much less what he had said. Nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #66
68. I was there October 2
The speech he gave matches what was in the press release.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-30-08 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #68
112. This could become important. Anything beyond your memory from 2002?
You seem so confident that they match and are the same speech, rather than just sharing some passages` that I have to ask again if you have or know of a recording made that day? You are the first person who was there that day who claims to remember much beyond that Obama spoke and maybe what a point or two were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-30-08 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #112
113. Here's information on that....
In mid-2002, Obama began considering a run for the U.S. Senate, enlisting political strategist David Axelrod that fall and formally announcing his candidacy in January 2003.<31> Decisions by Republican incumbent Peter Fitzgerald and his Democratic predecessor Carol Moseley Braun not to contest the race launched wide-open Democratic and Republican primary contests involving fifteen candidates.<32> In early opinion polls leading up to the Democratic primary, Obama trailed multimillionaire businessman Blair Hull and Illinois Comptroller Daniel Hynes.<33> However, Hull's popularity declined following reports of his ex-wife's allegations of domestic abuse.<34> Obama's candidacy was boosted by Axelrod's advertising campaign featuring images of the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington and an endorsement by the daughter of the late Paul Simon, former U.S. Senator for Illinois.<35>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama


Rally Attendees Remember Obama's Speech


Marilyn Katz, one of the event's organizers, recalls the audience's reaction. "The crowd was pretty much transfixed," she said.

But Juan Andrade Jr., president of the United States Hispanic Leadership Institute, was less impressed. Andrade says he has seen Obama give great speeches, most notably at the 2004 Democratic Convention, but the 2002 anti-war speech was not one of them.

"There was nothing magic about it," Andrade said, adding, "There was nothing about that speech that would have given anybody any sense that he was going places. We were just glad that he was one of those who was willing to step up at a time when very few people seemed to be willing to do that."

So, just how much attention did the speech attract?

Bill Glauber, who covered the rally for the Chicago Tribune, says he didn't even quote Obama.

"I guess other media was there," Glauber says, "but we didn't quote Barack Obama at his famous anti-war speech. He was not the main guy."

Glauber says that he did not even mention Obama in his newspaper article on the rally and instead focused on the rally's other speaker, the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88988093



Glauber's article reporting on the War Rally that Obama spoke at here:

War protesters gentler, but passion still burns


Date: Thursday, October 3, 2002
Source: By Bill Glauber, Tribune staff reporter.
Illustration: PHOTOS 2
Caption: PHOTO (color): A crowd of about 1,000 listens to Jesse Jackson Wednesday at a Loop rally against a possible war with Iraq, as Vietnam-era protesters and college students mingle. Tribune photo by Abel Uribe.

PHOTO: Peace rally organizers Marilyn Katz (from left) and Bettylu Saltzman meet while Adele Simmons, former president of the MacArthur Foundation, watches the protest. Tribune photo by Abel Uribe.

They sang "Give Peace a Chance," waved tasteful "War Is Not An Option" placards and listened dutifully to speeches that echoed in the glass-and-steel canyon that is Federal Plaza Wednesday.

<>
"It's not coming from above, it's coming from across all generations, all walks of life," said one of the rally organizers, Jennifer Amdur Spitz, a public relations executive. "This is not a fringe movement."

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/obamas_big_2002_antiwar_speech.html


Jennifer Amdur Spitz, Rally Organizer and her statement on the rally and Obama:
It was a cool, damp afternoon when Barack Obama arrived to speak at an antiwar rally in Chicago's Federal Plaza on October 2, 2002. The scene was ragtag. A metal tower had been festooned with strips of white cloth upon which rally attendees wrote personalized peace messages. Protesters danced to a band featuring kazoos and a marching skeleton. Jesse Jackson was to be the day's marquee speaker. But it was Obama, wearing a war is not an option lapel pin, who stole the show. Obama's 926-word speech denounced a "dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." The crowd was electrified. "I stood there and listened to him give that speech and said, 'Who is this guy?'" says Jennifer Spitz, one of the rally's organizers. Eventually, Spitz says, she turned to the person next to her and declared: "He needs to be president!"
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/47363.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1LhCch-JEo VIDEO


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #113
123. None of those confirm the actual text of the speech
A recently made ecstatic statement by a PR flack supporter doesn't carry much weight. It seems very strange that at an event organized by PR professionals which featured various politicians speaking, that no-one was filming or recording it.

Obama consulted with others before he spoke about possible political implications for when he began his campaign for the US Senate the following year, and he already had Axelrod advising him, and they rarely leave things to chance.

Obama was not mentioned in any of the news coverage at the time (excepting one with the 14 second video that Obama did not know about until much later). I think that is why he submitted it as a column weeks later to provide proof of his position at that time.

There are at least two versions that have been used by Obama and his sites. One version includes about a paragraph more than the other. There are a couple of other versions that were probably made by someone else.

Obama reportedly confirmed that the version in the column was written after the speech, based on Obama's recollection.

If a recording made on Oct 2, 2002 is ever found, we all better hope it matches his recollections almost verbatim. If not, the Repubs will go wild about it. When I first saw this thread title, I thought the Repubs had found such a tape.

There has already been suspicion and speculation that the speech had been tweaked slightly to benefit from events, debates, and public opinion during the weeks following the speech.

That is why this is an important question and an issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
65. The Repubs will first have to prove that Obama gave that speech Oct 2, 2002
Or maybe Obama recreated those memories for us in early 2007, based on a text in a press release weeks later and after the benefit of all the debate and analysis during those weeks.

What if the Repubs somehow located a recording of him delivering his speech that day -- consider the implications.


A few weeks back, I half-seriously issued a challenge to see if anyone could produce any mention of Obama and his speech that day. I was surprised that there was none. I realize he was just a local politician running for re-election the the state senate and not a big name like Jesse Jackson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #65
77. Is there a transcript for the speech? thx
Edited on Thu May-29-08 08:39 AM by votesomemore
edit:
I found this for 10/2 . is that the relevant one?
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #77
100. No transcript of Obama's speech, only a column Obama wrote weeks later
Edited on Thu May-29-08 10:00 PM by unc70
The speech you link on wikisource if probably derived from the version in that column, the main differences being to the intro paragraph which describes what follows as a speech Obama gave on Oct 2, 2002. This site and nearly all others states or implies that this is transcript or an "as delivered" version.

The earliest confirmed version is Obama's signed column which states these are remarks he made at a rally, but doesn't give an actual date. Because there are so many problems with dates, timelines, and places when you look closely at almost anything about Obama, and some are clearly deliberate attempts to mislead, confuse, or distract anyone trying to verify details, I now am skeptical of dates or events or relationships are described with some term like "recently" where anyone else who give the exact date. Sort of like parsing a Bill Clinton deposition.

The column was on his IL state senate web site from late 2002 until it was removed from all his sites in 2003 when he began his campaign for the US Senate and needed voters downstate where the voters supported the war by an overwhelming majority.

There are a few variants floating around, some with an addition or change that contains something that shows knowledge of much later events that version being from 2002. There are suspicions that even the version in his column was revised just before he submitted it in light of events and the public response during those weeks after Oct 2, 2002.

There was a NY Times article in early 2007 about how the campaign was unable to locate a recording of the speech and had to recreate and rerecord it for use in the campaign. I now believe that this article was a pre-emptive CYA in case people realized the speech had to be recreated, but disclosed quietly and so early that almost everyone would just assume that it was a recording of the actual speech from 2002.

I found a discussion at Lessig from when he first discovered the lack of a transcript, recording, or media reports of the speech. In the discussion that followed, they discuss several other things like the speech disappearing from Obama's web sites, and link to a couple of other articles that I found quite interesting, particularly those at blackagendareport.

http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/01/barack_obamas_2002_speech.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. Thanks .. So then ..
how did the speech thing actually get started? Obama can correctly claim that he was making speeches on the subject at the time? But there's no proof? I know Clinton has picked it up and run with her mocking skills. But where did she get the ammo, the original? Did Obama mention it in a debate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:48 AM
Response to Original message
67. He was right
That's why
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lojasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
69. Anybody who reads past the front page of the paper
could understand that the war was a sham. The CIA and state department distanced themselves from WHIG almost daily. They just didn't get play on the teevee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
70. What Utter Bullcrap...
I was a press secretary for a Democratic Candidate in 2002. When Bush showed up in Cincinnati at the Museum Center to give his "mushroom cloud" speech, we released a flurry of press releases stating why going to war with Iraq was a bad idea and outlining all the potential negative consequences.

We were proven correct on all counts.

Were we the smartest guys in the room? Were we psychic?

No. We simply listened to the military and diplomatic experts and to what they were saying at the time. Everybody who knew anything about the Middle East, Terrorism, and Iraq, was screaming that this was a preposterous idea -- and that would include most of the cabinet members from George H.W. Bush's Administration and Colin Powell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
74. Scott Ridder? Hans Blix?
Edited on Thu May-29-08 08:25 AM by votesomemore
The entirety of the United Nations members? I got a huge clue.

Does anyone know where I can see that speech or read it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livetohike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
75. The people who voted for the IWR were duped (or doped) and
used their hope-I-get-political-advantage-from-kissing-Bush's-ass logic to cloud their judgment.

Since old Hill is a climber, she turned me off regarding her vote and I feel I finally saw the true person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigDDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
76. Obama 2004 on war resolution:
"But I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crankychatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
79. wrong - non-MSM investigators exposed the propoganda BEFORE Invasion
There was a larger world wide protest... larger US protest than at the pinnacle of the Vietnam Conflict, PRIOR to Invasion.

Many millions of Americans opposed the invasion from the gate... Obama is just ONE of them.

It's precisely, the disaffected, anti-War independents and Republicans that Obama IS ATTRACTING.

I have to wonder what YOUR motives are here.

Edwards endorsed Obama. Do you question HIS judgement too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #79
102. There was a lot exposed before the invasion...
much of it as a result of the IWR having Bush go to the UN to put weapons inspectors back in.

I am talking pre-IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
81. tens of millions across the world knew it was bullshit
your post is.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Galway girl Donating Member (177 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
82. Good instinct V's Bad Instinct . Everyone knew it was a lie including you if you were honest
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #82
111. I knew it needed to be checked out, with the weapons inspectors
returning to Iraq.

I was never in favor of the sanctions, so I thought this would put the weapons inspectors back in, they would either find something and get rid of it, or not find something and the sanctions would end.

I never dreamed that they would not find something and we would go in to get rid of any anyway... it was obvious to me before Bush invaded that it was all bullshit from the get-go... but by then I had information from the weapons inspectors telling me that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
83. Of course it will -- so will the color of his tie, the school his kids attend,
where he went on his honeymoon, his cousin's wife's brother's barber, and whatever else they can think of.

So, just prepare for it and move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
84. Clinton Didn't Even Bother to Read the NIE Report... so how would THAT be viewed by Independents?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
85. You used to support the war in Iraq, didn't you.
Is that where this is coming from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #85
103. No, but I supported the IWR.
I thought it was a war crime that Bush invaded when Saddam was complying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-30-08 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #103
116. Did you also support the Levin amendment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-30-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #116
122. I would have, except for the provision to where a vote of the Secuirty Council
would have paved the way for the invasion. If they had left it to where Bush had to come back to the congress in 60 days I would have been all for it. In fact, had it been presented like that the arguments in favor of the IWR would have been more clear. If someone would not wait 60 days for the actual authorization, then it pretty much says they are not going to give diplomacy any kind of chance at all.

I underestimated how much of a criminal GWB would become. I viewed him more of a bumbling lazy goof-off rather than evil incarnate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnarchoFreeThinker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
86. I also wasn't briefed. I just know bullshit when I hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wowimthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
87. I wasn't privy to the briefings either but I think I know way more than this current administration
As a matter of fact I've been right about everything. What does not being briefed have to do with good judgment? Many weren't briefed and many were correct about this dumb ideological mistake called Iraq. All you had to do was look at Bush and Powell and everyone else and you knew they were lying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wowimthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. Clinton lied. Kerry lied. Edwards lied. They all knew what this vote was.
Durbin didn't fall for it. Kucinich didn't fall for it. AND OBAMA DIDN'T FALL FOR IT! The war was a LIE! How can anyone not know that by now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #89
94. In what way did any of them lie?
Edited on Thu May-29-08 02:48 PM by karynnj
The error was in giving authority on the assumption that Bush would follow the steps he spoke of and would interpret whether the conditions were met in a reasonable honest manor. Bush himself on the eve of the vote said it was not a vote for war. Read the IWR speeches - even people like Kennedy and Feingold speak of the danger that Saddam represented but said the resolution was premature. Each of the people you list are different.

Kerry was consistent from his anti-war op-ed in September 2002 in the NYT to his IWR speech in stating that war should be a last resort. He then DID speak out in late 2002 and early 2003 and spent 2004 saying it was "not a war of last resort". (a VERY strong statement from a Catholic.)

Edwards was a co-sponsor, thought war the right option and was for it through 2003 - and later said he was wrong. There is no lie there.

HRC later claimed Kerry's position that she wanted to give Bush leverage in getting inspectors in and in diplomacy, but unlike Kerry she did not speak against going to war before the war or in the early popular stages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. Hearing crickets?
Edited on Thu May-29-08 02:40 PM by politicasista
chirp, chirp, chirp

But of course, it's popular to still fashionably hate Kerry here four years later.

Never mind that he has been consistent. Never mind that he put fourth the Kerry/Feingold amendment to end the war. Never mind that he endorsed Obama before South Carolina(and caught flack here for doing so). Never mind his unwavering support and surrogate work for Obama. But, of course, that's not good enough for some. And it's too bad that Obama's supporters do not appreciate the hardwork one his surrogates has done to help Obama and his campaign. The haters will just continue to hate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
91. Most of us on DU
Edited on Thu May-29-08 01:36 PM by DearAbby
can tell bullshit when we see it...Invasion of Iraq was total bullshit. How can it be used against him? This administration lied to take us to Iraq...proof is the outing of a NOC CIA Agent to cover their lies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #91
105. Which was post IWR.
The invasion was a war crime, no doubt in my mind.

I am talking about the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
93. It wont hurt him at all. He was right, regardless of how he got there....
...and people are sick of the war, and sick of those who got us there. It won't matter how he reached his decision in the slightest. People will see that he was right, and that will be enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
97. Well, I knew they were lying because
I was listening to what the inspectors on the ground in Iraq were saying, before Bush pulled them out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #97
106. Here again.. the IWR was before the weapons inspectors returned to Iraq.
People confuse what was known before and what was revealed *after* the IWR, and mostly because of the IWR.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecdab Donating Member (834 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
98. Clearly being dead wrong about Iraq will provide McCain with an advantage
in the GE. :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
99. I really do hope they try that
Seeing that the speech was precisely on target and predicted pretty much exactly what Bush and his enablers denied could possibly happen.

You never know, Barack may simple have spoken with and listened to Sen. Bob Graham. After all, he was the only Democrat in the Senate with access to all of the unredacted intelligence, and was saying pretty much the same thing as Barack. If only more Democrats had listened to the one member they trusted to put in charge of intelligence and had all the information, it could have all turned out so much different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #99
108. They are already starting this tact...
it hasn't hit in the speech and his admission about it later, but they are hitting about him making the "judgement" to get out of Iraq without even talking to Petraeus one on one, or visiting Iraq post-surge. There theme will clearly be that he makes up his mind without gathering the facts first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-30-08 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #108
114. It's an election..... The Iraq War should be an issue.
and I'll tell you now, on Iraq, we win...and Obama most of all, because he didn't first agree and then disagree with it. Obama has been consistent. So there is nothing for him to fear. It is McCain that needs to be in fear. He had the wrong judgment.....and that will be noted, 4,000+ deaths and Billions later. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-30-08 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #108
115. A relatively simple response
Gathering the "facts" is apparently not so helpful when the "facts" are cooked up to match the policy.

I had enough facts in my possession to know that the election of Bush meant war in Iraq and that it would turn out poorly, which I why I worked for Al Gore.

I had a firm understanding that the country was composed of three major factions that were ripe for civil war once Saddam was removed. I knew that the Sunni and slaughtered the Shia at the end of desert storm. I knew that the Sunni had nerve gassed the Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war. Millions of people understood this, there is no rocket science here, the needed information was in the public domain and had been for many years.

I also knew that no WMD programs existed and that the most we would find, if anything, was leftovers accidently missed when the old stockpiles were destroyed in 92 and 93. We (the US and the UN) knew where the weapons were being produced because our "agricultural assistance" grants (under the Reagan admin) bought and paid for the "dual use" facilities, which Rummy and Cheney helped Saddam get German contractors and engineers to build. Because we bought and paid for it, we knew precisely where to inspect and what to disable to prevent more production, and did so in 92 and 93.

I knew that Al-Queda had issued a death warrant (fatwa) against Saddam, and accordingly that it was quite unlikely that Saddam would provide them any weapons. In general principle, brutal dictators do not arm their enemies, it is why they survive.

While I knew plenty to make such a speech, I am guessing in that I am a botanist with no intent of running for national office, and Barack on the other hand had such aspirations, he probably knew a bit more.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-30-08 06:51 AM
Response to Original message
117. I'm an independent. If this is an indication of how Hillary's camp thinks, no wonder she's losing.
Silly argument. Silly because I recall the situation at the time, and even though I THOUGHT Hussein had WMDs, I knew enough about the * administration that they were not to be trusted, I knew that Hussein having WMDs had nothing to do with 9/11, and there had already been enough public reports of contractadictory evidence that I suspected the public was being manipulated.

What I did NOT expect was Congress to fall for it hook, line, & sinker. I still remember that my mouth dropped open when I heard the news that Congress had passed the resolution to go to war. I knew what that resolution meant. I knew that * was chomping at the bit to bomb Iraq and would do so in short order. All these things were obvious.

Finally, for your argument to be valid, you'd have to show that McCain or Clinton even read any "secret" or confidential reports on Iraq. Clinton did not. She apparently didn't know much more than I did, and she didn't think that was important.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-30-08 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #117
121. She was briefed.
There are really two different things at play here.

1. We should not have gone to war without being 100% sure that he had WMD, and would not let them be destroyed.

2. We should not have just sat idly by unless we were at least close to 100% sure he DIDN'T have WMD and was planning to use them against us, our allies, or our military that was in the region.

In the polarity of our politics today, we tend to think of those two things as the same thing. Democrats have historically been able to see nuiance, and while explaination of the difference of those two positions won't fit on a bumper sticker, there is a difference, none-the-less.

Now, for their own political purposes, some Democrats will not admit that there was a middle ground. Granted, the administration couldn't find middle ground any more than they could find their assholes with a mirror and a stick, but I believed then, and I believe now that the Democrats were trying to force Bush into the middle ground rather than just let attack immediately.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-30-08 06:58 AM
Response to Original message
118. In light of Scotty's book, McBush would be wise never to mention Iraq again. nt
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 Sat May 11th 2024, 12:43 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