Barack Obama Was Against The Iraq War Before He Was Against The Iraq War

February 2008
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Jan		Mar »
	1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29

What the trouble of a Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain presidential campaign boils down to is that Hillary Clinton is just too much like John Kerry. She's got the same vulnerabilities, the same indefensible position of criticizing the Iraq War while refusing to say that it was a mistake to start the war, and having gone along with Bush's whole Iraq invasion idea from the start. Hillary Clinton was for the Iraq War before she was against it.

I was just having a conversation about the 2008 presidential election, and the reasons that so many people have decided to support Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Some people might express it in terms of which candidate is better able to strongly campaign against John McCain. Bill Clinton himself has said that Hillary Clinton and John McCain are such great friends that any campaign between the two of them would probably put voters to sleep if they ran against each other. Bill Clinton couldn’t seem to understand that such a thing would be unattractive to Democrats.

What the trouble of a Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain presidential campaign boils down to, however, is that Hillary Clinton is just too much like John Kerry. She’s got the same vulnerabilities, the same indefensible position of criticizing the Iraq War while refusing to say that it was a mistake to start the war, and having gone along with Bush’s whole Iraq invasion idea from the start. Hillary Clinton was for the Iraq War before she was against it.

Not Barack Obama. Barack Obama was against the Iraq War before he was against the Iraq War.

Date: February 16, 2008

Author: Peregrin Wood

Categories: democrats, election 2008, war and peace

Tags: clinton, iraq, kerry, mccain, obama, war

(368 votes, average: 2.84 out of 5)

Loading ...

You need to be loged to make a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 20 comments

Iroquois

in February 17th, 2008 @ 11:19

Obama is not an anti-war candidate.

What about Obama’s 2004 statement during the Kerry campaign that he didn’t know how he would have voted?

And what about all those votes in the senate in favor of authorizing funds for the war?

While we’re on the subject, your bumper sticker refers to a 2002 speech he gave with Jesse Jackson at his side. What he said was “I’m not against all wars, I’m against this war.” But when the war proved so popular, he took that speech off of his website. Then he said during a debate that he would bomb Pakistan.

So your bumper sticker should say “Obama was against the war, before he didn’t know his position on the war, before he voted for the war, before took his anti-war statement off his website, before he said anyone who says he wasn’t against the war is a racist, before he said Bomb Pakistan.” You’re going to need a larger bumper sticker.
Jim

in February 17th, 2008 @ 15:18

For someone who is playing the stickler, you should be exact.

Is that exactly what Obama said? Reeeeeeally?

You silly.
Frank Liberal

in February 17th, 2008 @ 17:22

I am sick of your slurs and distortions, Iroquois. Barack Obama was the only candidate who got Iraq anywhere close to right – from the start. Can you even explain Hillary Clinton’s position on Iraq in less than three paragraphs, with footnotes, escape clauses, and analysis of changes over time?
Iroquois

in February 17th, 2008 @ 20:14

Oh, so now I’m “silly” and “distorting” and writing “slurs”? Instead of checking the facts yourself, you just start in with the name calling? I guess that means that facts don’t say what you wish they said.

The following is what Obama said, from his 2002 website via the Wayback Machine. You will notice he doesn’t actually come out and say he is against a war in Iraq, and he does say Saddam has chemical weapons and is trying to develop nuclear weapons, which we now think was pretty far from what was going on in Iraq at that time.

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

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

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

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda.

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

http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/01/barack_obamas_2002_speech.html

Maybe you can get JClifford to help you find Obama’s voting record on funding the war. I hear it’s really easy to check if you know how.

I would think, Frank, the Kucinich position on Iraq would be much closer to your own, or even the Clinton position that calls for withdrawal of troops to begin within 90 days.
Jim

in February 17th, 2008 @ 20:26

You didn’t answer my question.
Iroquois

in February 17th, 2008 @ 20:42

Sorry, Jim but it does answer your question. If you want to know what Obama said it’s all right there. It doesn’t fool me any more than the language authorizing the invasion itself–couched in terms to make it look like it was about supporting the U.N. resolution. I’m afraid your favorite little politicians are just that, accomplished lawyers who know how to make words serve their own political purposes, before and after the fact.

Let me also point out that I’m being a lot nicer that the writers here by providing a link. Funny how they don’t like links until it’s their turn to want one.
Jim

in February 17th, 2008 @ 23:51

No. Show me the quote from Barack Obama that says “bomb Pakistan.” Show me the quote from Barack Obama that says “anyone who says I wasn’t against the war is a racist.” Because you said he said these things, and you’re being amazingly literal about what is obviously an anti-war speech, so you need to be either similarly amazingly literal about your claims in these regards, or you need to drop those claims.
Iroquois

in February 18th, 2008 @ 01:03

This was not an obviously anti-war speech. If events had turned a different way and the war had been a success, the speech would read as if it was just against stupid wars, and since Bush satified all the conditions in the speech by making the invasion by a coalition etc, the war would no longer qualify as stupid, and it would sound as if Obama had supported it as long as Bush took his advice and it was done in a smart way. There is a way to read the speech as “I would go along with the war if…” and all the “if” conditions were met.

Parse Obama’s Jena 6 statement. It’s crafted equally well. The guy’s no dummy. If he didn’t write it himself, he knows exactly who to hire.

August video:
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=62500&newsChannel=domesticNews
some cute sound bites also from August with McCain making scary nuclear noises, and the claim that Pakistan lodged a protest to Obama’s statement:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/06/wuspols106.xml
Pakistan officials protest Obama statement quoted exactly in NYT:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/obama-takes-heat-on-pakistan/

The bomb Pakistan statement was made again in the recent debate in New Hampshire, the one that everyone had so much trouble trying to watch online. I heard Obama make the statement myself while sitting in some godforsaken New Hampshire bar with hockey fans watching the other two TV’s. You can probably find the transcript easier than I can. I think the name of the college hosting the debate was Saint Anselm.

The Obama campaign memo where Bill Clinton calls Obama’s anti-war record a fairy tale:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/read-obama-campaign-memo-_n_81220.html

I thought we agreed to disengage, Jim. That Frank Liberal has written multiple posts making multiple unsubstantiated accusations against candidates, yet I don’t see you asking him for any links or demanding “show me this, show me that, you need to do this, you need to do that”. Why me? Or do I already know the answer to that question.
Iroquois

in February 18th, 2008 @ 01:26

http://irregulartimes.com/diaries/2008/02/why-america-needs-a-man-for-president/#comment-30594
Jim

in February 18th, 2008 @ 09:20

No.

The Huffington Post link does not contain any text in which Obama calls Bill Clinton racist. And the links you provide do not contain any text in which Obama says the U.S. should “bomb Pakistan.”

I am using the same standard by which you take what is obviously a speech against the Iraq War, but which you say isn’t because he doesn’t say the exact words “I oppose the war in Iraq,” which of course he couldn’t have, since there was not yet any such war.

So retract your claims, or acknowledge that your standard is bogus.
Jim

in February 18th, 2008 @ 10:36

To be a bit more explicit:

1. You assert that unless Barack Obama specifically and literally says in a speech “I oppose this particular upcoming war against Iraq,” he didn’t give a speech against the upcoming war in Iraq. Barack Obama said in this speech that he was against this particular upcoming “dumb war” half a dozen times. But because he doesn’t string the particular words you demand of him together in a line, you conclude that this wasn’t an anti-Iraq-War speech. For text that makes Barack Obama look good, you are exactingly, astoundingly literal.

2. You assert of Barack Obama that he said “he would bomb Pakistan” and called “he said anyone who says he wasn’t against the war is a racist.” Here, you go out of your way to characterize text in a non-literal way so as to make Barack Obama look bad. If you were as literal with this text as you were with his fall 2002 speech, you would NOT be able to say that Barack Obama said “he would bomb Pakistan,” because he didn’t say that literally. You also would not be able to say that Barack Obama “said anyone who says he wasn’t against the war is a racist,” because he also didn’t say that literally.

3. Your stances on Barack Obama make use of inconsistent standards.
Iroquois

in February 18th, 2008 @ 18:34

Obama’s speech did not say he opposed invading Iraq altogether. He said he opposed stupid wars, specifically wars that had no clear objectives or were unilateral. The Bush war plan answered all of objections Obama voiced in his 2002 speech.

Obama says he did not make strong anti-war statements in 2004 because it would not have been politically expedient. So what happened? He was strongly against the war in 2004 but didn’t speak out for political reasons?…or he was not strongly opposed to the war back then, but is now trying to exaggerate his opposition to the war for political reasons.

I thought his speech at that time was nuanced and a good analysis of a complex and difficult subject, but I don’t agree with the way he is trying to rewrite his record now.

Even worse is the way the Obama campaign dealt with Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” statement calling out Obama’s aznti-war claim. If you followed the remarks of the gung-ho Obama commenters right before the primary, they were all marching in step, labeling Clinton’s remark as race-baiting. The leaked memo from the Obama campaign shows it was part of an over all strategy to claim the Clinton campaign was racist. When Obama was asked about playing the race card as a campaign tactic, Obama’s answer was, “I’m playing the race card because that’s the card I’ve been dealt.”

So if you question the record of a black candidate, you are a racist. Black candidates can not be scrutinized.
Iroquois

in February 18th, 2008 @ 19:14

So you demand that I retract the statement that Obama is willing to bomb Pakistan?

While you’re at it, demand that the Pakistani government retract their official protest as well.

Here is Obama’s statement from 1/5/08:

Al Qaeda has been reconstituted and re-energized in the western part of Pakistan. And so my general question is: How aggressively would you go after al Qaeda leadership there? And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after him whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?

SEN. OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on al Qaeda, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our National Intelligence Estimates is that al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001, and so back in August I said we should work with the Pakistani government. First of all, they encourage democracy in Pakistan, so you’ve got a legitimate government that we’re working with, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on al Qaeda in their territory.

What I said was if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean, the heads of the 9/11 commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it’s indisputable that that should be our course.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-ddebate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

But what did Obama really mean by the word “strike”? I suppose there will be some misinformed people-old disgusting baby-boomer type of people–who think he meant a military strike and will now go off and make a video of Obama saying those words with pictures of rock stars–old disgusting rock stars like Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Grace Slick, Jerry Garcia, or Mick Jagger–superimposed.

But Obama really meant he would “strike a match”–in order to light a candle for peace.

Yes, only Barack Obama is the true peace candidate.
Iroquois

in February 18th, 2008 @ 20:11

If you still think Obama is the peace candidate, go on over to his official website and check out the major policy speech he has posted there about the Middle East.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

You think he’s just like all the other candidates and would bring the troops home, then use the money for national health care? Just like Bill Clinton used the war dividend to pay down the national debt?

Wrong. He says the problem is not that we’re at war, we’re at the wrong war. We should bring the troops out of Iraq and send them–not home–but to Afghanistan and Pakistan because that’s where Osama ben Laden is hiding. If Obama had read his history, he would know that whoever has held Iraq has held the middle east. Whoever has gone to Afghanistan has made a big mistake–a no-win situation, sort of like invading Russia during the winter.

Obama would have us sending our treasure, as well as our delicious young males not to Iraq, which has some strategic importance, but to Afghanistan and Pakistan, whose only importance is that they are such a remote and inaccessible backwater that even internationally wanted bad guys can hide there.

You didn’t like a thousand years in Iraq? Try a thousand years in Pakistan.
jclifford

in February 19th, 2008 @ 01:37

Wow. You know, are you still going to claim that it was so, so, so, “stupid” of me to think that Hillary Clinton is your candidate?

I mean, where would I get that idea?
Jim

in February 19th, 2008 @ 07:28

No, no, silly J. Clifford. See, I bet she’s also considering John McCain.

Iroquois, you’re showing your inconsistent approach to the candidates again.

1. You say Obama’s anti-war speech wasn’t an anti-war speech because he described particular conditions in his reasoning against it.

2. You wholly neglect Obama’s conditions upon his statement regarding Pakistan.

Conditions? Ignore ‘em if them they would make Obama look good, inflate ‘em if doing so can make Obama look bad.

You’re behaving in a wholly unserious fashion.
Iroquois

in February 19th, 2008 @ 17:24

No, not conditional, Jim. I can see you haven’t read the policy speech I linked to, and you’re not going to read it unless I paste it here. So pasted it is:

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops out of Iraq, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then ending this war will be my first priority when I take office.

There is no military solution in Iraq. Only Iraq’s leaders can settle the grievances at the heart of Iraq’s civil war. We must apply pressure on them to act, and our best leverage is reducing our troop presence. And we must also do the hard and sustained diplomatic work in the region on behalf of peace and stability.

In ending the war, we must act with more wisdom than we started it. That is why my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support — not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda’s appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.

Ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out. It will also allow us to direct badly needed resources to Afghanistan. Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need—and deserve. As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs, and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country.

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO’s efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

This is not a peace candidate. He wants to maintain troops in Iraq, get on the battlefield in Pakistan, plus surge the troops in Afghanistan.

When we ran the Taliban out of Afghanistan, they ran to Iraq. When we surged the troops in Iraq, the Taliban ran back to Afghanistan. Now Iraq is quiet enough for the million or so Iraqi refugees to be out of Jordan and back in Iraq. So where are these estimated ten thousand Taliban members supposed to go next when Afghanistan gets invaded this time around?

This guy needs to take his own advice about stupid wars and having an endgame in mind before you go in. Oh, wait, the country never changes administrations during a war, so I guess he’s thinking ahead to his second term already. In that light, it’s a pretty good strategy–except for the soldiers and their families.

Of course that also means no peace dividend and no national health care (for those wealthy enough to afford the Obama plan).
Jim

in February 19th, 2008 @ 20:21

You just changed the subject.

You said Barack Obama said he would “bomb Pakistan.” Bomb Pakistan? Without condition? No, not without condition. So by your own standard that would make Barack Obama NOT in favor of bombing Pakistan at all.
Iroquois

in February 20th, 2008 @ 00:28

I don’t know why the Pakistani government is so all bent out of shape and making all those diplomatic protests and stuff.

Did you see this statement from Obama?

Obama only wants to SAY he will withdraw troops as a way to pressure Iraq to solve their differences.

The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 — a date consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. This redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks to which it has committed.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p10/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
Roni

in February 25th, 2008 @ 09:56

Barack said that he did not want to denigrate John Kerry so he said what he said because he was at the convention supporting Kerry. If he said he was against the war, it would have been bad for Kerry. Obama is now running on his own so he can say what he always believed. He will choose peace and will negotiate first before getting us into a war. Every country needs defense. That is the bottom line. Even the peaceful Hopi Indians had the Tiwa tribe to fight for them.

Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

Irregular Times Main Page

Start A Diary or Log In

Recent Comments

Tshirts

Recent Posts

Political Buttons

Bumper Stickers

Barack Obama Was Against The Iraq War Before He Was Against The Iraq War

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 20 comments

Iroquois

Jim

Frank Liberal

Iroquois

Jim

Iroquois

Jim

Iroquois

Iroquois

Jim

Jim

Iroquois

Iroquois

Iroquois

jclifford

Jim

Iroquois

Jim

Iroquois

Roni