Obama: Bill Clinton Misquotes Me On Iraq

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_and_bill_duke_it_out_over_obamas_2004_war_quote.php

Obama And Bill Duke It Out Over Obama's 2004 War Quote
By Greg Sargent - January 12, 2008, 9:40AM

Yesterday, as part of his racial damage control tour, Bill Clinton took a shot at Obama that he's frequently taken during the campaign, charging that the Illinois Senator's criticism of Hillary's support of the war is disingenuous in light of something Obama said back in 2004.

Bill pointed out that at the time, Obama said that he could not say how he would have voted on the war had he been in the Senate himself in the run-up to the invasion. Bill has repeatedly pointed to this quote to cast doubt on Obama's anti-war bona fides, and it's become part of the conversation of Campaign 2008.

Obama defended himself against this criticism a few days ago, recalling that at the time he didn't want to criticize the war votes of John Kerry and John Edwards in the middle of the 2004 presidential campaign. Obama accused the former president of cherry picking from his past quote:



As it happens, Obama is right. Here is the actual Obama quote in question, from a New York Times article on July 26, 2004 (via Nexis):



So, clearly, Obama was pointing to the fact that he wasn't in the Senate at the time as a way of tactfully avoiding criticizing his party's presidential and vice-presidential nominees. It's perfectly clear that Obama was in fact against the war at the time. His position then -- as now -- was that the case for war had not been made and that the invasion wasn't justified.

says absolutely nothing concrete.

He claims Bill Clinton lied about what he said --and then you provide what Obama said --and lo and behold --it proves Bill's point.

There is zero difference between Bill's statement and Obama's.

...whilst Hillary was beating Chimpy's war drums...

Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
| October 02, 2002
October 2, 2002

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

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

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

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

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

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

Sounds like bullshit campaign speech making.

And it makes me trust him even less. Clearly he says one thing for a campaign and does something else once elected.

Funding the troops who are there when we can't get a bill passed with a withdrawal plan, is NOT the same as sending them there in the first place.

Do you have anyone close to you in Iraq? Have you asked them how they feel about the idea of cutting off funding without a withdrawal plan?

Goes both ways.

But I have a problem with her and her hubby distorting what Obama said.

if that's not clear enough for you, sorry. I have to go do other things. Bye.

that you don't see what Obama really said.

the problem with clintons statements are that they are typical politician distortions.

He says that obama cant claim clear vision on iraq because he ""didnt know how he woudl have voted" in 2004.

But the real quote from obama is that he didn't know how he would have voted if he where kerry or edwards but it was clear to him at the time that the answer was NO.


So the distortion is not the quote but the statements before hand. Your falling for slight of hand. If you can comprehend the written word you can see the distortion.

He is saying from his vantage point, with no real information, that the case wasn't made.

He say he doesn't know how he would have voted if given the same information.

again --Where is the distortion?

Heres the data you either ignore or can understand



He keeps on giving half the quote. I was always against the war...obviously I didn’t want to criticize them on the eve of their nomination. So I said, `Well, I don’t know what -- you know, I wasn’t in the Senate. I can’t say for certain what I would have done if I was there. I know that from where I stood the case was not made.’ He always leaves that out.

As it happens, Obama is right. Here is the actual Obama quote in question, from a New York Times article on July 26, 2004 (via Nexis):

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, 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.''

He doesn't know how he would have voted --because he can't know.

he does know only what his opinion is and that the answer is NO.


The first part is kindness to the current nominees who voted YES(kerry edwards)

Is that what you are saying?

He can't have it both ways.

Hillary = Pro-WAR!!
Obama = Anti-WAR!!

Talk about spin.

The truth is that Clinton was not pro-war, she was pro-IWR. I'm willing to see that she wanted diplomacy to be the key. Why can't you see that it's clear that Obama's position was anti-Iraq war in the same way that Dean was.

as Hillary is.

Which is to say --of course he is anti Iraq War

She voted for a blank check. I suggest you read Senator Leahy's speech and warning to his colleagues. I'm not suggesting she was pro-war- just foolish to trust bushco.

is not concrete?

:rofl:

Next you'll tell me it's okay when the right wingers do the same thing to distort what Democratic candidates say.

Obama says he didn't know how he would vote because he wasn't privy to the same information as the Senators.

So where is the lie?

:rofl:

That means it's okay when republicans do it, too?

''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.''

So Clinton is correct --Obama is saying he doesn't and couldn't know how he would have voted.

these statements where made at the dem convention where kerry and edwards where running. He was being polite and saying that you can never be sure what you would do given her circumstances. But his decision at the time was NO.

okay.

he said that if he wher kerry or edwards, he doesnt know how he would have voted but from his position the answer was NO.

So that means he does know that he was voting no. The first part is politeness. maybe thats why you don't understand it.

If so have you asked them what they think?

My nephew was home for Christmas, and I asked him. (He was against the invasion and is on principle against the war, but will do his duty.) He said they need a withdrawal plan first - if funding is cut guys like him will be screwed. (With the chimp-in-chief, do you doubt that?)

So for myself, I have to respect what he told me, and I now support those who will fund the troops over there while trying to get a withdrawal plan in place.

Withdrawal plan first. Fund that.

If we don't get that, people like my nephew will be the "collateral damage" of the political battle.

the funding did not require Obama's vote so why did he vote to continue the funding. This is the very criticism that is levied against other Dem's, why should I give him a pass?

I think I could respect him, or any other politician for that matter, more if they had stated their position, stuck with it and not voted for the funding.

As it is...I think the 'support the troops' argument is pretty lame.

I am/was totally against the war. However, now that the troops are there, I see them as hostages in this whole situation. The war funding is like ransom money. Even if I was anti-war, I know the troops would suffer without funding, since * would refuse to bring them home. The whole issue would have been politized to make villians out of the democrats. The dems really didn't have much of a choice with that, including Sen. Obama. I doubt he would've voted for the IWR in the first place.

Only the truly besotted buy his baloney.

"What would I have done? I don't know."
I do know. He would've voted Present.

?

No one could make that up.

All three top candidates voted to fund the war in Iraq. The only candidate who was a member of Congress who didn't well, you know the name. . .

In Mrs. Clinton’s down-to-earth micropolitics, polls often seem to play the leadership role. That leaves her indecisive when one potential market is pitched against another. Witness her equivocation over Iraq, driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and even Cubs vs. Yankees. Add to this habitual triangulation the ugly campaigning of the men around her — Mr. Penn’s sleazy invocation of “cocaine” on MSNBC, Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” rant falsifying Mr. Obama’s record on Iraq — and you don’t have change. You have the acrimonious 1990s that the Republicans are dying to refight, because that’s the only real tactic they have.

It would be good for both her campaign and the presidential race in general if Mrs. Clinton does find her own voice. We’ll know she has done so when it doesn’t sound so uncannily like Bill Clinton and Mark Penn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/opinion/13rich.html?hp

doing control damage on Meet the Press right now <10:45 am.>

These bi-partisan black leaders you speak of are inadvertently setting the Democrats up for certain failure in the fall. Now if Obama wins Americans won't want to support him because they won't want to listen to a handful of black leaders crying "racism" every other day when people start the usual criticism of the president. This is as certain as tomorrow. We might soon see Karl Rove kissing these "bi-partisan black leaders."

The truth is, he doesn't know how he would have voted, and most likely would have voted in favor of it given his presidential ambitions and the absence of any history of political risk taking. Remember, at the time any Congressional lawmaker who came out voicing criticism of the resolution was publicly charged with being anti-American, etc., and this was shortly after 9/11 when such charges were having an impact.

I tip my hat to brave federal lawmakers like Senators Feingold and Leahy, who both have a history of swimming against the political currents and both voted against the IWR. I doubt that either lawmaker will ever make a serious bid for the presidency--which is our loss--but these federal lawmakers have decided that being true to themselves and the people they represent takes first priority. Obama wasn't on the national stage at the time, nor was he privy to all of the intelligence that the Bush administration showed Congress. The vote was certainly wrong, but all the intelligence that was presented to Congress made a strong case for Iraq's non-existent WMDs and Obama didn't have the responsibility of keeping the nation safe--he was just a state legislator at the time. It underscores one of Obama's greatest weaknesses: lack of experience on the national and international stages, so neither we nor Obama can be certain how he'd react in certain circumstances.

It was safe for him to take the position he did on this particular issue, but to be quite honest he wasn't just out of the loop; he wasn't even near the loop. So to run around claiming that he definitely would have voted against the IWR and using that as an example of his good judgment is, as Bill Clinton has said, disingenuous, and demonstrates an example of his dishonesty and the poor judgment of not being honest with the people. The truth takes courage and the truth is that he can't honestly say for sure that he would have voted against the resolution any more than we can say what we'd do if we had been senators at the time. I was against invading Iraq from the start, but I can't honestly say how I would have voted because I wasn't a US senator at the time. I'd like to think I would have voted against it, but I can't say with certainty any more than I could say exactly what I'd do in certain life-threatening emergency situations.

I'm not particularly a fan of Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's. I think either candidate will have a very difficult time winning in the fall, but Obama's positioning and use of this issue causes me to lose respect for him and makes it less likely that I'd vote for him at any time in the future, in this election or in future elections. I'd be more impressed if he stuck to his claim that he couldn't say for sure how he would have voted. I'd respect his honesty.