On Meet The Press, Hillary Examines Sen. Obama On Iraq

[William769]

Press release.

Sen. Obama's campaign is based on a clear premise: he gave a speech on the Iraq war in 2002 and has unequivocally opposed the war every year since. On Meet the Press, Hillary raised questions about Sen. Obama's record on Iraq:

CLINTON: What he was talking about was very directly about the story of Sen. Obama's campaign, being premised on a speech he gave in 2002 and that was to his credit. He gave a speech opposing the war in Iraq. He gave a very impassioned speech against it and consistently said that he was against the war, he would vote against the funding for the war. By 2003, that speech was off his website. By 2004, he was saying that he didn't really disagree with the way George Bush was conducting the war. And by 2005, 6, and 7, he was voting for $300 billion in funding for the war. The story of his campaign is really the story of that speech and his opposition to Iraq. I think it is fair to ask questions about, what did you do after the speech was over? And when he became a senator, he didn't go to the floor of the Senate to condemn the war in Iraq for 18 months. He didn't introduce legislation against the war in Iraq. He voted against timelines and deadlines initially. So I think it's important that we get the contrast and the comparisons out. I think that's fair game.

Watch the video here.

EVERYTHING HILLARY SAID IS BACKED UP BY THE FACTS:

While running for Senate in 2003, Sen. Obama acknowledged that he took his anti-war speech off his campaign website, calling it 'dated.' Specifically, State Senator Obama maintains that an October 2002 anti-war speech was removed from his campaign web site because - the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips."

In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution. When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "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.’ -- Note: No one disputes that Sen. Obama opposed the war from his "vantage point" as a part-time state senator in Illinois. The point we are making is that Sen. Obama acknowledged that he did not know how he would have voted had his vantage point been from the U.S. Senate.

In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush’s position on Iraq. In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, "On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. <...> There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

Until he ran for president, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq, some $300 billion. <2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06, HR5631, 9/7/06>

Sen. Obama waited 18 months to give his first speech on the Senate floor devoted to Iraq, in which he opposed a timeline for withdrawal. Obama said "I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them."

Sen. Obama didn't introduce legislation to end the Iraq war until he started running for president.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5161

[aquart]

1. It won't matter.

An old boomer having the nerve to challenge a "young" Obama? Is that even legal?

[jefferson_dem]

2. The Hillary camp rushes to smooth over her shoddy performance with Timbo.

Too late. Damage done.

[William769]

3. I thought the performance was great.

Just like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

P.S. Facts are facts.

[Lucinda]

5. I missed her this morning. But I have to assume she did very well

when I see all the wailing and gnashing of teeth around here today. :)

[William769]

6. You can catch it here if you like.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22635125#22635201

:hi:

[Lucinda]

9. Thanks...but i'm in the mountains on dialup. I could walk to Nevada and ask

her to recap, faster than I can get video to load. :(

[rodeodance]

14. I listened and learned a lot. She was very articulate.

[Lucinda]

36. Talking about specifics is her strong suit.

I'm glad she's doing the Q & A's on the campaign trail.

[desi]

12. Absolutely Billy...

I hate to be crude but crude I shall be. Tim Russert is walking around today with one of Hillary's heels firmly up his ass....

K&R

Si Se Puede !!!

[avrdream]

26. I got that impression from reading the transcript.

Payback, Tim.

[liberalnurse]

8. I was so inspired by her composure, control

and detailed presence on "Meet the Press" that I went over to the HRC Campaign Store Online and bought some bumper stickers, a jacket, 2-shirts and window signs.

[rodeodance]

13. I had the extra $$ I would do so also. I thought she dished it back to Russturd very well.

[desi]

19. Yes she was in complete control.

She did not let Russert get away with his gotcha nonsense, especially using snippets of comments by Bill. Check out the Plain Dealer's OP-ED contributors today. Especially the one about Tubbs-Jones. Elizabeth Auster: Tubbs Jones is no Obama girl

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/elizabeth_auster/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/1200130585212380.xml&coll=2

And Thomas Suddes: Write it down - Ohio is going Hillary's way

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/thomas_suddes/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1200130439212380.xml&coll=2

[Faygo Kid]

4. Hillary on her war vote today: She "thought it was a vote to put inspectors back in"

What a load of crap. Hoisted on her own petard. Did anybody here on DU believe the vote to authorize war was anything but a free pass for George W. Bush to wage war? And yes, I mean at the time it was taken, in 2002.

It didn't take a "Jesuitical argument" to figure out what that vote was going to mean. She is STILL trying to spin it as a correct decision at the time.

From Huffington Post, on today's "Meet the Press" interview: Moderator Tim Russert pointed out that the title of the resolution was the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." Clinton responded saying, "We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, 'It was not a vote for war,' What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, 'If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job,' I was told that's exactly what we intended to do. "

[Diane R]

10. If she's that stupid she's not fit to be president.

[liberalnurse]

18. So, you want this guy?

[Diane R]

20. Yes. I want Obama. Bush didn't fool him.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

24. I don't think she would be so stupid?

[rodeodance]

11. yes, it was--ask Chuck Hagel.

[Faygo Kid]

15. Screw Hagel, he's not running for president as a Dem

I am sick and tired of Hillary's BS on the war, and this morning was the worst. The damned resolution authorized the "use of force." I and everyone I know knew what that meant, particularly in light of Bush's saber-rattling.

She just can't do what Edwards did, admit it was a mistake (a big one) and move on. She did herself no favors today with that horrible answer.

[MethuenProgressive]

7. "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

What a stupid thing to say out loud, Barack.

[Diane R]

21. Isn't that the truth. Yet she claims she's 'An Agent of CHANGE!".

[MethuenProgressive]

22. Diane, that's an Obama quote from 2004. Ya got a little egg on your face there...

[unc70]

27. and not much of a difference with Clinton now.

Obama would still have troops in Iraq with an anti-terrorism mission. Indefinitely.

Obama has a nearly identical voting record with except for K-L (Iran) vote/absence.

Obama makes statements on Iraq that carefully constructed to leave a false impression with his listeners, glossing over his actual positions without saying anything actually untrue. The listener is likely to fill the gaps to build a narrative that falls apart if ever examined in detail, but they are so inspired that few ever make the effort. This reminds me a bit of Bush saying 9/11 and Iraq in consecutive sentences to build an impression while allowing a later denial. I find Obama much more skilled and more subtle in his approach.

Clinton has a slightly more-aggressive underlying position but is a little more-likely to discuss things in detail.

My journal has a couple of posts where I tried to enlighten supporters of both Clinton and Obama to what their candidates had actually said. The thread from last October is rather interesting in showing showing much the same spin and misdirection found in posts today.

For the record, I support Edwards who would immediately stop combat and anti-terrorism operations and withdraw all troops within the first year, except for the contingent of Marines to guard the embassy.


If you think I'm wrong (after reading that thread), then post you evidence and let us have a go at it. If I'm wrong, I will post a retraction thread.

If you discover that Obama has mislead you and not genuine, let everyone know what happens to a dis-illusioned Obama supporter.

[ellisonz]

30. "except for the contingent of Marines to guard the embassy."

You would need a division with air support to secure the embassy, and what about the airport? What about supply lines to Kuwait?

Sounds like JRE is talking out of his butt, again.

[unc70]

32. Certainly a smaller number than Obama's antiterrorism forces

Edwards expects a lot more Marines would be needed to guard the embasssy, 2-3 thousand but without groups like Blackwater.

That is in the middle of Richardson's boundaries: he could see maybe 1,000; if 5,000 were needed then he would close the embassy.

So how many troops does Obama leave in Iraq after his withdrawl plan is completed? Those for the embassy, those for anti-terrorism, certainly any others you think Edwards would need. So just how many is that? 10,000? 20,000? More? Any training?

[ellisonz]

34. What I know is that you can't just leave 2-3 thousand Marines...

...in a stationary position in the middle of a hostile nation.

Truth be told, Obama has committed to a hyper-specific proposal, and I think that is a good thing because it gives him the political latitude to make correct decisions that reflect the reality on the ground. I think realistically that the Iraqi army will continue to require American air support and training. I also think that the United States has the obligation to not only guard it's own embassy, but to ensure that the Iraqi government can deliberate without fear of major attack. I think that realistically you're looking at 20,000-40,000 soldiers on the ground for at least a year to accomplish this mission.

A SUBSTANTIAL, IMMEDIATE REDEPLOYMENT OF AMERICAN TROOPS "There is no military solution in Iraq. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to begin immediately to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now."

All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009: Barack Obama would immediately begin redeploying American troops from Iraq. The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Troops would be removed from secure areas first, with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas. The drawdown would begin immediately with one to two combat brigades redeploying each month and all troops engaged in combat operations out by the end of next year.

Residual Force to Remain: Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq. If Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we would also continue training the Iraqi Security Forces. In the event of an outbreak of genocide, we would reserve the right to intervene, with the international community, if that intervention was needed to provide civilians with a safehaven.

Source: factsheet at the bottom of the page: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

It took 40,000 soldiers to accomplish a similar mission in Bosnia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNPROFOR

[unc70]

37. Obama seems to distinguish between combat and special forces/ops

One of Obama's flexible definitions is that combat troops apparently don't include special forces/ops, trainers, and certain logistics.

So in summary, how many troops of all types would Obama have in Iraq after 1 year, 2 years, 3, 4 ? If that number is really near to zero, there is no need to concern ourselves with any second term!

[salin]

16. Hi Huckfan,

I thought Senator Clinton did well on Meet the Press this morning.

[Rock_Garden]

17. Thank you, William. Actually, the last line of your piece is the most interesting.

[rodeodance]

23. Topic subject Clinton was awesome on MEET THE PRESS

Forum Name General Discussion: Politics
Topic subject Clinton was awesome on MEET THE PRESS
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4055617#4055617
4055617, Clinton was awesome on MEET THE PRESS
Posted by mr715 on Sun Jan-13-08 05:22 PM

If you saw it, and are honest to yourself, you'll see her in her element. She was poised, intelligent, and despite tough questions, answered them with equal poise.

She is a gifted politician and yes, she lacks the charisma of Obama or Edwards, but she DOES have familiarity with policy and experience that both of them lack. Her statements today were clear and well thought out, and expressed with the pithy clarity we need from a candidate. She is MADE for elections, and for better or worse, she speaks in sound bytes. She is a machine.

I am a Clinton supporter and I BELIEVE the tears were fake. I'm probably the only one, but I place value first on the ability to win elections and Clinton is surgical. Every word out of her mouth is optimized for success and I see her eviscerating any Republican.

Obama and Edwards give better stump speeches, but at a debate, she wrecks it.

[Barack_America]

25. Obama didn't vote for funding for the WAR

He voted for funding for the TROOPS that were already stuck there. They should go with pay and armoring for their vehicles?

War is easy to get into and hard to get out of.

Hillary voted for us to get into the war, not Obama.

Because Clinton supporters are so balanced, care to give us Hillary's voting record on those resolutions?

[unc70]

28. Her funding votes are the same as your guy! n/t

[Barack_America]

35. So the only difference then is that SHE voted for the war and HE didn't.

Thanks for clearing that up!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4056512

[unc70]

39. and Obama had no opportunity to vote for or against the war

Our only option is to see what he said (very little?) and how he voted (with Clinton).

Obama isn't horrible. It is just that his talk eclipses his actions. Typcial.

[liberalnurse]

29. He wasn't even in the U.S Senate at the time of the vote.

He was only a meager State Senator in Illinois at the time. :think:

[sunonmars]

31. no he was too busy buying a house

[zulchzulu]

33. All that matters is that blood is on Hillary's hands and she can't face that truth

Bringing up Obama's web site from FIVE YEARS AGO as an issue is as pathetic as bringing up his kindergarten paper.

Hillary is doing a great job bringing up the iraq War vote.

It's excellent for the Obama campaign that she wants to bring it up because there will be plenty of ads showing her as the war hawk that she is.

Should Obama have let the troops high and dry without funding due to them being sent into harm's way from Hillary's vote?

Should they not get armor because of her lack of leadership to get suckered and punked by Bush into letting him go to war?

She can distort Obama's record all she wants. She's on the defensive and the war vote will be fresh on the voter's mind the more she attacks him.

[unc70]

38. Stop the funding. See what happens. Ask Mike Gravel.

Any Obama supporters have any clue about the 1960's and Vietnam? If not, start by talking to Gravel. You might even learn something.

[Levgreee]

40. Clarification for Obama

The "facts" on Hilary's websites are disingenuous and deceptive. I will clearly explain why, here.

This is Obama's stance, put very simply.
1.He was ALWAYS against the war, he always thought it was the wrong choice to go in. He thought it was wrong in 2002, in 2004, and in 2007.

2.He was NOT ALWAYS against supporting the war. Once the invasion had occurred and couldn't be undone, he was for funding the troops, and he was for keeping peace and giving time for the Iraqis to sort things out.

2. is not contradictory with 1..

Here is a quote...

"Us rushing headlong into a war unilaterally was a mistake and may still be a mistake...
IF it has happened, then at that point what the debate's really gonna be about is what is our long term commitment is there. How much is is it going to cost, what does it mean for us to rebuild Iraq, how do we stabilize and make sure that this country doesn't splinter into factions between the Shi'as, and the Kurds, and the Sunnis." - Barack Obama

This quote clearly explains his view. Rushing into the war was wrong. HOWEVER, once we were there, we had a responsibility to help rebuild the country, which means funding the war. So Obama was always against the war occurring, but considered it a poor choice to pull funding/pull out, for some time, after we invaded. After we had gave them time, Barrack supported a phase withdrawal.

This is a totally reasonable, consistent view, and personally one I agree with completely.



So for the Bush quote...""On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. <...> There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

Obama is saying that he agrees with how George Bush was handling the war at the time. He agreed that, once we were in, we had to give the Iraqi's some time. This is consistent with his views.



As for the statement about not having the intelligence the senate had..."The point we are making is that Sen. Obama acknowledged that he did not know how he would have voted had his vantage point been from the U.S. Senate."

Here is Obama's rebuttal to this, straight from his website.
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.”




This is a completely reasonable view. He was strongly opposed to the war, and believed all Americans should have been, because the case wasn't made to them, and it had to. It is the sign of a reasonable, honest person, to say he did have limits on what he knew(but those limits were determined by the administration).

Even when saying he didn't know he'd vote, he stayed firm in criticizing congress for how much pass they gave Bush. Further shown by this quote...

"OBAMA: But keep in mind, I think this is a tough question and a tough call. What I do think is that if you're going to make these tough calls, you have to do so in a transparent way, in an honest way, talk to the American people, trust their judgment."

So his opinion is, even if he didn't know what the senate knew, from his vantage point, the case was not made, the senate didn't scrutinize Bush enough, and for such a tough call, there wasn't enough transparency and honesty. This is the view of a reasonable person, about as much of a skeptic you can be while still being intellectually honest, and the view that I share.

I don't know what Bush knew about Iraq, perhaps he had enough evidence, but I knew he didn't display enough evidence to the American people, and was misleading.

Obama avoided an all or nothing view, because the "all" completely approving the war, and the "nothing" view, view of completely opposing every aspect of the war, are both incorrect. Issues are rarely simple enough that they are all or nothing... Hilary has taken exploited this more nuanced view of Obama's. Although, on Obama's part, I don't think he has done a well enough job on explaining his view to the people.

However, I am sure Hilary knew how she was manipulating the facts, just like she did with abortion in New Hampshire. Which I must say, is what disgusts me the most, and is why I am very against voting her at the time.