Obama's track record on Iraq not so spotless... interesting read.

[Texas Hill Country]

This was written by someone in Dubya's administration, so is a bit of a flame, but it does contain a nice summary of verifiable facts on Obama's stances, inconsistent statements, etc. I am going to assume that all of you are intelligent to filter out the partisanship.


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/RE-RETHINKING-IRAQ-br---Obama-s-War-11263


a quote from the intro... i encourage you all to read further and what you all think of this.

Please dont respond to the flames, but to the facts.

But Obama’s thoughts on the war in Iraq did not begin and end with that one speech in October 2002. In fact, an examination of both his statements and his Senate votes over the intervening years demonstrates something very different from the consistency that he and his supporters have claimed for him. It demonstrates instead a record of problematically ad-hoc judgments at best, calculatingly cynical judgments at worst. Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to stipulate that Barack Obama was right in 2002, what does this subsequent record say about his fitness to serve?

[rodeodance]

1. REC

[Submariner]

2. written by someone in Dubya's administration

I don't need to read any further. Repukes probably swift-boating the progressive candidate (Obama) in favor of the DLC neocon (Hillary), right? I thought so.

Post your repuke talking points at Freeperland. This is the Democratic Underground.

[Texas Hill Country]

3. i guess you are not intelligent enough to filter out the partisanship, that is cool....

[Submariner]

4. Just tired of you Hillbots

posting repuke talking points and lies. Pure nonsense.

[rodeodance]

6. Can't you defend the comments??---or it seems you just want to WHIN.

[Texas Hill Country]

13. Please stop saying Hillbot. It is offensive.

[uponit7771]

5. Do you really believe your source is viable here? NO ONE believes ANYTHING that comes out of Bush...

...adimn...NO ONE

[Texas Hill Country]

12. Look up the FACTS independently. Please.

[blm]

7. There was ONE powerful Democratic voice who had the MOST info on Iraq - and he sided

with Bush. And urged ALL Dem lawmakers and citizens to support Bush's decisions based on what HE knew about Iraq's threat to the US from his time as President.

Do you think that Dem president was telling Dem senators and congresspeople the complete truth or did he exaggerate to DC Dems in order to deliver support for Bush's decision to go to war?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

[rodeodance]

8. SO far no one can Defend BO---just whin.

[uponit7771]

9. The source isn't viable, only Bushies believe the Bush admin

[rodeodance]

10. still whining --no substance

[Texas Hill Country]

11. They are verifiable facts. Look them up.

[mopinko]

14. you look them up. or don't bother to post.

and you wonder why people are sick of hillbots. yes, it is offensive. it is meant to be. :eyes:

[rodeodance]

18. The ball is in your park sweetie--They will stand as Truth unless you refute them.

[Texas Hill Country]

22. i did already, kthnx

[City Lights]

15. Thanks for this.

Proves what I suspected...you cannot be taken seriously.

[557188]

16. To those who don't like the Bush admin source

Go here

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12687

I can't wait to hear people call zmag a Hillary rag!

[Texas Hill Country]

20. thank you for posting this!

[hfojvt]

17. this is apples and oranges

The decision to oppose the war from the beginning was the easy one, or should have been. Once the war began, it's much harder to figure out how to create a copacetic ending. Bush and his enablers opened a Pandora's box, so it's crap to blame war opponents like Obama and myself for not knowing how to solve a sh*tstorm of problems that Bush and Hillary helped to create. Not only that, but Hillary has been on the Hawkish side until after the 2006 elections. It should have been easy for Obama in the Senate. After all, he could have just followed the lead of a more senior Senator who has so much more experience. Right?

[Texas Hill Country]

19. how is she any more "hawkish" when they have voted the same way on every bill?

[hfojvt]

23. well there's votes and then there's speeches

Here is what I find from googling "Hillary Iraq 2005"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/11/AR2005121100846.html

"At a time when politicians in both parties have eagerly sought public forums to debate the war in Iraq, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has kept in the shadows.

Clinton has stayed steadfastly on a centrist path, criticizing President Bush but refusing to embrace the early troop withdrawal options that are gaining rapid favor in her party. This careful balance is drawing increasing scorn from liberal activists, frustrated that one of the party's leading lights has shown little appetite to challenge Bush's policy more directly and embrace a plan to set a timetable for bringing U.S. forces home."

Ready to waffle and triangulate from Day One.

Here's Obama in November 2005

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward/

Perhaps he triangulates too. He certainly does not support immediate withdrawal, but he takes steady aim at Bush and even attacks Bush with other Republicans.

[Beacool]

21. Good read, thanks!

Once again, pick a candidate on superficial grounds and that's what you get.......

[Texas Hill Country]

24. I see no one from Obama's camp disputes the fact that he was Armchair senator and Flipflopped...

nice to know there is fairness on here.