by Rick Pearson
DES MOINES — Sen. Barack Obama today chided his Democratic presidential rivals for vehemently opposing the Iraq War after initially voting to authorize it, contending real leaders don't get any "do-overs" on an issue as monumental as war.
At the same time, speaking only a few blocks away from the Illinois senator, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) called for a quick pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq, citing a lack of progress that is expected to be detailed in a White House-issued report.
The dueling appearances by Obama and Clinton symbolized the efforts by Democratic candidates to seize upon public discontent over progress in Iraq in advance of a Friday report that is expected to show that the Iraq government has not met any of the goals outlined by the U.S. for political and economic reforms.
Obama, speaking to an audience at the Des Moines Area Community College's urban campus, sought to further differentiate himself from Clinton as well as former Sen. John Edwards, who has been leading in early polling for the first-in-the nation caucus held in Iowa in January. Clinton and Edwards have repudiated their vote to authorize the war while Obama said his opposition to the Iraq invasion in 2002, before he entered the Senate, was not politically popular at the time.
"But I believed then, and I still believe, that being a leader means that you'd better do what's right and leave the politics aside, because there are no do-overs on an issue as important as war," Obama told an audience at the Des Moines Area Community College's downtown campus.
"The single most important judgment that a president or member of Congress can make is the decision to send our troops into harms way," he said. "There are no good options in Iraq. There are bad options and worse options. That's why you make good decisions on the front end."
Noting that none of the reform benchmarks set by the White House for the Iraqi government appears to have been met, Obama said it was time for bipartisan efforts to craft a "responsible but certain" plan for bringing combat troops home.
Later, Obama acknowleged his belief that some troops would still have to be shifted to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where, he said, "the real war on terror should have been maintained." He warned that "Pakistan is starting to slip" to extremists, posing serious problems since that nation has a nuclear program.
Meanwhile, in Des Moines's downtown, Clinton told an audience at the Temple for Performing Arts that she would continue her efforts to try to repeal congressional authorization for the war. She has said her vote to authorize the war was a mistake given what she knows now.
"Our message to the president is clear," she said. "It is time to begin ending this war—not next year, not next month, but today."
Clinton told the audience that ending the war "will be my first and most important mission as president" if President Bush fails to act.
The dueling in Des Moines came as a new USA Today/Gallup poll showed Clinton broadening her support nationally among Democrats surveyed to 37 percent, up 4 percentage points from a month ago, while Obama's support remained unchanged at 21 percent.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I'm suspect of Obama's attempts to distinguish himself from Clinton on the Iraq War. First, his voting while being a Senator has been in lockstep with Clinton. In my view, actions speak much louder than rhetoric. Second, when he opposed the war, he was not a Senator, and did not have the political pressure nor responsibility of actually having to be accountable for his stance on Iraq. I find this significant, as I can't think of any circumstance while he has been a Senator where he has broken from party lines. Finally, Obama admitted he did not have the intelligence reports to make an informed decision. In a 2004 interview with the NY Times, when asked about the congressional vote to authorize force in Iraq, he stated: ". . . but I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know."
Posted by: Herbie H. | July 10, 2007 3:50 PM
Hey, Libune readers, didja hear about this anti-war protestor--he wanted to end the war as quickly as possible. His reaction is simply the logical conclusion to a frenzied opposition to the war. Didn't see any mention in today's opus.
Gunman Shoots McGuire Airman, Then Kills Self
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=5451694
If the victim were a minority or a homosexual, it'd be front-page.
Posted by: Apollo Screed | July 10, 2007 4:06 PM
Posted by Herb July 10, 2007 3:50 PM
Nice spin Peach's and Herb, I'd say Obama made a good call however you want to twist it.
Posted by: John E | July 10, 2007 4:23 PM
Herbie, you're suspicious about Obama's stance on the Bush War and not Hillary/Bill?
Think about what you said: 1. Obama was not in the Senate so he did not have to make a decision under pressure. 2 Obama did not have the intell reports to make an informed decision.
1. Hillary/Bill was in the Senate and allowed themselves to be caught up in the fear mongering revved up by the Bush/Cheney gang of liars. In their position Hillary/Bill had the duty to ask all of the hardest questions imaginable to raise as much doubt as possible about what she was going to authorize. The people of NY should have demanded nothing less. 911 was not a license for the madness that ensued in Iraq. Performance under pressure was a failure of Hillary/Bill.
2. The intelligence reports were available for all congress persons. Hillary/Bill got the intell reports, but they did not read them. On the most important decision Congress had to make in a decade, committing this country to a war, Hillary/Bill were out to lunch with a lot of Democrats. As member of the opposition party everything Bush wanted to do should have been subjected to very careful scrutiny. Unfortunately the Dems who voted against the authorization were too few to stop it. Hillary/Bill would have shown great vision had they read the report and seen the fallacies. Not having been privy to the reports would render anyone incapable of knowing what they would have done. So don't be suspicious about that.
Posted by: GW | July 10, 2007 5:02 PM
I have no doubt Obama would have voted to authorize the president in 2003.
That said, Clinton's got to come clean and admit she made a mistake in not reading the NIE.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | July 10, 2007 5:40 PM
GW wrote:
Herbie, you're suspicious about Obama's stance on the Bush War and not Hillary/Bill?
---------------------------
That's not what I said, GW. I am not defending Hillary Clinton. I tried to point out that the distinction that Obama is trying to create between he and Hillary on the Iraq War is not as clean cut as Obama would like it to be, if it ever existed at all. My humble apologies for not making myself clear.
John E., I tried to use facts and reasoning to make a point. I am sorry that my post does not rise to the level of you feeling the need to offer facts and reasoning in rebuttal. I will try harder the next time, and I appreciate your patience.
Posted by: Herbie H. | July 10, 2007 6:19 PM
Herbie,
Your "facts" rise to the same level as a Fox Noise Channel "news" broadcast.
Posted by: John E | July 10, 2007 6:33 PM
So, which accent did Hillary use in her
Iowa speech: down home Alabama,
Arkansas, New Yawk, or Chicago Bears?
She's the Rich Little of daytime politics.
Question of the day for Obama: Which Hillary will show up to debate?
Posted by: Shaka | July 10, 2007 6:44 PM
John E., are you implying that my facts are inaccurate? Please state for me specifically where I am mistaken. Please distinguish between the facts I stated and the conclusions I drew from them. The conclusions you can take or leave, but I would like to know if my post contained factual inaccuracies, and what precisely they are. Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Herbie H. | July 11, 2007 1:55 PM