• 
• 
• 
• 
by Mark Silva
"I opposed this war from the start and Sen. Clinton did not,'' Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois says in an interview aired this evening on National Public Radio, distilling the difference that he hopes to draw between himself and his party's frontrunner into 12 plain words.
Obama, who trails Clinton by 20 percentage points in national polls, has ratcheted up his campaign against the senator from New York and former first lady. Andrea Seabrook, reporting for NPR's All Things Considered, asked what he considers to be the weaknesses of the party's front-runner.
"Well, I think that I am stronger for the kinds of challenges that we’re going to face in the next several years,'' Obama told Seabrook. "Otherwise I wouldn’t be running for president.
"I think that the two key challenges that we face is to bring this country together and make sure that we can actually overcome the special interest-driven politics and the partisanship in Washington to get things done on healthcare and on energy,'' Obama said, in the interview taped yesterday on the campaign trail in Iowa and broadcast this evening. "And I think that I’m in a better position to bring the country together than Sen. Clinton is.
"I also think the second big challenge is to repair the damage that’s been done by George Bush when it comes to foreign policy,'' Obama said.
The Clinton campaign suggests that Obama is resorting to tired tactics.
"Once again, Sen. Obama has abandoned the politics of hope to engage in the same old attack politics," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. "If Sen. Obama really believed that this measure gave the president a blank check for war, he should have been there, speaking out and fighting against it."
"Then let’s turn to foreign policy,'' Seabrook asked the candidate in the NPR interview. "You and Senator Clinton, neither of you have agreed to directly pulling out troops as some in your party would like. What’s the difference between you two on Iraq on what you would actually do now?''
OBAMA: " Well, I think it is important to understand that I opposed this war from the start and Senator Clinton did not.'
SEABROOK: " What difference does that make now, sir, though?''
OBAMA: "Because what it shows is judgment, because we’re going to have – we can’t anticipate what challenges we’re going to face in the future. Nobody knew that in 2001, our foreign policy would fundamentally be transformed.
"And the question is, how are you going to react to the new challenges and the new opportunities that present themselves in the years to come? And on the most important foreign policy issue of a generation, I got it right and others did not. And that has bearing in terms of how I will approach and assess the critical choices that lie ahead.''
SEABROOK: "So what would you do now that is different than what Senator Clinton would do?''
OBAMA: "Well, you know, I won’t speak for Senator Clinton in terms of how she would approach it. But I think that the way you characterize it is quite right. I have said that we have to get our troops out and that we have to do so as quickly as possible. I would have all of our combat troops out at a pace of one to two brigades a month so that in 16 months, we’d have all our combat troops out of Iraq.'
"The only thing that I’ve called for is a very limited force to provide security for our embassy and for our diplomats on the ground, as well as to carry out targeted strikes against al Qaeda operatives that may try to set up base camp in Iraq. That, I think, is the smart and the right thing to do.
"But the most important thing that we have to do with respect to Iraq is initiate the kind of diplomacy that is going to stabilize the situation. And there, Senator Clinton and I do appear to have a difference, although it’s hard to tell. I suggested that we should talk to our enemies and not just our friends, including Iran, including Syria. I got in an argument with Senator Clinton back in the summer about this, because she suggested that that approach of negotiating without preconditions could be used for propaganda purposes and would be naïve.''
SEABROOK: " But at the same time that you talk about the threat from Iran and the importance of dealing with Iran, you don’t support the amendment that Senator Clinton does that would designate the Iranian al Quds force as a terrorist organization. Why don’t you support that?
OBAMA: "Well, I would have supported a stand-alone piece of legislation identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The problem was that it was embedded in language that suggested the president should maintain the force structure in Iraq that is needed to blunt the influence of Iran inside Iraq. And that provides an aggressive Bush-Cheney administration potentially the opening to initiate military action against Iran.'
"This is a lesson that I think Senator Clinton and others should have learned that you can’t give this president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it.''
SEABROOK: "Meanwhile, General David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq says that the Iranian ambassador to Iraq is part of that al Quds force and that it is known – it is documented – that Iran is all mixed up in the Shi’a militias in the south of Iraq. How do you – how would you, as President Obama, solve the problems in Iraq without dealing with the role of Iran down there?''
OBAMA: " Oh, we have to deal with the role of Iran. The question is whether we deal with Iran through saber-rattling or whether we deal with Iran by direct diplomatic engagement…The key for us is to engage in the sort of direct talks that we engaged in, by the way, when Iran cooperated with us in dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan. And it’s that sort of direct engagement that this president has been unwilling to do, but under an Obama administration would be, I think a top priority.''
SEABROOK: "It sounds a little bit, sir, like you are all carrot and no stick, if I might just use a cliché.''
OBAMA: "Well, maybe that’s because we haven’t been talking about what kinds of military actions are available. The truth is that I’ve said repeatedly that military options should remain on the table. The question is, do you lead with those or do you present carrots and sticks at the same time? I think Iran understands what military threats we pose. You know, they’re not surprised that we could strike them and strike them hard.
"What we haven’t suggested in any way is what advantages they would have in acting more responsibly in the region. That’s been the missing ingredient and, you know, I have no doubt that, as president, I will use whatever military force is necessary to protect U.S. citizens and interests around the globe. But what I also understand is that the military option is not the only option in the tool box. You know, we’ve had an administration that thinks the only tool is a hammer and as a consequence everything looks like a nail. And as a consequence, we’ve done incredible damage to our security and standing around the world.''
SEABROOK: "If I could just try one last political question, sir, Georgia Congressman John Lewis endorsed Hillary Clinton today – John Lewis, of course, a civil rights icon in the United States. This has got to be something of a blow to your campaign.''
OBAMA: " Well, we have probably the majority of Georgia elected officials including two congressmen who have endorsed us. I can’t expect to be getting every single endorsement, given the eight years of a Clinton presidency and the long-time relationships that he has established with leaders all across the country and the favors that he’s done for political players all across the country. I promise you this that as much respect as I have for John Lewis, it’s not going to have much of an impact on the Iowa caucuses, or the New Hampshire primary. And ultimately, that is what is going to determine who the next nominee is.''
SEABROOK: "Democratic presidential candidate and Illinois senator, Barack Obama, traveling across Iowa, campaigning for the Democratic nomination. Thank you, sir, very much.''
OBAMA: "Thank you, Andrea.''
Comments
I haven't made any decisions on the candidates yet, but Obama brings up a good point. This war was a mistake from the get go. Even Darth Cheney knew what a quagmire it would be. Even though Bush pumped out false intel for the invasion, common sense or further investigation of the intel should have been done by all who voted on this issue. It is ashame the republicans used our patriotism and emotions to make the biggest blunder in history.
Posted by: bill r. | October 13, 2007 6:25 PM
So...he's setting a timeline
and saying he'll have all the troops out a year and a third after he takes office.
Or is that really what he's saying. It's certainly not what he said in the debate at, I believe, Dartmouth. And under pressure from Repubs and warlike Dems, he tends to waffle. This sounds like a waffle.
Posted by: Helena | October 13, 2007 7:13 PM
Helena-
No that is what he said in the last debate. Barack said that he had a 16 month plan to bring our troops home. The reason for the 16 months is to do the withdrawal in a safe and orderly manner. The safest way to bring them home is 2 brigades at a time.
Posted by: Steve B | October 13, 2007 7:21 PM
Helena, Obama specifically said at the Darmouth debate that he would begin bringing the troops home, that it will take probably 16 mos with 1 or two bridages leaving a month. He would leave a small number of troops to protect our embassy and diplomats (no more black water) and small special ops force to strike at alquedi if need be. He has also said that there will be no military base in Iraqi as Bush wants and Hillary is being silent on that front. But all along, he said there are no good options over there, old bad and worse. No president hopeful wants another fall of saigon headline nor do we want to have to return in say 10 years. Plus no one knows what the heck Bush is planning and what they will inherit from that madman.
Posted by: sonya | October 13, 2007 7:28 PM
Back when I was a Loony Lib, I too was against the invasion primarily because of the dangerous precedent (pre-emptive invasion) it set for future generations. Because of the terribleness of what it makes man, war must always be the last course of action pursued by any civilized society. And when it is declared, it must be utter and total, not some 1/2-baked "shock and awe" demonstration of the technical might this country can display short of a Communist May Day parade.
I didnt fault Ms Clinton and other lefty loons who backed who at the time I thought was the worst leader this country could ever have for the world events unfolding because this country was founded on the concept of Government of the People, for the People, By the People and my faith in my my country had to lie in the fact that that Government chose to invade under what ultimately proved to be completely erroneous pretexts. I will have to live with that philosophy.
But that is the beauty of being an American: You believe in what is right for this country, and despite the disastrous outcome, you can look back... and think "my heavens! What a quagmire this has become! and all because of incompetent leadership!"
But is it incompetence? Is it just the war? Is it Katrina and that air-guitar photo-op? The Walter Reed scandal involving insufficient care for our soldiers? The lack of stemming immigration (regardless of the illegals already in our country), No OBL, the inability to rally our country in a time when the country needed leadership (to be a Uniter), the endless vacations, Harriet Myers, Halliburton, Dubai ports, never vetoing a Republican Congress that refused to control spending, loss of prestige in the eyes of America (29% approval from a once historic 90% rating), the eyes of our Allies, the eyes of the world, former generals and White House advisors faulting the Bush II presidency, the blaring fact that even the Republican candidates wont talk about "staying the course" but rather pointing out that a new direction is needed?
Is it?
Had I still been a loony lefter, the answer would be quick in coming: Oh, Hell yes! Without a doubt.
But John D, Bruce and the other loyal members of The Party have convinced me that somehow this presidency was the right presidency for the time. That Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et al are the best this country could offer its citizens.
So you just go right on pointing out how you were against the war, Mr. Obama. Just remember there is 29% of us Americans (and loyal Party Members) that thinks you were wrong to vote your conscience!
+/- 3% of course...
Posted by: Smirky McFlightsuit | October 13, 2007 7:34 PM
Last October (just a year ago) Mr Fluff said that withdrawal should be on a flexible timeline, linked to events on the ground.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2007 7:42 PM
Obama is just mouthing off because he is lagging in the polls. With the info at the time from this administration, almost everyone was for the war. Of course that info was based on lies, but who knew? Sorry Obama, but you sound like a child.
Posted by: DCB | October 13, 2007 7:57 PM
So you just go right on pointing out how you were against the war, Mr. Obama. Just remember there is 29% of us Americans (and loyal Party Members) that thinks you were wrong to vote your conscience!
+/- 3% of course...
Posted by: Smirky McFlightsuit | October 13, 2007 7:34 PM
Genius,
Obama didn't "vote his conscience". He didn't vote about the war at all. He wasn't a senator at the time.
I should also point out, genius, that when pressed he admits that he doesn't really know how he would have voted because he didn't have access to the same intel that sitting senators had.
But you're right, he was bravely aginst the war then... as was I... so should I be the next president?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2007 8:10 PM
It looks like the boneheads are out in full force.
Posted by: jdr | October 13, 2007 9:00 PM
DCB, You sound as misinformed as Anonymous. Strong opinions yet pitifully unsound. I wouldn't go to Smirky McFlightsuit for any advise either. At least Helena is trying. DCB, Sonya might be able to help you. Maybe there is hope. Have Hope. Let there be Hope for the Hopeless.
Posted by: jdr | October 13, 2007 9:09 PM
"If Sen. Obama really believed that this measure gave the president a blank check for war, he should have been there, speaking out and fighting against it."
I guess that would also go for McCain...He claimed we didn't use enough troops and many other mistakes were made. Why wasn't he there yelling at the top of his lungs to change things? Why did he follow lock-step with the administration?
Posted by: bill r. | October 13, 2007 9:14 PM
But you're right, he was bravely aginst the war then... as was I... so should I be the next president?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2007 8:10 PM
You already are the President Mr. Bush (don't worry Lil Dick Cheney can't hear you).
Posted by: Don't Taze Me, Bro | October 13, 2007 9:36 PM
I wish Obama would just go away! His continued rant of, I was against this war,is getting obnoxious.
We're in it right or wrong so quit being a Monday morning quarterback,and remember, Barack "Hussein" Obama...We haven't been attacked for over 6 years under Bush,yet while under B.J.Clinton we were attacked at home and abroad Eight Times.
So get your sissy-butt-out-of-here and let real men make the rough,tough decisions.
If you can't pay your parking tickets on time (18 years late)how can you lead a nation in a time of war?
GO visit Oprah and stay there!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | October 13, 2007 9:37 PM
We're in it right or wrong
Posted by: Paulo | October 13, 2007 9:37 PM
What a bafoon...That happens to be the whole point dunce. If it was wrong, why would anyone continue to support it? Why would anyone accept a mistake of this magnitude? This is the one reason the republicans should never come to power ever again. Send the country to hell in a hand basket and the sheeple say ..hey no problem..no harm done...tell that to the fallen traitors.
Posted by: bill r. | October 13, 2007 10:01 PM
Paulo,how many times a day do people call you an idiot?? I've seen your posts elsewhere. You simply cut and paste the same thing. Followed by your posts are people calling you stupid. I don't know if you are stupid. You are definitely absurd.
Nobody cares about overdue videos, library books parking tickets. Or that his middle name is Hussein.
And your comment "Go visit Oprah and stay there." Hey is it really necessary?
Posted by: jdr | October 13, 2007 10:09 PM
If you can't pay your parking tickets on time (18 years late)how can you lead a nation in a time of war?
Posted by: Paulo | October 13, 2007 9:37 PM
The biggest mistake in history has been made and this jackass wants to worry about parking tickets or that his name doesn't sound American enough for this lowlife? I served this country and because I was drafted in Nam...my service wasn't good enough for Paulo. The closest he ever served was working at McDonalds. Sissy-ass....ha...sign up big man. Get out from behind your keyboard and show us you have a set Paulo.
Posted by: bill r. | October 13, 2007 10:09 PM
Obama didn't "vote his conscience". He didn't vote about the war at all. He wasn't a senator at the time.
I should also point out, genius, that when pressed he admits that he doesn't really know how he would have voted because he didn't have access to the same intel that sitting senators had.
But you're right, he was bravely aginst the war then... as was I... so should I be the next president?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2007 8:10 PM
I've heard that for so long; in fact I've said it myself, but the fact is every conservative in the country supported this crap war and Obama didn't (and quit comparing yourself to the Senator, you creep).
The last real patriotic Republican was Eisenhower. Since then, the facists have taken over and there is no more conservatism except Facism.
I've been reading wth amusement your garbage posts for about a month now and I've gotta start calling it like it is, you have something against black people and that's why you bend over backwards to jump on any of the Swamp Obama threads and dump on him.
Thanks to you I have just donated another $1000 to Senator Obama and another $1000 to the DNC, nice work chump.
Posted by: Flighty McChimpsuit | October 13, 2007 10:15 PM
should also point out, genius, that when pressed he admits that he doesn't really know how he would have voted because he didn't have access to the same intel that sitting senators had.
But you're right, he was bravely aginst the war then... as was I... so should I be the next president?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2007 8:10 PM
Neocon Rule #1
When the people whom you support (GOP) make a boneheaded decision start accusing others of doing it. Or maybe just expressing concern about others' doing it.
911 changed very little but George W. Bush, his sycophants, enablers and handlers have changed way too much. --me
Posted by: Lester | October 13, 2007 10:38 PM
When I look at Barack Obama, I think about John F. Kennedy, who leaped over Hubert Humphrey's generation to bring in fresh voices and fresh ideas.
~Bill Moyers~
As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly
Posted by: Flying Chimpbot | October 13, 2007 10:57 PM
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | October 13, 2007 9:37 PM
This guy reinforces my belief that it should be mandatory that you at least have a high school education before you are allowed to post your "thoughts" on here.
Posted by: Don't Taze Me, Bro | October 13, 2007 11:28 PM
GO visit Oprah and stay there!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | October 13, 2007 9:37 PM
Quit yer crying Paula.
Posted by: Beavis | October 14, 2007 4:36 AM
"...and let real men make the rough,tough decisions."
ha,ha,ha,...
This from one of the many GOP Qwerty Chairborne Commando Cheerleaders cheerleading the Chickenhawk in Chief.
Paulo, you're priceless!
Posted by: Doug Zook | October 14, 2007 7:41 AM
"I write the same old song with a few new lines
And everybody wants to cheer it
I write the same old song you heard a good few times
Admit you really want to hear it"
It's the same old song.
Posted by: Terry | October 14, 2007 8:07 AM
We get it Helena. You can't stand Obama.
Posted by: Marko | October 14, 2007 10:10 AM
Barack Obama is beginning to embarrass the Democratic Party.
Didn't he already try the "Hillary voted for the Iraq authorization and I didn't" only to discover nobody gives a d*mn? Not that he "could" have voted of course.
Obama is one of our weakest candidates. How he remains in 2nd place is beyond me.
Posted by: David Davidson | October 14, 2007 10:54 AM
"I've heard that for so long; in fact I've said it myself..."
Genius, it's a fact that Obama did not vote aginst the war because he COULDN'T do so... and furthermore he admits that he can't say for certain how he would have voted. Sorry, if these are verifiable truths trouble you, but simply denying them won't work.
"I've gotta start calling it like it is, you have something against black people."
Genius, I have never made a rascist comment here... ever. You claim I'm a racist and that you've been reading my commentary for a month now; so then cite a racist remark I've made. (BTW, Bigdawg and I are more or less on the same page about Obama; does he hate Black people too?)
And also I suggest tha you consult an encylopedia, Genius, and look up "Fascism".
Finally, Genius, you claim that you've just given $2,000 to politicians and you're calling ME a chump?!
Chump!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2007 11:32 AM
Genius, I have never made a rascist comment here... ever.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2007 11:32 AM
Wouldn't it be a little difficult to tell since your....
Anonymous?
Posted by: bill r. | October 14, 2007 11:45 AM
"Wouldn't it be a little difficult to tell since your.... Anonymous?"
Posted by: bill r. | October 14, 2007 11:45 AM
Yes, bill r, but Genius thinks that all anonymouses are one person.
Anyway, I'm an "anonymous" who weighs in farly regularly (very often on Obama threads) and who sometimes signs as "obstinately anonymous" and things like that. Anyway writing styles are recognzable... so somebody should be able to cite a sample of my racism if it exists.
For that matter, cite ANYBODY'S racism. Racism is a rare occurance in The Swamp, but it does raise it's ugly head from time to time. Mock it and curse it when it does show up, i say.
However, to simply hurl the accusation of racism when it doesn't exist (as Genius does) is no good at all. It trivializes a serious accusation. And his making a disingenuous accusation also shows that Genius can't really defend his position -- whatever that is.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2007 12:30 PM
However, to simply hurl the accusation of racism when it doesn't exist (as Genius does) is no good at all. It trivializes a serious accusation. And his making a disingenuous accusation also shows that Genius can't really defend his position -- whatever that is.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2007 12:30 PM
bill r,
This guy/girl is a punk racist who is constantly changing his/her post name so that no one can make fun of his stupidity when he/she spews hate at Senator Obama (I'll fill you in on who this is and how to find him/her on the Swamp when he/she posts under different names, go to the back channel and I'll explain).
Posted by: Don't Taze Me, Bro | October 14, 2007 4:35 PM
However, to simply hurl the accusation of racism when it doesn't exist (as Genius does) is no good at all. It trivializes a serious accusation. And his making a disingenuous accusation also shows that Genius can't really defend his position -- whatever that is.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2007 12:30 PM
bill r,
This guy/girl is a punk racist who is constantly changing his/her post name so that no one can make fun of his stupidity when he/she spews hate at Senator Obama (I'll fill you in on who this is and how to find him/her on the Swamp when he/she posts under different names, go to the back channel and I'll explain).
Posted by: Don't Taze Me, Bro | October 14, 2007 4:36 PM
When you post as 'anonymous', you deserve the be ridiculed. It's not bill r's job, nor anyone else to figure out which anonymous you are today.
As for the racist part, you were the nitwit calling dog fighting an inner city thing. If that wasn't you, pick a better handle.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | October 14, 2007 5:16 PM
Comic relief:
bill r,
This guy/girl is a punk racist who is constantly changing his/her post name so that no one can make fun of his stupidity when he/she spews hate at Senator Obama (I'll fill you in on who this is and how to find him/her on the Swamp when he/she posts under different names, go to the back channel and I'll explain).
Posted by: Don't Taze Me, Bro | October 14, 2007 4:35 PM
It's so funny that John E./don't taze me, bro/smirky mcflight's suit navigator/and the countless other names he posts under would even think of knocking anyone for posting as someone else.
But then multiple personality disorder is a condition of John E.
Posted by: John D | October 14, 2007 5:43 PM
Editor's note: "Anonymous'' attempted to post here with harsh criticism for another poster. Dear anonymous, if you want to play the game, give us a name. And keep it civil, please. If not, that's fine. But there will be no more anonymous attacks on another poster.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2007 6:03 PM
Even though Bush pumped out false intel for the invasion, common sense or further investigation of the intel should have been done by all who voted on this issue.
Posted by: bill r. | October 13, 2007 6:25 PM
Here you go bill r. I hope this is a good read for you and the rest of the morons on the left, you can't revise stated history, try as you may. Most of these statements were made before Mr. Bush took office, I'm so sorry to have to correct you all the time bill r. you need to stop hanging around with the village idiot John E., he's making you look very stupid.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!
Posted by: Don B. | October 14, 2007 6:36 PM
Don B,
After that great read,I'm sure bill r will be sleeping in his mommy's bed tonight...with pillows over his head.
The truth hurts...doesn't it bill r???
Oh, and 9/11 was planned for three years under B.J. Clinton's nose! Now get to bed billy.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | October 14, 2007 8:50 PM
ur stupid black nigger- u a broken record- dont blame clinton edward too vote for this war iys bush war- bush lied to us and the senate and congress. ur not voting that time ur not a senator that time- stop blaming clinton of bush war and lies. u got it?
Posted by: laura | October 14, 2007 9:49 PM
It's true. Democratic leaders spoke the same rhetoric as republicans in regards to Iraq over the last decade. There is no argument to that. What Obama means to say is "since I was not a member of congress at the time, I was not getting money put in my pocket by war contractors to stir up an Iraq war rhetoric. So instead of listening to dollar bills put in my pocket, I listen to my rational mind and said, 'there is no way in hell Iraq has WMD's. Saddam knows no to mess with Bush. He's meaner than Clinton (who bombed Iraq nearly on a weekly basis during all eight years of his presidency) he sends mentally hanicapped people to the electric chair. No world leader would be that stupid to mess around with WMDs under Bush, especially with allegations of trying to kill his father hanging oer head.'" And it was logical. When maney talks, BS walks. And nearly all of our elected officials (especially the politally successful ones) listened to the dllars get put in their pockets tell them Saddam had WMDs-republicans AND democrats. What really upsets me more recently is Condoleeza Rice criticizing the Russian government for undermining their promise of democracy for basically acting like the god ol' USA.
Posted by: wede | October 15, 2007 5:24 AM
Don B......Where are the WMD's?
Paulo...Truth hurts?
Posted by: bill r. | October 15, 2007 7:45 AM
Don B......Where are the WMD's?
Paulo...Truth hurts?
Posted by: bill r. | October 15, 2007 7:45 AM
bill r. In response to your fourth grade posting where did i mention there were WMD ? My posting was in response to the constant lament by you, and the left that Mr. Bush lied about them, and the left was hoodwinked into war. Why don't you try employing comprehension before you respond to posts ? Oh i forgot, that wouldn't allow you to revise history.
Posted by: Don B. | October 15, 2007 9:07 AM
"Once again, Sen. Obama has abandoned the politics of hope to engage in the same old attack politics," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer.
Politics of hope?
Hillary "bomb Iran" Clinton?
Obama is the only candidate among Democrats offering the least hope for meaningful change.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | October 15, 2007 9:18 AM