Obama gets facts way wrong on Iraq War vote

BIG FREAKING DEAL!!!

He sounds like an excellent candidate to me, seems to have a firm grasp on the war vote and the players in it , a well qualified guy to run our country. I'm so proud to have the opportunity to vote for this born leader. I can't imagine a guy like Mr. McCain ever defeating the great Obama
With the help of Gloria Steinem trashing Mr.
McCains' service to our country it will make the Dems' victory in Nov. so much easier.

I'm sure the Obama-bots will say no big deal. If Hillary mis-spoke, they'd be screaming bloody murder. The Obama supporters are so vile and nasty toward Clinton that there will be a huge backlash come November. Keep piling on, Obama supporters. HRC supporters will be moving in droves toward McCain.

Remember that Barack Obama was not in on that vote, despite all his big talk. It would be interesting to see how he actually would have voted back then given the information that was available to the Sentors at that time. I'm not talking about his opinion of things now, I'm talking about how he actually would have voted. But wait, that's right, he wasn't in the office to vote! Then again, he doesn't vote even when he holds the seat!

More proof St. Obama has all the qualifications to be president as does Scooby Doo.

By the way, Frank, speaking of getting facts wrong, the Iraq War vote occurred in 2002, not 2000.

Don B:

Please cite the source of Gloria Steiham's comments.

Something that Brucie, Paulo and Jerry White never do.

Wait are we still talking about Obama or was that Bush?
Oh it was Obama.....that sounded like a Bush flop.

If Obama gets 15 yards for getting a name wrong, how many touchdowns does he get for being right about the war?

Picky, picky. If the media had the same standards for the pro war nuts they'd have forfeited the game years ago.

Besides, the best of the best within the media all got it wrong. It seems they have a far higher standard for Obama than they do for themselves or Bush or the GOP or the centrists in the Democratic Party who were all 100% wrong.

Heres some Sen. Hillary Clinton Iraq War facts ...

Since she voted with Bush and jumped off the cliff with him on the Iraq war we have over 90,000 wounded veterans who have returned the wars includes those with post traumatic stress!!!

And Almost 4 thousand dead!

The fact remains that Barack Obama spoke against the war and Hilary Voted for the war.
It still shows that she lacks the judgement to make important decision on our foreign policy and should not be allowed back in the white house.

We need a clean break from Bush/Clinton/Bush-Mccain/Clinton.

Obama '0Eight

Except for the fact that Obama was not in a position to even vote in 2002, his Senate voting record on defense is nearly identical to Clinton's. The only difference at Votesmart.org shows that she voted to keep Guantanamo Bay detainees off of American soil and he chose not to vote. That was a Republican-sponsored bill.

The Clintons tout MRS Clinton's readiness to be commander-in-chief from day one so that Bill Clinton can return to the WH, despite the Constitution's forbidding another term for him. Hillary is a fearmonger and a proven warmonger, voting to place our nation in peril, leading to the deaths of thousands of American lives and to the economic ruin of our country. She voted for the war in Iraq solely so she can run for the most important office in our nation. Think of her using her tears, her sacarstic theatrics, her mean-spirited lies and smears as commander-in-chief and to push through a universal health care plan which she had miserably failed to do in 1992. Think of the Republicans' ads showing Monica Lewinsky and Bill and cigars and more women coming out now with stories of his sexual assaults, etc, etc. Will the Clinton dynasty be electable? Do we citizens really want them back in the WH for an unconstitutional eight years? Is the Clinton machine going to continue to rule the Democratic Party, ushering in a generation of Republican ascendency and a new independent third party, and instructing the new voters under forty in cynicism and apathy? Turn the page, please, Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Save the nation, save the constitution, and save the party.

Please cite the source of Gloria Steiham's comments.
Posted by: BobinATL | March 3, 2008 2:23 PM

Todays New York Observer

Hillary's team is parsing words the very same way the clown Republiscums always do.

It's time to face the FACTS team Hillary:

She needs massive wins in TX and OH to even consider continuing.

Let me repeat that : She needs massive wins in TX and OH to even consider continuing!

It ain't gonna happen and all of you Obama hater's out there know it.

The red herrings you should ignore: Who the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee was at the time of the vote, the names Senator Graham, and Senator Rockafeller

The only fact you should pay attention to: Hillary Clinton did not read the intelligence reports before she voted to Authorize force against Iraq.

Shouldn't the story be that Hillary didn't read the report? A politician not concerned with the details of national security sounds a lot like Bush in 2001. Hmmm...just what we want.

The fact remains that Barack Obama spoke against the war and Hilary Voted for the war.
Posted by: sandra | March 3, 2008 2:55 PM

DEM politics 101...

DEM #1- the messiah- has gained all of the POLITICAL benefits of SPEAKING against the war-without any of the risks of being on record for or against it.

DEM # 2 -Hillary-took the political risk, without even reading the bill..now she

Both are using, or have used the war for political benefit only..

I don't know who is worse- but I will give Hillary credit for accidentally voting right at least once.

ZZpat, you mean guessing right about the war, don't you? You see, he, simply being a candidate at the time, and not a voting member privy to all the same info as say, his hero Mr. Rockefeller who voted for the war, is far different than the alternative.

So Obama, a left-wing, anti-war Senate candidate guessed right about the war. So f-ing what? If I flip a coin and it comes up heads, does that make the coin a genius who should be president? No, Obama guessed right. But he never voted right. Big difference.

Just ask Rockefeller.

Paul you are right Mr. Obama could not vote on the issue as he was an Illinois congressman at the time, however he did stand in front of the Senate to urge them to vote no, reasons cited included stirring up an unstable region potetntially inciting civil war, yeah guess he was dead wrong on that one!

The other interesting thing I would like to point out, who brought forth a bill to take care of our heroes as they came home and clean up the mess at Walter Reed, yes Mr. Obama did just that, but as you HRC folks trod along saying he does not do anything...in fact both of these facts show he is a true leader. By the way when do 9 years as first lady of Arkansas and 8 years as first lady qualify as experience for this job???

I don't see laura bush up for any office??

I love it. Messiah can do no wrong. Everything he does is golden. And when something points to his INEXPERIENCE ahm ahh, Bush Jr interpreting and creating the facts as we go along, THEN the reporters are biased. "Shouldn't the story be that Hillary didn't read the report?" No. It can be about her not reading the report, AND about his CONTINUED SHOW of inexperience. When he's not on the familiar topics--change, he fumbles. McCain will eat him for dinner. Let try the popular one against Hillary with Obama..If this is how he runs his campaign how will run the presidency? I'm seeing a lot of-- just say anything to get ahead, and a lot of-- press conferences to correct what he meant to say. And this is the funniest thing....it grows with the campaign apparently...

Let's stop

Bush/Clinton/Bush-Mccain/Clinton.

Let's stop

Bush/Clinton/Bush-McCain/Clinton/SNL/Canada/Christmas/ Trains/Planes/Automobiles/the "World & the Planet"....

"Obama2008"

I think the author of this article should check his own facts. As I understand what happened, Obama said "the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee" at the time, NOT "Jay Rockefeller."

Obama knew exactly what he was saying - he was quoting Bob Graham. It was Senator Clinton who got HER facts wrong. She's the one who referred to Senator Rockefeller.

Obama then had to correct her, noting that Graham (by name) had voted against the war. In fact, as I recall the exchange he pointed out that once again she got her facts wrong.

Mr James, shame on you for not checking the facts more carefully. You owe your readers a retraction and a correction. There's a clear record of the actual exchange. I respectfully suggest you do a little research.

It's amasing how often Barack Obama can be right - after the fact!!! He wasn't in the office at the time of the vote and we will never know how he would actually have voted, unless someone has a time machine.

Here's some interesting info on Barack's diligence in doing his job...
Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

Email
Print
Comment
Buzz up!
on Yahoo!
Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton's actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood.

What should we make of Obama's other judgments in foreign affairs? Take Afghanistan, for example. It has been evident for some time that our efforts there are going badly and that cooperation and support from our NATO allies would be helpful. As chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe, Obama could have used his lofty position actually to engage the issue and pressure the administration to take some action to improve our chance of success in that conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course, that would have involved holding hearings, questioning administration witnesses, and taking a position and offering alternatives. That is what we expect that from senators in a democracy. It is called oversight.

But, instead, Obama, by his own admission, offers the excuse that he has been too busy running for president to do anything substantive, such as direct his staff to organize a single hearing. "Well, first of all," Obama was forced to confess in the Democratic debate in Ohio on February 26, "I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." To date, his subcommittee has held no policy hearings at all -- none. At the same time that Obama claimed he was too busy campaigning to do anything substantive, racking up one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, Senator Clinton chaired extensive hearings of the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health and attended many others as a member of the Armed Service Committee.

As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies. Of course, if you don't hold hearings, conduct oversight, make recommendations or sponsor legislation, then you have no record to explain or defend and you are free to take whatever position is convenient when attacking those who actually did address issues. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.

On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed.

Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.

Wow, even Frank James can get off his duff and do some actual reporting once in awhile. When he's not releasing Obama press releases, unedited, that is, of course.

And as Barack Obama stood near the steps of the Cpital Building in Springfield, IL in February 2007 to announce his candidacy for President, he declared he had a plan to being the troops home by March 2008. "He (Obama) called the Iraq war a "tragic mistake" and said, "It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war. That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.'"*

*http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html

Well, Mr. Obama, "What's your plan?" It's March 2008!

"What", you say, you don't have one right now because you're too busy running for President."

But of course, Obama is no different than any other politician making promises: he's just HUNGRIER!

He should have had better fact checking, but his point is still made. The guy that read the report was against the war. If hilary should have read a report on such a large decision as whether or not to give permission for war...

The fact remains that Barack Obama spoke against the war and Hilary Voted for the war.
Posted by: sandra | March 3, 2008 2:55 PM

sandra : Perhaps you could cite any public speeches Mr. Obama made against the war around the fall of 2002 . Thanks

It seems the author has overlooked the more salient point: Hillary voted for the war without reading the NIE. If this is the sort of bottom-of-the-barrel tactics Obama-haters are resorting to, then I am feeling rather confident about the future.

The difference is that Hiallry has SILL not read the intelligence reports. There were No WMD in Iraq. How was it not a mistake?

The difference is that Hillary has SILL not read the intelligence reports. There were NO WMD in Iraq. How was it not a mistake?

"Jay Rockefeller read it, but she didn't read it," Obama told a rally in Westerville, Ohio. "I don't know what all that experience got her, because I have enough experience to know that if you have a National Intelligence Estimate and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee says, 'You should read this, this is why I'm voting against the war,' you should read it."

Nowhere in the above paragraph does Barack Obama state that Jay Rockefeller was the chairman of the committee at the time.

The first statement is about Jay Rockefeller, and the second is about the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

What's the big deal here?

Perhaps we should all listen/read careful to the intended statement before jumping on the attack bandwagon.

Jim at 3:56, you are a typical Loony Lefter and Obama-bot who has no clue. First of all, Obama was never an Illinois Congressman. Obama was an Illinois state senator at that time. Second, Obama never stood in front of the Senate and encouraged them to vote no on Iraq.
Obama is an inexperienced naive fool, which is why the Left is so enamored by him.

Didn't Obama or Rockefeller say something along the lines of, he (Rockefeller) supported it and knew what he was supporting? I heard a speech from one of them and heard something like that.

sandra : Perhaps you could cite any public speeches Mr. Obama made against the war around the fall of 2002 . Thanks

Posted by: Don B. | March 3, 2008 5:01 PM

it's a bit earlier than that, but here ya go:

Several other speakers, including Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama and Illinois State Rep. Julie Hamos, also spoke at the rally.

Barak ObamaObama told the crowd: "I don't oppose all wars. But I do oppose a dumb war."

Obama said if the United States declared war on Iraq, it would "fan the flames" in the Middle East and push more people to join al-Qaida.

"The consequences of war are dire. The costs immeasurable," Obama said. "We should not go down that hellish path blindly."

http://www.nbc5.com/news/1699712/detail.html

see also:

Obama's "Anti War Speech" was nothing but a fence stand. He carefully crafted his wording such that he could go in either direction when things panned out. He made it sound anti war at an anti war rally in Chicago. Yet, at the same time, he did not take any firm stand on the issue. His vote did not count since he was not in the office to vote, hence his statements weree intended more for his poitical gain that anything else. He practices his legalize very well. Non-committal, spewing rhetoric easily based upon the opinions of the crowd around him. If WMD's had been found, he would have been the first one to say that he said he disagreed with stupid wars and that this was not a stupid war. He really stands for change! Change of the color of the coat being worn to cover the backroom deals!

Am in shock to know that the great Obama could ever even be slightly off the mark with regard to all of this so-important business of who voted for the war in 2002 and who didn't vote for the war. That was in the year 2002, ya know.

In the meanwhile, ExxonMobil and Wal-Mart are just running rampant, and that Connecticut guy is not getting his raise. I think we understand clearly enough that there is never a reason to engage in a military conflict, like a war tends to be. No reason to ever emulate war-mongers like Lincoln, Woody Wilson, and FDR. There is nothing about this country that would ever justify a war with anyone in today's so cosmopolitan world. We just need to sit down, talk, and put a lot more effort into getting along with folks and get this silly war business behind us. It is ripping apart the Socialist democrat party.

Brandon:
You are 100% correct on Obama's statements.
No other paper made the obervation that Frank James did.

Generally these things deserve to be noticed and I won't counter with those "no big deal" shrugs.

Wrong details of such statements only prove that some researcher for his campaign messed up however; in this case it's not the general message that is in question but details of names and appointments someone didn't get right. I doubt it's right for him to imply that Hillary had not read that document and but still voted for the war because that can never be proven or disproven anyway.

Throughout both of their campaigns I have liked Obama's more because for the past weeks he has the luxury to react to Clinton's tactics. While his choice to oppose the Iraq war has always been an integral part of his campaign, actively trying to discredit his opponent on the same topic has only emerged since Hillary has started to fight somewhat 'dirty'. The only purpose of her 3am tv-ad was to paint Obama incompetent ... and I abhor that kind of strategy.

[quote]
By the way, Frank, speaking of getting facts wrong, the Iraq War vote occurred in 2002, not 2000.

Posted by: John D | March 3, 2008 2:21 PM
[/quote]

Geographically Ignorant Dumb Dumb Little Johnnie Dyslin, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", speaking of getting facts wrong, you still believe that all of Cuba is in the Gulf of Mexico, when intelligent people know that it's in the Caribbean Sea.

People all know Hillary would be a better president. But the blacks are just excited they would have a black president. He is most likely just telling everyone what they want to hear. Then he will get in there and try and pay back the white people. He is a bad choice. So people better think long and hard about voting for him!!!!!!!!!

"People all know Hillary would be a better president. But the blacks are just excited they would have a black president. He is most likely just telling everyone what they want to hear. Then he will get in there and try and pay back the white people. He is a bad choice. So people better think long and hard about voting for him!!!!!!!!!"
-Amy

Oh let me guess... did you get these "facts" from redneck white trash? Any one important say these things? No they didn't. You just don't want a black person being president because that would show people that everyone IS equal and then you would actually have to accomplish something in this country instead of just being white. Also I love how you know exactly what Obama will do, even though he's not even in office yet. Im guessing if you can see into the future, you will see Clinton running it into the ground! It's quite funny how you say he will try and "pay back the white people" because, if I'm not mistaken, his mom is white. Makes a lot of sense to be racist towards your own mom right? Thinking like an inbred retard isn't going to get you very far in this country. Blacks vote for whoever they think will do a good job running this campaign, not just cause he's black. If you think like that then why are some black people voting for Hilary? Hillary is a liar and is full of sh*t. Apparently being the first lady of a president who was impeached and lied to everybody is enough qualifications to run this country. Maybe dumb people like you, but for the rest of the civilized nation, we need a bit more than that. It seems to me everyone forgot about the previous Clinton years. Maybe everyone should freshen up on the "Clinton" era.

Here are the facts: The vote for "Emergency Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan" took place on 17 Oct 2003. Hillary Clinton voted "yes" on that issue. Barack Obama did not vote. He was not a Senator at that time. This does not support his statement that he "voted against the war" by any stretch. He wasn't a Senator at that time. Weasel words.

Well, let's see ..... Barack was an intern in his now wife's law firm. She was a Sr. Associate who molded him and fed him information, as she does today. Who is the real Obama in Office, I ask?