Mr. Obama is upset. How does he go on? Russert questions Clinton
in a semi-automatic round of
“Meet the Press,” drawing distinctions on Obama’s record on Iraq
that actually make a difference but all this guy can come up with is this?
I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her
positive vision for America, Sen. Clinton spent an hour talking about me and
my record in a way that was flat-out wrong. She suggested that I didn’t
clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear
and anyone who has followed this knows that I did. I stood up against the
war when she was voting for it, at a time when she didn’t read the intelligence
reports or give diplomacy a chance. – Barack Obama via Politico.com |
I need a nap.
That’s it? Did Mr. Obama listen or read what Clinton said? Not only is she
questioning the entire reasoning behind his campaign, but she’s driving the
debate into what is allegedly his strongest issue. Here’s what she said:
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. – Hillary Clinton, “Meet the Press” |
All of it is backed up, including scrubbing his anti Iraq war speech.
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.” The speech was returned to the
site following Associate Editor Bruce A. Dixon’s June 5 commentary,
“In Search of the Real Barack Obama: Can a Black Senate candidate resist
the DLC?” in which Mr. Dixon remarked, “Somebody else’s brand
of politics appears to have intruded on Obama’s campaign.” – Black
Commentator |
What kind of man scrubs the speech on which he’s basing his presidential candidacy
from his web site, because it was “dated.”
Mr. Obama voted for every single funding bill until he decided to run from
president. Now Clinton’s voted the same way too, but she’s not trying to run
away from her record. But what does he have to say about the
speech he gave against the Kerry amendment?
Then there’s Obama’s right-wing language on the troops when Dems were trying to get momentum on withdrawal. It still burns me:
“I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground,” said Obama. “I do think a majority of the Senate has now expressed the belief that we need to change course in Iraq. “Obviously we’re constrained by the fact that a commander in chief who also has veto power has the option of ignoring that position,” Obama said. … … The senator said it is up to war opponents to be vocal about their position. “If the president vetoes this, the American people have to continue to put pressure on their representatives so that at some point we may be able to get a veto-proof majority for moving this war in a different direction,” the senator said. … .. |
Redeployment doesn’t equate to playing chicken with our troops.
Mr. Obama gave a terrific speech. Once in the Senate he went
along with everyone else. He hasn’t distinguished himself once on Iraq, though
I would also say none of the Democrats have, to be blunt about it, certainly
not the Congress as a whole after the ’06 elections. But Obama wants to pin
his whole candidacy on his anti Iraq war bona fides, which begin and end with
one speech in 2002. Seriously?
It’s also important to remember reality. A bit from my
interview with Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson on Saturday (podcast):
“Well, I think the fact that’s dominated the narrative is an
indication of how little people really understand the dynamics of the debate
as it was going on at the time. And the people making a lot of hay over this
weren’t there. I was there. I was fighting the fight. I looked to the left
of me. I looked to the right of me. I didn’t see Barack Obama anywhere. I
was out there and there is nobody who can deny that. … I didn’t
talk to Edwards about it because he was a co-sponsor of that particular resolution,
whereas a lot of us were trying to fight for more restrictive language. Being
in the minority, you couldn’t get that restrictive language at that time.
So what happened the day after the bill was passed? Hillary Clinton and Robert
Byrd went down and submitted another bill which further restricted, attempted
to restrict the ability for the president to act. But in actual fact, those
who were there are the debate will remember that the American people and the
U.S. Congress were sold on this resolution not because the president wanted
to go to war, because he said publicly, I do not want this resolution to go
to war. I want this resolution so I can get to the United Nations and get
intrusive inspections. That’s what Colin Powell said. That’s what the president
of the United States said and that’s what they got. They got a resolution
that permitted the president of the United States to go to the U.N. and get
intrusive inspections. The great betrayal of the America people is not in
that Resolution. It was in the president not allowing the inspections to reach
their natural conclusions. Her short circuited the process. That is the betrayal
of the country. That is the betrayal of the Congress. That’s the betrayal
of the American people. That’s the betrayal of the world. People who don’t
remember that are trying to spin this for their own particular short-term
partisan interest and they should not be allowed to get away with it. The
most important thing of course now, that aside, … is what is it going to
take to get out of there in a way that, one, protects our national security
interests, which has been terribly compromised in the region. … ..”
(listen
to the whole interview – 12 minutes) |
You know, Obama’s Iraq story is indeed a fairy tale and I feel we would all turn into
pumpkins the day after his inauguration. I’ll let Jeralyn dissect Mrs. Obama on that one.
All this reminds me of another exchange that revealed a bit about Mr. Obama. Remember
that back and forth with Bill O’Reilly recently? Besides Bill-O’s boorish behavior,
another moment stood out, though nobody noticed it because everyone was looking
at the Big Giant Head. But at one point O’Reilly asks Obama to come on his show.
Obama says after the primaries. O’Reilly speaks up again. Obama repeats, after
the primaries. Translation: Obama won’t go on O’Reilly before the primaries
because it will infuriate Democratic voters he needs in the primaries. But after
he’s suckered them and he’s got the nod, no problem.
As for Clinton, I know I will never agree with everything she says or does
(the Iraq war, Kyl-Lieberman), but I won’t have to worry about her voting present
or ducking a vote, and I do believe that diplomacy will drive her foreign policy,
like other Democrats. In addition, her Democratic ideology is strong and runs
deeps, which is why lunch bucket Dems are turning her way. In contrast, when
Obama was confronted by ABC about his lobbyist co-chair in New Hampshire he
flat out lied about it. When Clinton was pushed by Edwards at YearlyKos last
year to walk away from lobbyist money she said no and got booed for it. She’s
willing to take the hit, because until public financing she knows how cash counts. Deal with it.
But it was Clinton who challenged the Pentagon on a plan for withdrawal. She’s been attacked for her “suspension of disbelief” line she delivered to Petraeus. It
was also Clinton who put forth legislation challenging Bush’s “enduring relationship”
with Iraq, not Barack. Sure Obama talked a good game when he didn’t have to do anything
about it. Then when he got in the Senate he showed no leadership, with his votes
identical to Clinton’s. It’s long past time someone called him on it. That Clinton
is turning into Obama’s perceived strength is the most aggressive thing the
campaign has done to date.
