The reality is, however, that though Clinton voted for the war, there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama would have voted against the war in Iraq if he were a senator at the time
Barack Obama in 2002:
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Hillary Clinton, 2002:
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.
She voted for the damn war. Obama opposed it.
Related
The Neverending Debate
Cindy McCain’s Past
Cons Get Snookered By Drudge, Again
How many times has Sen Obama voted no on funding for the war?
Pain kills. Clinton is definitely like a back pain that won’t go away. Although, it would be difficult not to assume that Obama would’ve voted against it since most of congress did.
Look,
I’m a huge supporter of Obama. I think he represents the best hope for this country. In fact, he is the first presidential candidate in my adult life that I actually want to vote FOR, rather than casting a vote against the lesser of two evils (I have been voting since 1983).
Having said all that, I feel that he would have done exactly the same thing that Hillary did if he was in her shoes. You have to remember that only 21 of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the authorization to go to war. I don’t hold Hillary’s vote against her. I was annoyed and disappointed with all of the Senate – why focus on her alone.
I actually hold Hillary’s ‘We will obliterate Iran’ statement against her much more than her senate vote in 2002. That statement really annoyed me. I felt that it was reckless, particulary in light of the last 6 years of foreign policy disaster. You don’t hear that crap coming out of the Obama camp.
Funding is a separate issue. I do think it’s fair to at least conjecture that had Obama been in the Senate at the time he would have been under a different sort of pressure to support the war. I don’t think that thought carries much weight though because it seems unlikely that an opposing vote would sit badly with his constituency (at the time). It may also be that Obama has some integrity. Possibly.
A note on voting “no” against the funding. Who do you think feels it first if the military fails to receive adequate funding in the combat zone?
I remember being very indignant about the “purse-strings” theory of Congressional war protest, but over time I’ve come to think: the truth is that ending the war is a two-part process. Congress can agree to stop funding it, but the Executive then has to agree that the operation is over and the troops are coming home.
Bush is so fully on tilt now that he would leave our troops over there with nothing but sticks and rocks just to prove his “conviction” to the cause.
The reality is that it’s a lot harder to get out of a war than into one. That’s why you shouldn’t start stupid wars. Well, that and the utter immorality of doing so.
Oliver,
Can you please email this post to Taylor Marsh? Her comment blows my mind. My mind is now falling off the ceiling in little gray/red jelly blobs.
I love this sentence:
“though Clinton voted for the war, there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama would have voted against the war in Iraq if he were a senator at the time”
Though Led Zeppelin recorded “Stairway to Heaven,” there is no evidence whatsoever that Buddy Holly would have recorded listenable music if he had survived that plane crash.
Though the Texas Rangers traded Sammy Sosa, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Chicago Cubs would have offered Babe Ruth a contract if he were alive at the time.
Though the Coca Cola company introduced a disasterous reformulation of its product, there is no evidence whatsoever that Pepsico could have created an elixir of perpetual youth.
Vanessa:
Don’t forget, Bob Graham(then a Senator from Florida, and who voted against the AUMF) advised Hillary to read the NIE. As you might remember, it was reading the NIE that made Graham very uneasy and made him vote against the AUMF. And you know what Hillary did? She did not read the NIE. Fitting, isn’t it?
Taylor Marsh is hacktaculously horrible in her smear campaign against Sen. Obama. On the one hand Marsh says that she will support the eventual nominee and is a Democrat first but on the other hand she viciously attacks Sen. Obama and ramps up her “Marshans” to hate Obama.
Frankly, I think it’s best to ignore her. The less attention paid to her the better to squeeze out any hopes she has of making a bigger name for herself on the national scene.
Face it, Marsh wants to be another Ann Coulter. But as evil and twisted as Coulter is, Coulter is focused on the bottom lines: electing Republicans and making money. Coulter has kept her mouth shut and not attacked McCain as soon as it became apparent he would be the nominee. She looked at the long term view of her party and her pocketbook knowing not to become the source of damage to McCain.
Marsh continues to assault Obama. Recently, Marsh featured a cartoon of Obama as Marie Antoinette wearing a dress. The cartoon was both sexist and homophobic in that continued the lie that Marie Antoinette was a villain, that there is something wrong with femininity, and the implied attack on Obama’s masculinity.
The best part about that sentence is the first three words: “The reality is …”
The reality is, however, that though I’m not a doctor with any medical or science training, there is no evidence whatsoever that I won’t discover a cure for cancer while making French Toast in my kitchen. So I deserve federal funding.
It will get much, much worse in the next week or two before it gets better. I don’t think it will truly improve that much until Clinton formally concedes the race. Then there’s really no return on investment to attacking Obama.
The reality is, that while I’m a 35+ year old man who’s slow as molasses, there’s no reason to think I wouldn’t defeat Big Brown in the Preakness, if given the opportunity.
I’m a big fan of “The reality is..”, it makes almost anything possible. Thank you Taylor Marsh (and fafaroo).
I am getting so sick of this bullshit. It’s so tiresome. When do you suppose that the Hillary supporters will give it up? I’d love to know ahead of time so I can schedule a day off to celebrate…
Quaker: LOL!
Everyone on here who is implying that Obama secretly supported the war because he voted for the war funding is nuts. Obama is on record saying in 2004 that he opposed a pull out of our troops from Iraq. Even Howard Dean had that same position in 2004 and nobody questioned whether he was secretly for the war. He, like Obama, said time and time again that he was for internationalizing the occupation but not for a pullout. Now that it is obvious that things are not going to turn out good there at all.
Here is video of Obama chatting with Dean about Iraq back in 2003 and Dean clearly says he is not for withdrawal but rather internationalization.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jxwsdREgohY&feature=related
westchesterdead: In fact, he is the first presidential candidate in my adult life that I actually want to vote FOR, rather than casting a vote against the lesser of two evils (I have been voting since 1983).
I’ve only ever voted FOR presidential candiates, but Obama is the first one that I’ll vot for who has a decent chance of winning. I refuse to vote FOR an evil, even a lesser one. So most of my presidential votes have not gone to a nominee from one of the major parties. Only happened once before and that was 1992 when I gladly voted for Bill Clinton. Alas, not something I could do again in ‘96.
When do you suppose that the Hillary supporters will give it up?
I’m thinking sometime in the middle of December.
Bill Clinton was the last Presidential candidate I voted FOR.
How many times has Sen Obama voted no on funding for the war?
Every one of those provisional spending bills contained a method of bringing troops home and ending the occupation. I would have voted or them too.
Everyone on here who is implying that Obama secretly supported the war because he voted for the war funding is nuts.
That’s not what most of them are saying. There’s some truth to the statement that sitting Senators are under different pressure than people criticizing them from the sidelines, and there’s no proof that Obama would have voted his conscience if given the chance.
That said, that’s an argument that you make if you want to be exceedingly charitable to the candidate who voted for the war. And I don’t see any reason to be charitable to Clinton in the slightest anymore. She voted wrong, she campaigned wrong, and she’s even being ungracious in defeat. She’s lost to Obama, she’s compromised her advantages over him in the general election (whatever the polls may say this week), and yet we still have to hear about her antics every goddamned day. I’m ashamed to have shaken her hand once, let alone voted for her twice.
Most of the Democrats in the combined House-Senate voted against authorizing little bushie to embark on his mission of accomplishment. Hillary should have gone with what the majority of her party were thinking at the time.
…there’s no proof that Obama would nothave voted his conscience if given the chance.
Fixed.