Friday, April 04, 2008

Obama Lie Numero Uno -- IRAQ


A week ago, I promised a series on the many prevarications of Barack Obama and his surrogates.

Obama Lie Numero Uno: The Iraq war.


In speech after speech, Barack Obama has said that he has been a consistent and vehement opponent of the war from the beginning. His website labels him "a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq."
I loudly and vigorously opposed the war in Iraq.
You can find the above Obama quote all over the net. Less easily found is the context: He went on to speak in favor of continued war funding, because "Now that we are there, all of us want to see the mission succeed."

When MSNBC's David Shuster said that Obama and Hillary Clinton had exactly similar voting records on Iraq, Obama spokesperson Susan Rice falsely replied: "The records are quite, quite different." In fact, if you look at every single Iraq-related vote since he achieved the Senate, Obama has cast a vote differing from Clinton's only once -- the confirmation of General George Casey -- and Obama took the more conservative position on that occasion.

"I was in the middle of a high stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why." So said Barack Obama, lying through his teeth during a debate. The moment is caught in the video above, starting at the 1:50 mark.
In a September 26, 2007, debate at Dartmouth College, Obama congratulated himself for "telling the truth to the American people even when it's tough, which I did in 2002, standing up against this war at a time where it was very unpopular. And I was risking my political career, because I was in the middle of a U.S. Senate race."
This statement is a provable lie.

In 2002, when Barack Obama gave one (1) speech (for which no professional recording exists) denouncing the drive toward war, he was not campaigning for the United States Senate. He was running for re-election to the Illinois State Senate in a very liberal district. Expressing pro-war feelings would have been politically suicidal.

At that time, he spoke at a left-wing event at which Jesse Jackson was the featured figure. Even so, Obama denounced the upcoming war only after asking advisers "Am I gonna have damage politically?"

Tellingly, the speech was not videotaped. (At least not professionally.) The video on YouTube is a fake created by the Obama campaign. I doubt that any other Democratic candidate would be allowed to get away with so bold a step as to re-create a speech.

Before the invasion, Barack Obama never wrote a single essay, article, blog comment or letter to the editor against Bush's drive to war. He made sure not to leave an internet trail.

In fact, he took pains to destroy all record of his 2002 speech by removing it from his website -- the only easily-accessible source for his words on that occasion. On his official website, he now calls his war position "consistent." If so, why the scrub?

Obama's ploy was clever: If the war had been successful and popular, no-one could easily prove that he had ever denounced it. If public opinion turned against the war, he could claim that he had always opposed it.

"Political damage"? Nope!

Obama did not announce his quest for a U.S. Senate seat until late in 2003. Even though Illinois was and is a reliably blue state, I have yet to find a single speech made during that campaign in which he questioned the decision to invade Iraq.

His website says that
In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail.
Neither that site nor any other known to me -- and I've done some heavy-duty Googling -- quotes Obama speaking out against the decision to go to war during that period, although he may have critiqued the conduct of the conflict.

In truth, while "in the middle of a high stakes campaign," he suddenly became eager to address any non-Iraq topic. On one occasion when he was forced to confront the war, he became the mirror image of George W. Bush. In July of 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune:
There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.
Supporters try to excuse this quote by saying that Obama referred to the occupation, not the invasion. In fact, it is the Obama apologists who have sought to blur that distinction.

They have consistently portrayed Hillary's vote in 2002 (a vote which mirrored those of Kerry and Edwards) not as an authorization of force if Saddam refused weapons inspections -- as we know, inspections did eventually occur -- but as an endorsement of both the invasion and the ongoing occupation.

Obama supporters can't have it both ways.

In his speech to the Democratic convention, Obama refused to denounce Bush's decision to go to war -- even though the nominee, John Kerry, did just that. So did Bill Clinton.

Obama's apologists have claimed that he danced around the subject of Iraq in 2004 in order to avoid embarrassing Kerry. But in his acceptance speech, Kerry denounced the invasion with forceful invective. To thunderous applause, Kerry said: "I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war." And: "Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so."

Remember these words?
I will immediately reform the intelligence system, so policy is guided by facts and facts are never distorted by politics. And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation.
John Kerry said those words. Obama -- still worried about "political damage" -- refused to utter anything remotely similar.

Hypocritical progressive bloggers now damn Kerry as an appeaser while crediting the always-calculating Obama with a courage he has never displayed.

In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama admits that he reconsidered his opposition to the war during the fall of Baghdad in 2003. At the time, the invasion commanded broad popular support. Although he criticized the conduct of the ongoing occupation, Obama did not again denounce the decision to go to war until the public had decisively turned against W's great misadventure.

On July 26, 2004, Obama essentially offered a public apology, in the pages of the New York Times, for doubting Bush's justification for war:
I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.
In his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote (page 294):
Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn’t consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried.
Speaking once more to the New York Times in 2006, he continued in this vein:
"I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence," he said. "And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."
In other words, he still would not call into question the very basis of the Iraq misadventure -- even after the Niger forgeries were exposed.

His first Iraq-related vote came when he voted to confirm Condi Rice as Secretary of State. Her many lies in the run-up to the Iraq invasion did not seem to bother Barack Obama.

When did Barack Obama first vote against funding the Iraq debacle? Less than one year ago.

Previously he had voted for every funding bill:

2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05
2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05
2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06
2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06, HR5631, 9/7/06.

On November 23, 2004, Obama told Charlie Rose:
Once we go in, then we're committed... We have got to do everything we can to stabilize the country, because we have too much at stake in the Middle East.
John Kerry's public stance was quite different. He admitted that he was misled by the Bush administration in 2002. Kerry called for withdrawing American troops and replacing them with an international peacekeeping force, including soldiers from the region.

In 2005, Senator Russ Feingold proposed an orderly complete withdrawal from Iraq. (Go here if you want to see what a truly consistent anti-Iraq record looks like -- much more consistent than either Clinton or Obama can claim.) The progressives who now applaud Obama favored Feingold's proposal. Yet Obama refused to support it -- in fact, he opposed it. However, he did so in a very Janus-faced fashion, praising Feingold while speaking to a friendly audience. Despite this praise, Obama told the Chicago Tribune in December of 2005:
"It is arguable that the best politics going into '06 would be a clear succinct message: 'Let's bring our troops home'...It's certainly easier to communicate and I think would probably have some pretty strong resonance with the American people right now, but whether that's the best policy right now, I don't feel comfortable saying it is."
A month earlier, in November of 2005, Obama called for a gradual troop draw-down: "Notice I say 'reduce,' not "fully withdraw."

By contrast, both Jack Murtha and Russ Feingold had already asked for full withdrawal.

I have yet to find a single instance when Obama took a politically risky stance on the war. As David Sirota put it:
So yes, Obama did oppose the war back in 2002. But yes, between that speech and the announcement of his presidential run when loud opposition to the war became a Democratic primary necessity, he has dithered between not talking about the war, supporting funding for the war, and even suggesting that he might have voted for the war had he been in the U.S. Senate at the time.
Throughout 2007, progressives demonized Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whom leftists considered a Bush appeaser. Yet Reid had tried to implement a bold plan which would have cut all Iraq funding within a year -- to be specific, by last month. This plan was initially opposed by Barack Obama, at a key time when Reid was trying to rally support:
The freshman senator has been trying to position himself as the antiwar candidate in the Democratic presidential primary, but this weekend he told the Associated Press that he will support continued funding for the war—even if President Bush follows through on a pledge to veto any hard withdrawal date.

That move puts Obama in lonely, treacherous waters—directly in opposition to Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who announced he will push to cut off funding for the war within a year.
At the last moment, with an eye on the poll numbers and his presidential chances, Obama did vote yea on the joint resolution. So did Hillary Clinton. The bill failed by 12 votes; Obama did no noticeable arm-twisting.

One of Obama's top foreign policy consultants, Samantha Power, said that the Senator, if elected, probably would not follow through on his campaign pledge to withdraw from Iraq. She said that the campaign's plan to remove troops within 16 months actually represented only a "best case scenario" which was unlikely to happen.

Today, key Obama advisor Colin Kahl has suggested keeping 80,000 troops in Iraq until 2010.

Not once has Obama taken a risky, principled stand on Iraq. He has opposed the war only when protected by a political safety net. He portrays his record as consistent, despite his Mystique-like ability to shape-shift. And when Bill Clinton accurately denounced Obama's "opposition" to the war as a "fairy tale," Obama's big-media supporters pretended that Clinton's words were somehow racist.

Barack Obama is both an intellectual coward and a shameless revisionist of his own history. Like the banker who will lend you money only when you don't need it, he opposed Bush's war only when doing so carried no political cost.

Barack Obama: Profile in cowardice.

Note to readers: Don't duck. Don't dodge.

In other words, don't do ye olde topic-switch.

And don't bother typing up any comments beginning with the words "But Hillary..." We are not talking about Hillary Clinton in this post. We are talking about Barack Obama. If you think I have mischaracterized his position -- if you think I have left out an important quote -- fine, let's see your sources. I am all attention, and I am perfectly willing to rewrite.

But I will not allow you to switch topics.

And need I remind you that it is swinish to presume bad faith whenever a writer says something that goes against your biases?

(This post can be republished in toto by anyone.)

UPDATE: A reader named Scott has sent links to videos which allegedly show Obama making anti-war statements in 2002 and 2004 -- but NOT during the Senate campaign. I've decided not to do a full rewrite of the above piece; you cn check out the sitch for yourself in the comments section below. Scott's latter video is really, really, really funny -- in fact, it proves my point superbly. So first, read comments 29 and 30 below, then check out the video evidence for yourself.

And strap yourself into your office chair, because you may fall out of it if you get the same kind of giggles I got.

59 comments:

Anonymous said...

hear hear

Charles D said...

Haven't we nominated one of those flip-floppers before? How did that work out? Of course, the choice is a flip-flopper on Iraq or someone who was wrong from the beginning and still is. It's a tough call ain't it?

Anonymous said...

But Hillary...

Anonymous said...

Only Obama bashing will be allowed, don't try to switch the subject to comparing both candidate !!!

Anonymous said...

Joe...much as you defended Pelosi's principled stand regarding impeachment and how it would taint her credibility as a power hungry harpy...is there not room to allow for "some" triangulating by BHO so as to GET elected in the first place..much can be changed when he sits in the oval office and can set the agenda..especially with the public so overwhelmingly tired of the war and worried (read distracted) by their problems with their own pocketbooks...regardless
I'm glad for your digging and please keep it coming..~Brian S.

AitchD said...

Senator, "You can't pee up my back and tell me it's rain" - Doris Roberts in "Hester Street".

Anonymous said...

You're wrong, Mr. Cannon:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z0BzRhtAcd8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

Anonymous said...

Thank you blogslut for posting this.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z0BzRhtAcd8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

So Joe what do you make of those?

Anonymous said...

Joe,
Do you think this video is faked?
Is this an authentic clip from his speech of Oct. 2002?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

Joseph Cannon said...

Color me unimpressed.

I'll rewrite the piece shortly to include those videos, but I don't see how they will change the situation much. Both come from 2002, at a time when he still had his anti-war speech up on his website. He was in situations where he was forced to say something, and it all looked pretty yanked from the mouth to me.

Far from being vocal in his opposition, he was in a situation where he could not avoid the topic. He didn't bring up the war resolution until compelled by his interviewer, and seemed pretty damned uncomfortable doing so.

In that situattion, he had no choice but to say something that corresponded with the information on his web page. This may be why he took that speech off of his page shortly thereafter.

More to the point, he was still but a state senator in a very liberal area. Saying the things he did carried no political risk at that time. (Actually, I must admit that he sounded a bit hawkish in that interview. I suppose THAT was a risk of sorts for his district.)

Frankly, I was worried you'd find videos like that from the 2003-2005 period. If you dig something like THAT up, it would impact my post in a substantive way. If he questioned the basis for war while running for the U.S. Senate -- well, that's the proverbial horse of a different color.

(Can we still use that cliche without someone scrying racism into it?)

Unless you can present such evidence, then my basic outline of events still stands: Obama spoke out against the war in 2002, while on turf where doing so would be to his political advantage. He didn't write about it. He didn't speak about it while the cameras were running except for those two situations where he was forced to do so. He never did anything politically risky.

Once the invasion happened -- and once he decided to run for the senate -- he changed his tune, to the small and restrained degree he had been singing that tune to begin with. Between 2002 and decision to run for president, he never criticized the decision to invade. He seems to have genuinely rethought his position on the case for war. (I am giving him perhaps too much credit in asserting that he may have changed his mind based on principle, not calculation.) And he did not have the balls to support Russ Feingold's bill.

About Pelosi: At the time I wrote all that stuff, I was still hoping for impeachment hearings, even though the impeachment movement began to repulse me. I hoped hearings would occur after a proper triggering event -- the flagrant snubbing of a subpoena, for exmaple.

I've since heard (can't tell you the source, but it is someone I trust) that Pelosi really did pressure John Conyers not to hold hearings. I guess Pelosi's political calculation was that the Democratic nominee would run against Bush in 2008, metaphorically speaking, so it would be best to keep him in office.

I was not prepared to hear that message when it was coming from a howling mob on Democratic Underground. I'm mob-phobic, as you have surely guessed. Those guys reminded me of a bunch of torch-wielding villagers at the end of a Frankenstein movie, and I was pretty thoroughly disgusted with the lot of 'em.

What finally started to turn me was hearing from that source.

Now, oddly enough, the same screaming villagers just love, love LOVE Nancy Pelosi, because she loves Obama.

Screaming mobs are funny things, aren't they?

By now you should be able to predict what my stance will always be. "When they hand you lined paper, write the other way." When the mob chants "We want X" -- I'll probably rewrite a "No on X" piece.

At any rate, at the time I was still a support-the-party-at-all-costs kind of guy. Now -- the degeneration of the progressive movement into a clone of the conservative movement has caused me to rethink everything.

This is no longer the party of Al Gore and John Kerry and John Edwards and Joe Biden. This is the party of -- yecch! -- Markos and Arianna and all of those howler monkeys on D.U. It's a party where Randi Rhodes and the rest of her AA cronies feel free to be every bit as bad as Rush Limbaugh.

I don't want to get anywhere NEAR that scrofulous crowd -- but since I will never agree with the Republicans politically, where can I go?

I am homeless. And I would rather sleep in the streets than use the Kos shelter.

Anons, I really should delete your comments just for being anons. But you still don't get it, do you? No matter how many times I tell you, you still don't get it.

Screw Hillary. I DO NOT LIKE HILLARY CLINTON.

I support her for only one reason: She is the only thing standing between Barack Obama and the nomination. I can maybe, sorta tolerate the idea of voting for her. Without her, I'll sit out the general election.

All in all, though, I wish that she had never run. Maybe John Edwards would now be in her shoes.

(THAT's a weird image.)

You anonymous jackasses are devoted to your false dichotomies. "Anyone who hates Obama must be a slave to Hillary." "Anyone who despises Hillary must be a worshipper of Obama."

When did that notion take root? Only a few months ago, it was fairly common to encounter "progressives" who didn't like either one. In fact, that was considered a very respectable position. What happened?

Anonymous said...

I see, so setting aside any argument over the veracity of your contention, by dint of executive privilege, you hereby forbid anyone who disagrees with you to do so in the context of the current Democratic Nomination, or Presidential Election cycle.

We are not to evaluate or comment on your claims or their relative importance within the context of this competition, because clearly your reasons for putting together this hit piece have nothing to do with the election - rendering any comparison to other candidate meaningless.

Your point seems to be that Obama is not Jesus, the mythological George Washington, or even a boy scout. Only comparison with some "perfect ideal" are up for discussion here. After all, our choices in this election are between Obama, and God... apparently.

If those are the limits of discussion, this is not a discussion at all. It is a postured brief for the prosecution that you have disingenuously used in order to discredit one candidate while simultaneously shielding any other candidate from similar analysis in any rebuttal.

I'm going to leave the detailed rebuttals to someone who thinks your posture warrants it. Your "expose" has left me completely disillusioned - not with respect to Obama, but rather with respect to you. IMO, your posturing has stripped this blog of all relevance, and for me now holds about the same level of esteem in political discourse as Drudge.

If anyone sees the Joseph Cannon who used to run this blog, please give me a holler. I miss him.

Joseph Cannon said...

In other words, doc, when it comes to defending your candidate, now that his opportunism stnads exposed -- you got nothin'. And you're pissed off that I won't let you switch topics.

Disgusting.

Joseph Cannon said...

Come to think of it...NOBODY has yet attacked my central proposition: That Obama changed his position on the invasion after it happened, and that he showed nowhere near the sort of political courage that Feingold or Mutha displayed.

I have cited plenty of evidence. Nobody has cited any counter-evidence. You are content to say "You're wrong" without offering any facts. And you are pissed off because I won't let you duck or dodge or switch topics.

Joseph Cannon said...

Let me remind you of the quote, jackasses:

"I was in the middle of a high stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war"

That is what we call a LIE. I have presented evidence of its falseness. None of you have presented any counter evidence. When he was running for US Senate, he was not "vocal" at all on the invasion.

You jerks treat the Bonsia flap as though it were important. It isn't. THIS is.

Ah, if only Jack Ryan had not cheated on the lovely Jerri...!

Anonymous said...

You said his 2002 speech was a fake. I gave you proof that it was not.

I also provided you proof that, in 2002, he said he would have voted Nay on the IWR.

I'm sorry you wish to ignore my refutation. I too, am saddened.

John said...

Joe,

I suggest you take some time off. Of all the people I read daily, you had always been the most intellectually honest blogger. But suddenly, something is not right with you.

It's not your Obama hatred that bothers me - I completely agree that he has run the dirtiest campaign any Democrat has ever ran for president.

It's everything else you throw in. It's the voting-for-McCain threats, and the "screw Hillary" comment...stuff like that. Real Democrats don't act like that. Real Democrats don't say things like that.

I was there with you in 2004 when the mysterious John Sanders (aka Jeremy Lowe) was messing with Jeff Fisher, BBV, Daily Kos, your site, and others.

I was there with you throughout the Wilkes story, doing research in the background for you.

I've always been here for you.
I'll continue to be here for you.

But you need to take a break.

John Dean
SluggoJD

Joseph Cannon said...

blogslut, why do you come here if not to read?

Read the words I actually say, not the words you hallucinate.

I did not say his 2002 speech was fake. Everyone agrees that he said it. Hillary always praises him for it, much more than she ought.

What was FAKE was the recreated version on YouTube.

John, if you feel comfortable being in the same party with Moulitsas, stay there. After seeing what has happened to progressives -- how their blogs have degenerated into something resembling the Free Republic, circa 1999 -- I feel as though I have no home.

John said...

Joe,

How many times do I have to say these things...

Markos is not a Democrat, he's a Libertarian.

Few progressives are Democrats - they are Libertarians, Socialists, Greens, and right wingers faking people out.

And they are crashing the gates of the Democratic Party, like a gang of thugs...sorry, not "like" - they ARE a gang of thugs.

SluggoJD

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joseph Cannon said...

John, I don't think Kos is a Libertarian. And I think you are too quick to pin blame on outside forces. That's the easy way out -- and it is intellectually dishonest.

The GOP's tactics taught Dems like Moulitsas a hard lesson: If you want to win, you have to be willing to mount a no-holds-barred conscience-free propaganda campaign. You have to turn thinking people into a mob.

And now that is how the game is played. On both sides.

Kevin Brownlow once made a great movie which you probably haven't seen. It's called "It Happened Here," and it's about what the UK would have been like if the Nazis had won WWII.

At the end of the movie, a resistance leader outlines various ways in which he plans to undermine the new Nazi-fied state. The callow new recruit says: "But if we do all that, won't we be as bad as THEY are?"

The resistance leader answers: "Of course. The appalling thing about fascism is that it forces you adopt fascist means to combat it."

That quote has always stuck with me.

A variant of that quote explains what happened to Kos, and to the progressive left: "The appalling thing about Limbaughism is that it forces you to adopt Limbaugh-like means to combat it."

Joseph Cannon said...

doc, you officially get the "Duck Dodgers" button for the day. I told you: This is not about Hillary and I won't let you change the subject to her. Screw Hillary. I caught Barry in a whole passel of lies, and you will either find evidence exonerating him or you will confess that I am right.

Or -- more likely -- you will continue to dodge.

Remember that song in "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas"? I think the lyric went: "Oooooh...I love to dance the little sidestep..."

Anonymous said...

There are two camps here. Both are driven by distrust of one or the other candidate. Hillary-haters are cool if Obama wants to triangulate on the war to get elected. Obama-distrusters are fine if Hillary wants to triangulate on the war to get elected. But each side thinks that the other candidate's triangulation is a sure sign that she or he is in the pockets of the NeoCons aka Exxon.

You can see the problem here, right? McCain is the one in the pocket of the NeoCons and Exxon. Both Hillary and Obama are triangulating to get elected to stop the war. Neither is a liar. Obama's camp needs to chill with the "Gore is a liar" rhetoric (which is being propelled by the RNC and the MSM) because when they support it they hurt their own candidate's image with core Democrats and turn the primary into Chicago 1968--which is what Karl Rove has planned all along. I have been blogging about this since last year.

Joseph Cannon said...

McCany, to a large extent, I can agree with you. But my point is, it's over, or nearly so. We are already living through Chicago '68, right now, this moment, and the whole world is watching. Denver, whether chaotic or serene, will be just a formality. The left spent years building up a media infrastructure which has now become an obscenity, the propaganda arm of a Mao-like cult of personality.

I don't want McCain to win. The Republicans will always be monsters. On the other hand, I don't want the Dems to win either, because they've turned into monsters.

Anonymous said...

Joseph, I now more fully understand your position on the two candidates we are following.

There was a time I didn't like Hillary Clinton, but I got over it.

I, for a brief period of that time was falling for the BHO bull and had that sick feeling that kept me doubting the words I heard. They didn't reach me as deeply as other leaders have done for me over my 67years.

When I woke up fully and resigned from BHO's hypnotic hold, I began to breathe easier. I knew he was a phoney because I am like him.

I tell a great and convincing tale but cannot do the work I promise to do to completion because talking is so much more fun and my ego is pumped by the attention. Daily chores bore me and I either don't do them or escape somewhere.

He is an attention junky. He loves the recognition a title gives him. He gets high from the fans' worship. He admitted he isn't into details, he can't keep track of a piece of paper and relies on others' directions to get through a day.

He cannot remember what he told the past people so he skirts the issue through Spike Lee's words spoken by Denzel Washington, and plagarized by Barack Obama, "bamboozling, hoodwinking" us with his rhetoric. His arrogance and need to feed his ego will soon be obvious.

I respect you Joseph, inspite of your dislike of Senator Clinton, and I feel bad about the friends who have drifted away from you because of their inability to accept someone who isn't trying to make a statement.

We have a tendency to move in circles that validate our true selves. If their candidate (who has no true self cause he's too busy being everyone else's) is elected and their disappointment in what they find running our country hits them they'll be back with crow feathers on their mouths.

I waited and watied for these discussions of BHO to arrive. I'm not let down!

Thanks for all your hard work.

Karen KB

Anonymous said...

"Frankly, I was worried you'd find videos like that from the 2003-2005 period. If you dig something like THAT up, it would impact my post in a substantive way. If he questioned the basis for war while running for the U.S. Senate -- well, that's the proverbial horse of a different color. " Joe C.

See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtDJqa16-&NR=1

Obama on the Charlie Rose Show.Nov 24, 2004 .
A bit into the video above.

Anonymous said...

"In 2002, when Barack Obama gave one (1) speech (for which no professional recording exists) denouncing the drive toward war, he was not campaigning for the United States Senate. He was running for re-election to the Illinois State Senate in a very liberal district. " Joe C.

But see here from a critical comment about Obama:
Michael Crowley: "Is Obama's Iraq record really a fairy tale?"

SOURCE: New Republic (2-27-08)

"At a minimum, that's an overstatement. With war looming in the fall of 2002, Obama was preparing a long-shot run for an open U.S. Senate seat, which he would not formally announce until the following January."
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/47363.html

So he was not "in the middle" but just preparing to run.

Joseph Cannon said...

Scott, are you screwing with me, or is there some weird tech difficulty?

The link you give simply goes nowhere.

I checked every single Charlie Rose video on You Tube for 22004. Not one of them is for a November 24 broadcast.

Am I missing something?

If I recall correctly, I cite the New Repulic article myself. If I don't cite it, I certainly read it while preparing my own piece. It is undoubtedly worth a read.

But what of it? Obama may have had his eye on the US Senate seat in 2002 -- although he had little chance until Ryan stupidly decided that Jerry wasn't enough for him -- but the office he was running for in that era was STATE Senator.

Like it or not, my position stands. He said a few (very few) things agianst the run-up to invasion in 2002, while running for a seat in one of the most liberal parts of the country. In that area, taking a PRO-Bush stance would have been politically risky.

By 2003-2004, he decided to go after the Senate seat. And he either got cold feet because the war was popular, or -- if you believe HIS OWN BOOK -- he decided that there really was a case to be made for invading Iraq. He was either calculated or hawkish. You can't get away from his record!

Man, I wish Feingold had run.

Oh, and Karen --

Thanks. It's rather refreshing to be slammed for not liking Hillary. Usually, I get accused of being one of her well-paid minions.

I'm having so much picturing my readers right now. Turning red, stomping their feet, steam coming out of their ears: "I wanna switch the topic to Hillary and that bad old man WON'T LET ME!"

Joseph Cannon said...

Oops. That is TWICE today that I've misspelled the name of Jeri Ryan.

Anonymous said...

Joe,
for Charlie Rose try

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtDJqa16-G8

Joseph Cannon said...

Oh, Scott, thank you thank you thank THANK YOU!

That video was HILARIOUS! And it proves my point perfectly.

The video tries to portray Obama as consistent on the war, year by year. But then it cuts to the stark title "2003" and we see...

Nothin'.

Not a single video clip of Obama offering ONE word against the war IN THE YEAR THE INVASION TOOK PLACE.

I busted a GUT laughing!

And did we see a single clip of Obama denouncing the invasion during the convention? Nope. None to be had. (I've checked.)

Not a single clip of Obama saying one word against the war WHILE RUNNING FOR SENATOR.

Let's review the lies which prompted this piece:

"I loudly and vigorously opposed the war in Iraq."

"I was in the middle of a high stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why."

"telling the truth to the American people even when it's tough, which I did in 2002, standing up against this war at a time where it was very unpopular. And I was risking my political career, because I was in the middle of a U.S. Senate race."

Dude, you can't give me even ONE vid clip from the time he was in the middle of a U.S. Senate race?

PaaaaaTHETIC!

By the time he appeared on Charlie Rose in November of 04, the polls were turning -- the majority were indicating that they thought the whole thing had been a bad idea.

Obama was safely IN his seat.

And -- this is the part you are not telling -- he briefly had to reinstate his 2002 speech on his website, after The Black COmmentator and others had scored him for scrubbing the thing.

So when Rose pressed him -- and ONLY after Rose pressed him -- he had to say the words consistent with his 2002 positions.

Is that your idea of being a vocal and consistent opponent of the war while "in the middle" of a senate campaign?

Pathetic!

Thanks, Scottikins. I may embed that very video if I do a follow-up piece. If you have any more links, PLEASE pass them along.

Anonymous said...

Not so fast Joe. I see you keep moving the goal posts as well.

"In fact, during Obama's Senate campaign, he explained his opposition to this particular war funding bill in detail. From a September 29, 2003 Obama press release:"

"Obama challenged the Congress to 'stand up to the misplaced priorities of this Administration' by delaying the $87 billion for Iraq until the President provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq. 'It's not just Iraq that needs rebuilding. It's America, too,' Obama said."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6786_desperate_in_nh_1.html

Anonymous said...

Words of War: Clinton Camp Muddies Obama's Anti-War Stance but Record Is Clear
ABC News Obtains Videos Showing Obama's Consistent Opposition to Iraq War Despite Clinton Camp's Claims:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2966537&page=1

Joseph Cannon said...

Scott, you accuse ME of moving the goal posts? That's like Nazi Germany accusing Poland of being militarily aggressive.

My goal posts are clear.

I asked for evidence that he had ever denounced the invasion of Iraq while on the campaign trail. He said he did. He said that he was one of the most vocal critics of the war.

"Michael Moore? Compared to me, that guy is a pussy. I was out there every day, giving speech after speech, denouncing the invasion of Iraq..."

That's the impression Obama now tries to convey.

And it's a load of hogwash.

I have always been clear that there's a difference between criticizing conduct of the war and denouncing the very idea of the thing. I've always said that he did the former at the convention.

The ABC News clip from 2003 still buttresses MY point.

For some reason, you can't seem to find any clips of Obama on the campaign trail denouncing the invasion. And I know you are trying very hard, Scottikins.

Look, all you have here is one talk show clip from 2003 where Obama is talking to the same guy he talked to back in 2002. Obama knows that he can bullshit Berkowitz only so far, because Berkowitz talked to him before.

So what does Obama do? Outlandishly, he makes a PRO-INVASION statement!

Listen to the thing. Listen to the words he actually says, not the words you WANT him to have said.

Obama is trying to sound as hawkish as possible -- either because he really has been turned around on the issue (as his book says) or because he's running for Senate.

But he knows that he has to find some way to remain semi-consistent with his earlier statement, because he's talking to one guy who might recall his earlier stance.

How to be a hawk while talking to a guy who knows you were once a dove? That's a problem.

Solution: He retreats to the position that, yes, Iraq should have been invaded, but it should have been a multilateral force, not a unilateral force.

Of course, the Bushies would have countered that the U.S. WAS part of a multi-lateral force. In GOP eyes (not in my eyes, of course), the "coalition of the willing" constituted just that.

So once again, you've come up with a clip that favors my argument.

Hit me with more, Scott!

I should be paying you as a research assistant. You do nothing but help me.

Again, I'll probably use that very clip you've dug up if and when I write a follow-up piece.

It's devastating...! Obama actually DEFENDS the need to invade Iraq!

Anonymous said...

Aside from the context of the available choices in this Presidential election, what point is there in discussing this?

I'm not shrinking from countering your claim. It isn't worth the time and effort to do so, because I'm interested in getting the best available candidate elected, imperfections and all, and all this bitching and moaning accomplishes ZERO toward that end.

It would be hilarious to read about your hallucinations where you describe how this so-called conundrum has your remaining readers all tied up in knots throwing temper tantrums... if it wasn't so tragic.

Check your language. Look at how your attempt to advance your argument, and the way you seek self-gratification through the liberal use of grammar school-level name calling, and tell me who's throwing tantrums. You are surrounded by mirrors, yet cannot see yourself.

When you point to the lack of convincing counter-arguments as proof of the superior intellect you have applied to smash our illusions, you grant yourself far too much credit. I don't bother to argue with the guy in the park screaming about the government reading his thoughts, either. It doesn't mean I think he's right.

Joseph Cannon said...

Dude, the names I've called others have been insignificant compared to what I have been called. You should see some of the drive-bys that I've deleted.

And that, doc, is why your friends Obama and Kos made such a BIG mistake when they instituted a smear compaign during a primary: A trick like that can work in the short term, but it alienates people you're going to need in the general election.

You won't admit that now, but at some point in the future, you will.

Obama is, in my view, the worst of the three major candidates. I've just begun to dig into his lies and corruption.

I notice that you STILL won't defend his shifting positions on the war, or his lies about how he acted during his Senate campaign. Jeez, our friend Scotty just found a video from 2003 where Obama argues in favor of invasion!

Anonymous said...

I've already explained why I am not engaging in a "tit for tat" argument over the details of your claim over the course of two posts, neither of which approached your level of venom, but one of which is now gone. I can't even recall what I wrote, but it must have been easier to delete than to rationally counter. (That means I win! see how easy that is?)

You have obviously put a lot of time and effort into this, yet you refuse to allow any discussion of it in the context of our alternatives. I've pointed out the irrational nature of that false limitation, and you've answered by re-stating your hatred, declaring he is "the worst of the remaining candidates" (while studiously avoiding any supporting arguments that could open a whole new can of worms for your argument).

And frankly, I do not find your arguments are very meaty - but I'll be happy to stipulate a victory for you, if that makes you happy. Even if it is true, it isn't enough to make him less appealing that either of the other two, for me personally. That's why I am not arguing it with you.

Hey, given the serious problems this nation faces, if that's your opinion, good luck with your support of John McCain this fall. As it so happens, one of us was going to end up voting for him. But I have an excuse - I'm not a Democrat (yet.)

You on the other hand should really go back and read your old posts about those you designate "purists" and how their abandonment of the party in favor of some defeated primary candidate of choice or some "protest vote" for a non-contender was responsible for the condition this country was in.

Are you really unable to see how you have become that which you despised? I'm not even going to get into your bleating about how Obama made this campaign "personal". If you can't take the heat, get out of the Kitchen. At least he didn't throw support to the Republican over and over again in some kind of scorched earth campaign of "me or nobody". Thats about the only line crossed in this campaign that really got to me.

Obviously, something else has gotten to you, but I can only guess at what that might be - something that either makes you believe the most serious problems we face would be less serious with McCain in the WH than with Obama there - or something personal enough for you not to care.

Oh, well, you can't win them all. Looking forward to helping my candidate beat yours in November. Let's wait a couple of years after that before one congratulates the other. If you have any need to respond, you have my e-mail address.

Joseph Cannon said...

Dave, it's like this. Let me put it into homespun terms that everyone can understand.

We all get into arguments, right? With the kids, the wife, hubby, co-workers, whatever. It's part of life.

Sometimes you put a lot of work into your argument. You know that you have facts on your side. You do your research. You state your case at length and in detail.

And you are perfectly willing to revise if someone comes up with some facts that trip you up.

All of this has happened to you before, right? Happens to everyone.

And then what happens? The person you are talking to -- the wife, the kid, the co-worker -- CHANGES THE SUBJECT.

Pisses you off, doesn't it?

Now do you understand where I am coming from?

You have plenty of places to bitch about Hillary. You have DU and Kos to romp and stomp around in.

THIS post is about a few lies told by Barack Obama. He says that he was a staunch opponent of the war during his senate run. I've shown that he wasn't.

That's the topic. And I know that you are pissing your pants, just dying to do ye olde topic switch...

...and I ain't a-lettin' you do it. Because if you try, you're deleted.

Notice I haven't deleted Scottikins. I give him credit. He has addressed the issue head on. And although his examples never help his case much -- and sometimes damage it -- at least he has had the decency not to sidestep.

Understand now?

gary said...

Obama Wikipedia page:

Obama was an early opponent of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq.[125] On October 2, 2002, the day Bush and Congress agreed on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War,[126] Obama addressed the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq War rally in Federal Plaza,[127] speaking out against it.[128]

On March 16, 2003, the day President Bush issued his 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq before the U.S. invasion of Iraq,[129] Obama addressed the largest Chicago anti-Iraq War rally to date in Daley Plaza and told the crowd "It's not too late" to stop the war.[130]

Obama sought to make his early public opposition to the Iraq War before it started a major issue in his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign to distinguish himself from his Democratic primary rivals who supported the resolution authorizing the Iraq War,[131] and in his 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign, to distinguish himself from four Democratic primary rivals who voted for the resolution authorizing the war (Senators Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd).[132]

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/528231411.html?dids=528231411:528231411&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT

Unfortunately a pay-per-view article but the abstract summarizes:

"Another candidate, state Sen. "Barack Obama has tried to make the Iraq situation a major issue in his campaign, saying he was the only Democratic contender to publicly oppose the invasion before it began. Obama also is the only candidate to say he would have fought [Bush]'s $87 billion reconstruction request for Iraq and Afghanistan had he been in Congress."

AitchD said...

"So first, read comments 29 and 30 below, then check out the video evidence for yourself."

Is it my Commodore 64 or aren't your comments numbered? It's not fun swapping 4 1/2" floppies.

Twice in this blog you've written the uninformed form 'ye olde' (which I only mention since it's the weekend).

If Hillary runs with Russ as VP, will you like her? (He's my favorite politician! My middle name is Russell!)

Joseph Cannon said...

Gary, I want to thank you. Responses like yours are pretty much the only reason I bother to have comments on this page.

I would need to see the Chicago pieces before re-writing. Unfortunately, I can't make any online purchases of any kind. Do you know of anyone who has that stuff? Otherwise, I'll have to fetch it the old-fashioned way -- from the university library.

Seems odd to me that you can't find any 2003-2004 material of that sort anywhere on Obama's site, on YouTube, or -- anywhere. And we all know that partisan intersts can affect the way some wikipedia pages are written. Still, you've done a service here, and I will try to find that material.

Joseph Cannon said...

Gary, I've been looking up articles about that March 16 rally, and none of them mention Obama. I think he was there, but this is getting frustrating.

However, for the sake of honesty, I did find one interview in 2004 where he talks about opposing the invasion.

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=3931

Granted, he was on very friendly territory here, so there was no real politcal risk. I mean, the gay media kind of exists within its own ghetto; it usually isn't read by the larger community.

But I have to admit, he did say the words during the Senate campaign. After seraching and searching, I could find no other citation.

It's still a bit odd, because he talks about how we should have "unilaterally" contained Hussein. But in the video referenced above, he supported the invasion yet said that it should have been "multilateral."

So the guy was definitely sending mixed signals to different audiences.

And, sorry, but it really is weird to see him brag gs about being a vocal opponent of the invasion during his campaign, and yet his site does not reprint or link to a single relevant speech from that period.

Joseph Cannon said...

One last thing, Gary: I did say "I have yet to find a single speech made during that campaign in which he questioned the decision to invade Iraq."

Do we count an interview as a speech? Seems to me that being forced by an interviewer to address a topic differs from being a "vocal" opponent of the war.

Anonymous said...

Joseph said,
"I would need to see the Chicago pieces before re-writing. Unfortunately, I can't make any online purchases of any kind. Do you know of anyone who has that stuff? Otherwise, I'll have to fetch it the old-fashioned way -- from the university library."

Here you go... (Search a seemingly unique string of words from the article's bit that you do have ["reconstruction request for Iraq and Afghanistan had he been in Congress."] via copy and paste into search engine, in quotes. If you get it and can't open the article itself, try the Google cache.)

This link to Google cache will get you the article:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4p5ezu

tinyurl.com makes huge long links short. The preview option let's the reader see you aren't sending him to a site he would never click on.

Gary McGowan (a different Gary)

Anonymous said...

Darn.

Wrong again. Google usually won't have firewalled articles in their cache. The one I linked to (and Gary said was pay-for-view) is easily opened; cache not necessary. But there it is anyway; no need for a run to the library.

The wikipedia page has changed, it contains the text copied by Gary above, but the footnote numbers are different now. There do seem to be some articles which should be considered Joseph's post at the top, including '02 speeches in Chicago reported in newspapers. One should be very, very careful with wikipedia, but one can find leads there to dig deeper.

Sometimes articles behind firewalls (pay-per-view, or available only to subscribers) are reposted on blogs or elsewhere in full. It's worth a blog search, etc. for serious researchers.

Gary McGowan

Anonymous said...

Obama eve of war, Chicago:

It's a pay-for-view, but whole thing is on this page -
www.talkleft.com/story/2006/10/22/15415/699

Find on page
"It's not too late" in the one sentence in the Chicago Sun-Times, March 17, 2003 page 3 news article mentioning Obama. footnote [130] in Gary's comment above.

Wikipedia changes fast, but as I write, that seems to be the best they have to support the claim that "In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail" Obama did not announce his quest for a U.S. Senate seat until late in 2003.

I'd like to know the actual sentence/context of this article's snippet of a quote.

Anyway, a lot of jabber, but I don't see anything in these comments that even touches Joseph's point.

Thank you for your hard work, Joe.

Gary McGowan

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your work Joe. I look forward to casting my vote for the next POTUS, Barack Obama!

Joseph Cannon said...

Look, I have to play fair here. Seems to me that if he did decry the invasion on that occasion, it definitely has some effect on what I wrote.

I just think it's weird that it's so hard to find these specific instances when he claims to have been in the forefront of the battle.

Certainly Sirota's summary is untouched.

I'll find the article. In the meantime, I want to thank both Garys.

gary said...

Joseph, what do you mean you'll find the article? The other Gary's tinyurl link leads to the article. Unfortunately, it doesn't really add anything to the summary I quoted earlier.

"Another candidate, state Sen. Barack Obama has tried to make the Iraq situation a major issue in his campaign, saying he was the only Democratic contender to publicly oppose the invasion before it began. Obama also is the only candidate to say he would have fought Bush's $87 billion reconstruction request for Iraq and Afghanistan had he been in Congress."

gary said...

It seems to me that in his Senate campaign Obama pointed out repeatedly that he had opposed the Iraq War and that he felt that he was still right to have done so.

http://www.ilsenate.com/issuesmatchup.asp?IssueID=11

"I would have voted against the October 10th congressional resolution authorizing the President to use unilateral force against Iraq. I believe that we could have effectively neutralized Iraq with a rigorous, multilateral inspection regime backed by coalition forces. Nothing since the end of the formal fighting has led me to reconsider this stance; indeed, the inability of Saddam Hussein to mount even token resistance to American forces, the failure to discover any significant, deployable arsenals of biological or chemical weapons inside Iraq, and the on-going turmoil currently taking place in post-war Iraq, have only strengthened my views on the subject."

What he did not do was to advocate an immediate withdrawal, or even to set a deadline for withdrawal. He seems to have felt that once we were there we needed to try to make it work and he was concerned about the consequences of pulling out. These are legitimate concerns.

There were - and are - people who have taken stronger positions. I am not sure as to the best way to get out of Iraq, although we need to get out. We need to begin to pull out combat troops. We need to conduct diplomacy with all forces in Iraq (except al Qaeda) and with Iraq's neighbors. We need someone in the White House with the temperment, intelligence, and good judgement to do this. I would say we need Barack Obama.

At any rate, I don't think you've made your case that Obama lied about his opposition to the Iraq War. Perhaps he has been guilty of spin or over-simplification on the campaign trail.

Anonymous said...

Nobody within the upper ranks of the Democratic party really opposed invading Iraq. The only difference between them is the extent to which they feigned opposition in order to satisfy the Democratic party base. Evidently Obama did a slightly better job than Hillary in this regard. So what? You ain't gonna get anybody in the White House who opposes the "War on Terror" anytime soon - the forces behind it have too much power in both parties to be beaten at the ballot box.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps he has been guilty of spin"

Spin IS a lie.

Joseph Cannon said...

Gary, as I said, I'm really grateful to you. I'll even concede some territory to you.

(See, folks? I'm not such a monster. I just want to deal with people who do their homework.)


But I found the one quote you brought up to be downright shocking...

"I believe that we could have effectively neutralized Iraq with a rigorous, multilateral inspection regime backed by coalition forces."

That's what the resolution was all about! In other words, he has, in effect, retroactively voted "yea" on the thing while still saying he would have voted against.

So he is attacking Hillary for authorizing the very thing he once claimed to be for -- an inpection regime backed be coalition forces.

The more I look closely at his statements from this period -- the way he tosses around terms like "unilateral" and "multilateral" with not much appreciation for their meaning -- he seems to be using polysyllables that SOUND very official and statesmanlike.

Of course, he is hardly unique. All politicians do that to some degree.

At any rate, I should have a follow up on all of this later today, proving to one and all that I can be honest when opponents, such as yourself, meet a challenge fairly.

I also just caught a gander at the crap being said at DU -- apparently I'm a racist and a paid Agent of Hillary. Gonna say a few things about THAT as well.

Anonymous said...

What utter intellectual hypocrisy. Only Obama bashing will be allowed here! Ignore the fact that he is the only viable candidate who didn't vote to authorize war with Iraq or the meaningless threats leading to war with Iran.

Anonymous said...

I also enjoy how apparently you are free to talk about all candidates, including Edwards, yet feel the need to restrict others speech.

Joseph Cannon said...

No, Obama DEFENDING was also allowed in this thread -- and even encouraged. More than encouraged. I thanked Gary Guell profusely for providing it.

What was not allowed in this thread was SUBJECT-SWITCHING -- which is the only thing that you seem able to offer, my low-IQ anonymous friend.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

This site is COINTELPRO.That is the only explanation for the irrational pro-anything but Obama positions the OP takes.

Joseph Cannon said...

I'm going to let that comment stand just to demonstrate the sheer paranoia and idiocy of the Obamabots, and of the left in general.

You know what's funny? A much larger site with a pro-Hillary orientation was going to republish this post. And they suddenly became unfriendly to me when I made it clear that I don't like Hillary very much.

I guess THEY now think that I am "COINTELPRO" too.

(By the way, COINTELPRO was exposed and terminated in -- what? -- 1973, if I recall correctly. This new generation tosses the term around as though it were current. Maybe they also think it's hip to use phrases like "23 Skidoo" and "Voh-doh-dee-oh-doh.")

AitchD said...

Since Moulitsas avers that Hillary (in a "coup") is willing to destroy the Democratic party in her pursuit of victory - by 'persuading' the superdelagates to choose her at the convention instead of Obama, whom the voters and pledged delegates would choose - why don't you begin to start liking Hillary now? According to Moulitsas, you and Hillary will effect the same destruction should you both prevail. His new piece sounds a lot like a coded apology to you in particular, and it's the most you can expect from him. Sir, request permission to discuss Nader again, sir.