Hmmm…. Not sure of this is a true “gotcha” moment. However, it does seem to temper Obama’s claim to 100% consistent opposition to the war from the very beginning somewhat:
In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said,
“On Iraq…There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.”
they have all the tools to take down obama: he’s ultra liberal and he’s a flip flop on iraq. the only trouble is that that was used 4 years ago. will it work two election cycles in a row?
Susan Rice, Obama’s national security advisor told Marc Ambinder today:
“Those who opposed the war thought it was a massive strategic blunder, but that doesn’t mean we didn’t want the U.S. to succeed.”
“It was, in my personal estimation, and I imagine that Sen. Obama had this in his mind too, that it was way too soon [to conclude] that there was no way that a bad situation couldn’t be ameliorated, at least partially.”
Ironically, Rice, herself, in that statement, just committed a massive strategic blunder by using the word “didn’t”, conceding that Obama no longer wants the U.S. to succeed in Iraq, despite all the irrefutable current progress, both military and political, resulting from the surge. Denying success in Iraq will be an untenable position for Obama to maintain entering the general election. To conclude that the situation in Iraq cannot be ‘partially ameliorated’, especially when American casualties have come down to the lowest levels since 2004, exposes a profound willful ignorance that will undoubtedly raise further questions about the first term Illinois senator’s judgment.
If Obama is truly interested in becoming this nation’s Commander in Chief, it is imperative that he travel to Iraq to meet with General Petraeus, and acknowledge that a positive outcome is presently being achieved, and understand, seeing with his own eyes that the transfer of sovereignty is nearing completion. Another irony is that it could well be a President Obama who could proudly run for reelection in 2012, with a genuine Mission Accomplished banner behind him.
Those tools can sink Obama like they sunk Kerry, if they are used right. McCain can not appear to be the one who is tearing into Obama. It has to be a 3rd party (not the RNC) who questions Obama on these issues.
BTW: if anyone is offended by my new nome de plume, it is simply an old title of the Tsar’s of Russia. No racism or any of that stuff, just fwiw.
Well, it seems like this is maybe a flip-flop or maybe not.
The real question: did Obama say from the beginning “The Iraq War is dumb and we should leave right now” (which would make this a flip-flop) OR was his line “The Iraq War was a dumb decision but now we’ve got to make the best of it” (which would explain these comments)?
New York Times
July 26, 2004
THE SPEAKER; A Surprise Senate Contender Reaches His Biggest Stage Yet
By MONICA DAVEY
In a recent interview, (Obama) declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.
”But, I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,” Mr. Obama said. ”What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.”
But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ”What I don’t think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,” he said.
————————————————————————————————
New Yorker
October 30, 2006
Question: Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?
OBAMA: I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although 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 U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.
————————————————————————————————-
Here is an exchange from a 2004 Meet the Press appearance:
MR. RUSSERT: The nominee of your party, John Kerry, the nominee for vice president, John Edwards, all said he was an imminent threat. They voted to authorize George Bush to go to war. How could they have been so wrong and you so right as a state legislator in Illinois and they’re on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees in Washington?
STATE SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think they have access to information that I did not have. And what is absolutely clear is that John Kerry said, “If we go into war, let’s make sure that we do it right. Let’s make sure that our troops are supported. Let’s make sure that we have the kind of coalition that’s necessary to succeed.” And the execution of what was a difficult choice to make was something that all of us have to be concerned about. And moving forward, the only way that we’re going to be able to succeed is if, I think, we have an administration led by John Kerry that’s going to allow us to consolidate the relationships with our allies that bring about investment in Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you had been a senator at that time, you would have voted not to authorize President Bush to go to war?
STATE SEN. OBAMA: I would have voted not to authorize the president given the facts as I saw them at that time.
MR. RUSSERT: So you disagree with John Kerry and John Edwards?
STATE SEN. OBAMA: At that time, but, as I said, I wasn’t there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don’t have a change in tone and a change in administration, I think we’re going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq.
Anyone read the guest editorial today by Garrison Keillor (of Prairie Home fame) on why he likes Obama? Not that Keillor’s support of Obama is a shock to the political world. But the editorial was quite an interesting example of how liberals see Obama as the saviour to the nation, not because of what he says but because of who he is.
It’s a great read, really. An entire guest editorial that says basically nothing, except: Obama is a great orator, and regardless of your thoughts of his actual words and opinions, if you don’t like him you’re a racist.
What gets me is this accepted lefty idea that those who don’t agree with Obama (read: right-wing Neanderthal Republicans) must be guided by racist attitudes, but those who are in love with Obama are truly enlightened Americans (nevermind that their reasons usually boil down to the very insulting “Obama is a black guy who can complete a sentence.”). It’s a double standard that first helped to knock Hillary out of the race, and (if one were to believe the editorial) will now be used against Republicans.
I hope the GOP is preparing to fight this battle, rather than cave in to it. And I hope African-Americans finally begin to see what the Democratic Party really thinks of them.
Aron,
Those are some crazy quotes you dug up!! Look what McCain was saying nearly a year before Obama was giving praise to Bush’s failed strategy in Iraq:
August 2003
NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “What must be done in Iraq right now?” SEN. MCCAIN: “First, could I say, Tim, the men and women in the military are doing a superb job. … The problem is that they don’t have enough resources. There’s not enough of them, and we are in a very serious situation, in my view, a race against time. We need to spend a whole lot more money to get the services back to the people. We need to get the electricity going, the fuel, the water. And unless we get that done and get it done pretty soon, we could face a very serious situation. … Time is not on our side. People in 125-degree heat with no electricity and no fuel are going to become angry in a big hurry. The sophistication of the attacks on U.S. and allied troops have increased. And what we do in the next several months will determine whether we’re in a very difficult situation or not, and there’s still time, but we’ve got to act quickly.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/24/03)
The only thing that sticks in my mind after reading all of these statements is that the actual war has been over for years. To be four years hence and still asking for time is asking a lot.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
i’m baffled at how little we actually know this guy!!!!! i’m stunned.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said,
“On Iraq…There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.”
— Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04
June 12th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
they have all the tools to take down obama: he’s ultra liberal and he’s a flip flop on iraq. the only trouble is that that was used 4 years ago. will it work two election cycles in a row?
June 12th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Susan Rice, Obama’s national security advisor told Marc Ambinder today:
“Those who opposed the war thought it was a massive strategic blunder, but that doesn’t mean we didn’t want the U.S. to succeed.”
“It was, in my personal estimation, and I imagine that Sen. Obama had this in his mind too, that it was way too soon [to conclude] that there was no way that a bad situation couldn’t be ameliorated, at least partially.”
Ironically, Rice, herself, in that statement, just committed a massive strategic blunder by using the word “didn’t”, conceding that Obama no longer wants the U.S. to succeed in Iraq, despite all the irrefutable current progress, both military and political, resulting from the surge. Denying success in Iraq will be an untenable position for Obama to maintain entering the general election. To conclude that the situation in Iraq cannot be ‘partially ameliorated’, especially when American casualties have come down to the lowest levels since 2004, exposes a profound willful ignorance that will undoubtedly raise further questions about the first term Illinois senator’s judgment.
If Obama is truly interested in becoming this nation’s Commander in Chief, it is imperative that he travel to Iraq to meet with General Petraeus, and acknowledge that a positive outcome is presently being achieved, and understand, seeing with his own eyes that the transfer of sovereignty is nearing completion. Another irony is that it could well be a President Obama who could proudly run for reelection in 2012, with a genuine Mission Accomplished banner behind him.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
#3:
Those tools can sink Obama like they sunk Kerry, if they are used right. McCain can not appear to be the one who is tearing into Obama. It has to be a 3rd party (not the RNC) who questions Obama on these issues.
BTW: if anyone is offended by my new nome de plume, it is simply an old title of the Tsar’s of Russia. No racism or any of that stuff, just fwiw.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
#5: That raises the question, what was your old name?
June 12th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
#5: I like it. I’ve been considering changing my name on here myself.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
#6: I’m an Rudy fan from the great state of Florida, if that is a big enough hint.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Jonathan?
June 12th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Ding ding ding! give the man a prize!
June 12th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
B.O., Barry, Bobama, etc. is such a panzie. I have yet to find any substance with this guy.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Flip.
Flop.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Well, it seems like this is maybe a flip-flop or maybe not.
The real question: did Obama say from the beginning “The Iraq War is dumb and we should leave right now” (which would make this a flip-flop) OR was his line “The Iraq War was a dumb decision but now we’ve got to make the best of it” (which would explain these comments)?
June 12th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Will we see a McCain/Rudy ticket? If so, New Jersey Jersey plus others could be taken:
New Jersey: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac Obama 45, McCain 39 Obama +6.0
June 13th, 2008 at 12:07 am
New York Times
July 26, 2004
THE SPEAKER; A Surprise Senate Contender Reaches His Biggest Stage Yet
By MONICA DAVEY
In a recent interview, (Obama) declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.
”But, I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,” Mr. Obama said. ”What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.”
But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ”What I don’t think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,” he said.
————————————————————————————————
New Yorker
October 30, 2006
Question: Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?
OBAMA: I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although 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 U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.
————————————————————————————————-
Here is an exchange from a 2004 Meet the Press appearance:
MR. RUSSERT: The nominee of your party, John Kerry, the nominee for vice president, John Edwards, all said he was an imminent threat. They voted to authorize George Bush to go to war. How could they have been so wrong and you so right as a state legislator in Illinois and they’re on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees in Washington?
STATE SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think they have access to information that I did not have. And what is absolutely clear is that John Kerry said, “If we go into war, let’s make sure that we do it right. Let’s make sure that our troops are supported. Let’s make sure that we have the kind of coalition that’s necessary to succeed.” And the execution of what was a difficult choice to make was something that all of us have to be concerned about. And moving forward, the only way that we’re going to be able to succeed is if, I think, we have an administration led by John Kerry that’s going to allow us to consolidate the relationships with our allies that bring about investment in Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you had been a senator at that time, you would have voted not to authorize President Bush to go to war?
STATE SEN. OBAMA: I would have voted not to authorize the president given the facts as I saw them at that time.
MR. RUSSERT: So you disagree with John Kerry and John Edwards?
STATE SEN. OBAMA: At that time, but, as I said, I wasn’t there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don’t have a change in tone and a change in administration, I think we’re going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Anyone read the guest editorial today by Garrison Keillor (of Prairie Home fame) on why he likes Obama? Not that Keillor’s support of Obama is a shock to the political world. But the editorial was quite an interesting example of how liberals see Obama as the saviour to the nation, not because of what he says but because of who he is.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/garrison_keillor_on_barack_oba.html
It’s a great read, really. An entire guest editorial that says basically nothing, except: Obama is a great orator, and regardless of your thoughts of his actual words and opinions, if you don’t like him you’re a racist.
What gets me is this accepted lefty idea that those who don’t agree with Obama (read: right-wing Neanderthal Republicans) must be guided by racist attitudes, but those who are in love with Obama are truly enlightened Americans (nevermind that their reasons usually boil down to the very insulting “Obama is a black guy who can complete a sentence.”). It’s a double standard that first helped to knock Hillary out of the race, and (if one were to believe the editorial) will now be used against Republicans.
I hope the GOP is preparing to fight this battle, rather than cave in to it. And I hope African-Americans finally begin to see what the Democratic Party really thinks of them.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Aron,
Those are some crazy quotes you dug up!! Look what McCain was saying nearly a year before Obama was giving praise to Bush’s failed strategy in Iraq:
August 2003
NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “What must be done in Iraq right now?” SEN. MCCAIN: “First, could I say, Tim, the men and women in the military are doing a superb job. … The problem is that they don’t have enough resources. There’s not enough of them, and we are in a very serious situation, in my view, a race against time. We need to spend a whole lot more money to get the services back to the people. We need to get the electricity going, the fuel, the water. And unless we get that done and get it done pretty soon, we could face a very serious situation. … Time is not on our side. People in 125-degree heat with no electricity and no fuel are going to become angry in a big hurry. The sophistication of the attacks on U.S. and allied troops have increased. And what we do in the next several months will determine whether we’re in a very difficult situation or not, and there’s still time, but we’ve got to act quickly.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/24/03)
June 13th, 2008 at 4:16 am
The only thing that sticks in my mind after reading all of these statements is that the actual war has been over for years. To be four years hence and still asking for time is asking a lot.