Bill Clinton lied about Obama's war stance

[Chapdog]

this newest crap with BET is rediculous. thats going to backfire hard on the Clinton's if you ask me. As much as shes trying to convince everyone.. she is not black and obama is.

 

[Bonestorm]

The fairy tale stuff was blown way out of proportion. Here is the full quote:

First, it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the U.N. inspectors withdrew. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go.

He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice, as many of the other Senators were. So, first, the case is wrong that way.

Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since."

Give me a break.

(APPLAUSE)

This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.

It looks fairly innocuous to me.

I'd also add that Bill may be misrepresenting what Obama said in 2004 but looking at the transcript of the 2004 Meet the Press interview Obama left the door open to that criticism. Obama basically said that in 2002 he wouldn't have voted for the AUMF but that he didn't have all of the information that the Senators actually voting for the bill had. Essentially, Obama 2004 was saying that Obama 2002 would not have voted for the AUMF but, he doesn;t say that he would not have voted for the AUMF if he had all of the information or that voting for the AUMF was the wrong thing to do.

Here is the full exchange in 2004 on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: You also said this: "...I also know that Saddam possesses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

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 write as a state legislator in Illinois and they're on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees in Washington?

STATE REP. 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 REP. 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 REP. 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.

MR. RUSSERT: We can't withdraw the troops immediately?

STATE REP. OBAMA: I don't think so.

 

[Onceler]

Fairly innocuous?

Sorry, DH - we disagree strongly on that. For Clinton to take Obama's remark and portray it as an "admission" that there was NO DIFFERENCE between he & Bush on the Iraq in general is an out-and-out lie. It's completely out of context, and misrepresents Obama's position on the war as much as it possibly can be misrepresented.

 

[Cancel7]

You know what is so tragic to me? We are arguing back and forth throughout the base over this, and personally, I don’t believe for one moment this country is going to elect either a woman, or a black man.

We are going to attack Iran by the way, have you all seen that? That’s going to come with terror alerts of course, and maybe an actual attack.

John McCain could easily be our next president, though conventional wisdom says the R;’s have no hope at the white house. Bullshit, they ain’t going down without a fight, and a lot of babies in Iran are going to pay for that fight with their lives.

 

[Onceler]

I think there is an excellent chance that either Obama or Hillary is elected this fall. Natrually, events could change this; an attack against the U.S., or a strike against Iran, usually provides a rally 'round the flag effect, which I think, at this point, benefits Republicans.

The conventional wisdom on the kind of primary fight that we are seeing right now is that it is damaging to the party, and that's one of the reasons they have frontloaded the whole primary process so much. I have nothing to back this up, but I disagree with this philosophy. I think beneath some of the ugly politics that is going on, which tends to get the headlines, is a real debate about issues & who will genuinely make a better President, and I'll take that over an early coronation any day of the week.

 

[Bonestorm]

Fairly innocuous?

Sorry, DH - we disagree strongly on that. For Clinton to take Obama's remark and portray it as an "admission" that there was NO DIFFERENCE between he & Bush on the Iraq in general is an out-and-out lie. It's completely out of context, and misrepresents Obama's position on the war as much as it possibly can be misrepresented.

Well, the Chicago Tribune reported in 2004 that Obama said that, on paper, there was no real difference between him (or Kerry) and Bush on Iraq but just that the Bush administration couldn't execute. Here's the full quote from what I have read:

Obama, the U.S. Senate candidate from Illinois, said he believes the Bush administration has lost too much credibility in the world community to administer the policies necessary to stabilize Iraq. ‘On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry Administration as there would have been a year ago,' Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. ‘There's not that much 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.'...

I don't know, man. It looks like Obama said that there wasn't much of a difference between his position and George Bush's position on the war in 2004.

 

[Topspin]

its sad to see the wussies doing this. All the dems would gtf out quick expcept Joe the trader lieberman and nutjob Biden.
We should be talking about Obama's tax cut vs hillary's economic plan.

 

[uscitizen]

You know what is so tragic to me? We are arguing back and forth throughout the base over this, and personally, I don’t believe for one moment this country is going to elect either a woman, or a black man.

We are going to attack Iran by the way, have you all seen that? That’s going to come with terror alerts of course, and maybe an actual attack.

John McCain could easily be our next president, though conventional wisdom says the R;’s have no hope at the white house. Bullshit, they ain’t going down without a fight, and a lot of babies in Iran are going to pay for that fight with their lives.

Yeah McCain is about the only republican who has not severely pissed off the hispanic voters.

 

[Damocles]

Well, the Chicago Tribune reported in 2004 that Obama said that, on paper, there was no real difference between him (or Kerry) and Bush on Iraq but just that the Bush administration couldn't execute. Here's the full quote from what I have read:



I don't know, man. It looks like Obama said that there wasn't much of a difference between his position and George Bush's position on the war in 2004.

That's the quote I was talking about. Hillary's campaign manager was interviewed on local radio and kept repeating those two lines stating that Obama is misrepresenting his own stance...

 

[Bonestorm]

That's the quote I was talking about. Hillary's campaign manager was interviewed on local radio and kept repeating those two lines stating that Obama is misrepresenting his own stance...

The quote is from a 2004 Chicago Tribune article. I pulled the quoted portion above from Obama's website where he has a fact-check page on the Iraq War hub bub. It is linked below.

Basically, Obama is taking heat for not trashing Kerry and Edwards in 2004 for voting for the AUMF. It might not be an accurate representation of his views, but he opened himself up to the criticism.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/12/fact_check_barack_obamas_consi.php

 

[Blackflag]

Bill Clinton tell a lie? Say it aint so!!!

/thread

 

[blackascoal]

Ah, I see. So pointing out that your statement didn't complete the argument the clintons are making and calling that spin makes me responsible for their statements? I don't think so.

He was on the radio here talking up how they weren't going to let SC ignore these statements of Obama's. Mentioning first the "I don't know how I would have voted..." then later the "There is little difference..." statements as a "flip-floppnig".

You made the reference to the remark then you should provide the link.

Surely you know that.

 

[blackascoal]

Personally, I'm glad that many in the black community have awoken to what the Clintons are.

I hated that stupid reference to Bill being "the first black president" so much that I would fly into a rage anytime I heard someone black use it.

It isn't just the misquote by Bill, but "fairy tale" and Hillary claiming that Johnson was more responsible for the Civil Rights Act than King. That ain't going over too well.

 

[Damocles]

The quote is from a 2004 Chicago Tribune article. I pulled the quoted portion above from Obama's website where he has a fact-check page on the Iraq War hub bub. It is linked below.

Basically, Obama is taking heat for not trashing Kerry and Edwards in 2004 for voting for the AUMF. It might not be an accurate representation of his views, but he opened himself up to the criticism.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/12/fact_check_barack_obamas_consi.php

So, you are saying that the Clinton camp isn't lying then? It doesn't matter to me, I make no bones about the fact that I won't vote for either of them. The one Dem I might have voted for is out of that race. If I don't like the R, I'll vote libertarian.

 

[Damocles]

You made the reference to the remark then you should provide the link.

Surely you know that.

I didn't have time for it this morning. It was, however, provided later and discussed. Thanks for your criticism, though. Even if it was unwarranted.

 

[Onceler]

Any way you slice it, it is a misrepresentation on how Obama felt about the decision to invade, which is THE most emotional issue for Democrat primary voters....

 

[Damocles]

Any way you slice it, it is a misrepresentation on how Obama felt about the decision to invade, which is THE most emotional issue for Democrat primary voters....

Well, as it is, I agreed with Obama from the start. Not for the reasons he gave, but I agreed.

 

[Cancel7]

Any way you slice it, it is a misrepresentation on how Obama felt about the decision to invade, which is THE most emotional issue for Democrat primary voters....

He wasn’t a United States Senator at that time. I think that the Clintons and even Edwards don’t’ like the idea that he is getting credit for being against the war when he didn’t have to walk up and make the vote.

I’ll tell you, what I seen from him since? No way Obama makes a no vote at that time. That took tremendous political guts to vote no on that resolution in that political atmosphere.

Sorry. No indication in anything he has ever done that he’s got them.

That’s why I like Edwards best, or I should say, just yet another reason why. Because he did cave like most of them did, yes, and that is nothing to brag about, but…he owned it later, unlike Hillary, and right now, that will have to be good enough for me. Nobody could ever convince me and I don’t care if they stood on their head, that Obama makes that no vote. Obama does what is politically expedient to do, just like Hillary, and that is why their voting records since he entered the senate are nearly indistinguishable…except for the votes Obama didn’t show up for. I keep telling you guys, you’re fooling yourselves, with this big difference between Hillary and Obama narrative, because it does not exist.

 

[Onceler]

He spoke about the vote at the time, and took a definitive stance against the invasion. If he was trying to be politically expedient about it, his words would be just as damning as a vote if the war had gone well, and you can bet that his opponents, both Democrat & GOP, would be using that against him.

He said he regrets not voting on Iran. He doesn't deserve a pass on that, by any means, but I still think there is a big difference between not voting and voting FOR it.

 

[Topspin]

still millions of miles from making the vote. The war was infinately more popular at the beggining than now. I doubt he'd have gone against the majority of his state, in fact I'm convinced he wouldn't have. That said there's not a politician in the race that won't twist things a little to favor themselves.