Bill Clinton lied about Obama's war stance

"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."

By the way, I do agree with that, at least regarding the atmosphere. That's why ultimately, I hate the expression "a vote for war," because that isn't what it was. That vote was framed entirely as a show of unity to force Saddam's hand, and was draped as thickly with patriotism as possible, so that any "nay" was immediately branded traitorous.

The rewriting of history on that resolution has been so thorough & complete, that "vote for war" is now in the lexicon permanently. It will probably only be a few minutes before someone jumps on this thread saying "LOL...not a vote for war? Keep drinking the koolaid!" But I was there, and I remember exactly what that vote was about. Of all people, even Dick Armey agrees with me...
 
Topspin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree on all counts Top…which scares me. I should go take my temperature.
 
Darla, I'm way left of you on everything but economics.
I have to dumbass son's in there 20's there is NO war I want them fighting in. PERIOD
Also, I'm anti gun 100%, and pro every kind of legalizing marijuana.
Out left that if you can!!!!
 
Onceler said:
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.
Click to expand...


I think Darla's point was that as a relatively obscure state senator in 2002 he was not in the same position as those that had to actually vote on the AUMF, something he has himself acknowledged.

My take is that he was against the war from the start, didn't use that position to beat up the Democratic nominees for president in 2004, and is now taking heat for not beating up the Democratic nominees on their votes for the AUMF back in 2004. It may not be fair, but it is the name of the game and the charges of lying are pretty silly.
 
Onceler said:
"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."

By the way, I do agree with that, at least regarding the atmosphere. That's why ultimately, I hate the expression "a vote for war," because that isn't what it was. That vote was framed entirely as a show of unity to force Saddam's hand, and was draped as thickly with patriotism as possible, so that any "nay" was immediately branded traitorous.

The rewriting of history on that resolution has been so thorough & complete, that "vote for war" is now in the lexicon permanently. It will probably only be a few minutes before someone jumps on this thread saying "LOL...not a vote for war? Keep drinking the koolaid!" But I was there, and I remember exactly what that vote was about. Of all people, even Dick Armey agrees with me...
Click to expand...


Onceler, I know, but come on, man, I knew what bush was going to use it for. And I mean I knew, as in I was posting it at the time. It’s a freaking joke that they didn’t know, they knew.

I have heard Hillary saying that is wasn’t a vote for war, so I guess it was a vote against the war, which makes me wonder why has no one ever asked her or others, if a vote for the resolution was a vote against war, what was a vote against the resolution? I mean, are Dennis Kucinich his ilk the real war-mongers?
 
Onceler said:
"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."

By the way, I do agree with that, at least regarding the atmosphere. That's why ultimately, I hate the expression "a vote for war," because that isn't what it was. That vote was framed entirely as a show of unity to force Saddam's hand, and was draped as thickly with patriotism as possible, so that any "nay" was immediately branded traitorous.

The rewriting of history on that resolution has been so thorough & complete, that "vote for war" is now in the lexicon permanently. It will probably only be a few minutes before someone jumps on this thread saying "LOL...not a vote for war? Keep drinking the koolaid!" But I was there, and I remember exactly what that vote was about. Of all people, even Dick Armey agrees with me...
Click to expand...
I agree with Darla, pretending that he wouldn't use the permission granted to take us to war is sad pretense.

Seriously, our troops amassing as you voted, a President who campaigned on a stronger stance against Iraq, the constant stances taken during the vote....

If you were above 5 and thought he wasn't going to invade then you don't deserve to work anywhwere, you are too stupid.
 
Damocles said:
I agree with Darla, pretending that he wouldn't use the permission granted to take us to war is sad pretense.

Seriously, our troops amassing as you voted, a President who campaigned on a stronger stance against Iraq, the constant stances taken during the vote....

If you were above 5 and thought he wasn't going to invade then you don't deserve to work anywhwere, you are too stupid.
Click to expand...


Well what about the fact that he was already shown to be a bald-faced piece of shit liar Damo? I guess you want to sugar coat that part of it since he’s a republican. But those fucking eyes move, they actually move to the sides every time he lies, and you had to be plain out stupid not to know he was lying. He was a known liar telling another lie.
 
Damocles said:
I agree with Darla, pretending that he wouldn't use the permission granted to take us to war is sad pretense.

Seriously, our troops amassing as you voted, a President who campaigned on a stronger stance against Iraq, the constant stances taken during the vote....

If you were above 5 and thought he wasn't going to invade then you don't deserve to work anywhwere, you are too stupid.
Click to expand...

I'm not giving any Dems who voted for it a free pass. Still, everything that you have stated here is a product of how effective the rewriting of history has been on that resolution.
 
Onceler said:
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....
Click to expand...

I give Obama some props for being against the war, when he was a state legislator. I haven't seen much courage on iraq from him while he's been in the US senate though.

This sniping about the war resoution vote, race, Hillary's "tears", and Obama's drug use by campaign surrogates is dissapointing. It's crap, really.

What is comes down to for me, is where does one stand on Iraq now...and where does one stand on advocating for the public interest and working americans. I look at Obama and Hillary, and I see tweedle dee and tweedle dum. Their both pro-NAFTA, they're both unwilling to take on lobbyists and special interest, and I think they're both fairly half-hearted (though certainly better than repukes) at taking a real hard look at america's economy and the detrimental legacy of reagonomics and clintonomics. I think the Dems will rue the day they didn't nominate Edwards. We're only beginning to see the the outfall of reaganomics and NAFTA trade agreements, and the takeover of our government by special interests. And I don't think its going to be pretty.

Only Edwards is all over that. And I just heard he was statistically tied with clinton and obama in Neveda. :)
 
Onceler said:
I'm not giving any Dems who voted for it a free pass. Still, everything that you have stated here is a product of how effective the rewriting of history has been on that resolution.
Click to expand...
LOL. No your insistence that all the evidence pointed anywhere else shows the effectiveness of Kerry's attempt to dodge responsibility for his vote, and all those who came after pretending they were too stupid to see what even my eldest could see. We were firing up for war, the drums were playing and the march was on...
 
Onceler said:
He uses an out-of-context quote to try to portray Obama as wavering & waffling in 2004. Here's Obama's take, which was confirmed from a transcript:

`(Russert): Given your firm opposition to the war, what do you make of the fact that your nominee for president and vice president didn't have that same foresight.' And obviously I didn't want to criticize them on the eve of their nomination. So I said, `Well, I don't know what _ you know, I wasn't in the Senate. I can't say for certain what I would have done if I was there. I know that from where I stood the case was not made.' He always leaves that out."

It's just so Clinton to do that. I voted for him twice & I thought he was a good President, but he's killing his legacy w/ me right now...
Click to expand...

Well, those of us without the Clintonian blinders on have known for quite some time the man is a lying bastard. This really comes as no shock.

:cool:
 
Damocles said:
LOL. No your insistence that all the evidence pointed anywhere else shows the effectiveness of Kerry's attempt to dodge responsibility for his vote, and all those who came after pretending they were too stupid to see what even my eldest could see. We were firing up for war, the drums were playing and the march was on...
Click to expand...

Actually, all of the historical evidence, including statements from the GOP, the White House & Congressional Democrats, points in exactly the opposite direction.

The only thing your assumption, which has been clouded by a near-constant rewriting of history, has is the fact that Bush is a liar, and could not be trusted. Like I said, I don't give anyone a pass, and they never should have trusted him, but it's ludicrous to sugges that "all evidence" pointed to war.
 
Onceler said:
Actually, all of the historical evidence, including statements from the GOP, the White House & Congressional Democrats, points in exactly the opposite direction.

The only thing your assumption, which has been clouded by a near-constant rewriting of history, has is the fact that Bush is a liar, and could not be trusted. Like I said, I don't give anyone a pass, and they never should have trusted him, but it's ludicrous to sugges that "all evidence" pointed to war.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? I said it at that time on p.com. I spoke against it because we weren't declaring. I stated unequivocally that we were going if that was voted for.

We spoke there on the subject constantly. I knew it, my mother knew it, my wife knew it.

Those who spoke for war also knew it and hoped for a fast passing and dredged on Bush for taking too long to go in after it was voted for.

All of the evidence didn't point against it. That is silly rewriting of the perspetive of the day. It is sad that you are willing to pay homage to the disingenuousness of the "I didn't know authorizing war would take us there!" stance.
 
Any person who authorized it and didn't believe that we were going in was either the stupidest politician ever, or they were preparing for a desperate ploy later where they would pretend they were fooled by the "stupidest President ever".
 
No - you're wrong on this. As I said, I'm not giving anyone a pass. By using the "wink, wink - we all know what is REALLY was" line of reasoning, it is YOU that are giving Bush & the admin a pass. It was not a vote for war, and never was. I'm not defending Kerry; there are a wide range of people on both the right & left who hoped for the best with that resolution, and took Bush on his word. Stupid? Yes, but it does history no good to rewrite the circumstances of that vote.

The only one excusing behavior on this thread is you. You are giving Bush a free pass on accountability, because Congress VOTED FOR WAR after all. In fact, a war resolution was never even presented to Congress.
 
Onceler said:
No - you're wrong on this. As I said, I'm not giving anyone a pass. By using the "wink, wink - we all know what is REALLY was" line of reasoning, it is YOU that are giving Bush & the admin a pass. It was not a vote for war, and never was. I'm not defending Kerry; there are a wide range of people on both the right & left who hoped for the best with that resolution, and took Bush on his word. Stupid? Yes, but it does history no good to rewrite the circumstances of that vote.

The only one excusing behavior on this thread is you. You are giving Bush a free pass on accountability, because Congress VOTED FOR WAR after all. In fact, a war resolution was never even presented to Congress.
Click to expand...

There was the resolution Onceler, and I wish I could remember which Senator introduced it, so I could remember it’s name, but it escapes me right now. Anyway, that amendment to the Iraqi resolution would have forced Bush to come back to Congress if Saddam didn’t “comply” (whatever the hell that meant at that point) – I think it was the Levin amendment! – and go back before the UN, before he took the country to war. In other words, it would have explicitly made the case that the resolution was no authorization to take this country to war.
Clinton and others who now claim they were fooled and the resolution wasn’t a vote for war, voted against the Levin Amendment.
That tells it all for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top