|
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 08:19 PM by Levgreee
The "facts" on Hilary's websites are disingenuous and deceptive. I will clearly explain why, here.
This is Obama's stance, put very simply. 1.He was ALWAYS against the war, he always thought it was the wrong choice to go in. He thought it was wrong in 2002, in 2004, and in 2007.
2.He was NOT ALWAYS against supporting the war. Once the invasion had occurred and couldn't be undone, he was for funding the troops, and he was for keeping peace and giving time for the Iraqis to sort things out.
2. is not contradictory with 1..
Here is a quote...
"Us rushing headlong into a war unilaterally was a mistake and may still be a mistake... IF it has happened, then at that point what the debate's really gonna be about is what is our long term commitment is there. How much is is it going to cost, what does it mean for us to rebuild Iraq, how do we stabilize and make sure that this country doesn't splinter into factions between the Shi'as, and the Kurds, and the Sunnis." - Barack Obama
This quote clearly explains his view. Rushing into the war was wrong. HOWEVER, once we were there, we had a responsibility to help rebuild the country, which means funding the war. So Obama was always against the war occurring, but considered it a poor choice to pull funding/pull out, for some time, after we invaded. After we had gave them time, Barrack supported a phase withdrawal.
This is a totally reasonable, consistent view, and personally one I agree with completely.
So for the Bush quote...""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. <...> There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."
Obama is saying that he agrees with how George Bush was handling the war at the time. He agreed that, once we were in, we had to give the Iraqi's some time. This is consistent with his views.
As for the statement about not having the intelligence the senate had..."The point we are making is that Sen. Obama acknowledged that he did not know how he would have voted had his vantage point been from the U.S. Senate."
Here is Obama's rebuttal to this, straight from his website. WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR
"‘I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know..'”
WHAT OBAMA SAID
"He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
"In a recent interview, he 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.”
This is a completely reasonable view. He was strongly opposed to the war, and believed all Americans should have been, because the case wasn't made to them, and it had to. It is the sign of a reasonable, honest person, to say he did have limits on what he knew(but those limits were determined by the administration).
Even when saying he didn't know he'd vote, he stayed firm in criticizing congress for how much pass they gave Bush. Further shown by this quote...
"OBAMA: But keep in mind, I think this is a tough question and a tough call. What I do think is that if you're going to make these tough calls, you have to do so in a transparent way, in an honest way, talk to the American people, trust their judgment."
So his opinion is, even if he didn't know what the senate knew, from his vantage point, the case was not made, the senate didn't scrutinize Bush enough, and for such a tough call, there wasn't enough transparency and honesty. This is the view of a reasonable person, about as much of a skeptic you can be while still being intellectually honest, and the view that I share.
I don't know what Bush knew about Iraq, perhaps he had enough evidence, but I knew he didn't display enough evidence to the American people, and was misleading.
Obama avoided an all or nothing view, because the "all" completely approving the war, and the "nothing" view, view of completely opposing every aspect of the war, are both incorrect. Issues are rarely simple enough that they are all or nothing... Hilary has taken exploited this more nuanced view of Obama's. Although, on Obama's part, I don't think he has done a well enough job on explaining his view to the people.
However, I am sure Hilary knew how she was manipulating the facts, just like she did with abortion in New Hampshire. Which I must say, is what disgusts me the most, and is why I am very against voting her at the time.
|