FACT CHECK: What Obama Campaign Manager David Axelrod REALLY said (quotes and video links)

[ClarkUSA]

I'd like to take this chance to set the record straight for those of you who are interested in sorting out the facts from the deliberate distortions
manufactured by the Clinton campaign spin machine and their trusty surrogates:

Today after Barack Obama's closing argument speech in Iowa, Obama adviser David Axelrod parried questions from reporters who
pressed him on whether the killing could help Hillary.

Here's one key exchange:

REPORTER: But looking ahead, does the assassination put on the front burner foreign policy credentials in the closing days?

AXELROD: Well, it puts on the table foreign policy judgment, and that's a discussion we welcome. Barack Obama had the judgment to
oppose the war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that.
Al Qaeda's resurgent, they're a powerful force now in Pakistan, they may have been involved -- we've been here, so I don't know whether
the news has been updated, but there's a suspicion they may have been involved in this.

I think his judgment was good. Senator Clinton made a different judgment, so let's have that discussion.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/obama_adviser_bhutto_assassination_reminds_us_that_hillary_made_wrong_call_on_iraq_war.php

"Axelrod: US took eye off Pakistan" (video): http://video.aol.com/video-detail/axelrod-us-took-eye-off-pakistan/2137898736

After Bhutto's death, we found out that Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for Bhutto's assassination:

The source of the claim was apparently Italian news agency, Adnkronos International (AKI), which said that al Qaeda Afghanistan commander
and spokesman Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid had telephoned the agency to make the claim.

"We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat mujahadeen," AKI quoted Al-Yazid as saying.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/27/bhutto.dhs.alqaeda/index.html?iref=24hours

[CTLawGuy]

1. see you're talking about facts

no one is interested in that.

K&R anyway.

[Tellurian]

2. Uh, and the video's audio is cut off before Axelrod finishes his horrendous accusation..

How convenient for you to post an edited video.. Why not "come clean" and be "honest" for a change!

[regnaD kciN]

5. Nothing "horrendous" about it...

...but it's silly of me to think facts matter to Hill's Shills. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

7. Please stop making up shit. That uncut AOL video is from a camera which was filming the exchange.

Why don't you offer some proof of what YOU say, for once?

Better get back to HillaryIs44 before they miss you. :eyes:

[Joe the Revelator]

8. Hey Tellurian, has Hillis44 put out a video comparing Axelrod's comments to the Hollocaust

Yet?

[Tellurian]

13. No, Obama put out his own spluttering, stuttering video when asked about Axelrod's insulting comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39gy7-p8Wsw

[Joe the Revelator]

18. Seemed to me he completely owned the moment there.

Nice try.

[Tellurian]

19. The only thing he owned was "FEAR" Blitzer was going to read the comment as a direct quote..

Blitzer didn't have to...It's a matter of record..

[Joe the Revelator]

21. You are so far detached from reality

That I literally can't have a discussion with you.

[Tellurian]

23. So, for now I'm all vaklempt...

but theres always tomorrow!

:woohoo: :woohoo:

[Forkboy]

15. Like you'd recognize honest if you saw it.

[annie1]

3. i know what he said from the beginning, and i still don't think it is ok...

and several of us have responded to that exact quote, soooo??????

[ClarkUSA]

10. I got tired of seeing the "Obama Said Hillary Killed Bhutto" smear OPs and decided to debunk them.

Just trying to get out the facts and let people decide for themselves, ma'am. ;-)

[Armstead]

4. Imagine if even 1/4 the attention. we have been putting into Iraq....

...had been focused on finding ways to deal with the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Iraq War has been a disastrous distraction. Isn't much room for argument there.

[annie1]

14. And that was Bush's decision to continue this baseless war 4 years after finding no wmd.

[Zueda]

20. Let's follow hillary over the last couple years...

During a trip to Iraq in February 2005, she insisted that the U.S. occupation was “functioning quite well,” although the security situation had deteriorated so badly that the four-lane divided highway on flat open terrain connecting the airport with the capital could not be secured at the time of her arrival and a helicopter had to transport her to the Green Zone. Though 55 Iraqis and one American soldier were killed during her brief visit, she insisted – in a manner remarkably similar to Vice President Cheney – that the rise in suicide bombings was evidence that the insurgency was failing.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” that same month, she argued that it “would be a mistake” to immediately withdraw U.S. troops or even simply set a timetable for withdrawal, claiming that “We don’t want to send a signal to insurgents, to the terrorists, that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain.” Less than two years ago, she declared, “I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit.” And, just last year, on an appearance on ABC’s Nightline, she described how “I’ve taken a lot of heat from my friends who have said, ‘Please, just, you know, throw in the towel and say let’s get out by a date certain. I don't think that’s responsible.” When Representative John Murtha made his first call for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in November 2005, she denounced his effort, calling a withdrawal of U.S. forces “a big mistake.”

[annie1]

22. Obama also agrees that it is not wise to immediately withdraw troops...

and i'm pretty sure the same for a timetable. John kerry, btw, stands by his initial yes vote on iraq
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/index.html

and are you talking about this amendement? which she co-sponsered with kerry?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP03875:

actually, which vote are you talking about? not this one
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00437#position
thanks.

[babylonsister]

17. You're right, Armstead, and this admin is wholly to blame.

Despite my disappointment with Dems, roadblocks from this admin and the rethugs have been insurmountable.

[ClarkUSA]

27. It hurts my heart to think about it, as I'm sure it does yours.

No, there isn't much room for argument at all with what Axelrod said, is there? Damn.

[TeamJordan23]

6. This place has gotten worse since the Iraq War.

And I have witnessed it first hand.

[Forkboy]

16. Not many places in the world haven't.

:(

[cloud75]

9. what action has obama taken to end the war!

[Zueda]

11. Announced his candidacy.

[Capn Sunshine]

25. oh HELL YES!

Glad to have a newbie with their wits about them
the 44ers are quite the pieces of work, individually and colllectively

[ClarkUSA]

12. Who are you supporting?

Hmmm?

[ThatPoetGuy]

24. I could believe your outrage was real...

if it weren't for the fact that you had no problem -- NONE -- when Obama's campaign started the scummy, sleazy swiftboating of Paul Krugman. When it was pointed out that Obama's camp lied and committed character assassination against a major liberal voice, consciously trying to destroy the reputation and livelihood of an extraordinary man, I believe your exact words were

":: YAWN ::

:nopity: "

If you don't care about the malicious, baseless lies spread by a campaign you support, your claim to be bothered by another campaign's distortion and dishonesty is bullshit.

Change your username. You are a disgrace to General Clark.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Oy vey, you again?

I've hashed this out with you several times; I won't do it again. You're a broken record of faux outrage. Get in line.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

31. Yup.

Like I said, we've gone over this before and you're a broken record. You offer no credible proof of your baseless accusations.
More than one credible source has debunked Krugman's partisan beef with Obama but you've ignored them the last time I
offered them to you. Lastly, your personal attacks and verbal abuse is offensive and sexist in the extreme. There is little
else I have to say to you.

[ThatPoetGuy]

32. I didn't ignore them --

I said they didn't amount to a debunking. Krugman gave a thoughtful and well-informed critique, Alter and Reich gave thoughtful and well-informed responses. Nothing they said amounted to a debunking. They did not prove anything false or incorrect in Krugman's critique. They provided alternate interpretations that were reasoned and well-thought-out.

Here's what I said to you earlier, regarding that non-debunking:

Krugman gave an informed opinion. Reich and Alter gave informed opinions that conflict with Krugman. Cohn, who knows more about healthcare economics, has an informed opinion that conflicts with Reich and Alter. All of that is okay: well-intentioned people disagreeing knowledgeably.

Obama's campaign did not respond with good intentions. They did not respond honestly. They posted a few quotes from Krugman out of context, distorted them, and then pretended the distorted quotes contradicted each other. The purpose of this was to raise questions about Krugman's HONESTY, not his analysis. This was character assassination in place of dialogue. This was straight out of Rove's playbooks.

Obama's smear on Krugman spread across the blogosphere and the editorial pages. The talking-point has blown up into full-scale hit pieces in HuffPo and elsewhere, and none of the suggestions about Krugman's honesty are grounded in anything factual.

Dispute his analysis or his conclusions. But calling him biased, or calling him a liar, or saying we shouldn't trust him -- that's just vile.

This is a smear, and it is sticking. It is appalling, and it is evil, and it is straight out of Rove.


Yet you said "you've ignored them the last time I offered them to you" -- no, I did not ignore them. You've ignored the fact that Obama responded to a critique of his ideas by trying to discredit the man who dared criticize him.

Wes Clark didn't look the other way when FOX News suggested Michael Moore was unpatriotic. You looked the other way when Barack Obama suggested that Paul Krugman was dishonest.

If you, in the tiniest way, were to emulate the man whose name you invoke in your username, you wouldn't yawn and play tiny violins when a man is being subjected to a smear campaign for stating an informed opinion.

[ClarkUSA]

34. *yawn*

:nopity:

P.S. Reich and Alter did debunk Krugman. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Reread my previous "Krugman Debunked" reply to
you because it's the last word on that partisan shill's intellectually dishonest Rovian attacks on Obama I will ever post to you:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3892617&mesg_id=3892999

P.P.S. Your snide taunts regarding Gen. Clark are childishly amusing.

[Tellurian]

29. BRAVO! You've boxed this masquerader of outrage neatly into a disposable package!

[Forkboy]

33. "masquerader of outrage" sounds like a Metallica album

And you would know Loads.

[creeksneakers2]

28. I'll buy that if we can have a truce

We should go by what is literally said, not inferences based on wild speculation of what is meant. For example, saying that Republicans will ask Obama if he sold drugs isn't the same as calling Obama a drug dealer.

We should all also accept that when statements of everybody connected with campaigns are put under microscopes that lots of mistakes are discovered.