January 8, 2008
Barack on Iraq War: ‘Not Much of a Difference Between My Position and George Bush's Position’ — July 2004 (Lanny Davis)
Addendum to last messages —
Is there a reason why the media has not asked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) how he can base his campaign on attacking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on her war vote while saying his position on the war was no different than President Bush's as of July 2004? To wit:
In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said,
“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. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.”
— Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04
How could the media have missed reporting this?
Three Obamas on war —
1) Critic of Hillary Clinton on war authorization vote — a core message of his campaign
2) Obama: "No difference" between Bush position on war and his own (Chicago Tribune, 07/04)
3) Obama: "Doesn't know" how he would have voted on war vote (Chicago Tribune, 10/04)
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 10 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Lanny:
Give it up and turn it over to the Dems new rock star. The Clinton era is over as of the polls closing in N.H. tonight.
Comment by David Hamlin — January 8, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
Credible bloggers usually link their references. Where's yours to the Chicago Tribune article? No link, so that readers can read the "entire" source themselves, leaves your comment suspect.
Comment by Lopez — January 8, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Mr. Davis;
Since I know that you support Ms Clinton, I will reserve judgement on your post. I believe though that a time has cocme for a change in the way our country is headed. Ms. Clinton supported Bush on Iraq. Whether, as she claims, that she was misled, or she didn't read the NIE regarding Iraq, I feel that she let the country down by not opposing this occupation. Mr. Obama opposed this war from the beginning and he has supported funding for the troops, but I think that he can bring this fiasco to an end while leading the nation in a new direction. Please on your post concerning Mr. Obama, we on the internet have plenty of resources to research and form our own opinion of all the candidates. That is what makes this election so good.
Comment by Mike Coleman — January 8, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
So Obama is the man of change, huh? Great! What is he changing? The Bush policies? The job is already done for him, Bush and everyone associated with him will be gone in 2009 no matter who wins. Will Obama change Congress? Well, the Democrats control Congress now, so he can go ahead and change it. Speaking of Congress, Obama is still a sitting U.S. Senator (although he doesn't really do much work in that department what with running for President and all, but that hasn't stopped him from collecting his paycheck) anyway, as a Senator in Congress, he is really part of the problem. Why hasn't he introduced legislation for any of his great ideas yet? Why wait until he becomes President?
Comment by John Simmons — January 8, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
Mr Davis,
Where were you when she secretly orchestrated the attack on Obama's character by insinuating he was a drug dealer?
Comment by Geeesh — January 8, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
People who use illegal drugs usually deal them at some point. Obama already admitted that he used cocaine and marijuana (both of which are illegal, by the way).
Comment by John Simmons — January 10, 2008 @ 9:18 am
It does amaze me how quick people are to jump to Obama's defense on the drug issue. Do they not understand that he used illegal and illict drugs and to some this is not something that should be defended and pooh poohed? Are we now somehow idolizing drug use and acting as if it is no big deal?
Comment by Bob — January 14, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
CAMPAIGN 2004: DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION. SENATE CANDIDATE.
Barack Obama, who will deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, said Monday that he believes the Iraq war will be the deciding factor in the presidential contest, but that he does not think there is a great difference "on paper" between presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and President Bush on the issue.
Instead, 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."
Stephanie Cutter, communications director for the Kerry campaign, did not dispute Obama's statement, but said the true comparison rests in the differences over the past two years.
"If you look on paper, [Bush] has come our way, but he has come our way at a significant cost in terms of blood and treasure," Cutter said Monday. "Bush finally agreed to go to the international community, but in voters' minds that doesn't change their opinion as to why we're at war or how the president mismanaged the war from day one."
Obama, a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, opposed the Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation–a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.
The problem, Obama said, is the low regard for Bush in the international community.
"How do you stabilize a country that is made up of three different religious and in some cases ethnic groups, with minimal loss of life and minimum burden to the taxpayers?" Obama said. "I am skeptical that the Bush administration, given baggage from the past three years, not just on Iraq. . . . I don't see them having the credibility to be able to execute. I mean, you have to have a new administration to execute what the Bush administration acknowledges has to happen."
A Bush spokesman said the Democrats' comments are not representative of Bush's policy and again reveal the inconsistency of Kerry's Iraq stance. Kerry voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq; Obama said he would have voted against it.
"John Kerry is three days from being nominated, and he has yet to offer a coherent position on the war on terror and Iraq," said Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt, adding that "more than 32 nations" support the United States on Iraq.
Thus far, Obama's week at the convention has been a frenzy of activity. Nearly everywhere he goes, he is mobbed by well-wishers, reporters and others who want a moment of his time.
"It's getting incrementally harder to move him through crowds," said his campaign manager, Jim Cauley, as Obama pressed the flesh at an Illinois delegation reception Sunday night.
Despite this celebrity, Obama found himself just another attendee without coveted credentials trying to work his way into the FleetCenter on Monday afternoon. Running late for interviews with Illinois television stations, Obama's aides and advance staff could not locate each other amid the security fences and walls outside the arena.
Eventually, the entourage stumbled across the media entrance, where Obama stood in line a bit before a Secret Service agent recognized him and allowed him to pass, leaving his flustered aides outside.
Comment by Michael — January 15, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
CHANGE HUH!
TRYING NEW THINGS (EXPERIMENTING) IN THIS ECONOMY HUH!
UN-EXPERIENCED PRESIDENT IN THIS ECONOMY HUH!
AFTER WINNING DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY WILL WIN AGAINST REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE HUH!
AWESOME GO FOR IT THAT'S WHAT AMERICA NEEDS NOW!
Comment by Go Hillary 08 — January 22, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
[…] This has been a signal message of his campaign, placing the question of his judgment squarely in the center of the campaign debate. Of course his claim to good judgment relies almost solely on his opposition to the launch of the Iraq War, first articulated in a speech he made in Chicago while running for the U.S. Senate. Since that speech he has moved toward a more, shall we say, nuanced view of the Iraq war than many of his supporters would want us to appreciate. Since the initial 2002 speech his views have evolved over the years (he is the "change" candidate, after all). This is a history of change regarding the Iraq War that the campaign obscures. But the liberal and Obama-supporting New Republic has gone back and looked, into "The Cinderella Story". His views on the Iraq War have not been quite as principled as his campaign wishes voters to believe. Even before candidate Obama first spoke of his opposition to the war, he fretted to his political advisers regarding whether his speech opposing the war might hurt him politically . That shifting of positions to suit the political tenor of the times has continued over the years. A timeline of Obama wavering Here is a convenient timeline of his changing positions (in his own words): October 2, 2002, Chicago Wearing a war is not an option pin, he thrilled the anti-war rally by disparaging the Iraq war as a "dumb war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle, but on politics." The Audacity of Hope When America was obtaining clear victories on the ground in Iraq, Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope, "I began to suspect that I might have been wrong [about the war]" March 28, 2003, on CNN, Obama claimed that he, "Absolutely want to make sure that the troops have sufficient support to be able to win." He was invested in winning at that point. Democratic National Convention July 2004 His only mention of the war was, "There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it." The day after his speech, Senator Obama told reporters that the United States had an "absolute obligation " to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success. He stated that failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster and would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective". (This history is beginning to get more attention — see below). Same month He was no longer certain how he would have voted. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." (The New York Times on July 26.) 2004 election To keep in line with his party's candidates Kerry and Edwards, who had voted for the Iraq War, he told The New York Times, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought [the war] was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence," After the election Obama regained his certainty on the Charlie Rose Show. When Rose asked him if he would have voted against the Iraq War resolution had he been in Congress, Obama's answer was a simple, "Yes." July 2004 Obama told the Chicago Tribune "[t] here's not that much difference between my position [on the war] and George Bush's position at this stage." […]
Pingback by True Barack Obama Facts » Senator Obama’s Foreign Policy Judgment — March 16, 2008 @ 12:50 am