Look gals, I’ve already got a lot on my plate... I work full time (and NOT as a blogger), I’m raising a WONDERFUL young kid, and I already spend about 4 or 5 hours an evening on sites like this fighting the good fight for Democrats and our nation.
But you’ve really dropped the ball when it comes to accurately presenting the record on the candidates and asking the tough questions re policy and making the correct calls. The thing is... Bill Clinton said something the other day that misleading at best, and I hear tell folks are twisting the HELL out of his words and calling what he said – of all things – as ringing true
Here’s what former President Bill Clinton said last weekend at a campaign stop in New Hampshire after Saturday’s debate...
Make the jump, there’s more...
Now I’m sorry but did ANYbody hear anything about the record or the reality, or Obama’s actual consistnet position in opposing this war and seeking to end the American occupation of Iraq in that segment? Because that reference to fairy tales is what Clinton’s camp is trying to use in playing the fairy tale card yesterday.
Look I’ll admit there’s plenty of reason for Americans to be sensitive to the judgment about the biggest foriegn policy disaster in our nations histroy and who has shown the judgment in getting it consistnetly correct. But in the case of the above video, there’s simply no there, there in Clinton's claim. They saw how an ex-Preisdent responded to Hillary’s show of vulnerability and they’re rewriting history and misleading by making an absurd assertion - at a well-chosen point in this campaign to try to drum up FUD about a rival campaign in the lead-up to the South Carolina primaries. President Clinton was not referring to the reality of Sen. Obama’s record on the invasion and occupation of Iraq and calling his consisent opposition to the invasion and ending the occupation as a fairy tale. He in no way got close to addressing the record in the context of reality.
Simply put – his comments had nothing to do with reality.
What he was talking about (and you’ll see this in the video if you actually take a look at it) is pushing the fraudulent suggestion the MSM have given him a pass when it comes to looking at his record on Iraq over the years. This issue is the cornerstone of Obama’s campaign – he’s used it time and time again to show that Barack Obama has the judgment to get the most serious of issues (war) correct.
So if you guys in the MSM (and in the blogsphere) won’t do your job, I guess I’ll have to. Sigh... as if I didn’t already have enough to do today...
Clinton’s been glossing over a speech he gave on October 26, 2002 at an anti-war rally before invasion took place. But what I don’t hear you asking about is what he’s done since giving that speech – showing us that he’s truly our champion when it comes to ending the war in Iraq, and bringing our troops home in the swiftest and safest manner possible.
And before you jump down my throat for having the temerity to point this out... they ARE making these distortions of the record a cornerstone in her campaign, so I think it’s a fair thing to set the record (and as importantly the context) straight.
Take a look at the whole speech. He gave this speech ten days after the Iraq resolution became law – and yet nowhere in that speech do we see even a word decrying or attacking those who voted for that resolution.
He specifically addresses the bad policy it would be to invade Iraq. He clearly states that Iraq posed no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi military was a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until the regime collapsed on its own accord without invasion. He also stated that even a successful invasion and overthrow of the Iraqi regime it would drag us into a US occupation of Iraq of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. He clearly had the judgment to see that an invasion of Iraq without a legitimate rationale and without strong international support would only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
He correctly lays out that multilateral efforts for inspections and vigorous enforcement of a non-proliferation treaty, that finishing the fight Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings was the correct course we should have pursued (and still do to this day).
And let’s face it... he consistently advocated against the continued occupation and has consistently worked to end it since Bush used the authorization he was given to invade Iraq and occupy it.
Some are spinning that speech by by parsing the words and removing them form their actual context to make it seem to say the opposite of what it was saying. Obama said the following:
But I also know that Saddam poses 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.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
So what was said (and in full context) was that invading was the wrong policy because we did not have legitimate rationale nor legitimate international support. And that even if we were successful in toppling the regime through invasion, we would become mired there and be unsuccessful without such a legitimacy and without the support of the world community and that this would be counter productive to what we do legitimately have world support for (going after those who actually attacked us, i.e. al-Qaeda.
Some are now cut and pasting the line:
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
And using it to set-up a fraudulent "gotcha" claim of hypocrisy. By cut and pasting a line from an appearance on CNN this week by Obama where he says:
It was not clear that President Bush was going to drag this out over several years.
Which is an out-of-context response about when asked about early funding votes, not about if we invaded we would be mired in Iraq for years.
Then those in the Clinton camp cut and paste another line from his 2002 speech saying that Iraq invasion is the wrong thing to do:
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
...as a set-up to launch into another and more egregious distortion of the record by asserting he was no longer opposing the war when he "voted to provide whatever funding was requested" which is untrue (we will get to that in a moment) and that he was doing so since he earlier that we were going to be there for "several years" based on his saying in 2002 that if we invaded we would become mired in Iraq he was therefore supporting us staying there.
Some are once again pushing the already debunked misleading statements to make it seem as if Obama began to shift his clear opposition for invading Iraq by saying:
It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he has been against the war 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...
The first part of that statement, which is being repeated far and wide, tries to make it seem as if Obama was somehow changing his position on his position that invading Iraq was not justified:
In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution.
...which is betrayed by the the full quote in the linked article which is often omitted (though curiously some include it which destroy their own arguments):
‘When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "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.’
Which is a perfectly legitmate position, which in no way diminishes Obama's postion of opposing the invasion as being unjusitfied since unlike the Senators who were in office had access to the classified NIE before the 2002 AUMF vote to authroze military force in Iraq which we now know contained all the dissenting footnotes that gave proof that there was no real evidence to support the claimed threat Iraq poised, and that the classified NIE all but 6 Senators didn't even bother to read before voting, despite the urging of Bob Graham who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who, along with other Senate Democrats who sat on the Committee who knew the contents of the NIE such as my own Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, voted against the 2002 AUMF.
This the exact same attempts at dishonest "gotcha" attempts that Tim Russert tried, which Media Matters rightly rightly called him on.
And that was a quote said and carried in an article in the context of trying to bait Obama into criticizing Kerry and Edwards DURING the week of the Democratic National Convention where they were to be nominated by the Democratic Party to run against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney (the very people who started this war on false and fraudulent justifications), for which he was to give the keynote address.
Seriously look at the context in which this out-of-context "gotcha" was first attempted and now recycled. The week of the convention Obama was being baited into criticizing Kerry and Edwards right before he was to give the keynote address in the convention to nominate them to run in the election to replace the people who are without debate the people who started this war.
That would most certainly have been a a political firestorm and feeding frenzy that and would have made the convention the worst disaster for the chances of changing the administration (and hence our foreign policy about Iraq) since the rioting in Chicago in 1968. Karl Rove certainly would not be laughing his ass off over that.
On to the second part of the dishonest or at least misleading cut and paste statement:
In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush’s position on Iraq -
Let's go to the actual quote:
"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."
Let's examine the actual context of that quote and hence what it is saying.
What is the position at "this stage"...?
In October 2002 Bush gets authorization to use military force. Obama opposes invading Iraq saying (as we know from earlier in this diary). On November 13, 2002, UN inspectors are allowed back into Iraq and given full, unfettered access to any and all locations they wish to make unannounced inspections to. By mid March of 2003 and inspections having turned up no evidence of WMDs or WMD programs, and Iraq is in the process of destroying proscribed short-range none conventional missiles which have split the monitoring team over whether or not their existence places Iraq in violation of UN resolution, Bush advises the inspectors leave Iraq because of possible military strikes, and on March 20th launches the invasion. The invasion, it is worth re-iterating, Obama had all along stated was not justified and the wrong thing to do, particularly without the strong support of the international community which was never there for the invasion because of it having no legitimate rationale.
With security never having been fully established for the population once the Iraqi regime fell, violence begins to escalate all summer and US forces and inspectors fail to find any WMDs, the given rationale for the invasion. By the fall and as the insurgency against the US occupation and the escalating ethnic and sectarian warfare accelerates, calls for brining in the type of international coalition Bush failed to build for the invasion to stabilize Iraq and take control of rebuilding efforts grow.
By the winter of 2003, the Bush administration is not only refusing to build a coalition to stabilize and rebuild Iraq, it goes so far as sending the message publicly that any countries that did not join in the invasion would not be allowed to help re-build and stabilize Iraq with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz actually saying the stance will make them think twice about saying no to such operations in the future.
By the spring of 2004, John Kerry has the primairy race locked up, and criticizes Bush repeatedly for failing to cede more authority to the United Nations and to develop broader international support. The Bush administration, realizing it needs European troops and support to help stabilize and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, begins to try and smooth over the trans-Atlantic rift.
Finally in mid April of 2004 Colin Powell first raises the idea of a new U.N. resolution to help the Iraqi transitional government, promote reconstruction, encourage other nations to get involved, and structure a role for the United Nations. Kerry responds saying it's about time the adminstration accepted U.N. help and that too many nations have been alienated by the presidents actions and his approach.
So by the week of the Democratic Convention in 2004 we are "at the stage" of events in which Obama is quoted above saying:
"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."
This is about, and within the context of pointing out that Bush was signaling that he moving to finally reach out to the international community and bringing in the UN, which at that stage had the best chance to stabilize Iraq and begin rebuilding it, but that Kerry as opposed to Bush would be in the position to do that because the international had been alienated by the Bush administration.
So there you have it MSM... all tied up in a neat little package for you. And you didn’t have to lift a finger.
Now if you don’t mind... I’ve got to go remind my 11 year old son I need a wish list from him for his birthday coming up soon, start a a load of laundry and and later this afternoon go to a meeting for House district leaders of my county Democratic Party for a technical training session on our neighbor to neighbor outreach program this afternoon...
But you keep your feet up on yer desk there and finish that 1st glass of orange juice, ok?
Cross-posted at wiseass.org