Let me get this out of the way:
- this diary is not a defense or rationalization of obama's huge blunder. he fumbled, and he's still paying for it.
- i am not in the obama camp (though i really like him). last week i wrote diary on john edwards awesomeness, this week i am leaning richardson, but really i am yearning for the goreacle.
ok, now the real issue, david sirota, among others, is cherry picking obama's past language about iraq in order to reinforce a triangulation on iraq meme.
In the "breaking blue" section of mydd sirota writes:
Barack and Forth On Iraq (David Sirota)
Radar Mag has the latest on the seemingly triangulating senator from Illinois.
Posted at 04/03/2007 02:40:36 PM EST - #
Radar mag has the latest breaking news? Let's look at what they have below the fold...
Actually, it turns out to be an op-ed by the blatant self-promoter sirota himself:
When it comes to his Iraq dance, has Barack Obama stolen his moves from Hillary Clinton? ... this weekend he told the Associated Press that he will support continued funding for the war—even if President Bush follows through on a pledge to veto any hard withdrawal date.
...
But it's not the first time Obama has bounced around on Iraq. He regularly says he's against the Iraq war, for example, but when asked by the New York Times in July 2004 how he would have voted in 2002, he said, "What would I have done? I don't know." Fast forward to 2006 when he told the New Yorker's David Remnick that senators who saw intelligence reports on Iraq may have been justified in voting for the invasion. "I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence," he said. "And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."
Let's look at the first quote from the nytimes, according to sirota obama said:
"What would I have done? I don't know."
that's a pretty simple, straight-forward quote, i'm sure more context would not add anything, or would it?
this is from tpm quoting from the nytimes piece about obama from july 26, 2004, in the heart of the presidential campaign, shortly after edwards was chosen for vp:
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.
obviously he's defending john kerry and john edwards, giving them more leeway--during their difficult campaign--for their unfortunate position of having voted yes on the iraq war resolution, while clearly saying that based on what he knew he would not have voted on it.
now onto the 2nd quote from a New Yorker article back in nov 2006, where, according to sirota obama simply said:
"I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence," he said. "And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."
once again, not so simple:
Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?
You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she’s the most disciplined—one of the most disciplined people—I’ve ever met. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons. She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.
now this article came out before he announced, and it is a little surprising as to how deferential he is to his soon-to-be opponents uncomfortable iraq war position, but that is a different issue. there is a huge difference between what obama said in this article, and what sirota cherry-picked in order to mislead.
i know this is not new behavior coming from sirota, he has a history, but come on people, does it really have to be this way?? by all means, let's hold our candidates feet to the fire, but let's not start new fires where they don't already exist!