Questions for Obamans

[SSSnail]

How can Obama state that he never voted for the war in Iraq when he wasn't even a senator at the time? That means he couldn't vote for it if he wanted to, correct?

So, isn't it a bit too convenient to say that you've never done something when you can't even do it if you wanted to in the first place?

Say what you want, but I can guarantee you that most people that's voting for him doesn't even know that fact.

 

[jpeyton]

I didn't vote for the war in Iraq either.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
How can Obama state that he never voted for the war in Iraq when he wasn't even a senator at the time? That means he couldn't vote for it if he wanted to, correct?

So, isn't it a bit too convenient to say that you've never done something when you can't even do it if you wanted to in the first place?

Say what you want, but I can guarantee you that most people that's voting for him doesn't even know that fact.

As I mentioned in another thread, while you are right Obama was not in the senate at the time and could not have voted either way... in the end the fact is that not only did he not cast an affirmative vote for the war as both Hillary and Edwards did, but at the same time the debate was going on (before and after) the AUMF Obama was a vocal opponent of it.

So while he might not have been opposing the war from the floor of the Senate, he was opposing it as much as he was able while his opponents were voting for it.

 

[SSSnail]

Eskimo, I know what you're saying but listen to what Obama said. Every stinking debates so far, when the issue pops up about the war, it's always "I've NEVER voted for the war"... get it?

So what you're saying is that while he couldn't vote either for or against it, it's too easy to say what you want like most of us are sitting here doing? Without political pressures, without permanently notch your mark? Oh wow, what a man huh?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I didn't vote for the war in Iraq either.

same

 

[Farang]

Please provide specific, cited quote. I'm not denying he hasn't said that over the course of his campaign, but I think you should provide some basis for this argument.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SSSnail
How can Obama state that he never voted for the war in Iraq when he wasn't even a senator at the time? That means he couldn't vote for it if he wanted to, correct?

So, isn't it a bit too convenient to say that you've never done something when you can't even do it if you wanted to in the first place?

Say what you want, but I can guarantee you that most people that's voting for him doesn't even know that fact.

As I mentioned in another thread, while you are right Obama was not in the senate at the time and could not have voted either way... in the end the fact is that not only did he not cast an affirmative vote for the war as both Hillary and Edwards did, but at the same time the debate was going on (before and after) the AUMF Obama was a vocal opponent of it.

So while he might not have been opposing the war from the floor of the Senate, he was opposing it as much as he was able while his opponents were voting for it.

He was opposing it where he was just as I was opposing it on this forum. I can tell you that at no point in time anywhere could you oppose the war without people calling you a traitor. It's not easy to stand against psychosis.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Eskimo, I know what you're saying but listen to what Obama said. Every stinking debates so far, when the issue pops up about the war, it's always "I've NEVER voted for the war"... get it?

So what you're saying is that while he couldn't vote either for or against it, it's too easy to say what you want like most of us are sitting here doing? Without political pressures, without permanently notch your mark? Oh wow, what a man huh?

He was still in the Illinois legislature, and he was going out and speaking in front of crowds, etc. against it. I guess what I'm saying is that while he was fortunate to not have to make that choice, what he is saying is not only factually accurate but ideologically consistent.

When he is saying "I never voted for the war", he is in effect making a statement about how he has always opposed it. It's not as if he supported the war back then but lucked out by not having to vote for it, and his opposition is the fundamental point of what he's trying to say.

 

[FoBoT]

you anti-war dudes need to get over it, neither Clinton or Obama will remove 100% of troops from Iraq
CNN's Anderson Cooper had a really good special with David Gergen and Fareed Zakria

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA...TS/0802/11/acd.02.html

COOPER: Even the Democrats who were talking about pulling out -- there are some of them talking -- giving 60 days, 90 days, 180 days, whatever. But some of them recognize or say, "Look, we still have to figure out some level of commitment." We now have this huge embassy, what do we do with that? People need to guard the embassy. People need to be able to react to events."

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: If Democrats are elected they're going to face a serious dilemma in Iraq. It's going to be one of the toughest problems they face and one of the toughest presidencies I think we've ever faced.

COOPER: Because of what they have said?

GERGEN: Because of what they believe. What they believe, they believe we ought to start coming down. We ought to start significantly reducing the numbers and leave behind some smaller contingent force to deal if something erupts.

But here's the dilemma. You've promised that you're going to get out. Iraq has been on simmer. George Bush is going to give you something that looks like it's doing better.

You know, Colin Powell has long argued this is like putting a lid on a pot. The American presence is like putting a lid on a pot. And you can keep it on simmer for a long time. Once you start taking the lid off, the pot can boil over.

So if you're a Democrat, you come in there, you commit to coming out -- getting out. You start taking the lid off that pot, and if it starts overflowing, erupting, you suddenly become the president who lost the war. You've become the president who lost Iraq. And that can destroy your whole presidency. So how you do this is critical to the future of your entire presidency. It's not just about Iraq; it's about your political power, your political capacity to govern at home on any number of issues, which are in some ways, I think Fareed now would agree, in some ways are far more important than Iraq. But Iraq is the immediate issue.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SSSnail
How can Obama state that he never voted for the war in Iraq when he wasn't even a senator at the time? That means he couldn't vote for it if he wanted to, correct?

So, isn't it a bit too convenient to say that you've never done something when you can't even do it if you wanted to in the first place?

Say what you want, but I can guarantee you that most people that's voting for him doesn't even know that fact.

As I mentioned in another thread, while you are right Obama was not in the senate at the time and could not have voted either way... in the end the fact is that not only did he not cast an affirmative vote for the war as both Hillary and Edwards did, but at the same time the debate was going on (before and after) the AUMF Obama was a vocal opponent of it.

So while he might not have been opposing the war from the floor of the Senate, he was opposing it as much as he was able while his opponents were voting for it.

He was opposing it where he was just as I was opposing it on this forum. I can tell you that at no point in time anywhere could you oppose the war without people calling you a traitor. It's not easy to stand against psychosis.

Agreed 100%. Being against the war in the late months of 02 and early 03 was a tough time because you were called a traiter and it was not the popular view.

I was against this war Before it became popular to opose this war.

 

[Lemon law]

Part of the allure of Obama is the fact he publically opposed the war and was outspoken at the time. When the safer course was to shut up.

The other part of the allure of Obama is that he recognizes the reality that we are now in. And we can better trust Obama to come up with the diplomatic options
GWB&co. refuses to explore.

Its a judgment thing. Who do you trust to fix it? The guy who was always wrong, GWB, or Obama who was right in the first place? Or McCain who is still in denial about the fact we lost in Vietnam and thinks Iraq is a reversible instant replay?

Examine your heart and the record. Need I say more?

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
How can Obama state that he never voted for the war in Iraq when he wasn't even a senator at the time? That means he couldn't vote for it if he wanted to, correct?

So, isn't it a bit too convenient to say that you've never done something when you can't even do it if you wanted to in the first place?

Say what you want, but I can guarantee you that most people that's voting for him doesn't even know that fact.

Because he said he wouldn't vote for it before it happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...y226po&feature=related

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Part of the allure of Obama is the fact he publically opposed the war and was outspoken at the time. When the safer course was to shut up.

The other part of the allure of Obama is that he recognizes the reality that we are now in. And we can better trust Obama to come up with the diplomatic options
GWB&co. refuses to explore.

Its a judgment thing. Who do you trust to fix it? The guy who was always wrong, GWB, or Obama who was right in the first place? Or McCain who is still in denial about the fact we lost in Vietnam and thinks Iraq is a reversible instant replay?

Examine your heart and the record. Need I say more?

What is this diplomatic option that we refuse to explore?

Could you provide me some details?

And while you are crafting your answer keep what we have seen in Afghanistan in mind. That is the war that everyone agrees we needed and that nearly everyone supports. Yet there are very few foreign troops there and those that are there are largely kept out of the south where they are needed by countries that don?t want to take casualties.

So the idea that Europe is going to rush in 50,000 troops to help keep the peace is a fairy tale at best.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
you anti-war dudes need to get over it, neither Clinton or Obama will remove 100% of troops from Iraq
CNN's Anderson Cooper had a really good special with David Gergen and Fareed Zakria

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA...TS/0802/11/acd.02.html

COOPER: Even the Democrats who were talking about pulling out -- there are some of them talking -- giving 60 days, 90 days, 180 days, whatever. But some of them recognize or say, "Look, we still have to figure out some level of commitment." We now have this huge embassy, what do we do with that? People need to guard the embassy. People need to be able to react to events."

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: If Democrats are elected they're going to face a serious dilemma in Iraq. It's going to be one of the toughest problems they face and one of the toughest presidencies I think we've ever faced.

COOPER: Because of what they have said?

GERGEN: Because of what they believe. What they believe, they believe we ought to start coming down. We ought to start significantly reducing the numbers and leave behind some smaller contingent force to deal if something erupts.

But here's the dilemma. You've promised that you're going to get out. Iraq has been on simmer. George Bush is going to give you something that looks like it's doing better.

You know, Colin Powell has long argued this is like putting a lid on a pot. The American presence is like putting a lid on a pot. And you can keep it on simmer for a long time. Once you start taking the lid off, the pot can boil over.

So if you're a Democrat, you come in there, you commit to coming out -- getting out. You start taking the lid off that pot, and if it starts overflowing, erupting, you suddenly become the president who lost the war. You've become the president who lost Iraq. And that can destroy your whole presidency. So how you do this is critical to the future of your entire presidency. It's not just about Iraq; it's about your political power, your political capacity to govern at home on any number of issues, which are in some ways, I think Fareed now would agree, in some ways are far more important than Iraq. But Iraq is the immediate issue.

I think it's fair to say we know that. It's more relevant to say they are unlikely to pull a stupid like Bush did and do it all over somewhere else. When you're stuck in quicksand, it's not like you can suddenly say you aren't going to do this anymore.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Eskimo, I know what you're saying but listen to what Obama said. Every stinking debates so far, when the issue pops up about the war, it's always "I've NEVER voted for the war"... get it?

So what you're saying is that while he couldn't vote either for or against it, it's too easy to say what you want like most of us are sitting here doing? Without political pressures, without permanently notch your mark? Oh wow, what a man huh?

You make a good point, however:

Could he not have voted against further funding for the war, repeatedly?

Are you certain he used the word "vote"? All that I have ever heard is that he's opposed to the Iraq war and would like a rapid troop withdrawl.

For some reason, I don't trust Obama. I trust Clinton less than him. If I had to vote for someone based on trustworthiness I would have to choose Ron Paul or else Huckabee. Even Huckabee seems a little shifty to me somehow.

If you're correct in your semantics I agree that this detracts from Obama's trustworthiness. It's misleading. Nice post. :thumbsup:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
How can Obama state that he never voted for the war in Iraq when he wasn't even a senator at the time? That means he couldn't vote for it if he wanted to, correct?

So, isn't it a bit too convenient to say that you've never done something when you can't even do it if you wanted to in the first place?

Say what you want, but I can guarantee you that most people that's voting for him doesn't even know that fact.

I can assure you that lots of them do know that.

These are the kind of desperate, last-minute attacks to be expected by Clinton and her surrogates/sycophants. Obama's record is wide open, his tax returns are on the table. He never claimed to have voted against the War; He said it should not have been fought. That's a distinction with a difference.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I think it's fair to say we know that. It's more relevant to say they are unlikely to pull a stupid like Bush did and do it all over somewhere else. When you're stuck in quicksand, it's not like you can suddenly say you aren't going to do this anymore.

So what do you suggest may happen after a 100% troop withdrawl?

I personally find it hard to believe that 20,000 - 50,000 troops can control a nation the size of Iraq.

The terrorists don't have the logistics to pose a serious threat to the US from Iraq. Heck, I'm pretty sure that only the US has the logistics to pose a serious threat halfway around the world. Procedures have been put in place to prevent another 9/11.

IMO the financial cost paired with the casualties of the war are far more damaging than what may happen if they pull out. The people of Iraq are not going to want a civil war.

 

[Mxylplyx]

It's just a way of pointing out that his opponents DID vote for the war.

 

[Dari]

Ummm, city and state councils vote on important matters all the time, even though they may be non-binding. I think the Illinois senate did something similar and Obama made a prescient speech about the outcome of the war. I know the New York City assembly voted against the Iraq war when their non-binding vote came up. It's just a way of expressing opinion at the local level even though the binding votes are carried out on Capitol Hill.

 

[Throckmorton]

He spoke against it publicly, which a lot of people were afraid to do.