Obama's opposition to the war?

[penguin7]

The following link supports Obama's opposition to the war in October 2002

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

I do not remember Obama as being a major anti-war activist, but I could easily be wrong. I would like to see some verification of the above speech.

[ellacott]

1. I've seen a few posts like this lately

Weird. That speech did happen. He ran for the Senate on the fact that he originally opposed the war.

Their next question is usually about his subsequent votes on funding.

[Ethelk2044]

2. You are correct posting the same info different ways

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3413388#3413441

[sandnsea]

4. And a positive campaign

Don't forget that. While the Hillary and Edwards people use smear tactics that rival Karl Rove. :eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. Yes, calling your rival "Bush-Cheney-lite" is a "positive campaign"

;)

[ellacott]

9. Does that make HRC ok with what's she's doing? n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. No. The difference, though, is the Clinton camp does not pretend to be above such things

For instance, you would never see a Clinton supporter make the claim that was made in post 4 by a BO supporter.

[ellacott]

15. They're not above such things, that's good to know

What I've seen him do is fight back.

I've seen Clinton supporter post much worse things. Are you saying that everything is ok except comparing her to Bush and his Admin?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. Fighting back is good--he had to do it; name-calling is another matter

==I've seen Clinton supporter post much worse things.==

Sure, but here we have Obama himself saying it, not some internet supporter of his.

[ellacott]

28. Naive and Irresponsible are pretty inflammatory

It's considered name-calling to me. You guys want to portray yourself as the victim. some of this stuff is really reaching.

Why are you so afraid of Obama. You'd think this was the General Election.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. It is, which is why I said Obama had to respond

I don't support Hillary btw. I actually thought Obama was doing well in the Clinton-Obama duel until he made the *-Cheney-lite comment, which damaged his "different kind of politician" image.

[Ethelk2044]

72. And Like the Media Said. He had the Right to Respond. She should have never Attacked him.

[Ethelk2044]

71. Like Obama said he will not attack, however he will respond.

[Skip Intro]

16. exactly. n/t

[sandnsea]

3. A verification of the speech?

Are you serious? You're saying this is a lie?

:shrug:

[penguin7]

7. I have no idea.

I would like to see verification.

[NYCGirl]

17. Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

[sandnsea]

29. You're going on ignore too

This shit is getting too stupid to respond to.

[TeamJordan23]

34. Maybe his name is not really Barack Obama.

The intelligence level of some people really amazes me.

[rinsd]

6. Huh? You think that speech is made up?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. Obama's record on the war

2002: He opposed the war, made a now famous speech on it (allegedly partly so the then obscure local politician could win the services of David Axlerod and the backing of a key Chicago patron), spoke out against it during a local tv show after the IWR as well

2005: Gets to the senate, votes to fund the war. Sides with the Hillary wing of the party against Rep. Murtha's call to end the war. Like Hillary, opposes a timetable for withdrawal.

2006: Continues to vote to fund the war. Sides with the Hillary wing of the party against Kerry-Feingold, which would have ended the war by this month. Like Hillary, opposes a timetable for withdrawal. Endorses, campaigns for Holy Joe over Lamont in the primaries (again siding with the Hillary wing of the party).

2007: Sides with the Hillary wing of the party against cutting of funding for the escalation. Reverses course and comes out for a timetable for withdrawal. Throws up the surrender flag by saying--even before *'s veto--that Congress will eventually fund the war instead of leading an effort to stand up against * like his colleagues Dodd, Feingold, and Kerry did. Later switches his view and votes against the most recent war funding bill.


So Obama was right in 2002 but since he acquired national power he has been Hillary-lite.

You are a Kucinich supporter. You know his consistent record against the war.

[wyldwolf]

12. don't forget - after he won the Senate seat, he hid that speech...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. Oh yes. The magic, hyped speech was hid in the basement after it served its purpose

Did I miss anything else on his Hillary-lite Iraq record in the senate?

[AtomicKitten]

31. nice try slamming Obama

Kucinich can't even get the nomination, much less win in the general. My proof? History and common sense. Don't believe me? Wait and see.

It's really lame that Kucinich supporters are going after the Obama on the basis of opposing the war. The funding is another issue, a debatable issue, and Obama has not ceded that ground to Kucinich on that in the slightest.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. And? What does that have to do with Kucinich being the only true anti-war candidate?

==It's really lame that Kucinich supporters are going after the Obama on the basis of opposing the war.==

First, Kucinich himself did during the last debate. It isn't just his supporters. Second, it is as legitimate as Team Obama attacking his rivals on the war (without mentioning Murtha, Kerry-Feingold, the escalation, voting to fund the war, Lieberman. In short, ignoring everything Hillary-lite has done since 2002 on Iraq).

==The funding is another issue, a debatable issue==

Perhaps. Obama would have a legitimate defense against that if he did not obliterate it by switching his position on funding the war during the last vote after intense pressure from the party's base.

What about Obama siding with Hillary and co. against Murtha in 2005? What about Obama siding with the Hillary wing of the party against Kerry-Feingold in the summer of 2006? What about Obama siding with Hillary on Lieberman against Lamont in 2006? What about Obama, like Hillary, opposing cutting off funding for the surge/escalation? What about Obama, like Hillary, remaining silent during the last vote instead of leading an effort to stand up to * like his fellow senators Dodd, Kerry, and Feingold did? Obama has been Hillary-lite ever since he acquired national power. To think the Obama of 2006 was the same as the Obama of 2002 is a stretch, at best.

[AtomicKitten]

37. The evolution of this nightmare will give any leader pause

as to strategy. The rest of the issues you describe in the last paragraph are much more equivocal than you state, and your conclusion a rather convenient rationalization of what actually went down. In other words, each one of the incidents you mention is debatable.

I do not argue about Kucinich being the anti-war candidate, but Obama is an anti-Iraq-war candidate, and it is on that point I argue on his behalf because it matters, or at least to me. It was a rubber meets the road stance he took when it mattered. Plus, and I do not state this in a cavalier or snarky fashion, Obama can win, Kucinich cannot.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. If so, why do Obama supporters act as if Iraq did not exist in 2005 and 2006?

If his Hillary-lite positions from 2005-2006 (he is still Hillary-lite btw, but the focus is on what he did in the period after he acquired national power and before he began running for president) are so great why are they airbrushed from history by Team Obama? We hear of his 2002 position. Why no discussion of where Obama was on Iraq over the past 2 years? You know the answer... ;)

==Obama is an anti-Iraq-war candidate==

Only if you think Hillary is. :)

==It was a rubber meets the road stance he took when it mattered. ==

Yes, he courageously delivered a speech that played well in his liberal district, gave him (then an obscure local politician fresh off losing a House race by a 2-to-1 margin) an issue and instant base to run on in a statewide Democratic primary in a blue state, and won him the services of David Axlerod and the support of a key Chicago patron. So what happened when he got to the senate? The political dynamics changed. He did not accidentally become Hillary-lite...

[AtomicKitten]

43. there is a mile difference between Hillary and Obama

I'm sorry you can't see it, but sometimes our mind gives us the ability to rationalize that which we don't wish to deal with, and carelessly lumping candidates together is a tidy way of dismissing him.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. Such as what?

Senate records

2005: Both Clinton and Obama side against Murtha's call to end the war
2006: Clinton and Obama vote against Kerry-Feingold, which would have ended the war by this month
2005-2006: Clinton and Obama opposed a timetable for withdrawal
2006: Clinton and Obama supported Lieberman over Lamont
2007: Clinton and Obama opposed cutting off funds for the surge
2007 Clinton and Obama come out for a timetable for withdrawal

These are the main things. On the 70+ Iraq bills in Iraq they have voted together every single time with the exception of when Obama voted with the Republicans on Gen. Pace. All this sounds like a mile's worth of difference? The only difference they had was in 2002, when the political dynamics for Obama were different. When he faced the same dynamics he became Hillary-lite.

[AtomicKitten]

67. Without being anal-retentive about proving

you right or wrong on each point (by fact-checking and research), I can say without equivocation that the difference between Hillary and Obama that resonates loud for me is that she voted 'yes' on the IWR and he opposed the war from the onset.

That matters to me.

[karynnj]

51. This is nonsense:

"2005: Gets to the senate, votes to fund the war. Sides with the Hillary wing of the party against Rep. Murtha's call to end the war. Like Hillary, opposes a timetable for withdrawal"

Murtha was NOT in the Senate. Starting in the fall of 2005, Feingold (August,2005) proposed that there be flexible target dates for withdrawal. Kerry (October, 2005) gave a speech where he urged a change in the US role - away from search & destroy and policing the roads and towns - instead putting US soldiers in garirsons where they would work on training the Iraqis, protecting our soldiers and called for the US to set a tone by clearing saying we wanted no permanent bases. (Speech given at Georgetown University called the Path forward. (These were both clearer plans than Murthas. The significance of Murtha was that he had been a hawk.)

Levin joined the anti-war wing (Feingold, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer and Hawkins) to work out an amendment that called for a change in policy that hey hoped to get nearly all Democrats to sign. This meant it had to be vague and toothless, but it did put the Democrats on record as wanting a change. It failed to pass, but a weakened version (Warner) did pass. Obama was an original co-sponsor of the 2005 Levin bill - along with Feingold, Kerry, etc.

Edwards was NO more anti-war in 2005 than Obama. His Nov 2005, WP op-ed that said he was wrong to vote for the war included a vague proposal going forward, that was far weaker than eitehr Kerry or Feingold's recommendations.

I do think that Obama should have voted for Kerry/Feindgold - but Edwards DID not put his neck out to say he would have voted for it or at the time Kerry was getting hell for it, he most certainly did not have Kerry's back or support it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

53. Reply

==Murtha was NOT in the Senate.==

Of course. That is why I have referred to him as Rep. Murtha in other posts. Him voting to fund the war and opposing Murtha's position are two different things. Obama delivered a major speech in November of 2005 in which he echoed Clinton and co. and opposed a timetable for withdrawal, a position he held until he decided to run for president in 2007.

Levin-Reed was toothless. Kerry-Feingold was binding and would have ended the war. Obama, like Clinton, voted against Kerry-Feingold.

==Edwards was NO more anti-war in 2005 than Obama. His Nov 2005, WP op-ed that said he was wrong to vote for the war included a vague proposal going forward, that was far weaker than eitehr Kerry or Feingold's recommendations.==

Exactly. As I said in another post, 2005 was when they converged on Iraq. Prior to 2005 Edwards had been more hawkish; after 2005 it was Obama who became more hawkish.

==I do think that Obama should have voted for Kerry/Feindgold - but Edwards DID not put his neck out to say he would have voted for it or at the time Kerry was getting hell for it, he most certainly did not have Kerry's back or support it.==

That isn't true. Edwards publicly stated his support for Kerry-Feingold.

[karynnj]

59. Where do I start

1) There was NO Senate bill that represented Murtha's position. The 2005 bill was non-binding - but everyone from Feingold to Kerry to Boxer etc considered it significant. (This is NOT the 2007 Levin/Reed or the 2006 Levin/Reed that was the CYA alternative to Kerry/Feingold.)

2) I never saw ONE clear comment in June 2006 where Edwards supported Kerry/Feingold. He absolutely did NOT back Kerry on this. He stuck with his vague WP stuff and was specifically against a deadline.
I don't know how he would have voted in 2006 because he was against a deadline. From my perspective they were pretty equal. (If you have a June 2006 quote from Edwards backing Kerry, I will take back this comment.)

3) In late 2006 through early 2007, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama all moved significantly on the war. So, did almost all the Democrats - including those who ridiculed Kerry in 2006 for both the Alito filibuster and the Kerry/Feingold amendment. Clinton's was the biggest shift.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

64. Reply

==1) There was NO Senate bill that represented Murtha's position.==

Where did I say there was? He came down on the side of the Hillary wing of the party in his rhetoric, notably a key speech he delivered in November of 2005 in which he opposed a timetable for withdrawal. That speech could have easily been delivered by Hillary Clinton.

==2) I never saw ONE clear comment in June 2006 where Edwards supported Kerry/Feingold. He absolutely did NOT back Kerry on this. He stuck with his vague WP stuff and was specifically against a deadline.==

That does not make it so. I have not found a quote of him saying "I support Kerry-Feingold" on the internet yet (I think it was on ABC's This Week) but I did find this quote from him a few weeks after Kerry-Feingold (while campaigning for Lamont. Others campaigned for Democrats across the nation but not Lamont in the GE, even though they made the trip to CT in the primaries to stump for Lieberman...) in which he specifically came out for a timetable for withdrawal (which tells you which way he would have voted on Kerry-Feingold):

==Edwards expressed incredulity that "anybody can say" the Iraq campaign "is working." He noted that 6,000 Iraqis died in May and June, that there were two times as many attacks this month than in January, more roadside bombings in July than in any other month to date. "We have to start leaving," he said, pulling 40,000 to 50,000 American troops out of the country immediately and drawing up a plan for withdrawing the rest over 12 to 18 months.==

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2006/08/a_heavyweight_s.php

==3) In late 2006 through early 2007, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama all moved significantly on the war. So, did almost all the Democrats - including those who ridiculed Kerry in 2006 for both the Alito filibuster and the Kerry/Feingold amendment. Clinton's was the biggest shift.==

I agree. However, the myth promoted about Obama is that he has been an anti-war paragon over the past five years. In reality he was Hillary-lite in the senate and still is. Look at their Iraq plans. What is the difference?

[karynnj]

75. On Kerry/Feingold, it may seem a quibble

but Kerry/Feingold was had a deadline of one year - here Edwards was not for a deadline - and was for a longer commitmant than Kerry/Feingold. This was also in August. In 2006, things moved - even here it is possible that he would have voted against Kerry/Feingold. I do know - being a Kerry partisan - that he never said publicly supported Kerry/Feingold. If you remember that time, Kerry was put through hell and was stabbed in the back by many Democrats who spoke against K/F to the reporters.

I agree with you that Obama at this time was followig the leadships guidance - and wish he had seen that Kerry was speaking the truth and knew what he was talking about.

[NYCGirl]

10. Here's some film for you that PROVES it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. See post #8. The speech was so great that he removed it from his website...

...until he was called on it.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Obama clearly opposed the war in 2002, and his words at the time backs that up..........

and Obama made it even clearer on the Charlie Rose Interview footage found on that tape that you discount because in that interview he says specifically that HE WOULD NOT VOTE TO AUTHORIZE IT, period.

Doesn't matter what Obama "did" with the footage after the fact....because the footage still shows his opposition period.....and the FACTS ARE that Obama apposed the war prior to the vote in the Senate. That really is all there is to it.

This means that there is clear proof via footage of his words that he opposed the war prior to its beginning, and Barak Obama doesn't have to apologize for a big mistake. Everything else is bullshit.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. No is disputing that he was correct 5 years ago. He was wrong in 2005, 2006, and 2007, though

If you want someone in the race who was consistently right on the war vote for Kucinich. Kucinich was never wrong and never abetted the war by doing things like opposing Kerry-Feingold.

==cally that HE WOULD NOT VOTE TO AUTHORIZE IT, period.==

That is not what he said later. Do you have the transcript for that interview BTW? I can bet the Harvard lawyer uses some qualifiers in that statement...

[FrenchieCat]

33. The interview is part of the link NYCgirl provided......in answering your question

"Do you have the transcript for that interview BTW?".

If you would bother to view the video, you would hear OBama's words......and no request for transcript would be requested from you.

In reference to "being right on the war all along".......As an Edwards supporter, I'm amazed that you are being so bold as to criticize Obama while supporting war supporter and war co-sponsor John Edwards!

Obama, regardless of anything, didn't wait for the polls to indicate what stance on the war he should take. In 2002, 2003 and 2004, the war was popular....and during that time Obama opposed it and Edwards supported it. Then in LATE 2005, after being wrong for so long, Edwards came to his sense shortly after the polls indicated that war support was flagging. If it was up to Obama, there would NOT have been a war to begin with. It if was up to Edwards, there would have been a war. So your "indignation" has no merit!

So in you attempting to make a point that somehow Obama didn't support some "after-the-fact-let's-fix-this-messed-up-war-now-that-we-are-deep-into-it-and-after-the-polls-have-turned-against-the-war" really doesn't impress me.

Obama was right when it counted.
Edwards was wrong when it counted.
The rest is a bunch of bullshit for those who want to cover their political asses after-the-fact.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. You mean the edited propaganda video?

==As an Edwards supporter, I'm amazed that you are being so bold as to criticize Obama while supporting war supporter and war co-sponsor John Edwards!==

I think Edwards was wrong on the IWR, wrong on the war in 2003, 2004, and 2005 (2005 is when Obama and Edwards converged on Iraq). He was right on Kerry-Feingold in 2006, right on Lamont-Lieberman in 2006, correct on cutting off funds for the surge in 2007, correct in calling for Democrats to stand up to * and not cave in (while some others were silent). His plan to end the war is better than Hillary and Hillary-lite's identical plans. I am not misrepresenting his record. Others are misrepresenting the record of their candidate on Iraq. People need to be told of the entire record. They can then reach their own conclusions.

==Obama, regardless of anything, didn't wait for the polls to indicate what stance on the war he should take.==

That is false. You are ignoring the facts and instead merely reciting Chicago's line. When the polls opposed a timeline for withdrawal Obama opposed it (while courageous Democrats like Murtha, Kerry, Feingold stood up and fought to end the war in 2005 and 2006); when the polls favored a timeline for withdrawal in 2007 Obama switched his position to favoring ending the war. When the polls were against Rep. Murth's plan to end the war he, like Clinton, sided against those trying to end the war (as did Edwards. Like I said, I don't need to distort my candidate's actual positions on Iraq...). When the polls opposed Kerry-Feingold--which would have ended the war this month--Obama stood with Clinton and Holy Joe against Kerry-Feingold. When the polls supported Holy Joe in Ct. over Lamont Obama, like Hillary, stood with Lieberman. Cutting of funding for the surge? Same story. As I said in another post in this thread, it is naive at best to think the Obama of 2006 was the same as the obscure local politician of 2002...

You also left out a few things about the polls in 2002. What did the polls say about the war in Obama's liberal Chicago district? What did the polls say about the war among Illinois Democrats? Obama was planning to run in a statewide primary. He was an unknown figure facing several other possible candidates, include one very wealthy one (who became the front-runner in the primary until a scandal hit and "Mr.Charisma" then overhauled him in the polls). Did opposing the war give him an issue to run on and an instant base?

[FrenchieCat]

44. You are into the propaganda.....in your attempts to smear Obama on Iraq in order to

somehow "minimize" the fact that Edwards was not only wrong with his IWR vote, but with his expressed support via being a co-sponsor of the Lieberman blank check given to Bush........and his Pro-War OpEds back in 2002 while sitting on the Intelligence Committee, and Edwards documented steafast refusals to see the war as wrong in 2003, 2004 thru November of 2005.

Obama was "right" on the war, polls or no. If you are attempting to insinuate that Obama was against the war because of the polls (which is your bullshit stretch and so I'm not surprised), I don't give a shit....since he was right....See that's the part you miss.....who was right.

Regardless that ONCE THE WAR WAS STARTED AND WE WERE IN THE DOO-DOO HOLE (with the assistance from Sen. JOHN EDWARDS), reasonable minds differing on the best way to attempt to force the President's hand on how to minimize the damage caused by BUSH (and those who gifted him with credibility via the blank check) is not really at all the same issue as doing what was right from the getgo.

As I have said before, and will continue to state; JOHN EDWARDS WAS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG FOR VERY LONG.....and OBAMA WAS RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT AND CALLED THE WAR DUMB BEFORE THAT WAS POPULAR TO DO SO. period!

JOHNNY COME LATELY is who John Edwards is in regard to this issue.
Live with it!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

56. Now, now. Let's not resort to name-calling. We need a "new kind of politics", right?

:)

Edwards was wrong on Iraq from 2002-2005. I agree. So does Edwards, and he admits it. He is not misrepresenting his Iraq record.

==Obama was "right" on the war, polls or no.==

Correct. As I have always said, Obama was right on the war in 2002.

==reasonable minds differing on the best way to attempt to force the President's hand on how to minimize the damage caused by BUSH (and those who gifted him with credibility via the blank check) is not really at all the same issue as doing what was right from the getgo.==

If it is so reasonable why does Team Obama hide his Iraq record from 2005-2006? They talk often about what he said when he was an obscure local politician fresh of being crushed in a House race who was planning to run in a statewide Democratic primary but had no issue to run on and no base. They never talk about what he did when he was a national heavyweight, the most sought after Democrat on the stump in the country after Bill Clinton, a U.S. senator. He could have led against the war in 2005-2006; he did not. The notion that being correct half a decade ago under wildly different circumstances excuses him being Hillary-lite every since he became a national figure makes no sense.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Being correct "half a decade ago".......you state.......

Geeze! How desperate are you?

1/2 decade = 5 years......NOT sooooo long ago by anyone's standard!

Prior to November 2005 is not half a decade ago, more like 1 1/2 years ago.

This means that Edwards was still wrong on the war like....er.... 1 1/2 year ago. Doh! :eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

65. Yes, he was. He admits it. I say it. We all do. We are not misrepresenting his Iraq record

You act is if it is a revelation. Look, everyone knows how Edwards and Clinton voted on the IWR, just like we knew how Kerry and Edwards voted on it last time. It just doesn't have the magic that the Obama camp likes to delude itself into thinking it does. If it did, we would have President Dean and Vice President Clark right now.

[ellacott]

20. what do you mean called on it?

I wish you guys would just get to the point of what you all are trying to prove.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. Some progressive org., I think it was a magazine, pointed it out

And voila! The speech returned (and it has come back with a vengeance this year as it suddenly became very convenient to Obama once again). WW knows the details better than I.

[ellacott]

24. Who's WW?

Still, what's the point and why this targeted campaign? What are you trying to say?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. WW=wyldwolf

The point of what? I don't know what the OP's is. All I am doing is putting his entire record on Iraq on the table. Obama is presenting himself as someone who "opposed the war from the beginning" but doesn't tell people he consistently voted to fund the war for two years, (like Hillary on each vote), sided against Murtha and with Hillary and Lieberman in 2005, sided against Kerry-Feingold and with Hillary and Lieberman 2006, supported Lieberman over Lamont in 2006 (like Hillary) during the primaries and then never campaigned for Lamont in the general (although he was happy to campaign all across the country for Democrats--but not Lamont), sided with Hillary and Lieberman on cutting of funds for the escalation in 2007, was silent (like Hillary) on standing up to * after his spring veto of the Democrats' bill to end the war unlike Dodd, Kerry, and Feingold.

Obama was correct in 2002; since then he has been Hillary-lite.

[ellacott]

32. Hillary-lite, isn't that supposed to be name calling

The point of the questions. sheesh

You ask me then you answer me. You guys are something else.

Are we going to have the record of all the candidates out there also?

You are using the same tactics that the Repukes use when you bring up voting records. Maybe that's where Bush-Cheney Lite came from.

Why are you all so afraid of him. This honestly isn't helping Hillary. She was already averaging a 10pt. lead over everybody. Her numbers have dropped in some polls since this childish spat started.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

40. I am not a prez candidate, nor am I claiming that I will magically create a "new kind of politics"

==Are we going to have the record of all the candidates out there also?==

I posted Edwards' record on Iraq in my reply to Frenchiecat. I would be happy to compare the records of all the candidates on Iraq. Let's put all the facts, not just some self-serving facts, on the table and let people decide for themselves.

==Why are you all so afraid of him.==

I am not. If he wins the nomination I will happily support him.

[FrenchieCat]

46. I don't see this....."I posted Edwards' record on Iraq in my reply to Frenchiecat. "

But according to the record, this is Edwards' record on Iraq:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020914012714/http://edwards.senate.gov/
Senator Edwards calls for overthrow of Iraqi dictator.

Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html

October 7, 2002
This week, the U.S. Senate will have an historic debate on the most difficult decision a country ever makes: whether to send American soldiers into harm's way to defend our nation. The President will address these issues in his speech tonight.

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering.

Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies -- including our vital ally, Israel.
snip

After 11 years of watching Saddam play shell games with his weapons programs, there is no reason to believe he has any real intention to disarm.

At the end of the day, there must be no question that America and our allies are willing to use force to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction once and for all. And I believe if America leads, the world will join us.

Eliminating Iraq's destructive capacity is only part one of our responsibility, however.

We must make a genuine commitment to help build a democratic Iraq after the fall of Saddam. And let's be clear: a genuine commitment means a real commitment of time, resources, and yes, leadership. Democracy will not spring up by itself or overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated, society that has suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis — including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds — deserve to be represented.

This is not just a moral imperative. It is a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. And such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.
snip
We must also remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security – because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security. This is a problem much bigger than Iraq.
snip
Even as we lead the world to eliminate the Iraqi weapons threat in particular and global proliferation in general, we must maintain our resolve in the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.

I reject the notion that this is an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we are up to the challenge. We fought World War II on four continents simultaneously. America worked to rebuild Germany and Japan at the same time, under the Marshall Plan. We waged the Cold War in every corner of the globe, and we won.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5441/americas_role_in_the_world.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F9641%2Fjohn_edwards%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D9641%26filter%3D2002

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw100702sp.html

December 18, 2002
What we do here is, of course, cast in the context of America's responsibilities abroad. I have said this before and I want to say it again: I reject the false choice between fighting the war on terrorism and containing the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, specifically the looming danger of Saddam Hussein.

We must disarm Iraq, peacefully if possible, but by force if necessary. At the same time, we must remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security – because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5440/homeland_security_address.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F9641%2Fjohn_edwards%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D9641%26filter%3D2002

But by supporting the Iraq war so intently, Edwards has carved out a position of a far more credibility than the increasingly bitter Gore. And so his speech today should be seen less as a serious attack on Bush than as a statement that he is the true inheritor of Gore’s previous centrism in the Democratic Party. He’s wily, this guy. And flagging the speech to the Washington Post beforehand is worthy of Blair.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh100702.shtml

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

(BELOW, EDWARDS INDIRECTLY LINKS 9/11 ATTACKS TO WHY SADDAM MUST BE ATTACKED)

"The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002

"Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East.

Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation."
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
John Edwards Op Ed in the WAPO dated 9/17/02

Not content with expressing support for Powell’s speech, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina indicated his retroactive support for the Bush administration, saying that he has “long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind.” Edwards commented, “Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/dems-f08.shtml

October 2003
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they're doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and the Russians weren't with us, was he right to say, "We're going anyway"?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

In an interview on Meet the Press this past November, interviewer Tim Russert asked the North Carolina senator whether he regretted giving Bush "in effect a blank check for the war in Iraq." Edwards replied by saying, "I still believe it was right."
When Russert noted the absence of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or any ongoing WMD programs, Edwards insisted that Iraq still posed a threat regardless of whether Saddam Hussein actually "had them at the time the war began or not" because "he had been trying to acquire that capability" previously and therefore posed "an obvious and serious threat to the stability of that region of the world." In short, the Democrats are nominating a vice president who believes the United States has the right to invade any country that at some point in the past had tried to develop biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons capability.
Given that that would total more than 50 countries, the prospects of Edwards as commander-in-chief is rather unsettling.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3074
07/2004




"Edwards had always been a firm supporter of the war. I was at the fateful California Democratic Party convention in early 2003 in which Dean exploded onto the political scene. Forgotten from that convention, Edwards was booed for announcing his support for the war just a couple days before bombs started dropping.

But then Edwards spoke in support of the Iraq war and all hell broke loose. The entire convention hall resonated in boos, the crowd chanting "no war! No war!" It was an amazing sight, and Edwards seemed a bit taken aback. Jerome thought it looked like '68. Edwards recovered with a line about Ashcroft, but the damage was done. The 20 or so brave souls waving Edwards signs were suddenly radioactive.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/10/165059/30

AFTER THE POLLS CHANGED TO DISFAVOR THE WAR, EDWARDS WAS THEN AGAINST IT......That would be as of November 2005.......

John Edwards on Iraq = simply too little, too late!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

58. Yes, as we all know and Edwards himself says, he once supported the war

I said he supported the war and was wrong on Iraq from 2002-2005.

==AFTER THE POLLS CHANGED TO DISFAVOR THE WAR, EDWARDS WAS THEN AGAINST IT......That would be as of November 2005..==

Kind of like how some shifted to the hawkish side after their newly relevant polling showed it to be popular? ;)

[FrenchieCat]

63. Edwards was wrong until 1 1/2 years ago on Iraq........

that's pitiful judgement if you ask me, certainly not worthy to lead this country!

[bling bling]

87. You got that right. He is certainly not worthy to lead this country.

He marched with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. He did his part to rally the country to war. He didn't bother to read the NIE.

For shame. Seriously. For shame.

He should quietly go about redeeming himself by working with poverty.

He has NO BUSINESS holding the #1 job in this country.

I swear to God I will quit politics if this party nominates him. I will never forgive the Democratic party for their willful blindness. Just like with Bush, ALL THE FACTS ARE RIGHT THERE ABOUT WHY EDWARDS IS A TERRIBLE CHOICE. I absolutely cannot believe how many people here and on the blogs and in Iowa are blatantly ignoring his deplorable record that completely contrasts his rhetoric.

And the worst part is that his supporters have done NOTHING to explain his deplorable record when you ask them to. They just treat you with contempt for daring to question the facts about him. They just want to shut the people up who dare to question their hero, and they deflect by yapping about Obama. It reminds me too much of the tactics of this current administration and it makes me sick.

[Connie_Corleone]

19. You would think the actual speech would be proof enough.

So you want verification that the speech he made in 2002 actually did take place??

[ellacott]

21. They have ulterior motives for this, it's their latest talking point.

I'm not going to let them take me on a wild goose chase.

Google is their friend and they know this. They're trying to take you on a ride that will end up with you deciding that Obama is the worst choice out there.

I wonder why they're so scared of Obama.

[wyldwolf]

27. people give speeches for many reasons.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. Such as winning the high-priced David Axlerod, who you ordinarily would not have gotten

An obscure local politician winning the services of that wizard just for making a speech that played well in your district, helped give you an issue and instant base to run on seems to be a good deal...

[ellacott]

45. How do you know it was that speech the got him Axelrod? n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

60. Well, let's look at Barack Obama circa 2002-2004

The Obama of that time was an obscure local politician fresh off a crushing defeat in a House race. He had no base. He had no money. Why would a high-priced consultant like Axlerod go to work for a candidate who looked like a likely loser? The response will be that Axlerod saw Obama's potential and that Obama's wins proved this. Of course, we know Obama was headed to defeat in the primary until a scandal hit the front-runner and a scandal handed him the general election on a silver platter. Is it still possible that Axlerod believed in Obama? Yes. It is likely? No.

==A soon-to-be-released biography about Sen. Barack Obama portrays the Democratic presidential candidate as a far more calculating politician than his most ardent supporters might imagine.

One such calculation was his much-heralded 2002 speech in Chicago about the impending Iraq war, according to "Obama: From Promise to Power," a nearly 400-page book by Tribune reporter David Mendell to be released in August.

Obama gave the speech not just because of a desire to speak out about the impending invasion, Mendell asserts, but also to curry favor with a potential political patron, Bettylu Saltzman, a stalwart among Chicago's liberal elite, and to also try to win over his future top political adviser, David Axelrod, who was close to Saltzman.==

=="Obama, still an unannounced candidate for the U.S. Senate, did not immediately agree ,"according to an advance copy obtained by the Tribune. "But he told Saltzman that he would think it over.==

=="Obama was trying to draw Axelrod onto his Senate campaign team," the book says. "It would not be wise to disappoint Saltzman if he wanted her to continue lobbying Axelrod on his behalf. So Obama agreed to speak.==

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070620obama-story,1,4328906.story

[Scriptor Ignotus]

48. so what was Obama's reason in this specific instance?

I would venture an opposition to the war in Iraq. What's your take?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

62. See post 60

In addition to that, being against the IWR gave the obscure Obama--fresh off a crushing defeat in a House race but planning to run statewide--an issue to run on and an instant base. He had nothing to lose by giving that speech and everything to gain.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

68. so I guess he got lucky by falling on the right side of the Iraq issue

interesting in that virtually every detail of that speech turned out to be 100% spot on:

"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."

Have you even read this speech?
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

I don't understand how a rational mind can read that speech, or better yet see him deliver it, and conclude he was opposing the war solely to improve his political future. Do you even believe what you write?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

83. Yes, and as I have always said Obama was against the war in 2002

Why did I mention political calculations? It helps explain why Obama's 2002 "courage" vanished when he became a senator and lived under far different political dynamics.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

92. he's been consistently against the war from 2002 until today

in numerous speeches and in legislation (except for the funding, which is a trickier issue). What did you want him to do that he didn't do?

You support a candidate who changed his mind about Iraq. Why is that superior to what Obama has done on Iraq? Or do you just support Edwards for other reasons?

[zulchzulu]

39. Just because it's on video and in text form doesn't mean it happened!

:crazy:

Paging James Carville? Paging Carville... we need to test out another bullshit talking point. Paging Carville...

[TeamJordan23]

35. Penguin, please do some research before starting threads like this.

You really don't help yourself.

[penguin7]

47. Why should this thread be a problem?

I cannot see why my question should be a problem at all unless there is a problem. It should give Obama the chance to show his early opposition to the war. I still would like to see a video of the whole speech.

I remember the senate campaign. It was not noteworthy for issues, it was noteworthy for sleaze forcing candidates to drop out.

[penguin7]

49. Here is the Wikisource discussion

Talk:Barack Obama's Iraq Speech
From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Date given? --Pmsyyz 11:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The spelling of Al Qaeda is repeatedly given as Al Queda, is this on purpose?

As per copy on Obama's Web site, I changed the spelling to "al-Qaeda" Samatva 06:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


verification
Is there any way to verify the content of this speech? That would be very helpful. Hermitage 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This speech is also found at:

Senate Campaign Web site working link
The Network Journal
Samatva 06:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


Omitted text found here, not elsewhere
I can find no other source that includes the line "He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity." They all contain elipses where this text appears here. His campaign website (http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/26/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php) omits this line as well.

--Chriscoolc 03:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question, the Obama site (http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php) gives the date as 10/02/02 rather than 10/26/02. Did he give the speech in multiple locations, and if so, is there any clue where was it given first?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech"

[killbotfactory]

50. There are two different speeches

Both of which demonstrate his opposition to invading Iraq.

One took place on October 2nd, 2002. The other took place on October 26th, 2002.

[Tellurian]

77. This video is all 2002.. and lays bare the real oscillating Obama

The take is quite different to those who understand what they are hearing. I believe this speech negates his stand on being against the Iraq War from the beginning. Obama dances around the question of how he would have voted. Do note his reference to Durbin's vote and the fact it was a Roll Call vote not an up or down vote as he tricks the listener into thinking he would have voted as Durbin did..."nay"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

[jillan]

54. On the bottom of that speech

it says PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA.


Where's the original?

[ellacott]

55. Would you all just come out with what you're trying to say

You all are trying to say that he never gave any speech on the war and he is lying about this. Why couldn't you all just say that. My goodness.

[jillan]

57. Hello????

I asked where is the link to the original.

That's what I wanted to say, and that's what I did say.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

66. This is why you won't get the original or full video of that speech

This part would anger some of his netroots supporters...

==Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.==

Obama reached the correct conclusion, he opposed the IWR, but he believed the same things about Saddam and Iraq that just about everyone else did.

[ripple]

69. I didn't have any problem finding a text of the speech

And I'm not in the least bit angered by the text you quoted, particularly considering that right after what you quoted, he goes on to say this:

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...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 U.S. 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.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

It's definitely a speech worth reading. :)

[penguin7]

70. Where is the video?

Or where is the transcript for this speech recorded in October 2002?

[NYCGirl]

73. Here's a transcript:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

and here:

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

and here:

http://buyo.blogspot.com/2000/12/barack-obama-against-going-to-war-with.html

and here:

http://paulenglish.com/2007/03/barack-obama-speech-from-26-october.html

http://www.tnj.com/archives/2004/september2004/final_word.php

[FrenchieCat]

74. Kinda of weird and funny in my view.........

this thread.....I mean.

10/26/02 speech transcript
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech


10/26/02 speech transcript
http://paulenglish.com/2007/03/barack-obama-speech-from-26-october.html


10/26/02 speech transcript
http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

YouTube Interview with in where Obama stated to Jeff Orbowitz that he would have voted NAY on Blank Check back in Oct of 2002
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/obama_on_iraq_i.html

10/02/02 speech against going into Iraq
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/warspeech.pdf

http://www.obamaspeeches.com/001-2002-Speech-Against-the-Iraq-War-Obama-Speech.htm

[Tellurian]

79. Is this the 02' video your looking for?

The take is quite different to those who understand what they are hearing. I believe this speech negates his stand on being against the Iraq War from the beginning. Obama dances around the question of how he would have voted. Do note his reference to Durbin's vote and the fact it was a Roll Call vote not an up or down vote as he tricks the listener into thinking he would have voted as Durbin did..."nay"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

[Ethelk2044]

80. I believe you are Full of BS

[Tellurian]

82. Ethel..you have no idea how cute you are, when I see the "ignore" sign in your place..

[Forkboy]

85. Is this same non-ignore ignore you had me on?

You know,where you say someone is on ignore but are really full of shit?

That kind of ignore?

Talk about cute..... :hi:

[Tellurian]

86. I have you on "scroll"..

Ethel is neutralized on ignore..

[Forkboy]

89. I see.

Where is the "scroll" setting? Sounds nifty!

[Ethelk2044]

76. What Obama said in 2002?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

[snowbear]

78. Penguin, you've only been HERE for 3 weeks... How do we know where you were in 2002 ??

..... While Senator Obama was opposing the war.

If Kucinich winds up pulling the plug on his run in the next few months, I have a hunch he'll support Obama ~~~

[draft_mario_cuomo]

84. About 40% of the public once supported the war and now opposes it

Team Obama seems to forget this when they call people who once supported the war "naive and irresponsible." ;) I can see the bumper stickers now: Vote for the Harvard lawyer you naive and irresponsible schmucks!

[NYCGirl]

88. I guess the other 60% are "naive and irresponsible" like Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold,

Pat Leahy, Barbara Boxer, John Corzine, Paul Wellstone, and many others who voted against the IWR.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

90. How can you win a general election when attacking 40% of people is central to your campaign?

The 1/3 who still support the war are not voting Democratic anyway but most of that 40% will. To have one candidate's campaign revolve heavily around attacking that 40% is a risky proposition. This is especially odd for a candidate running on "unity."

Who said it was "naive and irresponsible" to vote against the IWR? I believe Clinton said that about Obama offering to meet with certain foreign leaders without precondition. This is something Obama opposed the day before the debate, on Tuesday, and once again opposes as he opted to return to the "Bush-Cheney-lite" HRC position.

[illinoisprogressive]

81. I can get you a link to the speech he made.

[penguin7]

91. So where is the link?

I want to see the speech Obama made, not the gospel according to Paul.

[penguin7]

93. Noone has posted anything verifying this speech yet

[A-Schwarzenegger]

94. GD:P is starting to make GD look sincere & sane.

Do the chronic bashers over here ever sleep?