Chris Dodd goes after Obama after the latter's speech today

[SaveElmer]

“Today, the Obama campaign is celebrating the 5th anniversary of the speech that then-State Senator Barack Obama gave opposing the invasion of Iraq. But unfortunately, they forgot to celebrate another anniversary. July 26th marked the 3rd anniversary of the New York Times story in which Obama admitted that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq resolution had he been serving in the United States Senate at the time of the vote.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx

[Lucinda]

1. Good going Dodd.

[sufrommich]

7. Off topic

How do you put that picture of the candidates in your posts. I love it!

[Lucinda]

51. Thanks! In this case

I made the graphic and uploaded it...then you just link to it in your profile under signature.
Feel free to use it if you like. You can download it or right click on the pic and get the image url location.

You can use any graphic in your sig...I think the image size is limited to 200x400 pixels.

Luc

[gateley]

2. The gloves are coming off. nt

[okamichan13]

3. Good for Dodd

for exposing some late-blooming hypocrasy:

Obama in November 2006:

"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."

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/30/061030on_onlineonly04?currentPage=3

A 2002 speech doesn't mean much without leadership in 2007.

[Colobo]

29. Obama > Dodd

[Lucinda]

52. Greater than? As a person? In what way exactly?

[wyldwolf]

4. In reference to the "Bill Clinton fibs" thread, here are dueling quotes:

First, your gossip page quote:

Mr. Clinton said at a private fund-raiser Tuesday that Mr. Obama was asked in 2004 how he would have voted on the Iraq war resolution of 2002, had he been in the Senate at the time. According to people who attended the fundraiser, Mr. Clinton was said to have quoted Mr. Obama as saying, “I’m not sure,” and then criticized The New York Times for not highlighting that position as ambivalence over the war.

Now, from the NY Times, Senator Obama:

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.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E2DF153DF935A15754C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Now, unless someone the phrases "I'm not sure" and "I don't know" have different meanings, we have a case of Bill Clinton recalling the meaning of an old quote but just not getting the exact words correct. Of course, we don't live in a Greg Brady world.

[maximusveritas]

6. So Obama was just trying to give Kerry and Edwards cover, and this is how Dodd thanks him

It's obvious from his words that he was just trying to avoid criticizing our nominees, both of whom voted for the war.

I have absolutely no respect for anyone who criticizes Obama for this.

[wyldwolf]

16. so you can read his mind?

[citizen53]

5. Before anyone says that Obama was protecting Kerry...

in 2004, he said THIS in November, 2006, before he declared:

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.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/30/061030on_onlineonly04?currentPage=3

At this point in time, there was no need to protect a ticket. Or maybe he might have voted differently in 2002, as Dodd has implied. Obama's votes as a senator are not convincing that he is a true anti-war champion, despite the rhetoric.

[maximusveritas]

10. He's clearly doing the same thing for Hillary

So he shows some empathy for her situation, and again, this is how he gets repaid? She may not be on the ticket yet, but there's a good chance she will be and Obama clearly wants to give her the benefit of the doubt in case she ever becomes our nominee. It's too bad most of the other candidates are too self-centered to do the same for him.

[citizen53]

23. I see it much differently...

There was NO reason to protect anyone in November, 2006, and I take non-candidate Obama at his word. Notice how he said ALWAYS. That word vanished on the day he declared. He quotes Bill Clinton. No reason why others cannot quote Barack Obama.

[AtomicKitten]

8. I know how THEY voted on it. (nt)

[SaveElmer]

9. What does that have to do with Chris Dodd attacking Obama...?

eom

[AtomicKitten]

18. Obama did not vote YES like Dodd et al on the IWR.

I find it rather hypocritical that the losers that voted for the IWR are desperately trying to knock Obama down for having the good sense to oppose the war.

On reflection when asked a hypothetical question, he answered honestly, "I don't know." He did not say yes.

On the other hand, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Edwards actually DID vote yes on the IWR. And Hillary ponied up with a "youbetcha" on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

That is what this has to do with Dodd (and apparently Bill Clinton too) trying to knock Obama down for demonstrating good sense and some damn honesty in answering a hypothetical question off the top of his head.

Gobama.

[SaveElmer]

22. What it has to do with...

Is a sad attempt by Obama supporters to try and deflect attention away from the many glaring deficiencies of their candidate with a statement that inevitably begins with some variation of "But Hillary..."

No one has denied Obama opposed the war...he just simply was not clear over whether he opposed the IWR...contrary to netroots cw they are not necessarily the same thing...

As to Kyl-Lieberman...no matter what you think of the resolution, and in its modified form I see nothing at all wrong with it...at least Hillary stood up and was counted while Obama, yet again, slinked away without voting...something that is becoming a habit of his when votes are called that might harm his Presidential campaign...

[AtomicKitten]

24. put a nickle in and ride that pony

... he just simply was not clear over whether he opposed the IWR.

Anorexic. Obama CLEARLY opposed the invasion of Iraq as far back as 2002; it's on the record. Oh, plus he still didn't vote yes on the IWR like, well, you know.

As to Kyl-Lieberman...no matter what you think of the resolution, and in its modified form I see nothing at all wrong with it...

Some people actually learn when the dog bites them the first time.

... at least Hillary stood up and was counted while Obama, yet again, slinked away without voting...something that is becoming a habit of his when votes are called that might harm his Presidential campaign...

Hillary should have sat down and not signed on to this not too subtly veiled precursor to more war. She proved yet again that she's a go-to girl for this administration. Well done. Brava! Not. And Obama not voting on it - try as you might - still does not mitigate her yes vote.

I do appreciate the faux outrage from you and others though desperate to yet again try to marginalize Obama's demonstrated good sense. I'm loving every minute of it!

[SaveElmer]

30. ...

"Anorexic. Oh, plus he still didn't vote yes on the IWR like, well, you know."

Of course he didn't...he was still toiling away at his part time job as an Illinois State Senator...so we...nor he apparently...have no idea how he would have voted

"Some people actually learn when the dog bites them the first time."

Why the non-binding resolution was modified at Democratic insistence to remove any mention or implication of military action...now if Obama wants to argue that the Revolutionary guard are not sponsors of terrorism...I'd like to hear him make it...

Of course this would be another flip for him as he co-sponsored just such a resolution last March...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-970

"Hillary should have sat down and not signed on to this not too subtly veiled precursor to more war. She proved yet again that she a go-to girl for this administration. Well done. Brava! Not. And Obama not voting on it - try as you might - still does not mitigate her yes vote."

You are very good at regurgitating the approved netroots argument...which as usual, are a distortion of the truth. Obama missing the vote proves once again he would rather duck and run than be accountable for whatever position he takes...courageous indeed!

[AtomicKitten]

31. It is MY argument and I don't appreciate being categorized.

I think your candidate sucks and you think mine sucks.

Fascinating conversation. Not.

Sorry, but swapping insults is not a conversation.

Peace out.

[SaveElmer]

36. Interesting you felt the need to remove your reference to Hillary...

From your original reply...

[AtomicKitten]

37. not really - I realized she isn't the only one

I try to be accurate and succinct.

[SaveElmer]

44. Except of course...

It goes from a very specific attack on Hillary to which I responded...to a more generalized comment on all the candidates that voted for the IWR...

If people didn't know better they would think I hadn't read your post

[killbotfactory]

27. Obama's campaign statement on Kyl-Lieberman:

Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the President that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/obama-statement-on-the-kyl-lieberman-iran-amendment/

But, like this thread shows, I guess going on record is not good enough for people. Maybe if he tattooed "I OPPOSED THE IRAQ WAR" on his forehead it would convince you?

[SaveElmer]

32. Talking out of both sides of his mouth...

Since he co-sponsored such a resolution in March...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-970

And somehow always manages to be out of the room when controversial votes are taken...

[AtomicKitten]

33. and yet STILL preferable to voting yes

[SaveElmer]

35. If he had had his way this would have passed in March...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-970

[AtomicKitten]

38. I didn't know you are clairvoyant.

that is AWESOME

[SaveElmer]

40. Not clairvoyance...

Paying attention...

As Obama cosponsored a resolution which did precisely what the Kyl-Lieberman resolution did...in March..

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00970:@@@P

[AtomicKitten]

41. You mean the one that Hillary and 60+ others co-sponsored and went nowhere?

[SaveElmer]

42. Yep...

Where was Obama's objection then?

Oh yeah...he's hip deep in a Presidential campaign...

[AtomicKitten]

45. Now that's some pretzel logic!

Good luck on that, Elmer. Seriously.

You can bend the time continuum til it bleeds, and still your candidate has voted wrong all along on this administration's follies abroad.

Sorry, but it is what it is. And trying to wipe some on others around her still doesn't mitigate her poor judgment. Obama has nothing to worry about in that regard.

But hang in there anyway and don't be discouraged.

[SaveElmer]

46. And you can try and laugh off Obama's

Continuing flip flops and lack of willingness to actually stand up and be counted...

Trying to deflect attention from Obama's faults by continually bringing up the discredited netroots arguments against Hillary won't work...but good luck...

[killbotfactory]

34. Obama is a sneaky one

Waiting until after the IWR vote to run for Senate.

Getting the flu deliberately so that while campaigning in New Hampshire he would have an excuse for not running back to Washington DC to cast a non-decisive vote on a bill he opposed.

What a snake.

[AtomicKitten]

39. You nailed it.

:spank:

[Egnever]

62. I don't see his name on that link

nor does that legislation call any iranians terrorists.

[merbex]

43. I said a version of this to an Obama supporter - you would have thought

I kicked his puppy

I said" Why would a candidate miss an important vote on Kyl-Lieberman, plead sickness, yet make it to the debate on the same day and the next day have a rally for 24,000 in NY?"

If you play the sick card - stay sick or drag your ass in for that vote."

The guy was stuttering he was so upset with the question.

Basically told me no-one pays attention to Kyl Lieberman bill, and that to miss a debate would be stupid.

Riiiiight.

The only thing stupid is how people who are so emotionally invested in their candidate cannot even listen to constructive criticism.

Couple that no-show with the Moveon ad vote no show and there's a problem here

Where's the leadership and accepting the responsibility that goes along with your job as a US Senator first and foremost? - you vote most often on controversial subjects you don't avoid votes and show up on the campaign trail blowing off votes that help voters make decisions about you

[Tellurian]

11. Do You mean to tell me, Obama gave Himself a Big Hooten-Anny celebrating a LIE!..

why how George Bush of him!

"Mission Accomplished!"

[killbotfactory]

12. I agree, it was a stupid statement.

Obama was being diplomatic in his response. Those who voted for the IWR don't deserve that much respect.

[Tellurian]

13. Diplomatic..Crap!

who does he think he is throwing a party for himself celebrating Bull Shit!

[killbotfactory]

17. In the interviews being used to bash him, he was showing sympathy with their situation

He did so by saying that votes are difficult, and maybe they were shown different things than the public (which isn't true). For that he gets attacked, and his two anti-war speeches he made directly before the vote are ignored.

[maximusveritas]

19. Don't try to reason with them; they're not listening

I'm not sure who they think they're fooling. All anyone has to do is read his anti-war speech and then there's no doubt about where he stood on the war. And all one has to do is read the full interview in which he provides cover for Kerry-Edwards to realize this attack is dishonest.

[Tellurian]

21. No, you're not listening..

Dodd is calling Obama out for the hypocrite he is..

You don't like it...Take it up with Dodd!

[Tellurian]

20. So what!

That gives him the right to degrade everyone else by throwing a potty for himself to honor his missing/maybe vote?

Not gonna fly!

[killbotfactory]

25. I'll criticize Dodd for his yes vote on the IWR

As well as his capitulation to Bush on the eve of war.

While there may have been debates in this body in previous days about many aspects of U.S. policy with respect to Iraq, no one has ever suggested that Saddam Hussein is anything but a cruel and murderous tyrant. There is no question that Saddam Hussein squandered multiple opportunities that the international community held out to him to peacefully dismantle his weapons of mass destruction - waiting until the last moment to order Iraqi officials to grudgingly cooperate with international inspectors.

Saddam has no one but himself to blame for what is about to befall him - he brought it upon himself. The tragedy is that others may have to suffer for his sins - although I am fully confident that U.S. military personnel will do everything feasible to minimize civilian casualties.

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3274&pr=press/Speeches/108_03/0320.htm

The ironic thing is that the war wasn't started because of Saddam, but because Senator's like Dodd gave a blank check for war to President George "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out!" Bush.

[Tellurian]

26. That has nothing to do with Dodd calling Obama out..

Lets not complicate the issue. Stay on point. And the point is, what in the hell is Obama doing and why?

[killbotfactory]

28. Dodd has no ground to stand on

Neither do you. Goodbye.

[Tellurian]

47. Dodd has drawn a line in the sand.

He's called Obama out publicly.. to get a public response from Obama to his statement!

Thats a fact you have to learn to live with.

[maximusveritas]

14. Let's look at what Obama said right before the vote took place

Here's his speech at the anti-war rally in Chicago on October 2, 2002.
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

It's impossible that anyone could read those words and have any doubt about how Obama felt about this war. That's why I have no respect for Dodd or anyone else who would resort to such a dishonest attack.

[Tellurian]

15. Re-read the OP...if that doesn't do it for you... read post #4

nm necessary!

[calteacherguy]

49. How is it a dishonest attack? Is Dodd lying? nt

[zulchzulu]

61. It's no use. The Clinton Believers have been sucked into the Lie Vortex

You can point out video interviews AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE and speeches AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE that succinctly and clearly state that Obama was ahead of the curve and knew the war was the wrong way.

He, like millions of others, were not suckered into believing Bush. That's a REAL leader.

When a former President whose wife is running has to lie through his teeth about Obama for his wife's choice to murder innocent people and cause untold and unfathomable damage to American lives, treasury and history, you know that they fear Obama...and they fear the truth.

[calteacherguy]

48. Dodd sets the record straight. He'll be endorsing Hillary...soon. nt

[Tellurian]

50. I hope he does...and Biden too.. but that is not the point.

Dodd is asking in a clear and concise way for a definitive clarification from Obama.

He's got a right to do it, just as anyone else has who refuses to stand by and perpetuate Obama's clouded ambiguous statements.

[Ethelk2044]

56. Yes, you can tell. He has been kissing her ass for months

[Tellurian]

69. Sure, thats why he criticized her in the last debate, as did Biden...

[illinoisprogressive]

53. Dodd wishes he delieved that speech.

[David Zephyr]

54. Precisely.

Chris Dodd is doing the Clinton's work for them now. And that is sad.

[durrrty libby]

55. This continues to confirm that Obama is a wishy washy light weight

It is what it is.

[Ethelk2044]

57. It confirms Obama is kicking butt and taking no prisoners

[durrrty libby]

58. Yeah right

[FlaxieB]

59. Either way he got it right. Hillary and Edwards KNEW they were giving GWB permission to go to war

with Iraq. If they had any issues at the time that GWB was announcing preparations about going to Iraq, where was the protest and outrage from either one of them? They both said and did nothing. This was a severe lack of testicular and intestinal fortitude on the behalf of both Hillary and Edwards.

[zulchzulu]

60. So Chris didn't get the memo that Bill Clinton is a liar? Again...

Chris, you know better... being that you got suckered by Bush with voting for the war, well maybe not...

Bill Clinton used this phrase to somehow appease those with blood on their hands for voting for Bush's war by saying that Obama stated:

''What would I have done? I don't know."

Bill Clinton lied about Obama's statement in the New York Times interview when he conveniently took out a critical sentence:

''But, I'm not privy to the 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.''

The Clinton campaign has lifted part of that comment -- ''I don't know'' -- to question whether Mr. Obama would have opposed the war resolution had he been in the Senate at the time. The campaign has also cited other remarks Mr. Obama made in 2004, when he said there was ''room for disagreement'' on the war resolution.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E0DA1430F931A15750C0A9619C8B63

Next thing you know, Bill will be wagging his finger in our faces and telling us that we need to vote for his wife...for change? Are you fucking kidding, Bill?

Chris, please call Barack. An apology is in order...unless you're Bill's water boy.

[calteacherguy]

63. Honestly, I don't see how adding the context makes any difference.

He's admitting he doesn't know how he would have voted were he a senator, and that's the critical point. He's being honest, and I applaud him for that. It's a valid to point to make that he wasn't the one doing the voting. His job was much easier.

[zulchzulu]

68. If you look, listen and read Obama's statements at the time of the IWR vote...

...it is nothing more than completely obvious what his view on the war vote was.

I know it's hard for some of the candidates to face the truth about their mistake that has started utter complete disaster, but instead of just owning up to it, they either lie about Obama or carry the water for Bill Clinton.

I can see why Dodd would bite the bait since his campaign is going nowhere...what does he have to lose...

[AtomicKitten]

64. Oh snap!! Hillary et all have screwed the pooch on this one.

See my sig line and link for some truth.

[rinsd]

65. Dodd has been frisky of late, throwing some elbows (nt)

[Forkboy]

66. Kick for any post by a Hillary supporter regarding the war vote.

I hope they do all they can to keep that particular issue in the eyes of the public.

:kick:

[Trajan]

67. I like you better

When you talk about Hillary ....

I thought this stuff was beneath you .... Was I wrong ?

[BenDavid]

70. What is happening here is exactly clear. The

other candidates using Dodd as the example will be the buffer between Obama and HRC. These candidates see that HRC will be the nominee and most likely know she has the best chance to win in November 08. They will not drop out until after HRC wins the nomination and in the event Obama goes after HRC, then these other candidates will as Dodd demostrated here in his respnse to Obama will be critical of Obama and leave HRC out of the wray unless it is something she feels necessary to comment on about Obama's charges....
Obama did well for himself but come the second week in February 08 Obama will see that HRC has won enough delegates and will either be gracious in defeat or be an a--hole and be critical....Now as far as Obama on the ticket. No! HRC does not need Obama to win Illinois.....If HRC plans on having a minority then of course there is Richardson, but it will be someone with immediate name reconigition and will be a major plus......Then of course there is Harold Ford Junior to consider.....

Ben David