Thank you!! It was plain to see and hear that O had to stop M often saying, "That's not true..that's not true John"..and even turn to Jim saying with a correction of something M said, saying also "and John knows that" in reference to yet another lie...but...I did not take notes nor do I have a photographic memory to remember exactly what those lies were that were made by M. I was just surprised actually that M felt he had to lie..or deceive..or misrepresent so often.
This particular argument has always floored me with its combination of sheer gumption and laughable transparency; it's not a good combo. Bush's approval rating - BUSH'S!! - at the time was near 90%. The country was terrified of another 9/11 or another domestic anthrax attack (which was still fresh in people's minds). And they like what they'd heard Bush say atop that rubble heap one day in New York.....and the slime hadn't yet started to truly ooze up regarding the ginned-up intel, the goofy missteps and the sheer incompetence with regard to the rush to war in Iraq. People were either generally FOR it, or at least willing - and then some - to give the President the benefit of the doubt on an issue like this of national security. So to say - six years after the fact, in retrospect - that it was simply "political maneuvering on Obama's part at the time is more than just a bit stupid.
Or perhaps I should say, it assumes a not-inconsiderable amount of stupidity in the people at whom it is directed in seriousness. When 90% of the population feels one way about ANYTHING, aligning oneself (for any reason) with the position of the 10% who oppose that thing isn't exactly a smart political move. It is certain to garner one (in the short run, anyway) far more detractors than admirers - and politicians are people who live and die by their approval ratings and the connections they make. The Bush administration was literally slamming doors shut in the faces of everyone from reporters (remember when they tried to unseat Helen Thomas?) to congresspeople to rank-and-file Pentagon staffers and anyone else they felt wasn't sufficiently "on board" with the plan. Just ask Colin Powell, who was pressured into that travesty of a dog and pony show at the UN which he now describes as one of the low points of his life.
One thing Barack Obama's not often accused of is stupidity. And I'm pretty sure he was smart enough to figure out that taking the position he took would not be - in the climate in which he took it - a smart career move. He took it because he believed his position to be the morally correct and prudent one. And time has proven him right. If you read the text of that speech now - and yes, he did write it himself - it's almost uncanny how many of the things he warned of came to pass either exactly or very nearly exactly as he suggested they might. John McCain, by comparison, was on TV literally less than 24 hours, suggesting that Baghdad might have to be "next," and within a couple of months was repeating "Next stop, Baghdad!" on the deck of a Navy ship to the cheers of the assembled sailors. If you want to find a position that's "politically expedient," look no further than that.
In his biography of Obama, David Mendell, noting that Obama’s speech occurred a few months before the official declaration of his U.S. Senate candidacy, suggests that the decision to publicly oppose the war in Iraq was a calculated political move intended to win favor with Saltzman. The suggestion seems dubious; the politics were more in the framing of his opposition, not the decision itself. As Saltzman told me, “He was a Hyde Park state senator. He had to oppose the war!” http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all
Yet Obama publicly acknowledged in his 2006 memoir, “The Audacity of Hope,” that he once harbored doubts about his initial anti-war posture. After watching the famous statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down by jubilant Iraqis and seeing President Bush declare the end of major combat operations aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, “I began to suspect that I might have been wrong,” Obama says in the book.
During the 2004 Democratic Party convention, Obama declined to criticize the party’s presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, for having voted for the war, saying: “What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.”
The next day, Obama told the Chicago Tribune: “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”
Considering Obama's waffling, his penchant for adopting positions by consensus and the fact that he's voted along party lines 97% of the time, it seems extremely unlikely that Obama would have gone against the Democrat leadership and voted against the war.
Pages
Was he lying yet again when he said he opposed Bush on torture?
Thank you!! It was plain to see and hear that O had to stop M often saying, "That's not true..that's not true John"..and even turn to Jim saying with a correction of something M said, saying also "and John knows that" in reference to yet another lie...but...I did not take notes nor do I have a photographic memory to remember exactly what those lies were that were made by M. I was just surprised actually that M felt he had to lie..or deceive..or misrepresent so often.
Edited 9/27/2008 12:46 am ET by ioutspoken
Never waffled on his stance on the War in Iraq.
Exactly.
This particular argument has always floored me with its combination of sheer gumption and laughable transparency; it's not a good combo. Bush's approval rating - BUSH'S!! - at the time was near 90%. The country was terrified of another 9/11 or another domestic anthrax attack (which was still fresh in people's minds). And they like what they'd heard Bush say atop that rubble heap one day in New York.....and the slime hadn't yet started to truly ooze up regarding the ginned-up intel, the goofy missteps and the sheer incompetence with regard to the rush to war in Iraq. People were either generally FOR it, or at least willing - and then some - to give the President the benefit of the doubt on an issue like this of national security. So to say - six years after the fact, in retrospect - that it was simply "political maneuvering on Obama's part at the time is more than just a bit stupid.
Or perhaps I should say, it assumes a not-inconsiderable amount of stupidity in the people at whom it is directed in seriousness. When 90% of the population feels one way about ANYTHING, aligning oneself (for any reason) with the position of the 10% who oppose that thing isn't exactly a smart political move. It is certain to garner one (in the short run, anyway) far more detractors than admirers - and politicians are people who live and die by their approval ratings and the connections they make. The Bush administration was literally slamming doors shut in the faces of everyone from reporters (remember when they tried to unseat Helen Thomas?) to congresspeople to rank-and-file Pentagon staffers and anyone else they felt wasn't sufficiently "on board" with the plan. Just ask Colin Powell, who was pressured into that travesty of a dog and pony show at the UN which he now describes as one of the low points of his life.
One thing Barack Obama's not often accused of is stupidity. And I'm pretty sure he was smart enough to figure out that taking the position he took would not be - in the climate in which he took it - a smart career move. He took it because he believed his position to be the morally correct and prudent one. And time has proven him right. If you read the text of that speech now - and yes, he did write it himself - it's almost uncanny how many of the things he warned of came to pass either exactly or very nearly exactly as he suggested they might. John McCain, by comparison, was on TV literally less than 24 hours, suggesting that Baghdad might have to be "next," and within a couple of months was repeating "Next stop, Baghdad!" on the deck of a Navy ship to the cheers of the assembled sailors. If you want to find a position that's "politically expedient," look no further than that.
In his biography of Obama, David Mendell, noting that Obama’s speech occurred a few months before the official declaration of his U.S. Senate candidacy, suggests that the decision to publicly oppose the war in Iraq was a calculated political move intended to win favor with Saltzman. The suggestion seems dubious; the politics were more in the framing of his opposition, not the decision itself. As Saltzman told me, “He was a Hyde Park state senator. He had to oppose the war!”
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all
Yet Obama publicly acknowledged in his 2006 memoir, “The Audacity of Hope,” that he once harbored doubts about his initial anti-war posture. After watching the famous statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down by jubilant Iraqis and seeing President Bush declare the end of major combat operations aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, “I began to suspect that I might have been wrong,” Obama says in the book.
During the 2004 Democratic Party convention, Obama declined to criticize the party’s presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, for having voted for the war, saying: “What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.”
The next day, Obama told the Chicago Tribune: “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”
And that November, Obama echoed the president, telling PBS’ Charlie Rose: “Once we go in, then we’re committed.” Obama added: “We’ve got to do everything we can to stabilize the country to make it successful because we’ll have too much at stake in the Middle East.”
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/19/obamas-opposition-to-iraq-war-once-firm-sometimes-has-wavered/
Considering Obama's waffling, his penchant for adopting positions by consensus and the fact that he's voted along party lines 97% of the time, it seems extremely unlikely that Obama would have gone against the Democrat leadership and voted against the war.
Pages