Obama lies about Hillary's Iraq position

[AlonzoMourning23]

WILMINGTON, DEL. -- Two days before Super Tuesday, Barack Obama stepped up his criticism of Hillary Clinton, comparing her policies to John McCain’s.

“We expect that John McCain may be the [Republican] nominee and if John McCain is the nominee then the Democratic Party has to ask itself, do you want a candidate who has similar policies to John McCain on the war in Iraq or somebody who offers a stark contrast?” Obama asked the crowd.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/03/politics/fromtheroad/entry3783940.shtml

[lily]

See, Zo.........that's why I said I'd vote for McCain instead of Hillary.:lmao:

[AlonzoMourning23]

Because you believe Obama's lies?

[ViolaLee]

Why is it a lie? She voted to give Bush the authority to go to war just like McCain. She voted for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment to call Iran's military a terrorist group, ramping up reasons to make war with them.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The vote was not necessarily a vote for war, the vote was to threaten Saddam so to get him to comply. Many felt you couldn't do that without threatening a war.

No one really believes Bush will invade Iran either. As much as one side fear mongers about the war, some democrats are using fear of Bush to attack their opponents. I'd be absolutely shock if he even attempted to invade Iran, or if McCain did for that matter. Not going to happen.

But, regardless, to suggest Hillary is at all similar to McCain now is a laughable, blatant lie. McCain says we may be in Iraq 100 years and supports the increased troop levels. He has no qualms about remaining there for 100 years if necessary, and wants to use Iraq to block Irans influence. Hillary wants to begin reducing troops levels quickly and begin reducing them within 2 months and significant reduce troops within a year, with continued withdrawals throughout her presidency.

[micfranklin]

But, regardless, to suggest Hillary is at all similar to McCain now is a laughable, blatant lie. McCain says we may be in Iraq 100 years and supports the increased troop levels. He has no qualms about remaining there for 100 years if necessary, and wants to use Iraq to block Irans influence. Hillary wants to begin reducing troops levels quickly and begin reducing them within 2 months and significant reduce troops within a year, with continued withdrawals throughout her presidency.

Okay so comparing the 100-year comment was rather stupid of him.

But seriously, both Clinton and McCain did vote to send us to Iraq and to give $86 million for war efforts. At least McCain has been consistent on his views about the war: Clinton says he is "absolutely opposed to the Iraq War," but still voted for it regardless and at one point says her vote wasn't a mistake.

[ViolaLee]

The vote was not necessarily a vote for war, the vote was to threaten Saddam so to get him to comply. Many felt you couldn't do that without threatening a war. It was called an authorization for force. Sorry, but that's a vote for war.

No one really believes Bush will invade Iran either. As much as one side fear mongers about the war, some democrats are using fear of Bush to attack their opponents. I'd be absolutely shock if he even attempted to invade Iran, or if McCain did for that matter. Not going to happen. Then why the need to call Iran's military a terrorist group? It was the first time in history to do so. What's the point if not to ramp up the rhetoric for war?

But, regardless, to suggest Hillary is at all similar to McCain now is a laughable, blatant lie. McCain says we may be in Iraq 100 years and supports the increased troop levels. He has no qualms about remaining there for 100 years if necessary, and wants to use Iraq to block Irans influence. Hillary wants to begin reducing troops levels quickly and begin reducing them within 2 months and significant reduce troops within a year, with continued withdrawals throughout her presidency.
Listen to Coulter, Hannity, et all and see if they think the two are similar. In fact Coulter says she'd rather vote for Hillary than McCain!


Okay so comparing the 100-year comment was rather stupid of him.

But seriously, both Clinton and McCain did vote to send us to Iraq and to give $86 million for war efforts. At least McCain has been consistent on his views about the war: Clinton says he is "absolutely opposed to the Iraq War," but still voted for it regardless and at one point says her vote wasn't a mistake.
He didn't compare the 100 year comment. At least not according to Alonzo's link.

[lily]

Because you believe Obama's lies?


As I've already said, I'll vote for who I can trust.......and I can trust McCain over Clinton. I also vote for what is important to me. Both believe in stem cell research, both are against the tax breaks for the rich, Hillary says she'll bring the troops home.......I don't believe her. I think that McCain can do it.....and I honestly think he can do it and actually win.....or what will pass as winning.

[ViolaLee]

Because you believe Obama's lies?


As I've already said, I'll vote for who I can trust.......and I can trust McCain over Clinton. I also vote for what is important to me. Both believe in stem cell research, both are against the tax breaks for the rich, Hillary says she'll bring the troops home.......I don't believe her. I think that McCain can do it.....and I honestly think he can do it and actually win.....or what will pass as winning.
McCain doesn't want to bring the troops home. He wants them to stay there till we "win with honor".

Whatever that means.

And don't believe this biased thread. . . Obama didn't lie about Hillary's position. She is close to McCain on her Iraq and Iran stances. She voted for Iraq force and she voted for calling Iran's troops terrorists.

More of the same: Hillary and McCain.

Besides, there's been a Bush or a Clinton on every single Presidential ballot in my voting lifetime, since 1980 when I first voted and Papa Bush was running for VP.

Time for some new people in the White House.

[Cobra]

I'll vote for McCain if Obama gets the dem nod. Nothing that wrong with him, he isn't far right.

[PostmodernProphet]

if he is intentionally misrepresenting her position on Iraq I have to give him credit....it at least means he has figured out what her position on Iraq IS, which is more than the rest of us can tell......

[AlanC]

How can anyone lie about Hillary's position on Iraq when, at one time or another, she has held all of them.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Viola, as I explained:


But, regardless, to suggest Hillary is at all similar to McCain now is a laughable, blatant lie. McCain says we may be in Iraq 100 years and supports the increased troop levels. He has no qualms about remaining there for 100 years if necessary, and wants to use Iraq to block Irans influence. Hillary wants to begin reducing troops levels quickly and begin reducing them within 2 months and significant reduce troops within a year, with continued withdrawals throughout her presidency.

He didn't compare the 100 year comment. At least not according to Alonzo's link.

That's a big part of his view on Iraq and you're saying that doesn't play a role in the similarity of their views? I guess Obama is so honest that he doesn't even have to be honest anymore to be considered honest.

Or maybe people just blindly assume he cannot lie.


And don't believe this biased thread. . . Obama didn't lie about Hillary's position. She is close to McCain on her Iraq and Iran stances. She voted for Iraq force and she voted for calling Iran's troops terrorists.

Show me where in the bill it said "This is a vote for war with Iraq", not that "this is a vote for war if all other options fail and Saddam doesn't give in". There was a hell of a lot of complaints about Bush's failure to do much diplomatically, yet that's all ignored now because it's politically expedient for Obama to use it to bash Hillary.

More of the same: Hillary and McCain.

Yup, Hillary has the vast majority of troops out within 4 years, McCain may have more in 4 years than we do know. Identical, isn't it?

Listen to Coulter, Hannity, et all and see if they think the two are similar. In fact Coulter says she'd rather vote for Hillary than McCain!

So you base your vote on what Coulter and Hannity says? So much for independent thought, or at least not letting your enemies think for you.

I wonder what your comments were whenever people said that the terrorists don't want us in Iraq, so therefore the Democrats are wrong to want us out of Iraq. I said it was wrong to let your opponents determine their view then and I say the same now. But you seem to flip flop on that.

Then why the need to call Iran's military a terrorist group? It was the first time in history to do so. What's the point if not to ramp up the rhetoric for war?

Do you honestly believe either Bush in his last year, or Hillary in 4 or 8 years, has any intention, whatsoever, of invading Iran?

[ViolaLee]

The bill authorized force. Force = war.

I wouldn't have believed our country would invade a country that never attacked or threatened us before 2003. Now I'll believe they'll do anything.

A vote to call another country's military a terrorist group is a vote for aggression when it's our policy to kill all terrorists.

Hillary and McCain have voted the same way on Iraq and Iran.

That's what Obama was saying.

There's no lie in his statement. Your thread title is the lie.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Hillary and McCain have voted the same way on Iraq and Iran.

That's what Obama was saying.

Not it wasn't:

“We expect that John McCain may be the [Republican] nominee and if John McCain is the nominee then the Democratic Party has to ask itself, do you want a candidate who has similar policies to John McCain on the war in Iraq

The bill authorized force. Force = war.

If I tell my kid "If that kid hits you you can hit him back" does that mean I'm telling him to hit him? Or am I only giving him permission to do so under certain circumstances?

If he went out and wailed on the kid unprovoked that's not my fault.

[ViolaLee]

The bill didn't say Bush could invade if they attack us. It gave him a blank check to invade.[hr]Face it. Hillary voted for the war in Iraq.

She says she didn't know she was doing that.

So, you want a person who doesn't know what they are voting for or a person who made speeches against the war since 2002?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Face it. Hillary voted for the war in Iraq.

Face it; the bill did not say "Sign here for war".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSu0zXCR9sE

Fact it; Hillary didn't want war, and Bush did not do what Hillary thought he would.

[AlonzoMourning23]

So, you want a person who doesn't know what they are voting for or a person who made speeches against the war since 2002?

I don't want a person who wants a quick withdrawal from Iraq. Hillary proposes a more gradual process that isn't as likely to damn Iraqi's to the terrorists.

[ViolaLee]

Both of them say they will withdraw from Iraq in the same time period. Obama says he will be as careful getting out as Bush was careless going in.

You can't say Hillary will be any more careful than Obama getting out. There's no facts to support that.

H.J.RES.114
Title: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ114:

You can post Hillary saying she didn't know it was a bill to authorize the President to use our military against Iraq all you want. But the name of the bill says just that. Are you saying she doesn't know how to read the name of a bill before she votes for it?

Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@D&summ2=m&

Or maybe she forgot to read the summary?

[Fishingriver]

How can anyone lie about Hillary's position on Iraq when, at one time or another, she has held all of them.


Thats very funny!

[AlonzoMourning23]

You can't say Hillary will be any more careful than Obama getting out. There's no facts to support that.

Obama wants to get out in 16 months. Hillary wants to take longer so everything doesn't go to hell. Obama, if he does what he says he does, is inherently riskier due to the speed.

You can post Hillary saying she didn't know it was a bill to authorize the President to use our military against Iraq all you want. But the name of the bill says just that. Are you saying she doesn't know how to read the name of a bill before she votes for it?


No one says the bill didn't give the authority to do it. But the bill was not about voting for war, it was whether war would be an option if Saddam did not give in and all diplomatic methods failed.

People have are authorized to harm people invading their homes, but in many states that authorization is based on what unfolds. In MA I can't shoot someone because they're stealing my tv, but I can if they pulled out a gun when they saw me.

No one would argue that shooting someone in the first case would be consistent with what was authorized. And, for many who voted for the bill, and their speeches back this up, they did not intend to authorize war without any conditions.

[brum]

Voting for this bill was a mistake by all who voted for it. I think it would have been best of authorize inspections and pressure on Saddam at first. Authorizing uses of force at the same time was a mistake it should have not been on the same bill.

I'm not a supporter of Obama or Clinton ( or any of the front runners for that matter), but I think that in this case Obama was right in his vote and that Clinton has changed positions several times on the matter. Take a look at the bill people representing us should be smarter than to vote for that.

[brien]

I wouldn't have believed our country would invade a country that never attacked or threatened us before 2003.

:madlaugh: This has me ROTFLMAO.

Somehow this poster missed the Korean War and the Viet Nam War. Nothing like ignoring history. I yi yi...:shame:[hr]Obama wants to get out in 16 months.

If this isn't a lie, it is a downright misrepresentation of his intentions, because it reflects only the half truths of the platform.

Here is Obama's position from his own platform.


http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda

So we see Obama will not fully disengage from Iraq. Furthermore, there already are US military bases in Iraq he would have to protect, besides the Embassy. Anyone who thinks AL Qaeda will not remain embedded in Iraq, and within the region, is either naive or merely not capapble of rational thought processes based upon past performance. Al Qaeda continues to engage the troops in Iraq on a daily basis, so Obama has a built in excuse to continue the US occupation there.

We see Obama stating he would keep troops "elsewhere in the region" which is political doublespeak for the continued occupation of the Middle East thus continuing to draw fire from Al Qaeda and the Extremist Islamic radicals. This will undoubtedly include Iraq.

So, by his own admission, he will carry out targeted strikes on Al Qaeda in Iraq. He states twice in his platform he will "keep troops in Iraq." This doesn't sound like a disengagement to me. It is political doublespeak for remaining in Iraq, and using the excuses he has listed in his platform to justify his failure to completely disengage the US in Iraq.

Furthermore, as attacks upon US troops, US bases, and the Embassy there continue, he will be forced to escalate his responses to retaliate. This certainly will not include removing troops from Iraq.

So, those of you who are repeating that Obama is for a complete troop withdrawal and disengagement in Iraq should quit telling these little white lies because they are so far from the truth, it is embarassing to you. At least understand what he is putting forth in his entire platform, and realize the consequences of those ideas, even if you are loathe to admit it.

This guy is more slippery than a bull catfish in a five year old's hands on a 90 degree day in June along the Mississippi river.