Debunking the Clinton/Dodd attacks

[maximusveritas]

Today, Chris Dodd attacked his fellow Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, by claiming "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." Hillary Clinton has launched similar attacks via surrogates like Mark Penn and her husband Bill, who claimed to quote Obama saying "What would I have done? I don't know." A thorough examination, however, reveals that their attacks are dishonest, completely ignoring the context in which Obama's statements were made as well as his numerous other statements to the contrary.

So what are Clinton and Dodd referring to? Well, you see, in the run up to the 2004 elections, the media repeatedly tried to get Obama to criticize Kerry and Edwards for their Iraq war votes. For example, our good friend Tim Russert asked Obama: "How could they have been so wrong and you so right...?" Obama refused to take that bait and torpedo his party's nominees just to boost his own profile. Instead, he replied: "Well, I think they have access to information that I did not have." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031902165.html

Similarly, a NY Times article around the same time had the following:

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

So it looks like Clinton and Dodd have cherry-picked 2 sentences from Obama's statement, trying to give the mistaken impression that Obama was saying he didn't know how he would vote knowing just what he knew at the time. Obama was clearly making a different point, that Kerry and Edwards had access to additional intelligence that may have influenced their vote. And knowing what we know now about those Senate intelligence reports, it's highly unlikely that they would have changed Obama's opinion. If anything, they would have strengthened it, as they did with Bob Graham.

While it looks pretty clear that Obama was trying to cover for Kerry and Edwards, how do we know for sure? Well, we just have to look at how Obama answered this same question in interviews before and after that 2004 election. You can watch excerpts from some of these interviews here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

For example, on a local Chicago talk show on November 25, 2002, Obama said, "If it had come to me in an up or down vote as it came, I think I would have agreed with our senior Sen. Dick Durbin and voted 'Nay.'"
Then, just 2 days after the election, during his interview with Charlie Rose, Obama once again clearly stated he would have voted against the war had he been in the Senate. So before and after the election, Obama was very clear that he would have voted against the war. It was only when he was being asked to criticize his party's nominees that he declined to do so and instead offered them some cover.

Prior to becoming a candidate for the 2008 election, Obama also provided similar cover to Hillary herself when he said "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." http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/30/061030on_onlineonly04?currentPage=3
The funny thing about this is that Obama gives Hillary credit for having seen intelligence that he didn't see, when in fact, she now admits she didn't read the NIE before authorizing the war.
Following the initial attacks from Clinton, ABC News released a story titled "Clinton Camp Muddies Obama's Anti-War Stance but Record Is Clear" and "ABC News Obtains Videos Showing Obama's Consistent Opposition to Iraq War Despite Clinton Camp's Claims". http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2966537&page=1
It does a good job of debunking these attacks as well.

This post is running kind of long, but I thought it was necessary. When someone sacrifices his own political capital for the good of our party's nominees and the good of our country, I think he deserves better than to be attacked like this.

[Trisket-Bisket]

1. B.O.'s problem.

He doesn't seem to realize he running for President.
Hey B.O. you only get an Alan Keyes once in a lifetime.

[maximusveritas]

2. He knows how to run a Presidential campaign as his fundraising shows

He's also made great strides in the polls in Iowa.
I'd like to see him step it up a bit, but I think he's doing fine for now. There's plenty of time left.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. Your post shows that BO didn't know, and admitted it. So what's your point?

''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.''
--------------
He admitted he opposed something without having enough facts to make that decision.
That's an honest admission, in my opinion.
Now, what's your point? That you wish he didn't say what he meant, or didn't mean what he said?
How do you know this?