Sen. Obama's Speech In Wilmington, DE Contains Four Misleading Attacks On Hillary

[exchange77]

Despite regularly asserting that he is running a positive campaign, Sen. Obama distorted Hillary’s record and laid down a number of misleading attacks today in a speech in Wilmington, DE.

"We expect that John McCain may end up being the 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 someone who can offer a stark contrast?’ See, when I am the nominee, John McCain won’t be able to say that you were for this war in Iraq, because I wasn’t. He won’t be able to say that I followed the Bush-Cheney doctrine in not talking to leaders we don’t like because I don’t. He won’t be able to say that I went along and gave George Bush the benefit of a doubt on Iran because I haven’t. He won’t be able to say that I was unclear about my position on torture because I’ve been absolutely clear we never torture in this country. I can offer a clear and clean break from the failed policies of George W. Bush. I won’t have to explain my votes in the past."


Let’s address Sen. Obama’s allegations one at a time.

First: Sen. Obama begins by criticizing Hillary on Iraq. Sen. Obama does not mention that -- with the exception of Hillary's opposition to the promotion of Iraq war architect Gen. George Casey -- Sen. Obama and Hillary have identical voting records on the Iraq war.
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5094

Second: Sen. Obama then misrepresents Hillary’s position on diplomacy. Hillary criticized Sen. Obama for pre-committing to a personal meeting in his first year with "with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea." She never said that a president should only meet with America's friends. She also promised vigorous diplomatic efforts with all countries, friend and foe.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5507

Third: Sen. Obama then misrepresents Hillary’s position on Iran. In fact, Hillary was one of the earliest and staunchest opponents of Bush’s saber rattling on Iran, and spoke out on the issue back in February:

Hillary made a floor speech declaring that President Bush must get authorization from Congress before taking military action against Iran.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=269287&&

Hillary co-sponsored the Webb bill prohibiting use of funds for military action in Iran without Congressional authorization.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284618&&

Sen. Obama missed the vote he is now using to attack Hillary. He issued a release 9 hours later and co-sponsored a similar bill in April. The bill was also supported by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), a staunch anti-war Bush critic and prominent Obama supporter.
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4223
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4143

Fourth: Sen. Obama accuses Hillary of changing her policy on torture due to ‘the politics of the moment.’ He couldn’t be more wrong. Hillary met with retired generals, talked with experienced military officers, and read reports commissioned by the Defense Intelligence Agency. She concluded that 'torture cannot be part of American policy, period.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/politics/05text-clinton.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Sen. Obama laments this kind of politics in his book, Audacity of Hope:

For that is how most of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, enter the Senate…their words distorted, and their motives questioned.

[rodeodance]

1. Hillary's speechs are about her plans: Obama'a tend to Hit on Hillary.

[LadyVT]

2. Thank you.

[rodeodance]

3. REC

[rodeodance]

4. Obama's Speech In Denver, CO Will Contain Four Misleading Attacks On Hillary In One Sentence

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject Sen. Obama's Speech In Denver, CO Will Contain Four Misleading Attacks On Hillary In One Sentence
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4299011#4299011
4299011, Sen. Obama's Speech In Denver, CO Will Contain Four Misleading Attacks On Hillary In One Sentence
Posted by agdlp on Wed Jan-30-08 05:01 PM

Just 24 hours after pledging to run a positive campaign, Senator Obama’s campaign released excerpts of a speech he will deliver this morning in Denver, CO that distorts Hillary’s record and lays down a number of misleading attacks. In fact, Sen. Obama will issue four misleading attacks on Hillary in a single sentence.



Let’s address Sen. Obama’s allegations one at a time.

First:
Sen. Obama begins by criticizing Hillary on Iraq. Sen. Obama does not mention that -- with the exception of Hillary's opposition to the promotion of Iraq war architect Gen. George Casey -- Sen. Obama and Hillary have identical voting records on the Iraq war.

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5094

Second:
Sen. Obama then misrepresents Hillary’s position on Iran. In fact, Hillary was one of the earliest and staunchest opponents of Bush’s saber rattling on Iran, and spoke out on the issue back in February:



Sen. Obama missed the vote he is now using to attack Hillary. He issued a release 9 hours later and co-sponsored a similar bill in April. The bill was also supported by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), a staunch anti-war Bush critic and prominent Obama supporter.

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4223
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4143


Third:
Sen. Obama then misrepresents Hillary’s position on diplomacy. Hillary criticized Sen. Obama for pre-committing to a personal meeting in his first year with "with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript /

She never said that a president should only meet with America's friends. She also promised vigorous diplomatic efforts with all countries, friend and foe.

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5507

Fourth:
Sen. Obama accuses Hillary of changing her policy on torture due to ‘the politics of the moment.’ He couldn’t be more wrong. Hillary met with retired generals, talked with experienced military officers, and read reports commissioned by the Defense Intelligence Agency. She concluded that 'torture cannot be part of American policy, period.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/politics/05text-clinton.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Sen. Obama laments this kind of politics in his book, Audacity of Hope

[demo dutch]

5. The great Uniter!

[flordehinojos]

6. thank you for posting this

the man is a distortionist ... and who needs to distort, one who needs to steal. that we learn from bush and his popppy. and why does a distortionist need to distort? because he has not very much of his own to go on by.

[gaiilonfong]

7. No more HillaryHub Mark Penn Rove spin please

regurgetated by Taylor Marsh and Craig crawford.

[stillcool]

8. For starters...

Clinton voted for McCain-supported Iran resolution
Mostly true

Barack Obama made his most direct case for the Democratic nomination at a speech on Jan. 30, 2008, in Denver. He criticized fellow Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's candidacy, arguing that he represents a more dramatic distinction with John McCain, the apparent Republican front-runner after winning Florida's primary.

In making his argument, Obama attacked Clinton for voting with Republicans on national security issues, among other things.

Among Obama's points: "It’s time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who ... agreed with him by voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran."

On the issue of Iran, Obama is referring to a vote in September 2007 on a measure known as the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization.

Clinton voted in favor of the amendment, which McCain co-sponsored.

Obama advisers argued at the time that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment could be used to justify a military attack on Iran.

We previously fact-checked the advisers' claim that Kyl-Lieberman was a "blank check" for the use of force in Iran. We found that expert opinions were split. Some said the legislation gave no new authority for the use of force in Iran. But others said the Bush administration would point to the legislation as a justification if it wanted to invade Iran, even if the legislation did not specifically condone it. Describing the amendment as "giving George Bush the benefit of the doubt" is similar to that argument.

There are a few other problems with Obama's statement that are worth mentioning. Though McCain co-sponsored the legislation, he missed the vote itself — as did Obama, who was campaigning. Obama said he would have voted against the amendment if he had been present. So though Clinton may have "agreed" with McCain on the issue, they did not technically vote the same way on it.

To say that voting for Kyl-Lieberman is "giving George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran" remains a contentious issue. But Obama's main point is that Clinton and McCain were on the same side, and that is correct. So we rate Obama's statement Mostly True.

------------------------------
Hillary Clinton "actually differed with (John McCain) by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions."

Barack Obama on Wednesday, January 30th, 2008 in Denver
Clinton changed on torture
True

Barack Obama made his most direct case for the Democratic nomination at a speech on Jan. 30, 2008, in Denver. He criticized fellow Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's candidacy, arguing that he represents a more dramatic distinction with John McCain, the apparent Republican frontrunner after winning Florida's primary.

In making his argument, Obama attacked Clinton for voting with Republicans on national security issues, among other things.

After naming a number of areas where he said Clinton and McCain had the same positions, Obama attacked Clinton for diverging from McCain on the issue of torture. Clinton "actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said.

It sounds a little convoluted, so here's the step-by-step.

In October 2006, Clinton spoke about exceptions to a no-torture policy when speaking to the New York Daily News. Clinton mentioned a "ticking time bomb" scenario in which a captured terrorist has knowledge of an imminent terror attack and interrogators want to use torture.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable," she said. "That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law."

Then, on Sept. 26, 2007, Clinton said something different. During a debate, Tim Russert asked her about the ticking bomb scenario and here's what she said: "As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period." She said she met with military generals who told her there is "very little evidence that it works."

In the days after the debate, the Republican National Committee criticized her for flip-flopping, and Obama said he would oppose torture "without exception or equivocation," according to Daily News reports.

Did Clinton change position because of her talks with the generals or because of the "politics of the moment"? We can't see inside Clinton's head, so our ruling doesn't reflect on that part of the statement. But it is clear she changed her mind about the "ticking bomb" scenario. So we rate Obama's claim True.

[stillcool]

10. And the third point...

Clinton endorses diplomacy
Barely True

Barack Obama made his most direct case for the Democratic nomination at a speech on Jan. 30, 2008, in Denver. He criticized fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton, arguing that he represents a more dramatic distinction with John McCain, the apparent Republican front-runner after winning Florida's primary.

In making his argument, Obama attacked Clinton for voting with Republicans on national security issues, among other things.

Among Obama's points: "It's time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who ... agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like."

On this point, Obama seems to be drawing on a difference that arose between him and Clinton in a July 2007 debate hosted by CNN and YouTube.

A YouTube questioner asked if the candidates would be "willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries."

Obama said he would; Clinton said she wouldn't.

Clinton explained her reasoning: "I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration."

John McCain's public comments seem to reflect an openness to diplomacy while also putting restrictions on face-to-face meetings.

"The most overrated aspect of our dialogue about international relations is direct face-to-face talks," he said in December 2007. "BlackBerrys work. Emissaries work. There's many thousands of ways to communicate. The question is, are you going to have direct talks, and does that enhance the prestige of the president of Iran?"

It's not unreasonable to say that Clinton and McCain share a skepticism about having the president conduct face-to-face diplomatic meetings directly. But Obama strays badly in taking that shared view and equating it with what he calls "the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like." Clinton, who was asked about it directly, clearly says she would approach diplomacy differently than the Bush administration has. We find Obama's claim Barely True.

[shaniqua6392]

9. Very interesting.

Thanks for posting exchange77.