RECENT POSTS
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
- Organizing for America Targets Sarah Palin
- Obama Administration Starts to Publicly Raise Issue of Detained US Citizen Xue Feng
- President Obama Gives Interview (of Sorts) to Dissident Cuban Blogger
- "You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op," President Obama Jokes to Troops at Osan Air Base
- Did the Chinese Government Crack Down on an Obama Interview?
- Our Trip to the DMZ
- President Obama Greets U.S. Troops in South Korea, Wraps Up Week in Asia
- White House: We’re Not in the “Immediate Gratification Business”
- President Obama Announces Date of Special Envoy Visit to North Korea
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
In Oregon, Clinton Makes False Claim About Her Iraq Record Vs. Obama's
April 06, 2008 9:49 AM
In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.
But Clinton's claim was false.
Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."
It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton's vote for it.)
But even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.
Scrambling to support their boss's claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a paper statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.
"The Administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments," the January 2005 Clinton statement said. "From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq."
But Obama offered criticisms of the war in Iraq eight days before that, directly to Rice, in his very first meeting as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 18.
Obama pushed Rice on her answers to previous questioners regarding the effectiveness of Iraqi troops, and he criticized the administration for conveying a never-ending commitment to a US troop presence in Iraq.
"I am concerned about this notion that was pursued by Senator Biden and others that we've made significant progress in training troops," Obama told Rice "Because it seems to me that in your response to Senator Alexander that we will not be able to get our troops out absent the Iraqi forces being able to secure their own country, or at least this administration would not be willing to define success in the absence of such security. I never got quite a clear answer to Senator Biden's question as to how many troops -- Iraqi troops -- don't just have a uniform and aren't just drawing a paycheck, but are effective enough and committed enough that we would willingly have our own troops fighting side-by- side with them. The number of 120,000 you gave, I suspect, does not meet those fairly stringent criteria that Senator Biden was alluding to. I just want to make sure, on the record, that you give me some sense of where we're at now."
Obama concluded his brief q&a by saying "if our measure is bring our troops home and success is measured by whether Iraqis can secure their own circumstances, and if our best troops in the world are having trouble controlling the situation with 150,000 or so, it sounds like we've got a long way to go. And I think part of what the American people are going to need is some certainty, not an absolute timetable, but a little more certainty than is being provided, because right now, it appears to be an entirely open-ended commitment."
**
The misrepresentation of the record is symbolic of the re-writing of history Clinton has attempted on her record regarding the war in Iraq.
Because the larger context is more important. And Clinton's written criticism of the war in a press statement in January 2005 received little attention compared to the press surrounding her trip to Iraq the next month, in February 2005.
Upon returning she argued that setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops would aid the enemy.
“I don’t think it’s useful to set a deadline because I think it sends a signal to the terrorists and the insurgents that they just have to wait us out,” she said.
Describing her trip to Iraq, she said, "It’s regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well."
She also interpreted a series of suicide bomb attacks as an indication that the insurgency was failing.
“The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure," she said. "Not one polling place was shut down or overrun. The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure.”
In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press on Feb. 20, 2005, Clinton said that withdrawing some troops or setting a date for withdrawal would be a "mistake."
"I don't believe we should tie our hands or the hands of the new Iraqi government," Clinton said. "We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain."
"We have just finished meeting with the current prime minister, the deputy prime minister and the finance minister, and in our meetings, we posed the question to each of them as to whether they believed that we should set a firm deadline for the withdrawal of American troops," Clinton said. "To a person, and they are of different political parties in this election, but each of them said that would be a big mistake, that we needed to make clear that there is a transition now going on to the Iraqi government. When it is formed, which we hope will be shortly, it will assume responsibility for much of the security, with the assistance and cooperation of the coalition forces, primarily U.S. forces."
Clinton said that "what the American people need to know is, number one, we are very proud of our young men and women who are here," and second, "there can be no doubt that it is not in America's interests for the Iraqi government, the experiment in freedom and democracy, to fail. So I hope that Americans understand that and that we will have as united a front as is possible in our country at this time to keep our troops safe, make sure they have everything they need and try to support this new Iraqi government."
She soon told New York Daily News editors and reporters that it was important for Democrats to combat the idea that they're soft on national security issues like Iraq.
"If you can't persuade a majority of people that you're going to be strong and tough where we need to protect America and our [national] interests, you can't cross the [electoral] threshold," she said.
**
That same month, while Clinton was talking up the need for Democrats to project strength, and claiming a withdrawal deadline would be sending a signal to the terrorists, Obama was meeting with his constituents, sounding quite skeptical about the war and reiterating his opposition to the decision to go to war to begin with.
The Bloomington, Ill., Pantagraph reported that during a town hall meeting, asked about the Iraq war, "Obama said poor planning by the Bush administration has left Iraq woefully incapable of handling its own security. He expressed hope that more intensive training will be provided for Iraqi forces, saying such measures could allow most American troops to return home next year. While Obama said the recent Iraqi election is an encouraging sign for democracy, he questioned Bush’s rationale for the Iraq invasion. ’I didn’t see the weapons of mass destruction at the time, I didn’t think there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.'"
Clinton made this latest questionable claim the same day that she came under fire for repeatedly telling a story that turned out not to be true about a poor pregnant woman losing her baby and her own life after being denied hospital treatment because she couldn't afford a $100 fee. The New York Times discovered that the woman in question was never denied treatment, and that she did have insurance. “We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said a representative of the hospital.
The Clinton campaign said that the senator had been told the story by a sheriff's deputy, and had not been able to fully check its accuracy. "We did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that."
This latest incident also comes less than two weeks after Clinton had to back off a description of a plane landing during a 1996 trip to Bosnia that she had claimed was under sniper fire. Video evidence surfaced proving that claim false and Clinton admitted that she "misspoke."
- jpt
April 6, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (676)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I think she lies in her dreams!
Posted by: wave06 | May 3, 2008 8:22:12 AM
Clinton... a proven liar. Start way back with the Foster affair. Obama.... is the Pied Piper.... leading the children. Both support the policies, ultimately, of the Hegemony.... you know, the Empire. Many folks in the Empire live in a dreamland.... they still believe in the left-right paradigm. Somehow believing that their choice between 2 entries who were already chosen for them is democracy. They then get all caught up in the debate as to which middle manager would be better. Failing to realize that each potential and electable 'contester' has been truly vetted and accepted that folks who actually run this country. All the 'heat' above the epitome of naivete.
Posted by: medicis | Apr 21, 2008 9:33:10 PM
It doesn't matter whether Hillary lies or not about this tiny thing. People who say they will not vote Hillary will never vote Hillary. Doesn't matter if she does everything right in the past two years. I will not vote Obama for just the same.
Posted by: Nick | Apr 10, 2008 1:47:17 PM
Who cares about these detail....
I'll say this, both of them, Clinton and Obama have flaws. Whose flaws is worse, that depends on each person's personal preference. For me, Obama is worse. For some of you, Clinton is worse. In the end, whoever got nominated by the democratic party will probably not win in the general election. Why? Because, in the general election, I will not vote Obama, and the other group of people won't vote Hillary. Let this rolls and let's move on.
Posted by: Joe from OH | Apr 10, 2008 1:44:23 PM
Hillary lies and lies. Please open your eyes. She just wants to be president.
HILLARY SUCKS!!!!
Posted by: xcaliburo | Apr 9, 2008 10:48:20 AM
Thanks to the Hillary supporter who reminded us that she too, stooped to the lowest of the low by using the WTC tragedy as incentive to war on Iraq.
I live in NYC. We were all extremely upset that this tragedy on our home turf was used to goad America into an unwarranted war in Iraq. Hillary did not speak for the majority of New York City dwellers when she made that statement... she was clearly just moving to the right of the political spectrum to seem tougher in her upcoming run for president. Of the mainstream media, Maureen Dowd was the only person to call her out on this.
Hillary didn't even bother to read the intelligence report before making her decision, because it wasn't about our country for her, it was about her political prospects. Now, we have lost more than
4,000 US soldiers.
News flash: Bin Laden has never been in Iraq this whole time! Our soldiers were sent to the wrong theatre entirely, and Clinton was beating the war drum for reasons of personal advancement!
This is the kind of person you want in charge of the country? She has no conception of public service!
Posted by: GaiaGal in NYC | Apr 9, 2008 6:43:36 AM
I rather vote for Hillary the someone who hang around with a Pastor screaming "God Damn America" plus he can not even have the courage to wear the American flag on his lapel.
Vote for Hillary! Do the right thing.
Do not be mad or jeaous because they made $109 million in seven years. Oprah makes abut $260 million a year, I said a year!!
Posted by: JT | Apr 8, 2008 3:33:04 PM
Obama is distorting himself.
He just making speeches.
Try to dig deeper on what he is saying and you will conclude with "what is this guy talking about?"
Hillary is better...
Posted by: jT | Apr 8, 2008 3:18:57 PM
Pathological LIAR!
Posted by: Geldo | Apr 8, 2008 8:48:56 AM
Could you possibly have a more dishonest account of whether Hillary criticized the war in Iraq before Obama?
I defy any objective person to look at the milquetoasty comments Obama made, and compare them to the hard hitting criticism Hillary made just days later, and pretend that both deserve the name of "criticism".
This isn't journalism. This is a hit job. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by: frankly0 | Apr 8, 2008 8:34:58 AM
Whatcha gonna do when Obamamania runs wild on you?!?
Posted by: Goldenarm | Apr 8, 2008 5:57:18 AM
People!!! an act continuously done becomes a habit and habits forms character. That said, how does anyone expect Senator Clinton not to double speak or say some thing out of context. During the California or Texas debate, that same matter was put forth to Senator Obama. He said if a person runs a vehicle into a ditch by making bad decisions after ignoring sound advices, the only alternative is to find the best solution to get out of the ditch, and that may require you to side with the initial decision maker. So with the soldiers already in Iraq, as an American Senator, his responsibility was to ensure they receive the proper equipment etc. by appropriately voting in favor of proper funding to that end. Had Senator Obama voted against funding for the soldiers, Senator Clinton would say he does not care seen they are already there. The initial vote to send the soldiers to war and the vote to keep them properly equip are to different considerations. Senator Clinton is a classic, do as I say but don't do as I do. In a sense she is right, If one should do as she has, we may all have to tell many BOSNIAN TYPE SNIPER STORY or we have to teach our children that it is okay to break rules if they needs it to benefit them. God bless American may there be a truthful president sworn into office on January, 2009.
Posted by: Donald, Toronto | Apr 8, 2008 5:40:23 AM
She got a ten million advance on
her book. The publisher probably lost
all of it.
I don't think anyone posting here can even name the title of that book.
WJC getting 100K to 400K per inconsequential hot air speech makes no sense either.
Posted by: anon | Apr 8, 2008 3:12:52 AM
Why isn't there an article about how Obamahas lied not only about a couple of incidents, but about his whole career as a "civil rights" lawyer. According to his bosses in the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard, Obama was doing the work that any first or second year associatedo. In litigation he was doing basic research and writing memos" He actually only participated in one case of civil rights. Why ABC does not dig a little bit on this?
Posted by: libre | Apr 8, 2008 2:00:06 AM
The title of this article does not match with several facts in the article. Obama gives a speech against the war, then is later asked when he is in the Senate would he have voted against the war. He declines to say either way and acknowledges he did not have all the information that the Senators who voted did. Then he support Kerry and Edwards in 2004 who both voted for the Iraq resolution. And he continues to vote to fund the war. When he meets with Rice, there are a few questions about the war, but nothing that tells me that he wants to end the war. In fact, it is so vague maybe he reversed his opinion by this time. Hillary is entitled to tell voters that within the Senate she was voiced her issues with the continuance of the war before Obama. From the evidence in this article, it appears she is correct.
Posted by: Lynn | Apr 8, 2008 1:25:26 AM
The church is "unashamedly black" and it's commitments are to the black community and Africa. That leaves a lot of people that live in this country out of the equation. Obama can't claim to be a uniter when he's been a member of that separatist church for 20 years. His actions, or inabilities, speak much louder than his words.
Posted by: Mack | Apr 8, 2008 1:24:10 AM
Hillary is a saint in comparison--
Mack did you lose your house or how’s your stock market saving doing? You must love the gas prices and the prices at the stores for food. How many more American’s solder will die because Bush decide to attack the wrong country. He is opening our border to more illegal and undesirable, 14 million and growing! Good job Mack keep voting for those that are destroying our country ---NO SPINS just FACTS>
Posted by: ghm | Apr 8, 2008 1:23:34 AM
The title of this article does not match with several facts in the article. Obama gives a speech against the war, then is later asked when he is in the Senate would he have voted against the war. He declines to say either way and acknowledges he did not have all the information that the Senators who voted did. Then he support Kerry and Edwards in 2004 who both voted for the Iraq resolution. And he continues to vote to fund the war. When he meets with Rice, there are a few questions about the war, but nothing that tells me that he wants to end the war. In fact, it is so vague maybe he reversed his opinion by this time. Hillary is entitled to tell voters that within the Senate she was voiced her issues with the continuance of the war before Obama. From the evidence in this article, it appears she is correct.
Posted by: Lynn | Apr 8, 2008 1:22:13 AM
This country is not about a flag, it is about a citizens right to burn that flag in protest. It is the right of a person to get up and put forth an opinion that you totally disagree with and would fight with all your breath against. That is what America is about, that is what we should celebrate.
Rev. Wright's church embraces rich, poor, black, Hispanic. His church has helped persons with AIDS, who are homeless, without food, without jobs. He has been an inspiration in that community and until you can go to his church and hear him preach or at least listened to his entire sermon then you have no business judging him AND if you are truly a Christian you would know that.
Posted by: rhbate | Apr 8, 2008 1:17:36 AM
I wish they stop thinking were really that stupid!
I was a major player in Ireland at a tea party; I dodge sniper fire with a little girls poem! I have no active lobbyists in team; I will not be bought by the lobbyist’s money that the fat cats are giving me at 3 am in the morning. I was always against NAFTA. ETC ETC ETC!!!
But Hillary is in the minor league in comparison to Bush and the Republicans – The biggest and worst liars ever ever, they are really the ones that do lies on a grand scale. They learned from the Nazi - that saying it over and over make it true. And if you should disagree they reply by screaming at you or calling you unpatriotic. Even after he destroyed our rights and our economy, Republicans are so dumb that. 30 % still love Bush, and 12 % swear Obama is a Muslim! God help Them!
Posted by: GHM | Apr 8, 2008 1:04:37 AM
Post a comment
