Fact, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, all voted for the war, heck, even Lieberman voted for it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&vote=00237&session=2#position

So to hold your high-and-mighty position that you questioned it, Obama. There were 76 others that voted in favor of it as well, other than McCain, including your running mate. But you keep trying to pin it on him anyways. Best of luck with that.

8/29/2008 3:31:54 PM

Obama didn't vote for the war...or against it...since he wasn't there to vote

8/29/2008 3:32:33 PM

Every goddamned one of them was wrong.

Why do so many still actively support it?

8/29/2008 3:34:27 PM

Palin didn't vote for the war

8/29/2008 3:35:28 PM

Obama publicly opposed an overwhelmingly popular war. That's not second guessing, it's first guessing. Biden acknowledged his mistake. Lieberman is no dove, and is a McCain supporter. What is your point?

8/29/2008 3:39:18 PM

Quote :

"publicly opposed"

Why didn't Obama vote against the war?

It's like me saying I publicly oppose Obama, and if he gets elected I could say "I did not vote for Barack Obama" but you guys could easily say "yeah and you also didn't vote against him, because you didn't vote"

8/29/2008 3:41:45 PM

This is about the zillionth time someone has insinuated anyone has "forgotten" that many democrats voted for the war. Nobody's forgotten, they've just forgiven. Many people still hold it against them - like me.

8/29/2008 3:42:14 PM

Quote :

"Obama publicly opposed an overwhelmingly popular war."

when?

In 2005, when he was sworn in, Iraq already had a 64% unpopularity rating http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2005/11/popularity_viet.html

Hell, in June of 2004, when he was still running it was already at 61% http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/opinion/polls/main619122.shtml

8/29/2008 3:45:55 PM

Is October 2002 early enough for you?

Quote :

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars. After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income?—?to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear?—?I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not?—?we will not?—?travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain. "

8/29/2008 3:58:21 PM

He addressed an anti-war crowd in overwhelmingly Democratic district. If you want to give him credit for opposing the war from the start, I'll happily give you that, and I respect him for that.

If you want to give him credit for taking a principled stand against the tide of public opinion? Ehhh, not so much.

8/29/2008 4:04:52 PM

Obama opposed the war because he believed it was wrong, not because it was unpopular (it was quite popular nationally and in Illinois, if not in his district).

McCain supported the war because he believed it was right, not because it was popular.



McCain gets criticized for his position because he still says it was the right thing to do. It is used as an example (along with bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, opposition to shift troops to Afghanistan, opposition to a growing consensus that it is time for a timetable in Iraq) to make the case that his positions are not right for the country. I don't think there is anything high and mighty about that. I think your are confused. High and mighty would be, for example, questioning your opponent's patriotism, or would lose a war to win an election.

8/29/2008 4:24:10 PM

here's my point, 77 out of 100 thought it was "the right thing to do" at the time, including Biden/Clinton, etc..

where they stand now is a different issue and a much more complex issue than just saying 'we need a timetable'

8/29/2008 5:10:35 PM

here's what YOU forget

the congress authorized a bill to allow the president to use ALL measures UP TO AND INCLUDING the use of military force.

here's what YOU forget

the entire time during these debates, the Bush, Rummy, Cheney... were ALL swearing up one side and down the other that they were committed to diplomatic solutions with Iraq through the auspices of the UN and the IAEA, and that the military authorization was merely a formality so the US would have a credible option of military force visible on the table in order to effectively negotiate diplomatic solutions with Hussein's government.

here's what YOU forget

the US people via their congressmen and senators TRUSTED the Bush Administration to negotiate in their best interests. Interests that are CLEARLY not served by this > $1,000,000,000,000 (Trillion) war over ghost WMDs and other assorted lies.

here's what YOU forget

the Bush Administration, once they got their bill authorized, shifted their tone almost IMMEDIATELY from one of negotiation to one of belligerent hostility.

here's what YOU forget

it was a time in which the Administration so almost completely cowed the media into blindly repeating their own press releases without criticisim, that there was hardly a person in media, government, or other position in the public eye who could dare criticise BushCo without being branded a traitor and blacklisted as a terror-loving-nutjob.

Quote :

"heck, even Lieberman voted for it"

even? EVEN??

wtf, do you even understand what you're talking about? Lieberman is a bigger war hawk than half the republicans. he left the Democratic party and became an independent over his support for war.

he should have joined the Likud Party, because obviously this is where his interests are, and the constituency he represents.

jesus, i mean really. TRY and keep up, please.








[Edited on August 30, 2008 at 2:13 PM. Reason : ]

8/30/2008 1:54:37 PM

here's what YOU forget. Congress abdicated its responsibility ENTIRELY for declaring war. I don't care what Bush said, Congress should have never given Bush the ability to declare war. End. Of. Thread.

8/30/2008 5:04:16 PM

my brother was happy to serve 2 tours in iraq. he says the place a shit hole the first time and now it's a wonderful country he expects to visit one day in peace.


as a liberal supporter of the war, what's all you guyz hatred towards the freedom of millions of people left in the dark for centuries?

so what if we didn't find nuclear warheads on missile tips? isn't it good to take out murderers that would eventually crack us some other way anywho if given the chance.. aka (twin towers, pentagon, uss cole, embassies in africa, hijacked planes, etc etc..)

if you guys enjoy a world like that, then go move over there and have a damn ball.


btw: obama has served 140 some odd days in the senate, now i know why he's shutting the fuck up when asked about palin, b/c she's outserved him.

sad but true guys. obama is too young to represent our party.

8/30/2008 5:10:50 PM

1) Iraq had nothing to do w/ 9/11. Al-Qaeda had a funcking bounty on Saddam's head. Doesn't seem like Saddam would be working with someone who wanted him dead.

2) Saddam was impotent. He had no power to harm us

3) We put Saddam in power. Twice.

4) Why aren't we doing something about Saudi Arabia or China, two countries who have far worse human rights records? Or Sudan. Or Rwanda.

8/30/2008 5:14:10 PM

^^ oh look. Socks`` bought an alias. apparently he thinks he'll have more credibility as he continues to shill for Insane McCain.

8/30/2008 9:20:35 PM

Quote :

"btw: obama has served 140 some odd days in the senate, now i know why he's shutting the fuck up when asked about palin, b/c she's outserved him. "

Hahaha

This sounds more like ThaBigGirL or one of those other far right nutjobs that don't last long here.

8/30/2008 9:41:40 PM

Quote :

"what's all you guyz hatred towards the freedom of millions of people left in the dark for centuries"

If only it were so simple. While I hope Iraq does become a stable and prosperous country, it would still be a devil's bargain. The US has directly killed tens of thousands of Iraqis. In all, over a million have died because of the invasion.

Don't think the species is smart enough to have come up with a less costly way to improve Iraq?

8/30/2008 10:59:41 PM