Clinton Campaign's Citations For Critique Of Obama's Withdrawal Claims

The Clinton campaign calls Barack Obama's assertions that he was pushed for a withdrawal of US forces every year since 2002 "false."

Here's THE back-up:

In 2004, Sen. Obama said he was willing to support more troops in Iraq, said withdrawal from Iraq would be 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there." Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country …'A quick withdrawal would add to the chaos there and make it 'an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity,' [Obama] said. It would also damage America's international prestige and amount to 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there, he said." [Christopher Wills, "Obama Willing To Support More Troops In Iraq," The Associated Press, 9/19/04]

In 2005, Sen. Obama said that 'U.S. forces are still a part of the solution.' "I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq….First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say "reduce," and not "fully withdraw." [Obama speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 11/22/05]

In 2006, Sen. Obama opposed Sen. Kerry's amendment to withdraw troops, saying he opposed 'a precipitous withdrawal of troops.' Sen. Obama voted against an amendment by Senator Kerry requiring the president to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in 2006 and have complete withdrawal by July 1, 2007. "But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them… A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility" [2006 Vote # 181, S2766, 6/22/06; Obama Remarks, Congressional Record, 06/21/06]

Update: The Obama campaign says that the assertion in question came from an interview with an Obama foreign policy adviser who incorrectly said that Obama had always pushed for a withdrawal. There were no American ground troops in Iraq in 2002, so Obama could not have pushed for their exit.

Comments

Wait... When did Obama EVER say that he had advocated the precipitous withdrawal of troops?

Anybody?

Posted by tinisoli | January 14, 2008 2:29 PM

When did the Obama campaign ever assert that he was pushing for a withdrawal since 2002?

That would be news to me. I could find no proof of it when I searched via Google.

Instead, his website clearly says that he called for a withdrawal in 2005.

Looks like yet another Clinton lie.

Posted by Mike | January 14, 2008 2:31 PM

I guess "opposing the war in the first place" = "calling for immediate withdrawal later on". Or at least the Clintons are hoping that we buy that equation. Conflate, conflate, conflate.

Posted by tinisoli | January 14, 2008 2:36 PM

It looks like they're citing this interview with Susan Rice where she says he was calling for withdrawal since his first month in the Senate, which would have been 2005:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k09m1RXLdEU&feature=user

Posted by Mike | January 14, 2008 2:39 PM

Uhm this article is a horrible waste of time. What a distortion of Obamas position.

Posted by ber | January 14, 2008 2:55 PM

Available records showed that Barack Obama has been consistent in his position on Iraq, contrary to what Bill and Hillary Clinton would have us to believe. Below are the details according to the Obama Campaign:

Jan. 14, 2008
In e-mail to USA TODAY On Politics, Bill Burton, Obama campaign spokesman, had this response to Clinton campaign memos accusing Obama supporters of making "false claims about Sen. Obama's record on troop withdrawal:"
None of those statements you cite flatly contradicts removing our troops - they oppose a precipitous withdrawal. Obama has always believed that our troops need to be removed responsibly.

Below is Obama's consistent record on opposing the war.

SEP 2002: Obama Said The President Had Not Made The Case To Go To War. Obama said, "The president has not made his case for going into Iraq." [Chicago Defender, 9/26/02]

OCT 2002: Obama Said He Was Opposed To "Dumb" And "Rash" Iraq War. In 2002, Obama said, "I don't oppose all wars. 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 armchair, 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." [Obama Speech, 10/26/02]

_ OCT 2002: Obama Said That Iraq War Would Require an Occupation of
"Undetermined" Length, Cost and Consequences. In 2002, Obama said, "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. 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." [Obama Speech, 10/26/02]

FEB 2003: Obama Said Bad Choices Were Made. Obama said, "We've been making some bad choices at the federal level, and we've also been making some bad choices internationally." [Chicago Tribune, 2/17/03]

MAR 2003: Obama Challenged Other Candidates To Take A Position On Iraq War. The AP wrote, "Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question...Issuing the challenge at a weekend speech in Champaign, Obama said he does not oppose war if it's necessary. But he believes Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that, with Iraq's economy in shambles, he can be "contained" until internal pressures force him out...Obama said candidates wishing to unseat Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald in 2004 should speak up now as the Bush administration moves closer to using military force against Iraq. `What's tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself out,' said Obama, a state senator from Chicago." [AP, 3/3/2003]

MAR 2003: Obama Said It's Not Too Late To Stop The War. "State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) told the crowd, `It's not too late' to stop the war." [Chicago Sun- Times, 3/17/03]

MAR 2003: Obama Said That While He Questioned Bush War, Supported Troops. "As some of you may know, I've certainly had questions with respect to the administration's foreign policy, but I absolutely agree that the minute that the President makes a decision and that we have our Armed Service men and women in harm's way, that we all have to unify immediately and make sure that they come back as safely and as quickly as possible." [Obama Floor Statement, 93rd GA, 3/20/03, p 219]

MAY 2003: Obama Said Winning The Peace Going To Be A Major Issue. Obama said, "The initial fighting, however, is the least of our challenges with President Bush having embarked on this military action without broadbased international support. Winning the peace is going to be the major issue." [Chicago Defender, 5/3/03]

JULY 2003: Obama Said He Was The Only Candidate To Publicly Oppose The War From The Beginning. State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago), trying to set himself apart from the crowded March 2004 Democratic primary field, said he was the only person in the race to publicly question the war before it started. `I'm the only candidate in this race who stood up and opposed it vigorously and vehemently.' [Chicago Tribune, 7/14/03]

OCT 2003: Obama Continued To Set The Foreign Policy Agenda In Senate
Campaign. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, "Obama, the earliest critic of the Iraq War among those vying for Sen. Peter Fitzgerald's seat, has set the agenda for the foreign policy debate throughout this contest and did so again the other night. He lamented that the Bush administration is spending too much money on the reconstruction of Iraq and not enough in `rebuilding here at home.'" [Chicago Sun-Times, 10/17/03]

OCT 2003: Obama Said That Decision To Vote To Go To War Should Not Be
Driven By Question: How's This Going To Play. The State Journal Register wrote, "Obama also said he was one of the few candidates in the Democratic primary to stand up against American involvement in Iraq when it first was discussed. He called the war `dumb (and) political-driven...You need a U.S. senator who's not going to be thinking, 'How's this going to play?' but one who leads,' Obama said." [State Journal-Register, 10/26/03]

DEC 2003: Obama Said Iraq Distracted From The War On Terror. The Rockford Register Star wrote, "On the Iraq war, Obama is strongly critical of President Bush, saying, `We have an administration whose arrogance internationally seems to have no bounds.' The Iraq war `is distracting us from what should be our No. 1 priority, the war on terrorism. There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.' Obama wants to bring other nations into the terrorism fight." [Rockford Register Star, 12/2/03]

MAR 2004: Obama Criticized Complacent Congress For Not Asking Hard
Questions Of The Administration. The Chicago Defender wrote, "`One of the most important things that a senator can do in foreign policy is to hold the administration accountable and ask the tough questions.' He said the senate has a key role to play in advising the president and ensuring that he is answerable to the American people in all decisions. Obama voiced concern about the silence of many U.S. senators who failed to ask key questions such as `How imminent is this threat? What are the weapons of mass destruction? What's the connection between al-Queda and Hussein?'" [Chicago Defender, 3/24/04]

MAR 2004: Rahm Emanuel Praised Obama Position On Iraq. Congressman Rahm Emanuel wrote, "Roeser calls Obama "liberal" for opposing the war in Iraq. But as Obama made clear, he didn't oppose the war because he's soft on terrorism. In fact, Obama supported the attack on Afghanistan because its Taliban government clearly was complicit in the terror activities of al-Qaida. Rather, Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq because he viewed it as a costly and ill-advised diversion in our war against international terror, which would alienate our allies and advance the recruitment efforts of terrorist leaders like Osama bin Laden. Moreover, many leading military figures, including former
Marine Corps Cmdr. Anthony Zinni, were against the Iraq War." [Chicago Sun-Times, Emanuel Column, 3/27/04]

JULY 2004: Obama Said He Pointed Out Problems With Iraq In 2002. The Daily Herald wrote, "Even as he issued what amounted to an `I told you so' about his longstanding opposition to the Iraq war, Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Monday the United States needs to keep and increase the number of troops there to ensure a stable democracy...Obama also spent a significant portion of his speech criticizing Bush's go-it-alone strategy in Iraq. He said last week's Senate intelligence report showed the war in Iraq was based on false premises, some of which, he pointed out, he had raised back in fall 2002." [Chicago Daily Herald, 7/13/04]

JULY 2004: Obama Said `I Would Have Voted Not To Authorize The President. Russert asked, "But if you had been a senator at that time, you would have voted not to authorize President Bush to go to war?" Obama said, "I would have voted not to authorize the president given the facts as I saw them at that time." [Meet The Press, 7/25/04]

OCT 2004: Obama Said Leap Of Logic To Connect Faulty Intelligence And
Invading Iraq. The Pantagraph wrote, "Obama said Keyes is the one who doesn't understand the problems associated with President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. `Ambassador Keyes may have better intelligence than I do,' Obama said. `But the CIA, Paul Bremer, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell have all indicated that they could not find a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, that weapons of mass destruction are not found in Iraq and so it is absolutely true that we have a network of terrorists, but it takes a huge leap of logic to suddenly suggest that means that we invade Iraq.'" [Pantagraph, 10/17/04]

OCT 2004: Obama Would Have Voted Against The War. The Daily Herald wrote, "If Barack Obama had been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he'd have voted against giving the president authority to invade Iraq." [Chicago Daily Herald, 10/18/04]

OCT 2004: Obama Still Thinks Iraq War Was A Terrible Idea. The Rockford
Register Star wrote, "Obama has long been vocal about his opposition to the war in Iraq. `I still think it was a terrible idea.'" [Rockford Register Star, 10/24/04]

OCT 2004: Obama Said It Is Important To Take A Position And Stick To It. The Tribune wrote, "One of the things I think is important for Democrats to do is to take a position and stick to it as opposed to bending over and then whining about it afterwards...When we do that we look not only weak but also petty and I would rather lose some fights by standing up for something than give in on some issues and then afterwards try to give a hard time to the person who beat us." [Chicago Tribune, 10/26/04]

NOV 2004: Obama Said That He Has Consistently And From The Beginning
Opposed The Iraq War. Charlie Rose Asked: On Iraq, you opposed, made no question about it. Would the Democratic Party have been better off if a candidate had from the beginning opposed the war? Obama replied: Right. Hindsight is 20/20. I know what worked for me was consistency in my message...You know, what I was able to say was, I've looked at the evidence. I'm a hawk when it comes to defeating terrorism. I was strongly supportive of Afghanistan. I would have picked up arms myself to prevent 9/11 again. I don't think the president has made the case on Iraq, because I don't see weapons of mass destruction...I said this in October of -- October of 2002, six months before the war was launched. I said, I don't see -- the evidence is paltry about the weapons of mass destruction. I don't see a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." [Charlie Rose Show, 11/23/04]

NOV 2004: Obama Unequivocally Opposed Iraq War. Time Magazine wrote,
"Obama walks a careful line on every issue, not just race. He delivers crowd-pleasing attacks on George W. Bush, the outsourcing of jobs and the Iraq war (which he unequivocally opposed from the beginning), but he always accessorizes with a reasonable caveat. His stump speeches call for more federal dollars for Illinois highways and schools. But he disarms critics by talking early and often about the limits of government." [Time Magazine, 11/15/04]

Posted by F.Igwealor | January 14, 2008 4:13 PM

"Here's there back-up:"

That would be "their," by the way. The Clintons will say, distort, rewrite, argue, complain, manipulate, lie, or basically do ANYTHING to be elected. Don't we all know this?

You can cite a statistic, take a quote out of context, and spin anything you want. All they are trying to do is deflect attention from HRC's deficiences. Sad and sick, especially if ignorant voters (her specialty)fall for it.

Posted by Amy | January 14, 2008 4:29 PM

Barack Obama TOOK A STAND against the IRAQ INVASION when it MATTERED.

Hillary Clinton PLAYED politics when it MATTERED.

Everything else is just BUNK !

Posted by PulSamsara | January 14, 2008 4:34 PM

Despite reservations, why did Hillary vote to authorize the use of U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq?

Compare the floor speech of Senator Hillary Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, “A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq” (October 10, 2002) to State Senator Barack Obama’s speech against going to war with Iraq (October 2, 2002).

Let’s see…They both believe that Saddam Hussein is evil and that he has “developed” chemical and biological weapons. They both believe that Hussein is “working” to develop nuclear weapons. They both reject the Bush doctrine of preventive war and agree that the consequences of unilateral military action would “set a precedent that could come back to haunt us” and “only fan the flames of the Middle East.” They both believe that the best option at the time is to continue the foreign policy of containment and deterrence and work through the UN. They both clearly understand the consequences of going to war—that “After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predicable” (CLINTON) and “a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences” (OBAMA).

One can only ask: Why did Hillary vote to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq despite all of her expressed reservations, despite her “eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation”? If it was truly the “hardest decision” she ever had to make, why did she cast her vote “with conviction”? Why did she not join the other 23 Senate and 133 House members who voted against the resolution? Why did she vote to put the “awesome responsibility” of war in “the hands” of George Bush?

The reason… With one eye on the 2008 election, Hillary’s needed to appear tough on national security; Hillary Clinton has become a “classic national-security Democrat.”

In his article entitled, “Here Hillary Stands: Love her position on the war or hate it, you can’t argue that she’s waffled. And isn’t that what we want in a politican?,” Chris Smith states:

“Hillary Clinton has long been more hawkish than her husband, implying that she favored finishing off Saddam during the first Gulf War and, more recently, talking tough about Iran. “She is probably more assertive and willing to use force than her husband,” says Richard Holbrooke, the former envoy for Bill Clinton. “Hillary Clinton is a classic national-security Democrat.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/citypolitic/17399/

Posted by REB | January 14, 2008 5:37 PM

This is like the run up to the war all over again. The president and his administration spout lie after lie, and like an obedient stenographer, the media merely spits it out as if it were gospel, with no input, no fact check, no time put in at all to justify their claim to the laughable title of journalist .

I happen to like this column and Marc's work, but here he is falling right in line with the rest of the sorry excuse for a 4th Estate we now have.

It is rather sad that commenters have to do the work for the author. Thank you, F.Igwealor. If Marc had any integrity, he'd send you his paycheck for this week.

If no one has seen the similarity of Senator Clinton's campaign tactics to Karl Rove's, then you'd better start paying attention. What's worse, the tactics are being used against a member of her own party. Her actions are some of the most disgraceful I've seen in a primary race in my entire lifetime, and I am 56 years old.

Posted by Terri | January 14, 2008 6:24 PM

So Clinton's campaign provides documented evidence that what a foreign policy advisor speaking for the Obama campaign said was patently false, and ....

the Obamakinders blame Clinton.

Ok.

Posted by ken | January 14, 2008 6:41 PM

OBAMA: It is a little frustrating for the president to _ the former president _ to continually repeat this notion that somehow I didn’t know where I stood in 2004 about the war. He keeps on giving half the quote. I was always against the war. The quote he keeps on feeding back was an interview on Meet the Press at the National Convention when Tim was asking, `Given your firm opposition to the war, what do you make of the fact that your nominee for president and vice president didn’t have that same foresight.’ And obviously I didn’t want to criticize them on the eve of their nomination.

So I said, `Well, I don’t know what _ you know, I wasn’t in the Senate. I can’t say for certain what I would have done if I was there. I know that from where I stood the case was not made.’ He always leaves that out.

“And you know, I understand why he’s frustrated. But at some point since we’ve corrected him repeatedly on this and he keeps on repeating it, you know it tells me that he’s just more interested in trying to muddy the waters than actually talk fairly about my record.”

Posted by sc | January 14, 2008 7:26 PM

Obama is superior to Clinton on the Iraq War.

You are kidding yourself if you can't see the inconsistencies in Pbama's rhetoric and rationale and his changing positions on defunding, timetables and withdrawal plan.

Posted by JJ&M | January 14, 2008 9:29 PM

SHAME ON YOU, Hillary! Just stop it now, before you dig your own political grave too deep.

Posted by Prantha | January 15, 2008 5:01 PM

YET ANOTHER CLINTON DISTORTION UNCOVERED.
I'M TIRED OF THIS.
I AM NOW FIRMLY WITH THOSE WHO PROCLAIMED ANYBODY BUT HILLARY.

CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE! HILLARY, PLEASE GO AWAY!!!!!!!

Posted by Janet W | January 15, 2008 5:58 PM

What I simply don't understand is how Obama supporters will provide a comprehensive explanation, and then Clinton supporters will toss out the same trite phrases that don't vary at all in face of the evidence. Obama supporters take the accusations and provide a counterexample, evidence to the contrary. Clinton supporters take the counterexample and make the original accusation all over again as if that's a satisfactory response.

I came into this election unbiased and uninterested. I was unsure about Hillary, and just kind of figured she'd be the one to win. When Obama won the Iowa caucus, I became more interested because I didn't know who he was. I read pro-Clinton news sources and pro-Obama news sources and pro-Edwards news sources, I read news sources that claimed to be unbiased, I read news sources favoring the right-wing, and news sources delineating the Republican candidates' views on Obama and Clinton. I watched the debates, saw their intereactions first-hand. Listened to the ads, followed the blogs.

Obama has made mistakes and said things I disagree with, made choices I think were foolish and unbecoming, and it does not make Obama look better to say 'Clinton started it' if Obama started to fight her back. But throughout my entire watch on this race, the Clintons, interestingly enough, have been full of action just like they say they would be: they say the exact same things over and over again, at every opportunity they get. Obama takes a far less aggressive approach, and his words actually go somewhere, his words engage, and his words enlighten.

Every fact checked on Obama has found him telling the truth, with the exception of perhaps his changed stance on health care. Every attack levied has been by the Clintons. When the accusations of the Clintons are proven-proven, mind you- by the media and 'fact-checkers' to either be distortions, spins, twists, or simply false, the Clintons claim Obama is getting favored by the media. I'm not so naive as to say the media favors the truth unconditionally, but a simple assembly of facts and records shows quite unceremoniously and bluntly that the claims the Clintons make simply don't make sense, and I am consistently confused as to how people, who appear to be reading these articles, have so much faith in the Clintons- one a proven liar, who faced impeachment because of it- that they take their words as canon over the words of the media.

It really does surprise me.

Posted by Thomas | January 27, 2008 10:12 PM