Skip to content
Categories:

Bill Clinton’s Own Fairy Tales on Obama’s Views on Iraq

Post date:
Author:

Guest Post by Ron Chusid

Some of the posts on Saturday dealt with the inevitable attacks which the Democratic candidate will face and whether they will be prepared to respond. There was an example of a response to an attack from the Obama camp on Saturday night as Dick Durbin defended Obama against recent attacks from Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton has stated that Obama’s claims of opposing the war from the start were a fairy tale. The Politico reports on a call received from Durbin disputing this and defending Obama:

“I’m really troubled by his questioning the sincerity of Barack Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq,” Durbin said. “I really think it is unfortunate to question Barack’s sincerity on the war. He has been there from the start, opposing this war.”

The unsolicited comments — in a phone call to Politico from Springfield, Ill. — were a sign that the Obama campaign is going to react aggressively to perceived attacks on the senator’s character…

Durbin suggested that the former president has been giving somewhat revisionist accounts on the way the Iraq war debate played out.

“It was not easy to be against that war back when we cast that vote in October of 2002,” Durbin said. “I was one of 23 who voted against the war. Barack was supportive — one of the few candidates speaking out strongly against it in Illinois.

“If President Clinton had opposed that war as strongly as Barack Obama at the time, it would have helped a lot of us who had voted against authorizing an invasion.”

Obama made his views on Iraq clear in a speech on October 2, 2002:

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.
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.

Clinton based his attacks on Obama on statements in which Obama avoided criticism of Kerry and Edwards for their votes in favor of the Iraq War Resolution before the 2004 convention, but Obama never wavered in his opposition to going to war. Bill Clinton made similar claims last March which were debunked by The New York Times:

In 2002, in the weeks before and after the Senate voted on the war resolution, Mr. Obama, then a state senator, took a strong antiwar line, popular in his liberal Chicago district, and repeatedly said President Bush ”has not made his case for going into Iraq.”

Bill Sargent at TPM Election Central also reviewed the statements by Obama that Bill Clinton took out of context to make his claims and concluded:

It’s perfectly clear that Obama was in fact against the war at the time. His position then — as now — was that the case for war had not been made and that the invasion wasn’t justified.

Bill Clinton has not only been telling fairy tales of his own with regards to Obama’s position on the war, but has also told fairy tales about his own views. In November The Washington Post questioned Clinton’s claims that he had “opposed Iraq from the beginning.” Hillary Clinton’s record isn’t very good either. Last month Foreign Policy in Focus reviewed her views on the war dating back to the pre-war days, which show a stark contrast from the anti-war views expressed by Obama above. Reviewing Hillary’s record shows why Bill Clinton might want to revise history, but his fairy tales do not change the past.

(Cross posted at Liberal Values)

Comments

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    [RC: You misspelled Durbin your first graph.]

    Note to Senators who voted for the war: We understand that you made a mistake, you weren’t in on BushBrat’s little prank and were fooled by a lying bunch of knaves.

    However, if you voted for the war and your opponent was against the war, making up a blatant lie about their support of the war helps … your opponent.

    Shaddup.

    Also: Your potential Democratic voters would appreciate it if you didn’t treat us like knuckledragging know-nothings. If that’s the sort of thing you desire in a constituent, switch parties or go “Independent” like JoeLIEberman.

    Piss off.

  • ej

    says:

    To some extent it is important to know who was for or against the war, when and why,

    May I suggest that what is of more import is what the candidates think in terms of the occupation.

    In that famous table discussion in New Hampshire with Clinton when she choked up she said something in an almost throwaway manner that just screamed out at me. I have not heard any of the media (traditional or new) follow up on it.

    She said something along the lines of – we need to get out of Iraq the proper way.

    What does that mean?

    The “proper” way could mean just about anything including continuing the occupation for thirty years in insure the multinational energy corporations have gotten their profits from the Iraqi oil, or that we continue our presence until a proper puppet is installed as the head of their government, or any other nightmare of a scenario.

    I think the most important thing to know from the candidates in terms of the US occupation of Iraq is how and when they will get us out of there.

  • Racer X

    says:

    I’m sure glad we have a strong candidate to run against the Clintons, if Obama hadn’t gotten into the lead, they would not have gone negative and revealed what a couple of lying jerks they are. Obama wasn’t really against the war? You wish.

    The Clintons realize that their political conniving is biting them on the ass right now, and all they have left is Bill’s cheesy history re-write attempt. For some reason, her “new voice” still can’t say the words “I was wrong when I voted for the Iraq war authorization”.

    Pathetic, and duly noted.

  • jen flowers

    says:

    I’ve often wondered if Bill’s public support for some of George’s decisions actually matches his private opinions. He uniquely understands being a president under siege. From my brief excursions into political activism, I learned that while I tend to be directed toward one issue, politicians can’t be. The compromise involved is staggering. On top of that, Bill wants to be liked. It’s a quality he shares with Barack. Hillary, on the other hand, is accustomed to being hated. Am I the only one who marvels that Bill is beloved and Hillary is hated? And she is accused of staying with Bill only because she wants to be president. Eleanor Roosevelt stayed with FDR. Lady Bird stayed with LBJ. Jackie stayed with JFK. Babs stayed with W’s dad. Admittedly none of these women had a chance to be president, even the ones who might have wanted to. That wasn’t an option for them.

  • Anne

    says:

    So…Obama gets to ride that 2002 speech all the way to the WH without having to explain exactly what he meant when he said later that he didn’t know how he would have voted on that resolution, that there wasn’t a lot of difference between his views and what Bush was doing, and then…there are the Senate votes. He voted for funding, did he not? He voted to renew the Patriot Act, did he not?

    So, the fairy tale is not that he opposed the war in 2002 – it’s that there’s little about what he did in the years following that speech that would have had anyone able to recognize that he was, once upon a time, opposed to the war.

    Listen, I have said time and again that I am not crazy about Hillary – but if we’re going to play this thing fair, Obama needs to be subject to the same kind of scrutiny, needs to be accountable for his own record and his own actions – or lack thereof – as everyone is holding Clinto to.

    What is he afraid of? That when his own record is put side-by-side against Clinton’s that we will all see that maybe his 2002 position doesn’t mean as much as he wants it to? And if that’s the case, why shouldn’t that be on the table now, and defended or justified or explained – and some resolution reached – because as sure as I am tyoing these words, if Obama is the nominee, the GOP will do it for him – andn ot on his terms.

    I don’t know – I am beginning to suspect that a lot of people are allowing selected sound bites and clips and contextual hocus-pocus to suck them in, and failing to do what we all rail against the media for not doing: their homework.

  • Scottw714

    says:

    I have loved Bill from day one, but this campaign has me wishing he just stayed at home. He is embarrassing himself and the man I once thought was ‘above all that’ is slowly slipping into the political slimyness I thought he was above.

    One of Bush’s biggest character flaws is he never owns up to a mistake, Hillary has the same flaw and that is why she will never get my vote. Now her campaign is started to resemble the likes of the Rove campaign. It’s one thing to stretch the truth, that’s politics, but it’s another to flat out lie.

    We know from history that conservative don’t care about the means, to them the ends are what matters. I can only hope liberals will reject this type of means. The ends are important, but I would like to feel we are above lying and cheating to get what we want, what most American’s want.

  • beep52

    says:

    I’ve never been a fan of HRC, and I was furious that she and other Democrats voted for the AUMF. But did she really vote to invade Iraq? Before answering, I’d encourage folks to read her 10/10/02 speech on the Senate floor. If you take her words at face value, it is clear she does not support invading Iraq in the near term, but is casting her vote in order to lend weight to efforts to gain UN support for inspections. Yet, there are indications that she is conflicted which could be interpreted as wanting to have it both ways. In the end, she trusts Bush to use force as a last resort — to my mind, then as now, her ultimate mistake since Bush was obviously hell-bent on invading.

    My point is that it’s not exactly the straightforward endorsement it’s often portrayed to be, just as Obama’s votes to continue funding the war do not constitute support for the war. Anyone who’s served on a school board or local town council knows that one rarely agrees with all aspects of a proposal. You weight the good and bad and, using your best judgment, take a stand — and move on to the next imperfect proposal. So these charges and countercharges are a bit disingenuous.

    As others have said, I’m more interested at this point in what a candidate would do if elected. Nothing HRC has done with regard to Iraq since the AUMF indicates I’d like her approach.

  • OkieFromMuskogee

    says:

    It isn’t water over the dam, and it isn’t pointless sniping either.

    I want a president with judgment good enough to keep us from waging another “dumb war.” Who was right or wrong in 2002 is less important than who will be right in 2009 and beyond.

    John Edwards voted to go to war, but says he made a mistake and has learned from it. To all appearances, Obama would not have voted to go to war. Hillary says that she made the right decision based on what she knew at the time (which was that the Bush Administration said that Saddam had the infamous WMD’s), but there was still ongoing diplomacy and inspection on which the Congressional vote pulled the plug. She was wrong then, and she is still wrong.

    Points for Obama and Edwards on this issue. None for Hillary.

  • Chris

    says:

    I read the Foreign Policy in Focus article referenced above hoping to find the answer to a question I’ve had.

    Giving Hillary Clinton (among others) the benefit of the doubt, she can reasonably argue that the vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq was actually a vote to force Iraq to accept unfettered inspections. If I’m understanding her correctly, she now claims that the authorization was misused when Bush invaded even though the inspections appeared to be working.

    My question is, if this is true, then where was Senator Clinton on the eve of war? Was she standing up and demanding that President Bush allow inspectors to complete the job as Hans Blix was suggesting? According to the article above, the answer is no. She was 100 percent behind the invasion despite the effectiveness of the U.N. inspections. Therefore, her claims regarding the logic behind her vote to authorize the war ring very hollow.

  • independent thinker

    says:

    None of us can truly KNOW what a person will do in the future. All we can do is evaluate their past decisions and public statements and make an educated guess about what each would do for a given issue.

    On the issue of the Iraq War among the leading candidates, Barack Obama has the strongest history, followed by Edwards. Clinton’s choices and public statements put her dead last for this issue. Period. Heck, on this issue Ron Paul is stronger than Clinton. And among the Democratic candidates Kusinich is the strongest.

    But among the cadidates that actually have a chance at the White House, my money goes to Obama.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    Ah yes, the “shiny object” of the Clinton psychodrama continues to distract us from actual issues and discussions of solutions to real problems.

    Having the Presidents Clinton to distract us thus is just what The Other Side wants.

  • Chris

    says:

    I don’t agree that this discussion is a distraction. Senator Clinton wants us to believe that Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq was squishy while her support for the war was contingent upon lack of access on the part of UN inspectors. The evidence tells me, clearly, that Senator Clinton is attempting to mislead us.

    I, for one, have had enough of politicians who think they can benefit from b.s-ing us. Moving away from this kind of representation is the kind of change that many of us are seeking.

  • Dale

    says:

    I think Bill Clinton is screwing up his legacy by playing politics. He should be a silent partner to Hillary’s campaign and he should be out doing good things for the world.

  • Incidental

    says:

    Obama needs to be more forceful in calling out the Clintons. They have distorted his war record and shamefully hid behind surrogates in making their personal attacks. They have run a disgraceful campaign. So many people can see straight through these two.

  • Michael

    says:

    I don’t thinks a very important point has been made enough:

    If we take Clinton’s claims about her non-support of the war on face value, she is, in effect, saying that she did not support the March 20th invasion, no? If she was voting for diplomacy, and shew wanted the inspectors to get more time, etc etc, then…where were the public statements denouncing the war??.

    Look at John Kerry’s record on this matter, and you can find multiple instances of him saying loudly that we needed to slow down the march to war, that Bush was making a mistake, etc etc. Though he voted for the AUMF, his actions between that vote and the invasion were consistent with someone a) who was actually against the invasion, and b) willing to show some leadership on that opposition.

    Obama was also continuing to speak out against hte war at that time.

    Kerry’s and Obama’s behavior in that period stands in stark contrast on Clinton’s silence; silence in criticizing Bush, and silence on disavowing her husband’s op-ed imploring Americans to trust Tony Blair and get on board the war train.

    As such, at best, Hillary’s opposition to the war means that she displayed a stunning lack of leadership on the issue at a time when the Democrats and war opponents desperately needed someone of her stature to show leadership.

    At worst, she’s just plain lying.