Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:25 PM ET, 03/13/2008

Truth-telling on Iraq

By Michael Dobbs


Samantha Power, March 10, 2008.

Barack Obama "will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan -- an operational plan -- that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn't have daily access now...It would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"
--Samantha Power, former Obama adviser, BBC interview, March 6, 2008.

Returning to Washington after a five-day vacation, I am catching up on the Samantha Power resignation, the liaisons dangereuses of Eliot Spitzer, the Mississippi primary, the Geraldine Ferraro brouhaha, and much debate about who is best qualified to answer the phone at 3 a.m. My quick take on all this: next to extra-marital sex, speaking your mind plainly is the easiest way to get yourself into trouble in American politics.

Enough ink has already been spilled on the Spitzer meltdown. But the Power controversy deserves a second look from the Fact Checker as it is an excellent example of the commentator Michael Kinsley's dictum, "a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth."

The Facts

For the past six months on the campaign trail, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been competing against each other for the get-out-of-Iraq-now vote. Both candidates have promised to "end the war" in Iraq within a year of becoming president. But neither Obama nor Clinton have been pinned down on the details of their Iraq withdrawal proposals--or how they will respond to a new upsurge of violence in the country.

Both Obama and Clinton have subtly changed their positions on Iraq, reflecting the demands of the political season. Back in 2006, both senators were opposed to a "firm timetable" for withdrawal, and voted against a John Kerry amendment that would have required the rapid redeployment of U.S. troops. As the presidential election campaign got underway in 2007, both candidates shifted gear, and voted for withdrawal.

Obama was the first to come up with what sounded like a firm withdrawal plan in September 2007, proposing to have all combat troops out of Iraq "by the end of next year." He criticized Clinton for failing to come up with a "clear timetable" for withdrawal. Goaded by her rival, Clinton also promised in the MSNBC debate from Las Vegas on January 15 to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq by the end of 2009.

Both Democratic candidates have been very vague on what they would do if, as seems likely, the Iraqi security situation deteriorates following the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Obama says he will send U.S. troops back into Iraq to prevent "genocide" or to stop al-Qaeda from establishing a base inside the country. But this makes little sense. Why pull U.S. troops out of Iraq only to send them back in under more difficult circumstances? Obama did not have a good answer to GOP candidate John McCain who pointed out that al-Qaeda is already in Iraq, and will certainly take advantage of a U.S. pullout.

It took a pair of British television interviewers to expose the contradictions in Obama's position. Harvard professor Samantha Power was forced to acknowledge the obvious in back-to-back interrogations by the BBC's Jeremy Paxman and Stephen Sackur. Far from being a firm commitment, Obama's promise is a "best case scenario." And as Power conceded to Sackur, the "best case" never happens in Iraq.

Power was promptly disowned by the Obama campaign for injecting a little reality into the debate about withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. The only upside for the Obama campaign was that a senior Clinton adviser, retired Brig. Gen. Jack Keane, had committed a similar "gaffe."

The Pinocchio Test

Backed into a corner by an aggressive British interviewer, Samantha Power committed the cardinal sin of American politics: she told the truth. Her candor earns her a rare, and belated, Geppetto checkmark.

(About our rating scale.)

By Michael Dobbs  | March 13, 2008; 1:25 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama, Candidate Watch, Geppetto's Checkmark, Iraq  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Taxing questions for Clinton
Next: Hillary's Balkan Adventures

Comments

You've misrepresented a few facts yourself in this piece.

1) Samantha Power resigned because of the "monster" comment, not because of anything she said about Iraq.

2) Obama talked about going back into Iraq ONLY in the context of Russert's hypothetical question of whether he would do so if we pulled out and subsequent events there presented substantial new risks to the U.S. Obama has never advocated a mindless withdrawal. He has been perfectly clear in saying that our security interests in the region are our paramount concern. Setting goals for withdrawal is key both to getting everyone to focus on building the elements necessary for a post-occupation Iraq, and for reassuring Iraqis that we don't intend to occupy their country forever (resentment of us being a significant source of instability). Obama has also been clear about the fact that we will likely have a significant presence in Iraq for some time after "combat troops" are withdrawn to manage various threats, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Russert hypothetical was just something McCain latched onto to try to suggest that Obama would withdraw recklessly, just to get out (which probably would have been a fair criticism of Paul or Kucinich). It is utterly disingenuous for you to pretend otherwise.

Posted by: illinois2 | March 13, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

It would do both democrats a good deal to have nuanced views about the war. You can have both been against the war, be against the war, and realize that there is no simple answer.

Until Americans are willing to vote for people who tell them the truth they can't expect it from their elected officials.

Additionally, it seems that she was actually canned due to the "monster" comment rather than the Iraq gaff. And while I do appreciate her candor about Iraq, I do not think that the "monster" comment was appropriate nor befitting someone who generally looks at things more indulgently.

Posted by: Gil | March 13, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

It's as real shame that such a bright and honest person was a casualty of this primary season. I think any future administration, and the American people, are the ones hurt most by Samantha Power's departure.

Posted by: Justin | March 13, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

oups - typo not indulgently rather intelligently

Posted by: Gil | March 13, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

don't worry - she'll (Power) be back. Once Obama wins the presidency, he'll bring her back into his fold. It's just the current Dem situation that forced her out... silliness yes, but so it goes right?

Posted by: The Good News | March 13, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Another important line that I feel Senator Obama made that has been ignored completely by everyone was 'we will be as careful getting out, as we were careless getting in.' This would seem to be in direct support of what Prof. Powers said.

Posted by: JB in Tejas | March 13, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

residing in the uk, lucky to be awake and hear Samantha Power's interview in full. She is widely experienced in trouble spots in Africa and Asia, she is capable of studying carefully all sides of the most difficult questions to be faced for US in the world today.

Yes, I rather think she did tell the truth when she called Ms.Clinton a monster, anyone supporting Obama at this point must feel the same.

As for getting out of Iraq there are no simple answers. Unless you support Gung-ho McCain and propose a hundred years occupation; that will really make us popular with the locals.

Posted by: soupdragon | March 14, 2008 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts
Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder

WASHINGTON - Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

Posted by: procco | March 14, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

An exceptional column.

I praise the Fact Checker for writing:

"But this makes little sense. Why pull U.S. troops out of Iraq only to send them back in under more difficult circumstances?"

I've never read anything in the MSM "news" pages that pointed out that simple fact. Withdrawal has its downside, and the anti-war zealots don't want people to realize that.

Obama is unfit for office, and his lofty wishes for Iraq policy should not be confused with implementations.

Posted by: The Angry One | March 14, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Hope you had a great vacation. Don't forget this tangent on the whole Spitzer mess:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/11/dr-laura-blames-spitzers-_n_90994.html

Posted by: JakeD | March 14, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Seriously guys, America can no longer afford to spend billions of dollars that China has loaned it on a war that it cannot win. Whoever is elected will have to borrow the air fare home and get out.

Posted by: Hairysteve20 | March 14, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Michael Dobbs, you wrote above "But the Power controversy deserves a second look from the Fact Checker as it is an excellent example of the commentator Michael Kinsley's dictum, "a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth."

Would the same criteria apply to the flap that Geraldine Ferraro caused by her remarks about Obama? She made a gaffe by telling the truth. And it has been turned against her by declaring her a racist and being disparaging to all Black Americans. Also, her remarks have been taken out of context and the only focus has been on her sound bite comment.

Posted by: David2007 | March 15, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"Why pull US troops out only to send them back in under more difficult circumstances?"

??? Am I reading this right? Is Fact Checker suggesting we keep Americans in harm's way for "convenience" sake? I bet our troops would prefer being "kept" here, where we might also need them. Clinton sent troops into Bosnia "under difficult cirmcumstances" and nobody bemoaned that we didn't have troops rusting there already. Am I missing something?

Posted by: jhbyer | March 15, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

the whole premise of your article is wrong as Power resigned for calling Clinton a "monster". that's the reason she left the campaign, unless you have some other "facts" to show otherwise.

Posted by: squashya | March 15, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

the whole premise of your article is wrong as Power resigned for calling Clinton a "monster". that's the reason she left the campaign, unless you have some other "facts" to show otherwise.

Posted by: squashya | March 15, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Please fact check Jack Keane's rank. He retired as a four-star general, not a one-star (brigadier).

Posted by: jcb_iraq | March 16, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

Before you allege to "check" the facts, you could at least research them. You need to read the transcript and watch the videos. The transcript is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?sq=obama%20clinton%20debate%20transcript&st=nyt&scp=1&pagewanted=all

It was the Cleveland debate that John McCain admittedly didn't see or hear to which he responded, and it was the Cleveland debate that the press has repeatedly mis-reported and mis-characterized. And now that you are reading second and third hand reports, you are making the same mistakes.

You have mis-represented the facts and the context. In the famous series of questions posed during the Cleveland debate Tim Russert creates hypothetical scenarios that make presumptions that are not of the candidates making.


"MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about the future -- let me talk the future about Iraq, because this is important, I think, to Democratic voters particularly. You both have pledged the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. YOU BOTH HAVE SAID YOU'D KEEP A RESIDUAL FORCE THERE TO PROTECT OUR EMBASSY, TO SEEK OUT AL QAEDA, TO NEUTRALIZE IRAN [my emphasis] .....

If the Iraqi government said, President Clinton or President Obama, you're pulling out your troops this quickly? You're going to be gone in a year, but you're going to leave a residual force behind? No. Get out. GET OUT NOW. If you don't want to stay and protect us, we're a sovereign nation. GO HOME NOW, Will you leave?"

...


SEN. OBAMA: Well, if the Iraqi government says that we should not be there, then we cannot be there. This is a sovereign government, as George Bush continually reminds us


Both Clinton and Obama said and implicitly confirmed during the debate that they would leave residual combat forces ... "to seek out Al Qaeda etc." in response to the Russert hypothetical.

The reason that ALL troops were withdrawn in the Russert hypothetical was not because Obama or Clinton withdrew them but because in the Russert hypothetical IRAQ ORDERED THEM OUT.

The question is not about withdrawal, its about re-invasion withou respecting Iraqi sovereignty and whether Clintion and Obama would (re-)invade a sovereign Iraqi state, without permission, to protect US interests.


"MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we -- if this [prior hypothetical] scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total [because the residual force was ordered out by Iraq in his hypothetical scenario] and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe that what's ....

Posted by: collacch | March 16, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Before you allege to "check" the facts, you could at least research them. You need to read the transcript and watch the videos. The transcript is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?sq=obama%20clinton%20debate%20transcript&st=nyt&scp=1&pagewanted=all

It was the Cleveland debate that John McCain admittedly didn't see or hear to which he responded, and it was the Cleveland debate that the press has repeatedly mis-reported and mis-characterized. And now that you are reading second and third hand reports, you are making the same mistakes.

You have mis-represented the facts and the context. In the famous series of questions posed during the Cleveland debate Tim Russert creates hypothetical scenarios that make presumptions that are not of the candidates making.


"MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about the future -- let me talk the future about Iraq, because this is important, I think, to Democratic voters particularly. You both have pledged the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. YOU BOTH HAVE SAID YOU'D KEEP A RESIDUAL FORCE THERE TO PROTECT OUR EMBASSY, TO SEEK OUT AL QAEDA, TO NEUTRALIZE IRAN [my emphasis] .....

If the Iraqi government said, President Clinton or President Obama, you're pulling out your troops this quickly? You're going to be gone in a year, but you're going to leave a residual force behind? No. Get out. GET OUT NOW. If you don't want to stay and protect us, we're a sovereign nation. GO HOME NOW, Will you leave?"

...


SEN. OBAMA: Well, if the Iraqi government says that we should not be there, then we cannot be there. This is a sovereign government, as George Bush continually reminds us


Both Clinton and Obama said and implicitly confirmed during the debate that they would leave residual combat forces ... "to seek out Al Qaeda etc." in response to the Russert hypothetical.

The reason that ALL troops were withdrawn in the Russert hypothetical was not because Obama or Clinton withdrew them but because in the Russert hypothetical IRAQ ORDERED THEM OUT.

The question is not about withdrawal, its about re-invasion withou respecting Iraqi sovereignty and whether Clintion and Obama would (re-)invade a sovereign Iraqi state, without permission, to protect US interests.


"MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we -- if this [prior hypothetical] scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total [because the residual force was ordered out by Iraq in his hypothetical scenario] and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe that what's ....

Posted by: collacch | March 16, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

You write: "But this makes little sense. Why pull U.S. troops out of Iraq only to send them back in under more difficult circumstances"

You have mis-represented the facts and the context. The transcript is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?sq=obama%20clinton%20debate%20transcript&st=nyt&scp=1&pagewanted=all

In the famous series of questions posed during the Cleveland debate Tim Russert creates hypothetical scenarios that make presumptions that are not of the candidates making. In Russert's hypothetical, troops are not pulled out by Clinton or Obama policy, they are ORDERED out, by IRAQ as an assumption of Russert's first question:


"MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about the future -- let me talk the future about Iraq, because this is important, I think, to Democratic voters particularly. You both have pledged the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. YOU BOTH HAVE SAID YOU'D KEEP A RESIDUAL FORCE THERE TO PROTECT OUR EMBASSY, TO SEEK OUT AL QAEDA, TO NEUTRALIZE IRAN [my emphasis] .....

If the Iraqi government said, President Clinton or President Obama, you're pulling out your troops this quickly? You're going to be gone in a year, but you're going to leave a residual force behind? No. Get out. GET OUT NOW. If you don't want to stay and protect us, we're a sovereign nation. GO HOME NOW, Will you leave?"

...


Russert then follows up with a question about re-invasion.


"MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we -- if this [prior hypothetical] scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total [because the residual force was ordered out by Iraq in his hypothetical scenario] and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe that what's ....

Posted by: collacch | March 16, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

You write: "But this makes little sense. Why pull U.S. troops out of Iraq only to send them back in under more difficult circumstances"

You have mis-represented the facts and the context. The transcript is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?sq=obama%20clinton%20debate%20transcript&st=nyt&scp=1&pagewanted=all

Obama and Clinto are both responding to hypothetical assumptions posed by Russert in a series of questions. Russert's hypothetical, troops are not pulled out by Clinton or Obama policy, they are ORDERED out, by IRAQ as an assumption of Russert's first question:


"MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about the future -- let me talk the future about Iraq, because this is important, I think, to Democratic voters particularly. You both have pledged the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. YOU BOTH HAVE SAID YOU'D KEEP A RESIDUAL FORCE THERE TO PROTECT OUR EMBASSY, TO SEEK OUT AL QAEDA, TO NEUTRALIZE IRAN [my emphasis] .....

If the Iraqi government said, President Clinton or President Obama, you're pulling out your troops this quickly? You're going to be gone in a year, but you're going to leave a residual force behind? No. Get out. GET OUT NOW. If you don't want to stay and protect us, we're a sovereign nation. GO HOME NOW, Will you leave?"

...


Russert then follows up with a question about re-invasion.


"MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we -- if this [prior hypothetical] scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total [because the residual force was ordered out by Iraq in his hypothetical scenario] and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe that what's ....

Posted by: collacch | March 16, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

You misrepresented Obama's policy. In the Cleveland debate he was responded to hypothetical scenarios whose assumptions were constructed by Russert. Read the transcripts.

"MR. RUSSERT: ... You both have pledged the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. YOU BOTH HAVE SAID YOU'D KEEP A RESIDUAL FORCE THERE TO PROTECT OUR EMBASSY, TO SEEK OUT AL QAEDA, TO NEUTRALIZE IRAN. [my emphasis] If the Iraqi government said, President Clinton or President Obama, you're pulling out your troops this quickly? You're going to be gone in a year, but you're going to leave a residual force behind? No. Get out. GET OUT NOW. If you don't want to stay and protect us, we're a sovereign nation. GO HOME NOW, Will you leave?"

[Both candidates answer, essentially, yes.]

"MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we -- if this [prior hypothetical] scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total [because the residual force was ordered out by Iraq in his hypothetical scenario] and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe that what's ....

Posted by: collacch | March 16, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Test.

Posted by: collacch | March 16, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

90-Minute mp3 of the audio of Obama and the Chicago Tribune reporters: http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/mp3/2008-03/36769266.mp3

This includes Rezko, Wright, Ferraro, Powers, Liquidity, etc.

Powers and nuanced Iraq withdrawal policy can be found at 1:15:17 of the mp3

Posted by: collacch | March 16, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse


From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/making-turn.html

Monday, March 17, 2008
Making The Turn: Clinton's Newest Move--And How Obama Can Respond

In a speech today at George Washington University, Hillary Clinton indicated the next clever move of the Clinton camp--making a turn from attack on Obama by insinuation and surrogates, to a serious and detailed speech on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, leveled largely against Bush and McCain. Having drawn Obama out to respond to the attacks, the plan is clearly to now outflank, moving forward on the issue of Iraq, thus leaving Obama standing amid the mire of the attacks while also attempting to underscore the foreign policy "experience" argument and to turn the narrative towards the general.

Wearing an incongruously joyous shamrock-covered scarf, Clinton spoke in even and leveled "3. a.m." tones of soldiers "who have made the ultimate sacrifice" and who have "experienced wounds both visible and invisible to their bodies, their minds and their hearts."

That President Bush seems to want to keep as many troops after the surge as before...is a clear admission that the surge has not accomplished its goals. Meanwhile, as we continue to police Iraq's civil war, the to our national security, our economy, and our standing in the world continue to mount." She then tied the ongoing expense in Iraq to her core domestic issues--health care for the uninsured, pre-K for children, solving the housing crisis, providing support for college students, and offering tax relief.

Repeatedly tying the failed policy of Bush to that of McCain, and citing chairman of the J.C.S. Mullen, she invoked the "unescapable reality"--we can have troops on the ground for 100 years--but there is no political solution" to the war in Iraq.

The payoff: "Withdrawal is not defeat--defeat is keeping troops in iraq for 100 years. Defeat is straining our alliances and losing our standing in the world. Defeat is losing our reseources and diverting attention from our key interests."

A deft move. As Obama prepares to level strong attacks against Clinton in response to the onslaught of the previous weeks, Clinton is now premptively changing the message and focus to Bush, McCain, the war in Iraq, and withdrawal. Underscoring the latter is certain to draw media attention, and is intended tactically to leave Obama standing in the echo of his return attacks, in the potential position of being a step behind, with the questions of Clinton, however legitimate, unanswered. After having leveled the most broad-brush attacks against Obama, the Clinton camp is now attempting to place Obama in the perceived position of leveling attacks, rather than dealing, as they now happen to be, "with the serious issues of the day."

What Obama can do:

Do *not* avoid Clinton's newest turn. Instead, come strong--having first *tied* Clinton's speech to the questions that will now be raised about her, e.g.

Hillary Clinton, has raised questions about fitness for office--at the same time that, as the person running second in this contest, she has said that I would make an excellent Vice President. She has questioned my experience, when she has less experience governing, and key figures from her husband's Administration who were with her at the time have that that experience did not occur. We know the other charges that have been leveled.

Now, when Mrs. Clinton is having questions raised about herself, serious questions about her own fitness for governance, about her own "experience", about her own--let's say politely veracity, in statements that she has made and is making, now--she would like to change the discussion. Now--she would like to focus on the "serious issues".

Well, I have to wonder. I know...I know...this is just her newest change, the newest hoodwink...but, still, I just have to wonder. Where was she when we were focusing on the serious issues? Where was she focusing he concerns when Congress took the vote on Iraq? Where has she been when we have been focusing week after week on the serious issues of resolving the war in Iraq, on providing security for our nation?

Just what will her next change be, next week? Do we want a President who does not know what she will say from week to week? Who does not know who she will be at 3 a.m."

And so on.

Instead of letting her simply make the turn, and playing catch-up, let her make her turn--and then box her within it, by tying it to and framing it within the context of her previous changes and actions.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/making-turn.html

Posted by: Robert Hewson | March 17, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

No Column on Obama's lies about his connections to Rezko?
No column on Obama's ties to the hate filled preacher Wright?

you all are very dependably hard for Obama

Posted by: newagent99 | March 17, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

People are responding as though it was Hillary alone that authorized the war in Irag-why? How quickly we forget that after 9/11 there were a majority of us that wanted that war. The authorization to go to Irag was not the problem, remember that we believed there were weapons of mass destruction and that we could in fact find Osama. The problem with the war in Iraq is Bush. The fact that he has extended this war to go beyond our original perception. He is the one that has questions to answer, not Hillary or the majority of Senators that authorized the entry. They reacted and approved authorization in response to the facts at the time. How do you look into the faces of people who lossed there loved ones in 9/11 and say "sorry," we believe we know who did this and that they may come after us again, but the cost to find them, to prevent another attack is too great, so here we will remain until they "find us" again. We all watched that horrible day on television, we all know how this began. The reality is that at the time, most of us wanted that war. So please retire this useless attack on Hillary. Obama opposed the war as a citizen this is true, but he didn't have the official responsibility of having to address those families, of being held accountable. Opinions come easily when they are about other people, don't they? For the sake of the democratic party in general, remember that it is Bush that needs to be held accountable, not our democratic candidates.

Posted by: y.caraballo | March 17, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

What Power said isn't objectively true. She was speculating and offering an opinion.

Posted by: JD | March 17, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

FORMER GOP SENATOR RIPS HILLARY AS 'BUSH ENABLER'...
Many voting for Clinton to boost GOP Boston Globe
Clinton struggles with loss of black support...
CLINTON NOW SAYS 'WE CANNOT WIN' IRAQ WAR WHICH WAS ALSO TRUE WHEN SHE VOTED FOR SAME...
http://www.albertpeia.com
http://www.albertpeia.com/currentopics10108.htm
http://www.albertpeia.com/wallstreetlunacy10108.htm

Posted by: alpeia | March 17, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Once again, we are left with the uneducated view that Hillary alone was the pivotal vote that led us into war.

If you really want to do some "fact checking" - why not report on how Obama voted, er didn't vote..er.. wasn't present... for these votes he is claiming to have made since 2004?

As far as who is fit to make this decision to withdraw or not withdraw .. I think that Hillary and Obama have both admitted in several debates that we cannot leave tomorrow, but with a gradual draw down of troops' presence.

How to pay for it? Well that's really where Bush is leaving the incoming President holding a fat minefield to hand off. Especially given his latest action to let the Fed intervene in the Bear-Stearns failure.

Come on folks -- lets quit bickering over soundbytes and focus on the facts; shame on you Mr. Dobbs -- looks like you did this article during a coffee break... give us some real fact checking next time OK?

Posted by: IllinoisVoter | March 17, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Can felon Bill Clinton vote in this election? Here's wondering where the debate is on this subject.

Posted by: rentamob | March 25, 2008 2:13 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company