Quantcast

Obama said, "...if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad..." would have Obama been against invading Iraq? (do NOT answer unless you read description)

Snowball 2008/02/27 17:14:00
Obama would NOT have voted against the bill.  His own words from the debate show he would have supported it.
Yes, Obama has magical powers that allow him to know when intel is inaccurate.
After praising the intel that Bush used to kill the #3 Al Qaida leader in Pakistan, it seems he is no longer suspicious of Bush intel--unless something bad come of it.  He can tell which Bush intel is good, and which is bad.
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Obama has been critical of Senator Clinton's voting for "Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002". But would he have made the right decision had he been in the Senate? Or is he just using people's emotions to discredit Senator Clinton...instead of facts. Obama's claim that other intel being available to make the "right" decision is simply not true, otherwise as a well informed, researching, anti war protester and leader, he himself, should have been calling Senators and the media to voice his concerns about "other intel"-not JUST that he didn't believe in the invasion.

At the debate, Obama stated, " I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad...but if they are planning attacks on Americans, like what happened in 9/11, it is my job -- it will be my job as president to make sure that we are hunting them down."

That being said, consider the actual following words, in the bill for "Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002", and decide if Obama would have voted against it, considering the potential consequences on the country, as well as politically, of unknown future attacks.

Public Law 107-243 Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002. This bill states:

…after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a UN sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant which Iraq unequivocally agreed…to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism…Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles...Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the US and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach…of its obligations by…continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting harboring terrorist organizations;
…the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people
Whereas members of Al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for the attacks on the US, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on 9/11/01, are known to be in Iraq. Whereas, Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the US or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the US and its citizens from such an attack, combin to justify action by the US to defend itself…United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660…to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peasce and security, indcluding the development of WMD’s and refusal or obstruction of the UN weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687.

Would have Obama, voted against this bill, to act on the above, based on unchallenged intelligence?
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • THINK 2008/02/28 03:25:14
    None of the above
    THINK
    +5
    This whole issue of him saying he did not vote to go into Iraq, is really a little deceptive. First he was not even in the Senate to vote then, so who knows how he would have voted if he had been pressured by Washington politics to vote the way of everyone else in his party. Hinesight is 20 20, there were many Americans that beleived it was a bad idea to go into Iraq, does that make them Presidential material? If he were sitting in the Senate and stood up and made the decision to vote no on the bill, then it would have credibility and substance anybody can voice an opinion. That's all he did nothing more.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • jtrasap Snowball 2008/02/27 20:49:35
    jtrasap
    +1
    First off...quoting the New York Times is a horrible mistake if your trying to argue for Hillary. They are so Hillary biased that it's not going to be to hard to disprove anything the print!!
  • BITE ME! Snowball 2008/02/27 22:39:05
    BITE ME!
    You go girl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
  • jtrasap BITE ME! 2008/02/28 03:08:15 (edited)
    jtrasap
    bite me.....That's all Clinton has dragging her along....you put it perfect.

    "You go girl!!!!!!!"(<----sarcasm)
    It seems lately quite a few of those "girls" are seeing threw the fake tears, the falsified cheap shots, and the all for more for big business less for the people politician that Hillary Clinton is. They are realizing that they sure as heck don't want someone as digraceful as Hillary Clinton representing them as the first woman president. If I were you girls I would fold my cards and wait for a better hand! If she were to get in the White House, it wouldn't be long before people started seeing the real Hillary and you can be sure that she wouldn't get a second term. You girls need to look at who these politicians are throwing our tax money at and how much...
    Hillary is pushing her stance against the war...yet her biggest campaign contributions are from within the defense industry. This year...Hillary added $340,000,000 in pork to our defense bill!!
  • BITE ME! jtrasap 2008/02/28 03:15:25
    BITE ME!
    +1
    Hillary will ruin any chance for a woman with the brains to get in office. She by herself will set women back ten years.
  • BITE ME! BITE ME! 2008/02/28 03:12:06
    BITE ME!
    the you go girl was for Janet
  • Headhunter 13 2008/02/27 19:11:40
    Yes, Obama has magical powers that allow him to know when intel is inaccurate.
    Headhunter 13
    +4
    I really believe he does have magical powers how else would he get so many to swallow his bullshit, misstatements, misconceptions and the fact the he is plainly unqualified.
  • jtrasap Headhun... 2008/02/27 20:12:08
    jtrasap
    +1
    As far as qualifications go, Hillary has only held an elected office for 7 years
    Barack Obama, 12... Barack Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for ten years, that in and of itself is a huge marker as far as experience. Our country rests on it's constitution and teaching college students the ins and outs of it for ten years would make a person pretty well versed on it!! He was also a civil rights lawyer, and was president of the Harvard law review among other things.
  • Headhun... jtrasap 2008/02/27 20:24:42
    Headhunter 13
    +1
    First off you left all of Hillary's not elected experience so that is a nono. Plus UI am not a Hillary supporter.No he held local office with no national or international experince. for most of that time. He was no a professor teaching criminal law he was a lecturer (was it full time or part time) which is a lower level and not an expert and probably on got that through his wife's wifes connections. And a civil rights lawyer for how long and how long a community organiser. Let's just say 5 years at each. Now let's add the up. say he Graduated at the age of 26 or 27 from Harvard law (BTW I worked for Harvard for 5 years myself)

    so let's see 26 + 10 +12 + 5 + 5 = 58 years old does that work out correctly? wait I thought he was only around 44 years old or so. damn he's good.
  • jtrasap Headhun... 2008/02/27 21:03:07 (edited)
    jtrasap
    +1
    You obviously didn't work at harvard!! Wait....let me edit this in here....Maybe as a Janitor?? Ok, Mr Harvard...what was Hillary's "not" elected experience?? She was the wife of a politician!! Thats it!! Oh wait...I forgot she was on an impeachment comity once I believe!! That's about it!! Yes it was part time work!! What do you think a lecturer does?? Teach maybe?? HUH...Mr. Harvard??

    Here...all of that info is right here....
    http://www.barackobama.com/le...
    Now you go get hers and post it so everyone can see her.... lack ....of experience!!
  • Headhun... jtrasap 2008/02/27 21:19:37
    Headhunter 13
    This is what I love about Obama supporters There are not only generally dumbed down but rude and arrogant as well. Amnd love to display it. What part of I am not a Hillary supporter didn't you understand.

    In my years of University experience which I think may be more than yours a few of which were lecturimng. I know the difference but you did not say 10 years as a lecturer. You said 10 years teach and a expert on Consitutional law. Sorry but again you are making an ass of yourself but I guess you are used to that. Let;s ee though se too practiced law sat onb Board of corporations and helped represent our country for 8 years as first lady.
  • jtrasap Headhun... 2008/02/27 21:24:47 (edited)
    jtrasap
    +1
    You can't even spell...I'm really sure you were lecturing at Harvard. I don't give a crap if your a Hillary supporter you came on here spreading untrue crap about Barack Obama...Now prove yourself!!
  • Headhun... jtrasap 2008/02/27 21:30:25 (edited)
    Headhunter 13
    I went to your link and the numbers stiil do not add up. And who the hell do you think you are you half assed little pisant without even the balls to tell any about yours self on your profile or even to vote. so what does do you get paid for harrassing people. I said I worked for Harvard not lectyred there to complicated for you. I was a Research Associate. That is a job you got one?

    As fotr spelling I see you probably do not understand the difefrence between a typo and misspelling but your ignorance shoews in so many other ways that one more would not matter. But let me ask do you have a job other than boot licking Obama?
  • jtrasap Headhun... 2008/02/27 21:32:29
    jtrasap
    +1
    (Headhunter 13)"Let;s ee though se too practiced law sat onb Board of corporations and helped represent our country for 8 years as first lady."

    Lectured at harvard??? Come on now give it up!!
  • Headhun... jtrasap 2008/02/27 21:35:19
    Headhunter 13
    cool you answer before knowing what the hell you are talking about. You are as useless as tits on a bull. later ankle biting little obamaa dog.
  • crsone Headhun... 2008/02/27 23:20:34
    crsone
    +2
    He taught Constitutional law so he is an expert on Constitutional law. He wasn't a professor, and I assume he lectured while he was a civil rights lawyerr. He got his JD when he was 30 years old -- he was a conmmunity organizer before he went to Harvard Law, not after.

    I do think that Sen Clinton's time as First Lady counts for something -- she was an Eleanor Roosevelt sort of First Lady, not a Mamie Eisenhower or, for that matter, Laura Bush sort. I just don't like her "I'm the experienced one" campaign, because while experience is important (my first favorite candidate was Mr Resume -- Bill Richardson), it's not everything.
  • t jtrasap 2008/03/19 19:20:09
  • jtrasap jtrasap 2008/02/27 21:41:39
    jtrasap
    +2
    Oh I see... now you have blocked me. I'm guessing it's because I seen through your crap! And yes you did say that you lectured!!

    (Headhunter 13)"In my years of University experience which I think may be more than yours a few of which were lecturimng."
  • Chocola... jtrasap 2008/02/27 22:03:42 (edited)
    Chocolat-In the universe I trust.
    He is a coward and have real issues with Barack, none are valid because any one who is intelligent and apply common sense can see the bs is hiding their bigotry for him--- they do not want a black president.

    That is it in a nutshell.
  • Headhun... jtrasap 2008/02/27 23:31:06 (edited)
    Headhunter 13
    No I blocked because you are an idiot. I did say I worked for Harvard and I did say I lectured but what I didn't say was that I lectured at Harvard but you assumed I did. At one time I also worked a Year for U of P as a researcher.

    And as for your little psychopathic sidekick below you you Tesor DU DUMDUM. She needs help. After sending me over 80 emails that I tried to be civil with her over she just plained pissed me off with her entitles attitude and her bigotry and racist behavior. Not to mention her abusive language. BTW there is a new poll with the video of Obama staing just over 3 years ago he is inexperienced but even the words from his own mouth will move you two. She even ran away when a another Black woman questioned her she disappeared. Now back to blocking you and your asinine behavior
  • Studied jtrasap 2008/03/09 03:55:04
    Studied
    President of the Harvard law Review that never wrote one Paper.
  • jtrasap Studied 2008/03/13 13:57:25
    jtrasap
    ???
  • kb 2008/02/27 18:46:05
    Obama would NOT have voted against the bill. His own words from the debate s...
    kb
    what a hypocrit! yes he would have voted to use authority...and furthermore he would also have been the one to give the big green light had he been in a position to do so! Hes got alot of nerve coming down on Hillary! Alqueda is always going to be a threat....so what does this mean? Obama will take us back to war if alqueda doesnt cooperate? absolutely he is preying on the emotions of the people of this nation. I liked bill clintons way....get in, take care of business, and leave!
  • Skull-One-225 2008/02/27 18:26:20
    None of the above
    Skull-One-225
    +1
    Sorry, I did not like the choices. While campaigning for the US Senate, Barack did give a speech opposing going to WAR in Iraq. I believe he would have taken the same position. The catch with the PL 107-243 is its ambiguity in defining limits. It did not. I have heard Obama say he would authorize strikes on targets. I have not heard anything bout WAR.
  • wedw3 2008/02/27 18:05:57
    Obama would NOT have voted against the bill. His own words from the debate s...
    wedw3
    +1
    I must be honest if I were in Congress and had this presented to me I would have voted for it.

    Obama would have to.

    I believe if that same legislation was presented today it would still be passed and both would have voted for it.
  • sioux~Proud American 2008/02/27 17:47:26
    Yes, Obama has magical powers that allow him to know when intel is inaccurate.
    sioux~Proud American
    +1
    I think it has already been established that he is a "magical" guru.
  • Kara ~~~ American Patriot 2008/02/27 17:32:51
    Obama would NOT have voted against the bill. His own words from the debate s...
    Kara ~~~ American Patriot
    +4
    If Barack Hussein Obama is as intelligent as he claims he is, he definitely would have believed President Bush about the presence of weapons that cause Mass Destruction in Iraq and gave Bush the go-ahead. Obama would have absolutely voted yes. By the way, Hillary Clinton is not the only Democratic Senator or Democratic Representative that voted yes to go to war with Iraq, based on the given facts. So when Barack Hussein Obama discredits Hillary Clinton, he is discrediting other Democratic officials, and even himself.

    Does anyone know if Senator John Kerry or Senator Edward Kennedy voted yes or no to go to war in Iraq, based on the facts that were presented?
  • Skull-O... Kara ~~... 2008/02/27 18:32:39 (edited)
    Skull-One-225
    +1
    I think he meant that a strategic strike would be in order, not a full-scale war that turns into an occupation/police mission. WAR is a far cry from bombs and cruise missile strikes. The law in question is a no-holds-barred authorization to kick ass. I don't Obama is a guru, nor do I think Hilary is an idiot. One made a judgement call based on personal beliefs while the other made a call based on peer pressure. Hisoty, so far, is siding with personal beliefs guiding a judgement call.
  • Snowball Skull-O... 2008/02/27 19:05:52
    Snowball
    And how are military strikes going get troops in there to see if weapons of mass destruction exist? Did Saddam order his troops to stand down or surrender? Military strike usually involve destroying infrastructure. So what are you suggesting, blow up the airport, power plants, etc, disrupt the ability of the people to get food, water...create a humanitarian crisis? An occupation was necessary to get inspectors in. Since Saddam did not stand down and disappeared, what were they suppose to do? To say everyone who supported the Military action wanted a war is just disingenuious, but to approve military strikes that would have made a difference, would have been foolish without approving a worst case scenerio situation, and NO one knew that Bush was going to run the occupation into the ground.

    IF Bush would have allowed other nations, such as Germany, France, and Russia participate in "the rebuilding" of Iraq, if we funded the locals to build hospitals and schools, it could have brought the country together. It would have created a international effort, and perhaps avoided Abu Gharib, and reduced the magnetism by which radicals are now drawn to. The Invasion did NOT have to go the way it's going, and you cannot blame Senator Clinton's decision on that. Missle strikes without consider...''>
    And how are military strikes going get troops in there to see if weapons of mass destruction exist? Did Saddam order his troops to stand down or surrender? Military strike usually involve destroying infrastructure. So what are you suggesting, blow up the airport, power plants, etc, disrupt the ability of the people to get food, water...create a humanitarian crisis? An occupation was necessary to get inspectors in. Since Saddam did not stand down and disappeared, what were they suppose to do? To say everyone who supported the Military action wanted a war is just disingenuious, but to approve military strikes that would have made a difference, would have been foolish without approving a worst case scenerio situation, and NO one knew that Bush was going to run the occupation into the ground.

    IF Bush would have allowed other nations, such as Germany, France, and Russia participate in "the rebuilding" of Iraq, if we funded the locals to build hospitals and schools, it could have brought the country together. It would have created a international effort, and perhaps avoided Abu Gharib, and reduced the magnetism by which radicals are now drawn to. The Invasion did NOT have to go the way it's going, and you cannot blame Senator Clinton's decision on that. Missle strikes without considering the full consequences (remember, there was fear that they would use chemical weapons and Weapons of Mass destruction...wait until the whole region goes off? To give approval for Military Action without full capability to act would have been foolish). After Afghanistan, people had no reason to believe Bush would skew or twist intel, and people wanted the Senate to work together. Obama wasn't against the war for any other reason than he was against it. Based on his origninal position, if terrorist training camps were in Iraq, he would not have agreed to use force to disassemble/destroy them. If Saddam supported terrorist activities, he would not have supported removing Saddam. HE DID NOT KNOW BUSH'S CLAIMS WERE UNTRUE> and if he did, he failed as a public servant to notify each and every Senator, of what he knew.
    (more)
  • Skull-O... Snowball 2008/02/27 20:04:20 (edited)
    Skull-One-225
    +1
    Let me start by saying I agree with most 98% of what you have said.
    1) I think Hillary made a decision based on facts and fan appeal.
    2) Barack's position was that the whole thing was a fiasco waiting to happen.
    3) The UN, not the US should have organized the coalition of the willing to take care of Saddam. If the UN was not a defunct organization, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Serbia, North Korea, and all those other countries we don't like would be under control.
    4) The war in Iraq started as a political tactic. We had not finished dismantling our enemy in Afghanistan. The intelligence that Bush received did not create a SOLID link to 911. We should have insisted the UN deal with Iraq.
    5) Iraq was not a real threat, to the US, at the time we declared war. Saddam had not cheanged his rhetoric. There were not harrassing gestures coming towards the US (Nothing like what Iran is doing now)!
    6) I'm sure i'll get some hate mail for this one, BUT: Regarding your statement about bombing civil or non-military targets...We did use such tactics in WWI and WWII (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and they worked...we won. WAR IS ABOUT ATTRITION, not politics. The side that causes the most loss to the other usually wins. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE STARTED A WAR WITHOUT THINKING IN THAT FRAME OF MIND! You cannot fig...'



    Let me start by saying I agree with most 98% of what you have said.
    1) I think Hillary made a decision based on facts and fan appeal.
    2) Barack's position was that the whole thing was a fiasco waiting to happen.
    3) The UN, not the US should have organized the coalition of the willing to take care of Saddam. If the UN was not a defunct organization, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Serbia, North Korea, and all those other countries we don't like would be under control.
    4) The war in Iraq started as a political tactic. We had not finished dismantling our enemy in Afghanistan. The intelligence that Bush received did not create a SOLID link to 911. We should have insisted the UN deal with Iraq.
    5) Iraq was not a real threat, to the US, at the time we declared war. Saddam had not cheanged his rhetoric. There were not harrassing gestures coming towards the US (Nothing like what Iran is doing now)!
    6) I'm sure i'll get some hate mail for this one, BUT: Regarding your statement about bombing civil or non-military targets...We did use such tactics in WWI and WWII (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and they worked...we won. WAR IS ABOUT ATTRITION, not politics. The side that causes the most loss to the other usually wins. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE STARTED A WAR WITHOUT THINKING IN THAT FRAME OF MIND! You cannot fight a political war with guns, soldiers, and bullets. Someone will get killed and then it gets personal. Iraq's citizens do not care for having US citizens deciding their fate from across the globe.
    7) The world has left us to deal with our mess and effect house cleaning. We still do not have a clear way out of this dirty house.
    8) I think we, as a nation, were all so propaganda filled that we would have allowed Bush to go into Iraq without Congressional approval. Remember, the president needs congress to make a declaration of war, but the president can commit troops for a short period of time with the congressional nod.
    And
    9)Finally, do you Bush would have invaded Iraq without Congressional approval? Hillary and many others said go. Barack gave a speach saying no. So to answer the original question again, I do not think Obama would have voted in favor of a law giving GB unrestricted use of military force.
    (more)
  • Snowball Skull-O... 2008/02/27 22:22:03 (edited)
    Snowball
    My point is simply, Barack wasn't a Senator, especially of New York. If making a "decision" is so simple, he should have voted to not fund the war. He over simplifies the issue, and wasn't responsible for considering the fallout from choosing not to get inspectors into Iraq, and show Iraq, that yes, you will comply with the terms of the Gulf War Agreement. Our soldiers were suffering from the after affects of chemical warfare from the Gulf War, so the notion that we should start large scale bombing without considering the after affects, and the world's reaction to the after effects, also in an economical manner, just isn't smart. Look, I am not a supporter of the war now that I know what I know. But at the same time, I can understand why Clinton voted the way she did. For Barack to make it sound like it was some simple answer, and that no action would have lead to hugs around the world, and not to some other potential conflict, is simply niave. I just think he's not being fair in his criticism, and his voting for funding the war exemplifies that in theory, you should be able to vote your gut, but sometimes, there are reasons you might decide to vote differently, and he is in NO position to claim that he would have gotten it "right". Being "ready" is one thing, but to claim in this day and age you will get it "right", is awfully disingenuious and not realistic.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/21 00:17:14

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals