why does obama say he opposes the war in iraq???

2»

Comments

  • Its Evolution Baby
    Its Evolution Baby Posts: 849
    He said that he opposed the Iraq war, not war in general. He supports going to war to go after Al Queda and OBL and so do I.
    10/31/2000 (****)
    6/7/2003 (***1/2)
    7/9/2006 (****1/2)
    7/13/2006 (**** )
    4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
    6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
    10/1/2009 LA II (****)
    10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Then why say it's the reason he opposed the Iraq invasion then. Why not say he opposed it because it was based on lies and the afghan war wasn't?

    He sounds more and more like a pro-war type and I feel better about not voting for him hi everytime I read this posturing from him.

    If he's trying to sell himself as tough on terror in an effort to take votes from McCain...I will say, do you remember John Kerry??

    Jesus Christ. I cannot believe I really just read your last couple of posts. Anyone who does a little research (or doesn't read only what fits their agenda) on Obamas oposition to the war will find exactly what you are looking for.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Jesus Christ. I cannot believe I really just read your last couple of posts. Anyone who does a little research (or doesn't read only what fits their agenda) on Obamas oposition to the war will find exactly what you are looking for.


    maybe...but he's constantly trying to sell himself as this and that depending on who he is talking to.

    he came off like a pro-war hawk in the OP.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • HANKTHELANK
    HANKTHELANK Posts: 89
    yaaaaawwwnnn, haha, nice response. History always repeats itself. OBL, jesus christ Evolution, he is a patsie! this is not a democracy! and the people controlling the fed reserve, the world bank, the IMF are in power. Bush is a puppet, put in power to make the government completely incompetent. Cheney is there to make people think that its solely about getting contracts for the oil and affiliated companies. Its pretty smart actually. 50,000 people had involvement in the Manhatten project....every hear of it? It was the name of the project given to the manufacturing of the fist nuclear bomb. That wasn't made public knowledge until hiroshima and nagasaki got nuked. It definelty would not take anywhere near that to implement a plan to destroy 2, oops forgot about building 7, i mean 3 buildings. So as history shows, secrets can be kept. And you say bush isn't mean enough to kill 3000 us citizens.....one, this goes so much further down the rabbit hole then george bush, and dick cheney. And 2, even though he probably had nothing to do with 9/11, he did sell a war to the american people on lies!!!! where guess what! more then 3000 people have died. (4500 americans, and over 1.5million, ill write that again 1.5million dead iraquies) so seems like he doesnt have a problem sending americans to their death!
  • Jzacur
    Jzacur Posts: 64
    haha sorry I was having trouble putting an adequate term to use their and obviously on a second read through Christian gives off the wrong impression. I am far from religious.
    9/28/05 PNC Park Pittsburgh- 6/23/06 Mellon Arena Pittsburgh- 8/02/07 The Vic- 8/05/07- Lollapalooza 6/22/08 DC
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Jesus Christ. I cannot believe I really just read your last couple of posts. Anyone who does a little research (or doesn't read only what fits their agenda) on Obamas oposition to the war will find exactly what you are looking for.

    really??? read my sig for 2 examples! look at his voting record for another!!
    show me one candidate obama gave support to (other than money from a pac he started and went on a media circuit raising money for) that was against the war in iraq. show me one he campaigned for. b/c it seems the only ones he voiced support for were ones like leiberman and other hawks.

    it really doesn't matter, so many bend over backwards and go crazy if hillary or someone else does something but when obama is shown to lie...meh, all politicians lie....when it's shown he lied about being in w/ lobbyists....well, golly, it's hard to avoid taking their money and letting them chair your election campaign!!!

    same reason so many of the die hard obama supporters won't vote in my poll about the nomination...b/c they know if it came down to that they would pick obama w/ the delegates instead of hillary w/ the popular vote, which is a complete contradiction of their rhetoric about gore still winning the popular vote and this is why we need election reform....must be hard to hear how hollow some of his supporters stances really turn out to be
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    El_Kabong wrote:
    really??? read my sig for 2 examples! look at his voting record for another!!
    I believe Senator Obama has answered this claim time and time again. The comment was made in 2004, where we had already invaded and had to provide some stability to a country that we put in chaos and with no form of government.
    El_Kabong wrote:
    show me one candidate obama gave support to (other than money from a pac he started and went on a media circuit raising money for) that was against the war in iraq. show me one he campaigned for. b/c it seems the only ones he voiced support for were ones like leiberman and other hawks.
    Did you watch any of the contests from the 2006 mid-term elections? Obama campaigned hard for all the anti-war Democrats, and in fact stood with the Democratic nominee who OPPOSED Leiberman. Henry Ford, Claire McCaskill, Bob Casey, and John Tester all benefited greatly from Obama campaigning for them, which is why he has been endorsed by two of those candidates, and will eventually grab the other two's support. Ford and Tester are holding out, but judging by their comments---they are in the Obama camp.
    El_Kabong wrote:
    it really doesn't matter, so many bend over backwards and go crazy if hillary or someone else does something but when obama is shown to lie...meh, all politicians lie....when it's shown he lied about being in w/ lobbyists....well, golly, it's hard to avoid taking their money and letting them chair your election campaign!!!

    Yes, lobbyists are the head of his campaign in a couple of states, however they are STATE level lobbyists, not FEDERAL level lobbyists. Obama's pledge has been to not take money from FEDERAL lobbyists. While it is walking a tight rope line, he is accurate. In fact, Obama has only raised just over $115,000 from lobbyists across the country.
    El_Kabong wrote:
    same reason so many of the die hard obama supporters won't vote in my poll about the nomination...b/c they know if it came down to that they would pick obama w/ the delegates instead of hillary w/ the popular vote, which is a complete contradiction of their rhetoric about gore still winning the popular vote and this is why we need election reform....must be hard to hear how hollow some of his supporters stances really turn out to be

    I've been active in politics for a while and I have yet to meet anyone who is terribly bitter about the popular vote in 2000. There are people who want to see it change, but most Dems are more bitter about Florida and the Supreme Court than the popular vote. Al Gore didn't help himself by not being able to win his own state in the eyes of many Dems.

    If it does come down to Clinton winning the popular vote and Obama has the most states won and delegates, then I think it throws a wrench in the whole process. I think that's when the supers would be in a really tough spot, but if the post Super Tuesday trend of Supers moving is any inclination---they would go for Obama.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    inmytree wrote:
    again...

    where did he say "I would invade irak"...?


    give it up...

    some people are getting very good at taking any little blurb they find and spinning it to fit their formed opinion... taking an inch, and making it a mile...

    much like roland and a few others, when obama said he supports the israeli state and considers them a great ally... the "conspiracy left" takes that and runs with it to paint obama as a war mongering hawk looking to contiune the neoconservative agenda of global hegemony and preemptive war...

    meanwhile Obama is the only canididate actually professing the use of diplomacy, even with our "enemies"... and the only candiate that opposed the iraq war, even when that was political suicide (especially for an unestablished young politician)
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    my2hands wrote:
    give it up...

    some people are getting very good at taking any little blurb they find and spinning it to fit their formed opinion... taking an inch, and making it a mile...

    and some are getting very good at making mole hills out of mountains.

    how did obama 'oppose' the iraq war?????? oh he said he's against it, yet he continuously votes to give bush a blank check. and plz spare me the shit of throwing the troops under the bus or whatever. obama is complacent in not holding this administration accountable for the war or it's fraudulent abuses w/ the contracts. spare me what he says to more liberal audiences, SHOW me what he's done!! christ, if he's so against this war and thinks we were mislead into it why the fuck did he vote to confirm condi rice??? the one whose office 'forgot' the cia called them and sent memoSSSSS saying claims like the yellowcake were false well before the state of the union and while the administration were making other fraudulent claims around.


    my2hands wrote:
    much like roland and a few others, when obama said he supports the israeli state and considers them a great ally... the "conspiracy left" takes that and runs with it to paint obama as a war mongering hawk looking to contiune the neoconservative agenda of global hegemony and preemptive war...

    and as for your crap about 'conspiracy left' and israel....from his speech on race you all loved:

    But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country—a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

    ohhhhh really???? now you guys don't think israel illegally stealing land (which the UN has passed a sanction or 2 telling them they must leave)


    and don't forget he said this, too
    “[Any] negotiated peace between Israelis and the Palestinians is going to have to involve the Palestinians relinquishing the right of return as it has been understood in the past,”
    my2hands wrote:
    meanwhile Obama is the only canididate actually professing the use of diplomacy, even with our "enemies"... and the only candiate that opposed the iraq war, even when that was political suicide (especially for an unestablished young politician)


    and by diplomacy doncha mean 'aggressive diplomacy'?

    Obama then promised he would turn his attention to the country’s neighbor. “My approach to Iran will be aggressive diplomacy: I will not take any military options off the table.”


    Thirty senators sent a letter to the White House on Thursday warning President Bush not to take offensive military action against Iran without the consent of Congress. Noticeably absent from the list of signatories is presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL.

    2007-11-01-letter.jpgAccording to its authors, the letter was designed to clarify the ambiguity of the recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama has been critical of that amendment as well as the Bush administration's aggressive rhetoric towards Tehran. Yet the senator from Illinois turned down a request to sign on to the White House letter.

    and i'm sure you will just come back w/ 'golly, obama said it will take more than a letter!' you guys always talk about gradual steps, his feet don't seem to be moving at all
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    ledvedderman wrote:
    I believe Senator Obama has answered this claim time and time again. The comment was made in 2004, where we had already invaded and had to provide some stability to a country that we put in chaos and with no form of government.

    so obama thinks iraq is stable???

    and what about the other quote in my sig?? you guys suddenly liked the foreign policy of reagan and daddy bush!?
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Did you watch any of the contests from the 2006 mid-term elections? Obama campaigned hard for all the anti-war Democrats, and in fact stood with the Democratic nominee who OPPOSED Leiberman. Henry Ford, Claire McCaskill, Bob Casey, and John Tester all benefited greatly from Obama campaigning for them, which is why he has been endorsed by two of those candidates, and will eventually grab the other two's support. Ford and Tester are holding out, but judging by their comments---they are in the Obama camp.

    omfg, are you serious??? you are talking about obama's 'support' for ned lamont against, lieberman, right??? HOW did obama 'stand' w/ him? all i could find is he sent a fucking email....meanwhile a few months earlier obama actually went to connecticut and SPOKE in PUBLIC in support of lieberman

    please show me some real support obama gave these ppl.

    ledvedderman wrote:
    Yes, lobbyists are the head of his campaign in a couple of states, however they are STATE level lobbyists, not FEDERAL level lobbyists. Obama's pledge has been to not take money from FEDERAL lobbyists. While it is walking a tight rope line, he is accurate. In fact, Obama has only raised just over $115,000 from lobbyists across the country.

    um, methinks you have your figures wrong, several articles have been posted showing much more than $115,000 has been donated and more than that from lobbyists.

    a fine line?? why doesn't he inform the public of this line? why, when it was brought up in a primary that his chair was a lobbyist he shook his head and said that's not true??? that's a fucking lie, not a thin line!! no one said a FEDERAL lobbyist was his chair, they said lobbyist and instead of giving the bullshit response of 'oh, well it's different b/c he's a state lobbyist, not federal' obama L I E D

    and here's an interesting article for ya:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081602475.html

    DES MOINES, Iowa -- Democrat Barack Obama, who accepts special interest money and played poker with lobbyist pals as an Illinois lawmaker, acknowledged Thursday that he swims in "the same muddy water" that corrupts Washington, but he pledged to reform the system if elected president......

    "I don't think that lobbyists are evil," said the first-term Illinois senator. "I just think they've got an agenda and you got to be clear about that, and not pretend that they don't."

    "Why else are they getting hired and making all this money unless they're actually getting something done?"

    and i like this one

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7411.html

    Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), explaining his plan to reduce the influence of special interests, made what sounded like a clear-cut pledge to bar the more than 35,000 registered federal lobbyists from ever working in his administration.

    “They won’t work in my White House!” Obama has said repeatedly this week on his Iowa bus tour.

    The line — a standard in his 25-minute stump speech — draws some of his loudest applause.

    The problem is that the pledge is not as definitive as it sounds.

    After reporters sought an explanation from campaign staff Saturday of how he could hold to such a pledge, Obama revised it at the next campaign stop.

    “They are not going to dominate my White House,” Obama said at a rally in this town northeast of Des Moines.



    annnnnnnnnd....odd obama didn'[t make that distinction between federal and state lobbyists in this statement of his

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/09/prepared_remarks_of_senator_barack_obama/?page=2

    It's a choice between debating John McCain about lobbying reform with a nominee who's taken more money from lobbyists than he has, or doing it with a campaign that hasn't taken a dime of their money because we've been funded by you the American people.

    hasn't taken a dime???????

    he's always misleading ppl like the way he always spouts that he doesn't take money from corporations....i wonder if that has anything to do w/ it being illegal??? what a great guy to say in his ads 'i didn't break the law' how fucking noble of em

    now i'm waiting for you or someone else to say 'hey, corporate execs and lobbyists are american ppl, too!!!'

    :rolleyes:
    ledvedderman wrote:
    I've been active in politics for a while and I have yet to meet anyone who is terribly bitter about the popular vote in 2000. There are people who want to see it change, but most Dems are more bitter about Florida and the Supreme Court than the popular vote. Al Gore didn't help himself by not being able to win his own state in the eyes of many Dems.

    yeah, right. you've never heard anyone voice displeasure over the electoral college???
    ledvedderman wrote:
    If it does come down to Clinton winning the popular vote and Obama has the most states won and delegates, then I think it throws a wrench in the whole process. I think that's when the supers would be in a really tough spot, but if the post Super Tuesday trend of Supers moving is any inclination---they would go for Obama.


    my point was i know for a fact certain obama supporters have mentioned their dislike for the electoral college....and when the commentator mentioned that scenario i couldn't help but think of the hypocrisy:
    when it comes to a democrat they want to win getting more of the popular vote but less electoral votes they bitch about the popular vote should win

    then when it comes to a democrat they like getting more of the electoral votes but less of the popular vote they wouldn't even vote b/c they knew it would show their hypocrisy
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    inmytree wrote:
    where did he say he would invade Irak...?


    I missed that part..


    so, you are honestly saying you don't think he went on a conservative radio show in pennsylvania (where he was losing in the polls and ended up losing overall) and worded that in a way to sound hawkish?

    really?

    think of it this way, what if i said
    "part of the reason i don't molest little kids is b/c i'm in a relationship right now"

    you wouldn't think 'uh, you don't do it b/c it's illegal, immoral and on so many levels and so many ways wrong???' ????
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    damn, i thought at least 1 of you 3 would reply :(

    did you have no luck finding how obama supported Lamont other than sending an email while he actually campaigned for lieberman?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    HANKTHELANK wrote:
    your're blind and brainwashed if you still think, with all the information and inconsistencies, that Al Quaeda were behind 9/11. Really time to wake up.....Obama saying that attention needs to be paid to Pakistan?? Common people, this war is just going to keep expanding, and occupation is going to broaden! You are all being manipulated by all three of the main "candidates"! But hey, I know, i'm a conspiracy theorist, and it's a waste of time writing this post.


    But you're forgetting, Obama is like a cartoon superhero to some...

    Think superhero first and reality later...

    ;)
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    so, how do you all feel about obama wanting to modernize (ie sink more money into and expand) the military?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way

Categories