Obama: War Vote "Irresponsible And Naive"
Criticized By Clinton Over Foreign Policy, Obama Uses Same Words To Jab At Her Iraq War Vote
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Democrats' High-Tech Debate
Democratic candidates met in Charleston, S.C., for an unusual presidential debate. Average Americans got the chance to pose questions to the candidates via YouTube. Drew Levinson reports.
-
Video
Democrat's YouTube Debate
Democratic presidential hopefuls took part in a debate where the questions were asked by Americans via YouTube video clips. Jeff Greenfield discusses the innovative format with Harry Smith.
-
Video
"Female Factor" Boosts Clinton
A CBS News/New York Times poll shows women see Hillary Clinton as a strong leader, putting her ahead of her Democratic challengers and Republican rivals. Kelly Wallace has more.
-
Photo
The day after Hillary Clinton called Barack Obama "irresponsible and frankly naive" for suggesting meeting with the leaders of unfriendly nations, Obama used the same terms to criticize her Iraq War vote. (AP/Charles Dharapak)
-
Photo Essay
Barack Obama
The junior senator from Illinois is making his name known.
Clinton had used the same language a day earlier to criticize Obama for saying he would be willing to meet with leaders of nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions within the first year of his presidency. Clinton said renegade leaders could use such a meeting for propaganda and that envoys below the presidential level should begin diplomatic work.
Obama told NBC News it's obvious that the diplomatic spade work must be done before any such meeting. But he wants to change Bush administration policies that freeze out enemies and move to a principle that says the United States should talk with everybody.
"The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous," he said in an interview outside his Senate office. "But the general principle is one that I think Senator Clinton is wrong on, and that is if we are laying out preconditions that prevent us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing with Bush-Cheney policies."
Obama's comment about meeting with foreign foes came in response to a question in a Democratic presidential debate Monday night. The Clinton campaign immediately highlighted his statement as evidence that he doesn't have the foreign policy skills to be president. "I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive," she told the Quad-City Times of Iowa.
Later Wednesday, the Clinton campaign issued a statement by former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who is supporting her candidacy, taking issue with Obama's comments and saying she would bring an end to "the cowboy approach of the Bush years."
"She has said she would initiate serious, responsible dialogue with nations with whom we don't agree in order to further the national security interest of the United States," Holbrooke said. "But she is right not to risk the prestige of the presidency by unconditionally committing to meet with leaders of adversarial nations."
In his interview, Obama tried to turn the debate back to Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war, which he opposed.
"I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out," Obama said. "And you know, I think Senator Clinton hasn't fully answered that issue."
Also Wednesday, an Obama campaign official told The Associated Press that New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes plans to endorse the Illinois senator Thursday. Hodes is the first member of the four-member congressional delegation from the nation's first primary state to make an endorsement.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 111 CommentsFinally, they're both right about something.
Can we vote for "None of the Above?"
this is the only way!!!!!!!!! to stop this adminastration. period..the only way bush has no way of vetoing. so why haven't they done this?
both party are dragging this on to far. its time to end this for god sake
so call on congress to do this NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Article 1 of the US Constitution gives the Congress, not the President, the right to declare war. And the War Powers Act specifies that the President may not continue a war without Congressional authorization. Saddam is dead. There never were any WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda. The basis for the 2002 war authorization is gone.
If Congress passes a resolution de-authorizing the war, the President has no legal authority to continue. De-authorization cannot be vetoed, and it would legally require Bush to begin bringing the troops home.
The time for waiting is over. People are dying every day. We cannot wait until this fall to start bringing our troops home. If Congress doesn't act before they leave for the summer, the only thing that will change between now and the end of the year is the body count.
Congress has a public mandate and the Constitutional authority to end this war.
LETS GO AMERICA WE OWE THIS TO OUR TROOPS DIEING FOR NOTHING BUT THE PRESIDENTS AND MR VP'S PLEASURE, AND PROFITS.....
She's a typical politican who will say whatever works at the moment and then do a 360 later when that's advantageous.
We should be willing to discuss our differences with anyone.
If we have to go to war we should at least talk first. Besides, whose kidding whom. We always find ways to talk to our enemies, a few weeks back there were rumors that we were holding secret talks with the Iraqi insurgents. If we aren't we should be.
We called North Korea & Iran the axis of evil and refused to talk. They went out and developed nukes. Then we wanted to talk.
Hillary's vote demonstrated that she is a follower, not a leader.
The time to ask all those probing questions she seems to have now was BEFORE she followed the stampede to war based on phony intelligence.
Why didn't she ask for the exit strategy BEFORE she voted to authorize the entrance?
Hillary Clinton is not quafified to be president.
And, other than that, she has ZERO political experience.
Being the spouse of an ex-president does not qualify her to be president.
Don't burn your bridges, Obama. Instead, highlight her good qualities. For instance, she's in the same party as you. She also has a buttload of money. Women will vote for her even though she has a history of curruption, is in a loveless marriage, thinks we should hand the keys of the country to the poor who have already proven they can't keep an intact windshield in their cars, and thinks creating anarchy in a Muslim country is a good idea.
VOTE FOR RON PAUL!!!!
I've seen his kind before. Mr. Cool.. Mr. BigDickkk.
That's why people who care support Dr. Ron Paul!
ronpaul2008.com
Kerry, if you will remember, was more hawkish than Bush and the political wisdom of the day told us that our votes would be wasted if we voted for candidates that 'couldn't win'. What the Fools didn't understand then and refuse to understand now is that you loose either way with the mainstream candidates and you will loose in 2008 if you continue to accept the pablum served up by the mainstream PR machine.
If you intend to support a mainstream candidate, whether you smugly look down on the drooling halfwitted caricature of the Bush supporter, or would like to throttle the caricature of the effeminate, America-hating 'LIE-beral', you are being shaped and played by the propaganda specialists of the Regime. As Mad Dog Albright said with regard to foreign policy...it doesn't change with the party in office. As Carrol Quigley, the CFR author of 'The Tragedy and the Hope' and Bill Clinton's mentor at Jesuit Georgetown University, noted...'international bankers control both parties in America.'
They admit it all...yet know that because of your 'imperial conditioning' you are psychologically incapable of taking 'the red pill' and leaving the safety of the mainstream.
Terrorism is a tactic, it is not an enemy.
Any candidate who supports the "war on terror" as being conducted by the Bush administration and their war profiteering cronies is not qualified to be president.
Hillary Clinton's enthusiastic support for using the military as a substitute for diplomacy disqualifies her for the job as president.
We don't need more of the same and that's exactly what Hillary offers.
Obama was never in a position to vote for the war or vote againist it. He was not in the Senate at that time. No one, even himself, at that point in time, would have known who he/she would have voted until the time of the test arrived.
Alas, we still have until election day in 11/2008 to go through this sort of nonsense.
-marcodele
lmao...if only it were that easy.
Hillary Clinton has no political experience that qualifies her to be president. A few years in a job (NY Senator) her husband got for her does not count as a qualification.
And, other than that, she has ZERO political experience.
Being the spouse of an ex-president does not qualify her to be president
This is completely untrue; Hillary has been involved in politics for most of her life. She actually grew up in a Republican household but after spending time with leaders like MLK she realize she was a Democrat and switched sides. The truth is Obama is the inexperienced one by far. Don%u2019t be fooled by his charm or his money, the bottom line is he is way too wet behind the ears to bring this country out of the mess it%u2019s in. I still like John Edwards, I think he would bring integrity back into the white house, but I think his tragic personal life is running against him. Maybe someone more qualified will appear and save as all!!!
You people are soooo crazy about the Iraq war, its unbelievable. The guy who used wmds against the kurds. The guy who signed a peace treaty with the USA. The guy who used to torture people. And because you made us go to the UN first? Those wmds were gone.. taken away and hidden.
You're such idiots about Iraq its unbelievable.
Terror is a tactic used by an identifiable enemy.
We can't defeat the tactic but we can defeat the people who use it and we need to utilize all of the means at hand to do so.
The military is not the only way tool for combatting those who want to destroy us but we certainly won't survive the battle without it. We need to use all of the tools at our disposal: diplomacy, homeland security, intelligence, citizen involvement, and the military.
The question isn't whether or not to use the military, the question is against whom and how.
You're right about Hillary.
Hillary Clinton is running for the job as CEO of the USA.
Hillary Clinton has no prior experience as a low level manager, much less as a CEO.
Electing her to be CEO of the USA would be equivalent to promoting a convenience store clerk to be head of ExxonMobil.
Hanging out with politicians is not a substitute for experience.
I am an independent and have no intention of voting for Dems or Repubs.
If Democrats want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as they routinely do, all they have to do is nominate Hillary or Obama. Neither is qualified to be president and neither can win a national election.
Unless it is highly rigged, that is. Given the Clinton's prior experience with rigging elections, that is a possibility.
Barak Obama is just a politically correct freak.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 12:01 PM : Jul 26, 2007
No, there is no question about how to use the military. You send them home so they can wait for an organized military to attack the US. At which time, after the nukes have done their job, we send them in to clean up the mess.
I am a former US Army MP sergeant who served in the "war on terror" that engulfed Europe during the 1970's and I can assure you that an infantryman is way over his head when he tries to fight criminals (aka "terrorists").
Using the infantry to fight "terrorists" is roughly equivalent to using a sledge hammer to drive staples. It may (or may not) get the job done, but the mess it makes renders it unsuitable for the job.
Any candidate who supports the "war on terror" as being conducted by the Bush administration is not qualified to be president.
PERIOD.
Thanks to the news media...it's now an ugly confrontation? Give me a break...it was a debate. And the only think Obama can say is she voted for the war.
Hillary and many, many others voted for the war because Bush and his lying administration framed it so the vote would be yes.
I'm sick of the blame thrown around now...its unproductive and just plain stupid. If it were between Hillary and Obama only, Hillary gets my vote. Obama is charismatic to be sure, but ineffectual, unexperienced and a little scary.
Posted by donnie900
Are you sure? I'm so confused with who's progressive and who isn't, who's backwards and who's forwards. It's a lot to digest you know. All I do know is that she's gonna stick a fork in him, ya know like Zeta-Jones does in No Reservations as if Hillary has any.
I'm not sure about anything. Do you have to eat a donut to be hungry?
Posted by horse3farm at 12:12 PM : Jul 26, 2007
The scary thing is he does not appear or maybe he dose know that he is channeling George Bush. Only Bush smirked Osama has a pretty grins. LOL kind of sums up the two party%u2019s dose it not smirk, grin, ha, ha%u2026%u2026%u2026%u2026%u2026%u2026%u2026oh
"Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of American, cannot succeed with any lesser effort."
-- President John F. Kennedy, January 29, 1961
I believe in justice. And justice is due the right wing loony political spin team!
Posted by GunOwnerDan at 12:16 PM : Jul 26, 2007
That is a fact. And, it's no coincidence.
In November, 2008, war profiteers, such as ExxonMobil and CBS, sincerely hope Americans are stupid enough to vote for war mongering candidate A (Dems), or, war mongering candidate B (Repubs).
And, they will do everything they can to make sure that happens.
There are no exorbitant profits to be made in peacetime.
EssonMobil has been posting record earnings and profits since the (idiotic as being conducted) "war on terror" began and they will not allow anyone to intefere with their price gouging and war profiteering.
Anyone who votes for a candidate who supports the "war on terror" as being conducted by the Bush administration is either a war profiteer or a moron.
Justice? Peesee freaks? Is come'n.. Like a ******** freight train. "Choo! Choo! Mind yer ******** business! Choo! Choo!"
Privacy.
Congress is nothing more than a safe-house for criminals and prostitutes.
People who profit from war and imprisonment are now controlling America.
But who cares?
We've got plenty of celebrities and sports to be worried about.
Aristocracy
a government or state ruled by an elite, or privileged upper class.
Oligarchy
a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
Plutocracy
a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
I believe in justice. And justice is due the right wing loony political spin team!
Posted by donnie900
You seem out of sorts today. I'll call by later. And, nah, you don't have to be hungry to eat a doughnut.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 111 Comments