Obama: War Vote "Irresponsible And Naive"

Criticized By Clinton Over Foreign Policy, Obama Uses Same Words To Jab At Her Iraq War Vote

(AP)  Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to turn rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's words back on her Wednesday, saying her vote to authorize the Iraq war was "irresponsible and naive."

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.

[one_american]

Hillary and Obama have called each other "Irresponsible And Naive" this week.

Finally, they're both right about something.

[marcodele]

What a sad lot of candidates for both parties.

Can we vote for "None of the Above?"

[zootallures2]

Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel Mike Gravel LOL!

[zootallures2]

What's the frequency Kenneth?

[forthepeopl1]

someone needs to ask them this...............

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.....

[Razzl]

Hillary was back to her old ways in the youtube debate, refusing to give a straight answer to a straight question and showing that her approach to foreign policy would be militarism and imperialism, as though feels the need to show the boys how tough a woman president can be. We really need to defeat her now in the primaries so we won't have to hold our breath and vote for her as the lesser of two militarists in the election.

[cathaleen]

He seems like a nice guy, but it is very unwise to attack Hillary Clinton. He'll be toast. Once the Clinton machine starts up, they'll be no stone left unturned. I do wish him luck!

[prinzowhales]

There are two great honorable candidates out there-- Ron Paul and Mike Gravel...some people just don't like them because they don't talk in sound bites and pander to the political and economic superstitions of the day. There is dissonance between their message regarding the realities of the world and the "medium is the message" world of mass political conditioning played to by "For the Children" Clinton and the other 'faces' and talking points paraded across the TV screen.

[melcarnahan]

Both candidates are excellent. Joe Biden is also a first-tier candidate. I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without an exit strategy, but what is even more irresponsible and naive is the American people who fell for the Swift Boat Attacks and elected Bush in 2004 after Abu Ghraib. Bush's character was obvious in 2000 but Americans are the kind of people who can't even handle a *** and then they think they can handle assault weapons so they voted for AWOL Arbusto George Junior, born with a silver coke spoon in his mouth. But by 2004, long after The Pet Goat Lesson and The Anthrax Lesson, they were still being suckered; that is worse than irresponsible and naive.

[mudrose-2009]

Boy is she gonna stick a fork in him. She's got a reputation to uphold. What does he have? Oh, he's just being colorful.

[realpatriot1]

He's consistent in what he says. She isn't.

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.

[tuckerndfw]

Obama is absolutely correct.

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.

[tuckerndfw]

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.

[donnie900]

Maybe hillary clinton knew saddam hussein had wmds.

[donnie900]

Barak Obama's too set on being cool sometimes. Its distasteful. Hillary Clinton, maybe now because she's older, seems the wiser of the two. And theres a strong sense of humility about her.. because of what they did to her husband. Making international affair out of personal.

[downtowner97]

I think I know somebody who isn't going to be picked for VP running mate.

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!!!!

[donnie900]

I want justice on the people who will expose you for their own personal gain, see.. I want justice on the finger pointers. No one is more qualified for that than Hillary Clinton. She was forced to live their rhetoric.. Atheist weirdos claim religious shoving down their throats.. a personal affair just spin and propaganda. But Hillary Clinton? She literally had those people's fingers shoved down her throat.. ya see? She had, because her husband was president, right wing lunatic sweaty upper lip religious freaks.. criticizing her. Calling her names! Literally trying to break apart their family, a weird kind of a homewrecker whorrre.. She has the power within her to find justice towards those people, and people like them.

[xzavierbrown]

Obama's view of how terrorism DOES NOT EXIST,is not aimed to inflict death and mayhem on anything non-islam, is not after to control our lifestyles, much like europe,and is not here stateside to enforce thier will on us IS NAIVE AND IRRESPONSIBLE

[donnie900]

Barak Obama is just a.. spoiled? Punk kid.. And you can see it in his face. The way he expects your vote.. without anything tangible.

I've seen his kind before. Mr. Cool.. Mr. BigDickkk.

[gunownerdan]

Hitlery Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama are both very "Irresponsible" And "Naive".
That's why people who care support Dr. Ron Paul!
ronpaul2008.com

[donnie900]

Remember the face of Ken Starr out the glass hotel lobby doors.. staring at the hordes of reporters. He had the look of a woman.. HE HAD THE LOOK OF A WOMAN!

[prinzowhales]

In the last presidential election, the largest constituency in America--the much coveted Fool Vote--was split almost evenly between Bush and Kerry. Its interesting to watch this great all-American constituency try to find its voice among the mainstream candidates, both Republican and Democrat.

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.

[tuckerndfw]

The miiitary will never defeat terrorists. Using them in that capacity is a waste of lives and resources.

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.

[ramos937]

Let's be frank about this. Clinton was wrong to vote for the war. She never read the documentation sent to her. Several lawmakers - Republican & Democrats - did and they voted againist the war.

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.

[donteplays]

Can we vote for "None of the Above?"
-marcodele

lmao...if only it were that easy.

[stephanienym]

tuckerndfw your comment is incorrect...
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!!!

[donnie900]

"Let's be frank about this. Clinton was wrong to vote for the war. She never read the documentation sent to her. Several lawmakers - Republican & Democrats - did and they voted againist the war."

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.

[realpatriot1]

tuckerndfw,

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.

[tuckerndfw]

Posted by stephanienym at 11:57 AM : Jul 26, 2007

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.

[donnie900]

The people who attacked Bill Clinton and made international affair out of personal adult relationships are the ones that literally convinced the world that american democracy was sick. Sick in the head.. And thats the truth, jack. Those people are the ugliest sons'a byytches on the planet. Homewreckers who claim to be religious. Moral strategists.. social engineers. They're translucent skinned freaks who see Law and Justice as everybody's nemisis.. because they done something wrong. Their guilt! And not anybody else's..

[name_verify]

Barak's entire campaign is built around 1 claim: Hillary voted for the war. Take that away and there's nothing about the candidate except that he's taller than the others he's a "magic" negro.

[donnie900]

I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. Because I want to see those people go to jail.. I want to see the weirdo right wing loony, who embarrasses religion on his political pulpit, GO TO JAIL! I want to see him finally live up to his own sins.. his fat? Demented? Weirdo justice that tells him that he can peer into everybody's bedrooms.. and tell on you.

Barak Obama is just a politically correct freak.

[tuckerndfw]

The question isn't whether or not to use the military, the question is against whom and how.

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.

[horse3farm]

I watched that portion of the debate (meeting with other countries) before I saw the news stories about Hillary and Obama getting ugly. I watched the gentleman who asked the question, comment for CNN regarding the answer. He felt Hillary's answer was the better way to go.

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.

[pepperp1]

Obama, take it from me a single voter, the grab for the one liner in a campaign after a George Bush presidency when you are already battling a perception of lack of depth and experience is irresponsible. After you jump you then do not follow through well and explain a substantive answer there is no time. And by the way it was naive to continue the debate with more one liners like tea party makes her charge ring true. Some in the family are routing for you, a few have dropped off, but there is always a collective giggle then groan when we watch the debates when you bite at the toss which you do every time.

[gunownerdan]

All presidential frontrunners of both parties are warmongering prostitutes.

[mudrose-2009]

Barak Obama is just a politically correct freak.
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.

[name_verify]

Barak = puppet of race hustling poverty pimps.

[donnie900]

"Are you sure?"

I'm not sure about anything. Do you have to eat a donut to be hungry?

[pepperp1]

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 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

[gunownerdan]

"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

[donnie900]

I don't believe in "channeling", nor Nancy Reagan cosmic affairs.

I believe in justice. And justice is due the right wing loony political spin team!

[tuckerndfw]

All presidential frontrunners of both parties are warmongering prostitutes.

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.

[name_verify]

Just wait until Barak's campaign starts to spin its wheels, and then its all going to blamed on racism.

[donnie900]

"... FAR FAR SPENT! IS THE NIGHT! And it is time.. for the light!"

Justice? Peesee freaks? Is come'n.. Like a ******** freight train. "Choo! Choo! Mind yer ******** business! Choo! Choo!"

[donnie900]

*clearing my throat* And guess what the issue of the 21rst century will be? Rationality!

Privacy.

[gunownerdan]

Our government has been hijacked by a warmongering democrat/republican duopoly controlled by greed and big money.
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.

[name_verify]

The giant House farm bill set for a vote today is raising a political storm in Washington, aligning liberal Democrats and urban and environmental activists with the Bush administration, and a San Francisco progressive -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- with red-state conservatives.

[donnie900]

If you guys need a speech writer, let me know. k?

[mudrose-2009]

don't believe in "channeling", nor Nancy Reagan cosmic affairs.

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.