Why Can’t Obama Get His Facts Straight?
By Larry Johnson on February 28, 2008 at 8:12 PM in Current Affairs
So much for the “new” politician who ain’t going to spin you. Barack Obama’s claim about his 2002 opposition to the war in Iraq does not hold water. Maybe it is a memory lapse. Maybe a lie. What is certain, it is not true!
Senator Clinton said the following:
SEN. CLINTON: Well, I have put forth my extensive experience in foreign policy, you know, helping to support the peace process in Northern Ireland, negotiating to open borders so that refugees fleeing ethnic cleansing would be safe, going to Beijing and standing up for women’s rights as human rights and so much else. And every time the question about qualifications and credentials for commander in chief are raised, Senator Obama rightly points to the speech he gave in 2002. He’s to be commended for having given the speech. Many people gave speeches against the war then, and the fair comparison is he didn’t have responsibility, he didn’t have to vote; by 2004 he was saying that he basically agreed with the way George Bush was conducting the war. And when he came to the Senate, he and I have voted exactly the same. We have voted for the money to fund the war until relatively recently. So the fair comparison was when we both had responsibility, when it wasn’t just a speech but it was actually action, where is the difference? Where is the comparison that would in some way give a real credibility to the speech that he gave against the war?
And Barack responded:
SEN. OBAMA: Let me just follow up. My objections to the war in Iraq were simply — not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why.
Only problem–Barack did not start running for the U.S. Senate seat until 2003. You see, in 2002 he was running for State senate. In that position he was pandering to the most liberal district in the State of Illinois. But hell, it is Barack. Why hold him accountable for anything?
But this raises a more fundamental issue. Why can’t he get his facts straight on something so important to his campaign. Why does he rely on a bullshit account of history? And why does the media allow this guy to get away with this nonsense?
Hat tip to lambert strether for this catch.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Why let facts stand in the way of a good story?
OBAMA REENACTS 2002 SPEECH FOR AD
October 13, 2007
BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist
WASHINGTON — The Obama campaign readily admits that White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) recently recorded a portion of the Oct. 2, 2002, anti-Iraq war speech he originally delivered at an outdoor rally in Chicago for a new ad that went online Thursday.
There is no good audio tape of the speech, which is playing a pivotal role in the Obama campaign. But the campaign used a sound effect to create the impression one was listening to the original speech.
“It was Barack re-reading a portion of the speech. As I told you, there is no original tape,” Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, told me in an e-mail exchange.
The 77-second ad uses sound effects that could easily lead one to conclude that one is listening to Obama making the original speech at the plaza rally outside the Kluczynski Federal Building in the Loop.
It is a sound effect to make the Obama spot seem something it is not.
Obama’s voice sounds as if it were recorded off a loudspeaker. The sound effect gives Obama’s voice a reverberation, or echo-like quality.
The spot is titled “Blank Check” and is designed to underscore one of — perhaps the most potent — calling cards of Obama, his early opposition to the Iraq war.
Obama’s new voice-over uses a key quote from the Oct. 2 speech at the rally in which protesters tried to head off the Senate’s Oct. 11, 2002, vote to authorize the Iraq war:
“I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length at undetermined cost with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida.”
His whole campaign is based on this speech. Unbelievable.
And this guy’s got the softest definition of “high-stakes”. He wants to run against a man who for five years was a prisoner of war?
If he’s president, I hope his memory is better re the football.
But, you know, he says he is always losin’ stuff and has to have people taking care of him, helping him remember stuff, and where he put things.
if the press do eventually pick up on his distortions and lapsed as they did on Gore he’s completely fucked.
Perhaps Obama was refering to his “high stakes’ Illinois Senate election?
What is most troubling about his claim is that he was not privy to any of the information that Senator Clinton reviewed in order to base her decision. Spo what exactly was his grandiose claim of being against the War in Iraq based on? He was just not in any position to make a credible decision like that either way. So it was just a speech.
Also, given his limited track record in the U.S. Senate Obama has voted with the Democrat leadership 100% of the time. So why should we accept that if he were in the U.S. Senate at the time of the Iraq War vote that he would not have voted with Hillary and most of the other Democrats? What in his brief tenure would lead one to believe that Obama would have broken ranks to vote against the war? Nothing. It’s typical Monday Morning QBing.
Really well stated and summarized, S. Markom. Fine job.
From Pat Lang
Larry has also discussed and dissected this aspect here at NQ at length. It is personal source of pride (And rightfully so) that his former agency, the INR got it right.
And in regard to Saddam allowing the pricey Al Samouds being destroyed – (not to be confused with the SCUD) this was unprecedented.
That was when the mission of disarming Saddam was accomplished.
And on Mar. 7, 2003, ElBaradei blew the neocons of destroying story completely out of the water with his revelation of the forged documents and the aluminum tubes. Yet at that point, it didn’t matter. This WH had other plans and betrayed the trust of congress, the UN and the American people.
Obama took a guess. He has admitted it but it is a far different story from what his followers say.
http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0406_lang.asp
What has Obama done or gotten right?
Let’s see, on forgeign experience and being the Chair of that covers NATO, done nothing, right thing to do would have been to resign it, as a surge is expected in Afgan this summer and NATO needs to prepare, thus people will die at Obama’s hands since for him lives are not as important as doctoring his resume being a Chair of an important commitee!
Let’s see, Obama returned dirty money to charity that got him to his place in political arena of the US Senate! But wait it wasn’t Obama’s money he donated to charity for his misdeeds, it was contributors to his Presidential campaign who paid for Obama’s past sins! Now why should people who support a Presidential campaign pay for Obama’s past sins for, it doesn’t make sense, he should have withdrawn, if he was a honest politician he claims to be, that would have been “Change” and tranparency! So by duping the people, Obama gets to keep his job and keep his dirty house, this is the new politics he speaks of he brings to Washington?
This character Obama will use every dirty trick to get what he wants, it is amazing how foolish people can be to believe in someone they know nothing about!
You need some hope dope, Mel.
Also there’s a British prince in the combat zone.
So One might hope a few of the big candidates knew this fact. Huge story if he were killed or kidnapped.
I’d hold that fucking asshole Matt Drudge responsible. He’s no different than Robert Novak. He’d sell his own granny for a chance to look big.
He’s still sucking up the limelite when the Freepers were his source, not the Clinton campaign. And, I know personally that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, PBS, WashPost, NYTimes, LATimes, HoustonChron, and others have been notified to the origin of the Obama in garb photo. Have they issued a retraction? Nyet!
My family asks me…
Why do you ever call the networks to correct the stories? You know they don’t correct themselves.
answer: so I can bear witness that they were indeed informed, instead of presuming it.
Which brings up a question for me:
What are we going to do about these networks and rags when they simply distort at will and won’t clean up their own record?
As citizens, should we have a right to a distortion free zone about information? If not, how can we be a “well informed citizenry’?
The Manufacture of Consent is the game.
At one time, the press tried to give a fair presentation. Fox News came around and gave the gawkers tabloid news. CNN and other networks suffered from it. Now ALL networks have adopted this method of “news”.
Not only is the printed press so godawful (I can count at least one spelling mistake every 2 articles — you know one even a basic word processer can fix?), the TV thinks pundits ARE the news.
I’d rather return to days when my morning and evening news were delivered in monotone, by old men who saw the worst life could offer, than some peppy 20 year-old who’s smart on fashion and fads, but brick dumb on decency and taste.
But, that’s liberalism. Free to do everything anyone pleases, hells bells on any class or decency.
The real problem is: Clinton and Obama are both POLITICIANS!
The question really is: which one can you COUNT on to not f*ck it up in the White House.
I’ll take my chances with the Lady.
SusanUnPC Hope is for dopes, I want realism, someone to get the job done and not someone who “hopes” to be able to do the job! But wait, what ever has Obama ever done, nothing!
I recall the election of 2000 and everyone said how likeable Bush as, the kind of guy you’d want to sit around the house and have a beer with! Well Obama is proving to be the last person I would want in my house to have a beer, by the time he was done with his beer, he’d probably have taken title to my house with his sleezy tactics, and if I don’t give it to him, his wife would claim I was racial that I wouldn’t give it to him…..lol
Hey, he beat Alan Keyes!
I’m sorry, it was just too inviting and obvious to leave untouched on the table…
Lies and more lies. It comes to the point that I no longer believe anything that comes out of his mouth.
Oh this guy is not offering hope anymore…now fear is all I feel in his presence.
People don’t actually think that during a time of war the nation is going to elect a guy whose whole record of experience and judgment rests on an anti-war speech? I mean, what if Hussein did have WMDs? I’m not saying it was a good thing to go to war, but I mean our president has to be capable of engaging in war if need be. All BO does is talk about sitting down with dictators and bombin our allies. He’s a joke.
The thing I respect about Hillary is the armed services will follow her. She is a commander they respect. That’s not easy for a woman — it goes against a long history of sexism. But she has the strength and grit and smarts to be Commander in Chief. I hope you come through for us TX, OH, RI and even VT.
Agreed.
Bone crunching fear, he’s feeling.
At least, that’s how I read him.
Hillary loves knowledge. She wants to know all sides to all stories. Then she will make an educated decision. She is not afraid to ask the experts. That is another reason I like her. She is so smart. I’m not saying she won’t make mistakes but I think her judgment is basically sound.
More and more he is reminding me of a smarter, hopefully more leftward leaning version of GWB and I’m really not liking what I am seeing.
I read a linked article about his Illinois Senate career, I believe it was here to Mydd to a link to another site, what a total turd Obama is. He took credit for all the hard work that other Senators had done on bills!!! Unbelievable. That alone makes me think that I won’t be voting for him, it reminds me of all the times workers of both sexes (especially females) do all the work and then the boss takes the credit or gives it to his “pet”, sickening. Small wonder some there don’t have fond thoughts of him…
I probably ought to clarify that BO can string five word sentences together without stumbling, not necessarily that he would be smarter policy wise. Also if he didn’t really do the work on these bills, you know what, we really don’t know at ALL what we are getting into with this guy.
I used to think Obama was Bush light, now I’m really thinking Bush is Obama light.
Meaning, Bush is starting to look good to me, now.
It is interesting that it took Bush to comment on this for the MSM to even
pose the question about Sen. Obama’s position to meet
*personally during his first year as president*
with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Siria
February 28, 2008
Blitzer: Would U.S. be better off if it met with adversaries?
Posted: 03:49 PM ET
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/wolf-blitzer/
Does anyone have Sen. Obama’s speech at a rally (I think?) when he dared Sen. Clinton’s point that you cannot just say that he would do such a thing
(without putting in place first of preconditions, low level contacts first) by saying
“Watch me ! ”
If you have or know of a youtube link please post.
His position on this and his a total abdication of one of his principal Senate responsibilities as chairman of the Foreign Relation subcommitee on Europe, NATO, are truly scary…
“So the fair comparison was when we both had responsibility, when it wasn’t just a speech but it was actually action, where is the difference? Where is the comparison that would in some way give a real credibility to the speech that he gave against the war?”
I think that was extremely well put by Senator Clinton. The problem is the media is not interested in any sense of fairness or balance in their reporting. I am afraid that all the negative and constant bombardment of the public my the media is going to have the effect of suppressing voters for Clinton. This campaign against Senator Clinton by the media is second only to the WMD story in exemplifying Orwellian fears.
Let’s not forget that there is no authenticating record of his 2002 anti-war speech, but for a snippet of tape. So what does Obama do? He re-enacts his supposed words with recorded crowd noises in the background for the purposes of making an ad. Total deception and yet nobody is calling him on it.
Really, I’m sorry I haven’t heard this before, can you supply links?
Read all about Obama’s reenactment of his 2002 speech here:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/601567,CST-NWS-obama13.article
More analysis:
http://cliffpotter.newsvine.com/_news/2008/02/01/1271077-bolstering-obamas-iraq-war-claims-is-obama-manipulating-the-public
October 13, 2007
BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist
WASHINGTON — The Obama campaign readily admits that White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) recently recorded a portion of the Oct. 2, 2002, anti-Iraq war speech he originally delivered at an outdoor rally in Chicago for a new ad that went online Thursday.
There is no good audio tape of the speech, which is playing a pivotal role in the Obama campaign. But the campaign used a sound effect to create the impression one was listening to the original speech.
“It was Barack re-reading a portion of the speech. As I told you, there is no original tape,” Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, told me in an e-mail exchange.
The 77-second ad uses sound effects that could easily lead one to conclude that one is listening to Obama making the original speech at the plaza rally outside the Kluczynski Federal Building in the Loop.
It is a sound effect to make the Obama spot seem something it is not.
Obama’s voice sounds as if it were recorded off a loudspeaker. The sound effect gives Obama’s voice a reverberation, or echo-like quality.
The spot is titled “Blank Check” and is designed to underscore one of — perhaps the most potent — calling cards of Obama, his early opposition to the Iraq war.
Obama’s new voice-over uses a key quote from the Oct. 2 speech at the rally in which protesters tried to head off the Senate’s Oct. 11, 2002, vote to authorize the Iraq war:
“I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length at undetermined cost with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida.”
I could have sworn that Oama dug up some dirt on his opponent who dropped out of that campaign. That candidate was replaced by Alan Keyes who didn’t even live in Illinois. That is why he won so handily. He ran against the worst candidate imaginable. Now they act like this was some miracle win.The only miracle was is ability to dig up dirt on is opponent. Much like a republican campaign. That was not a hard campaign by any means.
One speech does not make you “one of the most outspoken critics of the war”. Howard Dean, for example, was what I would call “outspoken”.
Obama gave one speech. But if he was so outspoken, what more did he do? Did he writte a few editorial? A state senator could have gotten one published in Illinois. He could have given a dozen speeches. Did he march in anti-war protests? Surely they had them in Chicago. One speech hardly anyone heard doesn’t cut it as an anti-war leader.
LAMBERT DID NOT CATCH THAT!
There is no need to give a hat tip to Lambert for blogging about something on Wednesday.
One of Lambert’s reader’s saw C.I.’s post Tuesday night and that’s who caught it, C.I.
This is the url to C.I.’s entry:
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2008/02/barack-obama-lied-in-debate.html
Not only did C.I. catch it on Tuesday night, I left a comment on Susan’s post about that:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/26/lets-fact-check-the-bamboozler/
Here’s the comment I left on Tuesday:
Great job Susan. Here’s one more. C.I. points out B.O. lied in the debate:
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2008/02/barack-obama-lied-in-debate.html
Quote: “My objections to the war in Iraq were simply — not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign.”
He wasn’t running for the US Senate. He was running for re-election to the state senate.
C.I.: “He lied. This isn’t “mispoke.” He said “US Senate.” It made him sound better. And it was a lie. That speech is not something new to him, he has referenced it over and over. He knows when he gave it. He’s reference that over and over. He was not running for the US Senate. He thought he could get away with it (and during the debate he did).”
Considering that C.I. hasn’t slammed Larry the way a lot of other people have been doing online, I’m really offended that Lambert’s getting credit.
Isn’t one of our problems with Obama that Hillary does the work and Obama comes along and says “Me too” and he’s hailed as a genius?
C.I.’s just one more woman getting ripped off online and I’m not going to pretend it’s not happening.
Give credit where it’s due, to C.I. of The Common Ills.
And before she’s ripped off again, C.I. addressed the issue of those saying “Well he wasn’t talking about 2002, he mispoke” in this:
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2008/02/iraq-snapshot_28.html
And C.I. ran through his record here:
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2008/02/i-hate-war_28.html
C.I. and Elaine
http://likemariasaidpaz.blogspot.com/
have repeatedly blogged on Barack Obama not being “anti-war.” They found out at a 2004 fundraiser. They’ve been writing about that since long before he announced he was running for president.
Obama cannot even get his full name straight…So much for being comfortable in his own skin nonsense. Obama acts out all offended when people use his full name and everyone is apologizing … Have they all lost their minds?
Found an interesting article on “Time” about this yesterday.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1718255,00.html
He can’t even get his facts straight re:his conception claiming his parents met in Selma,AL in 1965. Except, he was born in 1961. OOOPPPSSS!!!
Obama: “Because some folks were willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama, Jr. was born. So
don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At Brown Chapel AME Church, Selma, AL, 3/4/07)
Here’s a story from a Houston weekly on Obama’s work in the Illinois state senate. I’m new to this site (glad to be here) and don’t know if it’s been viewed here.
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me
You aren’t Lynn Wyatt by any chance, are you?
Simon, I’m not Lynn Wyatt.
Obama launched his campaign committee to run for US senate in July 2002, so his anti-Iraq war speech of October 2002 was made with the knowledge that it will be used against him.
Larry, have you given up life in your devotion to bash Obama?
A pity…
Obama could add drama to Senate race
Click here for complete article
Author: Steve Neal
Date: July 3, 2002
Publication: Chicago Sun-Times
Page: 41
Word Count: 826
Excerpt:
He could win it all. State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago), the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Chicago, is hoping to be the 2004 Democratic nominee against Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald.
Earlier this week, Obama launched a campaign committee to challenge Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald in 2004.
He didn’t announce his candidacy until end of Jan 2003. In Oct 2002, he was indeed running for his 4th term for State Senate.