One regular sized week. Seven entire days. Compared to Senator Clinton, that's how much longer Senator Obama has actively opposed the war in Iraq.

However, in dozens of venues before many thousands of his fans, Senator Obama has repeatedly claimed (usually to loud applause) that Hillary was for the war while he was against the war in 2002, against it in 2003, against it in 2004, against it in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and he will bring our troops home in 2009. For one example watch him at roughly 1 minute and 45 seconds into this clip. That may all be true (and unless there is convincing evidence supporting that claim, only Senator Obama can know for certain if it is); but so far, in spite of the fact that I have carefully searched the internet (including his website) and asked many of his supporters for evidence of this continuous opposition he brags about so frequently, I have found no such evidence for the three years between October 2, 2002 and November 22, 2005. Moreover, some may be surprised that there is evidence that he sometimes seemed to support the war during that period. Even more surprising may be that since he entered the US Senate in 2005, he has voted exactly the same as Senator Clinton (whose judgment he so regularly impugns) on all but one of the 85 votes the Senate has held on Iraq. Last but not least, when asked in 2004 (during his Senate run) whether he would have voted for the Iraq War Resolution had he been in the Senate at the time, he answered that he didn’t know. Yet, three years later he started to become sharply critical of Senator Clinton for having done so.

Until just before the showdowns in Texas and Ohio, Senator Clinton generally ignored the undeserved mileage Senator Obama had been getting by posturing himself as continuously against the war. That was when she began to mention that his claim to superior foreign policy judgment rested entirely on one speech. More recently, the LA Times reported that Senator Clinton thought Senator Obama ought to be asked some extremely important questions concerning what he did and did not do to follow up on that one speech.

The address in question was the one he gave in early October 2002 opposing an American invasion of Iraq. Clinton and her aides long have chafed over the mileage he has gotten from it, given the difference in their stature at the time.

He was an obscure state senator in Illinois, representing a district in Chicago with a strong antiwar constituency. She was a high-profile U.S. senator from New York, which suffered the most grievous losses on 9/11. He did not face a vote on the Iraq issue. She did….

"I think it is fair to ask questions about, 'Well, what did you do after the speech was over?' And when he became a (U.S.) senator, he didn't go to the floor of the Senate to condemn the war in Iraq for 18 months. He didn't introduce legislation against the war in Iraq. He voted against timelines and deadlines initially," she (Senator Clinton) said.

So, in that spirit, I decided to diary my impressions of Senator Obama’s record during those years, highlighting some of the questions I see raised by Senator Obama’s record of opposition (or lack thereof) to the war in Iraq. I realize that others will neither share all of my concerns, nor appreciate all of my questions (which I hereafter raise as they occur, rather than in any particular order of importance). For that reason, I hope that all who have read this far will bear with me each time you fail to share or appreciate any particular question I raise and continue to read all of the rest of the way through before deciding what you think this all suggests.

2002

I began my chronological inquiry, naturally, by reading his first speech against the war. That reading convinced me that State Senator Obama truly did oppose actually going to war with Iraq on the particular occasion of his speech to an anti-war group in his State Senate district. However, quite surprisingly to me, it also raised some questions regarding his judgment on matters of war and national security. Furthermore, his speech provides one small clue that suggests he might have actually voted for the IWR if he were in the US Senate only nine days later when Senator Clinton and so many other Democrats voted for it.

The following four block-quotes are from: Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq - October 2, 2002

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

Here we learn that State Senator Obama apparently approves of the American Civil War. He evidently thinks that the inexperienced Abraham Lincoln and the US Government had exhausted all possible remedies before sending armed US troops to war against their fellow Americans. Personally, I find that somewhat of an odd view, particularly coming as it does from one who says he thinks war should always be a last resort. Furthermore, many other countries managed to eliminate slavery without a civil war. Why then couldn’t we have followed a similar path? I don’t ask this in search of a history lesson, but rather as a way of questioning exactly what might trigger Senator Obama’s “last resort” use of force. Interestingly, State Senator Obama’s speech does contain further implications on just this issue, such as:

I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars.

Here State Senator Obama is rather emphatically saying that he would support (and even fight in) a war to prevent another slaughter of innocents.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war….

You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work

State Senator Obama here actually proposes that President Bush fight to make sure that the UN inspectors could do their work. That’s interesting, because that’s precisely what Senator Clinton and others authorized when they passed the Iraq War Resolution just nine days later, the self-same resolution Obama later said (in 2004) he didn’t know whether or not he would have supported.

Then, he goes on to suggest yet other fights President Bush should enter, including:

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

So, at the very same time he quite intelligently opposed President Bush’s incessant and quite stupid push to go to war with Iraq, he seems to be advocating some sort of fight with the Saudis and the Egyptians. Coming from State Senator Obama, this may be no more than empty rhetoric, of course; but given that most of the 9/11 terrorists were from either Saudi Arabia or Egypt; and that State Senator Obama had just stated his own willingness “to take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again”; and that he here raises the specter of “ready recruits of terrorist cells” it does sound like he is pressing for a preventive war with Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

State Senator Obama was rightly opposed to a "dumb" war (with Iraq), but he was at the same time suggesting we fight with our “so-called allies” in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Perhaps, in his finely honed national security judgment, war with Saudi Arabia and Egypt would have been another necessary “crucible of the sword” somewhat like the American Civil War of which he stated his approval.

2003

What a year this was. We had Colin Powell’s incredibly misleading UN Security Council testimony, gigantic anti-war demonstrations all over the world, Saddam Hussein’s compliance with UN resolutions and his agreement to allow Hans Blix’s inspectors back into Iraq, Bush/Cheney’s Shock and Awe nonetheless; and, as far as I can see, no anti-war activity whatsoever from State Senator Barack Obama.

Maybe State Senator Obama was opposed to the Iraq war throughout 2003. However, there is nothing at his website to confirm that. Moreover, so far I haven’t found any evidence anywhere else to confirm that either.

By way of example and in stark contrast to State Senator Obama’s silence on this matter, General Wesley Clark was speaking out in great detail as to what we should do about the war in Iraq and what we should do to insure that we never again entered such a needless war. Here is a small (but very apropos) part of what General Clark had to say:

The Administration compounded its error by failing to plan realistically for post-war Iraq. Instead of listening to the experts at the State Department and throughout the government, who predicted the danger of chaos and looting, the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and his aides ignored their advice. Instead they relied on hope, hope that the Iraqi exiles would be accepted as legitimate, hope that the Iraqi police and military would provide security; hope that Iraqi oil revenues would finance reconstruction; and hope that we would be treated as liberators. How wrong they were - you can't build a plan on hope....

2004

Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention - July 27, 2004

Oddly enough, State Senator Obama (who now says he was opposed to the war in Iraq in 2002, 2003, 2004, etc.) for some reason didn’t make a stirring anti-war speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004. At the time, he was in an unbelievably easy race for the US Senate; and partly because of that, most anti-war activists would have expected a fellow anti-war activist to at least be critical of how George Bush was conducting the war. Presidential candidates Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, and Dennis Kucinich (for example) had all been quite critical of President Bush’s policies. However, State Senator Obama didn’t say anything critical of the war, President Bush, or his policies. In fact, on the very same day he gave this Keynote Address, State Senator Obama was quoted in the Chicago Tribune as saying:

There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.

The July 27, 2004 Tribune went on to say that Obama, “now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.”

In his Keynote Address, State Senator Obama did make some touching remarks about our duty to wounded veterans; but other than those, the following are his only remarks pertinent to the war in Iraq:

A while back, I met a young man named Shamus at the VFW Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid, six-two or six-three, clear-eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he'd joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week. As I listened to him explain why he'd enlisted, his absolute faith in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all any of us might hope for in a child….

Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated….

There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America….

Even though he said nothing opposing the war in Iraq, many people remember that State Senator Obama was very eloquent in that speech. He certainly demonstrated his great optimism which is so compelling to so many Democrats. He finished his speech with a stirring prediction I imagine not one delegate in that audience doubted for even a minute:

Tonight, if you feel the same energy I do, the same urgency I do, the same passion I do, the same hopefulness I do - if we do what we must do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be sworn in as president, and John Edwards will be sworn in as vice president, and this country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come. Thank you and God bless you.

Oddly, though, in spite of State Senator Obama’s eloquence and lack of doubt, and even though Democrats rose up everywhere with the same hopefulness, passion and urgency that State Senator Obama said he had, George W. Bush and Richard Cheney were re-elected less than three months later. I guess the lesson is that Democrats needed something more than State Senator Obama’s self-described hopefulness, passion and urgency.

2005

On January 20, I believe, Barack Obama was sworn in as a US Senator. It was finally time for him to join ranks with those in the US Senate who were then opposed to the war in Iraq. However, he must have had something else in mind when he looked around for a senior US Senator to be his mentor. He chose Senator Joe Liebermann.

However, he was not entirely silent on issues related to the war. Here is what he said on the occasion of anti-war Representative John Lewis's 65th Birthday Gala on February 21, 2005:

It's wrong to tell those brave men and women who are willing to fight and die for this country that when they come home, we may not have room for them at the VA hospitals or the benefits we promised them. And it's right to always provide the very best care for the very best of America.

Admirable, but what would have been the harm of Senator Obama congratulating Congressman Lewis for his steadfast opposition to the war? You would think Senator Obama would have done that, seeing as how he was opposed to the war in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, etc. etc. But alas, he missed his chance. I suppose he was preoccupied with other more urgent matters, or something.

Then, on March 1, Senator Obama said the following to the American Legion Legislative Rally:

I thought about a young man named Seamus Ahern, who I met during the campaign at a V.F.W. hall in East Moline, Illinois. He told me about how he'd joined the Marines because he was so proud of this country, and he felt that as a young person in his early twenties he wanted to give something back. He was getting shipped out to Iraq the following week, and as I listened to him explain why he'd enlisted, the absolute faith he had in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all that any of us might hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: When Shamus comes home, will we serve him as well as he served us?

Well, there’s that clear-eyed Marine that Senator Obama met again. Seamus (or is it Shamus?) Ahern had “absolute faith…in our country and its leaders” and “was all that any of us might hope for in a child”.

It’s very nice that Senator Obama continued to worry about him, but a little odd that his Webmaster hasn’t yet bothered to correct the misspelling of his name at that link and on several other Obama for President links. One might ask if Obama thinks words are really important, unless the word happens to be the surname of a United States Marine that he frequently throws into his speeches presumably to demonstrate his high regard for our troops .

On April 20, so far as I know, Senator Obama didn’t say a single thing about the war in Iraq. However, he did speak of Abraham Lincoln in a way that makes me wonder if anyone sees similar qualities in Senator Obama:

And yet what separates Lincoln from the other great men has to do with something else. It's an issue of character that speaks to us, of moral resolve. Lincoln was not a perfect man, nor a perfect president. By modern standards, his condemnation of slavery might be considered tentative; his Emancipation Proclamation more a military document than a clarion call for justice. He wasn't immune to political considerations; his temperament could be indecisive and morose.

And yet despite these imperfections, despite his fallibility...indeed, perhaps because of a painful self-awareness of his own failings, etched in every crease of his face and reflected in those haunted eyes...because of this essential humanity of his, when it came time to confront the greatest moral challenge this nation has ever faced, Lincoln did not flinch. He did not equivocate or duck or pass the challenge on to future generations. He did not demonize the fathers and sons who did battle on the other side, nor seek to diminish the terrible costs of his war. In the midst of slavery's dark storm and the complexities of governing a house divided, he kept his moral compass pointed firm and true.

It serves us then to reflect on whether that element of Lincoln's character, and the American character - that aspect which makes tough choices, and speaks the truth when least convenient, and acts while still admitting doubt - remains with us today. Lincoln once said that "character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing."

At a time when image all too often trumps substance, when our politics all too often feeds rather than bridges division, when the prospects of a poor youth rising out of poverty seem of no consequence to the powerful, and when we evoke our common God to condemn those who do not think as we do, rather than to seek God's mercy for our own lack of understanding - at such a time it is helpful to remember this man who was the real thing. Lincoln reminds us that our essential greatness is not the shadow of sophistication or popularity, or wealth or power or fleeting celebrity. It is the tree that stands in the face of our doubts and fears and bigotries, and insists we can do better

.

On April 26, 2005, Senator Obama made a speech entitled "A Hope To Fulfill". Strangely enough, my hope to find it at his website was not fulfilled. The page opens at the link, but there is just the date and the title – no text:

Happily, however, the full text is still available from the US Senate.

It’s a very good speech about Social Security, and I mention it here (not entirely out of context) primarily because of two oddities. One is the aforementioned absence of this speech at his website, and the other is Senator Obama’s strange remark in this speech about people he’s met “since starting my campaign.”

You know, there are times in the life of this nation where we are individual citizens going about our own business, enjoying the freedoms we've been blessed with.

And then there are times when we are one America, linked by the dignity of each and the destiny of all.
The debate over the future of Social Security must be one of these times.

The people I've met since starting my campaign tell me they don't want a big government that's running their lives, but they do want an active government that will give them the opportunity to make the most of their lives.

What campaign? He’d been elected to the US Senate over 5 months before he gave this speech and been sworn in to the US Senate three months earlier. What was he “campaigning” for in April of 2005? President of the United States? And if so, was he running as an anti-war candidate then as he tells us he is today? If that’s the case, why can’t I find any evidence of his opposition to the war back then? And didn’t he say somewhere later that he wasn’t adequately prepared for the Presidency? This odd remark raises the question of when he actually began his campaign for the Presidency.

Perhaps he simply misspoke….

The May issue of Washington Monthly carried an article by General Wesley Clark detailing Bush administration failures in Iraq.

On August 26, 2005, another of General Wesley Clark’s excellent critiques of Bush’s unnecessary war in Iraq was printed.

I mention these articles to illustrate that while Barack Obama remained silent on the war in Iraq, General Clark and many others continued their heroic efforts to help the public understand that it was time to bring an end to Bush’s stupid and unnecessary war.

Then, on November 18, 2005, something truly stunning happened. Rep. John Patrick Murtha (D-PA) called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying he believed the armed forces "have done all they can."

John Murtha's stunning comments calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq made the front page of newspapers around the country this week. It was particularly astonishing because the veteran Pennsylvania congressman is anything but a publicity seeker or a media hog. You won't, for instance, find him on the House floor opining on every subject under the sun.

But his counsel is widely sought. A decorated Vietnam War veteran -- one who has spent more than three decades on Capitol Hill as a behind-the-scenes power broker -- his thoughts and pronouncements on military matters and defense policy are respected on both sides of the aisle.

Suddenly there was a great deal more political space for previously cautious Democrats to speak out against the war. And to his credit, Senator Barack Obama was one of the first to take advantage of the opportunity Congressman Murtha had provided.

On November 22, 2005, Senator Obama gave
his first anti-Iraq war speech since 2002.

He spoke about many matters that General Clark had been addressing for quite a long time, which you can verify by following the links I've already provided. But for the purposes of this diary, it's sufficient for you to read just the following small part of what he had to say:

Last week, the White House showed exactly what kind of debate it wants on future of Iraq - none.

We watched the shameful attempt to paint John Murtha - a Marine Corp recipient of two-purple hearts and a Bronze Star - into a coward of questionable patriotism. We saw the Administration tell people of both parties - people who asked legitimate questions about the intelligence that led us to war and the Administration's plan for Iraq - that they should keep quiet, end the complaining, and stop rewriting history.

This political war - a war of talking points and Sunday news shows and spin - is not one I'm interested in joining. It's a divisive approach that only pushes us further from what the American people actually want - a pragmatic solution to the real war we're facing in Iraq.

I do want to make the following observations, though. First, I am part of that post Baby Boom generation that was too young to fight in Vietnam, not called to fight in Desert Storm, too old for the current conflict. For those like me who - for whatever reason - have never seen battle, whether they be in the Administration or in Congress, let me suggest that they put the words "coward" and "unpatriotic" out of their vocabulary - at least when it comes to veterans like John Murtha who have put their lives on the line for this country. I noticed that the President recognized this bit of wisdom yesterday. I hope others do to.

Only one week later, on November 29, 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton emailed her supporters declaring that her vote for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002 had been a mistake:

While saying she took full responsibility for her error, Clinton repeatedly insisted that she had been misled by "false" intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction presented by the Bush administration.

Citing "assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections," Clinton lamented: "Their assurances turned out to be empty ones."

And so it was, that both of these Democratic Presidential candidates began their active opposition to the war in Iraq just one week apart, and approximately at the same time most other Democratic politicians began to actively oppose the war, courtesy of the very real audacity of Congressman John Patrick Murtha. Senator Obama's empty rhetoric notwithstanding, the truth seems to be that he did nothing of significance to oppose the war much before a great many other Democrats were finally convinced that the public would finally understand that the Bush administration had been feeding them tons of manure and calling it intelligence.

And, as I pointed out at the start of this diary, the US Senate voting records of these two Democratic Presidential candidates are virtually identical on the matter of Iraq.

So, which one do you like now?

As for General Wesley Clark, he watched the current race for the Presidency until September of 2007 when he endorsed Senator Clinton.

Congressman Murtha watched until the field had narrowed to Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, and on March 2008, he endorsed Senator Clinton.

You will reach your own conclusions about all of this.

Personally, I think the evidence is that Senator Obama has been demonstrating the audacity of hype far more effectively than he has demonstrated the audacity of hope. Fortunately there is still time for Democrats to see through the deceit of the former audacity.