Pure Facts On Obama's Iraq War Record

The Obama campaign is truly stooping to new lows.  Now, the Obama campaign, through surrogate Dick Durbin, is claiming that Hillary Clinton's remarks on Obama's record concerning the Iraq War are somehow just like the Swift Boat ads run against John Kerry.  Here's a reality check, the Swift Boat ads against Sen. Kerry were completely untrue and there was nothing to back up the claims made in them.  On the contrary, the contrasts Sen. Clinton has been making on Sen. Obama's position are 100% true and the evidence to back them up is as follows.

1) In 2004, Barack Obama clearly said that he does not know how he would have voted---yes or no---had he been in the U.S. Senate at the time of the vote:

"When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’ " (New York Times, 7/26/04)

2) Obama also said that there was not much difference between his position and George Bush's in 2004:

“On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.” (Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04)

3) Until Obama began his Presidential campaign, Obama voted for every single war funding bill, even though, while running for the Senate in 2004, he said he would not vote for a single one.

4) Obama waited a year and half once he got in the Senate to give a speech on Iraq, and ironically enough, it was one where he opposed a time table for withdrawal:

"I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them." (Obama Speech, 6/21/06)

5) Obama has based his entire campaign on the premise that he was always opposed to the war and that his opposition the last 5 years has been much different than that of Sen. Clinton.  But, again, the fact is that once he got in the Senate, he voted the exact same way Sen. Clinton did:

"In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against." (ABC News, 5/17/07)

My Take: Sen. Obama is being clearly disingenuous when describing his position.  No one is claiming that this speech in the Illinois State Senate in 2002 wasn't in opposition to the war.  But the fact is, that was a speech.  When Obama had the chance to turn rhetoric into reality and talk into action, when he arrived in the Senate, he failed to do so.  This further illustrates the point that I have consistently made against Obama.  He always talks a good talk, but has failed to back his talk up with action. It's great that Obama opposed the war in 2002, but in 2004 he clearly had a different sentiment.  And in 2005, when he was elected to the Senate, Obama did nothing to change course in this war.  It is simply wrong for Obama to base his campaign on the fallacy that he was always different from Sen. Clinton concerning the Iraq War.  The facts prove otherwise.