Russert misleadingly cropped Obama comment to claim he wasn't "firmly wedded against the war"
SUMMARY: Interviewing Barack Obama on Meet the Press, Tim Russert read a quote he attributed to Obama to suggest that he has "not been a leader against the [Iraq] war": "In July of 2004, Barack Obama: 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know,' in terms of how you would have voted on the war." Russert did not quote the very next sentence of Obama's statement, which was, "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made" for authorizing the war.
During his November 11 Meet the Press interview with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (IL) on NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asserted that "critics will say you've not been a leader against the war," and then read a quote he attributed to Obama: "In July of 2004, Barack Obama: 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know,' in terms of how you would have voted on the war." After quoting two other Obama statements on the war, Russert concluded: "It doesn't seem that you were firmly wedded against the war and that you left some wiggle room that, if you were in the Senate, you may have voted for it." However, in citing Obama's comment "What would I have done? I don't know," Russert did not quote the very next sentence of Obama's statement, which was, "What I know is that from my vantage point the case [for authorizing the war] was not made."
Obama made his comment in an interview reported by The New York Times in a July 27, 2004, article: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... 'What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'' The Times also reported that Obama "declined to criticize Senators [John] Kerry [D-MA] and [John] Edwards [D-NC] for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time":
In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.
''But, 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.''
But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said.
Further, in a July 24, 2004, interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Obama said that while he "didn't have the information that was available to senators," he would have voted against the Iraq war authorization:
BLITZER: Had you been in the Senate when they had a vote on whether to give the president the authority to go to war, how would you have voted?
OBAMA: You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators. I know that, as somebody who was thinking about a U.S. Senate race, I think it was a mistake, and I think I would have voted no.
BLITZER: You would have voted no at the time?
OBAMA: That's correct.
BLITZER: Kerry, of course, and Edwards both voted yes.
OBAMA: But keep in mind, I think this is a tough question and a tough call. What I do think is that if you're going to make these tough calls, you have to do so in a transparent way, in an honest way, talk to the American people, trust their judgment.
From the November 11 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Senator Clinton's campaign will say since you've been a senator, there's been no difference in your records. And other critics will say you've not been a leader against the war, and they point to this. In July of 2004, Barack Obama: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know," in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this. "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." That was July of '04. And then this: "I think that there is room for disagreement in that initial decision" to vote for authorization of the war. It doesn't seem that you were firmly wedded against the war and that you left some wiggle room that, if you were in the Senate, you may have voted for it.
OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on Meet the Press during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war, so it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq. Look, I was opposed to this war in 2002, 2003, '4, '5, '6, and '7. What I was very clear about, even in 2002 in my original opposition, was once we were in, we were going to have to make some decisions to see how we could stabilize the situation and act responsibly. And that's what I did through 2004, '5, and '6, try to see, can we create a workable government in Iraq? Can we make sure that we're minimizing the humanitarian costs in Iraq? Can we make sure that our troops are safe in Iraq? And that's what I have done. Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled down and initiated the surge. And at that stage, I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening potentially a situation there. And since that time, I've been absolutely clear in terms of the approach I would take. I would end this war and I would have our troops out within 16 months.















If they are this bad now just picture how bad it is going to get in the final days espically if Democrats are ahead. These Pundits will do anything even lie, cheat, and steal to put a Republican in the President Seat.
They have been doing the same 'game plan' for over eight years. A game plan created by GE. This game plan began, again, with last Democratic debate concocted by MSNBC. The new AXIS OF EVIL of Russert, Matthews, and Williams are working in unison to pull this off again. Thus, both Williams and Russert did they attack thing on Clinton that was evil in design, then the instant analysis by Buffoon Matthews. And , suddenly, the 'fall' of Clinton was at hand. Matthews has continued on unabated since that debate of his stupid show .. attack upon attack of Clinton just like he did to Gore, then Kerry. All the while GE/NBC inventing new 'polls' to prove the 'slide' of Clinton which were of course reinforced by Russert showing up on Williams "Nightly Propaganda". And, then, finally Russert has on , of course, Obama to reinforce the lie that he is now climbing in the polls. A coordinated game plan that continues .. and will continue until the elections themselves. These evil goons are as responsible for the destruction of our once great country called America as the corporations that own them. Not to mention their Fuhrer Bush and all his goons. They should be charged, tried, and convicted for purposeful fraud committed against the American people. And then put into prison.
Wow. When you crop it like that, it distorts the statement entirely.
-JeffGannonMaleEscort
But Russert can't be held accountable. He's just an "aw shucks" guy from Buffalo ;-)
Russert is deplorable, his attack on Hillary last week was planned and assisted the GOP.
Doris,
If you think pressing Hillary to give a straight answer to a simple question over giving licenses to illegals is an attack, well that's your prerogative.
If Hillary cannot handle Tim, how's she going to fare against the likes of Putin, Ahmanijedad, and even the Republicans in Congress?
AAHillary handled Russert just find, just like she would any potential world advisary. The issue was not how Hillary handled him, but the bias of his question. His soft questions to others about UFOs but his brazen attempted attack on the Senator.
Doris,
How was Tim Russert's question a brazen attack on Hillary, or an attack of any kind? He asked her to answer a specific question on a topic she appeared to be less than clear on.
Hillary, Bill, her camp & followers have had such an odd reaction to all of this.
She's being piled on, swiftboated, attacked...geez.
All because SHE danced around her answer! Talk about not being able to take blame. Sorry but I don't want another President who never thinks they are wrong.
I wish the Democrats would smarten up & get behind Obama... I really wish they'd back Biden--but that just makes way too much sense I guess.
I could live with an Obama or Biden.
IF Hills is the Dem candidate I will vote for any Republican unless it's Rudy
I will sit out a Rudy-Hills race.
Jeter, HRC will be the next POTUS. The Republicans don't have anybody that can beat her, she's crushing her Dem opponents, she has the money, the name recognition, the political machine behind her.
It's a done deal.
Bruce,
I am not so sure. Hillary has had months of favorable press, now she's a little flustered what with all the "piling on" and it's starting to show.
Also, her equiovacting on issues will hurt her, and now with the talk of this last weekend of planting questioners in Iowa's audiences - not good for her.
Remember Dean in 2004, he was way ahead here too and he stumbled out of the nomination fast.
With all due respect, I don't think it's done.
Favorable press?
I thought she was being Swift-boated, smeared, gender-bashed, ganged up on, and misrepresented all at the same time.
Favorable press indeed. ;-)
Is it Jeff or John?
It should be Jeff.
The Republan smear machine will eventually rally the Democrats who don't vote. ENOUGH is ENOUGH will be the rally cry of the Democratic Party and the stoopid Repubs will go the way of the Whigs. More and more people are already acutely aware of this type of smear and are getting mad as hell. I still believe that the Rush and his wannabes have a secret desire to see Hillary elected which ensures them 8 more years of terrific income.
This Merits Repeating - Topic: JusticeTruthUS.FactCheck-NOT
"How else would you describe someone who's always telling you his opinion, and claiming that his opinion is FACT?" - AND - "I will say it's arrogant, immature, self-serving, illogical, refutable, ridiculous, repetitious, boring and wrong."
Worrier King / Monday November 12, 2007
Right on Worrier! We all have a right to our opinions but some posters come here thinking they have a right to proclaim their own Falsified Facts.
Had to stop by to agree with a great tell it like it is post and to wish you a happy Veterans Day King. See ya later.
- Sam I Am –
Have a good Veteran's Day too, Sam and Prince.
Sorry this is a day late.
This kind of "slip" gives credence to the theory that the MSM and corporate funded polls drive public opinion rather than inform the general population and measure opinions based on fact . The "domino theory" may have been an errant one when Eisenhower popularized the phrase during the Cold War: that the fatally flawed and dangerous Marxist mindset would defeat or corrupt one country after another until communism came to dominate the world--but the domino effect of misleading MSM packaging of the "news" and pollsters "flawed" framing of questions, designed to elicit a desired response rather than take the true pulse of respondents, is all too real. Seems they combine to impact the public perception of issues and candidates alike.
Someone, whether by design or a cavalier disregard for the whole truth, is telling us what to think. How to vote. Frankly, It's more than a little alarming. Someone has his hand up your skirt, America. Time to cry "Foul!" and demand better behavior. This is not the back seat of a '65 Mustang, folks. Our national honor is at stake.
Shame on you, Tim Russert. I thought you knew better.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:
One has to note that Russert was asking a question of Obama and giving Obama every opportunity to respond to his question. If Obama thought that the question was unfair, he could have said so to Russert right there on the program. The fact that Obama didn't complain only further reinforces the conclusion that Russert was being fair, open and honest.
On this topic I have to call it for Russert.
(Finally, a note to my good, good liberal friends - Russert's job is to ask questions of the candidates and give them a chance to respond. It's NOT Russert's job to make the case for every liberal candidate and then give him a free ride. If you want a free ride from a liberal who will lay down and do a hack interview for the left you better confine your media to "Democracy Now!" and Pacifica radio. Come to think of it, I'm starting to see a pattern - some on the left think that Pacifica radio and Amy Goonman ARE serious objective reporters and that anyone who does not lay down for libs are being "unfair"... well, my only advice to anyone with that strange notion in to try to get in touch with the real world!}
Rigth again, Truthy baby...On to November 2008...I only called you baby because XOF News has done an independent study and has confirmed that you are not a male. Nothing personal, just a FACT CHECK from XOf NEWS.
To reconfirm this, are you a male or not?
Billiybobjusticetroothy calls another surprising victory for the pathetic conservative media.I'm not a mind-reader, so I can't say whether Ruusert deliberately put this spin on it, or if he's just so thick that he really is confused.
He's a liar or stoopid, not really any other options. Same for anyone who would find themselves in agreement with him.
I have to call this one for reality as we know it on Planet Earth. Sorry Tim and Billybob.
HBL,
Deciding to call everyone who doesn't agree with you as either a liar or stupid, does not really help your case.
I'd be more interested in seeing what evidence/arguments you can provide to support your claims.
How else would you describe someone who's always telling you his opinion, and claiming that his opinion is FACT?
I've never read anything you've posted that claims to be FACT. You, like me and everyone else here, write our opinions. Sometimes we back her opinions up with links to others who share our opinion, but we never post FACTS.
Mr. or Ms. JuTrUS makes decisions based on his opinion and they declares his opinion as FACT.
While I wouldn't go as far as to say this is stupid, but I will say it's arrogant, immature, self-serving, illogical, refutable, ridiculous, repetitious, boring and wrong.
Well put.
Opinions are subjective and we all have them. Some here have this idea that one's opinion is invalid if it's not footnoted by verifiable facts - but I am glad to see you accept other's opinions and are not threatened by them as some here are.
Opinions should have a basis to them. Saying that is not being "threatened" by anything.
Worrier didn't say anything to support your nonsense.
Hmmm? I don't believe I referenced you by name at all. But considering your reaction, well, point made.
Your point isn't made until you can explain how an opinion with a basis and one without a basis are equal.
Good luck.
You sincerely don't get it do you?
You and I can go to the same movie, and have two completely different opinions on it. You and I can read an item here and have two completely different opinions on it's worthiness and placement relevance......neither has some factual basis more than the other. It is strictly one opinion vs. another.
If you still don't get it, forget it.
This has already been addressed. It's not about mere preferences. It's about evaluation.
Movies are a good example, since you inadvertantly pointed it out. Evaluating them is not based on facts, but there are standards for doing so. People discussing them in good faith can agree upon this. You can say that "Weekend at Bernie's II" was the greatest movie ever made, but then someone who says it's "Citizen Kane" and then gives you several reasons why he believes that is making a better argument. You both have your opinions, but one has a basis and the other doesn't, so the two are not equal. We don't pay movie critics to say "I liked it" and nothing more, do we? That would be the easiest job in the world.
Similarly, if you want your opinion to have any value, you should explain it. Otherwise, anyone make a baseless argument and expect it to carry equal weight with a thoughtful and informed post. Even though it's subjective, they can (and should) be evaluated and judged by their merits.
The thing is that you can't pretend that everything subjective is equal. What I originally said was subjective, but you criticized it. How is that possible, if both of our opinions are inherently equal? If I say my favorite color is blue, how do you say that's unreasonable? Both statements are subjective, after all.
The comment that you made in the first place showed that you yourself understand that subjective comments can be evaluated and justified. Otherwise, "hardly reasonable" would have no meaning whatsoever.
Why don't you try to understand that, and get back to me when you can address the argument in an honest and mature manner.
That should be "anyone could make a baseless argument...".
I specifically said the same movie, yet you went and made your argument based on two different movies - that is your first disingenuous point.
We could easily have two different opinions on the same movie, both equally valid - just as we read the same article here and came to different opinions. And yes, I disagreed with you and criticized your subjective opinion, so? That is what people do that discuss different items or articles or thread topics with their own opinions, just because I criticized it doesn't mean it's invalid, I just don't share it, hence the difference of opinion.
You didn't accept the criticism because I couldn't produce facts to back up my subjective opinion, that is absurd and no such standard is warranted on this specific difference of opinion.
If I said it's my opinion that 15 people only have been killed in Iraq, that is an opinion that has no basis in fact and rightly should be challenged......but our difference went to preferences and judgement, there is no factual basis necessary or even available,
Perhaps when you can distinguish preferential opinions from fact-based opinions, you would be able to impart your own opinion much more intelligently.....otherwise, you needn't bother.
"I specifically said the same movie, yet you went and made your argument based on two different movies - that is your first disingenuous point."
There's nothing disingenuous about what I said, because I wasn't claiming to use your exact example. But if it makes you feel better, if both of us watched "Citizen Kane" and you said you hated it, with no other commentary, and I explained in detail why the script, the acting, the cinematography were all effective, those opinions are not equal. That makes my point just as effectively, circumventing your hair-splitting.
"And yes, I disagreed with you and criticized your subjective opinion, so? That is what people do that discuss different items or articles or thread topics with their own opinions, just because I criticized it doesn't mean it's invalid, I just don't share it, hence the difference of opinion."
No, your argument now is that it's similar to preferences such as favorite color. You can't criticize someone's favorite color, can you? "Reasonable" has a basis of judgment, preference of color does not. That's why your argument is illogical.
"You didn't accept the criticism because I couldn't produce facts to back up my subjective opinion, that is absurd and no such standard is warranted on this specific difference of opinion."
You keep using the word "fact". The actual argument is about "basis" for an opinion. You can have subjective basis for arguments. "What you said is not reasonable because...". There doesn't have to be any facts following that, just a compelling and logical argument. Saying something is unreasonable simply because you disagree with it doesn't mean anything, that's a worthless partisan attack.
"If I said it's my opinion that 15 people only have been killed in Iraq, that is an opinion that has no basis in fact and rightly should be challenged......but our difference went to preferences and judgement, there is no factual basis necessary or even available"
Claiming a number of people killed is not an opinion. That would be your claim of a fact. That's objective, verifiable information. I think what you meant to say was "If I said it's my opinion that there haven't been many deaths in Iraq...". That's subjective, depending on the definition of "many". You can't possibly claim that what makes things "reasonable" or not have no basis whatsoever, can you? Are you serious? The word itself suggests that the standard is one of reason!
You have your opinion on this matter, I have mine. Bottom line is you can't accept your opinion being criticized by me.
I have no problem if you disagree with my opinion, and you are free to categorize it or call it unreasonable or anything your heart desires.....repeat, I have no problem with it whatsoever.
Because my faith in my opinion is not dependent on whether you approve or not, and if yours needs my approval for your own validity - well, you complete that sentence if you are so inclined.
We have both said our piece here, so on to another thread for me.......peace.
I can accept any criticism that has a basis. Baseless partisan attacks are not acceptable, and you admitted as much when you chastised Pete for taking a "potshot" at you.
Maybe you should try not to misrepresent people so much. It doesn't reflect well on your character, much like throwing out criticisms you can't justify.
Hi Barney!
"Deciding to call everyone who doesn't agree with you as either a liar or stupid, does not really help your case."
That's why I would never dream of doing anything like that, you just made it up.I was referring only to Russert, and my case is solid. Anybody who doesn't see that is a liar or stupid.
"I'd be more interested in seeing what evidence/arguments you can provide to support your claims."
It's sort of self-contained, if you read the item above anf the comments.You can't expect painstaking explanations of every issue from every poster do a little work from the neck up.
.Those who find themselves in agreement with shoddy journalists and propagandists are either fooled by these people or knowingly going along with them.That is, they're not very bright, or not very honest.Does that sugar-coating help you?
HBL,
You're reply earlier did not make it clear, (at least to Worrier and me,) that you were referring to Truth or to Russert. Because you wrote a reply to Truth and ended your note, it looked to both of us like your "stoopid" [sic] or "liar" comment was aimed at him.
Having said that, since you just clarified that you were referring to Russert, simply repeating yourself and saying look back at the thread doesn't really tell me why you make such claims. After all, people from both sides commented.
However, my question was sincere. Obviously you feel strongly regarding Mr. Russert. I for one, do not agree with you, so by your reasoning am lumped in as either a liar or stupid. I was hoping you'd explain as I did not get the connection. Perhaps your original response was just reflexive and emotional on your part. It happens. We all know you have a rather low threshold and are quick to start namecalling and ridiculing those with whom you disagree. I'm okay with that too even though I thought we had gotten past that.
I'll assume, because you chose not to answer my question, that you just got caught up in the moment and unable or unwilling to back up your assertion. Like I said, no biggie. Take care.
AA, like I said, you can't expect to have everything spoon-fed to you here. I re-read my comments, and I can't even guess where your confusion is coming from.
You may be projecting your "emotion" and "caught up in the moment" ideas.I actually think I have a pretty high threshold, and have spent way too much time on this site explaining things that are already clear to anybody who is really interested in understanding.
You've been posting at this site for longer than I have, I believe, and you should know by now that being hypersensitive to others opinions is only going to get you upset.
I notice the "name-calling" seems to get you, and I have to admit, you do very little overt name-calling. Your style is more of a matter-of-fact passive-aggressive dropping of insults, often with some backpedal room.
Without boring anybody else with a complete diagramming of the above item, let me start you out with this;
Russert omitted part of a quote that affected the meaning of that quote.When a so-called journalist does that, there are only two possible explanations; deliberate or accidental.
If it's deliberate, that's dishonest.That's when I use the word "liar",and you might pretend to take the high road by adding a little veneer of civility ( using double-talk, disingenuousness). We're saying the same thing, I'm just more straightforward.
If it's accidental, that's where I'll call it stupid.If the word "stupid" (or even worse "stoopid") is what gave you the vapors, how about "intellectually lazy" or "mentally lackluster"? That takes away the implication of some deficiency in native intelligence, and just goes to effort.
And that's all of the homework I'm going to help you with until you start pitching in. ;0)
HBL,
I'll admit that I do have my own low threshold for insults, swearing, and namecalling. I'll also admit that I've been guilty of at least two of the three above and for a while there enjoyed stirring the pot with comebacks equal to attacks against me. I've come to the conclusion that responding in kind to attacks only leads to more of the same. I guess I also have a low boredom threshold too because that now bore and frustrates me.
However I do enjoy a good riposte and a good argument. I also enjoy a good zinger even if it is aimed at me. They are fun. I also like to point it out here many here who call themselves either liberal or progressive are fairly closed minded and judgmental when it comes to political thought. I simply don't understand the personal ad hominum attacks. It seems to me that those engaging in these attacks are acting in the exact opposite manner of the liberal/progressive claim extolling the virtues of diversity. Ok. enough about that.
I know I was needling you a bit as I was somewhat disappointed by your first reply. I appreciate the time you took in the time above to explain. I now understand your reasoning although, as usual, I find problems with it. I think your use of the word liar and stupid are way too general and way too negative for Russert's comments.
I guess you could always criticize any reporter or questioner of these debates as a liar unless they include in their question the politician's whole quote. However I believe that is unrealistic as some politician's answers are so involved, and convoluted, that one could easily get lost by including the whole quote, not to mention, run out of time. :-)
As long as the questioner gets the gist of the politician's meaning with the truncated quote, I think they are doing their job. Of course there is room for disagreement, but to call them a liar or stupid because their question might make your candidate look less than stellar, seems overtly partisan on your part. By stating Russert is either a liar or stupid you seem not to be open for any other possibilities. My guess is that Russert has a staff of question writers who help craft these questions. It is always their intent to trip up the person on the other end and break through that sanitized politically correct stump speech response. I think Russert is one of the better ones at doing this.
This is simply my opinion regarding your opinion of Russert. So take it or leave it. As a side note, I also have had issues with Russert for quite some time and the way he frames his comments. Even though I disagree with lots of his statements and conclusions, I don't feel he is either a liar or stupid.
Thanks for the discussion.
I understood your post and agree with it 100 %.
I'm not sure where AA gets that he and I were confused.
Russert was and is stoopid and intellectually lazy. I'm hoping that he wasn't deliberately trying to set Obama up.
I'd like to believe he wasn't, but at this point, after seven years of seeing the press drool all over anything and everything Republican, I can't be sure.
This Merits Repeating - Topic: JusticeTruth U.S.FactCheck-NOT"How else would you describe someone who's always telling you his opinion, and claiming that his opinion is FACT?" - AND - "I will say it's arrogant, immature, self-serving, illogical, refutable, ridiculous, repetitious, boring and wrong." Worrier King / Monday November 12, 2007 Right on Worrier! We all have a right to our opinions but some posters come here thinking they have a right to proclaim their own Falsified Facts. Had to stop by to agree with a great tell it like it is post and to wish you a happy Veterans Day King. See ya later. - Sam I Am -
This Merits Repeating - Topic: JusticeTruthUS.FactCheck-NOT "How else would you describe someone who's always telling you his opinion, and claiming that his opinion is FACT?" - AND - "I will say it's arrogant, immature, self-serving, illogical, refutable, ridiculous, repetitious, boring and wrong." Worrier King / Monday November 12, 2007Right on Worrier! We all have a right to our opinions but some posters come here thinking they have a right to proclaim their own Falsified Facts.Had to stop by to agree with a great tell it like it is post and to wish you a happy Veterans Day King. See ya later.- Sam I Am –-
FOOTNOTE..
Sorry... I tried to post the previous 2 posts with a new FireFox Browser Program and it didn't work very good.
I'm getting so fed up with Tim Russert! -
Wish NBC would find a new format and hosts for Meet The Press. -
Such as...Comics Stewart and Colbert. Now that would Reeeeeally spruce up the show. -
Plus another more serious segment with co-hosts Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olberman debating and questioning invited guests. -
Dream On Sam!
Justice, Obama makes many statements on this matter of Iraq and probably did member his own statements word for word in their entirety. I think MMFA's point is that this could be misleading to the viewers. What is proven here is that Russert cropped the quote to say Obama was not a leaders.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact check:
TMAN- I'll just ask - Did Obama complain that the question was unfair? He had every opportunity if he did think so.
Well?
No he didnt whine like a crybaby conservative running to the teacher like say the Oxymoron would have. That would have only made him look bad. Since I dont NEED anyone to interpret what was said for me, I can draw my own conclusion what Obama did or did not do simply isnt relevant to the equation.
Obama has voted more than 24 times in support of war. He was never a leader in the anti-war movement. If making comments against the war were grounds for being called a leader in the anti-war movement, most of Bush Administration would qualify as anti-war leaders.
I dunno. I think, in this case, it wasn't as bad as it could have been. At least Obama was there with him, and stated his opinion directly after the fact. That seems fair to me.
I don't think it's likely that he deliberately cropped it to distort the meaning. More than likely, he chose the part of it that supported the question he was asking and highlighted it. After all, in the context of his question it doesn't really sound incriminating. That doesn't make it right, but at least it isn't malicious.
From my perspective on the right, it looks to me that the point that isn't being made here is not Obama's missing sentence left off of the quote, but his use of political double talk at the time, and his admission of engaging in it during this interview.
What I take away from the MMFA article above is that, in effect, Obama admits to saying something he didn't believe because both nominees in 2004 election had voted for the authorization.
Obama said, "...so it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq."Good for ol' Tim to bring up the quote. Obama was being disingenuous in that statement and, by his own admission, engaging in political double talk to make it seem like he might have done the same thing as Kerry and Edwards, while now trying to claim he would not.
Absolutely, there is nothing in Obama's comments then that give any impression of him being "firmly wedded against the war" - his comments were a little of this, and a little of that......Russert's question was fair, and Obama was right there to answer for himself.
TOMMY and ANOTHER AMERICAN hit the nail squarely on the head.
The reason Obama did not complain about the question was that Obama KNEW that his original quote was a dodge - he was trying to weasel out of admitting that he withheld criticism of the Democrat candidates because THEY had voted to authorize the war.
Opinion Check:
When you carpenters are done hammering all of your nails, maybe we can get back to talking about politicians.
A politician almost be definition "weasels".
I don't care which side or party they represent. you don't get close to running for your party's nomination unless you're a weasel.
I have to decide this one for the few remaining sane people on the planet.
Worrier,
I think there is much truth to what you say.
The irony is that while most Americans don't like weaseling(sp?) or flip/floppers many politicians try to obfuscate and talk out of both sides in order to not offend potential voters.
The problem is, that if a politician gets nailed down, as Obama, was on this question, his honest answer only makes it look like he was weaseling. In American politics, the weaseling is worse than taking a position.
I am not yet sure if it is worse than flip-flopping. That seems to me to be the ultimate political sin.
"Obama KNEW that his original quote was a dodge"
Obama also does not have every public statement, interview and speech he's ever made programmed into a database in his brain for instant recall to verify that Russert was omitting any context.
Russert KNEW that he had to omit the next sentence and bank on Obama not recalling his full statement, otherwise it would diminish his 'gotcha'.
MMFA is rightly taking Russert to task for only quoting a little of this and purposely leaving out a little of that.
Russert knew that including a little of that* would undercut his point.
*"from my vantage point the case was not made"
*"I think it was a mistake, and I think I would have voted no."
Russert is giving Obama the chance to explain why three separate quotes of obfuscation on the war is being "firmly wedded against the war".
There is nothing "undercutting" about that, it's called holding politicians who are running to be our president accountable for their trying to be on every side of an issue.
We, as Americans, can only hope that the next Republan debate...if any of them show up..will be more of the same. The "GOTCHA FACTOR" makes good headlines and I see no change for either side.
Therefore, I suggest that we stop all of these Question/ Gotcha sessions until after the New Year. Even the Chinese New Year if anyone knows when that comes around. STOP the questions, relax and have an eggnog.
Hey, it ain't even Thanksgiving yet!
Personally, I enjoy watching politicians get tripped up by these statements as they try to craft their answers on the fly.
But I like your point. Cheers!
It is the same as what the RNC did to Kerry on the run up to the election. Don't give me that they have never taken a Dem out of context. They took everything Kerry said or did out of context just like the idiot did to Obama. We have seen this before so none of us are dumb to this type of play.
"Russert is giving Obama the chance to explain why three separate quotes of obfuscation on the war is being "firmly wedded against the war". They weren't "obfuscations," dude. Did you read the article?
I thought this was worth adding to the debate...
Here's what Obama's campaign had to say about the Clinton campaign's use of the same quotes that Russert seemingly used on her behalf:
Enclosed are both the clear quotes as well as a timeline of Obama statements on Iraq...
WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR
In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Obama noted that once the war began, "...There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." [Chicago Tribune, 7/27/2004]
WHAT OBAMA SAID "Obama, the U.S. Senate candidate from Illinois, said he believes the Bush administration has lost too much credibility in the world community to administer the policies necessary to stabilize Iraq.
'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,' Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. "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.'
Stephanie Cutter, communications director for the Kerry campaign, did not dispute Obama's statement, but said the true comparison rests in the differences over the past two years. 'If you look on paper, [Bush] has come our way, but he has come our way at a significant cost in terms of blood and treasure,' Cutter said Monday. 'Bush finally agreed to go to the international community, but in voters' minds that doesn't change their opinion as to why we're at war or how the president mismanaged the war from day one.'
Obama, a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, opposed the Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation--a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.
The problem, Obama said, is the low regard for Bush in the international community. 'How do you stabilize a country that is made up of three different religious and in some cases ethnic groups, with minimal loss of life and minimum burden to the taxpayers?' Obama said. 'I am skeptical that the Bush administration, given baggage from the past three years, not just on Iraq. . . . I don't see them having the credibility to be able to execute. I mean, you have to have a new administration to execute what the Bush administration acknowledges has to happen.'"
WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR
BLITZER: "Had you been in the Senate when they had a vote on whether to give the president the authority to go to war, how would you have voted?"
OBAMA: "You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators." [CNN, "Late Edition," 07/25/04]
WHAT OBAMA SAID BLITZER: Had you been in the Senate when they had a vote on whether to give the president the authority to go to war, how would you have voted?
OBAMA: You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators. I know that, as somebody who was thinking about a U.S. Senate race, I think it was a mistake, and I think I would have voted no.
BLITZER: You would have voted no at the time?
OBAMA: That's correct.
BLITZER: Kerry, of course, and Edwards both voted yes.
OBAMA: But keep in mind, I think this is a tough question and a tough call. What I do think is that if you're going to make these tough calls, you have to do so in a transparent way, in an honest way, talk to the American people, trust their judgment. [CNN, 'Late Edition,' 7/25/2004]
WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR
"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, 07/26/04]
WHAT OBAMA SAID
"He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
"In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.
"'But, 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.'
"But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. 'What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,' he said." [New York Times, 7/26/2004]
[...]
ROBERT GIBBS
Communications Director
Obama for America
Pete,
Actually in the scheme of things, I admire Obama's forthrightness and candor most of the time. He is a far cry from Hillary's manueverings on issues, there is no comparison as far as I am concerned.
I think as the voters become more puzzled by the Clinton-speak, and grow tired of it, people will give Obama a more serious look, at least I hope so.
Pete,
I agree with Tommy. I like Obama much better than Hillary even though I disagree wholeheartedly on most of Obama's positions. Obama's lack of experience on the national level has shown up in many of his comments, (Taking action in Pakistan for example.)
Much like the old joke asked of someone in Ohio, "Who are your two favorite football teams?"
The answer: "The Buckeyes and whoever is playing Michigan".
After the Republicans, I find myself liking any Democrat more than Hillary.
"As long as the questioner gets the gist of the politician's meaning with the truncated quote, I think they are doing their job." AA
So AA, after reading Pete's post (i.e. Obama's complete words) do you still think Russert did his job? Or how about this statement?
"Good for ol' Tim to bring up the quote. Obama was being disingenuous in that statement and, by his own admission, engaging in political double talk to make it seem like he might have done the same thing as Kerry and Edwards, while now trying to claim he would not. "
Tommy, how about you?"Absolutely, there is nothing in Obama's comments then that give any impression of him being "firmly wedded against the war" - his comments were a little of this, and a little of that......Russert's question was fair, and Obama was right there to answer for himself."
Still believe what you said after reading all of Obama's quote?
Seems like Pete's post (i.e. Obama's own words) pretty much cut straight to the point of the article, but when faced with that you two decide to dump on Hillary again. Bob and weave boys bob and weave.
I wish we could our President/politicians accountable when they are in office.
I could not agree more. Which is why I am in favor of divided government. And if the Democrats weren't so tentative and such ninnies with regard to what they were elected to do last November, perhaps they wouldn't have such historically low poll numbers and the public would actually think they did the right thing in giving them Congress back.
Translation for all the wingnuts out there:
RUSSERT: So, Senator Obama, you were right about the war all along. HOWEVER, when you were right, were you absolutely, 100% positive that you were right??
OBAMA: Well, Tim, you can't be 100% certain about pretty much anything in politics...
RUSSERT: FLIP-FLOPPER!!
Since we're resurrecting old quotes to hold leaders accountable over Iraq, let's not limit ourselves:
"There are a lot of Americans (who say), 'Why didn't you go get him?'" Bush told the Express-News back in 1997, according to Christenson. "Well, I'm confident that losing men and women as a result of sniper fire inside of Baghdad would have turned the tide of public opinion very quickly," Bush added. Bush said efforts to ferret out Saddam from his many Baghdad hideouts would have transformed the battle from a desert conflict to an unpopular "guerrilla war," Chistenson recalled. He added: "Neither Bush nor his son expressed regret in the 1997 interviews over the failure of U.S. forces to pursue and destroy the Iraqi army's Republican Guard."
Pete,
Good point. I promise not to vote for either Bush 41 or Bush 43 ever again. :-)
AA, I'd be mighty grateful if you wouldn't vote for any bush/cheney clones as well.
signed,
AA (anti-Christs anonymous)
Great work guys!!!