Comments on: Who Said It?

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:44:47 +0000

Lol seriously. Remember just the provable stuff was 100% on, he was only partially correct about what happened in the alternate universe earth.

By: egrubs

egrubs — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:56:59 +0000

Just goes to show, even when someone hits the ball clean and square and knocks it out of the part, there will always be someone around to say, “Nah, that wasn’t a real home run. Sure, he scored and all. Even drove in everyone that was on base. But it just wasn’t a real home run.”

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:37:29 +0000

I give him credit for having a contrarian opinion which has now been somewhat validated; I say ‘somewhat’ though because the truth is that we’ll never know whether or not Saddam would have been relegated to history’s dustbin or not. I certainly don’t think that the containment policy that we were undertaking in the 90s was sustainable (esp given UN malfeasance and willingness of some allies to put financial interests above the interest of containment.)

This seems to fit a pattern where I agree with a good bit of Obama’s statements but then he comes up just a bit short- always lacking a bit in global/regional balance of power strategy. Had he more seriously addressed alternatives to the invasion, he’d have gotten an A+ in my gradebook.

By: Lynx

Lynx — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:48:19 +0000

Should have gone with my first instinct, obviously, but it seemed too obvious.

I can only hope that “conventional wisdom” is a crock for once and he gets the nomination instead of Hillary.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:31:25 +0000

I just donated $25 to his campaign. He earned it with that speech. I’d really like to see what he can do in the oval office.

By: Shaun Mullen

Shaun Mullen — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:20:28 +0000

The answer is: Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, 2002.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:55:38 +0000

Astonishing how many undisputed facts turned out to be just flat wrong.

Which is why Hillary couldn’t run with the “Bush lied” theme as some of the other candidates have. Between her own record in the Senate and her husband’s record in the WH, it was patently obvious that the errors were in how the intel had been gathered and analyzed by CIA for years, not by Bush and Co. twisting the facts.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:38:49 +0000

“I think that WAS Obama. The naive & inexperienced Barack Obama.”

Exactly my thoughts.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:15:33 +0000

I would go with Cheney in 93 or 94 except it doesn’t sound like him.

By: Mikef

Mikef — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:06:30 +0000

Here were Hillary Clinton’s arguments:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Astonishing how many undisputed facts turned out to be just flat wrong.

By: Lynx

Lynx — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:04:29 +0000

Mikef, I thought of Hillary because it’s my understanding that Obama has a squeaky clean Iraq record, having opposed it from the start and predicted much of what was to come. To me it followed that no one would be trying to discredit him on Iraq since that task would be near-impossible. It would also be a more interesting twist if it were Hillary. I think her perfectly capable of saying something like that and THEN voting for the war. My guess is not a sign of my admiration, quite the contrary.

By: Mikef

Mikef — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:56:49 +0000

I canâ€™t know for sure but Iâ€™m guessing Hillary

Boy Hillary has done a good job covering up her Iraq war vote if many people believe that one.

My first guess was Howard Dean, but then, of course I remembered the little known State Senator from Illinois was a vocal critic of the war before it started.

By: lurxst

lurxst — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:36:57 +0000

I am pretty sure I said that several times during the insufferable and inexorable up run-up to the war.

Just watched a repeat on PBS of the Bill Moyer’s Selling the War special.

That damning look at the MSM gave me PTSD-like flashbacks.

By: JeffL

JeffL — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:01:37 +0000

It is Obama. The “I’m not opposed to all wars, just dumb wars” is a common saying of his.

By: zygzee

zygzee — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:47:46 +0000

Since I backed up the articles from before the invasion that I found of interest to me. I had to restore them. After searching them I found the quote that Shaun used.

During the primary debates somebody should ask the 2 questions that Lynx proposes.

By: amyem

amyem — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:40:06 +0000

I think that WAS Obama.
The naive & inexperienced Barack Obama.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:56:17 +0000

I don’t think it was Hillary. My guess would be Ron Paul.

By: Lynx

Lynx — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:32:27 +0000

I can’t know for sure but I’m guessing Hillary, mostly because she fits the description of being discredited for the Iraq war without being a Republican. It’s widely known that Obama opposed it from the start so he wouldn’t be interesting.

Still, if she did say that, why did she vote for the war hmmm? She’s opposed to dumb wars…good, but then she votes for them?