Clinton and Obama: The differences between their 2002 Iraq speeches

We have sat back and watched the so-called pundits on television discuss the differences between the pre-war speeches given by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in October of 2002.  But in the end, we are the ones that have the power to decide which candidate will become the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.  Based on what they said in their 2002 pre-war speeches, the two frontrunners were miles apart in their judgments about the threat that Iraq posed.  Read the speeches for yourself.  Below are the links to their speeches, followed by some excerpts:

An excerpt of Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Speech: October 10, 2002

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reportsshow that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical andbiological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and hisnuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary toterrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently noevidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11,2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Husseinwill continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemicalwarfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should hesucceed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and securitylandscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affectsAmerican security.

An excerpt of Barack Obama's Iraq War Speech: October 26, 2002

Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqieconomy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the internationalcommunity he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a USoccupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, withundetermined consequences.I know that an invasion of Iraq without aclear rationale and without strong international support willonly fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, ratherthan best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen therecruitment arm of Al Queda.  I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So then the question becomes whether Hillary Clinton's vote in support of the war, when added to her continued reluctance to admit she was wrong, will destroy her chances next January?  Better yet, should it destroy her chances?  Is that fair?  There are many other issues that will be of concern in 2008 -- like energy independence, education and a 21st century strategy to lower the cost of health care.  Why should one vote on one issue prevent her from getting the nomination?  Some might respond and say that her vote meant a lot because it helped give President Bush the leverage to go ahead with one of the most catastrophic foreign policy blunders in American history.

Over the next eleven months, Clinton will need to find a way to convince primary voters that regardless of her one vote, she is the best possible candidate that the Democrats could have at the top of their presidential ticket.  It will be difficult, but definitely not impossible.  The presidential primaries are all about who has the momentum in the final months.  Therefore, the Clinton Campaign is not in panic mode right now.  But if she has still not apologized for her 2002 vote by the end of the summer, look for her chances to slowly evaporate.

Comments

[Tony]

Hillary's speech seems to be one of those classic "Politicians cookie cutter" speeches that can be twisted and spun down the road. If asked about it, they lie through omission or say "what I meant was...."

[George]

You got that right Tony.

And that Obama speech showed more foresight than any speech I've ever heard. He was spot on.

[John Morgan]

It's critically important because it shows an appalling lack of judgment on her part.

It illustrates a complete lack of understanding of the dynamics in the Middle East and a gullibility to believe the likes fo George W. Bush and his minions. It shows she was shockingly unaware of facts available even to lay people even though her husband has access to our most sensitive intelligence.
It shows she doesn't have the good judgment we need in a president.

[Administrator: Todd]

The creepy part about all this is Hillary's speech was written in a way so that under any possible Iraq war scenario she would be able to rebutt any skeptics by saying, "Yeah true, but in paragraph three I said this..."

She is way too politically calculated. Voters know that...and it adds more evidence to the hypothesis that she is not electable.

Unlike most people that visit this site, I like Hillary Clinton a lot. She is a very academically focused individual. That does not necessarily mean she will get elected president.

Mark my words everyone...and let these words be used after on November 5th, 2008 the day after her election loss (assuming she becomes the nominee). As the Democratic nominee, she will set the party back 10 years on a local level in the south and southwest. Local Republican candidates all over the country will use Hillary fear-mongering to their advantage. We need a candidate that can campaign in the south and southwest without having his/her campaign bus egged.

[Tony]

I think Hillary is your "typical politician" with typical agendas of personal gain. One reason I was drawn towards Barack is he seems to "speak" differently, act a little differently, lack of experience?..GOOD, I'll take it (I have said this before and I'll say it again, not being a "seasoned" politician might just be a good thing)

Tony

[George]

Todd, I think Clinton can do better in the South if she pairs up with Richardson or Obama (not likely). Otherwise, you are probably right.

Don't you feel like the media is telling us that we like Hillary Clinton? No one knows Richardson. Even Obama is relatively unknown compared to Clinton. Hillary Clinton has a very long road ahead. Hopefully Al Gore is standing in it.

[Administrator: Todd]

Yes. And even more so, I cannot believe that Fox News brands has as liberal. lol She is not that liberal. Calling Hillary a liberal is about as absent-minded as calling Alan Colmes one.