VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 255Iraq. He left it to others to lead public opinion. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Rep. John
Murtha (D-Pa.) emerged as the strongest voices against the war. Those critics all spoke out
before Obama gave his first major policy speech on the war — 11 months after he took office.’
(Chicago Tribune, June 12, 2007)JULY 2004: “NOT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE”
BETWEEN BUSH AND OBAMA ON IRAQ
In July of 2004, Obama, replied to a question about his differences with Bush regime regarding
the Iraq war with this: “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I
don’t know.” He added: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George
Bush’s position at this stage.” (“Meet the Press,” 2004, MyDD, Nov. 11, 2007) The senator himself
tries to portray his many pro-war votes as being the result of his recognition of the nuanced
complexity of the situation in Iraq, rather than as the cynical sellouts that they are:
Obama defended his reluctance to call for withdrawal during most of his first year in the Senate.
“At the time, my view was that the [Iraqi] government was still forming and it would be
important to not give the impression, prior to the formation of that government, that we were
already on the way out,” Obama said. “Now, what changed? We have the breaking out of a
complete civil war, at least a significant low-grade civil war.” Feingold offers Obama mixed
reviews for his handling of Iraq. “I’ve been pleased that his opposition has intensified over
time. I was not that happy with his initial opposition to a timeline,” Feingold said. (Chicago
Tribune, June 12, 2007)NADERITE MATT GONZALEZ: OBAMA FAILS ON THE ISSUES
Matt Gonzalez is a former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is currently
(2008) running on Ralph Nader’s ticket as a vice presidential candidate. Before declaring his
candidacy, he contributed an excellent overview of Obama on the issues. The first thing that
Gonzalez notices is the point we have just been stressing, namely that Obama’s self-portrait as a
consistent and reliable antiwar vote is, to use President Clinton’s term, a “fairy tale.” Generally
speaking, Obama is running away from his own voting record as fast as his legs will carry him,
preferring to pose as the purveyor of hope and change in the most vacuous and generic terms.
Gonzalez notes:
Let’s start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at
best. First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was
running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest,
he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 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 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.” Obama’s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing
occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn’t he have taken the
opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to
conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate
and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he’s done just that. Since taking
office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have
put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary