Obama says that he has the right judgement because he was against the Iraq War from the beginning and spoke against it. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, voted to give President Bush the authority to wage war against Saddam Hussein. However, Obama was not in the Senate then and did not have to record his vote. At that time 911 was so fresh in the minds of people, and the public believed Saddam had something to do with 911 and had weapons of mass destruction.
Notice, people who had presidential ambitions did not want to appear weak in National Security so they voted YES to the war authorization. If Obama was in the Senate then, he would not want to record his NO vote and be used against him politically when he runs for President. He, just like he did 130x in the Illinois Senate and recently on Kyle-Lieberman amendment to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guards terrorists organization or the MoveOn Defend condemnation--would have either voted present or not vote at all.
Here is the proof that he voted 130x PRESENT instead of making a stand for politically controversial bills and the rationale for doing this.
Obama voted “present” on several abortion bills, a bill regarding firearms in a school zone, and one on concealed weapons. Obama says that on the abortion-related votes, he worked out an arrangement with abortion-rights advocates to get Democrats to vote “present” on bills if they feared a “no” would endanger their re-election. It seems like a cop-out, to be sure, but even the presidents of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence backed his decisions to vote present. But those points are pretty much moot, since in Illinois voting “present” is essentially the same as voting “no” — without having to go on the record as voting “no.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...
In 2002, a NO vote in Iraq War authorization will be a political suicide specially if you have presidential ambitions. There is nothing in his character or his pattern that tells me he will vote NO --instead, his pattern is that he wont vote at all so as not to record a NO vote.
If this pattern of not making stands on controversial issues is just a Ilinois thing, why didnt he vote too on the IRAN Revolutionary Guards as terrorist organization or the MoveOn Condemnation Act. He thinks it is the politically astute thing to do. Unfortunately this goes against my hope that Democrats should stand for what they believe in especially Democratic principles.
Yes, he gives inspiring speeches but when it comes to action, he shirks from them especially when it involves controversy. So why would this give me confidence that he will fight for Universal Health Care when Insurance Companies start up the Harry and Louise ADS again?