Let's All Apologize To Obama For Misunderstanding Him

Apparently Obama spoke in a way that was widely misunderstood when he blasted Hillary over the weekend, and is now being criticized for it, which seems so unfair.  After all, we who are barely worthy ought to apologize for having misunderstood him, right?

Let's run the quote and see some of the coverage; the NY Times does a great pretzel job of avoiding any criticism of their Chosen One, but the LA Times takes the cake.  First, the fateful words; this is from the Todd Gillman and Christy Hoppe of the Dallas Morning News, and they evidently had their coffee working for them:

"Senator Clinton got it wrong. She didn't read the National Intelligence Estimate. Jay Rockefeller read it, but she didn't read it. I don't know what all that experience got her because I have enough experience to know that if you have a National Intelligence Estimate, and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee says, 'You should read this, this is why I'm voting against the war,' that you should probably read it," Mr. Obama said to thunderous applause.:

Seems innocuous, but...

But Mr. Rockefeller voted for the war. It was Florida Democratic Sen. Bob Graham, now retired, who chaired the committee in 2002, urged colleagues to read the briefing paper and voted against the war.

Obama spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki insisted that "there was nothing intentionally misleading" about Mr. Obama's statement. The core issue, she said, was whether Mrs. Clinton made a correct and informed decision. "I don't think the people in the audience care who Jay Rockefeller is," she said.

The Dallas Morning News team used the word "Clintonian", but not to describe Hillary.  That said, Graham was famously hawkish, and objected to the war resolution as not going far enough against America's real enemies.

Here is Tom Raum of the AP:

Obama criticized Clinton expressly for failing to read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons capabilities, a report available at the time of her October 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war. "She didn't give diplomacy a chance. And to this day, she won't even admit that her vote was a mistake - or even that it was a vote for war," Obama said.

"When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation the decision to invade Iraq Senator Clinton got it wrong," Obama said.

He said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and had voted against the war resolution.

Pearls before, well, reporters.  C'mon, Tom, report what he meant, not what he said!  That is the peril of filing on a deadline - I see this story was from 4:47 PM on Sunday Mar 2.  The LA Times had a chance to reflect, and genuflect:

"When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation -- the decision to invade Iraq -- Sen. Clinton got it wrong," Obama said.

"She didn't read the National Intelligence Estimates. I don't know what all that experience got her. Because I have the experience to know that when you have a National Intelligence Estimate and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee says, 'You should read this, this is why I voted against the war,' then you should probably read it."

Obama was referring to then-Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who was head of the committee in 2002 when the Senate voted to authorize military action against Iraq. Graham encouraged his colleagues to read the intelligence report. Few did.

How did the LA Times deal with the Rockefeller misunderstanding? They dropped him entirely from the story.  That was easy!

The Cleveland Plain dealer reporter blogged it and reported it:

Obama said Clinton did not read the classified briefings leading up to the Iraq war, despite the urging of Rockefeller, who voted against the war resolution.

"If the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee says you should read this [intelligence estimates], this is why I voted against the war, then you should probably read it," Obama said.

Waddya gonna believe, what's in Barack's heart, or the words ringing in your own lying ears?

Let's close with the NY Times pretzel coverage.   I was self-flaggellating for having missed this story until I re-read my source:

Mr. Obama often boxes careful rounds with Mrs. Clinton, rationing his jabs while striving to appear unflappable. But the primary races in Texas and Ohio could not be closer. So he noted that Mrs. Clinton did not read the National Intelligence Estimate, a classified document available to senators, before her 2002 vote to authorize the war.

“If the chairman of the intelligence committee who voted against the war says, ‘You should read this, this is why I’m voting against the war,’ you should probably read it,” Mr. Obama said.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, took the role of designated duelist. Mr. Rockefeller has endorsed Mr. Obama; he also voted for the war. But Mr. Rockefeller, who campaigned with Mr. Obama for part of the day, criticized those who failed to read the assessment.

“There were a lot of senators who should have read it,” Mr. Rockefeller said, “and they didn’t.”

Unless you know that Rockefeller is the current chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, this passage is unremarkable.  And in my case, I happened to know that Rockefeller was the current chairman, Graham was the chairman in 2002, and that Graham had opposed the war (Hopelessly nerdy?  Possible!  But Graham did run for President and I had acquired a passing familiarity with his views; here are excerpts from his Senate speech opposing the war resolution.)

Graham's basic theme was actually quite hawkish - he worried that the resolution did not include other terrorists groups and that the focus on Iraq was misdirected:

They say that passing this resolution is the equivalent of if the Alllies had declared war on Hitler. I disagree with that assessment of what this lesson of history means. In my judgment, passing this resolution tonight will be the equivalent of declaring war on Italy.

Colorful!  But let's see what all his reading taught him as far as Saddam's WMD capability:

Now, there are good reasons for considering attacking today's Italy, meaning Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity. But the briefings I have received have shown that trying to block him and any necessary nuclear materials have been largely successful, as evidenced by the recent intercept of centrifuge tubes. And he is years away from having nuclear capability. So why does it make sense to attack this era's Italy, and not Germany, especially when by attacking Italy, we are making Germany a more probable adversary?

Fortunately he was not running against Casey Stengel, but I stand by my earlier analysis:

Personally, I would pay extra to watch Graham debate Bush.  After Graham declares war on Italy, Bush may invade the Bay of Pigs.

Well.  In other coverage, Graham came off as the Lonesome Non-Dove in this Times interview and report from Sept 2002:

Senator Bob Graham, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, calls the Bush administration's focus on Iraq a distraction from the campaign against terrorism and lists Syria and Iran as countries that should be the first targets of any aggressive effort against state sponsors of terrorist activity.

In an interview reflecting on Sept. 11 and its consequences, Mr. Graham, a Florida Democrat, also said he feared that the United States was becoming ''bogged down'' in an unproductive manhunt in Afghanistan and that the nation needed an ''aggressive war plan'' to strike at terrorist organizations.

''Victory is going to be won on the offensive, going to where the terrorists are and aggressively taking them on,'' Mr. Graham said. The senator said Iraq should not be the priority, given President Bush's own criteria: countries that were accomplices in the Sept. 11 attacks or that provided a sanctuary for terrorist groups.

''By those two standards, Iraq does not make it very high on the list of a terrorist state,'' Mr. Graham said.

He said the antiterrorism effort should focus on countries that had a significant Qaeda presence or terrorist training camps. ''Those are primarily in Syria, in the Syrian-controlled areas of Lebanon and in Iran,'' the senator said.

He added a warning: ''Avoid the allure of distractions. At this point, I think Iraq is a primary distraction from achieving our goals or reducing the threat of international terrorism.''

And this is the sort of judgment Barack is backing?  Yikes!  Don't tell the lefties.

 

Comments

[Neo]

Graham was the chairman in 2002

Say what ?

In 2002, during the vote for the Iraq War, the Senate was run by the Democrats (remember Jeffords Idiot-VT) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller was the chaiman of the Intelligence committee.

[Neo]

Senator Lindsey Graham vs Senator Bob Graham

[clarice]

In 2004 (now scrubbed from the IT) Obama was for a preemptive strike on Iran (and against gay marriage)
Sweetness & Light

[Elliott]

Great post, TM. I cannot say enough how much I enjoy your blogging and how appreciative I am that I can comment here.

[ben]

The most ludicrous of all this is of course for Obama to think that as President his decisions whether to go to war or not will be based "reading a report".....the shallowness is mindboggling....

[ben]

make that "on reading a report"

[bgates]

I don't think the lefties would have any problem with Graham's argument. Some of them sincerely view Iraq as a distraction from Afghanistan (they believe in a variant of the 'flypaper' strategy, in which the terrorists are literally physically adhered to the Pakistani border and are unable to travel to Baghdad.) Others are happy to say that x is a distraction from the real war, for all values of x.

I have to agree with Jennifer Psaki here.

[Sue]

Why didn't anyone bother to read the report? That is $64k question. One they want to avoid at all costs. Though why Obama wants to avoid it is also a mystery. It leads right back to Clinton and it is a plus for him. Or maybe it isn't a plus for anyone who wants to blame Bush for the intelligence fiasco that went through 2 presidents, one of them the husband of his rival. No one put forth much effort because for 8 years under a democrat the same intelligence had been used. Edwards even made the point that he went to Clinton's people to see what they knew and was told the intelligence was sound. Go figure.

[MayBee]

I don't think the lefties would have any problem with Graham's argument.

The only problem was the Obama was talking about Jay Rockefeller.

[Other Tom]

Maybe I'm missing something. Isn't it the case that all Obama did was say "Rockefeller" when he should have said "Graham?" (Not that his argument is very persuasive in any event, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here.)

I like the analysis over at Powerline: these folks are hot to pursue Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but heaven forbid that we do so in Iraq, even though they are there and are being defeated there. Abandoning Iraq has simply become an article of faith, and has nothing to do with the question of how best to confront an enemy.

[MayBee]

Joseph Wilson weighs in at Huffington Post:

I was in the middle of the debate in Washington.[he was?] Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization.

Which is a problematic argument if Hillary didn't bother to read the intelligence lies that led her to vote for the war.
With defenders like these....

[Other Tom]

For the record, Graham was chairman of the SSCI 2001-03, which included the October 2002 vote on the AUMF. Graham was preceded by Richard Shelby of Alabama and succeeded by Pat Roberts of Kansas, who in turn was succeeded by Rockefeller.

[clarice]

The thing about the Afghanistan argument, promoted originally by Kerry--is like all the "over there" arguments by the opposition it ignores a lot of facts. Among the most critical fact it ignores are these(a) Afghanistan has a number of porous, impossible to control borders which means we'd be playing round and round the mulberry bush for decades with no real results;(b) to fight there we'd have to give up the tactical advantage of our technology in exchange for rushing up and down thousands of no name wadis where every old coot with an ancient musket and thorough knowledge of the territory would be on at least equal if not superior footing to our troops, (c) to be effective would take such a large contingent of troops that the Afghans would surely regard it as an effort to occupy them and we'd meet with the kind of general resistance that forced out the Brits and Russians.

Strategy is not something I'd look to Kerry for.

[MayBee]

Other Tom- the AP made it sound as though he was talking about Rockefeller (who has endorsed him), but gave him the bio of Graham (who has not).
We'd have to see a transcript or a tape of the speech to know.

[MayBee]

OT, but this is delightful live blogging of the Rezko trial: Chicago Tribune

[Topsecretk9]

"I don't think the people in the audience care who Jay Rockefeller is," she [Obama spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki] said.

Double dutch HEH. Hands over face. Laughing. Laughing for soooo many reasons.

[Great Banana]

Let's assume for the moment that Bush lied and stated something different from the intelligence reports (i.e., assume for this hypo that President Bush claimed that Saddam had or was trying to obtain WMDs but that in reality, the intelligence said the opposite).

Does Bush's "lie" excuse the Senators from reading intelligence reports that were provided to them and their staffs?

[Great Banana]

I've never really understood what Bush's "lie" regarding invading Iraq is meant to be by the left.

Is the left claiming that one of the following is the "lie"

. - that Saddam had WMDs;

. - that saddam sought WMDs;

. - that saddam sought yellowcake from Africa?

It seems to me that the first and second are easy to disprove as lies, as that was pretty the intelligence consensus for many years.

If it is the third thing, even if it were an acual lie by Bush (i.e., a false statement knowingly made) it is hard to see how that one claim can be argued was the sole basis for the Iraq war. Or even that we would not have invaded Iraq if that "lie" was not used.

I can never fully understand what the left's claims are regarding the alleged "lie(s)" told by Bush to get us into Iraq.

[clarice]

What do you expect from Psaki--She cut her teeth working for that genius Kerry.

[anduril]

WOW! Just WOW!

Yesterday I tried to generate some interest in potential problems for McCain among Catholic voters--a key "demographic" as we like to say in Wonkish. Response was distinctly desultory (doesn't that roll of the tongue well?). Not to put too fine a point on it, my thesis was largely pooh-poohed and consigned to "campaign ephemera." Let's see if there's more response to this story from Politico:

Obama Slow to gain among Catholics

Key grafs:

Barack Obama’s 11 straight Democratic primary and caucus victories have been marked by continued and impressive gains among women, lower-income workers, Hispanics and virtually every other demographic group.

Yet one potentially critical set of voters remains stubbornly resistant to his appeal—Catholics.

In state after state, with only a few exceptions, exit polling shows Hillary Rodham Clinton is the choice of Catholic voters. Clinton even defeated Obama among Catholics in his home state of Illinois. It seems the more Catholic the state, the more likely she is to have won it.

While Obama has closed the once-gaping gap during his post-Super Tuesday string of wins, even in victory he has underperformed among Catholics. In Virginia, where he won the state 64 percent to 35 percent, he won only 52 percent among Catholics. In Maryland, where he won 60 percent to 37 percent, he nevertheless lost the Catholic vote, 48 percent to 45 percent.

In Wisconsin, where Obama posted his most recent victory of consequence, the Illinois senator carried the state with 58 percent but tied Clinton with 50 percent of the Catholic vote.

Clinton’s strength with Catholics is in part driven by her popularity with Hispanics, many of whom are Catholic. In California, where Latinos made up roughly one-third of the primary vote, she won 70 percent among churchgoing Catholics, compared to Obama’s 26 percent. [Comment: what are the demographics among churchgoing Catholics?]

Analysts and Catholic politicians interviewed for this story say there’s no singular event or reason that explains Obama’s softness among Catholics. Rather, they agree that it’s more likely a reflection of stylistic differences between the two candidates.

John Green, a political science professor at the University of Akron and a senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, said that while Clinton’s and Obama’s policy proposals are similar, her personal religious background gives her an advantage.

“Hillary Clinton, probably because of her Methodism and her liberalism, holds teachings that are very closely tied to the Catholic Church. That fits very well with Catholic sensibilities,” Green said. “I think she talks in ways that Catholics can understand. He speaks in the cadences of the black church, with a real Protestant approach.”

Comments:

The Hispanic factor doesn't account for the difference in all these states--I don't think.

The resistance to "a real Protestant approach" is equally a warning sign to McCain re embracing the likes of Hagee.

If Obama can't do MUCH better in the general (assuming he's the nominee) he could be toast. The Catholic vote is too big a factor in Blue States to do that poorly and still win.

We could have some key indicators of how this will work out, coming up soon:

Obama’s inability to seal the deal with Catholic voters could prove troublesome in the next round of primaries on March 4. Rhode Island, one of four states voting that day, is by far the most Catholic state in the nation with more than half the population identifying as Catholic, according to the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies.

Delegate-rich Ohio and Texas, the two states that are central to Clinton’s “firewall” strategy, are roughly 20 percent Catholic.

If the race continues past March 4, the outlook gets even worse for what would likely be a final big-state showdown April 22 in Pennsylvania—a state that is just under one-third Catholic.

“The Catholic vote is absolutely critical in some of the major markets like Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. In Pittsburgh it can be as much as 50 percent of the [primary] vote,” said Jon Delano, adjunct professor of Public Policy and Politics at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. “The question is how much does the religious part play in how they cast their ballot.”

It appears that the Obama campaign is aware of this:

How the sausage gets made

At 5:30 p.m. Saturday, Politico’s story about Barack Obama’s problems winning Catholic voters went live.

Within minutes, editor Charlie Mahtesian’s phone started ringing.

The heated interaction between Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign and Politico's national political editor Saturday afternoon and evening was in many ways routine. But it was also a window into aspects of the political process outsiders do not usually see or understand.

[narciso]

Graham's argument seems to be persuasive, until one consider what would be the likely
point of entry. Lebanon, again. That along
with proximity to Saudi Arabia, was one of the main reasons for intervening in Iraq.
And the push back trough Abu Ghadeyeh,s Abu
Yaalon and elements of the late Mugniyeh's
Hezbollah network were the results.

[Sue]

anduril,

Do you have your own blog?

[anduril]

Yes: anduril's cave. Why do you ask?

[Topsecretk9]

National Command Authority!!!

I was in the middle of the debate in Washington.[he was?] Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization.

Maybee

If he was there and in the middle of the debate why didn't he tell Hillary that the intelligence was cooked so she wouldn't vote to authorize?

[MayBee]

Oh, I love you Tops.

[PeterUK]

Obama and the Constitution The man is just as dangerous as Hillary

[Sue]

anduril,

The link comes back to JOM. I was just curious.

[anduril]

I guess that confirms my copying and pasting skills.

[Pofarmer]

Just heard that Barack Hussein Obama now doesn't want any further questions about his religion. It ain't like he fielded a ton of em.

How about Rezko questions?

The guy has kinda got a Chavez complex going or something.

Is there anything that he CAN be questioned on???

[anduril]

actually, there's a guy who uses my name at meaning in history, but he rarely posts.

[pagar]

Here's what one needs to remember about Sen Rockefeller and Iraq

"ROCKEFELLER: No. I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11."

The questions that need to be asked are:
(a) Why Sen Rockefeller was giving our intelligence to the Syrians?
(b) Why Sen Rockefeller is not in jail for giving our intelligence to the Syrians?

[ben]

Obama WAS talking about Rockerfeller...but the press would like to lend a helping hand and report to the public WHAT THEY THINK HE MEANT to say....it's a new and innovative approach to journalism, but lest lesser office seekers get excited, it's only applied to Messianic candidates.

[Enlightened]

"If he was there and in the middle of the debate why didn't he tell Hillary that the intelligence was cooked so she wouldn't vote to authorize?"

Wouldn't this apply to everyone that signed the authorization? Joe must be running low on $$$$

[PeterUK]

"''By those two standards, Iraq does not make it very high on the list of a terrorist state,'' Mr. Graham said.

He said the antiterrorism effort should focus on countries that had a significant Qaeda presence or terrorist training camps. ''Those are primarily in Syria, in the Syrian-controlled areas of Lebanon and in Iran,'' the senator said."

Where,exactly,would Mr Graham attack these targets from?
Saudi Arabia wanted US troops out,Lebanon is a little inhospitable,Israel is out of the question,Turkey likewise.Afghanistan is landlocked,Pakistan would not allow large troop concentrations.
Iraq would be ideal,but Mr Graham has ruled that out.How do these people get to sit on sensitive committees?

[ben]

Senator Clinton, responding to a question on whether Senator Obama was a Muslim, responded that that he was not ...AS FAR AS SHE KNEW.

Thank you Hillary, for putting that issue to rest once and for all...

[GMax]

Here is a Heh! worthy comment.

"If Obama can't handle a goody two shoes country like Canada how the heck is he going to deal with Iran, Syria, China, Russia, France and other countries that have a somewhat higher level of difficulty? . . . This is like watching someone get bucked off one of the coin op kiddies horses they have at the supermarket."

The writer obviously does not understand it about: Change We Can Believe in.

[PeterUK]

Obama,Sermon on the Mount OKs same sex marriages

[GMax]

ooops.

[anduril]

Pete, that's interesting. That position is HUGELY unpopular among blacks.

[Enlightened]

How do we know for sure Rockefeller privately went on that trip and told those countries that the US was planning for war? Who has corroborated his claim?

What if he went because he was told to? Who else did he tell before he went? Why did he vote to authorize after claiming he went to privately warn them about US intentions? What if he, like Amb Wilson, is lying about his trip?

[Neo]

Among the most critical fact it ignores are these(a) Afghanistan has a number of porous, impossible to control borders which means we'd be playing round and round the mulberry bush for decades with no real results

This scenario sounds real familiar. If I could remember what, maybe there is a simple solution.

Now I remember .. perhaps we could invite al Qaeda and the Taliban to become US citizens after they pay some back taxes plus a fee or fine, or whatever. I can see them fitting under the umbrella of the Democratic Party just fine.

[sao]

Canadians. They like to see things with their eyes closed and hear voices. They like to export accidents and shootings and disease. The terrorists are Canadians. They do this to Americans everyday and laugh. So, we have to deny what is done and it's not a problem. Americans are idiots. Bill wants another check.

Don't talk to the thing. It's decided to be Canadian.

[Enlightened]

Did Obama know Rockefeller was going to those countries in advance of the vote?

It might be a Fruedian slip that he said "Rockefeller" simply because Rockefeller had privately told him - something.

[ben]

"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view," Obama said about abortion.

Wow, we could have been wrong about Obamamessiah...he thinks people can make better decisions than bureaucrats in Washington...where have we heard that before?

So if people, in consultation with their pastors, doctors, and family decide to vote for strict state immigration laws, or against gay marriage, for example, Obama is on their side....

[Neo]

WALLACE: ...in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the president ever did. Let's watch:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROCKEFELLER: I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th that question is increasingly outdated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Now, the president never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

ROCKEFELLER: No. I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.
Now, the intelligence that they had and the intelligence that we had were probably different. We didn't get the presidential daily briefs. We got only a finished product, a finished product, a consensual view of the intelligence community, which does not allow for agencies — like in the case of the aluminum tubes, the Department of Energy said these aren't thick enough to handle nuclear power.
They left that out and went ahead with, "They have aluminum tubes and they're going to develop nuclear power."

WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the presidential daily brief or the senior executive intelligence brief. You got the national intelligence estimate.
But the Silberman commission, a presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced, than the intelligence you saw...

[GMax]

Well Belo has the Texas Democrat race a deadheat. And Rasmussen is showing movement in Hillary's direction all week with her down by 1. Did he get enough early votes to hang on? And can I bring myself to vote strategically, cuz that would mean a vote for Hill. I am not sure I can do that, there are a lot mirrors in my house.

[ben]

I vote in Texas too, but absentee, and I didn't get a primary ballot...knowing the latest polls, I don't know if I would vote for Hillary...I don't want her to win big, just get enough votes to keep fueling those convention circus fires....

[clarice]

ben, Actually on that question, I'm with Hill. It is stupid to be expected to answer what your opponent's religious affiliation/beliefs are. She might have said, "I cannot get into his heart to winkle out what his beliefs may be.He says he's a Christian and I see no reason to question that."

[TexasToast]

off topic, but

How many of the Texans on this board are "voting strategically",as GMAX is ?

And for who?

[Enlightened]

Hmmm. Even to this day it's quite easy to see that Rockefeller was lying out his ass. Well, Obama's staff thinks he's a nobody anyway - so no harm no foul.