He wasn't even a senator back then. Sure, he can say it now, but would he really been one of the few that had opposed the war?
2007-07-24 10:45:07 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
It's amazing how the media never points these things out. And, sadly, those that vote for him because he oppose the war from the start don't even know that he wasn't there when the vote went down..More than likely, like all the other libtards he would've voted for it.
2007-07-24 11:39:11 · answer #1 · answered by crknapp79 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He took a public position against the war, although he wasn't in the Senate at the time. He said in October 2002, "I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war."
2007-07-24 18:24:09 · answer #2 · answered by A M Frantz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The few was 20+ democrats. And judging by Obama's voting record he would probably have been in this group. At the same time, he was clearly on the record as opposing the war from very early on in press releases and media coverage in 2003 and 2004. I do see the point of the question, and its fair, but do think it is a valid comment.
2007-07-24 17:50:09 · answer #3 · answered by C.S. 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no, obama wasn't a senator back when the iraq vote took place.
2007-07-24 17:48:38 · answer #4 · answered by civil_av8r 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because if someone says anything 2 him about it he can just call them racist, and he Knows that and he uses that 2 his advantage
2007-07-24 19:34:06 · answer #5 · answered by fogle 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They can "say" anything they want to I guess. But that does not mean we have to believe them, does it? My brother used to say "elect a man to office, he becomes a thief.
2007-07-24 17:51:40 · answer #6 · answered by Joan H 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋