"On the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session.

"It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."

Did he believe what he said that day?

It's sure different than what he now says in Spring 2008.

<link>

and...

<link>

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."

The statements are consistent with others Obama made at the time, emphasizing the need to stabilize Iraq despite his opposition to the US invasion. But they also represent perhaps his most forceful language in depicting withdrawal from crisis-ridden Iraq as a betrayal of the Iraqi people and a risk to national security.

Obama spoke out passionately against the war in 2002 as an Illinois state senator, while many in Congress were silent. But his thinking on how to resolve the crisis in Iraq evolved.

During his 2004 Senate race, he supported keeping troops in Iraq to stabilize the country. But starting in 2005, as violence engulfed the country, he grew increasingly disillusioned.

Now, Obama's views about the war have become a campaign issue, as Hillary Clinton - who voted for the war's authorization - has questioned whether Obama has been consistent in opposing the war.

Her husband, Bill, said Obama's depiction of his longstanding opposition to the war was a "fairy tale." And yesterday, news of an Obama adviser's comments that his promise to withdraw troops within 16 months represented only a "best-case scenario" further fanned questions about his Iraq views.

Yesterday, Obama struck back, declaring that Clinton "doesn't have any standing to question my position on this issue." And he added that, "I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused."

All abve excerpted from The Obama File:State Senate Years:

<link>

There are many things like this, where he says one thing and literally less than a day later will say something entirely different.

That is why the term flip-flop is often used with him, as well as two-faced. Obama actually purchased the website names that could be used with those terms and his name early on.

People like me got tired of arguing it, and the media wasn't analysing it. Kinda like being forced to go to church to me.

I know that people change opinions over the course of their lives, but Obama's change of opinion goes from stump to stump a bit of a peculiar habit.

I don't have my quotes handy but saw this thread and thought I would read it. Thanks.

I guess it's one of those deals, don't look at the mouth look at the hands and feet.

His voting record has supported funding of the war and I have not seen anything to indicate differently, whereas Hillary has not be in line with this, and has gone on record opposing the funding.

Obama's voting record

<link>

Courage test
<link>

The psychology of a pathological liar is a peculiar one.

This would suggest that everything that he says is his Presidential platform agenda will literally go up in smoke once he would be inaugurated, should that disaster befall trhe american people.

He does not appear to be emotionally or mentally "grounded" in one decision-making path, so that kind of behavior is suspect in someone who wants to become the POTUS. Otherwise, the ordinary joe-blow can get away with that kind of personality pathology.

This is what is so fearful of Obama be3coming the Dem nominee for the party.

These kinds of historical facts as to his "positions" and agenda will literally be the kind of personalityh meat that is thrown to the republican wolves.

Otherwise, as a kind of oratorical speech-maker, that is the only talent and skill thing going for him as a presidential candidate.

I can just see him talking to the Sec'y of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff pursuing a certain mode of action, and then tow-three weeks later changes his mind and deviates down some other road. As CinChief, he would have all the power in the world to behave like that...and any of the generals would not necessarily go public with their assessments because they would be summarily fired by the CinChief...demoted or whatever punishment put on them. In these kinds of cases and situations, I believe that Senator Obama is a dangerous individual to have as POTUS..

No one would know where they stand in these united states and I suspect that he has a "hidden agenda" which will only be known should he ever become the POTUS!

You are going through the phase I went through a few weeks ago. If it helps my focus is more on the obamakins. If they can get their heads out of their rears when he is doing stupid things, instead of the cheerleading then, we should be good. If not then it's going to be war. And draft.

That's all i can say everytime I think of Obama becoming the POTUS~!

But it looks as if DNC Howard Dean and Brazile are hell bent on getting him into the Nominee position...as well aas Reid and Pelosi trying to hurry up the nomination process!

Maybe Reid, Pelosi and Howard Dean are abjectly afraid of the new beginnings of the 527 Actions now beginning to show up on the ad scene about Obama, in NC and so on that posted in another thread!

That could ONLY be the real reason. Reid, Pelosi and Dean don't want the superdelegates to find that Obama is heavily tainted and wouldn't make it through a GE if he is the Nominee. !!!

When faced with the most important vote of her very, very young career as a politician, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. She played a game and lost. All the other things anyone can come up with about this candidate or that candidate pale in comparison to this single, indisputable fact. Hillary Clinton knew damn well what she was doing. She voted in favor of giving away the Senates power to declare war and gave it to George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condi Rice.

That single sin should never, ever be forgiven. Ask Bob McNamara what he felt about his role in Vietnam....oohh, they made a movie about it...

The Weekly Standard, which has never made a dime in its existence (read William Kristol's misinfo column in the NYT to understand why) would hardly give the full picture of Obama's reasons for tempering his comments about Iraq. to wit, the Dems had just nominated John Kerry who had voted for Bush's great Iraq adventure.

claim of being under sniper fire in Bosnia?

Being under fire is something you never forget nor mistake for something else nor misstate. Your asshole snaps shut real quick and the hairs on the back of your neck stand clearly at attention. It was a bald-faced lie. She knew it was a lie but made it several times, publicly and without reservation.

Are you telling me Obama lied ? I am truly shocked. We all know Obama would never lie! How do I know ? The Obama followers have told me so.Over and over !

PlSgt:

claim of being under sniper fire in Bosnia?

Being under fire is something you never forget nor mistake for something else nor misstate. Your asshole snaps shut real quick and the hairs on the back of your neck stand clearly at attention. It was a bald-faced lie. She knew it was a lie but made it several times, publicly and without reservation.

Hillary admitted she made a mistake. Obama just keeps right on going!

Your analytical powers are quite amazing. Take a look at the alternative, Hillary. We all know exactly what she will do since we know her record and her husbands record. This navel gazing upon Obama without any semblance of proof or justification is truly astounding. Let me make it clear yet again:

Hillary voted for the war. She was wrong.

What about this simple fact escapes you? Do any of you realize that the only reason the GOP is not kicking the shit out of Democrats yet again is the national disgust with the war? If we allow Hillary to take this nomination from Obama then the nation will say:

Both voted for the war. Both want to face off Iran with military threats. One is a military man, the other was first lady. Choice is easy, pick the guy who can run a war.

Its astounding to me that we are even debating this issue.