McCain too! http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/newsfeed/2008/02/19/battle-of-the-bands-86908-20324377/ Battle Of The Bands Feb 19 2008 By Charlie Gall Troop Tribute A Symbol Of The Gulf Between White House Rivals' Stance On War In Iraq THEY are both tributes to soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq. But the significance of the wristbands to the rival presidential contenders wearing them couldn't be more different - with one keen to retain troops in the country and the other against the conflict. Barack Obama, who has edged in front of Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democrat nomination, wears a black wristband given to himby a mothermourning the loss of her soldier son in Iraq. Tracy Jopek is the mother of 20-year-old Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, who was killed by a roadside bomb in August 2006. By coincidence, the band worn by Republican frontrunner John McCain came from the mum of Matthew Stanley - a 22-year-old New Hampshire soldier also killed by a bomb four months after Jopek. Next month marks the fifth anniversary of a war 70 per cent of Americans believe was a mistake, while in the coming weeks US combat deaths in Iraq are expected to exceed 4000. Both McCain and Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq, while Obama opposed it. It has also emerged Obama, despite his fierce opposition to the war, has received more donations from the military than any other major candidate. Obama's campaign has been given £47,000 by US troops compared with half that for Clinton. His contribution is also higher than McCain's, despite the Republican hopeful's repeated visits to meet the troops. Yet, despite their opposing views on the war, both Obama and McCain seem more than willing to wear the humble wristbands. Obama's band, inscribed with the words "All gave some - He gave all", was given to him during a campaign stop in Wisconsin last week. Mrs Jopek said she was moved to give Obama the wristband after seeingMcCain wearing his. She said: "I love this country but I don't feel that staying in Iraq will vindicate my son's death. "I just don't want any more soldiers to die in vain for something that we can't solve." The appearance of the wristband has pushed Obama's anti-war stance to the fore. Holding up the wristband, he told a rally: "She gaveme this wristband, for which I'mvery grateful. "I meet mothers and family members all over the country who are still mourning their children." On the other hand, veteran Arizona senatorMcCain has taken a very different approach to the meaning of his commemorative band. He wants American troops to remain in Iraq for "100 years" in order to keep the peace. While voters want US troops out of Iraq, they remain worried about terrorism and would blame any president who allowed al-Qaeda to set up the sort of base camps it once operated in Afghanistan. Small-town newspapers across the US are full of reports of funerals, such as that of Sergeant Jopek, held in the school basketball court where he once played. But so far, unlike Vietnam, in which the US army suffered a loss of face, Americans continue to hold their troops in high regard. ENLISTED GUARD RYAN JOPEK OBAMA wears a wrist band in memory of part-time trooper Ryan. Ryan, 20, of Merrill, Wisconsin, joined the National Guard - equivalent to Britain's Territorial Army - as his dad had before him. Ryan died on his last mission, just before his promotion to sergeant was approved, in August 2006. Increasing numbers of National Guard units are entering the war zone due to troop shortages. SPECIALIST MATTHEW STANLEY McCAIN was given a band by tragic Matthew's mum. The 22-year-old from Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, was a specialist - the equivalent to corporal - with the armoured cavalry and on his second Iraq tour of duty. He and two other soldiers died on patrol in Baghdad. McCain said: "Any political ambitions of mine pale in comparison to the sacrifice nearly 4000 family members have made."
I would like to point out that Obama couldn't have voted for the invasion as he wasn't in the US Senate at the time further he has said if he was and was given the same info that the Senators where he isn't sure how he would've voted.
You didn't need to point that out, considering he said Obama "opposed" the war (which he did). He didn't say Obama voted against it.
But what is telling is that when faced with giving Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, Hillary went right ahead and did it again. Rather than show that she learned from her mistake of giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, she votes to do it again on Iran. Her decision making is fair game, and she blew it in 2002, and she blew it again regarding Iran.
To spell it out for both you and Achilleus its a somewhat disengenous argument for Obama to be making to equate his opposition to the war in 2002 with Clinton's vote as Obama's opposition had as much bearing as my letter to the editor of the Star Tribune. Especially since Obama has said indicated he possibly might have voted for the resolution had he been in the US Senate.
While her support of the Iraq war which she wouldn't say was a mistake for the longest time, is troubling, it is not as troubling as her repeating the same mistake by giving Bush the benefit of the doubt within the last year over Iran. Making a mistake is one thing, but not learning from it is far worse.
Do you really know how Obama would have voted had he been in the Senate in 2002? Sure he opposed it during his campaign (once we had been there and things started going poorly). It is easy to oppose things when you didn't have to make the original decision, and you get to make comments based on hindsight rather than foresight. Bottom line...we do not and will never know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate in 2002.
This is what he said in 2002, 5 months before the war started - and when Democrats pretty evenly split on the war: 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 … I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars. Not only was he pretty clearly opposed to it - he predicted the results to a tee.
