Editorial: Reality on Iraq votes

"As a long time reader," Cathleen e-mailed last Tuesday, "I'm distressed to see that you are ignoring the fact that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war." Well, first off, Howdy neighbor, happy harvest! (As they sing in Summer Stock.) Second of all, Cathleen, we've never heard from you before despite your claim that you've "been reading since the start." May we assume that everything else we've ever written you've agreed with?

Cathleen's not a long-term reader, she's a short-term liar. Her beef is that her personal savior (yes, she attends the Church of Obama regularly) is getting held to a standard.

We've called Hillary Clinton out for her votes on Iraq many, many times. That's really not our concern these days and not just because we've done it for years now. It's because, unlike Panhandle Media, we do have standards. Hillary Clinton's votes are well known, very well known. Now she's running against a candidate in a narrow race and it's interesting how there is no standard for him at all.

Katrina vanden Heuvel has Peter Rothberg currently pimping an event this week that will find vanden Heuvel speaking out for Bambi. That may be a surprise to those who don't read The Nation or to those who read it and take it at it's word. Remember the whole "We won't endorse anyone who doesn't call for an immediate withdrawal" crap editorial? The Nation's hoping you don't.

Bambi's not calling for an immediate withdrawal. He's not even calling for a full withdrawal at a specified date. He's calling for the withdrawal of "combat" troops only. That leaves behind thousands and thousands of other troops. These US service members will be doing "police" operations, they will be handling "training" and they will be going after "terrorists." They'll be using the counter-insurgency text book (and worse things that didn't make the book) to do that. Quick, whose campaign has advisors who support (and some who helped write the current book on) counter-insurgency?

If you answered "Hillary Clinton," you were wrong. That's Bambi, Senator Barack Obama. The newbie senator yet to finish his first term. He is the candidate that lies built, ya'll, remember those lies.

And the lies came from Panhandle Media which got in the tank with him long before Real Media. They've lied and covered for Bambi so much that even they probably couldn't tell themselves the truth at this point.

Their lies were driven home Thursday night.

That's when KPFA broadcast a debate special featuring clips from the debate in Austin between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (see Ava and C.I.'s commenatary). As part of the 'special,' KPFA promised "your calls" (they offered up only one call -- singular) and a blog for listeners to post at during the debate. Unlike the broadcast, the blog actually featured Hillary supporters as well as Barack supporters. (The broadcast only featured Bambi supporters who were never disclosed on air to be that.) Presumably, those posting to the blog got their information from KPFA. If so, that's a huge indictment of the quality of information KPFA is providing.

A poster named "organic mechanic" is presumably a KPFA listener. So why doesn't o.m. know the basics? Early on, o.m. posted:

Obama voted against the War on Iraq when it wasn't popular to. Yet, folks continue to find fault w/ every single little thing. That vote alone clinched it for me. What about you?

No, Bambi did not vote in the US Senate in 2002. He was not a member of the Senate then. That's very basic. O.m. can be slightly forgiven because that lie has been pimped on KPFA since Andrea Lewis interviewed Professor Patti Williams on The Morning Show last summer. Professor Patti repeated that lie and, when a MidEastern woman phoned in to correct her, Professor Patti got nasty.

The lies been pimped since. Stephen Zunes -- another professor -- likes to pimp it as well. So o.m. might be forgiven for getting it wrong were it not for the fact that other posters repeatedly attempted to correct him and he repeatedly insisted that Obama was in the Senate in 2002.

organic mechanic:

Fact: Obama did vote against the war as a Senator.

and

Didn't you listen to the debates? He's always been able to take the honorable road because he did vote as a Senator against the war. Shall we just click our heels and say: there's no one good enough, there's no one good enough....

KPFA was monitoring the blog. That's why they stripped out comments noting that someone at KPFA was posting repeatedly throughout the broadcast -- you could hear the click-click of the keyboard and the ding you'd hear at home if you were posting comments -- you could hear that during the broadcast. Dallas listened to it during the writing of this edition to check points for Ava and C.I. (points they were making in their commentary) and says he couldn't hear the clicks. They were there in real time. (Jess, Jim, Dona and Ty heard it over the airwaves and Ty was looking at the blog and saw the comments by posters who noticed that someone at KPFA was obviously posting to the blog -- not when KPFA announcements went up, but as if they were a listener). At 7:23 KPFA posted, "Larry B will read some of your comments at the first break." That did not happen. That, in fact, never happened. Anyone posting before 7:23 was not quoted on air. That's a shame because four different posters were commenting on the use of homophobia by the Obama campaign and seems like KPFA, of all stations, could have found time to address that issue. Instead, they went with a little kiss-ass posting under the name "bmagical." At 8:13 the kiss-ass wondered of the two candidates, "Will you fund the department of peace?" That was a waste of time. That's Dennis Kucinich's pet program and he's out of the race. Though both candidates borrow from John Edwards, neither's taken to borrowing from Kucinich.

As silly as it was stupid, it did get noted by Larry Bensky. It was the only thing that did. But stop a second to grasp that one poster seriously believed that Bambi was in the Senate in 2002 and that he voted against the Iraq resolution. With KPFA monitoring the blog, shouldn't that issue have been raised? Seeing that a listener had no clue, shouldn't a responsible radio station have taken a moment to say, "There seems to be some confusion about 2002. To be clear, Barack Obama was not in the Senate in 2002."

They didn't do that and, in fact, KPFA has regularly promoted that falsehood. They've regularly (often leaving themselves weasel room) presented it as: Hillary voted for the 2002 resolution and Barack didn't.

Is that how it works? Well then we think Americans should certainly be informed that Barack Obama did not vote to ratify the Constitution. He did not vote in favor of US involvement in WWII. He did not vote for the Civil Rights bill.

If he's going to credit for not voting on things he wasn't in the Senate to vote on, then let's give him blame for all the other things he didn't vote on.

Barack Obama was not in the Senate in 2002. He is in the the third year of his six-year term, having been sworn in to the United States Senate in January 2005 after being elected to it in November 2004.

KPFA loves to gas bag about what the 'public' has wrong. It's a rare month when one whiner doesn't offer up that a segment of the population still believes in the false link between Iraq and 9-11. They had a listener not just sure that Obama voted against the 2002 resolution, but blogging that on their site repeatedly. They were monitoring the blog. They had an obligation to correct the record on air -- not to embarrass "organic mechanic" (we will) but to make sure the "public" had the facts.

But that's a fact no one in Panhandle Media wants to stress too loudly. Just like they don't want to stress that, once in the Senate, Barack repeatedly voted to fund the illegal war.

If we're six-years-old and touch a hot stove not knowing it will burn us, you wouldn't think we were stupid. You'd think, "They didn't know better." If we'd burned our hands doing that and continued to do it, you'd think we were stupid.

Bambi wants credit for being against the illegal war before it started. He went into the Senate, by his account, opposed to the Iraq War. So why the hell did he keep authorizing the funding of it?

Someone who wants to (falsely) claim that he was always against the illegal war has no excuse for voting to fund it.

Which brings us back to Cathleen.

Cath, we've held Hillary accountable for her votes. We've done so repeatedly and from the start of this site. Any real "long time reader" would know that.

In addition, Hillary's voting record is well known. By contrast, Bambi's record is a fantasy. One that's not called out, one that's not addressed.

Neither Hillary or Barack has pledged to end the illegal war by 2013 when they had the chance to. Bambi gave a speech in Houston, Texas where he claimed (last week) that he'd end the war by next year. He's talking "combat" troops only.

We're not going to be part of the lies and the spin. If there's a difference on Iraq between Hillary and Barack it's that Barack sold out his own beliefs when he got into the Senate (and might if he got into the White House) because someone who is opposed to the illegal war doesn't turn around and repeatedly fund it.

Unlike Tom Hayden, we don't believe that step one to ending the illegal war is electing either Hillary or Barack. We believe the people will end the illegal war. We believe they are doing that. And doing it without the help of the likes of Tom Hayden who offer up endorsements to Obama and then want to claim that the rest of us, the 'public,' need to hold the candidates feet to the fire!

We're against the illegal war and, unlike Cath's personal savior, we haven't flip-flopped on that issue.