What is the message from Obama's "cave" in to Bush on anti-war Supplemental Bill language?

[papau]

Previously from Obama:

"You know, the problem is, is that you have got an obstinate administration that has shown itself unwilling to change in the face of circumstances on the ground.

And, in that situation, what you don't want to do is to play chicken with the president, and create a situation in which, potentially, you don't have body armor, you don't have reinforced humvees, you don't have night-vision goggles."

Sunday the AP and Kos reported Obama caved to Bush - from Kos:

Obama caves to Bush
by kos
Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:57:18 AM PDT

I wish this was an April Fools Day joke:

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Not only is it bad policy, not only is it bad politics, it's also a terrible negotiating approach.

Instead of threatening Bush with even more restrictions and daring him to veto funding for the troops out of pique, Barack just surrendered to him.

Let me repeat that -- Obama just surrendered to Bush.
http://www.dailykos.com/


So my take away is Obama said Dems will cave -signaling to Bush that war can get larger if Bush wants to make it larger.

But others say they will not cave and that any bill will have training and supplies and rotation limits - killing surge and forcing pull down post the beginning of August.

Indeed many say the Dems will pass the same Bill with a weak deadline again and again and after the second bill's veto, the third bill in July will also be the same and Bush can choose either to accept the weak deadline, or to begin ending the war immediately for lack of a supplemental.

Why is Obama promising Bush in public that Dems will cave - Is Obama missing anti-war fervor, or anti-war backbone, or is he a corporatist politian that got one thing right when he did not have to vote on it, and now Obama is covering what he wants to do next by saying everyone wants to/will do the same?

Or is Obama just stating the obvious about the weak backboned Democratic Party as he tells us that the weak members of the Democratic Party should support him for his strong anti-war views that are tempered by an acceptance of reality - as shown by Sunday's comments?

[hlthe2b]

1. Someone here posted yesterday that the AP story had misquoted

and thus both AP and Daily Kos were drawing very wrong conclusions.... Perhaps someone can dig up the other post as I'm running late...:shrug: Perhaps we on the left are being "played."

[papau]

4. The CNN transcript below - seems cave on supplemental but new bills in Senate to force GOP votes

The CNN transcript

BLITZER: Because some ardent opponents of the war, like Dennis Kucinich, for example, who is a Democratic presidential candidate...

OBAMA: Right.

BLITZER: ... he takes a principled stand. He's not going to vote to fund troops going off to this war, because he believes that would help bring the troops home.

OBAMA: Right.

You know, the problem is, is that you have got an obstinate administration that has shown itself unwilling to change in the face of circumstances on the ground.

And, in that situation, what you don't want to do is to play chicken with the president, and create a situation in which, potentially, you don't have body armor, you don't have reinforced humvees, you don't have night-vision goggles.

Now, there is a ratcheting-up of pressure on the president. And I am very pleased about the vote that took place yesterday, where a majority of the Senate for the first time said we need to have a timetable.

BLITZER: But he says he is going to veto that right now.

OBAMA: I understand.

BLITZER: And there is a game of chicken going on right now.

OBAMA: I understand that he says he is going to veto it. There is no doubt he will veto it. But what you are starting to see, I think, is a bipartisan movement in the direction of having a clear endgame.

And I am very pleased that the bill that I presented back in January calling for a phased withdrawal starting on May 1 of this year, with the aim of getting all combat troops out by March 31 of next year, that many of the elements in that bill ended up being part of this package that was voted on yesterday.

BLITZER: If the president does veto it, as he vows he will, what do you do next?

OBAMA: Well, I think we continue to put these votes up to the Senate. We put more pressure on many Republican colleagues of mine, who I think recognize that the Bush approach has not worked, but are still unwilling to put pressure on their president.

BLITZER: Because he says the money starts drying up in mid- April...

OBAMA: Right.

BLITZER: ... for the troops to head over to Iraq.

OBAMA: Right. I think that we continue to put a series of votes up and try to convince our colleagues on the Republican side that the only way that we are going to change circumstances in Iraq is if you see a different political dynamic; that there are, at this point, no military solutions to the problems in Iraq; that what we have to do is get the Shia, the Sunni, the Kurd to come together and say to themselves "We, in fact, are willing to start making some compromises around oil revenues, around the arming of militias and so on."

In the absence of that, we can send 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, we're not going to see a significant change.

[Red Zelda]

2. No to Obama

He is a media creation and a bad choice for ANYTHING.

[illinoisprogressive]

3. The article turned out to be wrong. Obama never said it and AP put words in his mouth

Check with a diary on Kos with the TRANSCRIPTS.
Nice try but, the attempt to smear Obama by AP failed.

[papau]

5. CNN transcript in above post - the AP had it correctly on the supplemental cave to Bush but

the later call for future bills to record the Senate on the question of out of Iraq was not in the Kos excerpt.

On edit - just got my head into some coffee and realized you had posted the transcript!

So I guess we agree on the supplemental comment and we both note that Obama's call for more votes on future Iraq bills did not get much PR! :-)

[BeyondGeography]

6. AP amended the story

Here's what Kos ran:

<If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.>

Here are the original quotes that NOW appear in the AP article:

< "My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

...

"I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground," said Obama. "I do think a majority of the Senate has now expressed the belief that we need to change course in Iraq.

"Obviously we're constrained by the fact that a commander in chief who also has veto power has the option of ignoring that position," Obama said.

...

The senator said it is up to war opponents to be vocal about their position.

"If the president vetoes this, the American people have to continue to put pressure on their representatives so that at some point we may be able to get a veto-proof majority for moving this war in a different direction," the senator said. >

Obama leads with "we will continue to ratchet up the pressure" before he predicts funding in the event of a veto. He adds "at this stage," to suggest funding may be denied in the future. The "nobody wants playing chicken with our troops" line sets up "what we do want is to change course in Iraq."

He never said "we will quickly provide funding because nobody wants to play chicken."

[flpoljunkie]

7. Shame on the AP and shame on Kos! Shouldn't Kos know better?

Obama: "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage." (There has not been a bill or a vote to cut off funding.)

The AP twisted this into this: Notice what is not in quotes--what Barack Obama apparently did not say.

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

[papau]

8. no change re supplemental comment per CNN transcript - the AP story posted

has the 3 word change

In any case your post is a much better way of putting what he said.

[Nedsdag]

9. Oh, course you'd believe this.

You're a Clinton supporter. I hope to hell Hillary doesn't say anything "wrong."

[papau]

10. I am single payer health more than anything else - While I do like Hillary, Edwards has my interest

at the moment.

Obama's call for lower cost employment based universal coverage via insurance pools - sounds like Hillarycare Two doesn't it? - just is no the way to go. But to be fair his health care comments were perhaps just off the top of his head - Obama has promised a formal policy in a few weeks and I look forward to the formal health policy statement.

[mtnsnake]

11. Kos is far from being the bible of politics, far from it. They're full of shit half the time, too.