"If you fund it -- you support it."

[kentuck]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/flip-it-quick-could-some_b_85694.html

<snip>
Second, some thoughts for the Hillary Haters--those who would never vote for Hillary under any circumstances, even a unity ticket:

1. Some of you are supporting Obama because Hillary is divisive. I find this ironic, given the fact that many Team Obama blog comments sound even more aggressive and nasty than many Republican comments. You should read your own words!

2. Some of you are supporting Obama because he was opposed to the war in Iraq. Yes, Hillary voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war. Yes, she was dead wrong. But the reality is that since Obama has been in the Senate, he has had virtually the same voting record on the war as Hillary. My view? If you fund it -- you support it. They now have similar timetables for the withdrawal of our troops. And, most important, compared with the "open-ended" Republican commitment to staying in Iraq for 100 years, any remaining differences between Obama and Clinton on this issue are marginal.

[pampango]

1. Ahh, the no nuance approach. By that logic Hillary is a war criminal.

If you vote for the war you are responsible for every bad thing that happens in it.

The fact is you have one candidate who voted for the IWR and one who says he wouldn't have, but we'll never really know. I think it is possible, perhaps even likely, that he would have (but I can't "prove" it).

My logic: Every one of our our senators who has since run for President voted for the IWR. Where they particularly susceptible to being fooled by Bush, moreso than Wellstone, Feingold, Boxer, and Kennedy (who have not run for president since)? My take is that those with presidential ambitions were just as smart as those without, but saw the political wisdom of voting for the IWR, so as not to be cast as "soft on defense" by the Republicans when they ran for president.

That's why I think if it is possible, even likely, that Obama would have voted for the IWR if he had been in the Senate. But we will never "know" for sure, so to equate their antiwar records is not accurate.

[bigtree]

5. I find it interesting that his supporters want to blame Hillary for everything Bush did

in defiance of the provisions in the IWR. He really ignored the document and used the loophole in the War Powers Act (opportunistically referenced in the IWR as his 'authority' to commit troops) to commit troops WITHOUT first informing Congress. In fact, the FUNDING is the endorsement of his actions, in my estimation. NOTHING in the IWR prevents Congress from cutting off funds, at any time.

[pampango]

6. I agree that many of our senators may have voted for the IWR, not just for political

reasons, but because that they believed that it was a "conditional" approval to use force, not a blanket approval. That "conditional" rationalization may be honest, but it is also very convenient.

Many of our senators thought it gave Bush too much authority or believed that he was likely to misuse any "conditional" authority he was given. Of those who voted "No" because of this, none of them have since run for president. All of them who have run, Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Dodd and Biden voted "Yes". A strange coincidence at the very least.

We all know that funding the troops gets caught up in the same Republican spin machine of being "soft of defense" that the IWR vote was caught up in. AFAIK, even our senators who did vote "No" on the IWR have voted to fund the troops once they were at war. If so funding would not equate with support for the war. Correct me if I am wrong.

[bigtree]

8. but, in the case of these candidates, you gotta wonder

. . . why do they oppose funding NOW, coincidently(?), while they're running for president?

[pampango]

15. I thought they both voted consistently to fund the troops.

If I am wrong, I stand corrected.

[bigtree]

16. did you read 'they' in my post?

look at the record, they both changed their tune this year on funding

[lisainmilo]

19. John Edwards called them on it.

Remember?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u9Hib5LFOw

[Ravy]

10. I find the "political reasons" argument interesting.

Is that just another way of saying, they voted that way because that is what their constituents wanted, at least, at the time?

In a representative government, isn't that what they are supposed to do?

[pampango]

14. It's that "leadership" vs "do what your constituents want" conundrum.

I find that if my view on an issue is popular, I want my representative to reflect what his or her constituents want, since they agree with me.

If my view is unpopular (more often the case where I live), then I want my representative to show "leadership" (by agreeing with me, of course) not just follow the polls.

I guess that is what makes life for a politician interesting. :)

[Ravy]

17. That is precisely the case.

Same with me, too.

Personally, I thought the IWR was was a good bill gone bad. If Bush had not elected to invade, it would have served the purpose well. Saddam opened up Iraq for weapons inspectors, and was looking for a place to go into exile.

Bush did not have to invade to ensure that there were no WMD. He had other plans. Revenge, oil, whatever.. probably a combination.

But as a matter of policy, for ensuring that there were no WMD and that there would be an end to the devistating sanctions that were killing so many, IWR was doing the job.

I am extremely dismayed about the way it turned out, but I blame Bush for it.

[Yossariant]

18. LOL! By that logic, the half of the country that voted for and re-elected Bush are war criminals.

:rofl:

[rodeodance]

35. wasn't it up to about 75%?? that would be war criminals? I forget-the %

[bigtree]

2. you've got to wonder what Obama actually did about Iraq after the speech he gave

no more than Clinton . . . and he sounded so opposed to it.

[rodeodance]

33. think about it--most obamababies based their support on a NONexistant vote!

[yardwork]

41. I know and I've decided to start calling them on it.

It's not that I dislike Obama. He's an ok guy, for a right-centrist. Same as Hillary.

[rodeodance]

67. HARD==over and over.

[BringBigDogBack]

3. ". Some of you are supporting Obama because he was opposed to the war in Iraq. Yes, Hillary voted to

give President Bush the authority to go to war. Yes, she was dead wrong."


But you'll never hear her state that.

[Deja Q]

4. They're all nuts when not better than us anyway.

[alteredstate]

7. Do you have a loved one serving in Baghdad?

[kentuck]

9. No...

But I did not say if I agree with the article. It's just another opinion piece.

[unc70]

20. I did have one in Baghdad.

I know the routine of nervously googling his unit designation every couple of hours, afraid there might be something new (and bad), discovering sites like icasualties.org, and not really wanting to share what you have found with other family members.

He came safely home and became another vet against the war.

I have talked with a few others who have pulled a tour or two.

[alteredstate]

21. I spend a lot of time at icasualties.org.

and I know how you must have felt. When a US military death in Iraq is announced on the news, I check the site for casualties by army base. Sometimes I can get enough information to determine that my stepson hasn't been killed. If not, I just hope no one comes to the door.

I'm so glad your loved one made it back OK.

[yardwork]

28. Don't pick on Kentuck. He's not saying that we should leave the soldiers without supplies.

The OP is pointing out that Obama's votes have been very much like Hillary's ever since he got elected to the Senate.

[Honeycombe8]

11. Ha. Is this the best you can come up with? I was against the IW, but I can't argue w/funding it...

once it has been started by Billary and others.

I might very well have voted the same way, and I was flat out against the Iraq War at the start, thinking it was INSANE! I thought anyone voting for the IW was being grossly negligent or truly stupid! But even though Obama tried to convince Billary not to vote that way, she did anyway.

Once started, though...I can't argue with funding it to ensure the troops got enough equipment, and such. The troops were having enuf trouble getting required equipment out of this negligent administration. And goodness knows * was NEVER going to bring the troops home.

No, I can't argue at all with voting to send the troops money.

[bigtree]

12. so I guess you disagree his refusal to fund it now?

(coincidently) during his(her) presidential run?

[alteredstate]

13. The soldiers who were serving in Iraq

would have been stuck there with no funding. I know this is true because my stepson is serving in Baghdad. The soldiers were told if funding was stopped, new deployments would be halted, but those who were in Iraq would probably have their deployments lengthened.

Bush held our soldiers hostage.

[Occam Bandage]

22. Ah, we start with "blame the candidate for some bloggers." That always bodes well.

[Hoof Hearted]

23. If you build it . . . . . . . . . they will come . . . . . . . . . . .

I'm for the unity ticket, with either one at the top.



.

[yardwork]

24. I agree that Obama and Hillary are virtually identical in their votes over the war.

It's possible that Obama would have been one of the very few Democrats to oppose IWR in 2002, but nothing in his voting record suggests this kind of radical vote.

In the fall of 2002 when Hillary and most other sheep, er Congresspeople voted for IWR it was considered practically treasonous to vote against it. Nonetheless a few Democrats and one or two brave Republicans did vote against it. They tend to be the same Democrats who have voted for impeachment and taking a close look at the voting irregularities. Silence from both Obama and Hillary on impeachment, voting, Abu Ghraib, and lots of other issues that need serious attention.

Neither Obama nor Hillary have been leaders in what I consider progressive issues in the Senate. I'll vote for whomever wins the nomination, but the ideas that Hillary is a "war criminal" and Obama is a "super liberal" are equally wrong.

They're both centrist candidates in a country where centrist now means way over to the right.

[AtomicKitten]

27. National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator 2007

January 31, 2008, 2:13 PM
National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/31/politics/horserace/entry3775451.shtml?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=Horserace_3775451

National Journal is out with its ratings of the votes of the members of the Senate, and it has found that the most liberal senator in 2007 was Barack Obama.

"The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate," National Journal notes.

Hillary Clinton was found to be tied as the 16th most liberal senator, after having placed 32nd the previous year. National Journal uses 99 "key Senate votes" to determine its ratings. One of the key "conservative" votes Clinton cast was to designate the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization.

The differences between Obama and Clinton might be smaller than the first appear, however: National Journal notes that "Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10."

The ranking will likely be used against Obama if he becomes the Democratic nominee. On January 16th, Karl Rove had this to say: "Nonpartisan ratings say that he has a more liberal and a more straight-party voting record than Senator Clinton does. Pretty hard to do." Republicans are likely to question Obama's "unity" rhetoric by casting him as a far-left ideologue.

Interestingly, Sen. John McCain "did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score," National Journal writes. "He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories."

[yardwork]

29. Centrists. No support for impeachment. No support for investigating machines.

No war crimes investigations into Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

They're both centrists.

[AtomicKitten]

31. so say you -- a preponderance of the data says otherwise

[yardwork]

32. Show it to me. Show me vote by Obama that differ from Clinton's.

[AtomicKitten]

34. Here's the bigee -- She voted YES on the IWR.

[yardwork]

37. Honey, Obama didn't vote on that. He wasn't in the Senate.

If Hillary Clinton said that she would have voted against invading Cambodia would you believe her? Would you care?

I'm interested in what Obama has actually done, not what he says he would have done in 2002.

[AtomicKitten]

44. Obama was against THIS war from the get-go. That matters.

On edit: The Clintons' creed, their argument, is that strong and wrong prevails. Wrong. Dead wrong. Hundreds of thousands of dead wrong.

[yardwork]

45. Show me the difference in the votes between Obama and Clinton.

I argue that they are about the same.

You may choose to believe that Hillary Clinton is an evil killer, but the facts show that she and Obama are about the same on the votes.

[AtomicKitten]

50. They aren't the same on THAT vote.

That horrible vote that started a war and opened the door to torture, rendition, illegal wiretaps, suspension of habeas corpus, etc., etc.

And, worse, she didn't learn the first time the dog bit her. She voted yes on K-L, a quasi-Iran War Resolution vote.

You have the rest of the data. Obama was deemed the most liberal in 2007, Hillary 16th.

From Obama's prophetic anti-dumb-war speech in 2002:

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US 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.

[yardwork]

55. Obama didn't vote on that vote! You're living in a fantasy world.

If you actually read the article that placed Obama "most liberal" and Hillary 16th, you'll see that it goes on to say that on important votes they are about the same.

[AtomicKitten]

63. Purposeful blindness is no excuse for repeating bullshit, but you go right ahead anyway.

[rodeodance]

64. He was NOT in the Senate at that time.

[AtomicKitten]

66. Hillary was and she voted YES on the IWR, a blank check that Junior promptly cashed.

Please feel free to turn a blind eye, as you do.

[nonconformist]

107. How did Obama vote on Kyl-Lieberman?

Oh that's right, he didn't.

Yet another example where he can't put a vote where his mouth is.

[AtomicKitten]

108. and again you can't seem to discern the difference

between actually voting YES on such egregious legislation and not ...

Obama has already addressed this. He opposed it, said so, but was out campaigning because he knew the vote would pass overwhelmingly, and it did by 50+ votes, so rushing back would have no difference.

It is a reasonable stance, but people like you love to get in there and try to muddy the waters. Again, to recap, Hillary actually voted YES on it. If you find Obama anywhere in the ballpark as complicit on that, your critical analysis skills are lacking. But we've already established that, so you really are just tilting at windmills here.

[nonconformist]

109. I know she did. I don't like it.

Have no problem saying that.

But listen to yourself. Obama supporters are always having to "explain" things.

He should have flown back and voted NO if he disagreed, as a protest vote.

By not voting at all, he didn't have to take a really strong stand. That seems politically convenient.

[rodeodance]

YOU base your support on a NON-EXistant vote??

[AtomicKitten]

73. Better than giving her a high-five for her YES vote for war and worse.

[rodeodance]

76. ha ha--so you admit your support is based on a NON-existant vote. COOL!

[AtomicKitten]

78. You admit you are perfectly fine with her BS vote for war made entirely for political reasons.

Yep, she's your girl!

[rodeodance]

97. Make your own ASSumptions. I admit no such thing!

[AtomicKitten]

105. self-delete

You win the ASSault derby by default.

[Tatiana]

49. HA! They called him "insurgent." n/t

[Bread and Circus]

25. false argument.

[rodeodance]

36. Oh Wise one--come lay your hands on us and Enlighten us (vs hit and run)

[yardwork]

40. Don't bother with that one. Snort.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

26. Obama said if you fund it you support it. Swore he wouldn't fund it during his campaign

then funded it. flip flop.

[rodeodance]

39. Obama-the FLIP-FLOPPER-IN-CHIEF

[AX10]

30. K & R!

[nonconformist]

38. Obama Gaffe on War Funding?

Obama Gaffe on War Funding?

April 01, 2007 11:06 PM

ABC News' Jonathan Greenberger Reports: In what may be a blow to his support among the anti-war left, the Associated Press is reporting that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., says that if President Bush vetoes the war funding bill because of its timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq, the Congress will then swiftly provide the president with another version that lacks such a provision. According to the AP, Obama explained this by saying that no lawmaker “wants to play chicken with our troops.”

President Bush has previously vowed to veto any Iraq supplemental bill that contains a withdrawal timeline.

Obama’s comments to the AP place him alone among the major Democratic candidates for president. So far, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and others have focused on simply calling on Bush not to veto the supplemental, and unlike Obama, have not stated that the Congress would respond to a veto by sending the president a "clean?" funding bill.

Already, Obama is taking heat for his remarks from some of the anti-war left, which is a key constituency for his campaign. Influential liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas wrote on Daily Kos that he wishes Obama's comments were an April Fool's Joke. "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," wrote Moulitsas. "Obama just surrendered to Bush."

Obama's campaign did not return a request for comment.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/04/obama_gaffe_on_.html

[rodeodance]

42. This comment is what Obamababies use all the time:

they generally say if not fund then troops will be killed. Idiots!


no lawmaker “wants to play chicken with our troops.”

[nonconformist]

46. But but... Obama is the anti-war candidate!

Anti-War Crowd Turns On Obama

As Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. defends himself against anti-war critics this week, his rivals are taking the opportunity to cast themselves as more firmly opposed to President Bush's Iraq policy than Obama – who happens to be the only leading Democratic candidate who publicly opposed the war when it began.

Obama has found himself facing a storm on leading liberal blogs over a weekend interview in which he spoke as though he were an observer, not a participant, in the confrontation between Congress and Bush over a threatened veto of legislation that sets a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
<snip>

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in contrast to Obama, has refused to take Bush’s veto for granted. She launched a petition drive Monday to demand that Bush sign the bill. Asked in Crawfordsville Tuesday whether Obama's willingness to look past the veto was helpful or unhelpful to the Democratic position, she responded: "I'm only going to speak for myself, and my position is we have to negotiate with the president from a position of strength.

"We need to change the approach of the White House, which means you've got to stand firm and say, 'We don't expect you to veto something that represents the will of the American people,'" Clinton said.

<snip>

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml

[yardwork]

48. Obama talks but does he walk the walk?

[rodeodance]

57. His only proven strategy to win is to SWOON em!--

[returnable]

43. I don't agree with votes to fund the war BUT...

...even I can see the difference between voting to fund troops already in harm's way and voting to put them there in the first place (especially when that vote was placed out of either political expediency or cowardice).

Which is not to give Obama a pass for his funding votes. Like I said, I disagree with him there. But to equate the two positions is intellectually dishonest.

[yardwork]

47. To equate campaign rhetoric with an actual vote is also dishonest.

It's easy for Obama to say now that he wouldn't have voted for IWR in 2002, but given his voting record in the Senate since he's been elected, I'm reasonably sure that he would have voted for IWR at the time, no matter what he says now or was saying then, when he wasn't in the senate.

There was an incredible amount of arm-twisting to get that vote out of Congress in 2002. Very few congress critters were able to resist. They're not very brave.

Obama hasn't been a progressive firebrand in the Senate. He's ok, but I'm not persuaded that he's any different in his view than Clinton. They're both centrists. Right-leaning centrists.

I base that on their voting records, not campaign rhetoric.

[nonconformist]

51. Obama even admitted he doesn't know how he would have voted on the IWR

He said that had he been privy to the information that Congress did, he might have voted for it too.

Of course, nobody likes to talk about that...

[yardwork]

54. Had he been privy to the arm-twisting and all-out threats that Congress was

he would have voted for the IWR. I'm sure of it.

[returnable]

59. So your argument is Clinton wasn't strong enough to withstand some arm-twisting?

Wow, that's some leadership. She wouldn't have been alone. There were other Senators who opposed it. She just chose the easy route.

[yardwork]

65. That's right. That's one reason she was my 4th choice.

My first, second, and third choices voted against IWR, but they dropped out of the race. Damn the fools who voted against them.

I'm left with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They're very good candidates in their way, but I refuse to believe that one of them is some kind of shining beacon of liberalism while the other is an evil hag who loves war. They're both center-right in their votes and views.

[returnable]

72. I think you and I are in closer agreement than we realize...

...my top two candidates never got into the race, and Plan C dropped out. :hi:

[yardwork]

83. Well, there you go! LOL!

Half of DU is probably fighting because we're in such bad moods about either choice we have to make.

[nonconformist]

Well, give me a good example where Obama stands up for a controversial issue

With a U.S. Senate vote in the opposite direction.

Because I haven't really seen that.

I've seen him talk about things, I heard him say that voting for funding the war was supporting it. But then he voted for funding the war. He didn't even stand strong on the bill Bush vetoed, like many other Democrats (like Hillary Clinton) did. He said if Bush vetoed it, they'll send him another bill with Bush's objections removed.

[AtomicKitten]

60. And you are merely repeating false rhetoric.

Russert misleadingly cropped Obama comment to claim he wasn't "firmly wedded against the war"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004

Summary: Interviewing Barack Obama on Meet the Press, Tim Russert read a quote he attributed to Obama to suggest that he has "not been a leader against the war": "In July of 2004, Barack Obama: 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know,' in terms of how you would have voted on the war." Russert did not quote the very next sentence of Obama's statement, which was, "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made" for authorizing the war.

During his November 11 Meet the Press interview with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (IL) on NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asserted that "critics will say you've not been a leader against the war," and then read a quote he attributed to Obama: "In July of 2004, Barack Obama: 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know,' in terms of how you would have voted on the war." After quoting two other Obama statements on the war, Russert concluded: "It doesn't seem that you were firmly wedded against the war and that you left some wiggle room that, if you were in the Senate, you may have voted for it." However, in citing Obama's comment "What would I have done? I don't know," Russert did not quote the very next sentence of Obama's statement, which was, "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

Obama made his comment in an interview reported by The New York Times in a July 27, 2004, article: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... 'What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'' The Times also reported that Obama "declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time":

In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said.

Further, in a July 24, 2004, interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Obama said that while he "didn't have the information that was available to senators," he would have voted against the Iraq war authorization:

BLITZER: Had you been in the Senate when they had a vote on whether to give the president the authority to go to war, how would you have voted?

OBAMA: You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators. I know that, as somebody who was thinking about a U.S. Senate race, I think it was a mistake, and I think I would have voted no.

BLITZER: You would have voted no at the time?

OBAMA: That's correct.

BLITZER: Kerry, of course, and Edwards both voted yes.

OBAMA: But keep in mind, I think this is a tough question and a tough call. What I do think is that if you're going to make these tough calls, you have to do so in a transparent way, in an honest way, talk to the American people, trust their judgment.

From the November 11 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Senator Clinton's campaign will say since you've been a senator, there's been no difference in your records. And other critics will say you've not been a leader against the war, and they point to this. In July of 2004, Barack Obama: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know," in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this. "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." That was July of '04. And then this: "I think that there is room for disagreement in that initial decision" to vote for authorization of the war. It doesn't seem that you were firmly wedded against the war and that you left some wiggle room that, if you were in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on Meet the Press during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war, so it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq. Look, I was opposed to this war in 2002, 2003, '4, '5, '6, and '7. What I was very clear about, even in 2002 in my original opposition, was once we were in, we were going to have to make some decisions to see how we could stabilize the situation and act responsibly. And that's what I did through 2004, '5, and '6, try to see, can we create a workable government in Iraq? Can we make sure that we're minimizing the humanitarian costs in Iraq? Can we make sure that our troops are safe in Iraq? And that's what I have done. Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled down and initiated the surge. And at that stage, I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening potentially a situation there. And since that time, I've been absolutely clear in terms of the approach I would take. I would end this war and I would have our troops out within 16 months.

[returnable]

62. Bingo.

:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

69. They seem more comfortable passing on false information.

I guess that's all they've got considering what they have to work with.

[returnable]

77. Indeed. It's pretty thin soup.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, all things being equal, I'll ride with the guy who spoke out against the war when the other person was trying to justify it.

:kick:

[AtomicKitten]

80. Thin? It's anorexic.

The choice is clear. Accountability versus triangulation.

Gobama!

[returnable]

81. Zing! n/t

:hi:

[nonconformist]

84. So now it's false?

He never said "I don't know"? Really?

[AtomicKitten]

87. It's that darn pesky next sentence you are ignoring that puts a monkeywrench in your case.

[nonconformist]

90. No.

He said that from his vantage point, without the intel, the case was not made.

I agree with him, the case wasn't made from my vantage point, either.

But, he also said that if he would have been privy to it, he doesn't know what he would have done.

[AtomicKitten]

91. Parse away ....

[nonconformist]

93. Nah, you're doing a fine job of that already.

I already said her vote was wrong.

I already said he was right, without intel, the case was not made.

You are the one that won't admit he said he doesn't know what he would have done.

[AtomicKitten]

94. Obama was right about Iraq from the onset -- Clinton and Edwards dead wrong.

At least Edwards had the grace to apologize.

It's all about good judgment. Obama had it, the others not so much. In fact, Obama's 2002 speech was downright prophetic.

That's the judgment I support him on. Good, sound judgment.

But if you feel comfortable rewarding that kind of politically-motivated egregious vote for war, knock yourself out.

[nonconformist]

96. So now, we deflect.

Ok.

How do you feel about his judgment here?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/04/obama_gaffe_on_.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml

Seems to kind of go against what he said about if you fund the war, you support it, doesn't it?

This is one of the problems I have with Obama. He seems to say the right things sometimes in speeches, or when he's looking in as an outsider. But when he gets a chance to put a vote where his mouth is, he crumbles.

[rodeodance]

98. PRESENT--SAME as sitting on the fence

[returnable]

102. No it's not

If you think "present" was a fence-sitting move in Illinois, take it up with those notorious anti-choice zealots in Planned Parenthood, who lobbied Democrats to vote that way.

I never thought I'd see the day where DU would attack a politician for supporting Planned Parenthood. We are through the looking glass...

[AtomicKitten]

101. You can parse language til the cows come home but the facts prevail.

I think you are riding the crest of a red herring, but for what purpose? Your intention is clear, to disparage Obama. Give it your best shot. It's like writing on a bathroom wall here. Go nuts.

Me? I will not reward any of those that abdicated their Constitutionally mandated war-declaring powers to an idiot, but you go right on ahead.

Yeah democracy! :hi:

[returnable]

103. "I will not reward any of those that abdicated their Constitutionally mandated...

...war-declaring powers to an idiot."

A little too long for a bumpersticker, but I like it :hi:

[nonconformist]

104. LOL

So, you can't answer. I got it.

Obama supporters never cease to amaze me. Why do you find it so incredibly difficult to criticize ANYTHING about him?

[nonconformist]

70. He says right there he doesn't know what he would have done.

Not sure really what you think you "proved".

[AtomicKitten]

75. perhaps you missed this:

>> ''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'' <<

It's that last sentence Hillary folk are fond of omitting.

Hillary didn't even bother to read the NIE and voted YES to give Junior a blank check. Obama, like the rest of us, knew precisely what this bullshit war was all about.

[nonconformist]

82. Right, from his vantage point.

But he also says that he wasn't privy to the intelligence, and therefore DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE WOULD HAVE DONE.

He said it, just admit it.

And Edwards was my guy.

[AtomicKitten]

85. He said the case was not made

And considering Clinton didn't bother to read the NIE (and neither did Edwards for that matter and he was on the Intel Comm), Obama had it exactly right.

Admit it. Or not. I couldn't care less.

For me, the choice is clear.

[nonconformist]

88. Oh, I don't have any problem admitting that she fucked up with that vote.

It's the Obama supporters who can't bring themselves to admit even the simplest things.

[returnable]

61. Provide the proper context for that quote.

He was trying not to embarrass the pro-war Kerry-Edwards ticket. But nobody likes to talk about that.

[rodeodance]

74. it has been posted several times--do your own research!

[returnable]

79. Huh? I don't need to do the research - I already know the context.

But thanks anyway.

[returnable]

56. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Mine differs. And it's based on his voting record both in the Senate and in the Illinois state house.

Has he been a "progressive firebrand"? No, but then again, he never was. If people were expecting him to be, then they didn't really know him or his record. But you don't have to be a firebrand to get things done, and he has a decent record of getting some decent, and progressive, legislation through.

In the end, I'll take my chances with the guy who knew the IWR was bullshit and had the courage to speak out against it when precious few politicians would. Your opinion may vary, of course.

[yardwork]

58. Based on his record ever since, I feel that he would have voted for IWR.

My opinion is that Obama and Hillary Clinton are both decent candidates and I'll support the one who wins the nomination.

I will not participate in villifying either one of them.

[returnable]

68. Understood.

I plan on supporting the nominee whomever it is, as well, and I'm not really interested in tearing anyone down. But the IWR vote is one thing I just can't let go, especially after witnessing how Kerry was never able to resolve the issue during the '04 GE. If HRC gets the nod, it'll be an major headache for the campaign.

[yardwork]

86. How can it be an issue when McCain still supports the war?

If Hillary is the nominee, the country will be choosing between a candidate who voted for and supports the war and a candidate who...voted for and supports the war.

A pretty sorry state of affairs but certainly not a headache for either campaign.

[nonconformist]

92. Agreed. Against McCain, all of this is a non-issue. nt

[returnable]

95. The same way it was an issue for Kerry.

"If Hillary is the nominee, the country will be choosing between a candidate who voted for and supports the war and a candidate who...voted for and supports the war."

See, but Hillary will be running on "Yes, I voted for it, but now I want to end it," and the noise machine will be all over it. Hell, just look at DU, where we have DEMOCRATS trying to tie Obama, who did NOT vote for the war, to the IWR. If folks on our side are already trying to muddy the waters of our candidates' positions, just imagine what the GE is going to look like. Not pretty.

I think Obama's argument for funding a war he never voted to authorize is far more palatable against McCain's war hard-on than Clinton's slow realization that she fucked up that vote (especially when she refuses to admit she fucked it up. Instead, she makes the weak case that Bush "abused the authority" he was given, when everyone knew the authority he was given was to launch a motherfucking war). I know polls aren't the greatest barometers, but there are legit reasons why she consistently matches up worse against McCain than Obama. And I think the IWR is one of them.

[nonconformist]

99. Nah, it's old news now.

Four years have passed. The public is now adamantly against the war, unlike then. They're sick and tired of it. They know that several Senators voted for the IWR. At this point, they just want a SOLUTION.

McCain wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years.

Both Hillary and Obama want to get us out of there.

It's really a no-brainer.

[returnable]

100. "It's really a no-brainer."

You have a greater faith in the electorate than I do. :hi:

[sampsonblk]

52. Damn right-nt

[KoKo]

53. Kentuck...I don't know who I'm supporting...yet...but thanks for your post..

more "food for thought."

[kentuck]

106. I haven't yet decided...

either.

[OzarkDem]

71. Good column

thanks for the link!

[moondust]

89. 2. Partially correct.

In the sense that you can't stop funding troops on the ground unless you know for certain they'll be withdrawn before they come to any harm as a result of your actions. That has never been clear or understood with Bush/Cheney. However, being held hostage by terrorists does not mean you support terrorism.