Both Hillary and Obama on record to NOT cut off funding for the troops

[jillan]

CITY, Iowa (AP) — 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.
"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."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-01-obama_N.htm

__________________________________________________________________________
At the first Presidential Debate:

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Brian, at the outset let me say that the American people have spoken, the Congress has voted, as of today, to end this war. And now we can only hope that the president will listen. I'm very proud of the Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid, for putting together a piece of legislation which says we will fund our troops and protect them, we will limit the number of days that they can be deployed, and we will start to bring them home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/us/politics/27debate_transcript.html?ex=1180670400&en=c8a1600db46301e8&ei=5070

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wonder what made them change their mind?

[William769]

1. At least they are both open to change

Which is more than I can say for some.

[SteppingRazor]

2. I don't get it. Neither of those statements says that they plan to vote yes on a war funding bill

:shrug:


On edit: Lemme clarify. First, the Obama statement. He says that "the majority of the senate" won't vote against the bill. He does not say that he specifically will not vote against it.

Next, the Hillary statement. Since she's talking about the first bill, the one that was vetoed by Bush, I don't get the comparison. Could you clarify?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. Notice the phraseology...

...funding for "troops," not the WAR. De-funding the war is equated with leaving the troops without sufficient resources and it's BS.

[welshTerrier2]

5. the republicans write the lyrics ...

and the Democrats sing in the chorus ...

good post, Mr_Jefferson_24 ... this battle was lost because the Democrats let bush frame the issue ...

i elaborated on that point here ==> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3284300

[jillan]

8. Actually this bill contained

funding for Veteran's
Funding for the troops over in Iraq and Afganistan
Funding fro MRAPs for the troops.

along with all the other domestic things that were in there.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

10. Sufficient funds to bring the troops home were already...

...in the pipeline. Dems didn't have to send up any funding legislation and the war could've been effectively de-funded. This would NOT have left the troops stranded or without bullets/armor as some would have us believe.

[jillan]

11. I want the troops home tomorrow - don't get me wrong n/t

[sandnsea]

4. The netroots the leadership never listens to???

So neither of these statements commits either of them to a particular vote, although they're both pleased to vote for redeployment. They vote against the legislation that doesn't have a withdrawal date, and that's a political calculation.

But if they, in fact, changed their mind - according to you that's also a political calculation.

Yet they've had the hell beat out of them by the anti-war crowd - while, according to you, pandering to the anti-war crowd at the same time.

Is that the logic?

[jillan]

6. No - I am just someone that is trying to keep an open mind on all of the candidates

I remembered them both saying that they would not cut off funding for the troops.
And then - at the last minute - they voted to do so.

If they are going to change their mind, as a voter, I would like to know why. I cannot help but feel that they did it because they were pressured.
They did not comment before the vote, and waited until late in the vote to make their voices heard.

Don't question my logic, when the real question here is their logic.

[Kagemusha]

12. Uh you're all over the map here with this.

Hillary's statement came when the first bill was passed, before Bush vetoed it, right? Obama got loudly vilified on the internet previously (apparently at the start of April) for predicting well, basically exactly what happened. He may not have voted with the heavy Senate majority giving Bush the war funding bill in the manner Bush desired but Obama's having correctly foreseen how the Senate would move once the first bill had been vetoed was proven absolutely correct in hindsight.

But because Obama didn't stop it (like he could have. He's going to tell Biden and Byrd and Reid what to do? And get anywhere?) he's viewed as a far greater failure in this matter than Reid, apparently. Reid said all the right things when Obama wouldn't, got the base completely on his side... and then folded just as Obama knew he would.

In Hillary's case she was confronted with a much different bill after the one Bush voted. In Obama's case he was predicting well in advance what would happen post-veto. In what universe is that changing their minds?

[sandnsea]

13. And who would pressure them?

The netroots. So we ought to be happy. But nooooo...

[jillan]

15. Chill -

I'm not saying I'm unhappy or happy.

I question if they were playing politics. That is all.
I would not have questioned their sincerity if they would have made their statements before the vote, or voted earlier that day.

I hope it is okay to still question the motives of the candidates that want to be President of the US....because I have alot of questions.

[sandnsea]

16. While you play politics

with their vote?? Isnt concocting phony reasons for their votes playing politics as well? How come it's okay if you do it?

You're the one that needs to chill. You're not fooling anybody.

[jillan]

17. Well if I am upsetting you, then you better not read Arianna Huffington today

She basically has the same question, but is much better at expressing herself than I.

[sandnsea]

19. I never read her

She's been a useless idiot for years.

[jillan]

20. Listen to us

How can we be going back and forth like this?
We were once part of the same family.


It's making me sad. You are one of the last people at DU that I want to argue with. Truce?

[sandnsea]

21. I don't hold grudges

It hurts me to see people letting primary politics pull them in directions I don't think they'd normally go. None of these candidates are innocent of it. I don't have 100% faith in any of them, JK was a once in a lifetime opportunity as far as I can see.

So I was out house shopping a while ago and way back in the middle of nowheres, in the sticks and the trees, in the front window of this small ranch home - a HUGE Kerry-Edwards placard. I couldn't believe it. I almost ran up to the door to see who had been hiding their location all this time!!

Anyways, all done. I really wish we could stop getting sidetracked with speculation when we can actually find real issues to push these people on.

Great day for women in Oregon - insurance must cover birth control and ER's must carry and distribute EC for rape victims. About time.

[jillan]

22. Every now and then I still see K/E stickers around

and it still gives me that Kerry magic. :)

The only good thing about Kerry not running is that he is able to speak his mind without people like DUers-yes me included- analyzing his every move. And he has been on fire.
The difference is in '03 - '04, I supported Kerry from the start, and got my wish. But it is really a shame that we lost out on someone that would have been the best President in so many ways.
I have alot of mixed feelings about most of the candidates, and I am one of these people that are hoping Gore throws his hat in the ring. Guess that is why I am questioning. It just hit a nerve with me. I would have no problem supporting either one. Lately I have been thinking I should just take a break from all of this - do you ever feel that way?
It's still so early and anything could happen. And all these questions -all these highs and lows would have been for nothing.

That is great news about Oregon! :)
Wish Arizona would come around - haha - well actually the good news from this state is that the rw has turned against McCain, for not showing up for work; and Kyl for teaming up with Kennedy on the Immigration Bill - a big issue in this border state. So maybe there is hope.

:hug:

[sandnsea]

23. I kind of have

I've learned an enormous amount in the last few years, and most of it not what I expected to learn. So I actually have taken a step back, and am trying to learn to not expect so much from people in order that I'm not consistently shocked and disappointed. But I work online, so it's just easy to flip back and forth.

I had great hopes for Obama, but he hasn't really come up with anything particularly visionary. I'm not really an Al Gore fan, but I think he'd galvanize the party and that's what we really need most right now. He's certainly right on the issues, and I think he's done with the corporatist bullshit. I didn't think he'd run a few weeks ago; but lately, he just might. Although I'm also bracing myself for Hillary. So I'm back to thinking we still have to reach real live people before the issues will change. It's all rather a mess.

[Justyce]

7. Should be "funding the war", not "funding the troops."

[Tom Joad]

9. "Funding for the 'troops'" or is it funding for an illegal occupation?

That is what it would be very helpful they were clear on. all the troops need is a plane trip home.

[jillan]

14. Another clip from Hillary

Clinton says cutting off funding for U.S. troops is "not appropriate at this time, until we get more of our troops out of harm's way." She acknowledges that President Bush has the money to increase U.S. troop levels, and Congress can't stop him.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=688170

****************************
Hey, I'm just looking for the truth.
I'm sick of people that play politics.

[illinoisprogressive]

18. How is Obama saying NOT? It says he think the majority of the Senate won't

2 different things. there is a difference between saying you think the majority won't and you won't. think