If Obama opposed the war from the start, why did he repeatedly vote to fund the war?

[John Q. Citizen]

Anybody know?

[Rusty MacHenry]

1. He dosen't support the war

But at the same time wants to make sure the troops have money for guns, equipment etc. does that make sense to you?

[John Q. Citizen]

3. No. His vote against the funding wouldn't have kept any of the bills from passing.

And if he stood up repeatedly and voted his convictions, perhaps others would have been inspired and many more Iraqis and many more of our troops would be alive and whole today.

Peace often takes more courage than war.

Do you suppose if congress turned down a request last year or the year before that the troops and the equipment would be stranded in Iraq and they would have to hitch-hike home with it?

I don't.

Lets face it. A whole lot of that money just went to Blackwater, Haliburton, Curveball, and othe bush cronies anyway. American families were holding bake sales to buy flak jackets.

No, I'm not sure why he voted like that, but I would like to know.

[sampsonblk]

97. At NO time did he ever say that

Would have been simple. "I am voting to fund the troops, but I do not support this war." But he never said any such thing.

[sandnsea]

2. Because he's not insane

Because nobody believed it would be necessary to go to that extreme to get Bush to change course on the war. Because Emergency Supplementals fund things other than the Iraq war. Because he still isn't willing to trust Bush not to punish the troops if Congress cuts funds. Lots of reasons.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Was it Einstein who said doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the

definition of insanity?

Einstein also said you can't simultaneously prepare for war and prepare for peace.

If Obama had voted No! would the bills have failed to pass? I thought they all passed by wide margins.

So I don't think your explanation for his votes make sense.

[sandnsea]

5. Why would he vote no

if he didn't want to go down on record as being opposed to the other items in the supplementals, or as leaving the troops stranded. His choice was not to end the war or not, the war was going to continue under Bush. His choice was whether to abandon the troops or not. He wisely chose not to.

Besides, this is just a trumped up excuse to bash Obama. Nobody was blathering about this until they wanted to find a way to tarnish his anti-war position.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. I guess some candidates are above reproach. Sorry if I've bashed him in anyway.

I'm sure the families of the dead and maimed understand....

In fact, they probably support the bush administration's tack ons to thier supplementals.

His voting record, after all, does come first. And his image as an anti-war candidate.

Setting a good example didn't really become an issue until he declared anyway.

[sandnsea]

7. I'm sure the families did

I'm sure they supported things like increased death benefits and family benefits; funding for body armor, armored Humvees, electronic jammers, etc.

When you use the war to gain political points, you're as guilty of abusing the troops as Bush. I've never said any candidate is above reproach. Just find something real to complain about.

[lizbitchwitchy]

12. John Q.Ciizen

You are doing a great job of being one of the few on this board who thinks for himself. If America had more people like you in it, we wouldn't be in this perdicament. You are a fine example of a true American (just unfortunately one of the few).

[rinsd]

17. LOL. why is this the constant mantra of the loon

"You are doing a great job of being one of the few on this board who thinks for himself."

Its even better is when they serve up reheated lefty boiler plater while saying so!

[John Q. Citizen]

22. Real classy restaurant you got there rinsd.

Do you always piss in the soup?

Hey, I'll take reheated lefty boiler plater than the Neo-con/Neo-liberal special du jour.

It costs much less, it's better for your health, and it isn't deep fried in rancid oil.

[rinsd]

23. Sorry, my slighting of Lampchop bothered you.

Good luck with today's windmill tilting.

:hi:

[John Q. Citizen]

37. Ah, another day another windmill.

By the way, it's not nice to call DUers names.

Are you new here?

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Thanks for your kind words.

I actually like Obama but the hero worship that permeates this place sometimes turns me off. As citizens it's our responsibility to hold our leaders accountable, not to abdicate that responsibility
and treat people running for office like they are the next messiah who are going to save us.

They work for us, and if we are unhappy with any aspect of their job we need to call them on the carpet, not kiss their ass.

In Obama's case, he's promoting one speech he made to push his anti-Iraq war persona sice the public is opposed to the war, while at the same time he voted numerous times to provide the funding that continued the war.

I noticed on your journal that you are living in the Sta. Cruz mountains. I grew up in Sta. Cruz and lived around there for years. I used to have a place by the covered bridge in Felton. Those were the days...

I miss it sometime, especially old friends, the redwoods and the ocean, but I sure don't miss the over-crowding, the traffic, and the cost of housing.

[lizbitchwitchy]

24. I was hopeful there for a minute

I thought you were going to say you lived around here. It would be nice to have some more people around that I can relate to. I love it up here but yes, the over crowding (thankfully not where I live) and traffic and the cost of living really gets you.

Yeah, I like Obamma too. I've checked him out - I am pretty much an internet sleuth and there isn't much dirt on him. I like that in a canadite - however, I dont' like these dems telling us they are against the war and then doing NOTHING to stop it. This responsible withdrawl crap is just that - crap. There is nothing responsible about this war - and never will be and their withdrawl won't be either - whether they do it now or next year - it won't make a bit of difference.

What gets me is they have been screaming about impeaching the president for 6 freakin years - they have been screaming about this Iraq war for 6 freakin years - only because we have been screaming about it and they had the excuse then that the Republicans were in charge. They have the majority in both houses now and what have they done? Nothing.

They don't have the super majority as one really really bright individual put it (sarcasm off) but they don't need the super majority for an appropriations bill like this. The president wants money - then the president won't veto any bill that gives it to him even if it does have a withdrawl date - and lucky him - these withdrawl dates are virtually non-binding and do nothing to end the war. They claim three narrow exceptions to the redeployment - 1) that the forces are staying to train Iraqi forces 2) that the forces stay to target terrorist groups and terrorist and gather information and 3) they stay to protect the American forces and their interests. Well blow me over, the president has gotten the funding and no exit date since those three "narrow exceptions" are EXACTLY what they claim we are doing there now. Anyone who votes for these funding bills is a traitor as far as I am concerned.

The ISG report stated - without a doubt (i read the entire thing) that every single Iraqi official whether elected or just a voice for the people has expressed there desire to have the US forces out of Iraq. Even the Shia and Sunni leaders - those we are apparently protecting - want us out - the kurds - everyone - the religious leaders and all those whom apparently were democratically elected. All the polls taken by polling companies of the Iraqi people's opinion - they all say that they want US forces out of their country - they believe we are complicating matters and making the violence worse and by god, I bet they are right. Here all these senators and congressmen are using the excuse that the Iraqi people won't step up to the plate and take control or responsibility for their own country and what do you know - they are trying to by requesting we leave immediately but WE WON'T LISTEN - we won't let them take responsibility - we won't respect their authority or their soveriegnty - we have a billion dollar embassy being built and racketeering out the wazoo and there is still more oil left - and the democrats are not IMMUNE to the war profiteering that is rampid up there on the shill hill - Feinstein for example has made millions of the blood shed. She is stepping down from the committee who handles the government contracts in an effort to cover her ass but all these criminals need to see justice - even our own - If we clean up - then let's clean it up - no more excuses - no more lies - you do what you say you are going to do - and people on this forum need to read things like the ISG report and the bills being proposed and the articles that are linked and quit accusing everyone who disagrees of being an idiot - People need to think - for cryin out loud. It's frustrating as hell here.

[lizbitchwitchy]

8. What were the other items on the bill?

Nancy Pelosi stripped the clause that required the Administration to seek permission from Congress to declare war on Iran. The withdrawl date was non-binding. She opposed the creation of the Iraq oversight committee which would have required the administration to submit a report to congress each month on the progress and the funds - and she said that the committees were doing a fine job of oversight already.

I'm sorry but WHY wouldn't he say no. Bush can't wage war without the funds to do so. He and his administration officials have never been worried about the soldiers. The sent them over there ill-equipped and what makes you think that this funding will change that any? They were dumpster diving for armor for the Humvees. He's sending injured troops over and recycling the same soldiers way too many times for an effective team. They are overworked, understaffed and still fighting an insurgency that the administration is supplying weapons to. You tell me what makes you think that ANY of this funding will go toward equipping the soldiers? They want the war because the money goes to their friends in the racketeering department - and to ensure that their pipelines are guarded by our soldiers and to continue building their billion dollar embassy - He and every other damned democrat should have voted no for that funding bill - and someone should have written a definate and clear withdrawl date - and not one set at a year from now either - If ISG is what Pelosi is doing over in Syria then she better oblige the Iraqis that have stated and the ISG report says so - that they want all US troops the hell out of their country - LIKE NOW!

It's bullshit. The dems have no concern for us, or our troops we are nothing but cannon fodder. They are more concerned with their reputations and winning the next damned election then the blood that is spilling ever damned minute they continue to wait. They want to stop bush - then freakin stop him. They NOW how the power to do it and they aren not doing it! NONE OF THEM! Simple and clear - there is no ifs ands or buts about it.

[saracat]

9. This is BS.Another example of anti Dem propaganda!

Written by someone who has absolutely NO idea how government works! The folowing proves it!
" The dems have no concern for us, or our troops we are nothing but cannon fodder. They are more concerned with their reputations and winning the next damned election then the blood that is spilling ever damned minute they continue to wait. They want to stop bush - then freakin stop him. They NOW how the power to do it and they aren not doing it! NONE OF THEM! Simple and clear - there is no ifs ands or buts about it."

Are you even concious that we don't have a veto proof masjority? All we gained is the right to set the agenda, which is a damn big gain but it doesn't allow us to overide the White House.He can veto whatever he wants and unless we can get the Republicans to support us we can't do a damn thing about it.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lizbitchwitchy]

18. They deleted my last message

Here is how much I don't know how government works - You don't need a super majority for an appropriations bill. The President wants funds for his racketeering buddies - if he wants funds and we attach clauses which demand a pull out date - no exceptions - no loopholes - he won't veto anything. If he does, he will not get his money. If he does, we will all be happy with the result that is the war will end. With no money for the racketeering there can be no war racketeering - and what is the use then? Well besides their blood thirst. If the President doesn't veto the bill, which will be the case - I guarantee it- then we have an end date (even if it is a freakin year away - and oh so lame)- either way we win. See how this works?

And I don't know how government works - it's pretty freakin simple.

[saracat]

35. Libbitchwitchy, It isn't that simple and Bush WILL veto this Bill. He has NO choice.

He is NOT going to allow the Dems to look like they won. I figure the Dems can claim victory either way, if he signs it, which I think he won't, or if he vetoes it,If he does veto , he is the one denying funds.The Dems have set up a win /win for themselves.
It will matter to Bush, who has already proven what an arrogant bastard he is to to appear to knuckle under.It will boil down to the matter of which action makes him look less weak.He will veto this Bill I think!
And they do need a super majority to override a veto. BTW, I happen to agree about Obama. I still can't get around his supporting Lieberman and one speech is not enough for me to be that impressed with his credentials as an anti war candidate.I too ,like Obama but I have some reservations.

[lizbitchwitchy]

56. I honestly don't think Bush cares too much

What this looks like for him. He has no shame and he never cared before what a fool and a liar he looked like. Now that his term is almost up and he is a lame duck - and the republicans are hardly down his throat anymore since the midterm elections are over - why should he care what anyone thinks about him.

The idea is that Congress - without a super majority has only one way of ending this war - They have the power of the purse - and they can hold up this funding bill or not even pass one in Congress and the Senate can not introduce an appropriations bill (only ammend and vote on one). So they have a responsibility to end the war. The only way for them to end the war is by de-funding it (if that is even a word) - So do it.

If the president is lame enough to leave the troops over there without a way out of there - then - Congress can pass a bill soley for their redeployment. Otherwise they are supporting this war.

The Dems have in no way set up the situation so they are in a win/win - How do you figure? The Dems claim to want to end the war. They aren't doing it. That is a lose/lose to me.

Furthermore the Dems have added stipulations to this appropriations bill which mean absolutely nothing. The call for 3 exceptions for redeployment from Iraq
1) to continue safeguarding american forces and their interests
2) To continue killing, targetting and dismantling terrorists and the terrorist groups
3) to continue training Iraqi forces

I want to believe them as much as anyone here does. It totally sucks to realize that you have been lied to and decieved by your own freakin party - but I am sorry to say nobody has pointed out one thing which proves otherwise. I would love it if someone could do just that - it would definately help me with the lost hope I feel. I totally believe we need to scrutinize our party to ensure that they are not falling by the side of the road like the GOP and so far they aren't looking too good.

Although I believe that impeachment is more complicated and will have longer reaching effects that many of us (including me) pro-impeachment types care to consider - (nonetheless, I am still in total belief that impeachment is the only right thing to do and is the only way to show the rest of the world that we care and are not indifferent to the suffering they have endured due to these blood suckers and their greed) but this funding bill is pretty simple in comparison. - and they are truley not as dumb as they are pretending to be - or maybe it's that they just believe so whole heartedly that we are as dumb as the rest of the world thinks we are - and that is why they are doing this. I refuse to be one of their dumbed down stereotypical Americans just because it is more comfortable and more people like you when you are going with the flow and validating their own support by being part of the same thing.

The truth is the truth - They are funding a war and they are not putting restrictions on him of any significant value - nor are they all that concerned with the bloodshed in Iraq - People are dying - blood is spilling - keep your eye on the bloodshed people. That is all I can say.

I am glad to hear that you are scrutinizing your candadites - it's the responsible thing to do, as you know.

[saracat]

65. Lizbitchwitchy, you have an interesting point of view but I cannot agree.

Bush is a sociopath in my opinion and he cares deeply about his own ego. You obviously care deeply about ending the war as do I but it is not my only issue. I tend to analyze this in terms of the politics rather than the morality of the situation.And in that sense I believe the Dems are in a win/win as the blame with ricochet to Bush and more Dems will be elected in 2008 and we can take care of more issues as we did in the 100 days .The war will no longer be an issue. This is what I hope!

[IsItJustMe]

79. I understand your argument. In my mind anyway, if the dems wanted to truly end this war, they

absolutely have the power to do so PERIOD. It may, or may not, be political suicide; that remains to be seen.

The way I see it, the dems set a dead line. They make it clear to chimp that they will not negotiate on that dead line. They pass the bill. Chimp veto's it and they simply don't send up another bill. The dems, Harry Reid and Palosi controls 'what' bills come up for a vote and what bills do not come up for a vote.

No bill, no money. It would cause fricking havoc. Someone would have to give in or the soldiers could literally be in Iraq without bullets.

Who would the American people blame? My guess is that given we have a corporate whore msm the sheep would blame the dems.

But anyway, this is what true leadership is all about. The dems should do this and let the chips fall where they may. This however is not how politicians usually work.

[sampsonblk]

98. Because nobody believed it would be necessary...

Incorrect, friend. There were plenty of people who were not duped about what we were up against.

[Connie_Corleone]

11. Because he lives in the real world and not la la land.

[ripple]

13. Just to piss you off.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with making sure the troops have the equipment, body armor, armored vehicles, medical care, etc. to have a fighting chance of getting out alive. :sarcasm:

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Yet 3 years later many more are dead and injured than in 1995, when he cast his first vote to fund

the war. So I guess he was wrong that voting for funding to send our troops to invade and occupy Iraq would keep them safe and sound?

Oh well, everybody makes mistakes.....Oops.

Hey, if we invade Venezuela or Iran can we count on Obama to fund the wars to keep the troops just as safe? Ok then, no problema!

[ripple]

15. 1995?

Obama knows that it is foolish to punish the troops for the poor decisions of their commanders. Obama didn't vote for funding 'to invade and occupy Iraq'. Our troops were already there.

By your logic, perhaps Congress should cut funding for Walter Reed. After all, most of the veterans there were injured as a result of an illegal war. Whether they are in combat or lying in a hospital bed with stumps where arms and legs used to be, our nation has a responsibility to make sure our troops receive the best protection and the best care possible.

Are you seriously suggesting that one can't support the troops and oppose the war at the same time?

[AtomicKitten]

21. I think it is more of an effort

... to attack Obama in particular since he has been against the war from the get-go and is more of a threat to Dennis than the others since they voted 'yes' on the IWR.

Suggesting that providing for the troops is somehow in conflict with opposing the war is a lame attempt at muddying the waters.

Gobama.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. Yes W, asked for money to provide for the troops and Obama complied.

Both Obama and george love the troops, obviously, since they worked together to get all those goodies for them.

[AtomicKitten]

39. it is unfortunate you view it that way

Obama's record is an honorable one and your gratuitous nastiness toward him is below the belt.

[John Q. Citizen]

44. Your rationalization of him as an anti-war candidate is related to your

hero worship.

I like Obama. I think he's a pretty good guy, and he often votes as I like on a number of issues.
But that doesn't give him the right to try to have his cake and eat it too. Even superman doesn't have that right. Of course you could never convince Superman's adoring fans to admit that.

Votes do have consequences, and consequently, his voting record on the war has been to fund it everytime, 4 or 5 times now. Everytime george has asked Obama has complied.

I like Dennis' stand on the issues. I just wish he looked like Obama, because it wouldn't hurt his chances in the campaign. With Dennis' courage, intelligence, his honesty and compassion and Obama's good looks and charisma, and money, we'd change this country for the better.

[AtomicKitten]

46. hero worship? really?

Your rationalization of him as an anti-war candidate is related to your hero worship.

Your armchair analysis is amusing particularly in light of Dennis' multitude of shortcomings (no pun intended) which I won't bother to lob as ammunition because, quite frankly, arguing with a Kucinich supporter ranks right up there with ironing sheets, a pointless waste of time.

I would have retained a modicum of respect for you had you gone after anyone that voted 'yes' on the IWR but, going after Obama, not so much. It does less than nothing re: soliciting support for Dennis but will be remembered by those here and not fondly.

[John Q. Citizen]

49. OoH, now I'm scared. Hero worship is a dangerous thing., obviously.

Question the hero and they will remember you, not fondly.

I liked your not-pun by the way. It made me laugh.

[AtomicKitten]

77. just between you and me

I'll cop to a teensy bit of Al Gore hero-worship. :)

[John Q. Citizen]

96. If Gore gets in he's got my vote! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

100. the brilliance of a Gore candidacy

is that he will unite the party !!!

[John Q. Citizen]

101. Yes, and beyond.

[lizbitchwitchy]

82. We are all on the same side here

I think what is trying to be pointed out is that we might want to watch the dems - all the candadites carefully. We already know where the republicans stand that would be in the gutter....however, our own party is not immune to the same sort of crimes just wrapped in prettier paper. Watch what they do and not what they say. If one's career becomes more important that lives being taken for no reason - and blood spill then your character drops quite a few notches...that is all that is trying to be said, I believe

[mtnsnake]

47. You're trivializing Obama's appeal by attributing his success to his good looks & charisma

There's way more to the man than that.

Besides, I don't get where Obama is that good looking. I mean, he's not ugly, but he's far from Denzel Washington. He's my favorite of all of them, so I'm not trying to knock him, I'm just saying that I don't think his "good looks" have anything to do with his appeal. His charisma yes. His charisma has tons to do with it.

I like Dennis' stand on the issues. I just wish he looked like Obama, because it wouldn't hurt his chances in the campaign. With Dennis' courage, intelligence, his honesty and compassion and Obama's good looks and charisma, and money, we'd change this country for the better.

Yikes, where does everyone come off thinking Kucinich is so bad looking? I think Dennis is just as good or better looking than all the other candidates with the exception of Edwards and Clinton. I think you're using your version of how he looks as a copout for him not doing better. I don't see where he's that ugly. Now, Chris Dodd, that's another story! Do you wish Dennis was taller or something? Still, I don't think that has much to do with it either. BTW, I think Kucinich has all the right ideals and I wish he could make more of an impression with the voters than he does.

[John Q. Citizen]

51. Great post for lots of reasons.

Run Al, Run!

I hope Clark runs too. There's an issues guy if there ever was one, and I agree with most of them. If he'd come out for single payer, we might have to form an executive council to run the office.

[ripple]

31. Good point, I can't help but wonder

who the Kucinich folks plan to support if it's obvious he won't receive the nomination after the first round or two of primaries. Provided Obama's still viable at that point, it seems like he would be the next logical choice. It strikes me as counterproductive to be attacking him so vigorously at this point.

By the way, I wonder if Kucinich had this many DU'ers behind him in 2004. I wasn't here then, but I was proud that he won our caucus. I'm in Kansas and at that point, it was already pretty much a lock for Kerry. Our intention was to get some Kucinich delegates to the convention to be involved with drafting the platform.

Kucinich has a lot to offer the party and I'm glad he's in the race. Lately, though, I've been disappointed to see him lashing out at other dems and cozying up to Fox. I know he needs to get media coverage somehow, but the sort of unprovoked attacks he's been delivering lately seem a little over the top. Unfortunately, it appears that a lot of his DU supporters are following his lead.

[AtomicKitten]

38. it is a double-edge sword indeed

I organized two fundraisers in 2004 for Dennis; I have nothing against him personally. I just am appalled and a bit dismayed that his supporters appear to be attacking the only other candidate that opposed the war from the get-go. I understand why but just as I have warned against people trying to annihilate Hillary, it is pretty clear either she, Obama, or Edwards (or Gore if he jumps in :)) will be the nominee, and all this ugly politicking serves no purpose other than bad feelings all around.

Of course, I wasn't here either in 2004 and from I hear we ain't seen nothing yet. :scared:

[lizbitchwitchy]

83. The point is

He opposed the war - and those that did couldn't stop it. Now those same people who claim to oppose it can stop it and they won't. Why? Because they can.

Before it was the republicans fault - they had control of both of our legislative houses - now we are in control and what is being done? Nothing!

[AtomicKitten]

86. too simplistic an analysis/solution

Stopping the war by cutting off funding will very likely have devastating consequences in a number of ways. It's easy for us to pontificate with idealism in the forefront of our emotional response to the situation; those in Congress are accountable for the consequences of their actions and are expected to be much more deliberate and cautious in the course of exercising their authority and responsibilities. At the same time I too am impatient, but I also realize that has more to do with my shortcomings in that regard and not theirs.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. If funding the war is opposing it in your mind then , hey, it takes all kinds.

If we support out troop we won't enable the continued operation of the war for 3 years.

Obama could have stood up and said, No, I'm not going to send billions to bush so he can prosecute a war of aggression on Iraq and on our troops. He didn't have the political courage for that so he just kept his mouth shut and kept voting to give george the resources to continue the war.

Just standing up in 95, wouldn't have immediatly ended the war, but as a person who claims the leadership abilities to be POTUS, it would have set a powerful example. It would have emboldened others to follow his lead. Isn't that what a leader does?

He played it safe, politically, and protected his own hide. And now he's got you believeing he's an anti-Iraq war candidate. Obama isn't stupid. So who's stupid?

Look, just face it. Obama isn't the anti-war candidate you imagine him to be. That's OK. it doesn't mean you shouldn't support him in 08 if you want.

I'm just constantly amazed at peoples abilties to rationalize the failings of their heroes. The Repos are still doing it, and they aren't alone.

[AtomicKitten]

33. if I might interject

I realize you didn't address your response to me, but this is precisely what I meant when I suggested yesterday that some of the candidates understand politics better than others.

There is no conflict of interest between providing for the troops and opposing the war. Dennis is proposing de-funding the war completely which first of all will not work and secondly would be political suicide for the Democrats.

Obama is being smart and pragmatic, Dennis impractical and downright foolish, but I will give him snaps for drama. Wrestling the reins of this war away from the GOP will take finesse, and I'm afraid Dennis is playing politics rather than addressing the real issue of extracting ourselves from Iraq.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that we all want out of Iraq and it is simply a difference of opinion on how to accomplish that task. And trying to marginalize the only other candidate that opposed the war from the onset reeks.

[John Q. Citizen]

42. No, Dennis is not suggest that. Read HR 1234.

Dennis has been elected, and re-elected more than twice as many times than Obama has.

Obama is better looking than Dennis, for sure, but don't confuse good looks with political saavy.

Obama is being a smart and saavy candidate. Hillary is much the same. It's not just Obama. They both want to be president, they both know which way the wind is blowing, and they are both, reluctanly, willing to inch their necks out a tiny bit, in an effort to try to get the presidency.

Do you believe for a minute if the country were split down the middle on the war that either Obama or Hillary would be actively talking about ending the war? Chuck Hegal is even now against the war. Why do you suppose that is?

Dennis, on the other hand, activly opposed the war from before it started. He didn't only make one speech about it, he worked to oppose it on many levels. He also had the political courage to actually vote against the war and to consistantly vote against funding the war.

I didn't see Obama propose a bill in the Illinois legislature to get them on record as opposing the war. But he did give one speech questioning the wisdom. Then he took out the check book and gave george everything he asked for, to support the troops, because we all know george is way into supporting the troops.

If you can't see the difference between personal political courage, and personal political expediency, then, Oh well.

[NYCGirl]

43. One could take Kucinich's personal political courage a bit more seriously if he

represented more than his small constituency — perhaps as governor or senator.

[AtomicKitten]

45. wowie wow wow

Obama is better looking than Dennis, for sure, but don't confuse good looks with political savvy.

* Ah, okay. I would never have guessed that mattered to anyone and am surprised it matters to you.

Dennis, on the other hand, actively opposed the war from before it started.

* Obama and Dennis did precisely the same thing to oppose the war before it started .... gave speeches.

If you can't see the difference between personal political courage and personal political expediency, then, Oh well.

* What I see is a wannabee contender and a supporter desperately trying to hamstring and marginalize a serious candidate because he views Obama's record of opposition to the war on Iraq as a threat.

Good luck on your campaign at DU.

[John Q. Citizen]

48. Hey, a good looking candidate is always a plus. Lot of people vote based

on things as silly and trivial as that. Charisma is gold in politics, unfortunately, and not because of this or any race in particular.

2. Dennis organized colleagues against the war, he co-chairs the out of Iraq caucus, he has worked long, hard, and tirelessly on this issue. Obama gave one speech one time. Better than nothing but not exactly earthshaking.

3. What you see isn't what you get, but that's obvious on many levels.

Thank you. I actually have a strategy I am working, although it's not the strategy you think it is. It's not secret either. It's pretty straight forward. I've written about it a few time before. Read my piece, "The Progressive Case for Kucinich," if you want the outline. It's in GD-politics I think, or GD.

The first campaign I volunteered for was when I was in High School. I did a few hours work for McGovern. I've volunteered in many many campaigns since then. Some we won, some we lost. My last outing was extensive door to door canvassing for Tester. He's a pretty good guy, but I've got to write him a letter to get him on the train with the Reid/Feingold bill. It looks like he's trying to pull an Obama; you know, "can't vote to not fund, gotta support the troops."

Well, that's why citizen action is important. Those guy and gals work for us and it's important to constantly remind them, lest they forget.

Do you know if Obama is ready to flip flop yet and support the Feingold/Reid bill? (OK, lets be honest here. I want the guy to support it. Saying "flip flop' is just plain stupid and obnoxious and self defeating. I'm joking, alright? I hope you have a sense of humor and of irony. Politics should be fun)

Peace!

[AtomicKitten]

78. I respect your work for the Democratic Party.

I just don't think it's a worthwhile endeavor to set your sights and target a candidate that had the good sense to oppose the war from the get-go - and that admonition goes both ways. IMO those are the only candidates that deserve consideration in the primary.

I assure you we both want peace on earth and to undo the devastation caused by Junior, we just have differing opinions re: strategy to achieve it.

Peace.

[earthlover]

81. oh please....

Obama spoke up against the Iraq War when it was popular. He wasn't following the political winds.

As to criticizing Obama because he didn't propose in a State legislature his opposition to the Iraq War....isn't that a bit petty? Since when is foreign policy a function of the States? It is incredible to suggest that not putting forward foreign policy objectives into the Illinois legislature means anything at all.

[John Q. Citizen]

93. Many state legislatures have passed or attempted to pass resolutions,

and laws concerning foreign policy, and rightly so. it happens quite regularly.

When bush took federal control of the 50 national guards maintained by the states, he invited states to have a compelling interest in the war. Many governors have already spoken out about issues releated to the Feds use of the state's guard.

I didn't criticise Obama for not introducing state legeislation, I only pointed out that he didn't do anything other than to make one speech where he questioned the wisdom of the Iraq invasion. He was right to do this in my opinion. But it was all he did. Far better than never saying anything, but not exactly "taking action." I only mentioned the state legislature as one possiblity of something more that could have been done by a state legislater.

In the Senate, he went along with the prevailing political winds - as defined by the Dems in the Senate - which was to approve everything bush asked for and more.

Given this, it's a poor issue for Obama and his supporters to push, that he is the peace candidate as compared to say, Clinton, or Edwards. And it does then open the door for Kucinich to point out that, no, Obama isn't the peace candidate that he or his supporters claim him to be.

(thanks to mtnsnake for his insightful analysis as concerns the "peace" candidate debate)

[lizbitchwitchy]

84. There most certainly is a conflict of interest

When there is no appropriated funds that is designated for the sole purpose of providing the necessary gear and armor and vehicles and so forth as should be designated. Let's not forget and the dems shouldn't have forgotten that there was no concern for their welfare and still isn't from the GOP - so if they are concerned they should stipulate exactly what the money gets spent on.

Anotherwords
Supporting our troops doesn't mean
"Boy we are sending you over to fight an illegal, immorral,unwinnable war"
Supporting our troops doesn't mean
"Boy we are sending you over there ill-equipped, understaffed and unprepared"
Supporting our troops doesn't mean
"Boy we are sending you over there not once, not twice but three maybe even four times"
Supporting our troops doesn't mean
"Boy if you want armored humvees you will have to dumpster dive in your spare time"
Supporting our troops doesn't mean
"Boy we have some torture policies that you will have to demonstrate for us - if you don't- you will get court martialed - if you do and you get caught you will be left holding the bag and you will get court martialed it's a win win for us and it's torture time and shame for you"
Supporting our troops doesn't mean
"Boy when you get back here (if you make it back here alive) Don't count on us for housing assistance, job placement, or proper medical care - you won't be getting it from us"
Supporting our troops doesn't mean
"Boy you will be ordered to shoot innocent protestors, hotels full of unembedded journalist - wedding parties and innocent civillians and you better do what we tell you to. And when you get home and are spiritually, emotionally and mentally sick from all that we made you do - and you did - we aren't gonna help you heal those memories - because we don't give a shit"
Supporting our troops doesn't mean
"Boy, we don't really care about your life, you are nothing but cannon fodder to us - and you will soon be able to assess that truth without us telling you - it will all become perfectly clear"
Supporting our troops doesn't mean
"Boy, we will be supplying the "enemy" with guns and munitions because that is really how we make good money - and yes they will be using them against you but our concern is the money not your life."
Supporting our troops doesn't mean
"We will have you smack dead in the center of a civil war that we instigated and your job will be to protect our oil lines - which only we will be profitting off of and build our embassy"
Supporting our troops doesn't mean
"You best be careful because friendly fire is killing all sorts of soldiers because we are one incompetant and improperly trained force - and some of you guys will be so damned exhausted and hell some of you will also be injured from your previous run that friendly fire is likely and could be fatal."
No none of this is supporting our troops yet all of it is still the un-legislated so called support the dems are sworn to feel for our troops but only when it comes to supporting their unwinnable, death sentence of a war - which allocate no specific funds for their safety or their bullets - And if the dems can't figure that out - then they are too stupid to be leading - my guess is they just don't care like they say they do- If they did - things would be changing and they are not.

Fund away people - just send enough body bags because their conditions won't improve. They could put aside the proper funds to bring them home or designate specifically that the money all get spent on specific things but they won't - they don't and there you have it.

[AtomicKitten]

87. I disagree.

The Dems have been very vocal about the crap provisions for the troops under GOP leadership. The current appropriations are much more specific than you give them credit for, including vet issues such as health care, restrictions regarding recycling troops and multiple deployments, etc., and that's off the top of my head at 6:00 A.M.

Keep in mind those in Congress have a job to do and in this case it is perhaps too simplistic to think simply opposing the war absolves them of doing the hard work of extracting our asses from Iraq. Just cutting off funding is a ham-handed approach that will invoke all kinds of yet to be named consequences. I see the Dems finessing and maneuvering because they have a bare majority and Junior is ready with the veto pen.

[ripple]

40. Stand up to WHAT in 1995?

Are you in some sort of time warp or what? Despite your ad hominem assertion that I'm somehow stupid for disagreeing with you, it appears that you still can't manage to figure out just how long the source of your outrage has been going on- or how long Obama has been in office, for that matter.

Since this appears to be a challenge for you, I'll help you out: Iraq was invaded in 2003 and Obama was elected to the US Senate in 2004.

It's obvious that your response to the question I posed is a resounding 'yes'.

In that case, you might want to join your candidate on Fox News. I hear O'Reilly and the like are always looking for yet another token democrat to reinforce their talking points.

[John Q. Citizen]

53. Ohh, ouch! Obama voted to fund the war since he took office in Jan 1995.

Maybe Dennis and Obama's mentor, Joe Liebermann, could do a show together. That would be fair and balanced, finally.

[ripple]

70. Lieberman was never Obama's mentor

despite regurgitated claims to the contrary. Any objective look at their policy positions and voting records would tell you that.

As for your continued insistence that Obama voted to fund an invasion and occupation eight years before the event occurred and nine years before he was elected to the US Senate, it's become quite apparent that you either can't or won't part with your delusion. :banghead:

If you actually believe the Iraq war has been going on for twelve years and Obama has been voting to fund it for that long, no wonder you're so pissed off. Not to mention, I shouldn't be surprised that you're so dismissive of Obama's opposition to the war in 2002. After all, in your reality, the war had already been going on for seven years.

Now that I have a better understand of where you're coming from, I wish you the best of luck.

[John Q. Citizen]

95. Please see post #64. Thanks

When I posted "1995" it was a mental typo.

Having spent the vast majority of my life puttin "19" in front of the last two digits to designtae the year, I still find my self doing this unconsciously sometimes, when writing checks, etc.

Habits are hard to break

[John Q. Citizen]

64. Double ouch. 2005.

[TwilightGardener]

16. This kind of reasoning gets into the realm of goofy. You can be opposed

to war, but still act as a responsible member of Congress who has to fund what the servicemen need to do their jobs safely. It is up to the President to end the war responsibly--to pull funding would be an undesirable last resort, and unfortunately we're starting to get there because Chimpy is a runaway train.

[lizbitchwitchy]

20. reasoning of the goofy

We must have a war if we want peace

We must give up our freedoms and liberties in order to preserve them

We must cut down the forests in order to have a healthy forest

We must allow more air polution to have clean air

We must ensure that no child gets left behind by writing a bill that results in 1.2 million children left behind.

We must fund the war and act responsibly toward a war that is irresponsible and that no one wants.

It sure is the reasoning of the goofy.

[TwilightGardener]

25. Oh, Lordy, let's limit this to the discussion at hand. Obama was right

to vote the way he did--I have no qualms about him whatsoever. He is a good, smart and pragmatic man.

[lizbitchwitchy]

28. If you say so

I say differently - No need to vote for funding for a war you don't approve of - Obamma is a good man all except that -and unfortunately that one exceptions is major because it assists with the constant blood spill - back in Iraq - it's got blood all over it - big red stain and I can't miss it - and from the way this is going looks like no one in our government will be worthy of my vote - red stains and blood spill - and no one is saying anything about it - how horrible for the Iraqi people!

[rinsd]

27. Nice 'tude

Enjoy your stay though I doubt it will be for long.

[lizbitchwitchy]

29. truth has a way

of getting people kicked off forums, as I understand it. Good thing us democrats are all about the stand up - straightforward - no deceptions and no lies - otherwise we would all be at home twiddling our thumbs wishing we would have become part of the liars and thieves so we could talk about politics on the forums. Sorry - I would rather tell the truth then be threatened with the being kicked off for doing so and go with the group think over this one. People are dying - Blood is pouring in Iraq and WE HAVE GOT TO LOOK AT IT - PEOPLE ARE DYING!

[ellacott]

32. It's not always truth that gets people kicked off boards

To say otherwise is not truthful.

<Good thing us democrats are all about the stand up - straightforward - no deceptions and no lies>

This is wrong on so many levels. There are honest Dems and dishonest Dems. Just like in any other segment of the populaltion.

[rinsd]

41. Well first I would stop calling your opinion the truth.

"Sorry - I would rather tell the truth then be threatened with the being kicked off for doing so and go with the group think over this one."

There was no threat. Just some advice.

Being a prickly ass does not serve to further the truth if that is your mission.

[John Q. Citizen]

36. george asked for money to support the troops. Obama complied with the

request from george for the money to support the troops.

So I guess they saw eye to eye on that.

Unfortunatly, until recently, no one thought to have the political courage, or leadership to tell george No! (actually, a number of members of congress did have the political coursge and the leadership, to tell george No! For years. Now the meeker followers are getting on board, and that is a good thing.)

[SaveElmer]

34. Because he is a responsible legiislator...not a grandstander...

He is more concerned about making progress than using the issue as a cudgel to beat his political opponents with...

[PresidentObama]

50. Exactly.

I like the quote when he said he doesn't want to play chicken with this Administration with the funding and getting out of this war. Which is the truth.

[John Q. Citizen]

57. Yeah, just give george the money and try to forget about the people dying.

I just OK the funds,
I don't go shoot someones momma,
That's not my department
says Barrack Obama.

(sung to the tune of "Wernher von Braun" )

[PresidentObama]

69. This is laughable.

Because Kucinich, whose legislative accomplishments are VERY thin, is grandstanding on this issue makes him superior. Obama is doing the responsible thing and isn't grandstanding on the funding, when we all know how stubborn Bush is with this war. Obama isn't going to play chicken with this Administration. Obama is supporting our troops, NOT this war. Stop distorting the truth to help your poor performing candidate.

[John Q. Citizen]

73. Ok, I get it. It's bush's fault that Obama keeps voting to fund the war. Boy that

sounds familiar, it's bush's fault, IBF, where have I heard that kind of reasoning before?
Hmm.

Might make a catchy campaign slogan for Obama though. "Vote Obama - It's bush's Fault!

For my money, I'd rather vote for someone with the balls to tell bush No! No more money for killing Iraquis and killing American service people.

But maybe I missed the message of the voters in November. Maybe what they were saying is "Don't do anything about the war, just let it drag on and blame your votes on bush," but I doubt it.

Or maybe it was, "Good God, don't play chicken with the bush administration, whatever you do!" but I doubt it.

What do you think the message was? "Leave the troops there for two more years?"

[lizbitchwitchy]

85. I haven't seen any legislation

Introduced by Obamma which calls for improvement for the troops - shorter time - only one round - no back door draft - not sending injured soldiers over - making sure they are properly equipped - making sure they have the proper staff - making sure they have some decent medical centers to come home to - making sure that they receive the proper medical care - and finacial assitance, housing assistance and the phsycological counselling to re-acclimate back into society. I haven't seen him call for a clause which specifies the money goes only for the troops - by say this much is to be used for this and this much for that - there is none of that. Like to know why - also want to know why there isn't a real withdrawl date. They care about our troops like they care about us - none of these damned politicians do. The sooner we realize it the better off we all will be.

[NYCGirl]

91. Here's some legislation (these are only Obama as sponsor, not co-sponsor):

S.AMDT.664 to H.R.1591 To appropriate an additional $58,000,000 for Defense Health Program for additional mental health and related personnel, an additional $10,000,000 for operation and maintenance for each of the military departments for improved physical disability evaluations of members of the Armed Forces, and an additional $15,000,000 for Defense Health Program for women's mental health services.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 3/27/2007) Cosponsors (12)
Latest Major Action: 3/29/2007 Proposed amendment SA 664 withdrawn in Senate.

S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 2/28/2007) Cosponsors (30)
Committees: Senate Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 2/28/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

S.692 : A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative to report on health care quality in Veterans Affairs hospitals.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 2/27/2007) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs
Latest Major Action: 2/27/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (12)
Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs
Latest Major Action: 1/4/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

S.1180 : A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to reauthorize various programs servicing the needs of homeless veterans for fiscal years 2007 through 2011, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 6/7/2005) Cosponsors (6)
Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs
Latest Major Action: 6/9/2005 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held.

S.2358 : A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative to report on health care quality in Veterans Affairs hospitals.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 3/2/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

S.3475 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 6/7/2006) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Latest Major Action: 6/7/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

S.3988 : A bill to amend title 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 9/28/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs
Latest Major Action: 9/28/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

S.AMDT.390 to H.R.1268 To provide meal and telephone benefits for members of the Armed Forces who are recuperating from injuries incurred on active duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 4/13/2005) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 4/14/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 390 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

S.AMDT.1362 to S.1042 To require a report on the Department of Defense Composite Health Care System II.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 7/21/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 11/8/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1362 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.3144 to S.CON.RES.83 To provide a $40 million increase in FY 2007 for the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program and to improve job services for hard-to-place veterans.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 3/16/2006) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 3/16/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3144 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.4224 to S.2766 To include assessments of Traumatic Brain Injury in the post-deployment health assessments of member of the Armed Forces returning from deployment in support of a contingency operation.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 6/14/2006) Cosponsors (6)
Latest Major Action: 6/22/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4224 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.4409 to S.2766 To require a report on the provision of an electronic copy of military records to members of the Armed Forces upon their discharge or release from the Armed Forces.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 6/21/2006) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 6/22/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4409 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

[John Q. Citizen]

55. Now that's only if you consider voting funds to kill around 1,000000 Iraqis as being responsible.

Well, to be fair, he only voted funds that killed about half or so of that number of men women and children.

He didn't get into the voting funds for an illegal war game until 2005

And he's certainly not grandstanding about that.

[SaveElmer]

58. Dennis Kucinich or Jim Webb...who to trust...hmmmm...

One a former Navy Secretary, Annapolis graduate, VietNam vet awarded the Navy Cross, Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple hearts, who is revered in the Marine Corps for his writings, and has made national security and foreign policy his life's work...votes for amendment to funding bill setting an end date.

Or

Grandstanding Presidential candidate with a thin legislative record, making common cause with Republicans to oppose setting an end date for the war...

Yeah...real tough choice!!!

And guess which one Obama sided with!

[John Q. Citizen]

60. Hey, I have a "spiritual connection" to Jim Webb. Late on election night I was

e-mailing back and forth with autorank, working numbers and collecting voter stories of what happened at the polls. I live in Montana, and autorank is in Virgina. Man what a nail biter. It looked like they were going to try to rip off another election. They had a "computer glitch" here in Montana that shut down the counting at about midnight, of Yellowstone County, the most populous county in MT. It's also the home base of Burns. The same shit was going down in VA.

Tester was leading when everything stopped.

My GOTV organizer had to leave the Democratic victory party at the Union Club to be on call in case he had to drive over to Billings to supervise a recount.

Fortunatly, we won both states, but autorank and I know they tried to scam it. But they didn't scam it by enough. So I feel very close to the Webb victory in VA. Niether Repo candidate asked for a recount, even though our margins were razor thin. What's that tell you?

Webb's a good man. I'm sure he and Dennis well work well together.

I think Webb may turn out to be more of lefty than you think and disappoint you, at least I hope so.

[SaveElmer]

62. I live in Virginia...

Worked the phones and polls very hard for Jim Webb, and had the pleasure of meeting him once...

Ideologically speaking...he is right up my alley...though a little pro-gun for my taste...

[John Q. Citizen]

63. Good for you! We kicked some Burns and Allen ass, didn't we?

[zulchzulu]

52. Maybe because he's ALWAYS been pro-choice...

I know your agenda. And your "repeatedly vote to fund the war" angle is bullshit.

[PresidentObama]

54. Like Obama said, he doesn't trust playing chicken with the Administration on funding.

And LOL towards the pro-choice comment!!

[John Q. Citizen]

59. Ah, the truth hurts. He's a serial voter to fund the war. Ask him. Google

Iraq Supplemental 2005, 2006, 2007 roll call vote

Or did they record his votes wrong?

Look. People should vote for who they want. I may even vote for Obama, but if I do I'll vote for him knowing the good the bad and the ugly. I won't vote for him pretending I'm voting for a guy who did all he could to oppose the war. If I vote for him. I'll do it knowing I'm voting for a guy who repeatedly voted to fund the war, the war he said he opposed.

What's my agenda, by the way? A better, smarter, Democratic voting population?

Yep. You nailed it.

[PresidentObama]

68. What bullshit. Can we stop spreading lies?

He has done all he could to oppose the war. Look, playing chicken with the Bush Administration on the funding isn't something we want to do. We've seen how stubborn they are, and you really think this is going to end the war? It's not. Not at all. Quit pretending Kucinich is a step above Obama because he is grandstanding.

[John Q. Citizen]

71. Ok, you don't have to hold it against him, I don't care, but it's not a lie that

he's voted to fund the war every single time it's come up since he took office in Jan 2005. I don't know the exact number of times, but it's probably 4 or 5 times, because they keep passing supplementals on their supplements.

If you want to believe that that was "doing everything he can to stop the war" then who I'm I to argue with you? Believe that paying for war is the same thing as opposing it, if you want.

But don't call me a liar. Especially when you don't offer anything except opinion.

In your opinion Obama has done everything he can to stop the war. Fine, I disagree, and I point to the multiple times, starting in 2005, that he has voted funds to keep the war going.

Rationalize to your hearts content. If you want me to insult your candidate, as you have isulted my candidate, I can do that, but I prefer not to.

The truth is a number of Democrats in Congress have voted against funding the war each time it came up. Maybe they are grandstanding too? I believe all the Dems who have voted against funding the war are anti-Iraq war. The rest might not like the war, or might believe it was mis-handled, but they have voted to continue the war, for whatever reason.

What has Obama done to stop the war, except give a speech? Is Obama going to support the Feingold/Reid bill, or does he believe Reid and Feingold are "just playing chicken with the troops?'

[zulchzulu]

74. Listen...it's not just a black and white binary bumpersticker reality

I absolutely do not support the wars. I want them to end, well...before the idea was even hatched in PNAC's head.

But...

We will not end this war by doing a couple things. First, the war will not end when the Out of Iraq Caucus says that they will only vote to fund the war if all troops are out by December, 2007. I agree with the notion, but the reality is that there is no way that is going to happen.

So...

Instead of voting for a supplementary bill that does put in timelines and benchmarks (yes, I know they are non-binding), voting against a bill with those features merely gives the vote away to the Republicans. That's what happens. It's like voting for Nader in presidential elections. It might feel good, but it does no good in the end.

As for voting for Supplementals in the past, from a political standpoint and without looking at all the nuances of those bills, I would suggest it would be political suicide to vote against the bills. The Supplementals included funding for Afghanistan, tsunami relief, Katrina relief and other issues as well...it wasn't just giving money to Halliburton...

Also, which Supplemental funding did Obama vote for in 2006? My search has found nothing...yes, there are dozens of supplemental funding bills but I couldn't find one specific to the wars.

Here are the others. You can see that they are complex and with many parts to them:

Supplemental Funding for Iraq
H.R. 1268: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1268

H.R. 775: Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq, 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-775

[Radical Activist]

61. Don't you already have a thread on this?

One wasn't enough I guess?

Maybe because he isn't reckless and unrealistic. The American public doesn't want a candidate who they believe is hanging our troops out to dry.

[PresidentObama]

72. Kucinich supporters see a threat in Obama for the anti-war vote.

So they're using slime ball tactics to distort the truth about Obama opposing the war.

[sellitman]

75. How many Candidates that you dislike.. have you sent money to?

I bet the answer is none.

How many Organizations you disagree with have you sent donations to?

I bet the answer is none.



How many Wars that Senator Obama disagreed with did he then send money to?

The answer should be none.

Very simple.

That is why on this issue alone only one candidate stands out from the rest.

Dennis Kucinich is that candidate.

[Ethelk2044]

66. He does not support the War

He supports the troops As well as he should.

[David Zephyr]

67. Abraham Lincoln opposed America's landrobbing war with Mexico

and yet voted to fund the war so as not to compromise the troops.

[sampsonblk]

99. ...and he SAID so publicly. Out loud!

nt

[mtnsnake]

76. John, as an avid Obama fan, I hate to tell you this, but you have a point

As much as I think some of this criticism about Obama is being way overblown, what disappoints me in this is that Obama has flaunted himself as being different from the rest of the heavyweights by virtue of him being the only one (not counting Kucinich) who didn't vote for the war, yet he follows up by going along with the crowd for the funding of it.

It's one thing to vote for funding to make sure the troops have what they need, but if he's going to do that, then he shouldn't keep flaunting himself as being different from Edwards, Clinton, Biden, and Dodd when he's quick to point out how they voted for the IWR and how he was always opposed to the war from the start. If he was so opposed to it from the start, and I believe him when he says he was, then he should either vote against the funding or stop trying to set himself apart from the other candidates as uniquely anti-war. Hopefully, Obama will amend for this somehow. For the time being, I think Kucinich is truly the only consistent "peace" candidate from start until now.

[IsItJustMe]

80. The truth is the truth and you just spoke it. It is what it is folks.

[Ethelk2044]

92. He is different

If it wasn't for them voting for the war in the first place. We would not be where we are today. Many soldiers have lost their lives because the vote was past to allow the fool we have as a president to go to war.

[John Q. Citizen]

94. Thanks for your candor and honesty.

Every candidate has to try to differentiate themselves from the other candidates.

But woe to the candidate who tries to make a questionable differentiation.

It seems to me that Kucinich making the "I'm the only consistent voice and action opposing the war candidate" is true. If Kucinich were to try to claim that people should vote for him over the issue of choice because for the last 5 years or so he has a great pro-choice record, he would be accused, and rightly so, of not really being able to back up that claim. Dennis is committed to a solid pro-choice stand, but that's hardly the point.

In the Senate, almost every senator voted for the funding bills through the years. In the House, a number of Senators who Kucinich caucuses with in the Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus have been consistently voting against both the war and funding for years.

I also believe Obama was sincerely opposed to the war from the start, but he was a freshman Senator in '05 and everybody else in the damn building was voting to fund it and it was unofficial policy that the Senate Dems were going to vote for it.

I disagree with you that the main motivation was the welfare of our soldiers. I think, that for political reasons, the Dems have been struggling to "out hawk" the Repos and not appear in any way or in any vote to be soft on defense. Everyone knows the welfare of our soldiers would have been best served by staying home in the first place or bringing them home now even if it means cutting off funds for the occupation and just bring them home. The Dems did fight to include funding for armor and flack jackets and health care, and better pay and benefits, but that was secondary to their obvious agreement to politically play the dutiful and enthusiastic hawks and funders of the war. Call it Democratic Vietnam syndrome. The whole focus was in criticizing prosecution of the war instead of the premise of the war, the basic illegality of the war, and the inhumanity of the war.

This leaves Obama at a decided disadvantage as far as claiming the mantle of "peace" candidate.

[PresidentObama]

102. What bologna. Kucinich the only consistent voice against the war, my ass.

This is just lame on the part of the Kucinich supporters to try and steal the anti-war thunder from Obama. What do you not get? Kucinich's grandstanding isn't going to end this war, and if we cut off funds for our troops (not just for his war--but for the troops in harms way) it's going to be horrifyingly worse for our brave men and women who have fought this misguided and tragic war. We all want this war to end, but grandstanding isn't the way to do it. Playing chicken with the Administration with funding isn't the way to do it. You think this will stop Bush with how stubborn he is? You give Bush 100,000 troops and 2 dollars worth of funds, and the stubborn bastard will try and make it work. The only funds I support cutting are the funds for the escalation, which was/is the responsible thing to do. I don't support grandstanding, and political manuevering because your legislative accomplishments are razor thin and you need something to accomplish--for once!!

Obama doesn't support this war. He's never supported this war. He didn't support giving the President authority. And he, like Kucinich and the rest of the Democrats, want us out of Iraq. Dennis can show as much jealousy and envy as he wants, but it doesn't change the FACTS. Cutting the funds is dangerous, and the only reason he's doing it is to appeal to the anti-war base because his accomplishment list doesn't have many check marks on it.

I wish Dennis' voice was as strong as his list of accomplishments. Both Kucinich and Obama are working to place the political pressure on the President to end this war. And good for them, America is better with these guys in the majority rather than the blood thirsty Republicans. But cutting funds and playing chicken to grand stand for the anti- war base isn't leading.

[wyldwolf]

88. I'll take a stab at this

Because once the troops were committed, defunding them would create turmoil. How many politicians want to be painted as putting the troops in harm's way?

Imagine the Obama in a debate had he voted NOT to fund the troops.

Obama: I was opposed to this war and I did not vote to fund it.
GOP Opponent: The troops in the field did not vote for this war. The troops in the field are doing their patriotic duty. You punished them for President Bush's mistake. You were partially responsible for making sure they did not have bullets. blah blah blah.

---------

Now, you may not AGREE with that line of reasoning, but it would sell to the public.

[mtnsnake]

89. Since you're a Clinton supporter you might want to consider this

The problem I have with what Obama is doing is that on one hand he's differentiating himself as being the only candidate, with the exception of Kucinich, who's been opposed to the war from the start by virtue of the others having voted for the IWR...and on the other hand he's voting to fund the war now.

Not only is he differentiating himself but he's flaunting it all the time at rallies how he's been opposed to the war all along. That's the main problem I have with it. If he's going to insist he's the only one of the heavyweights who's anti-war from start to now, then he shouldn't be voting to fund it now.

It's not fair to Edwards and Clinton that Obama can campaign now as being the only one who's been anti-war from the beginning, yet he can vote to fund the war while he's flaunting himself to be the only one opposed to the war from start. If he's what he says, the only candidate of the big 3 that's opposed the war from the start, then I wish he'd vote "no" on the funding for sake of consistency. He's going to get throttled in the debates for this, and that's got me worried.

[wyldwolf]

90. I agree with you points 100% - but Obama is a politician

...and he will act as such, which was the point of my reply.

[elizm]

103. Russ Fiengold...

Is not in favor of defunding the war right now either. The bill he introduced puts time limits on the funding, which is what Obama has said he agrees with. Do you find fault with Fiengold, as well, since he voted against the war in the beginning....Or is it only Obama?