3,613 Americans killed in a war Hillary and Edwards supported.

[UrbScotty]

Obama opposed the slaughter from the very beginning.

[NMDemDist2]

1. oh please!

blatant much?

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Hasn't Anyone Told You?

Voting records don't count. The only thing we should focus on is the rhetoric du jour.

(Yes, yes :sarcasm:)

[More Than A Feeling]

3. Yet Obama still voted repeatedly to fund it, until he changed his mind last vote.

That's some opposition there.:sarcasm:

What was your point again?

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Much Different Thing

You can argue that funding an ongoing war is not the right thing to do - and I might agree with you - but it's a whole other universe from starting a cataclysmic war.

[More Than A Feeling]

16. It still precludes treating Obama like a paragon of virtue on the war issue.

That he didn't have to vote on it in the first place, and that he was running in a ultra-blue state further weakens the case for "Saint Obama of Iraq."

You repeatedly make fun of John Edwards for changing positions, but you shouldn't throw stones when, as I mentioned previously, Obama just changed his mind on war funding. He's also taken up, and then abandoned "clean coal" technology. Yes, yes, I know its slightly more complicated than that, but attacking Edwards for changing positions when Obama has also done so isn't very respectable.

I respectfully request that you reconsider using that line of attack.

[maximusveritas]

21. Most anti-war people supported funding; it's only recently that

they have started to see that defunding is the only way to end the war.
Even then, many anti-war people still support continued funding.
So to say Obama's past votes signify a lack of opposition is just absurd.

[More Than A Feeling]

22. And a lot of anti-war people formerly supported the war.

Edwards and Clinton have a lot of company among average Americans.

Again, the OP's point is disingenuous at best. Trying to implicitly blame Clinton and Edwards for those deaths, when you could say that by funding the war, that blood stains Obama's hands too.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. Something like 100 million Americans. Look at what BO's camp is effectively saying to them

BO campaign: 1/3 of the public is stupid. BO is superior to you if you are among the 1/3 who once supported it. Vote for Obama.

Yeah, this will play well in the GE. :rofl:

[maximusveritas]

38. There's a huge difference

Supporting the war was the wrong decision. There is no debate about that anymore.
Especially when both of them admitted they didn't read the intelligence.

Supporting funding was the right decision. Once the troops were already committed and once we had already destroyed the Iraqis' country, we owed them at least a chance at rebuilding and getting them back on their feet.

Feingold voted to fund the war as well. Are you going to say he has blood on his hands? Of course not.

[More Than A Feeling]

41. We all have their blood on our hands, one way or another.

I don't regard it as a useful distinction, and I didn't come up with it. You'll have to take it up with the OP, who thinks that Obama is somehow so much more morally superior to Clinton and Edwards. I'm demonstrating how it is nowhere near as clear as the OP would like.

[MGKrebs]

44. Reading the intelligence is not a factor here.

It was filtered by the Bush administration anyway. Clinton supposedly spoke directly with intelligence officials.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. That isn't true. Only 14 senators voted against funding this time, and 2 did so at the last minute

After intense pressure from the base of the party who they are courting in order to win the nomination...

"Saint Obama of Iraq" did not even bother to deliver a speech on Iraq on the senate floor during his first 11 months. He also took down his much hyped speech from his website until called on it.

There is only one true anti-war candidate: Dennis Kucinich.

[lazer47]

4. Are you trying to say you support Hilliary or John Edwards????

[BeatleBoot]

5. So if you're Pro Choice, then you are responsible for

Someone else's abortion?

This makes no sense.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. Bingo! nt

[RufusTFirefly]

6. Now, now... If they only knew THEN, what they know NOW n/t

[aquart]

7. Easy when you aren't required to VOTE on it.

Don't even try this crap. If he was in the Senate at the time, and voted it down, blazen it from the rooftops, but this is garbage.

It makes Obama look desperate. And he has no need to be.

Obama's supporters will destroy him.

[RufusTFirefly]

12. This is an excellent point

Talk is cheap. Voting records are priceless.

Only two current presidential candidates actually cast a vote against the Iraq resolution: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

[razors edge]

13. Too bad the

sycophantic supporters of all the leading candidates can't do the same. Then maybe we would see a crack of light between the remainders.

[quinnox]

9. Yet Obama is not calling for a complete withdrawal of American forces

Kucinich is the only one I believe calling for all the troops to come home now.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Obama Effectively Is Calling For Complete Withdrawal

Last time I checked, Obama said that we have an obligation to keep troops there IF the Iraqis want them AND they are not attacked. Mrs. Clinton, as far as I know, simply wants to keep troops there under any circumstances.

[Catchawave]

49. Linky? Obama certainly isn't that shallow

to have said that.

[muffin1]

10. It's easy for Obama to say he opposed it

now...he wasn't even in the Senate when the vote occurred. And he HAS voted to fund it...:shrug:

[zulchzulu]

39. Obama called it a "dumb war" at a time when that view was unpopular

And yes, now that the troops are in harm's way, he's not going to just penalize them for being there.

[Donna Zen]

40. At the time

There were people who exercised good judgment whether they were in the streets, at a podium, in front of the Armed services hearing, or voting in the Senate. For those who were actually in the Senate, their ability to cast a "nay" vote may have required some political courage, and yet, they join the ranks of us who know how to read, do the homework, and understand how ill-conceived invading another country with an eye to occupying would be. The first bush even wrote about it.

However, for what ever reason, there were those who stood on the wrong side. There will be other crisis during the years 08 to 12, people of questionable motives and judgment should not be in a position to make more disastrous mistakes.

Making this about the vote and trying to minimize the consequence, the import, or the lack of leadership on the part of those who now insist it be sweep under the rug, does the nation a disservice.

[melody]

14. When you find a perfect statesman, let me know, I'll vote for him

Until then, I'm not going to allow past mistakes, which have been owned up to, keep me from
voting for otherwise good people.

[RufusTFirefly]

17. Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but how could anyone,...

... given the track record of Bush and the abundant evidence to debunk the idea that Iraq had WMDs, make that kind of mistake?

And also, this isn't like voting on the wrong side of a tax cut or a highway spending bill. Their votes helped to send thousands to their deaths. This isn't a garden variety Congressional blunder.

Frankly, I don't think it was a mistake. If it were, I might question their competence. No, I'm afraid it was cold political calculation. At the time, people bought into the "cakewalk" fairy tale and some members of Congress thought it was worth the gamble -- using American soldiers and Iraqi civilians as collateral -- to vote "yes" in the hopes that the war would be quick and relatively low in casualties. More importantly, they couldn't face the alternative, voting against a quick and popular war. The conventional wisdom concluded that it would doom their presidential aspirations to do so. I just wish they'd explain this to the families of the deceased.

[melody]

23. Or perhaps it came down to "will my one vote do anything compared to to the good I can do..."

We don't know the machinations that go on in Washington. These people are
gambling with their lives. Paul Wellstone and his family died because he
went up against these vultures.

It's the reason that Gore got out. If Al runs, he has my time, money and
vote. If he doesn't, it's going to Edwards -- he's the only one with a soul
that has a chance of winning.

[RufusTFirefly]

25. I think your Wellstone point definitely has merit

Ask Leahy and Daschle about the payback you can expect for not playing ball with BushCo. Or ask Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson. Then again, 21 Democratic Senators (including Leahy, almost exactly a year after his life was threatened) stood for what's right and voted "no." Why them and not these two?

[melody]

26. Because they had no chance of becoming President?

Bobby and Jack Kennedy are the last two Democrats that truly stood up to these
people. Teddy got the message.

[RufusTFirefly]

28. So you're willing to live in a country run by intimidation instead of the Constitution?

Again, it's easy for us to speak with bravado from the sidelines, but if this is the political reality, I don't think there's much hope for us as a country.

[melody]

33. Am I willing to or do I live in one?

It's not a matter of willingness. Accepting reality is just seeing what is actually
the problem. This is the game we're playing. Obama cannot win. It's not really his
race that is the primary problem but his name and his inexperience. We have to go with
our strongest player. That's just the simple, prosaic nature of the beast.

[Big Pappa]

36. Good grief.

And what message did Teddy get? I think you give BushCo to much credit.

[melody]

37. I don't think I give them nearly enough

These people are monsters -- well-funded monsters.

[rodeodance]

15. Bashing of this short is best left to the RW--

[BeyondGeography]

18. He called it "dumb" and "rash" in October of 2002

which is where a lot of his support comes from. "A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

And this bears repeating as well:

"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."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

[RufusTFirefly]

19. How is it that Obama understood this, but Edwards and Clinton didn't?

Of course, kibitzing is a lot easier than actually voting, but it stretches credulity that Obama would be privy to information that Clinton and Edwards didn't see. Again, it wasn't a mistake. It was a calculation.

[BeyondGeography]

24. That's correct...first, one obviously must blame Bush for forcing the issue

but, to the eternal discredit of the party, so many Democrats (half of the Senate) played along.

[jackbourassa]

20. Obama is a visionary...

...Clinton and Edwards are opportunists.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. He is so visionary he took down his much hyped "visionary" speech from his website nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. Ah, the IWR card. Remember how well the IWR and tons of money worked for Dean?

It is hilarious how some Obama supporters seem to think the IWR card is a magic bullet that will suddenly cause a stampede of support to Obama. :rofl: The reality is the vast majority of primary voters and voters in general are not going to be voting based on the IWR (ask Howard Dean or IWR voter John Kerry). The polls show this.

[DinahMoeHum]

34. Edwards, at least, had the balls to do a mea culpa. . .

and say that voting for and supporting this war/occupation was a mistake on his part.

:kick:

[Perry Logan]

35. They supported it, because they were lied to.

If you attack them for being lied to, you are helping Bush & Co. get more mileage out of their lie. This very foolish.

[MGKrebs]

42. OK, I'll kick your bullshit thread to say this:

The UN weapons inspectors were still in Iraq at the time of this vote. They were busily finding and destroying banned weapons and weapons production facilities despite vigorous attempts by Saddam to hide the weapons and mislead the inspectors. The inspectors were not done. Saddam was definitely lying to them about what he had. Even given the likelihood that Bush would take the IWR authority and use it irresponsibly, if the only other choice was to deny our ability to react to a threat, isn't it somewhat irresponsible to NOT vote for the resolution at that time? Wasn't there just a little chance that Saddam would see that resolution and, see what was coming and capitulate? If the only choices are a possible bloodless coup or a war led by a madman, wouldn't you have to choose "possible bloodless coup"?

We shouldn't confuse OUR ability to verbally oppose a war with Senators obligation to cast a difficult vote. They are NOT the same thing, and it is possible to oppose the war but recognize the dilemma they faced. It is Bush's war.

[illinoisprogressive]

43. this is my thought on all three candidates and the war.

Edwards made some major mistakes in championing the war and not just voting for it. However, people have the right to second thoughts and he is mature enough to admit to making a mistake. I think he feels the guilt over this period alot.
I believe some of it was aspirations and some belief. He did not want to look wimpy when he ran for president so he tried to be super macho. After he knew he made a mistake.

Hillary knew the intellegence from a couple years earlier. She had access to more info than most.I don't think she so much believed in it as was doing it for aspirations. Not trashing but, she is very much a political person who calculates the political rather than the belief. I don't think she really had much belief either way. I really do not hold her vote against her so much as her not taking responsibility and blaming someone else. She was lied to, she was a victim.

Obama took many factors into concideration. At the time, he was the only one out the 3 who had no presidential ambitions. He is very much someone who knows the culture and thinking of that part of the world. this was a major plus for him in his assessment. He also thought like many of us that the war was with bin laden and we did not need to go and invade a country for maybes. Like it or not, obama does alot of deep thinking and getting experts opinions. whether you believe it or not, he tries to stay true to himself and his belief on issues.

I don't think the vote was the biggest problem for myself. it was the actions and the sheer calculated way and actions going into the vote. You need to vote your belief and not with an eye to future aspirations and being calculated.

[Adelante]

45. Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee

He had higher access to intelligence than any other candidate. He not only voted for the IWR but co-sponsored it. Yet we are to believe he was conflicted. How could that be? How could he be conflicted over a war authorization he was co-sponsoring? If so, why co-sponsor it? That was a deliberate move, not a mistake. I am sure he is sorry now, but it's not enough to make up for what he did or to earn him the right to be president. In my opinion.

[LWolf]

46. 3,613 Americans killed in a war repeatedly funded by Obama. n/t

[TeamJordan23]

47. mixing apples and oranges. nt

[LWolf]

48. Bullshit.

If you're going to use someone's votes for war as a campaign talking point, then the candidate that wasn't in Congress to cast a vote for or against the IWR, but who has repeatedly cast votes to fund the war they say they are against, doesn't get to claim the high ground.

Voting to fund the war is a vote for the war. Moreso, imo, than the IWR.

[Ethelk2044]

50. Hillary did not think it was important enough t read the report.

That should have been read before casting a vote for the war.

[LWolf]

51. I agree.

You'd think, with a bill that could cost lives, that congresspeople might find the time to read it before voting. :shrug:

I don't excuse any of the candidates who either voted for the IWR or voted to fund the war. They are all, as far as I'm concerned, complicit in the 3,613 American deaths.

[maximusveritas]

52. So you think Feingold is complicit? Moreso than Edwards even?

That's what you seem to be saying here.

[LWolf]

54. I don't see that anywhere in what I said.

What is it that you are trying to twist out of what I said?

Feingold is not a candidate. He is accountable for his votes, but he isn't running against Edwards for anything as far as I know.

What I am saying? Not what I SEEM to be saying, but what I am SAYING:

Obama doesn't get a pass for disagreeing with the IWR vote when he wasn't there to cast it, because he supported the war with his votes to fund it.

All 3 of the "top tier," as well as Biden and Dodd, are equally complicit. None of them get to take the high ground on Iraq.

NOT WITH ME, ANYWAY.

Do you understand yet?

[maximusveritas]

55. I'm just applying your logic

If you're uncomfortable with where that takes you, perhaps you need to re-evaluate your logic.
Feingold not being a candidate is irrelevant.
You're saying that voting to fund the war is supporting the war, more so than voting for IWR. So you're saying that Feingold has supported the war and is at least equally complicit as Edwards even though he voted against IWR. Is that correct?

[LWolf]

56. I'm unsure of why Feingold is such

a hot topic of conversation for you, since he is not campaigning.

He isn't part of my point, since my point is campaign related.

YOUR LOGIC cannot make him part of a campaign point, no matter how you spin it.

MY logic tells me that it would be naive to take your question as unrelated to any campaign discussion.

Am I wrong? If so, please feel free to clarify, and ask again. Something like:

Of course, my question has nothing to do with Edwards, HRC, Obama, or any other currently declared candidate or the Democratic Primary race. I'm not trying to find another campaign argument. I'm just wondering, off the wall, if you think Feingold is equally complicit?

[maximusveritas]

57. I use Feingold as an example

because he's one of my favorite politicians and someone who is fairly well respected around here. I could have used Gore as well, but he's not on record as specifically supporting funding, although he did oppose withdrawal until relatively recently.
I do not think Feingold is equally complicit. I think he's done almost exactly the right thing from the start. He opposed the war early on and then supported funding it in order to give the Iraqis a chance at rebuilding their country which we destroyed. In this way, I think he's even superior to guys like Kucinich who did oppose the war, but then wanted us to leave as soon as we finished destroying the place.

[LWolf]

58. As an example of what?

I have some respect for Senator Feingold; I appreciate much of his work. I disagree with his votes to fund the war.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the point of my posts in this thread: that I don't excuse votes for the war, and that a candidate trying to campaign on "being against the war from the beginning," and then voting to fund the war, is not making any campaign points with me. I hold the funders just as accountable as the IWR voters.

I will continue to say so, every time I hear or read someone trying to use the war as a campaign talking point.

If Feingold tried an "anti-Iraq war" campaign, I'd say the same for him. He hasn't, though, so I haven't.

[JVS]

53. Their votes displease me

[calteacherguy]

59. A fair post. K&R. nt