Okay, let's see if we can get an Obama supporter to finally answer this....

[MagsDem]

I've watched Obama dozens of time bash Hillary because she voted for the IWR when he wasn't yet elected and did not have to vote. And he definitely does not appear to want voters to know he voted against his own party when they were trying to defund the war, and introduce a timetable for withdrawal.

A question for Obama supporters:

When has Obama ever been asked to explain, if he was "always" been against the war as he now claims, he voted against his own party's attempts to defund the war, and against timetables for withdrawal when he first entered the senate, then suddenly took the opposite position once he decided to run as the anti-war candidate. What changed all the sudden that would account for his flip flop on this? I have never seen the media ask him this, nor have I ever heard him explain it.

And we're batting zero on his supporters being able to explain it as well. Maybe today will be the magic day. No tantrums, no bullshit, just answer the question if you can.

[dmallind]

1. Just a question

What else was in those bills? Were they clean bills with a chance of passing? Yes I know I can search but doing a google on "Iraq War votes Obama" isn't likely to be efficient, and you obviously have some back up data on these votes. Any chance you have bill numbers or other data and I'll see what I can do?

I can afford to be circumspect as I am not a single issue voter and even if the answer turns out to be "he was wrong" it's not going to worry me much - nor would it for Hillary or anyone else.

[MagsDem]

4. I'd guess you'd have to ask Obama

Trouble is he wants to pretend those votes don't exist. I think one of his supporters should ask him -- after all Hillary is the evil one because she voted for the first "blank check." Seems to be their top issue, So why don't they want to know why he voted for subsequent blank checks? It's a mystery.

[dmallind]

7. I'm willing to - but help me out here

You made a statement he voted against defunding the war. We all know that one of the problems with a Senator or Rep being elected is because they vote against bill "America and Apple Pie" which sounds really horrible until you read bill Bill "America and Apple Pie" and find out it also included toxic waste dumping in kindergarten cafeterias and forced emasculation of anyone under 5'6".

So you obviously know which bills he voted against - tell me and I'll honestly look at them and see why he might have.

[crispini]

22. SNORT

:spray:

I am SO stealing that.

[Lex Talionis]

46. Good one!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

77. 5'10" never sounded so good.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

2. Ignore

[MagsDem]

5. And I will keep asking it every night

Because it deserves an answer.

[Skip Intro]

10. fingers in ear...lallalalallallalalala

:eyes:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

18. Same OP, rephrased and posted 100 times, doesn't bear revisiting...

But thanks for your stimulating input. :eyes:

[MagsDem]

48. Actually look down thread... someone finally gave an honest answer

I don't know if she/he is a Obama supporter, but we finally got an honest answer. It's a happy day on DU. Now you sheeple can go back to worshipping at the feet of MLK/RFK/JFK/Lincoln Obama aka as the second coming of christ. :)

[Window]

41. Will someone please tell me how to put someone on ignore.

I'm serious. Thank you in advance.



Peace:thumbsup:

[Laurab]

52. Go to the top of their post - there are icons on the right .

I believe if you click on the icon with the x - that should do it. Otherwise, I think you can go into your preferences at DU and type the name in, but I'm pretty sure clicking on the x will do it - I haven't done it for a while.

[Window]

85. Thank you very much.

Boy I feel dumb. LOL! I've been here since the beginning, and this is my first ignore...and it feels good.

Won't be able to get back in this thread, so thanks again.


Peace:thumbsup:

[Laurab]

87. Anytime - I don't have any at the moment, but if I did

this one would be my first choice...

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

3. DO you beat your wife/husband? n/t

[MagsDem]

6. Nope -- never have. Now can you answer the question?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

9. I'll re-phrase that: "How often do you beat your wife/husband?" n/t

[flor de jasmim]

20. Rephrasing... (I can't resist)

I remember this as "HAVE YOU STOPPED beating your wife/husband?"

:-)

[chimpymustgo]

55. Welcome to DU, Sandi. Have a heart!

:hi:

[1awake]

24. ....... wth? n/t

[HeraldSquare212]

8. Because cutting off funding for troops already deployed is different that voting to deploy troops.

I feel like the Hillary campaign is four years old when they bring this up - "I made a big mess and you won't clean it up, so you're as bad as I am." Ugh.

[MagsDem]

14. But now he IS in favor of troop withdrawals

He was against the war, then for it, then against it. Don't you even wonder how he could change is mind that many times? And why?

[Whisp]

29. I'm curious about something...

you look like you really 'love' yourself, with all those hearts.

could it have any relation to you considering yourself such a master debator?

[MagsDem]

39. People gave them to me

I got all of them in the past few days. There is this thing going on with the donations that you get hearts to give to other people when you donate. I guess I am just loved is all, though I don't know anyone here that I can think of. :)

[VotesForWomen]

65. so you're saying that those who have voted against the continued funding are wrong? nt

[1awake]

11. Most people are not going

to answer you. They associate you with multiple smear posts a day, and its seems, after reading many other posts by you, you have no intention of honestly listening.

[MagsDem]

15. Sure I will

He was against it, then for it, then against it again. Why?

[1awake]

21. I don't wanna argue with you mags, not today. I'll buy ya

a bottle of the finest wine that $2.34 will buy! Choking down nasty wine sounds so much more fun than fighting. ;)



edit: apparently I forgot how to spell wine.

[Recursion]

50. Go to Trader Joe's

$2 buys you a decent bottle of wine.

[MagsDem]

60. 2 buck Chuck -- yeah, baby

It's actually 2.99 but 3 buck Chuck doesn't sound as good. :)

[Recursion]

67. I think it varies by location

When I lived in DC last year, the 2 buck chuck was indeed 2 bucks. In SF, it's 3. Here in Boston it's 4.

2, 3, or 4, it's a decent wine for not much money.

[1awake]

70. I never heard of the place..

but then, I live in the middle of no where, WV.

[Recursion]

72. They're on the coasts mostly (now not even remotely on-topic)

Great stores. It can be kind of hit-or-miss because it's whatever their import/export guys happen to have got their hands on that month, but it's a great place to get good quality groceries cheap. Also, they seem to do labor relations about as well as you can reasonably expect a grocery store to.

[juajen]

27. I have seen her make honest points. The fact that glitterbabies

don't want to answer is not her fault. Honest questions about positions are always problematical for Obama supporters. However maybe someone else can find the bills he voted against and we can judge for ourselves.

[1awake]

35. glitterbabies.. hmmm

I hadn't heard that one yet. I wonder which side has the most dumbass names for each other. Might be a closer race than the actual primary.

Don't take what I said as a personal attack on mags.. quite the contrary, besides some of her posts in recent days, I like her very much.

[Johnny__Motown]

12. Bush would have taken the money from other Pentagon programs to keep Iraq going

Congress can stop sending that money but the Executive branch is in charge of the money that they do have.

It would not have stopped the war, it would have simply damaged our military even worse than it already has been damaged.

Bush then would have blamed Congress for "not supporting our troops".

If we had 60 Dems in the senate (not counting Lieberman) and the war would have been de funded.

[MagsDem]

16. So why he is for troop withdrawals now?

He voted for them after he voted against them. Any idea why?

[MADem]

25. Shhhhhh...... shhhhhhhhhhh..... there, there, now.

Pay no attention to that stuff, now. Focus on this:

Hope!!! Change!!! Hope!!! Change!!! Yes We Can!! Fired UP!!!

Hope!!! Change!!! Hope!!! Change!!! Yes We Can!! Fired UP!!!
Hope!! Change!!! Hope!!! Change!!! Yes We Can!! Fired UP!!!!!

Hope! Change!!! Hope!!! Change!!! Yes We Can!! Fired UP!!!

[juajen]

42. God, that's great!

I am thrilled to see people calling the Obamites to task. It's rare.

[NMMNG]

71. Must...vote..Obama...Hope for Change....

:rofl:

[PurityOfEssence]

93. You are very sleepy...you really ARE a chicken...you will now cross the road and vote for Obama

Resistance is futile. Braaaak, vote Obama, braaaak, vote Obama. Oh no! Identity crisis: a pullet or a parrot? I can hardly even bear it. Aaaaaaaaaah!

I lope for hope. We hope; they mope. New trope: he's Pope! He's in range for a change! McCain's got the mange! You're deranged and you're strange!

Mmmm...grape flavor...

[NMMNG]

94. LOL

:rofl:

[Dawgs]

33. Simple, because the Democrats are running Congress.

Are you really that dumb, or is your hate for Obama making you that way?

[MagsDem]

37. How does that factor in? What difference does it make who

has the majority in congress when it comes to changing his mind on that issue? That makes no logical sense.

[Johnny__Motown]

40. You need 60 senators to agree to a vote, so you need 60 to do anything

the 49-49 split (with 2 independents) in the senate is a deadlock (since Lieberman always votes with Repugs on the war)

[MagsDem]

44. Again, what does that have to do with the flip flop on this issue

We didn't have 60 dems before the flip, nor after the flop.

[stillcool]

88. perhaps this might help?

Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops
Tuesday, January 30, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Tommy Vietor or Robert Gibbs, 202-228-5511
Date: January 30, 2007

Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops
Goal to Redeploy All Combat Brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today introduced binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President's dangerous and ill-conceived escalation of the Iraq war, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home.
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-obama_offers_pl_1/index.php

Obama defends votes in favor of Iraq funding
Says he backs troops, not war

By James W. Pindell and Rick Klein, Globe Staff | March 22, 2007

Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war, asserting that he has always made clear that he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war.
"I have been very clear even as a candidate that, once we were in, that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could, and more importantly that our troops had the best resources they needed to get home safely," Obama, an Illinois Democrat, told reporters in a conference call. "So I don't think there is any contradiction there."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

Desperate in NH: Fibbing About Obama and Iraq?
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6786_desperate_in_nh_1.html
Her charges against Obama have generally been weak—standard truth-stretchers for standard political campaigns. But in casting Obama as a phony on the Iraq war, Clinton has veered close to outright lying.

Yesterday, in an interview with CNN, Clinton said:

If someone is going to claim that by their very words they are making change, then if those words say... I'm against the war in Iraq and I'll never vote for funding and then, when they go to the Senate, they vote for 300 billion dollars' worth of funding , I think it's time for people to say, "Wait a minute, let's get real here." There's a big difference between talking and acting, between rhetoric and reality.

Did Obama actually vow, as Clinton said, to never vote for funds for the Iraq war? If he had, he would indeed be a major promise-breaker—and a fraud on a critical issue for Democratic voters. This was a powerful allegation.

I sent an email to a Clinton spokesperson who specializes in opposition research, asking for a citation to back up this charge. He quickly replied with a link for a page on a Clinton campaign website that contains a quote from a speech Obama delivered in November 2003, when he was running for Senate:

Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars , I said no. I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.

Is it possible to read that statement as a promise never to vote for Iraq war funds? Not by any reasonable interpretation. In fact, during Obama's Senate campaign, he explained his opposition to this particular war funding bill in detail. From a September 29, 2003 Obama press release:

Obama challenged the Congress to 'stand up to the misplaced priorities of this Administration' by delaying the $87 billion for Iraq until the President provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq. 'It's not just Iraq that needs rebuilding. It's America, too,' Obama said.

Perhaps as an opponent of the Iraq war, Obama could have been expected to vote against funds for the war once he reached the Senate. But he, like Clinton (who now opposes the war) and other Senate Democrats, have continually voted for funds, while attempting (albeit unsuccessfully) to attach conditions and timetables to that funding. Because Clinton cannot attack Obama on the policy—given that they have voted the same—she has accused him of being a hypocrite.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586_pf.html


........about that last bill when Clinton and Obama both voted no.............

Although they appeased the Democratic base, Clinton, Obama and Dodd did open themselves up to criticism from Republicans that they were denying 165,000 troops the resources they need - an argument that could be damaging in a general election.

[jackson_dem]

96. He wasn't running for president when he was against that

He knew he had no shot if he continued to be against that.

[mopinko]

13. cite some facts.

give me a bill number, and a date.

[MagsDem]

23. Here you go:

June 22, 2006 Kerry amendment that would require "the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq." -- he voted no.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html

[noamnety]

28. That's a really good resource

in particular, the link within it that shows all the related votes in a chart with how they each voted. Anyone looking for the specific bill number can find it there - seems to be S2766, #181

Thanks for posting that.

[Bluerthanblue]

57. and here YOU go-

though I'm fairly sure you aren't seriously asking:

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (Senate - June 21, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for managing this fine amendment.

In October of 2002, I delivered a speech opposing the war in Iraq.

I said that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless man, but that he posed no imminent and direct threat to the United States.

I said that a war in Iraq would take our focus away from our efforts to defeat al-Qaida.

And, with a volatile mix of ethnic groups and a complicated history, I said that the invasion and occupation of Iraq would require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

In short, I felt the decision unfolding then to invade Iraq was being made without a clear rationale, based more on ideology and politics than fact and reason.

It is with no great pleasure that I recall this now. Too many young men and women have died. Too many have been maimed. Too many hearts have been broken. I fervently wish I had been wrong about this war; that my concerns had been unfounded.

America and the American people have paid a high price for the decision to invade Iraq and myriad mistakes that followed. I believe that history will not judge the authors of this war kindly.

For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.

But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them.

It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.

We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.

I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry amendment. We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won't be there forever, and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counterinsurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support.

Moreover, I share the frustration with an administration whose policies with respect to Iraq seem to simply repeat the simple-minded refrains of ``we know best'' and ``stay the course.'' It's not acceptable to conduct a war where our goals and strategies drift aimlessly regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent, and where we end up with arbitrary, poll-driven troop reductions by the administration--the worst of all possible outcomes.

As one who strongly opposed the decision to go to war and who has met with servicemen and women injured in this conflict and seen the pain of the parents and loved ones of those who have died in Iraq, I would like nothing more than for our military involvement to end.

But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, (1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; (2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and (3) bringing our troops safely home.

What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy.

For example, let's say that a phased withdrawal results in 50,000 troops in Iraq by July 19, 2007. If, at that point, our generals and the Iraqi Government tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an additional 3 or 6 months would enhance stability and security in the region, this amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing the optimal policy.

It is for this reason that I cannot support the Kerry amendment. Instead, I am a cosponsor of the Levin amendment, which gives us the best opportunity to find this balance between our need to begin a phase-down and our need to help stabilize Iraq. It tells the Iraqis that we won't be there forever so that they need to move forward on uniting and securing their country. I agree with Senator Warner that the message should be ``we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it.'' At the same time, the amendment also provides the Iraqis the time and the opportunity to accomplish this critical goal.

Essential to a successful policy is the administration listening to its generals and diplomats and members of Congress especially those who disagree with their policies and believe it is time to start bringing our troops home.

The overwhelming majority of the Senate is already on record voting for an amendment stating that calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security, creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. The Levin amendment builds on this approach.

The White House should follow this principle as well. Visiting Iraq for a few hours cannot resuscitate or justify a failed policy. No amount of spin or photo opportunities can change the bottom line: this war has been poorly conceived and poorly managed by the White House, and that is why it has been so poorly received by the American people..

And it is troubling to already see Karl Rove in New Hampshire, treating this as a political attack opportunity instead of a major national challenge around which to rally the country.

There are no easy answers to this war. I understand that many Americans want to see our troops come home. The chaos, violence, and horrors in Iraq are gut-wrenching reminders of what our men and women in uniform, some just months out of high school, must confront on a daily basis. They are doing this heroically, they are doing this selflessly, and more than 2,500 of them have now made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

Not one of us wants to see our servicemen and women in harm's way a day longer than they have to be. And that's why we must find the most responsible way to bring them home as quickly as possible, while still leaving the foundation of a secure Iraq that will not endanger the free world.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov

[MagsDem]

59. Okay, that explains why he was against defunding and troop withdrawals THEN

But it doesn't explain why he is for them now. What changed other than his wanting to enter a race and pretend he is the anti-war candidate? Do you honestly not see the political calculations at work here? They seem obvious to me.

[Bluerthanblue]

73. the reality is- and it is not a pretty one, but it is reality

there is a 'semblance' of calm there now. I say that knowing that it is far from true 'calm' and that the progress is progress born of power- exhaustion- phisical barriers- and decreased freedom for the Iraqi people-

Obama doesn't say we "just pack up and we're out of there today"- neither does Hillary- What statement can you show me by Obama that says he is for a precipitous withdrawl or un-funding the troops immediately?

thanks

peace~

[MagsDem]

76. I posted a link to his voting record - you'll need to read the thread

[mopinko]

from the new york times-

Democrats in the Senate cried foul when Republicans forced a vote on a withdrawal amendment originally developed by Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry had held off from seeking a vote on it, while working with other Democrats to seek a broader consensus. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican whip, simply scratched out Mr. Kerry's name, replaced it with his own and offered it for debate. Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, characterized the amendment as "cutting and running."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/washington/16cong.html?ex=1308110400&en=b1475016a1cca423&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

that's all for me. i'm going to go celebrate the news from virginia.

[Saturday]

17. I think you bring up a legitimate question.

It's so ridiculous that Obama supporters won't even question his record. Obama supporters think if you ask any question of Obama you are bashing him. It truly does give the impression of a cult. If he wins the nomination Republicans and the media will not be kind.

[onenote]

19. which bill are you referring to? THis one from 2005?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00322



Oh wait, that can't be it because Obama voted with most Democrats in a losing effort, while HRC voted with the repubs.

That was ten months after he got to the senate. What defunding bill did he go against the party on before then? If you've got some cards, lay 'em on the table.

[yeswecan08]

26. The media has scrutinized him to no end - somebody hasn't been paying attention

[MagsDem]

31. LOL - the media has not even begun to scrutinize him

You can't possibly be serious about that.

[still_one]

30. I will give you my take. They should never had voted for the IWR in the first place

Once the troops are there:

You can't defund it, because that message would say the troops that were sent there shouldn't be able to defend themseleves

The ONLY solution Now that they are their is to get them out. Defunding was bullshit, they never had the votes, and they knew it wouldn't happen

How about voting to overturn the IWR, that would be a worthwhile issue

How about getting our troops out NOW, that would be worthwhile, but defunding them once they are there is a no go

[MagsDem]

34. So first he was against troop withdrawals and defunding....

now he is for it. What changed?

[Bluerthanblue]

63. once you break a nation-

as we did to Iraq-

you own the responsibility to keep it safe, and repair repair it.
Bush took a good while getting the troops into place prior to the actual start of the war, it isn't going to be easy or fast getting them out-

John Kerry warned of this-

That is our moral responsibility- It is also part of the Geneva Conventions. Once in, we couldn't simply walk out, for many reasons- any more than when you slice open someones abdomen, in an ill advised operation, you can simply walk out of the operating room.

-
peace~

[still_one]

74. He wasn't for us getting into Iraq in the first place. That is the problem

Forget about defunding, that is a no go

Troop withdrawals, both candidates are calling for that

[MagsDem]

81. So why is he for them now when he was against them before?

[still_one]

83. I am not following you, he is not for us staying in Iraq, both candidates aren't?

[Faygo Kid]

32. You have the unmitigated gall to ask for "No tantrums, no bullshit?"

Hell, MagDems, that's ALL we get from your posts and responses.

[MagsDem]

36. uh huh... done with your tantrum now?

Care to answer the question? No one has explained yet what changed that caused him to be against defunding and troop withdrawals to now for those things. Do you know?

[Faygo Kid]

47. No, I will not answer any of your questions. You're the only one to which I say that.

You are a cold-blooded hater. It will eat you alive, but that's your choice. But spare us any BS that you are attempting some kind of genuine dialogue. It is and has been apparent that you haven't the slightest interest in any kind of dialogue.

Try your game playing elsewhere. See ya.

[MagsDem]

61. Done with your tantrum now?

You won't answer this question because you cannot without admitting your candidate is as politcally calculating as any candidate running, plus untruthful to boot. But that's okay. The rest of us are having a civil discussion.

[DS1]

56. exactly, she's a waste of fucking oxygen

[MagsDem]

79. Then why do you read my posts?

LOL

[Orsino]

38. The answer is obvious.

Obama was indeed always against the war--just not very against it. I think that his voice was a valuable one in the run-up to the war, but he has dropped the ball since taking national office. His leadership has been lacking, and his votes to fund make him complicit.

Just not quite as complicit as Clinton.

[MagsDem]

43. I think I would tend to agree with that... thanks for the honest answer

I would only add that it strikes me as a bald faced lie when he gets on the stump and pretends his voting record is not exactly the same as hers since he has been in the senate. Every single one of his senate votes has been as politically calculating as hers, and I do not believe for a minute that he would have voted any differently than her had he been in the senate at the time.

Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, and yes, Obama were / would have covered their presdential aSSpirations.

[Orsino]

62. Well, his voting record isn't the same.

I suspect, though, that had he taken office that long ago, it would be.

[Melinda]

45. In fairness, it's been the Republicans who have brought the funding resolutions to the floor,

and not Democrats. I believe the resolution you speak of is the 03/2007 resolution brought by Judd (R) of NH, which stated that Congress has a constitutional duty to fully fund troops during wartime. This resolution was supported by a majority of dems and opposed by 16.

Both HRC and BO voted aye to the resolution, ergo funding the troops.

“It was interesting to watch them squirm during the vote,” Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) recalled with a grin this week. “They really didn’t want to vote for it. … We knew they’d have to vote for that. can’t be perceived as not being able to provide funds .”


BO explained his vote this way:

"I have been very clear even as a candidate that, once we were in, that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could, and more importantly that our troops had the best resources they needed to get home safely," Obama, an Illinois Democrat, told reporters in a conference call. "So I don't think there is any contradiction there."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

And then, of course, both candidates went on to oppose further funding in the months to come.

And by the way, I am an Edwards supporter distinctly opposed to HRC and a voter still examining BO; I'm not a supporter of either candidate.

[MagsDem]

51. That's only one of the votes

Some where advanced by rethugs, most by Dems. I posted a link to a chart of them below with a subject header titled "Here you go:" BO has a lot more votes to explain than the one you refer to. When I review his record it mirrors Clinton's in every way for the entire time he has been in the senate. And years of watching politics tells me they are both based on political calculation. Based on that I simply do not believe he would have been any less calculating than she in regard to the AUMF vote given his presidential aspirations had he been in the senate at the time.

BTW, I am an Edwards supporter as well, distinctly opposed to Obama. Primarily because of his campaign that pretends there is some large difference between their Iraq voting records. The last straw for me with him was when he pretended during a debate that he hardly knows Tony Rezko when Tony Rezko has been a lifelong political patron to him. I just don't think he is a very honest person.

[mzmolly]

49. Did Hillary vote to defund the war?

:shrug:

[MagsDem]

58. She has now

But the problem I have with Obama is his dishonestly on the subject. She is lying about the votes she has taken, whereas he consistently says I'm against the war, I have always been against the war. I have news for him -- funding a war, and voting no on troop withdrawals is not being against the war. Dennis Kucinich is against the war, Obama is not.

He's a bullshitter. And I find most of the people I know in real life that were considering him think he is claiming he voted against the war and don't know that he wasn't even in the senate at the time. He is deliberately misleading people on that fact.

[mzmolly]

84. I'm against the war, but I disagree with pulling the funding.

In fact, I marched against the war, before the war started. However, the Kucinich "measure" for being against the war is not really a measure that I agree with. Many who opposed the war, did not wish to play chicken with the troops.

I honestly feel that his position on Iraq today is pretty clear and that's what matter to me currently.

Peace

[Recursion]

53. Because he knew * would hold the troops hostage

Essentially, he knew that since the troops are already over there, * would simply reappropriate other money to pay for their continued deployment, or (given his Mr-Burns-like level of evil) make them stay there unfunded to have a club to hit Democrats with.

Congress could have voted to declare the conflict in Iraq was over (this is an implicit part of their power to declare war in the first place) and then we would have some data on how he and Clinton would vote for that. Since they didn't, we're left with Obama not giving Bush a big ****ing club that wouldn't have ended the war.

[MagsDem]

64. Okay, so why is he for those same dem proposals now that...

... he used to be against?

[Recursion]

69. He's not

He's for taking over the white house to make sure we have an orderly withdrawal, rather than a last-helicopter-from-the-embassy scene after the money gets pulled.

He's also quite clear that part of the withdrawal from Iraq is dealing with the refugee crisis we've created, and yanking the funds without a serious withdrawal plan only makes that worse.

(In the interest of disclosure, I like Obama and never liked the "cut off the money" idea because I don't think it would do any good.)

[MagsDem]

78. Well he voted for the last round of troop withdrawals

Did you not realize that?

[Recursion]

80. And?

He's been consistently pro-withdrawal. And consistently anti-not-paying-for-the-war-we're-stuck-in. His only time of backing down was when he refused to shit on Kerry and Edwards at the '04 convention, which I had assumed could be forgiven.

[MagsDem]

82. No, I posted his record... he was against troop

withdrawals in 2006. Since he began his race for president he is for them. What accounts for that change in votes?

[Recursion]

91. I assume he thought it could happen now and couldn't happen then

But I'm not him so I don't know.

Again, as you anti-Obama people keep refusing to acknowledge, issues aren't the issue here. I'm fairly wonkish as Obama fans go and I'm with him on about 75% of the issues I've seen (agriculture and education, very very good. Guns, very very worried. Fiscal policy, so-so).

But the issues kind of need to take a back seat here to the fact that the destructive and futile tone we've lived with for 2 decades needs to frigging disappear.

[jackson_dem]

97. He knew he couldn't win the nomination if he didn't flip flop

[DS1]

54. It won't matter, you won't believe it, and you'll just fly off the handle again

like you always do.

[MagsDem]

66. IOW, you don't want to say, or don't know

Got it. Others here do know and have said. I tip my hat to their honesty.

[DS1]

68. No you don't, you piss all over their replies without even a moment's thought

about what they said. There's no point with you, you're a lost cause. If Obama wins the Nom, I don't want to ever see your face around here again.

[MagsDem]

75. If you don't have a response that is responsive to the thread

.... then why do you bother posting anything in the thread at all? I'm not holding a gun to your head to make you read my posts. Maybe you can try acting like a mature adult instead of having a tantrum because you don't like that I am pointing out things about your candidate you don't want pointed out.

As far as seeing my face around here, if you really can't handle it like an adult then they have ignore buttons for folks like you to use. :)

[KAZ]

86. Completely agree. If they're for HRC, they do more harm

than good. Quite a shame actually.

[FrenchieCat]

89. I've decided to make you disappear thru primary season.......

But I'll answer your "concerns" first (you and the war supporting candidate from day one):

Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

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

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

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

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

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

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

REALITY: OBAMA FIRST ADDRESSED THE IRAQ WAR IN COMMITTEE IN JANUARY 2005 AND ON THE FLOOR IN APRIL 2005, FOUR MONTHS AFTER ENTERING THE US SENATE
1. 1/19/05: Obama Criticized Condoleezza Rice For Not Offering A Timetable, Reiterated That Job Of Senator Is To Confirm That Administration Is Making Decisions Based On Facts. During Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearing, Obama criticized her for not offering a timetable. Obama said, "And I recognize that you are hesitant in your current position to provide a timetable. On the other hand, constituents and families in small towns all across Illinois need some more satisfactory answer than that. And it strikes me that this whole issue of training troops, turning over security functions to the Iraqi government is critical to that...I guess the comment that I'd like to make is that in the activist proactive strategies that you pursue, it seems to me that this administration often asks that we simply go along and have faith that you're making the right decisions. But I think that from the perspective of my constituents in Illinois, at least, a number of people did vote for George Bush and do trust him. But my job as a senator is to make sure that we're basing these decisions on facts and that I probe and not simply take it on faith that good decisions are being made.

4/14/05: Obama First Addressed The War On The Floor Of The Senate. Obama said on the floor, "The other day I had the opportunity to visit some of our wounded heroes at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I know that many of my colleagues have made the same trip and I'd heard about their visits, but there is nothing that can fully prepare you for what you see when you take that first step into the Physical Therapy room. These are kids in there. Our kids. The ones we watched grow up. The ones we hoped would live lives that were happy, healthy, and safe. These kids left their homes and families for a dangerous place halfway around the world. After years of being protected by their parents, these kids risked their lives to protect us. And now, some of them have come home from that war with scars that may change their lives forever -- scars that may never heal. And yet they sit there in that hospital, so full of hope and still so proud of their country. These kids are the best of America. They deserve our highest respect, and they deserve our help."


2005: Obama Spoke Out Against the War Repeatedly. During 2005, Obama continued to criticize the war, saying that security was "horrible", that the war never should have been waged, and that the US should get out of Iraq as "soon as we can."


2006: Obama Spoke Out Against the War Repeatedly. During 2006, Obama continued to criticize the war, saying that we should start phasing down troops soon and calling for an "expeditious yet responsible" exit from Iraq.
RHETORIC: "Yet, like most democrats, Obama voted to keep funding the war until last year."


REALITY: EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT HAS VOTED TO FUND THE WAR IN IRAQ
2005-2007: Since Obama Came To Washington, Every Single Senate Democrat Has Voted For Every Bill Funding Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Until President Bush Vetoed A Timetable For Withdrawal – Including Both Emergency Supplemental Bills And Defense Appropriations Bills. Since Obama came to Washington in January of 2005, every single Senate Democrat has voted for every bill funding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan until President Bush vetoed a timetable for withdrawal – including both emergency supplemental bills and defense appropriations bills that included bridge funding with the expressed purpose of continuing operations in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

---

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck2/2008/01/

See Senator Kennedy's voting record here and compare it to Obama's: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53305

[Hill_YesWeWill]

90. Well, I can't really answer that, I think only he could

but I think it's great that he was against the war from the beginning, I've always really liked that and I think that will really stand in stark contrast to McCain who wants a 100 year war!

I'm afraid Hillary would actually abandon the anti-war folks so that she could seem more tough on national security, but that's just speculation, I really don't know how that would play out in the general election,

Nothing has been decided yet though, so maybe we'll find out!

[RoadRage]

92. He's against the war - but not against the troops sent there to fight it.

In his mind, to deny funding was simply going to put the troops who are already there, at more risk. He would be denying THEM food, ammunition, armour, etc.

I believe he didn't want to harm the troops with politics, he wants us out of Iraq, but with as few casualties as possible.

[jackson_dem]

98. Then why did he vote against funding after he began running for president?

[mmonk]

95. When did our party attempt to defund the war?

So Dennis is finally accepted? Anyway, Obama gets a star for correct judgement in the beginning.