Why would Obama vote to fund a war he doesn't support?

[Clintonista2]

Poll question: Why would Obama vote to fund a war he doesn't support?

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. He forgot to vote "present"

[TwilightGardener]

2. I support funding--so do a lot of Dems who want the war to end in

a RESPONSIBLE manner. So did Hillary. I don't fault ANYONE for continuing funding--defunding is a risky "nuclear option".

[jackson_dem]

8. So why did Obama vote against funding the war when he began running for the White House?

[TwilightGardener]

16. To my recollection, he voted against funding for the first time in May.

That's also when Hillary voted against it, IIRC. I remember those two were eyeing each other to see who would vote no first. I'm not going to hold that vote against them, same as I don't hold it against the funders to keep giving Chimpy money as he holds our troops hostage.

[jackson_dem]

18. That was the first vote after they both began running for president

What a coincidence? Using Obama's old excuse that means he voted against the troops in 2007. Obama is tangled like a pretzel on this. The truth is he voted the politically expedient way each time.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Maybe the war has gone on long enough--it HAS been more than four years, with no end in sight--

maybe both he and Hillary decided to listen to the netroots and the peace movement and take a political risk. They knew their votes were symbolic anyway--they knew the bill would pass.

[jackson_dem]

26. They didn't take a risk. They, including St. Obama, did what was politically expedient

Now symbolic votes matter? Why didn't Obama cast a symbolic vote to express his opposition to the war until he began running for president? His vote was never needed to ensure funding for the war.

[TwilightGardener]

30. It won't be politically expedient in the general election--the Repub can

hammer them for wanting to snatch canteens and rifles out of our soldiers' hands and make them thumb a ride home, even though that's mostly a RW talking point. That's why I opposed those "no" votes. I think sometimes politicians do political things and make political votes. I don't know if that's the case here, but...that's reality. Obama is no saint, and Hillary certainly isn't either. Just two ambitious and skilled politicians.

[jackson_dem]

34. The general means nothing if you lose in the primaries

[TwilightGardener]

35. That's very true.

[Bicoastal]

3. Also, why was Barack Obama involved with Whitewater?

Oh, my mistake, I thought it was "Attack Other Candidates for Things Our Own Candidate Has Done" Day here on DU.

Carry On!

[Clintonista2]

4. No, you're confusing it with Rezko

Obama needed a big cheap house and a big cheap backyard, THAT'S why he was involved with Rezko.

[Bicoastal]

6. Nice sidestep there. Do you also do the Goose-Step?

Honestly, why don't you just acknowledge your candidate did the exact same thing you're accusing Obama of?

You're making yourself look foolish.

[Barack_America]

5. Because Hillary helped put TROOPS there that deserve to be armed and paid. n/t

[angie_love]

10. 100% agreed

once the troops were there (that hillary helped to put in harms way) there was no way Obama was going to NOT fund the troops to give them the equipment they needed.

[jackson_dem]

20. This is why Obama voted not to fund the troops all of last year?

You know, after he began running for the White House and readlized what the party's base wanted.

[Barack_America]

31. And Hillary's vote was??

:shrug:

[IndianaJones]

7. its his way of voting present without the yellow button. nt.

[Colobo]

9. Because you don't want the troops to lack what they need in combat.

They don't need to pay the consequences of the political battle to end the war.

[jackson_dem]

11. Is that why Obama started to vote against funding when he began running for president?

[IndianaJones]

12. thats a Bush/Republican talking point. nt.

[Clintonista2]

14. So Obama DOES want the troops to lack what they need in combat?

Because ever since he announced his run for president, he's started voting AGAINST the funding.

[Colobo]

17. He wants funding and a timetable.

If the bill doesn't have both, it's fair for him to vote against it.

[jackson_dem]

21. He voted against a bill with a timetable and funding in 2006

He didn't want a timetable until he began running for the White House. It is another nice "explanation" for Obama flip flopping. He can never admit he was wrong on an issue in the past.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Because immediately defunding the war is a bad idea, even though the war is also a bad idea.

[Bitwit1234]

15. He's waiting for Iran he wants to bomb that one.

[Hello_Kitty]

19. Do people realize that defunding the war does NOT mean that Bush has to end it?

Presidents have the ability to obtain enough funds and credit to continue military action. There's a little known Civil War Era law called the Feed and Forage Act that enables the President to obtain arms and equipment on credit for an indeterminate time. Think for a minute Dumbya wouldn't use it? Bill Clinton used it to fund operations in Haiti when Congress wouldn't authorize the funds.

This ain't Vietnam. The fuckers running our country are crazy enough to leave our troops over there with nothing, if need be.

[mahina]

22. Because you haven't read the bill, and you never will,

you can pretend it's a simple one liner.

[mahina]

23. That was strange.

Where's my shovel and hipboots?

I want a different president than you do. Cool.

[CTLawGuy]

25. because defunding the war that Hillary voted to start

wouldn't bring the troops home. Only the commander in chief can physically bring the troops home. Defunding can only leave them with less money. I say less money because Bush could divert other funds from DOD to continue the war effort.

Certainly if I were stuck in Iraq I would want funds so I can protect myself, eat, stay warm. I wouldn't want to have that severely cut back. I would want the funds because I know Bush would never in a million years bring me home, becuase he wants to run out the clock and leave the problem to the next president.

While the Rs were in control, there was no way that we could force Bush to end the war, so Obama voted to give the troops the funding they needed to stay alive, warm, fed, safe, etc.

But once the Dems got into power, we could have used funding as a negotiating tool with the president to see if he would give us at least ANYTHING resembling a timetable, or a goal, or a plan, or something. When the Dem leadership decide to cave after the first veto, many dems, including Obama didn't want to go along with it. They wanted to try harder to get something out of Bush by holding out funding as a bargaining tool.

Again, once Hillary voted to authorize the war, she put control of the conduct of the war in the hands of the commander in chief. once you do that, it's DAMN hard to get him to stop if he doesn't want to. Obama did not want to have an argument over the morality of the war at the expense of the lives of our troops.

[jackson_dem]

27. Why couldn't Obama cast a symbolic vote to express his "opposition" to the war?

[CTLawGuy]

33. if he were in the IL legislature

with its customs and culture, he probably could do that. Congress does not feature use of the "present" vote the way that IL legislature does.

[karynnj]

28. This is asinine

Ted Kennedy has voted for funding, Byrd has voted for funding.

Being against invading is NOT the same as whether to fund the war. The Clintons are despicable on this.

[book_worm]

29. Why did Hillary vote for the war in the first place?

[Cha]

32. You forgot the choice for

I'm just a hilary and I'll do anything to fuck up Obama cause hilary and bil are such liars and they don't have shit.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

36. because he couldn't let the troops suffer out there

troops don't come home in a day - it will take months realistically and they have to be fed.