Only one Dem supported the Iraq invasion from day 1 and continues to say it wasn't a mistake.

[TheWraith]

That's Hillary Clinton. Edwards apologized for his vote, and Obama opposed the war from the start.

[patrice]

1. May I have the date of BO's earliest national statement against the Invasion of Iraq?

This is not an attack. I just need to know and link please?

[Occam Bandage]

8. 26 October 2002.

[TheWraith]

15. Here's a copy of the speech he gave at an anti-war rally, and a link.

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

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

[stillcool]

17. This is his 2002 speech...

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/warspeech.pdf
Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama
Against Going to War with Iraq
Chicago, IL | October 2, 2002
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war
rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The
Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of
the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive
the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in
Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories
of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a
larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not
fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears,
I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would
slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself
to prevent such tragedy from happening again. 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
armchair, 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.

there's more...

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. ohmygod. how many times does she have to say it was a mistake?

This is BULLSHIT. SHE HAS SAID IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. GET THE FUCK OVER IT.

[AndyA]

3. All I've heard Hillary say was that it was a mistake

"...to believe this President."

Has she actually said, "I made a mistake, I should have never voted for the IWR"? I've never heard that.

[Flatulo]

5. To say that would be to open oneself up to charges of flip-flopping.

I think she's smart to handle it the way she has.

Everyone knows the war was a mistake.

[patrice]

26. Re flip-flopping: You're accepting the Repuglican frame. I think we can do better. nt

[Bluerthanblue]

29. I disagree, and I think that many people

share this concern.

It takes a strong, mature, person to adimit that they are not perfect.
To have the courage and self-respect, to take personal responsibility for your own actions.

I admired that in Bill Clinton when he didn't just tuck tail and run when his public lie was exposed. That (to me) was a very courageous, and difficult act. I also admire the way that Chelsea and Hillary handled themselves in what had to have been an incredibly difficult time. I respect them all for the way they dealt with that terrible time.

Which is part of what really bothers me about Hillary's refusal to take personal responsibility for her actions as a politican.

peace~

[DrFunkenstein]

70. How About Charges of Political Theatrics Using Lives of Soldiers and Iraqi Civilians?

There is a line where "smart" politics crosses a certain moral line. For example, suggesting that we can use nuclear weapons to attack a terrorist group or that the Iranian military represents a terrorist group. Or suggesting both within a few weeks of each other.

There is no one SHOCKED that Bush used the authority as a fig leaf for invasion. To suggest otherwise may be smart politics, but that has nothing to do with intelligence.

[Flatulo]

7. Self-delete - dupe post

[MercutioATC]

13. I disagree. She's never admitted fault.

She's tried to absolve herself by passing the guilt on to Bush.

There are only 2 reasons that ANY Democrat would have voted to give Bush that power and trusted him not to use it:

1) It was politically advantageous for them

2) They're complete morons

Take your pick.

Clinton's claim that she voted for the IWR because Bush said he wouldn't use it to start a war is clearly an admission of #2, though I suspect it's really a case of political opportunism.

Neither are qualities I want in my President.

[Evergreen Emerald]

18. seriously, do you want her to cry? What exactly would be good enough for you?

It appears that all Edwards has to do is say he was wrong--alot--about--alot--and that is ok with you.

Good God.

[MercutioATC]

23. No, I want her to simply say "I was wrong. It was a bad decision"

...and not try to qualify it with all the "but I belieeeeeeved Bush when he said he wouldn't start a war" bullshit.

As far as Edwards, he's not a contender here (no offense intended toward Edwards supporters), so he wasn't part of the discussion.

[Bluerthanblue]

41. that would suit me well also-

It shouldn't be all that difficult, if she truly believes it.

[Bluerthanblue]

34. you know EXACTLY what 'we' want- and what

Hillary seems to be unwilling, or incapable of giving.

[emilyg]

44. No matter what she does - it won't be good enough for the Johnny-one-notes.

[frylock]

74. there's only one way to find out if that's true or not

[GalleryGod]

81. Pardon me, but, I feel "Johnny-one-notes" denigrates Anti-War Dems

and MY comrades who gave their lives in Iraq.


Kerry: Who fought one War,then came home to fight another, Garry Owen!!

[JAbuchan08]

67. Not only has Edwards apologized for his past actions

he is also more doveish than Hillary on the FUTURE of Iraq and the FUTURE of our relationship with Iran.

It's not good enough to point out how the other candidates have problems on this issue. You have to demonstrate WHY Hillary is superior.

So far as I can tell she remains the most hawkish on foreign policy even if you declare that the IWR is a draw between her and Edwards.

[patrice]

27. According to gaming theory, this parses out to quite a few more than 2.

I tried to work all of them out about this time last year, when this election cycle began, and came up with something like 18 reasons one might vote for IWR, most of which I DID NOT like, but had to admit COULD have been part of the mix.

[MercutioATC]

Granted, it's simplified, but any reason loosely falls into those 2 categories.

...unless one admits that they really believed all of the WMD stuff and really thought we should go to war (which, in my estimation, makes them idiots anyway).

[patrice]

43. So there's three general categories then and I agree, but

AGAIN, whether anyone likes it or not, many people DID fall into that third category and telling them they shouldn't be so stupid is like telling a psychotic they shouldn't be psychotic.

These things are why I can't support Obama.

[Bluerthanblue]

14. could you please post where she actually says that?

I am asking to see where she says her vote for the war was a mistake. That she is willing to take responsibility for her vote. I can post you several instances where John Kerry apologizes for his vote-

I have also heard John Edwards apologize for his vote.

Hillary has skated around the issue of her own responsibility. I don't doubt that she regrets it. But to me, personally, it is VITALLY important that any leader I am willing to vote for be able to admit their own errors. If a person is unwilling to admit to others that they have screwed up, I find it difficult to believe that they really accept it them self.


Please, if what YOU say is true- post some links for us?

thanks.

[TheWraith]

16. No, she has not. She has NEVER said that voting for the war was a mistake.

In fact, she's explicitly said that anyone who wants to hear her say that should go vote for somebody else, including IN THE DEBATES.

[Evergreen Emerald]

21. you guys are so weird about this. She has said it so many times.

She voted her conscience. Had she known then, what she knows now, she never would have voted for it. She trusted Bush. He told her personally--it was a threat to get the inspectors back in. She lived through an obstructionist congress and trusted his word--to her personally.

HE LIED. And had she known then what she knows now--she never would have done that.

She is walking the sexist line. The MINUTE she grovels for an apology--she will be tagged as weak. Edwards does not have that stigma, being the white male that he is.

You guys don't get it. She has done everything she can short of grovelling. Do you want her to cry? Is that it?

[Bluerthanblue]

37. I WANT a woman who is NOT

going to let anyone or anything interfere with doing what is RIGHT. That includes the fact that she does not have a penis.

If what you say is her reason for not apologizing- If she "can't" admit her human failings, for fear of being "tagged" or seen unfavorably. Then she is NOT a person I can ever help become president. Because she will face this and more in that capacity.
You can count on that.

We 'get-it' better than you think Evergreen Emerald- that's the problem.

[Evergreen Emerald]

40. I personally think that she has handled it wonderfully

She admitted that the vote was a mistake, but it was a mistake becasue of the bigger picture that was not available at the time of the vote.

She did what was right at the time. It turned out to be wrong, but not because of what SHE did. Because of what Bush did.

I just don't get what more you want?

[Bluerthanblue]

49. I can't make it any clearer or plainer than

I have Evergreen Emerald.

If you are satisfied with her response, and can still be supportive of her, than I'm glad for you.

The qualifiers that she continually puts on her statements are completely unnecessary. I don't want or need 'excuses'- what I want is for her to demonstrate to this country that she has the self-respect, and humility to admit error, and be willing to boldly face the consequences of her actions.

She wasn't alone- And she doesn't bear any "more" responsibility than others. But she needs to bear her responsibility for me to begin to be able to trust her.

peace~

[Evergreen Emerald]

51. and she has. That is what I do not understand from you--she has

taken on the responsibility of her vote. She has said that again and again. "I am responsible for my vote." "I take responsibilty for that vote." It is enough for me. It may not be enough for you.

[TheWraith]

72. She never said that. She said "If I knew then what I knew now...

...I wouldn't have voted for it." But she has absolutely refused to call her vote a mistake. "I take responsibility for my vote" is a non-answer. It means nothing. The Hillary supporters accuse Obama of pandering to the right, but Hillary is still pandering to the pro-war crowd on Iran and not backing down on the Iraq War.

There were ample reasons not to vote for the war in the first place. I've worked hard to excuse the Dems who DID vote for the war: I spent a hell of a lot of time in 2004 standing in front of Kerry against the people who were pissed about him having voted for it in the first place. But 2004 and 2008 are lightyears apart, and still refusing to acknowledge that it was a mistake today, when a large majority of the country would agree, can only be described as either incredibly stubborn or paranoid.

[frylock]

75. She trusted Bush

that's somebody who will never receive my support.

[patrice]

24. Some people are against Learning. The implications are that

they also oppose all of those average Americans out there who were "for" the Invasion of Iraq, learning from this experience and now being against it.

[MercutioATC]

28. I'm "against" idiots and political opportunists in Congress.

I'm just a citizen and I had no problem figuring it out at the time.

I expect more from my leaders.

That aside, she hasn't even admitted to that. She claims that she trusted Bush to use the IWR only as a threat.

[patrice]

50. I didn't have a problem seeing it either. My first trip to DC (in 20 years)

was in September of 2002. I contracted charter buses in January of 2003 and have been back (there or NYC) 3 times since. I can see it alright, but no one is listening to me, except John Edwards.

Edwards or Un-Committed ALL of the Way.

[AndyA]

4. And Barack has voted to fund the war every time it came up for a vote,

except for one time. And that was when he and Hillary waited until their votes wouldn't make a difference anyway, and they came in late and both voted "NO."

[Occam Bandage]

9. And Edwards co-sponsored Lieberman's IWR, and he hasn't ever

cast a single vote against it. Edwards is the benched quarterback who sucked through the first quarter, complaining about how well he'd be doing while sitting on the sidelines in the fourth.

[AndyA]

11. There was more to the IWR than war.

George Bush was the one who went out of bounds with his power grab and started the war.

The IWR also got United Nations inspectors back into Iraq, and had they been given a chance to do their job, which is what everyone expected, they would have discovered there were no WMDs, and no reason for military action.

A LOT of people voted for the IWR. There was a lot more to it than just war.

[AndyA]

71. Let's not forget that Barack endorsed Lieberman for the Senate, too.

As well as voted to fund the Iraq war repeatedly.

And then there's that nasty Rezko thing.

You should probably worry more about what's coming at your candidate than what's behind mine.

[Barack_America]

47. Barack is against the war, but supports our troops.

Isn't that better than voting for a war, but not to fund it, once the troops have been committed?

[AndyA]

60. Barack has been in the Senate for a few years.

Where is his support of the troops?

Veterans are homeless. Has he sponsored any bills to deal with this?

Veteran health care is deplorable. What has he done to fix it?

Troops are dying for a war based on lies. He has continued funding to keep them over there. Their blood is on his hands because of this. What is he sponsoring to stop the war and bring the troops home?

If he's doing any of these things, I sure haven't heard about them, so please let me know. I'm trying to find a reason to vote for him if he's the nominee, and as it stands now he's the only one still running that I WILL NOT vote for.

[Barack_America]

63. Barack's record of advocacy for veterans...

"Record of Advocacy: As a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Obama passed legislation to improve care and slash red tape for our wounded warriors recovering at places like Walter Reed. He passed laws to help homeless veterans and offered an innovative solution to prevent at-risk veterans from falling into homelessness. Obama led a bipartisan effort in the Senate to try to halt the military's unfair practice of discharging service members for having a service-connected psychological injury. He fought for fair treatment of Illinois veterans' claims and forced the VA to conduct an unprecedented outreach campaign to disabled veterans with lower than-average benefits. Obama passed legislation to stop a VA review of closed PTSD cases that could have led to a reduction in veterans' benefits. He passed an amendment to ensure that all service members returning from Iraq are properly screened for traumatic brain injuries. He introduced legislation to direct the VA and Pentagon to fix disjointed records systems and improve outreach to members of the National Guard and Reserves."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/veterans/

His proposed policies are there too. He also highlighted mistreatment of veterans in his speech at Ebenezer Baptist today several times.

[AndyA]

65. And yet we still have 200,000 of them living on the street.

Not enough. He needs to do more if he truly supports the troops. Just talking about it is not enough. He should be throwing A FIT on the Senate floor about this.

[flvegan]

6. And where are these three on Iran?

[TheWraith]

25. Clinton voted for Kyl Lieberman, Obama opposed*, Edwards said he opposed.

The astrisk is because, with the outcome of the vote a foregone conclusion, Obama didn't bother flying back to Washington for it.

Clinton has said all options are on the table; Obama has called for direct negotiations; Edwards supports more economic sanctions.

[patrice]

33. That * is a big problem for me when you're asking me to trust you. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Only Edwards suppported the Iraq invasion from day one

and yes he has apologized. More Democrats supported the IWR vote, but only Edwards and "Democrats" like Lieberman actually supported the Iraq invasion.

[patrice]

19. You know, if you're against learning, you need to make the rest of us aware of that. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. OK. If I ever come out against learning I will let you know

I think it would be good if people learned the difference between supporting the Iraq War Resolution in Congress and supporting Bush's actual invasion of Iraq.

[BootinUp]

30. Its a tough nut to crack Tom. lol. nt

[patrice]

35. Agreed. What other forms of learning do you support? nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. Learning from mistakes counts n/t

[patrice]

56. Care to list any mistakes we might have in common? nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. Not right now.

For one thing I'm not a big fan of leading questions, and for another thing, I have to go do some off line things now. If you have some point that you want to make, make it, and if I have the time and interest to respond to it later on I will.

[patrice]

62. I could have predicted that response . . .

:rofl:

[LWolf]

12. Only one Dem candidate opposed it from day one, and it wasn't Obama.

It was Kucinich.

Saying that you oppose the war when you are not in Congress to vote against it is nice. It doesn't hold water when you get to Congress and then vote repeatedly to fund, and therefore continue, the very war you are supposedly "against."

NONE of the top 3 have clean hands when it comes to Iraq.

[Sparkly]

31. I think that's reasonable.

Whether someone argues that the IWR was about inspections or invasion, the actual voting records of the three is essentially the same.

Kucinich is out there on his own on this, and many other, issues.

[patrice]

36. Exactly!

:applause:

The differences are a matter of personal opinion, other more qualitative values, emergent properties, the products of inference which are impossible to argue.

[patrice]

20. Between 10/26/02 and 03/19/03 how many times did BO repeat specific

criticisms of the Invasion of Iraq in a national venue?

[patrice]

69. P.S. Everyone, please, notice how few responses I got to this question. nt

[TheWraith]

73. And if people have better things to do than do your research?

Do you realize the volume of information you're asking for, and how much more information you'd have to sift through? If you're really interested, I'm sure Google can help you.

[patrice]

77. Which means either you don't know - or - are unwilling to educate others.

Very collaborative of you.

Shall I take that as an example of what "coming together" means?

[mtnsnake]

32. Only 1 Dem claims to be the only anti-war candidate & then like a true hypocrite votes to fund war

Dennis Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate who is the true anti-war candidate. Hillary voted for the IWR and votes to fund it, but Obama is the biggest hypocrite on the planet for making his unfounded anti-war claims and then following up those claims by voting for every single bill to enable the war to continue.

[hayu_lol]

38. This is another bullshit threads that seem to have a life of their own.

The IWR vote was not for war. Some of you seem not able to grasp that fact. Some of you seem not to be able to grasp the fact that Bush lied and used falsified intelligence to make his points. Some of you seem not to be able to understand that Bush made the claim that he would work with the UN...which he did not. Further, some of you seem not to be able to understand that 76 Senators voted for the IWR. Most of those have not apoligized. Perhaps Obama(who was not a Senator at the time)and Edwards should go around the country telling families who lost loved ones that they are truly sorry for their losses.

Would that eliminate these repetitive threads knocking Hillary?

I also note that neither Edwards nor Obama ever served in the Armed Forces of the United States either--were they also doing something important like Cheney?

Hillary took stands and voted yes/no on bills. Obama votes present.

Time to rethink the strategery behind threads like this one.

[mtnsnake]

39. Excellent post, hayu_lol, as usual. nt

[patrice]

42. Though I'm inclined to support Kucinich, your use of the word "hypocrit" only supports

my perception that he has more than just a little bit of ego-inflation going on.

Engage in a thought experiment if you will: Had DK been a different position politically, what would his vote have been?

You know, Obama is right about one thing: the opposition is never going away. We aren't going to wake up one day and discover that somehow everyone has magically come to see that we've been right all along and they now agree with us on this issue and others. People who think that is what must happen do HARM to their cause. I think they need to ask themselves what is more important Reality? or people conform to what "we" think is "right"?

[Barack_America]

48. Barack is against the war, but supports our troops.

Hillary, on the other hand, voted FOR the war, but not to fund it...after she helped send our troops over there.

And that is supposed to be better?

[patrice]

52. Barak was against the war once his handlers said it was okay.

The ONLY way to end it with Repuglicans in Congress is to actually, for real, Filibuster the Funding. Cutting off the money is the ONLY thing that can stop it. People have been CYA on the Funding, because too many people either haven't awaken yet, or just opened their eyes yesterday and think they already know it all.

No Timeline! No Funding! No Excuses!

[Barack_America]

59. How does cutting off funding NOT hurt the troops that are already there?

Care to answer that?

Also, care to PROVE that Obama wasn't against the war from the start? Don't just repeat the Clinton-line, prove it to me.

[patrice]

61. "just repeat the Clinton-line" that's the level of respect I've come to expect from BO supporters.

They will have to STOP combat missions and stop BOMBING. Withdraw to their bases, defend their perimeters and supply lines and wait FOR THE pRESIDENT TO FUND THEM.

BO supporters act like it isn't the will of most of the people in this country to bring our troops home, thus you characterize cutting off funding as being Congress' fault when Congress would only be doing their duty to US and it is the pResident who is the one who is not funding the troops by refusing to accede to, at minimum, a Timeline.

For a bunch of people who want to play hardball with some VERY TOUGH people (people who WILL in fact cause the deaths of thousands) you have a very limited idea of how to play.

[Barack_America]

64. Don't you need funding to bring them home?

Don't you need funding to pay their salaries until they can come home?

Don't you need funding to repair their equipment and armor their vehicles until the can come home?

Do you not realize that it takes time to bring that many soldiers home safely?

[patrice]

66. Make the denial of funding the pResident's fault.

He'll veto anything with even the most reasonable of timelines in it; that makes HIM the one who turned off the funding, not us.

Chicken shit Democrats have been running from doing this from the beginning and that has resulted in making them look Wrong, when, in fact, it IS the pResident who is Wrong and "we" CAN show people that if we'd just stick together and shove his vetos down his throat. Problem is there are too many who won't take a MORAL stand on the Occupation of Iraq.

I believe:
Oil Royalty = Pilate;
BushInc = Herod;
ALL Innocent Dead = Jesus . . .
You = ?

[patrice]

68. P.S. He came out against the Invasion of Iraq only when his handlers, the DLC 2.0

(as in version 2 of Democratic Leadership Clintons, I mean, Council) said it was okay, and even then only just enough to get on the record, not enough to appeal to you and millions like you to rise up and stop this horrible Crime.

He came out "against the Ivansion of Iraq" in October. I was in DC in September with something like 200-300,000 other people. We had the WH surrounded, with all streets full from curb to curb. I met Dick Gregory marching there along with old ladies in their wheelchairs. Yes, the Media blacked us out, just like they have every time we've been there since. BO didn't know about any of this??? I think he did and he has been playing it for all it's worth, just like Hillary does, ever since.

[Barack_America]

45. She has not admitted that her VOTE for the war was a mistake.

That is the point of this post.

She has always deflected the blame over to Bush, for supposedly misusing the authority she gave him. She claims she didn't see that coming.

You should know however, that she could've prevented what she perceives as "Bush's mistake" by voting for the Levin Amendment. Yet she voted "no".

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Major Hogwash]

79. In fact, she said, "if you don't like it, vote for someone else" - so I'm going to.

And if she doesn't understand the hard reality of over 3900 soldiers having been killed in Iraq, and yet still wants to bomb Iran, then the hell with her.

By the way, when is the last time Hillary visited an Army Hospital?
Everyone jumps on Bush for not doing it, when the hell has Hillary ever cared about the wounded and the dying for the war she voted for?

[7 of 11]

46. That is why

I switched from Hillary to Obama. He is a man of his word. GO BARRAK!!!!

[patrice]

54. So, he'll be keeping his word to the Nuclear Power lobby, then.

Or does he take support and return nothing?

The Nuclear Power lobby is already subsidized on the backs of the middle-class. Their role in so-called "Energy Independence" will oppre$$ that of Alternative Energy Development.

Who is BO taking advice from regarding Social Security?

What does he think Minimum Wage should be?

A man of his word, like Ron Reagan? I urge you to read this: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/dream-versus-nightmare-pick-one-an-open-letter-to-barack-obama-by-the-other-katherine-harris/

When you give away the "candy store" before negotiations even begin, the rest of us might just as well not show up.

[proud2BlibKansan]

55. Joe Lieberman?

Oh yeah, he isn't a Dem anymore. Maybe.

[patrice]

58. But he may be VP if some people don't get honest about what all of these "Independents" and

cross-overs Really are.

[Little Star]

76. That is a big fat lie! She voted to let the inspectors do their

job. She had to trust the president to not use force unless it was absolutely necessary. He is the one who tricked most of congress. The shame is on him. Now if Barack and her would stop funding the damn war maybe we could agree on something.

[patrice]

80. Amen! nt

[Major Hogwash]

78. And she voted for the Kyl/Lieberman amendment - Hillary hasn't seen a war yet she doesn't like.

I hope she "stands by her man" after she gets clobbered this week in South Carolina.

[GalleryGod]

82. Like my friend, John Kerry...I too, fought one war and then came home,

to FIGHT another War.