Why did Obama continue to fund Iraq war, isn't this troubling?

[quinnox]

If I was an Obama supporter and one of the top reasons I liked Obama was his opposition to the Iraq war way back when, I would have a BIG problem that Obama continuously voted to give funding to the Iraq war when he became a senator.

If Obama was so strongly and honestly against the Iraq war (which I believe he was) then why did he vote to continue it?

Wouldn't it have made more sense and been more consistent to vote no to the funding for Iraq war?

Doesn't this bother you, those who fit the description above?

[peoli]

1. no

[tabatha]

2. Once the war had started

then the safety of the troops is an issue.

[sandnsea]

3. Why is Hillary funding it?

Because she supports the war, is that what you're saying?

[quinnox]

6. I'm not talking about Hillary here

I'm wondering about Obama's voting to continue the Iraq war. Hillary never gave speeches strongly opposing the Iraq war like Obama did.

[donheld]

13. Maybe you should worry about why your candidate voted for the war

still makes excuses for the war and funds the war before you worry about dissing Obama. Get it! :grr:

[Cadwallader]

15. Right, because there's no question Hillary is Pro-War

Obama on the other hand, has made many pointed arguments against the invasion of Iraq.

[quinnox]

19. which leads to my question

Since Obama was so strongly against the Iraq war, it seems inconsistent to vote yes on funding it. Its a headscratcher.

[sandnsea]

16. Right. Hillary never opposed the war

and continues to fund it.

She supports the war and always has and always will.

Is that what you support?

[quinnox]

24. Why so fixated on Hillary

Maybe you should start a thread about it, but no answer to the Obama question?

[sandnsea]

25. Your avatar

It is irrational to question Obama's decision to fund the troops when YOUR candidate is the Democrat that got us into this mess.

[quinnox]

27. No, its actually a very good question

Try to look past avatars and be objective. It is hard to do but its possible. Obama's vote to continue funding is not consistent with a strong anti-war position. It is very clear.

[sandnsea]

30. That question has been answered in this thread

Why you support the war has not.

[quinnox]

33. I appreciate the attempt to divert from the question and topic of the thread

[sandnsea]

36. Candidates funding the war

That's the topic. Others have discussed Obama's position. He is stuck with the war YOUR candidate started. You've got no answer for it. Why are you supporting someone who didn't oppose the war, who said we need to "stay the course" in order to "succeed" in Iraq, who refused to support timelines, and only barely moved off her pro-war stance when it was clear she couldn't win the primary unless she did. The real question is what in god's name is wrong in the head of any Democrat supporting her.

[Cadwallader]

26. Because the whole point of this thread is to cause trouble?

Certainly you know the answer, and hope to divert the attention away from your candidates unswerving support of and by the arms dealers lobby.

Hillary's hawkishness is not news, it's just indefensable.

[quinnox]

29. Not so

My thread was an attempt to understand what Obama supporters think of this inconsistency. I got my answer, apparently most of them have no problem with it.

[ursi]

4. wasn't it for the same reason Clinton did? the Bushasshats said

not funding would cut off support to the troops back then.

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. please do not bring facts into this fairy tale...what are you racist?

:)

[Proud2BAmurkin]

7. I'm sure troubled by it

[KennedyGuy]

8. I guess we can be thankful he didn't vote present

or hide and not vote like with the Iran resolution.
A true portrait in non-courage.

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. he didn't vote to continue it

he voted to keep providing troops with supplies.

Bush would have carried the war on anyway. He would keep them out there with just their underwear and a bag or marbles if he had to.

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. He's believes in change, hope & unity. Iraq is too real to deal with.

[Egnever]

11. He funds it for the same reason Biden does

He doesnt believe that leaving the troops wanting for equipment is the way to get us out of Iraq. Whats your girls excuse?

[Cadwallader]

12. Because the oppo would use it to say he doesn't support the troops and is soft on terror?

that would be my guess


Of course, if he wanted to stand on principle, he would have gotten that share of the voters to whom this form of antiwar is important- the 7% who support Kucinich.

Other than that, you gotta dance with them that brung you.

[Adelante]

14. Because a war is a whole harder to get out of than to get into

Too bad Hillary didn't think of that.

[Unsane]

17. Because he doesn't want to leave US troops stranded in the middle of a desert with no funds.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Coming from a Hillary supporter,

You could actually answer your own question. :shrug:

[quinnox]

21. No I can't, I'm not an Obama supporter

It just seems strange that it is ok with Obama supporters
for Obama to vote to support funding the Iraq war when he was so strongly against it.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Like I said.....just exchange the names from Obama to Hilary , and then answer your own question....

It is really simple....to where even you could do it.

[quinnox]

31. but there is a big difference

Hillary was not strongly against the Iraq war like Obama was. Thats the crux of the problem.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Not really.

So why don't you answer why Hillary continues to fund the troops.

Try to keep it to one paragraph.

Then exchange the names.......doh!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. No more troubling than Hillary's vote on the Iran resolution.

Does that mean she wants a war with Iran? Oh my, this is so *troubling*

[Bok_Tukalo]

22. Opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq

... is a different issue from leaving our military, who projects our political will, hanging out to dry once we decided to invade and occupy Iraq.

[quinnox]

23. Very interesting, so far no Obama supporter has a problem with it

<shrug> Ok, I don't get it but whatever. Maybe those who support a consistent anti-war position all are already supporting Kucinch or something.

[FrenchieCat]

32. It is not interesting........and really shouldn't be

especially to you.

In fact, it is a ridiculous question coming form you, and I certainly wouldn't blame anyone from not bothering to respond to you. Tricks are for Kids.

[Cadwallader]

35. for obvious reasons stated above

Yeah, there's a hard core 7% and they support Kucinich, and you've seen where he's gone.

But thanks for the reminder that Hillary is relentlessly PRO WAR.

And that she represents the status quo.
And that the word from on high today is question Obama's anti-war credentials since Hillary has NONE.