Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Every Senator who voted to give Bush money for Iraq 'authorized' his occupation

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:33 PM
Original message
Every Senator who voted to give Bush money for Iraq 'authorized' his occupation
Barack Obama was no exception. After Bush forced the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq with his preemptive invasion, Congress had every opportunity to refuse money for Bush to continue his military takeover there. At every step, with every 'emergency' funding request from the White House, the majority of Democrats in Congress (many who voted against the original Iraq resolution) refused to exercise their ONLY significant control they have on the president's ability to deploy troops without prior congressional approval, as presidents have done for decades. Congress refused to use the 'power of the purse' and reign Bush in by limiting or refusing funding.

Bush couldn't do a thing in Iraq without the money Congress provided him. As with President Clinton in Haiti and in Somalia, Congress has shown that they can force presidents to modify, limit, or end their military deployments by their control over the funding. With Iraq, there is NOTHING in the resolution, which folks claim 'authorized' Bush's invasion and five year occupation, which prevents or limits Congress' ability to withhold or modify the amount of money Bush has to continue his deployment. That's what makes the argument about the vote for the original resolution moot. At every step, until Democrats obtained the majority in Congress, the majority in our party have enabled Bush in every action he's taken in Iraq by providing him with all of the money he's requested.

That's what makes Barack Obama's claim of some high ground on top of the speeches he made against the Iraq resolution and Bush's invasion from outside of the Congress. When Sen. Obama assumed office, he didn't find one instance to speak out on Iraq from his elevated position until he saw fit to OPPOSE Sen. Kerry's 2005 bill requiring an immediate exit from Iraq and a timetable for withdrawal.

"We don't necessarily need a timetable, in the sense of a precise date for U.S. troop pullouts, but a time frame for such a phased withdrawal," Obama said, at the time of his rejection of immediate withdrawal from Iraq. This was his FIRST opportunity he had taken in his Senate office to repudiate Bush's occupation -- the first opportunity to put the meat behind his fine words in 2002 . . . 18 months into his term, and he blinked.

"I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq," Obama said in his Senate floor speech repudiating John Kerry's bill mandating an immediate end to the occupation. "Sufficient numbers of U.S. troops should be left in place to prevent Iraq from exploding into civil war, ethnic cleansing and a haven for terrorism," he said.

"Having visited Iraq," he said, "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."

Obama's first floor statement on Iraq is not the rejection of Bush's occupation that he's adopted as part of his presidential campaign. Nor are his subsequent votes, until he began his run for president in 2007, providing every cent Bush requested for Iraq. Upon arriving in the Senate, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq, some $300 billion….until he started running for President: 2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06; HR5631, 9/7/06

As a Senate candidate in November 2003, Sen. Obama said he would have 'unequivocally' voted against war funding because it was the only way to oppose Bush on Iraq. "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." Obama remarks, New Trier Democratic Organization forum, 11/16/03; Video

In fact, in September 2004, Obama suggested sending a "surge" of troops into Iraq would be an effective way to end the occupation. "If that strategy made sense and would lead ultimately to the pullout of U.S. troops but in the short term required additional troop strength to protect those who are already on the ground, then that's something I would support," Obama said.

Folks may well have adopted clear and unequivocal positions against the Iraq resolution and against Bush's invasion and occupation, but, Barack Obama is not a credible representation of that uncompromising stance which many have employed in their opposition to Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama has no credibility at all in criticizing Hillary Clinton for a vote he neglected to repudiate in any significant way once he went from just making speeches about Iraq to actually acting on those fine words.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Submariner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. Once the Bush junta and his DINO neocon allies like Hillary
had driven the bus into the ditch, then all one can do, as Obama has done, is fund the farce to keep the Troops supplied. Hillary screwed up. Get over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. these are your candidate's own actions on Iraq, outside of his words
pretty damning. Anyone can give a speech from outside Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. WHILE he was running for the senate against a reThug at a time that could've cost him big!?!?! Yeah
...Wright
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
24. Yes, all that funding was just to keep the troops in MREs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
27. Please add more cliched slurs t and innuendo to your post
I am not following your drift.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. He is saying Obama did not fight Iraq funding - Obama lied about "against it in 04.05.06.07"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
31. Amen bro, it would be like HRC was the drunk that drove the bus
into the ditch and Obama was the one calling 9-1-1 to save the driver and the innocent kids. You don't withhold the emergency call because you disapprove of the drunk driver.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
42. "Get over it." You obviously should do just that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. Simple question: Do you honestly think that funding the war is the same as authorizing it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. read the post
There is no other control over the president's ability to deploy troops under a loophole in the War Powers Act, without prior congressional approval, other than Congress' manipulation of the money which would be used to further those deployments presidents have advantaged themselves of for decades. The power of the purse is the ONLY real power they have.

And, you can't just brush aside the fact that Obama (and Clinton) changed their position on funding in time for their presidential campaigns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. While I am vehemently against the war...
Edited on Mon Mar-17-08 07:51 PM by Fighting Irish
...I don't necessarily think defunding the soldiers is the best way to end it. That's a serious hot potato there.

Until the powers-that-be find a way to end it, we still gotta make sure the troops aren't any more cannon fodder than they already are. We can't cut them off.

There's no easy solution to this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Right, they think dropping the matter and just leaving yesterday is the best way to solve...
...the issue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. actually, including her recent votes against funding
Sen. Clinton has a reasonable withdrawal plan:

3/17/2008

Hillary Clinton: Ready to End the War in Iraq

Today, in a major speech ahead of the five year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, Hillary Clinton outlined new proposals that build on her three-part plan to end the war responsibly. Five years after the start of the war, we have come to a crossroads. The war has sapped our military and economic strength, damaged U.S. national security, taken the lives of almost 4,000 brave young men and women in uniform, and placed a lasting toll on the tens of thousands of wounded, many with invisible injuries like Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The George W. Bush-John McCain strategy is to continue this failed policy. We need to end this war and bring our troops home. We need to press the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country. We need to rebuild our alliances and enlist the international community in securing stability in Iraq and the region. To learn more about Hillary Clinton’s record on ending the war in Iraq, click here.

We need a Commander-in-Chief who is both committed to ending this war and who has the strength, experience, and leadership to do it the right way. Hillary Clinton is that candidate. As President, she will:

I. Start Bringing Our Troops Home

* Bring Our Troops Home. As President, one of Hillary's first official actions will be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She will direct them to draw up a clear, comprehensive plan for withdrawal that starts removing our troops within 60 days. The plan for withdrawal will incorporate the most effective on-the-ground strategies and tactics to move personnel and equipment efficiently out of combat zones and then out of the country, and will focus on protecting our troops and reducing the risk of attacks as they come home


* Hillary knows that as we bring our troops and contractors home, we cannot lose sight of our very real strategic interests in this region. Al Qaeda terrorist cells continue to operate in Iraq, cells that did not exist before President Bush’s failed policy. Under Hillary’s plan the United States will retain counterterrorism forces in Iraq and the region to fight al Qaeda and will not permit terrorists to have a safe haven in Iraq from which to attack the United States or its allies.


* Protecting Those Who Protect Us. As President, Hillary will ensure that our troops receive sufficient time at home between deployments to rest, reconnect with their families, and receive appropriate training for their next mission.


* Reduce Strains on Our Troops. The war is placing tremendous strain on our armed forces, courting strategic risks posed by a force that is stretched to the breaking point. As President, Hillary will adopt the recommendations of Rep. John Murtha to ensure that our Army troops have as much time at home as they have spent deployed. So for every month they spend in the field, they will be guaranteed one month here at home. Our Marines will have a similar standard appropriate for their service in the Corps. As President, Hillary will also require that the Secretary of Defense certify to the Congress full combat-brigade readiness before they are deployed.


* Assess Impact of Iraq Deployments on Readiness. In the Senate, Hillary won approval of measures to provide greater transparency about the strains on our armed forces, particularly in light of deployments in Iraq. Her amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act requires the Government Accountability Office to assess the ability of ground forces to meet the requirements of increased force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan and to identify and evaluate strategic and operational risks. As President, she will direct the Secretary of Defense to develop a readiness strategy that responds to the findings of these assessments.


* Remove Armed Private Military Contractors in Iraq. As U.S. troops begin to withdraw, we should not be leaving unaccountable, often irresponsible private military contractors to carry arms and engage in combat-oriented missions and security functions. Hillary has co-sponsored the Stop Security Outsourcing Act, which seeks to end this practice. As President, Hillary will work toward a ban on armed private military contractors providing security for diplomatic personnel and performing mission-critical functions.


* Stop Wasting Money on No-Bid Contracts. Spending on federal contracts has been the fasting-growing part of the discretionary budget over the past six years, yet has received little attention. Under this Administration, the number of no-bid contracts has more than doubled, and between 2000 and 2006, spending on these contracts has increased 121 percent to $103 billion, representing more than half of federal procurement spending. During this time, companies like Halliburton have enjoyed record profits, thanks to a 700 percent increase in taxpayer funds awarded to them. A recent Congressional report identified a wide range of contracts, running into the hundreds of billions of dollars, where federal auditors found massive overcharges, wasteful spending, and poor oversight. Hillary has proposed a measure that would create a new “point of order” against any spending bill in Fiscal 2009 that does not explicitly require a federal agency’s compliance with competitive contracting rules. As President, Hillary will work to ensure that this becomes law and that we stop wasting money on no-bid contracts.


II. Secure stability in Iraq as we Bring our Troops Home.

Greater political and economic stability means safer conditions for our departing troops and a smoother disengagement from our military’s missions across Iraq. In order to foster stability as U.S. troops begin to redeploy, Hillary will focus on political reconciliation inside Iraq and holding the Iraqi government accountable for political and economic progress. She will:

* Call Upon the United Nations to Play a Greater Role in Addressing Domestic Strife in Iraq. As President, Hillary will press the United Nations to play a central role in bringing about national accommodation in Iraq, as it did with positive results in Bosnia, East Timor, and elsewhere. Not having been a party to the mistakes of the past five years, the UN, which has already provided valuable technical assistance to Iraq, is far more likely to be viewed as a neutral, honest broker than the United States – especially when it acts on behalf of a broad coalition of concerned states and the international community. The new UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, has indicated he is willing to play a key role in assisting the Iraqis, and Hillary will ensure that the UN envoy in Iraq has the necessary authority by obtaining the Security Council’s explicit endorsement of a strengthened UN mandate to promote reconciliation.


* Pursue an Integrated Strategy to Bring Stability to Iraq. The surge has emphasized a bottom-up strategy that has reduced violence in the short term but, in the absence of an effective national strategy, risks deepening sectarian divisions within Iraq in the long run. For example, the United States has established and armed local security elements – the Awakening in Anbar, for example, and other “Concerned Local Citizens” elsewhere – without getting the Iraqi government to live up to its agreement to integrate significant numbers of these local militias and “volunteers” into provincial police forces or the national Army. As President, Hillary will pursue a strategy that seeks to empower local leaders, but she will prioritize national accommodation, which is essential to stability. She will do this by using U.S. and international influence and assistance as leverage to press the Iraqis to reach agreement on key issues, including provincial elections, the hydrocarbon law, and on the overall nature of federalism. Hillary will press the United Nations into a central role in this effort.


* Appoint a Special Counsel to Make Reconstruction Funds Accountable. As Iraq’s oil production increases, the potential revenue accumulated from oil production should increasingly fund Iraq’s reconstruction, instead of U.S. taxpayer money. Since 2006, Iraq has earned more than $80 billion from oil, and that figure is growing rapidly. Nevertheless, since the beginning of the war, the U.S. has provided roughly the same amount of money as the Iraqi government to rebuild the country (the United States has appropriated roughly $47 billion; the government of Iraq $50 billion). Even as we send billions to Iraq while they earn billions in oil revenues, there are increasing reports that the Iraqi government is not spending its budget allocated for reconstruction. The Comptroller General of the U.S. testified that the capital expenditure rate for the central ministries in Iraq was only 7% as of November 2007. Hillary is committed to ensuring that Iraqi oil revenue is dedicated to reconstruction funding – and that the money is actually spent, so that Iraqi citizens receive basic services, such as electricity and clean drinking water, which are currently lacking for so many. As President, Hillary will appoint a special counsel to investigate where Iraq’s oil profits are going and how reconstruction funds are being spent – or not spent. She will ensure that reconstruction funds are spent wisely before providing the Iraqi government with more.


* Combat the Black Market in Oil to Dry Up Funds for the Insurgency. Corruption and stolen oil sold on the black market constitute a critical funding source for the insurgency. As President, Hillary will boost joint U.S.-Iraqi efforts to combat corruption and protect the oil supply. She will direct her Secretary of Defense to plan a nationwide U.S.-Iraqi crackdown on oil black marketers, ensuring that U.S. and Iraqi personnel have the resources and manpower necessary. This effort will be designed to disrupt lines of funding for the insurgency, to increase stability, and to reduce attacks on our troops during the withdrawal. Hillary will direct the U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction to conduct regular reports on corruption in the oil industry. She will be prepared to withhold portions of aid if the Iraqi government does not show meaningful results in its anti-corruption efforts. Finally, Hillary will double the funding for oil pipeline exclusion zones, which prevent illegal tapping and attacks on pipelines; and she will also provide resources to stop cross-border smuggling of black market oil.


III. A New Regional Diplomatic Initiative

* Enlist the International Community to Stabilize the Region. Our allies and friends in the region all have a stake in a stable Iraq. Until now, in part because of the way the Bush Administration has behaved, they have gotten a free pass. No longer. As President, Hillary will have a unique opportunity to reach out to our allies and partners in the region and press them to take greater responsibility for what happens in Iraq. She will hold a major regional stabilization meeting early on in her Presidency. This group will be composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq. The mission of this group will be to develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq. In advance of that meeting, Hillary will confer with our treaty allies as well as our friends in the region to coordinate policy before gathering with the larger group of nations. One of her first international meetings as President will be with these leaders, including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Jordan, and Egypt, as well as our European allies in order to push for greater responsible action towards Iraq, including more assistance. This will send a strong signal of our country’s determination – as we draw down our forces – to ensure that the rest of the world plays its part in stabilizing Iraq. Hillary will then convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq. The mission of this group will be to develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq.


* Provide for Refugees. As our forces redeploy out of Iraq, Hillary will also organize a multi-billion dollar international effort under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to address the needs of Iraqi refugees. The UN will also play a role, helping to deal with the resettlement of refugees and others displaced from their homes, a number which now exceeds four million. With the price of oil at record levels, the government of Iraq now has considerable financial resources available. As President, Hillary will also press the UN to establish a mechanism by which some of those Iraqi funds could be used to feed, clothe, shelter, and otherwise provide for these millions of refugees. Addressing the upheaval caused by this displacement will facilitate a smoother exit and a less risky end to the war.


http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6552
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. But over and over, they've said there was enough money already budgeted for the soldiers!!
This extra $$ has been to keep the war going!! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
6. rec
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. false, we should get out of Iraq more stupidly than we got into it. Thx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. were Obama's votes against funding in 2007 'stupid'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
36. nope, but thx for being disenginuous and not posting the resolutions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
10. So I guess everybody who paid their taxes authorized it too
You guys kill me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Please stay on topic. We are trying to have a conversation of substance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
12. bullshite in a transparent attempt to justify hilly's deplorable vote
nothing more, nothing less. Just shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. Your name- calling of her as your do is very disrespectful. Please stop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
13. And there in lies the crux of my dilemma.
:(

:kick: & Recommended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
14. I keep hearing him say he vehemently opposed the war from the start--but your
detailed analysis shows a different narrative
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. He did but he's wavered many times and he also said that
Edited on Mon Mar-17-08 07:59 PM by Breeze54
bombing Iran was NOT off the table. What are we, the voters, to think?

That's why I've said all along that he's not much different from HRC.

Their voting records are almost identical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
18. What BS. Funding the war is completely different from authorizing it to be waged in the first place
By your standards, every single person in the US Senate "authorized" this war, including the likes of Feingold, Boxer, and Kennedy. That's obviously ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. you can't 'wage' a war without money
and the majority of those folks who claimed to be against the invasion and occupation have codified Bush actions by giving him the means with which to 'wage' his tyranny in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. It they funded it--no matter who--they waged it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. No, you are wrong. - "Reid Backs Iraq War-Funds Cutoff"
Funding the war is what is keeping it going.

Reid Backs Iraq War-Funds Cutoff

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201465.html

Senate Leader Makes It Clear a Bush Veto Wouldn't End Debate on Withdrawal

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 3, 2007; Page A04

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid yesterday endorsed the Senate's toughest antiwar bill yet,
a bid to cut off funding within a year, sending a clear signal to President Bush that the Iraq
debate will continue in Congress regardless of whether he carries through on his veto threats.

Reid (Nev.) announced that he had teamed up with Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.), one of the
Democrats' strongest war critics, on legislation to set a deadline of March 31, 2008, for
completing the withdrawal of combat forces and ending most military spending in Iraq.

snip-->

The Feingold-Reid bill calls for Bush to begin withdrawing troops within four months, similar
to the language in the Senate's $122 billion spending package. But it would prohibit funding
beyond the March 31 deadline, except for counterterrorism, security and training operations.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iceburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
21. Obama -- A man of conviction ... you can take his word to the bank ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
26. Barack has as much blood on his hands
as anyone (short of the actual perpetrators - BushCo)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemVet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #26
46. Exactly. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
28.  More Clinton lover magic speak.
Hey. As an aside.... Didnt you GBCW a couple times already? You clearly heart drama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. The Iraq War is the ultimate drama and this has been discussed
Edited on Mon Mar-17-08 08:15 PM by Breeze54
before we even had two potential nominee's. Where have you been?

Funding the war and the war itself will be a deal breaker in the GE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. So... you're voting for Nader?
Because all three of the remaining three have voted for and or supporter the war effort. And if thats a deal breaker for you... I can only assume you're all about Nader. Yet, youre lecturing me? On DU?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Read
Edited on Mon Mar-17-08 08:47 PM by Breeze54
my sig line if you can't figure it out yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Oh ok. DK. I love DK. But at this point, you might as well vote Nader and you know it.
A wasted vote is a wasted vote. Sorry to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Not true.
I can write in my candidate of choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. Hillary will be at the top of the Dem ticket. hopefully Clarke will be her vp choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. I gotta pop you from my screen. If you read me before, you know I don't have time for the insults.
That's not what I spend time here for. Welcome to ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. um. Ill try not to cry myself to sleep tonight. Cruel world. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
33. True. This sanctimonous nonsnse is sickening
Obama and Clinton are twins on this one.

Given that they are our choices - who is best able to stop this madness?

My money is on Clinton. But thanks to Bushco - both will find it incredibly difficult. Clinton has the best chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. I think she has the best chance also of getting the troops out safely--she is
a strong woman and knows how to get things done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
41. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 06:52 AM
Response to Original message
44. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polpilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 07:10 AM
Response to Original message
45. Another post from 'Fantasyland' where Hill & Bill are the keepers of the light.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. another addition to the amalgamation named, Ignored
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC