Obama Claims to Be Anti-War

[patrioticintellect]

In a letter sent to me and Obama supporters (I just get the mailings cause I can and I want to know my enemy):

The saddest thing about the Bush administration's surge of public relations in favor of the war in Iraq this week is how predictable it has become for them to make their case for war around the anniversary of 9/11.

Five years ago today -- September 12, 2002 -- President Bush made his case for war at the United Nations.

He was wrong. The people who attacked us on 9/11 were in Afghanistan, not Iraq, and his case was built on exaggerated fears and empty evidence.

But conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. Too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war, and our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.

I made a different judgment. I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. And I introduced a plan this January to remove all of our combat brigades by March 2008.

The time to end this war is now.

My plan for turning the page in Iraq is clear:

* remove our combat troops from Iraq's civil war by the end of 2008
* take a new approach to press for reconciliation within Iraq
* escalate our diplomacy with all of Iraq's neighbors and the United Nations
* confront the human costs of this war directly with increased humanitarian aid

Nowhere in that does he call for going to the president and telling him, "You have no money. The war is over." Obama does not plan to defund the war and bring the troops home and not write up a bill. Let it be said that if you don't write up a bill you would have no financing, which means the war could not be continued. It's like how if the insurance interests don't want a not-for-profit health care system, than the way they get that is by policymakers not passing a bill. Without passage of a bill, you can't finance a not-for-profit health care system. Likewise, without passage of a bill, the American people get what they want. They get an end to the quagmire in Iraq as our troops will be brought home. The House and Senate have the power to do this.

The question is: Does Obama really want to disengage us and do what should be done---what the American people want? Does he have an ulterior motive to leave us in the Persian Gulf and around the Caspian Sea to pursue an interest of his foreign policy that would give us more of the same foreign policy we have had under Bush?

One thing's for sure. He's far from anti-war. His plans and foreign policy are anything but a peace doctrine.

[sandnsea]

1. You support defunding Medicaid and Medicare?

Until we get single payer?

[patrioticintellect]

6. I'm sorry

What?

[msongs]

2. Obama is not our enemy he is a candidate with many good points nt

[iaviate1]

3. So you're obviously not gay.

He's against equality for gays, so I guess that he would make him my "enemy" in a sense. Not to mention his comments about nothing being off the table when it comes to attacking other nations. The threat of using nukes is a threat against us all.

[sandnsea]

4. Wrong on every count

He supports equality for gays. He just said today that we need to send a clear message to Bush that he does not have authority to attack Iran, and warned the rhetoric was sounding familiar to 2002. And he is the one who said he wouldn't use nukes to go after terrorists.

I don't know who you've been listening to, but you need to read some new blogs.

[patrioticintellect]

8. Have you seen....

...the HRC charts where the only candidates who get all plus marks are Kucinich and Gravel?

[sandnsea]

10. Which doesn't prove anything about Obama

Supporting civil unions as a means to guarantee rights is not opposing equal rights. Gays in Oregon are pretty happy to have civil unions and discrimination protection. They wouldn't say the people who supported them are against their equal rights.

[patrioticintellect]

11. But he doesn't really support gays

Obama does not want to allow civil marriage rights for same-sex couples. Kucinich and Gravel do.

You aren't wrong to say he supports gay rights. A majority do. But how far is he willing to go? Not far enough.

http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/Questionnaire_ReportCard.pdf

[sandnsea]

12. Governors who sign civil unions legislation

don't support gays? Is that what you're saying?

I was responding to this comment: "He's against equality for gays."

It's wrong and that's what I responded to.

[patrioticintellect]

14. Governors do

But not as much as a guy like Kucinich who would go as far as to give them equal marriage rights. And don't try to tell me that isn't the dream of all same-sex couples to be treated like a normal couple in America.

[patrioticintellect]

7. Explain those good points because

...I am unaware of them.

[madrchsod]

5. we are not leaving the middle east

no matter who becomes president we are not leaving. it is in our interest and the interest of other countries in the middle east that we do not leave. it would be easy to walk away from the god awful destruction we created in iraq and the surrounding countries but is that what we should do? i think not.

[patrioticintellect]

9. We wouldn't be abandoning Iraq

Defunding and bringing the troops home would not be abandoning Iraq. We'd see to it that a UN peacekeeping and security task force moved in and helped stabilize the country.

Also, if you vote for Kucinich, he will give reparations to the people of Iraq who have lost family in this war waged on false pretenses.

I would like it if you could elaborate on what you mean by "our interest" and "the interest of other countries". I would like to know if you are thinking what I think you are thinking.

[madrchsod]

13. our interests

it`s in our interest to have a stable middle east for trade and stable economies across the region. if the united states would become a impartial broker in the middle east then other countries would`t be so inclined to hate us , they would look us as a mediator, and these actions would deflate the zealots of the region. of course this will never happen but i can dream....

kucinich has a lot of well reasoned, practical and doable answers and he will never get anywhere...it`s a shame no one listens to him
.

[patrioticintellect]

15. You're on the right track

I was right. You know what you are talking about.

By the way, I am inclined to give my bit on Kucinich as I am from the campaign:

If you and others decide you want to win, you can elect a guy who stands up for what you believe in. If you quit picking the lesser of two evils and realize still picking the lesser of two evils is evil, than you can vote for the guy you want to win and believe in. If you understand that the Democrats have to stop running weak Democratic candidates that are weak on liberal/progressive/Democratic issues, than you can realize that the guy who is nominated has to be VERY DIFFERENT from the Republican who runs for president in 2008. This way the American people actually have a choice and a way out of this mess.