AP: Obama challenges rivals on Iraq war says, "There are no do-overs..."

[flpoljunkie]

Obama Challenges Rivals on Iraq War
By MIKE GLOVER
The Associated Press
Tuesday, July 10, 2007; 10:30 AM

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Presidential contender Barack Obama on Tuesday dismissed his Democratic rivals' change of heart on the Iraq war as too little too late, while Hillary Rodham Clinton urged a quick end to U.S. involvement in the conflict.

Obama and Clinton focused on the four-year-plus war in dueling speeches only a few city blocks apart in the first-in-the-nation voting state of Iowa.

"It will be enormously difficult to invest in jobs and opportunity until we stop spending $275 million a day on this war in Iraq," Obama said in prepared remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "I believe then and still do that being a leader means that you'd better do what's right and leave the politics aside, because there are no do-overs on an issue as important as war."

Obama, then a state lawmaker in Illinois, opposed the war from the start. Clinton voted in 2002 to give President Bush the authority to launch the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein's regime.

[BOSSHOG]

1. I have to disagree with the Senator from Illinois on that issue

There are no do-overs in anything, but one must not put one's feet in concrete and lock yourself into "staying" the course if you will. Bridges must have flexibility built into them lest they collapse. This speech may come back to bite him on a different issue.

[dansolo]

16. I think his point is

That opposing the war now doesn't take away the fact that you supported it initially, and that it is legitimate to consider that as part of a candidates record. I suspect that this particular statement is directed towards Edwards, since Clinton hasn't backed away from her support of the war. Edwards has, but he probably would not like to have voters reminded that not only did he support the war, but he also cosponsored the IWR.

[jsamuel]

18. Edwards says that people should consider it and that Obama was right and he was wrong.

I don't see who Obama is going after with this statement.

At the same time Obama is arguing for a 16 vote switch by the republicans as the way to end the war. It doesn't exactly encourage them to switch when you have such an unforgiving attitude towards changing one's mind.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. It is directed at HRC's proposal to de-authorize the war imo nt

[flpoljunkie]

26. He knows HRC's proposal to de-authorize the war will very likely never come to the floor for a vote.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. Did Obama's Iraq plan get a vote?

HRC is taking a page straight from the Obama playbook, present a meaningless bill that allows you to grandstand and get good press.

[flpoljunkie]

28. Obama amendments will boost funding for veterans mental health, and military contractor oversight.

We will see which amendments see the light of day in the Senate during the Defense bill debate--unlike Hillary's totally unrealistic bill designed to pander to the base--something at which she excels--of late.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. Which will do nothing to end the war. I was referring to his much hyped winter bill

The one that features on his website and would bring most troops back by March 31 if it somehow passed. It is essentially the same as HRC's Iraq policy. ;)

==Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met.==

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

[flpoljunkie]

30. A bill which will very likely never make it to the floor, will do nothing to end the war.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. I agree

It is a shame HRC does not use her legislative skill and Obama his charisma and speaking ability to push something that would truly do something about the war.

[flpoljunkie]

32. I am, of course, again referring to Hiillary's de-authorization bill.

[flpoljunkie]

33. I think a bill like this, which mirrors the Iraq Study Group's recommendations,only one possible now

with the Democrats unable to override a Bush veto.

[Ethelk2044]

41. Are you saying the Veterans do not deserve the Benefits then?

[Ethelk2044]

90. He stated when he takes office he would be get to start getting our troops out of Iraq.

[jmp]

2. So what is he doing to stop the war?

Are we cutting off funding?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. Nothing. He didn't even give a speech in the senate on Iraq during his first 11 months

He has been HRCeqsue on Iraq ever since he became a national figure. He is no anti-war crusader like, say, Feingold. His record reflects that, although if you listened to some he is more anti-war than Kucinich (who has never voted to finance the war, which in the reality-based world is a vote for the war, unlike Obama).

[Ethelk2044]

89. He has done a lot more than Edwards. He has consistently spoke out against the war.

[MessiahRp]

3. Well there is a do over if he continues to fall in line with RW thinking about Iran

He was right on Iraq but yet he keeps war with Iran on the table. What's the point of being right about one mistake if you're armed and ready to make the same mistake with a different country?

Rp

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Did He Say He's Ready To Start A War With Iraq?

Really?

I recall that he wouldn't rule out war with Iran under all circumstance. But I don't remember him saying he's ready for war.

[MessiahRp]

11. It's Iran and his position is the same as Bush's

We need to stop with the 'comply with our demands or war/nukes/bombings-whatever are on the table' rhetoric. If we engage with our enemies in a respectful tone they will be more likely to respect our demands in return.

Otherwise this stance is stupid macho bravado that really doesn't work (see: Iraq).

Rp

[maximusveritas]

12. It's the same position as all the responsible Democratic candidates

That includes Hillary, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd. To single out Obama on this is questionable at best.

[Ethelk2044]

83. No he did not say that.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

23. so if Iran invades Israel or Iraq

and Obama is president then what? I don't see the problem with him not committing to only diplomatic solutions to unforeseen military escalations. I see no indication whatsoever that Obama would ever do something as foolish as blindly invading Iran for no good reason. Who cares about tough talk? Reagan talked tough to the Soviets and that worked without direct confrontation and millions of lives being lost.

[fujiyama]

65. Iran invading Israel...

I gotta say that's pretty funny.

Iran barely has an airforce.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

93. bwahahhahahahaah

yea, you're right. No Islamic country would ever think of attacking Israel directly or by proxy. What the hell was I thinking?

My point isn't about what specifically Iran will do. It's that unforeseen things can happen, so why give your word as POTUS that a military response is out of the question?

[Ethelk2044]

94. Iran has a large Military Force

[MalloyLiberal]

4. Correct. And you weren't in the Senate, Obama. I'm sure you know that.

Nice politicking.

[MalloyLiberal]

5. And don't give me bullshit that he gave a speech.

So what. He didn't have to fucking vote!

[jefferson_dem]

8. Let's leave aside the fact that he didn't have a vote, if that's your point.

Focus simply on the rhetoric we got from him and from Hillary on this issue, at the same moment in history. Did you *hear* anything different.

Who was right, again?

[hedgehog]

39. He didn't have to give a speech, either.

Most of the Democrat's in Congress went right along with Bush II's War. They tried to stop his Daddy's War and felt that they lost votes because the Gulf War came and went so quickly that Bush I must have been right. No one asked his opinion, no one cared about his opinion, but Obama stood up to condemn the war. According to the popular wisdom of the time, that should have destroyed his career.

[MalloyLiberal]

46. He wasn't in the Senate, and he saw no intelligence

And he had no NATIONAL pressure with constant eyes on him to make a vote. He simply didn't have to vote.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. He was an obscure politician planning to run in a Democratic primary statewide

Contrary to popular mythology, his speech actually boosted his political position. He deserves credit for opposing the war from 2002-2004 but let's stick to reality and stop pretending that he was willing to sacrifice his political career for a "courageous" stand. What he did helped him in the statewide Democratic primary given the primary electorate's opposition to the war, particularly among those who were most likely to vote in the primary. On top of the obvious gain being against the war would gave an obscure politician running in a Democratic primary statewide for senate, there is this:

==By John McCormick
Tribune staff reporter
Published June 20, 2007

A soon-to-be-released biography about Sen. Barack Obama portrays the Democratic presidential candidate as a far more calculating politician than his most ardent supporters might imagine.

One such calculation was his much-heralded 2002 speech in Chicago about the impending Iraq war, according to "Obama: From Promise to Power," a nearly 400-page book by Tribune reporter David Mendell to be released in August.

Obama gave the speech not just because of a desire to speak out about the impending invasion, Mendell asserts, but also to curry favor with a potential political patron, Bettylu Saltzman, a stalwart among Chicago's liberal elite, and to also try to win over his future top political adviser, David Axelrod, who was close to Saltzman.==

=="Obama was trying to draw Axelrod onto his Senate campaign team," the book says. "It would not be wise to disappoint Saltzman if he wanted her to continue lobbying Axelrod on his behalf. So Obama agreed to speak."==

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070620obama-story,1,4328906.story

[hedgehog]

64. So you're saying Bush went to war in 2003 with the support of

Congress despite the overwhelming opposition of the American people?

BTW, The Chicago Tribune has been a notorious right wing paper since before the days of Colonel McCormick.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

76. No, but Democratic voters--especially Democratic primary voters opposed the war nt

[hedgehog]

97. That must explain why Kerry ran such a vigourous anti-war

campaign last time around!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

101. Apples and Oranges

Kerry was the initial front-runner. Obama was an unknown candidate who needed to generate support. Opposing the war was a great asset in winning over primary voters. Do I think this is why he opposed it? No. I just don't buy the myth that his opposition to the war was a courageous risk, given his situation.

[Ethelk2044]

88. So what he State a FACT We should have never with the WAR

[Ethelk2044]

82. He was not in the Senate. However he was smart enough to know it was a bad decision.

[MalloyLiberal]

6. Stop playing politics with the troops, Obama.....

[jefferson_dem]

9. LOL! Good one.

n/t :rofl:

[MalloyLiberal]

14. It was his statement in the last debate to Edwards...

I guess there is a double standard with Obama supporters.

[Ethelk2044]

91. No there is no double standars. Obama told Edwards he was 4 years late

changing his mind. The decision should have never been made. He was on the same committee as Levin and Levin made the right decision. He stated everyone knew the public was being told lies. The facts did not support going to war.

[zulchzulu]

73. So those that helped send the troops there in the first place weren't playing politics?

Gimme a freakin' break...

A co-sponsor of the IWR and a hawk all foaming at the mouth for it were indeed sending the troops in harm's way FOR POLITICAL REASONS.

[Ethelk2044]

81. Obama never have played Politics with the troops.

[Kingstree]

98. He is not playing politics with the troops

he is stating a new vision and commitment to fight the war or terror, (Afghanistan not Iraq) stabilize Iraq, (we broke it, we own it, we fix it) bring other nations together (what should have ben done in the first place) and get this country (jobs, education, respect in the world etc.)back on track. He's right, there are no do-overs for this monumental fuck-up, just positive forward thinking, a sound strategy, diplomacy, common sense planning and goals to stabilize Iraq and heal this nation. The days of the cowboy (and those who think like him) and legacy builders are over. It's surprising how politicians who supported going to war in Iraq say that they now disapprove or refuse to admit that they were wrong. Sounds like politics as usual to me and a general lack of common sense.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Obviously Obama's Right - And About Mrs. Clinton...

Isn't she on record as saying she wants to draw down the troops in Iraq, but keep a sizable contingent there for an indefinite amount of time? Has she changed her mind, or am I simply mistaken?

I just can't fathom how anyone who voted for this war can have the good sense needed to lead our entire country. Obviously, most Democrats disagree.

[flpoljunkie]

13. Particularly fitting criticism, using Hillary's own words against her...

No "Do-Over" For Hillary On Iraq
Senator Clinton Campaigns For The White House In Iowa

Des Moines, Iowa January 27. 2007

(CBS/AP) Pressed to defend her Iraq war vote, Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday there are no "do-overs in life" and Democrats need a presidential nominee who inspires confidence on national security.

In her first campaign swing through this early nominating state, the New York senator told party activists that Democrats in 2008 will face "someone on the other side who will be very tough and strong, even bellicose perhaps."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/27/politics/main2404645.shtml

[frazzled]

15. "do what's right and leave politics aside"

In the case of war, this statement is absolutely correct. In that single case, there are indeed no do-overs. (In Supreme Court nomination votes as well, perhaps.) Other legislation gets do-overs. We can change the Bush tax cuts; we can change welfare reform; we can change much legislation if it doesn't work out or was forced by the other party. It is reversible, and I am sometimes fairly sanguine if political expediency forces a vote that I would normally disagree with. But the decision to go to war is irreversible. And there are no excuses and no contingencies. Only "what is right."

At the time of the Iraq War Resolution I remember the discussions about what various Democrats "had" to do-- because of various political considerations. I was especially outraged at my own senator, John Kerry, for voting for this reckless act, whose outcome--war certain--was completely evident. I cut him no slack for the needs of his presidential ambitions--I stated outright that in matters of war, all external considerations drop out: it is a matter of principle only. John Edwards does not get a do-over either. It doesn't matter that he was from a conservative state whose constituents might have supported the war. On such a life-and-death issue, only your principles should hold sway (especially if the knowledge you obtained from your position on the Intelligence Committee gave you additional insight into the situation.) Ditto Hillary. All three displayed poor judgment and selfish ambition: I always suspected they thought it would be a cakewalk and blow over in a short period of time. But Obama, though he had no vote, spoke out on the perils of such an endeavor: how it could lead to a quagmire, civil war, regional unrest. For that I give him much credit.

It's not that I can't move on and "forgive" these others. They have other "plusses" that help me to bury some of the past. But on this point Obama remains painfully correct. And just by saying it, it makes me think he understands the gravity of such leadership decisions in ways I'm not sure the others still get. That is a character trait in my book that definitely goes into the plus column.

[karynnj]

17. THe three are all different and their cases are different

Edwards clearly believed in the war if everything he said in 2002 and 2003 were true. He said in 2003, that he was for the war even though he did not think when he voted that he had WMD. Edwards now says the war was wrong in late 2005. HFrom that time, he has spoken of the need to leave though he didn't take a strong position until late 2006 and did not use his influence to back Kerry/Feingold. It is quite possible that he was honest each time. The question on him is what is his philosophy on when to go to war.

Hillary voted for the war, and though she spoke of things like getting the inspectors in, when Bush asked them to leave when they were suceeding, she did not speak against going to war before it started (nor did Bill. She did make some comments that were positive on the war and she did speak of mismanagement. Through 2006, she was a force holding the Kennedy/Feingold/Kerry wing back from pushing Bush to change the policy. Dodd was pretty similar until he went to Iraq in Dec 2006 - he is now working as hard as anyone to get out. I also do not know under which circumstances they would go to war.

Obama did speak against going to war - and was pretty accurate about it being a disaster. Once he was in the Senate, he did not join the anti-war wing of the Democrats and voted against Keryr/Feingold. The fact that he did not support the war initially (as Richardson did) and did not vote for it might make him the best voice to lead in saying we have to get out. No matter how good the others are, those positions will be thrown at them. (Consider that Moses couldn't lead in to Israel and Joshua could because he was not there when they were in Eqypt.)

John Kerry is not running, but you mentioned him. If John Kerry thought it would be a cakewalk and his vote was political, why would he speak out against rushing to war on Jan 23, 2003. Why would he have called for regime change in spring 2003 in the short time the war enjoyed about 70% approval. Kerry's words in summer and September 2002 were as against going to war as anyones. For the first several months of the war, Kerry was labelled "anti-war" in the press. Had the war gone better, no one would have looked back to his vote and given him credit for voting for the IWR.

He has said first in 2005 that it was wrong to trust Bush and vote for the war. In 2006, he said the war was immoral and the vote was wrong. Looking at his IWR speech, he mentions that the critics like him forced Bush to go to the UN and Congress, moving away from the unilateral position that he could go to war without any other country or more Congressional approval than the Nov 2001 approval. Kerry may have been guilty of the hubris of thinking that the international community and people like him in Congress could divert Bush from going to war - by following the process in the IWR. He did say he would speak out if Bush broke his promises - and he did. I would not have supported him in the primary if he didn't (Note: NJ is so late, the actual vote I cast was not needed.)

I think people forget that the language Kerry used in 2004 were extremely strong given the stage of the war. Saying the was was not a war of "last resort" means something - it pretty much means it was not a just war. Look, at the list of ways that he listed of why Bush misled us into war - that he didn't exhaust the diplomacy, let the inspectors finish there job, and to plan for the peace. All these things mean it was not a just war. (In 2004, it was known there were no WMD, but it was not completely clear that Bush KNEW this.)

Kerry has also been second to none in working every way he knows how to change the policy. In the debates and in the Pepperdine College speech, he has articulated his interpretation of when a war is just. (it is interesting that his "global test" in the debate seems very close to the "just war" in the Pepperdine speech.) I think that whoever the candidate is will need to articulate their answer to that debate question. It will likely be asked - maybe in the debates or maybe in an interview.

[rinsd]

19. That is the best summary of war positions I have seen here.

Completely dispassionate and fair.

Excellent post!

:thumbsup:

[karynnj]

36. Thank you - I was trying to be fair ( I just wish I had reread it to eliminate the many typos)

I do not have a candidate at this point - and this is a major issue for me. I am hoping that we will learn more about the philosophies of the people running. That may not happen and I am resigned to being far less comfortable with the candidate than I was in 2004.

[Cameron27]

100. Don't worry about the typos, I second rinsd...

that's an impressive summary, and it's a major issue for me as well.

[jsamuel]

20. Edwards did back Kerry/Feingold, he just thought it didn't go far enough.

[karynnj]

34. I think you are thinking of this year's Feingold/Reid

that would match the funding to the goal of leaving in early 2008 - I am speaking of the Kerry/Feingold bill in June 2006. Edwards stayed far more general and did not endorse the idea of a deadline. (My guess both Kerry and Feingold were possible opponents then. The Edwards position had then last been updated in the November 2005 WP op (where the news story was that he said he was wrong. the proposal was not far from where Kerry was in 2004.)

Edwards swung swiftly to the anti war left in the second half of 2005.

[jsamuel]

103. Ah, I was thinking of the wrong bill.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. The "new kind of politics" rolls on...Interestingly, BO is forced to resort to the 2002 IWR card

That suggests he is getting desperate to reverse his decline in poll numbers. He can't run on his platform, which is identical to HRC except on two issues on which he is to the right of the ultimate DLCer, so he has to play the only card he has left. Wow. And this early?

[MalloyLiberal]

42. He's playing politics with our troops....

[Ethelk2044]

47. Obama is not playing Politics with the Troops. He is the one who said

The troops should not be in Iraq in the first place. He was not the one who endorsed the troops going over to Iraq. He was not the one who was on the committee and knew lies were being told. He said it was not enough evidence to go to war period. Now all of a sudden everyone is jumping on his ship. They realize he has been right all along.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. Obama voted for financing the war numerous times

He did so until HRC voted against it during the last vote when both were under intense pressure from the progressive base of the party.

If you vote to finance the war, if you vote to continue the war, is that not a vote for the war? If I gave you money to buy cocaine can I legitimately say I am opposed to your cocaine use?

The only true anti-war candidate in the race is Kucinich, who has never--never--voted for the war. Gore is also pure, but as we know he is not running yet. Obama is a great candidate with many good qualities. There are many reasons to vote for him. However, him being the anti-war candidate is not one of them. The guy has the same hawkish (compared to the other Dem candidates) Iraq plan that (drumroll please)...HRC has... :rofl:

[CTLawGuy]

35. only bush can end the war

funding is the difference between the troops staying with adequate equipment and protection or inadequate equipment and protection.

The key is using funding to force Bush to accept a timetable.

[barack4prez]

38. Congress can rescind

its prior War Resolution. Never been done, that I know of, but I don't know why it couldn't happen.

[CTLawGuy]

105. Bush would have to sign it like any other law

or they'd need 2/3 in each house. Very slim chance of such a thing passing.

[barack4prez]

107. I don't think so

under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, Congress has the power to declare war. There is nothing there which limits that power (such as approval of the President, etc.). I think Congress has the power to simply rescind its prior declaration, with or without Presidental consent.

[CTLawGuy]

108. a declaration of war is a law like any other law

Congress does not have "general lawmaking powers" they have to have constitutional authority to pass the kind of law they want to pass, and the founders said that war resolutions should be one type of law.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

40. Congress can force * to end the war by ceasing to finance the war

If they refuse to pass financing bills he will have no choice but to end the war. Then, pass a bill to fund the withdrawal of troops. If Congress stood up and said it would no longer finance the war * would have no choice but to stop.

[Ethelk2044]

66. It takes a majority Do we have enough votes? Hell NO

It takes a majority of congress to over ride Bush veto.

[ludwigb]

70. All I ask is to keep bringing the vote up

So the American people can see who is (really) for ending the war and who isn't. Americans aren't as stupid as Democratic strategists think--they know the Dem strategy of making this a "GOP war" is morally bankrupt now that we have the majority.

[Ethelk2044]

71. I agree with you. They need to continuously bring the vote up to get

our guys home.

[CTLawGuy]

106. Bush can funnel money from other sources to the war

he cares more about the war than the troops so he would keep them there on the cheap, and then blame Democrats for their misfortune. Yes, eventually he would run out, but it wouldn't be right away.

Hence, I don't hold it against anyone who votes for funding, though they should have done more to tie funding to a timetable for withdrawal.

[Ethelk2044]

37. Edwards was spokes person for the war. He voted for the war even knowing

it was not a good then to do.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MalloyLiberal]

45. Once again, this is about your favorite Obama

He thinks he's Mr. Moral. He voted to continue funding. He is playing politics with our troops damnit!

[Ethelk2044]

48. Who Endorsed the WAR! It sure the hell was not OBAMA Damit

Now the war is going bad and everyone want to say we should not have gone to war now because it is convenient for them to do so. Hell they should have had the guts to stand up and say NO from the start. That is what a Leader does not when it is convenient and the want people to vote for them.

[MalloyLiberal]

49. Keep switching the topic

You can't defend Obama continuing to support an illegal occupation AFTER he said the war was so bad. And AFTER most of the public turned against the war.

[Ethelk2044]

50. He is not supporting an occupation. He already announced his plan to get out.

He is trying to correct the wrong decisions the Senators made win they voted to go to war. He should attack them and attacked them hard because they should have never voted to allow this war happen.

[MalloyLiberal]

51. Then why did he continue to fund the OCCUPATION?

It's not a war anymore.

[Ethelk2044]

54. He never supported the Occupation. He voted for the Soldiers to have money

He is the only one who has be steadfast against the war. The others has done nothing more than FLIP/FLOP because not it is convenient and they want people to vote for them. Now that they want something and need something from the public they all of a sudden stating they changed their minds. They are doing nothing more than pandering to the people.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

56. Money to Bush in order to continue the occupation

Nice spin, though. ;)

Kucinich is the only anti-war candidate in the race. He voted against the war consistently. No one else did. If Kucinich could do it why couldn't Obama, who voted with HRC on everything on Iraq (99% of the time) except when he voted with the GOp on Gen. Pace?

[Ethelk2044]

63. Who voted to Authorized the war?

[MalloyLiberal]

72. Not Kucinich. So why don't you answer Cumo's question

[MalloyLiberal]

95. Chirp chirp, what a wimp

[draft_mario_cuomo]

77. Why do you keep trying to change the question? The truth is Kucinich is the only anti-war candidate

The others have supported the war at various times (Gravel was not on the radar screen until last year so we don't know what he thought from 2002-2005).

[Ethelk2044]

85. You are the one trying to change th subject

The topic of the thread is Obama is challenging others on the issue of the war. He is correct for doing so. You tried to change th subject against him. He is right for challeging the others becuase the authorization was wrong.

[MalloyLiberal]

96. And so was continuing to fund it

[draft_mario_cuomo]

102. Exactly. Kucinich is the only one who has been correct on Iraq consistently nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

53. What do you call financing it? That is not supporting--and voting for--it?

His plan to get out is essentially the same as HRC's. Both have no chance of actually passing and ending the war and are the most hawkish in the Democratic field.

[illinoisprogressive]

55. that is because HRC likes to copy people and then take credit for herself.

[illinoisprogressive]

58. and as I recall, you guy, Edwards, was one of the big drum beaters for war

[Ethelk2044]

60. He even worked with Bush to be one ot the Spokes person for the war

He drummed it up knowing we were being spoon fed lies.

[Ethelk2044]

59. I agree with you 150%

[draft_mario_cuomo]

78. The hawkish DLC leader HRC obviously liked Obama's plan

;)

[Ethelk2044]

57. This is Bull Shit he method of getting out is nothing like Hillary

She was a spokes person on this war along with Edwards. They were both a fault for voting for the war. NOW they want people to easily forget because of their pandering. HELL NO

[illinoisprogressive]

61. and EthelK, who read the Iraq papers. I dont' recall HRC or Edwards bothered

[Ethelk2044]

62. Neither one of them did.

[illinoisprogressive]

67. And that is why, who is the one with the judgement. Obama

[Ethelk2044]

68. I agree with you again 150%

[MalloyLiberal]

74. Obama didn't read any papers, or have to make any vote

or have any DC pressure, or have Rove calling him working with the enemy, or any of that, now did he.

Nope. Just some state Senator from Illinois that no one gave a shit about.

[Ethelk2044]

75. True but he had the common sense to know it was not the correct war to be in.

He made the better decision. The same decision they all should have made. Instead of listening to bush and chaney.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

80. Dennis Kucinich has never voted for the war. He is the only one with flawless judgment on Iraq

If President Gore runs he joins Kucinich as the only ones with a pure record on the Iraq war.

Look, BO is a good candidate. Highlight his strengths instead of trying to promote myths about him.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

79. What are the differences between Obama's plan and HRC's plan on Iraq?

Let's hear it. We never hear of any differences between the duo on Iraq in the senate or in their platforms. All we hear is 2002! 2002! 2002! It is 2007. The fact that there is such a reliance on one thing from 2002 says something about the weakness of Obama's 2007 platform and his record in 2005, 2006, and 2007 in the senate.

[ludwigb]

69. Right

If Obama wants my vote, he'd better work for it, and the top issue is Iraq. Right now, Kucinich has him beat. But I'm glad Obama is speaking out on the war and making his position clear(er) at least.

[illinoisprogressive]

84. I wasn't aware HRC had any real plans out. All I've heard is sound bites.

[Ethelk2044]

86. No she does not.

[illinoisprogressive]

87. Oh, wait, wasn't that what her little talk today was about. Her plan.

[Ethelk2044]

92. A little late

[earthlover]

99. Ha! If Hillary speaks out and has a plan about Iraq, that means of course

that she has done some polling and figured out that the politically expedicious move would be to oppose the war.

There was a time when she thought it was politically expedicious to support Bush's War.

So, within a couple of months, she will start to get out. How would you like to be the family of someone killed during these two months before she BEGAN a pullout? Whatever. I guess it is because the polling indicated that she say two months, instead of the first day. Nothing personal, it was just the polling.....

[draft_mario_cuomo]

104. Maybe if you were aware you would know the HRC's platform on Iraq is identical to your candidate's

;)