Obama says Hillary's plan for repealing the initial authorization for the Iraq war is "convoluted'

[TeamJordan23]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070713/ap_on_el_pr/obama_ap_interview_1

Obama says Clinton war plan 'convoluted'
By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY, Associated Press Writer

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday that his top rival's attempt to pressure the Bush administration to end the war in Iraq is "a convoluted approach to the problem."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to introduce an amendment repealing the congressional authorization for the war. It would require the president to seek new authority from Congress if he wanted to continue operations past Oct. 11, 2007, five years after initial authorization was given.

"If you simply repeal the language, then presumably you'd have to reauthorize something. You've got 150,000 troops over there and support personnel," Obama told The Associated Press in an interview after a campaign stop in Las Vegas.

"Why we would try that approach as opposed to simply setting a timetable for withdrawal strikes me as a convoluted approach to the problem," he said.

Clinton proposed the amendment, which is to be co-sponsored by West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, after facing persistent pressure, particularly from voters in early primary states, to distance herself from her initial vote to authorize the war.

"I was opposed to this war back in 2002, knowing that this was going to be a bad idea," the Illinois senator told the group of more than 100 gathered for a house party for precinct captains.

[MichiganVote]

1. Convoluted? Who is he talking to..can't be the average US citizen.

Most would be clueless what "convoluted" means.

[Colobo]

3. I'm glad he can speak English, unlike Bush

[MichiganVote]

5. In some areas, "convoluted" will sound like a foreign language

[jefferson_dem]

33. Right. Perhaps he should have said "some fucked up shit".

:sarcasm:

I can't believe i'm saying this but let's not underestimate the American voter. At least not in this instance. "Convoluted" sounds 'bout right. :bounce:

[Colobo]

2. That's the way to do it, Obama! Let's mix it up a little bit!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. He has been firing at HRC consistently lately

How long before HRC starts to fire back?

[ripple]

42. Once her lead doesn't overcome the margin of error in the polls

Until then, there's really no reason for her to attack.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

44. Good point nt

[Ethelk2044]

4. Every day citizens know what that means

[Tellurian]

6. Sounds like a RW Talking Point to me...

"Why we would try that approach as opposed to simply setting a timetable for withdrawal strikes me as a convoluted approach to the problem," he said."

Because Bush would have to seek (new) authorization to continue the War! The Senate has already tried to set a timetable for Troop withdrawal and Bush has Vetoed their proposals time and time again.

Wow...for some who's supposed to be expert in Constitutional Law...

BTW- Mr. Obama, did I mention, you're "swingin a Tigeress by the tail?"

[TeamJordan23]

8. I'm sorry, but I don't think it says in the Constitution that Congress can 'deauthorize' wars

Or what it really is: a symbolic Do-Over vote.

You can only stop the war by stopping funding.

[Tellurian]

11. Well, when Congress authorizes something they can just as well DE-Authorize it if the have the votes

Here's what your buddy Obama is doing to undermine Hillary's attempt to bring the troops home. Playing Politics with their lives!

"Instead of supporting, with vigor, the sensible Democratic de authorization proposal from two experienced Senators, Obama tried to undermine Hillary when she spoke to the American people from Iowa.

What is Obama instead suggesting we do? Here is his latest O-Lame-O e-mail orders to his supporters: “Write a letter to the editor of your local paper right now — if you act quickly, your letter could be printed alongside tomorrow’s coverage.” The email continues, “Now is the time to act. Millions of Americans are hungry for a president who will end the war in Iraq and confront the threats we face with honesty and sound judgment. They’re waiting to hear from you. Signed, Barack Obama”

So, with “millions of Americans” “hungry for a president who will end the war in Iraq” Obama throws up his hands and suggests his supporters do what he does best: write letters. Along with providing “talking points” to be included in these letters Obama it seems has one other great activity for his supporters besides writing: ‘Read My Books'.

That’s right, read his books.

“Stealing a page from Oprah Winfrey,” Obama has launched book clubs in a dozen NH towns and online (see 7/9 Hotline). Christine Davidson, who led a discussin of “Dreams from My Father” in Portsmouth: “We’re doing this becuase people don’t really know him very well.” Obama NH comm dir Leslie Miller said about 85 people participated in the book clubs statewide on 7/10. The Portsmouth gathering “attracted only women” as the MLB All-Star Game was being played (McCormick, Chicago Tribune, 7/12). Supporters loaned books to the camp, who then distributed them to undecided voters (Pindell, Boston Globe blog, 7/11).

Why not support the Hillary/Byrd proposal to end the war and have Obama supporters lobby to get this done? Wouldn’t that be a good example of putting “politics aside”?

http://www.hillaryis44.org/


Plus the fact several Republicans and a few other Democrats are crafting legislation to reauthorize the War.

You can read it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/washington/13cnd-cong.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1184349713-9HTeUEMC4ZDeB/tN9WmgHA

Your guy is really starting to be a huge, hollow, not ready for Prime Time, disappointment. And certainly NOT someone I would want to be MY president. He's turning into a prankful, petty, JERK!

[TeamJordan23]

12. Great, more crap from from the GOP-run website, Hillaryis44.

[Tellurian]

14. Read IT! You just may learn something..

[TeamJordan23]

15. What something from another Craigslist posting that is used as a source? hehe. nt

[Tellurian]

17. You imitate your candidate to the "T"!

:crazy:

[earthlover]

31. Playing Politics with their lives?

Playing Politics with their lives? Hillary wrote the book on that one! She voted for the IWR because she thought it would help her politically. Thousands of lives were lost as a result. She was smart enough to know better, and was in a position to know better. But she demurred because of playing politics with lives.

That is why some of us find her convoluted position on Iraq frustrating, and her pretense to oppose the war as verging on hypocritical.

It was all politics to her. Too bad for everyone concerned, especially those who lost their lives as a result, that it was all for nothing. Hillary would have been better off politically if she not been so willing to play politics with their lives....

[TeamJordan23]

18. Also, Clinton's vote do-over bill does not call for removal of troops.

The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was repealed but the war went on for two more years. Even if you have enough votes to de-authorize the War, it will not and cannot stop Bush from continuing it.

That is why Richardson, in his de-authorization plan, calls for immediate removal of the troops.

[earthlover]

30. "right wing talking point"...?

Maybe Hillary supporters are brainwashed. It seems whenever anyone says anything or points out anything that is not in total worship of Hillary, then they come up with this seemingly-programmed response: they call it a "right wing talking point".

Hillary supporters: don't you have a more appealing arguement to win over fellow Democrats to your cause? Oops! Never mind I said that. If you actually had a positive message you just might do better.

Dang, this election is getting tiring already.

Right wing talking point....Hell it was Hillary who voted for the IWR because she listened to right wing talking points!!!!

[jefferson_dem]

34. BS. Nobody even thinks Hillary's convoluted "do over" attempt is even going to come up for a vote.

...

More like a slinky pussycat who relies on the Big Dawg for cover.

[illinoisprogressive]

7. it is. You can not have do overs unless all the people killed get them too!

[Kingstree]

9. Obama is saying that Hillary is just talking complicated legal "doublespeak"

According to plan, she only complicates matters in Iraq by not putting an end to military operations or a phased withdrawal via timetable, but continue the combat effort against the insurgents during an all out civil war with renewed Congress and Senate approval. Her methods only continues President Bush's vision of victory and control of Iraq, continuing the loss of more american lives and treasure. It won't change a thing. Reauthorization means a new set of rules, more troops on the ground and in this case it would only add to the already failing military efforts and a need to set new benchmark standards for the Iraqi government to meet. Obama is saying timetable withdrawal. Get the meat of the combat troops and support personnel out, let the Iraqis secure their country with limited american/ally support, establish the government and rebuild the city (which will take years and unfortunately, we will have military bases over there no matter who is Prez that's a given, it's a matter of stability, look at Korea and Germany). Hillary's analogy only gives us more of the same under a different umbrella.

[truedelphi]

13. Quoting "more of the same under a different umbrella."

Most everything about her can be described that way.

[Tellurian]

16. That is an outright LIE!

Where did you get it?

Here is what she's doing!:

February 17, 2007

Clinton Plan to End War:

Reject the President's Escalation; Protect U.S. Troops in Iraq; Begin Redeploying Our Troops; Enables President to End War Before Leaving Office

Introduces the Iraq Troop Reduction & Protection Act of 2007

Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton renewed her call on President Bush to reverse course and endorse the plan she outlined several weeks ago that would cap the level of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number prior to his escalation plan, and begin the long overdue phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq beginning in 90 days. Senator Clinton outlined her plan when she returned last month from her third trip to Iraq and is formally introduced the legislation yesterday.

"I came back from Iraq more determined then ever to stop the President's escalation of troops into Iraq, and to start the long overdue redeployment of troops out of Iraq," Senator Clinton said. "The Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act that I proposed last month and introduced this week caps the number of troops in Iraq at the level before the President's escalation. It would be against the law to send more. The legislation also protects our troops who are performing so heroically, by making sure they aren't sent to Iraq without the body armor and training they need - empty promises from the President just aren't enough anymore. And it calls for the phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. I've been pushing for this for almost two years. Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in ninety days or we will revoke authorization for this war. This plan is a roadmap out of Iraq. I hope the President takes this road. If he does, he should be able to end the war before he leaves office."

The Iraq Troop Protection & Reduction Act of 2007 presents a comprehensive approach to Iraq that halts the President's escalation policy and provides an alternative strategy in Iraq with the goal of stabilizing the country so American troops can redeploy out of Iraq. Senator Clinton's legislation puts real pressure on the Iraqi government, requiring the Iraqis to make political progress or lose funding for their military and reconstruction, require the Bush Administration to begin a phased redeployment and convene an international conference within 90 days or a new Congressional authorization would be required to remain in Iraq. Finally, the legislation would prohibit the use of funds to send troops to Iraq unless they have the proper equipment and training. If the President were to follow the provisions in this legislation then the United States should be able to complete a redeployment of troops out of Iraq by the end of his term.

A Summary of the legislation:

# STOPPING THE PRESIDENT'S ESCALATION OF THE WAR: This legislation would cap U.S. troop numbers in Iraq at the January 1, 2007 level - prior to the announcement of the troop escalation by President Bush. It would require Congressional authorization to exceed the cap.

# ENDING THE BLANK CHECK FOR THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT: Recent press reports have indicated that U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces may be infiltrated by Iraqi militias and thus U.S. funds may have been used to train the very people that our men and women in uniform are fighting. In order to exert leverage on the Iraqi government, the legislation would cut off funds for Iraqi security forces, including private contractors as well as reconstruction funds within 90 days unless the President certifies that the Iraqi government has met certain conditions. The legislation would require that the Iraqi government meet a number of conditions, including:

• The security forces of the Government of Iraq are free of sectarian and militia influences;

• The security forces of the Government of Iraq are assuming greater responsibility for security in Iraq;

• The government of Iraq provides for an equitable distribution of the oil revenues of Iraq;

• There has been significant progress made in political accommodation among the ethnic and sectarian groups in Iraq.

If Congress disagrees with the President's certification, Congress would have 60 days to "disapprove" of the Presidential certification resulting in a cutoff of funds for the Iraqi government.

# STARTING PHASED REDEPLOYMENT AND INVOLVING COUNTRIES IN THE REGION IN THE FUTURE OF IRAQ: The legislation requires the U.S. begin a phased redeployment of U.S. troops in 90 days or the authority of the use of force would cease. Specifically it requires that a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of:

• Training Iraqi security forces;

• Providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces;

• Protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and

• Participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.

The legislation also requires that the United States has convened or is convening an international conference so as to:

• More actively involve the international community and Iraq's neighbors;

• Promote a durable political settlement among Iraqis;

• Reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq;

• Encourage more countries to contribute to the extensive needs in Iraq; and

• Ensure that funds pledged for Iraq are forthcoming.

# PROTECTING OUR TROOPS SENT INTO IRAQ: The legislation would prohibit funds from being spent to send troops to Iraq unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the troops being deployed are adequately equipped and trained for their mission in Iraq.


http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=269481&&

[Kingstree]

19. She will not end this war

Again, it's just doublespeak. The civil war will continue as long as american forces are on the ground regardless of her planned intentions. How are you supposed to get these things accomplished while american solders are still dying? Just don't say it the cost war. We should not be there in the first place. Under her plan, this war continues on. Face reality.

[TeamJordan23]

20. Yeah, even if her symbolic Vote Do-Over passes, Bush can continue with the war until funding stops.

nm.

[Tellurian]

21. If you knew what you were talking about, it would be one thing...

you don't! Your post doesn't make any sense whatsoever!

You expect us to GIVE UP because your candidate prefers selling his books to any and all who will buy a copy.

My candidate is trying to end the War. Hillary takes her job seriously, unlike your candidate who's in it for the money and perks.

Here is a summary of her de-authorization bill. Try reading it if you can. It's self-explanatory:

5/3/2007

From the Senate: Hillary Statement on Deauthorizing the War

Washington, DC -- In remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that she and Senator Robert Byrd will introduce legislation to end authority for the war in Iraq. The legislation will propose October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

"The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, the Congress has passed legislation to require change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him," said Senator Clinton on the Senate floor.

The following is a transcript of Senator Clinton's remarks on the Senate floor:

SENATOR CLINTON: Madam President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, to announce our intention to introduce legislation which proposes that October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

As Senator Byrd pointed out, the October 11, 2002, authorization to use force has run its course, and it is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible.

Earlier this week, President Bush vetoed legislation reflecting the will of the Congress and the American people that would have provided needed funding for our troops while also changing course in Iraq and beginning to bring our troops home.

I believe this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and to have a full national debate so the people can be heard. I supported the Byrd amendment on October 10, 2002, which would have limited the original authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue. This bill would require the president to do just that.

The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, the Congress has passed legislation to require change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me in supporting this effort to require a new authorization resolution, or to refuse to do so, for these new times and these new conditions that we and our troops are facing every single day. Madam President, I yield the floor.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=152...

[TeamJordan23]

25. The Gulf of Tonkin authorization was repealed, but war continued for 2 more years.

De-Authorizing the War WILL NOT stop the War. Ask any expert or legal scholar. Plus the bill does not call for removal of the troops (as Richardson's De-Authorization Plan does).

[Kingstree]

28. No matter how many times you post her plan

it does not change the underlying intent. You honestly believe that Hillary Clinton or any of the candidates (even the one I support) will completely pull out of Iraq lock stock and barrel and leave the Iraq people to take care of themselves without ample (the number needed + or -) military support? Remember, WE INVADED IRAQ. WE CAUSED THE INSURGENCY TO INCREASE IN IRAQ. WE DESTROYED THEIR GOVERNMENT NO MATTER HOW BAD IT IS, WE NOW OWN IT, WE HAVE INVOLVED IRAN AND WE HAVE NOT CAUGHT OSAMA BIN LADEN. Our history as a nation in all the conflicts that we have been involved in does not support that (not even Vietnam) and this is no different. I understand you believe your candidate but let's be smart. Their is too much at stake as a nation and the political and economical ramifications around the world for that to happen. Instead of believing some politician's rhetoric, think about it on your own and make am assessment. America does not own a monopoly in this world as the sole moral majority in doing what is right and just. I say again, we will rebuild and we have to protect in tandem with Iraqi forces. Think of it as a baby needing parental care. Until it can take care of itself, we will be there (why are we building an embassy?). I am a Obama supporter and I expect him to be there for the Iraqi people because it is the right thing and the moral thing to do and it will not surprise me about the decisions made later on. No matter who the Prez is and what path he/she will make, we will have to deal with this one way or the another for years, even decades to come. This is the proverbial monkey on our nation's back. Just remember, campaign promises now don't translate into stated actions later. That's been proven time and time again.

[TeamJordan23]

29. well said. nt

[papau]

24. Thanks for posting that - the GOP may have a "re-purpose" bill and there may be a

compromise that actually gets passed and signed into law, since Bush needs a cover to start the draw down.

Of course just passing the bill would be major - and signing Democratic bills - even if they are a compromise - is not what Bush is all about.

Bush will veto - but even if he signs as Nixon did the repeal of the Gult of Tonkien resolution, he will ignore, as Nixon did, the bill - and indeed ignore any timeline under his commander in chief title - but a "re-purpose" authorization might get him to do something different.

Nixon ignored everything Congress did - we've been hear before. Only winning the Presidency will change anything for sure.

[Tellurian]

32. I don't think he has any intentions of a draw down..

The purpose of the "surge" was having more military available in the ME region. I believe he intends to escalate the War into Iran. This may be the reason for a feigned effort on the part of some Republicans giving the impression they are listening to their constituency and doing something in the vein of troop withdrawal. It's another ruse, afaic. Bush is not about to dilute his forces in the ME and not attack Iran before his term expires...

[papau]

41. But there are no bodies to wage war come Spring unless talk of WW2 by GOP is

prelude to no return home for anyone as in WW2 until after invasion of Iran. God forbid they ever vote in a draft.

I do worry that a quick impeachment would not happen even if an attack on Iran - our guys are so afraid of being seen as not supporting the troops - being less wrapped in the flag than the other side - that they might run away from from saving the Constitution and this Nation.

They seem to think that a good media image with the right wing press is so important to the next election - as if getting a new job after doing the right thing is an ethic/moral value only voters not concerned with pay should have.

[Kingstree]

10. This is what Obama means by "redo"

[Nikki Stone1]

22. Better they should stop the next war on Iran...Oops....

97-0


http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00242

[Telly Savalas]

45. 97-0 to require a report be written

Am I supposed to be worried by this?

How is this a prelude to an invasion of Iran that's supposedly been imminent for 3 years now?

[madrchsod]

26. i wish the asshole at "hillary is 44"

would drop the "Barack Obama (D-Rezko)" bullshit because he is democratic senator from the state of ILLINOIS. i find it very insulting to the people of illinois who voted for him and the people he represents.

[Tellurian]

27. Say What? You mean this?

The Rezko Trial is for real. Stay tuned it begins in Feb/08'..

I feel your PAIN! :)



Here's an update on your Senator:

Friday, July 6th, 2007

The Case of the Missing State Senator

Alert: Missing State Senator

There he goes again, saying silly things. Murdering his own campaign.

Here’s what Obama told CBS News:

“The kind of experience I have outside of Washington as a community organizer, working with families who are struggling, as a constitutional law professor, as a state legislator dealing with these very issues … people find that experience at least as relevant,” he said.

Obama claims that his work as a “community organizer”, “working with families who are stuggling” and as a “state legislator” are credentials the American electorate should be impressed with and elevate him to the highest office in the land. How impressive are those credentials? What exactly did Obama do in Illinois? How did his experience as a “community organizer” inform his work as a state legislator?

We wrote in Obama - Turning Pages, Part II, the following:

Obama at the time was a State Senator representing the mostly African-Americans who lived in the Rezko owned tenements. These residents of the Rezko owned tenements presumably contacted elected officials when they found themselves living in substandard housing and freezing in the winter. Where was Obama with consitutent services? Obama should have known and it strains credulity to think he did not know. Obama had helped Rezko obtain government subsidies for these tenements and we presume some type of due diligence was performed by Obama in which he would uncover the nature of the Rezko housing.

In that same article we quoted from the Chicago Sun-Times the following:

”Obama, who has worked as a lawyer and a legislator to improve living conditions for the poor, took campaign donations from Rezko even as Rezko’s low-income housing empire was collapsing, leaving many African-American families in buildings riddled with problems — including squalid living conditions, vacant apartments, lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers. The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found. “Their buildings were falling apart,” said a former city official. “They just didn’t pay attention to the condition of these buildings.” Eleven of Rezko’s buildings were in Obama’s state Senate district.“

Here is a bit more from that Chicago Sun-Times article:

“For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago’s South Side.”

“It was just four years after the landlords — Antoin “Tony” Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru — had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.”

“Rezko and Mahru couldn’t find money to get the heat back on.”

“Rezmar kept getting city and state funding, even as earlier projects fell into disrepair and financial troubles.
But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building.”

What use was Obama’s “community organizer” experience to those shivering tenants?

What use was Obama the state senator to those shivering tenants?

What relationships did Obama build during his “community organizer” days that proved useless when he became state senator, and failed to keep him in touch with the community?

What was Obama doing in his plush state senator office that kept him too busy to know that these “struggling families” were without heat “For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997″?

If Obama with all his “community organizer” experience did not know what was happening in his small district office in Chicago, how in blazes does anyone think he will respond to the needs of an American electorate that numbers in the hundreds of millions?

http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=145

[jefferson_dem]

35. Tiddly winks compared to Hillary's "Peter Paul" problem.

You knew about that one, right?

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/06/hillary-clinton-and-largest-election.html

...or

http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=2

Cheers. :toast:

[Tellurian]

38. Winky diddles when you start hiring felons..

A Republican trait indeed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3375018

[Ethelk2044]

39. It is ok. Hillary has links to Rezko as well. One of the Rezko

lawyers gave her a fundraiser and she is having problems as well. I never visit the site and do not worry about what is on it. Hillary has been linked to so much slime. It will come back to hunt her.

[madrchsod]

43. thanks for the info

[Bread and Circus]

36. It is

and anyone would be a liar or willfully stupid to argue otherwise.

[BenDavid]

37. I guess Obama

will say the same thing since Warner/Luger have basically the same approach in their bill they will be introducing.....Obama is smarting because he did not come up with the idea. Maybe he and his staff can try to upstage HRC and have their asses handed to them again like the last two unsuccessful attempts did....
I do thank you..
Ben David

[Ethelk2044]

40. Obama did not want to strike her. His supporters did. When he strikes

She will know it.