Who was Right on the WAR

[Ethelk2044]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

[illinoisprogressive]

1. Lovingj does the best videos. her latest is making the rounds.

[eweaver155]

2. The debate discussion is crystal clear: Obama was right then and he continues to be right.

[Clintonista2]

3. Only Kucinich was right

Obama's voting to fund the war for 2 years, is hardly "right"

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. Exactly. Kucinich didn't oppose Murtha in 2005, he didn't oppose Kerry-Feingold in 2006, etc. nt

Kucinich was for ending the war (a binding timetable to end the war) before it was cool.

[Ethelk2044]

5. I disagree with you.

[Bjorn Against]

17. What part do you disagree with?

What I see in Draft Mario Cuomo's post is facts not opinions. Are you saying that those facts are incorrect? If not then how can you disagree?

[FrenchieCat]

19. The part that keeps making Obama appear to have been a supporter of this war,

although he opposed it from the very start, way long before it was cool.

Same folks that would want us to think that Edwards is the only antiwar candidate who is currently "electable" and wants to make sure we know that Kucinich is "unelectable" although that ain't gonna always be spelled out.

In other words, other than Kucinich, the others are supposed to be all the same....

but they ain't.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. As post 17 said, I stated facts, not opinions. Which facts do you disagree with?

Thanks in advance.

As far as the Kucinich is "unelectable" meme I reject that. It is too early to write anyone off. If people learn who truly has been consistent on the war I am sure Kucinich's numbers will rise. He just needs to continue setting the record straight, like he did during the last debate. Kucinich is the only true anti-war candidate. He was right in 2002. He was right in 2003. He was right in 2004. He was right in 2005. He was right in 2006. He was right in 2007. He was right yesterday. He is right today. He will surely be right tomorrow.

I can't speak for other Edwards supporters but I have never cast him as a true anti-war candidate (I support Edwards for other reasons). I have always said Kucinich is the only true anti-war candidate in the race. I am sure most Edwards supporters--and even Edwards himself--would acknowledge this. We are not distorting Edwards' record on Iraq. He is being honest about it and people can reach their own conclusions. It would be wrong to win the presidency based on a false impression.

[rucky]

20. How do you disagree over a voting record? n/t

[CTLawGuy]

36. If we had gone with Obama's strategy on Iraq

none of those funding bills would even exist to be voted on.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. The Republicans had the votes to go to war, with or without the IWR

The senate was split 51-49. With Lieberman being pro-war there was a 50-50 split on the war. Do you think the Republicans would not have gotten 1 extra vote to go to war with a more pro-Bush bill than the IWR?

Second, using Obama supporter's logic on the IWR, if we went with Kerry-Feingold the war would be over now. Obama didn't.

[CTLawGuy]

38. didn't you post a thread attacking Obama for not supporting

Kerry-Feingold?

talk about hypocrisy...

I'd rather have Obama's position on IWR than Edwards' position on Kerry-Feingold any day of the week.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. No

I posted a thread on Kerry-Feingold that said nothing about Obama in the OP, aside from listing him as one of 30+ Democratic senators who voted against K/F. Team Obama hijacked it into spinning on Obama's record on K/F because they want to keep that inconvenient truth buried.

I would too (not everyone agrees with everything their candidate did or advocates). The notion, though, that Obama not leading us in to Iraq somehow excuses him not helping lead us out of Iraq is absurd, as is the notion that others excuse Obama's record on Iraq. Kucinich was always right on Iraq. He does not need to hide behind anyone to justify being wrong on particular things.

[CTLawGuy]

44. isn't not going into Iraq in the first place the ideal solution

which is of course not feasible now, but that was Obama's position in 2002.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

47. It is 2007. Unless we have a time machine, it is not a solution

Was never going to war the best possible scenario? Yes. Does it excuse some from being wrong on Iraq afterwards and not helping lead us out of Iraq? No.

Kerry voted for the IWR. He has been far better and shown real leadership, not merely flashy rhetoric, to help try to end this war in 2006-2007.

[CTLawGuy]

50. so you would punish the guy who advocated the best solution

in favor of the guy whose solution is not as good.

Me, I'm crediting the guy who wanted to do the right thing from the beginning.

[FrenchieCat]

54. I believe that your way is the way to go....why reward those who were

wrong from the gate? Why would one want a leader who led in the wrong direction at the crucial moment? :shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

58. I--like most Democrats--am not voting based on the IWR

Remember the 2004 primary results? ;)

I do credit Obama. I also criticize him when he has been wrong on Iraq. I do not buy the mythology surrounding him. You can't say "I opposed the war from the beginning" and then show no leadership in trying to end the war once you get in the senate. Others, like Kerry and Murtha did.

You won't see me criticizing Kucinich's record on Iraq. Why? He has always been correct on Iraq.

[CTLawGuy]

64. but why can you cheerlead for the war

and then get credit for trying to clean up your own mess?

Its like if I intentionally knocked the purse out of an old lady's hand, how much credit should I get for helping her pick it up?

Also, I believe Kerry won at the last minute for the same reason Bob Dole won in 96. He was seen as the "safe" candidate by a party that wanted the incumbent gone so badly. He was nominated purely on perceived electability.

[eweaver155]

8. As long as the troops are there until they are brought home,

you support them in every way. They are doing an outstanding job despite the turmoil and they have earned every dollar. No we don't like it but funding keeps soldiers supplied with necessary combat and logistical equipment. It's makes good sense. We don't like high gas prices either but it's necessary for americans (whether you own a car or not) to conduct their day to day lives. Plus if you think the death toll, number of wounded soldiers and violence in Iraq is high now, de-fund the troops and see what happens. It's only common sense until combat operations ends. It's sucks but that's the reality.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. So why did he vote against funding just about 2 months ago?

That excuse was obliterated when he switched his position on funding the war. What about Kerry-Feingold? That would have funding the troops AND ended the war by July 31, 2007. The "supporting the troops" excuse is a cop out. One could have supported the troops and ended the war by voting for Kerry-Feingold...

[LWolf]

26. He voted as a candidate who wanted to appear to be against the war, lol. n/t

[CTLawGuy]

41. because the Dems should have used the funding carrot to extract

more from Bush than they did. Beforehand, the Dems had no power and thus no bargaining power. Obama was right to ensure our troops are as protected as possible until they get home.

[CTLawGuy]

40. truly an awesome post!

if we had done what Obama wanted, they would not be in harms way at all.

[Ethelk2044]

9. He supported the troops. He was not out pushing for the war like the others.

They became a spokes person for the war. He did not push for the war nor did he allow them to use his image on a website.

[Clintonista2]

12. Read reply #10. nt.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. They can't defend that or his vote against Kerry-Feingold, which would have ended the war TOMMORROW

[CTLawGuy]

43. didn't you just say upthread

that a vote for it would NOT have necessarily ended the war????

[draft_mario_cuomo]

59. If K/F became law the war would be over today

Would Obama voting for it end the war? No. The vote was 86-13. Obama would have made it 85-14. Perhaps Obama--given his much touted charisma and his speaking ability--could have been able to swing a few more people to the K/F side. Still, K/F would not have passed regardless of what Obama or HRC did.

By the same token, though, the IWR would have passed regardless of what Hillary or Edwards did. The vote was 77-23. If they voted "nay" it would have been 75-25.

[CTLawGuy]

65. aren't you undermining your previous argument

attacking Obama for not voting for K-F?

[Dawgs]

29. Kucinich was wrong.

Bush, Hillary, and Edwards started the fire.

Obama was supporting the firefighters.

Obama now sees that the fire needs to be left to die on it's own, and is working to get the firefighters out.

[Gregorian]

6. Thank you.

I needed this.

[Ethelk2044]

7. Always aim to please.

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

11. Obama was right on the war........Hillary, Clinton, Dodd, Biden were wrong.....

(some were wronger than others, like those who co-sponsored the Blank check), Kucinich was also right, and everything else is bullshit put out by those looking for political cover for their own candidates.

Thanks for the Video!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. Kerry-Feingold was "BS"?

Kerry voted for the IWR. Was he wrong on the war? He was wrong in 2002 but he was right in 2006 (contrary to popular belief the war did not end on Jan. 4, 2005), unlike some, when he tried to end the war when the polls were against a timetable for withdrawal. "Bs"? Kerry-Feingold (part of "everything else") is "bs"? Kerry-Feingold would have ended the war tomorrow.

[politicasista]

16. And he never supported the war either n/t

[FrenchieCat]

18. Kerry-Feingold was in January of 2006.........nearly 3 years after the start

of this war.......!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. Exactly. The war did not end on Jan. 4 ,2005. Kerry-Feingold was a huge deal

Some who were wrong in the past proved to be wrong in June of 2006. There is a reason why some want to act as if time froze in October of 2002...

[FrenchieCat]

23. The war started shortly after October 2002........

And Kerry-Feingold didn't negate the part of the war that raged on starting in early 2003 through January of 2006 when the Kerry-Feingold bill was initiated.

It's kind of like trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again after pushing him off the wall....and believing that attempting to glue him back is somehow "better" than if Humpty Dumpty had never fallen or been pushed.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. So that excuses voting against ending the war in 2006?

:crazy:

[FrenchieCat]

53. Edwards didn't support Kerry-Feingold, now did he?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

60. "But, he did it too!" That is the defense for a guy running on judgment and courage?

;)

You can't excuse being wrong by hiding behind others who were wrong.

[FrenchieCat]

63. But Edwards didn't support Kerry-Feingold, did he?

Because unless you answer that question in the affirmative (with evidence please), those words you posted apply to your candidate as well....and then some!

you see the guy you are attempting to strip judgment and courage from by bringing up this Kerry-Feingold issue as often as you can just happens to be running against the guy that you support and would like to say had judgment and courage, but not only didn't your guy support Kerry-Feingold; but in addition, your guy was also really, really wrong about the entire war for a long, long time prior to a year and a half ago. That's the irony you're missing....obviously!

[Dawgs]

27. Obama was wrong to not vote for Kerry-Fiengold, but he was right before the war.

He's the only front runner candidate that was against the war from the beginning. Voting to fund the troops is not being for the war. Recently voting against funding is a way to end the war.

[maximusveritas]

33. Don't forget Richardson - He was wrong as well

Gravel was right, but I don't blame you for not mentioning him.

[AtomicKitten]

13. K&R#5 because Obama was right on the war

:toast:

[LWolf]

25. It sure as hell wasn't Obama.

Not according to his voting record. He voted repeatedly to fund, and therefore continue the war. He didn't vote "no" on any funding until after he declared himself a candidate for president.

Which, frankly, highlights his willingness to say one thing, and do another, for political gain.

There is only one candidate who was unequivocally "right" on the war, and it's not Obama. Attempts to spin it otherwise are misrepresentations, at best.

Dennis Kucinich has the high ground on this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc6o50JVjtE

[Dawgs]

28. Wrong.

Kucinich was wrong to not fund the troops; which is different than not funding the war.

You are the one that is spinning.

Obama has supported the firefighters that are putting out a fire Hillary, Edwards, and Bush started.

[LWolf]

30. That's some nice right-wing spin.

The fact is, Kucinich has supported funding the troops' trip home all along.

That's the best support anyone can offer "the troops;" to remove them from harm's way.

Obama has funded the war, thus enabling the war. Ensuring that the troops would be in Iraq longer, continuing to suffer more losses.

Kucinich has the only CORRECT position, and the only clean hands in the bunch that were in Congress to take action.

Edwards, at least, has acknowledged his errors. That doesn't give life back to the dead, but it's at least honest.

Obama's efforts to spin himself as "against the war from the beginning" will always be countered by his record.

[Dawgs]

35. Really.

If there were more Senators that thought like Obama in 2002-2003 we wouldn't have had this war.

Unfortunately, we had more that thought like Clinton and Edwards.

So, Obama = no Iraq war, and Clinton, Edwards = Iraq war.

You can spin it all you want. Obama did not start this war. Hillary, Edwards, and the other Bush supporters in the Senate started it.

[LWolf]

45. Yes, really.

"wrong not to fund the troops" is right-wing spin. It's part of the "support the war or you don't support the troops" propaganda.

You are correct when you say that Obama did not start this war. Hillary, Edwards, Dodd, John Kerry, and many other Democrats as well as Republicans voted for the IWR, allowing GWB to "start" the war.

Many in Congress, both the House and the Senate, have also voted to CONTINUE the war by funding it. Obama included.

Voting to CONTINUE the war is a vote FOR the war, whether you "started" it or not.

I understand why some congress people felt they needed to fund the war. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

I think that it is disingenuous to actually campaign on being "against" the war when you were FOR continuing the war. It's a sleazy campaign tactic, in my opinion. If being conditionally "against" the war were not being used as a campaign talking point, I would not be bringing up the conflicting votes.

:shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

48. "Voting to CONTINUE the war is a vote FOR the war"

Exactly. :applause:

[Dawgs]

51. I disagree, and..

If it was up to Obama, the war would have never started.

That's not the case with Edwards and Hillary.

[Dawgs]

52. I still disagree.

There is nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise. I guess I think like a Republican on this one.

[LWolf]

56. That's ok.

I can agree to disagree.

I can strongly, passionately, disagree with you and still respect your right to your own point of view. And I do both.

Is it that you really "think like a Republican" on this one, or think like a hawk, which is a little more flattering, lol?

Or is it that you feel passionate about Obama and that affects the way you think about this particular issue? Or both?

Just curious; I'm guessing perhaps a little of both.

I'll say it again; while I don't agree with Obama's votes to continue the war, I understand why some Democrats voted that way. I understand the conflict inherent in trying to decide what path best supports our troops and manages our international affairs.

It's the campaign spin that offends me.

Of course, to be completely honest, almost all campaign spin offends me. I see at least 90% of campaign "spin" and "talking points" for most candidates as blatant, shallow, disingenuous propaganda. It makes me feel patronized. It makes me feel disrespected.

I prefer the candidates to simply tell me where they stand on the issues, give me their detailed platform, make their records available to see if they walk their talk, and leave me to come to my own decisions.

[LeFleur1]

31. Not Funding the Troops

The only funding anyone should have voted for was funding to bring them home safely.
Any other funding...support the troops funding was supporting US presence in the middle of a civil war.
It's all just a word game. Funding is needed to continue this occupation of Iraq. Every vote for funding is a vote to keep them there. No matter how it is spun, that is the bottom line.

[FrenchieCat]

32. The bottomline is that this war ain't fucking over........

and no matter how it is spun, the fact is that this President should never have been given a blank check to wage this war in the first place, i.e., Pandora's box was opened in October of 2002, and no matter what the spin is, the weak attempts to close the Pandora's box now and in the near past ain't gonna make things as they were.

In other words, The shit started stinking long ago, and picking up some of the shit now doesn't make the shit smell go away.

[LWolf]

46. It's not over because Congress keeps voting to fund it's continuance. n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

61. lol exactly!

:yourock:

[MiserableFailure]

34. Yeah on this issue, but

But Kucinich is also the candidate with the worst record on reproductive rights. He blatantly flip flopped for political gain.

[LWolf]

49. I'm comfortable with DK's position

on reproductive rights, despite your rather weak attacks, here and elsewhere. I see them as a rather desperate attempt to distract attention from other candidates' flaws.

I am the 3rd generation of single mothers in my maternal line. I almost lost my mother to an illegal abortion in the early 60's, and I had (a legal) one myself in the 70s. I think I'm well-versed on the issue of reproductive rights, and don't feel like I need your help, thanks.

Kucinich currently has, of course, a 100% approval score from NARAL.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the "feminists for Kucinich" group. :D

You, of course, can make up your own mind about that issue, and I expect you have.

It's not, of course, the issue under discussion here. The issue under discussion here is support for war, in the form of a vote for the IWR, and, specifically in Obama's case, votes to continue the war for funding it.

If you insist on mixing the two, I'll ask this:

How many women did not get the abortion they wanted because of a vote by Kucinich?

How many deaths of Americans in Iraq have occurred since Obama began funding our presence there?

A smart, thinking person doesn't really want to open this can of worms. You might want to consider starting a separate thread to rant about DK's history on reproductive rights, rather than try to connect it to war votes.

[TeamJordan23]

39. Thanks for the video. That Nov. 2002 video by Obama is amazing.

All those issues ended up being a problem. Why didn't others ask any of those questions.

[FrenchieCat]

55. Others did in fact make the case that those would be the problems......

but unfortunately, not enough of the senators listened closely enough prior to voting. :(

[killbotfactory]

57. They were pretty much dismissed in the media

Maybe if they weren't so busy trying to sell the war, they would have listened.

[FrenchieCat]

62. True Dat! n/t

[penguin7]

66. Obama was right on the war because he went to an anti-war rally?

I don't see much there showing that Obama took a strong stand against the war before the war. He went to an anti-war rally, made a speech worried about going into a dumb war. The video of the speech is missing or something, noone here has any verification. So basically Obama's record against the war is attending an anti-war rally and making a speech of unclear content.

Am I missing something?