July 31, 2007. Kerry-Feingold would have ended the war TODAY

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Today could have been a day of great celebration at DU... Two courageous Democrats, Senators Kerry and Feingold presented an amendment to end the war in June of 2006. It included a binding timetable for withdrawal that would have ended the war by July 31, 2007. Today. Today! The war could have been over today! What happened? Sadly, politics prevailed. It is hard to conceive of this but a little more than a year ago the political winds were blowing in a different direction on Iraq. It was unpopular to support a timetable for withdrawal then. Few Democrats, including those who switched to favoring a timetable to end the war now that the political winds are blowing in favor of a timetable (especially for presidential candidates), stood with Senators Kerry and Feingold.

Here is a list of the brave senators who had the courage and judgment to vote to end the war last summer with a binding timetable when it was politically unpopular to do so. :patriot:

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Wyden (D-OR)

Which Democrats voted against it?

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)

[Alexander]

1. That's why Feingold is one of my favorite Senators

And why Dodd, Clinton, Obama and Biden will not get my primary votes.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Hillary spoke and voted against Kerry-Feingold

Lieberman stole the limelight by taking a leading role against Kerry-Feingold, and by speaking for the GOP majority.

No matter how disappointed we may have been about another failure of leadership by Hillary, it was nothing compared to the rage we felt towards Lieberman.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. Obama also spoke and voted against it. He opposed a timetable for withdrawal in 2006

Like Hillary Clinton...

Does anyone know if Biden and Dodd also spoke out against it? We know how they voted.

Obama:

=="But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, 1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; 2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and 3) bringing our troops safely home."

What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy.==

Clinton

=="I simply do not believe it is a strategy or a solution for the president to continue declaring an open-ended and unconditional commitment, nor do I believe it is a solution or a strategy to set a date certain for withdrawal without regard to the consequences.

Instead, I support this responsible way forward, a road map for success that will more quickly and effectively take advantage of Iraqi oil revenues, build up Iraqi's infrastructure, foster Iraqi civil society, challenge Iraq's neighbors to do more to ensure stability in Iraq and allow our troops to begin coming home."==

[bling bling]

25. Please cite your sources when you use quotes. Is that not a rule? It should be if it isn't. n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. Here you go

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=257561&&

[bling bling]

42. Thanks. I checked the sources and would like to offer these additional quotes:

From the same speech:

"What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy.

For example, let's say that a phased withdrawal results in fifty thousand troops in Iraq by July 19, 2007. If, at that point, our generals and the Iraqi government tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an additional three or six months would enhance stability and security in the region, this amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing the optimal policy.

It is for this reason that I cannot support the Kerry Amendment. Instead, I am a cosponsor of the Levin amendment, which gives us the best opportunity to find this balance between our need to begin a phase-down and our need to help stabilize Iraq. It tells the Iraqis that we won't be there forever so that they need to move forward on uniting and securing their country. I agree with Senator Warner that the message should be "we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it." At the same time, the amendment also provides the Iraqis the time and the opportunity to accomplish this critical goal.

*********

Maybe Obama wanted to support an amendment that he co-sponsored?????????????????????

Maybe he thought his amendment was a better idea?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

You know what, DMC, you're pathetic the way you cherry-pick and mis-represent.

It shouldn't have to be this way on a Democratic board. I come to DU as a refuge from all the spin from the Republicans and the spin from the media.

You're starting to make me hate it here. I wish I knew someplace else to go to find Democrats to talk to.

[beachmom]

52. Look, Bling Bling, this may be tough to take, but Obama was DEAD WRONG last year.

He was playing it safe, trying to fit in with the Establishment. Levin/Reed was a toothless non-binding resolution which only said we should BEGIN to withdraw in 120 days, specifically distinguishing itself from K/F which set a timetable for withdrawal. Levin/Reed was only put together AFTER K/F so as not to embarrass Sen. Clinton and other Dems too afraid to take a real stand. They thought taking a real stand would cost the mid term election. Well, they were wrong. Obama also called the K/F amendment a "precipitous" withdrawal, which is an outright lie. The deadline was a year from when the bill was offered.

Obama did, however, endorse the K/F approach in January 2007 (after the Iraq Study Group included a "goal" of March 2008, where Kerry testified before that commission obviously influencing them), well before the other Senators running for prez. For that, I will give him credit.

Look, I like Obama and am leaning his way, but it is important that you know what is what with your candidate. Knowing the truth will allow you to defend him and the things he has done right.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

69. Thank you

:hi:

[wisteria]

61. I don't think he is misrepresenting Obama's position at all.

The Levin amendment was not binding and was nothing but an empty piece of paper, not holding the President accountable to Congress or the people. It was used as cover for those that wanted it to look like they were really doing something worthwhile all the while knowing the President would just ignore it. Remember, the Democrats didn't even want to get involved with the Iraq issue back then. They were concerned about the upcoming elections.
IMO, Obama and the rest of those voting no, took the easy way out. Some leaders!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

70. Thank you

:hi:

[LWolf]

129. Good point. n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

68. Posts 52 and 61 already said what I was going to say

The only thing I can add is that I noticed you did not list Senator Clinton's speech? Why is that? Is it because it was identical to Obama's speech and that by showing the "evil neocon-lite" Hillary had the same position it would undercut your effort to misrepresent Obama's actual position on the war in the summer of 2006?

[AtomicKitten]

7. this she should apologize for

on edit:

Obama too (I'm really disappointed - I had forgotten - thanks a lot! :( )

[AtomicKitten]

65. Obama still comes out ahead.

Hillary is running the general all the way through; apologizing is a sign of weakness. Edwards on the other hand is forthcoming with apologies, and he has his hands full apologizing for his part in the rush to war. Feh.

Of the three top viable contenders, Obama still comes out ahead. He spoke out in 2002 against the Iraq War. That matters. His votes in the Senate have clung to prevailing conventional wisdom, however, he did support Levin-Reid, so that's something.

In the net sum game, Obama still prevails.

[saltpoint]

3. John Kerry and Russell Feingold. Definitely Hall-of-Fame Senators in

my book.

Thanks for this post, draft_mario_cuomo.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. I agree

I think we may someday see a President Feingold. While it seems unlikely we will ever see a President Kerry, I and many other Americans will never forget his great contributions to this country.

No problem. :)

[AtomicKitten]

4. good try

... and kudos to those few that had the foresight to support this.

The Democrats should have made it happen while they had the chance.

Dumbasses.

[Clintonista2]

8. WHAT?!? But that would mean...

Obama HASN'T BEEN against the war all this time? I think my heads gonna explode :crazy:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. Shh...the only vote ever taken on the war was the one Obama never had to cast a vote on

;)

[TeamJordan23]

27. So do you think if Hillary and Edwards were not in the Senate, they wouldn't have supported the war?

The fact that you are in the Senate & have some sort of power in that position, and than you just cave in to Bush and the Neo-Cons without any sort of checks on him...I don't know about you, but I find that heartless in my opinion.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. I don't know. All we know is their actual records

As far as Edwards goes, he supported Kerry-Feingold (the topic of the thread) instead of giving * another blank check to continue the war. He was for a timetable to end the war before it became cool.

[TeamJordan23]

41. I guess just like Obama was against the war before it became cool. nm

[karynnj]

47. Edwards did NOTsupport Kerry/Feingold

You have said this on several threads - and the only support you provided did NOT prove that. Your link gave Edwards' position in August 2006, 2 months after Kerry/Feingold was voted on. At that point, when he was supporting Lamont, he was calling for 50,000 soldiers home starting now - the rest in 12-18 months. (This was actually closer to a 2005 Kerry plan, before the civil war started.)

In 2006, he was unwilling to say he was for a deadline and he did not have Kerry's back on this. For those of us here in 2006, it is easy to remember the amount of ridicule and abuse Kerry took. Edwards, who was out of the Senate, choose to triangulate here - he endorsed neither Kerry/Feingold or the alternative. This gave him the option of moving either way. Had the sentiment stayed where it was or become more supportive of the war, he could say that he, unlike Kerry, was never willing to set a deadline. As support declined, he has moved aggressively to be the most anti-war. (His reluctance to support Kerry was also likely political because Kerry (and Feingold) were then possible competitors.

Your implication he was for K/F when he was not on record is ironic as you question Obama's claim for being against the IWR when he WAS on record as being against it.)

[Cameron27]

60. Thanks karynnj,

Edwards didn't support Kerry/Feingold although DMC suggests he did.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

71. Reply. Edwards did support a timetable for withdrawal in the summer of 2006

First, what you are pointing out is a distinction without a difference. Did Edwards support a timetable for withdrawal--like Kerry-Feingold--in the summer of 2006? The answer is yes.

Still, since I have not been able to find a quote of Edwards saying "I support Kerry-Feingold" I will cease saying that and merely point out his support for a timetable for withdrawal in the summer of 2006. Credibility is an important issue so lest some think I pulled this out the sky, here is where I first heard about Edwards' position on K/F (I did not follow the K/F debate closely at the time). I came across this while reading a recent MyDD post http://jerome_armstrong.mydd.com/story/2007/7/21/165715/582

==In 2006, he was unwilling to say he was for a deadline==

The link I gave you showed that in August of 2006, at least, he was for withdrawing all the troops within 12-18 months.

==As support declined, he has moved aggressively to be the most anti-war.==

That is generally true but not on the issues over the past year, namely a timetable for withdrawal and cutting of funding for the surge. On the first he was ahead of public opinion and on the second he led on it immediately (I believe the polls opposed cutting off funding for the surge, which is why most prominent Democrats, including the senators running for president with the exception of Dodd, opposed it). Edwards also led--before the veto--in calling on Democrats to stand up to * and send the same bill back over and over again until Bush, not Democrats caved. He was very vocal on this and even ran television ads in favor of this position to help convince Congress to stand firm. Back to 2006, though. As the senate vote less than two months before the Edwards-Lamont event showed, the public did not support a timetable for withdrawal in the summer of 2006. Edwards did. A timetable for withdrawal only came into vogue after the ISG provided the political cover and moved the polls to favoring such a position. Hence, the stampede of reversals from people who opposed a timetable for withdrawal just a few months earlier.

==as you question Obama's claim for being against the IWR when he WAS on record as being against it.==

That is false. I have never questioned whether Obama opposed the IWR. I have always said he opposed the war from the beginning. I just recognize that time did not freeze in 2002. The fact that Obama did not lead is in to war does not excuse him not helping lead us out of Iraq ever since he became a senator.

[Mass]

119. Withdrawing the troops in 12 to 18 months was very close to Levin Reed, not Kerry-Feingold.

The goal of Kerry-Feingold was to have a FIRM deadline (expressed as a date), rather than a fairly vague goal. I do not see any difference between what Clinton and Obama voted for and what Edwards was proposing.

[Clintonista2]

9. Obama supporters are awfully quiet

:think:

[Milo_Bloom]

11. Not an Obama supporter, but this is a nonsense issue. nt

[Clintonista2]

12. Nonsense how?

Today is July 31'st. Troops would have been home today, July 31'st. Sorry if you that think troops dying is a "nonsense issue".

[Milo_Bloom]

14. 2 Reasons

#1) Bush would have vetoed and there wasn't enough support to override it.

#2) Starting a war is much easier than ending one. There are legitimate debates about the best way to get out of this war.

The time to stop the war was BEFORE it started, when the democrats controlled the senate and had the power to fillibuster the legislation.

Arguing now about show bills that absolutely, positively couldn't have passed is nonsense.

[Clintonista2]

15. He would have had nothing to lose

and he would have been making a statement regarding his opposition to the war. By your logic, nobody on this forum can say "well, Hillary and Edwards voted for the war", since even if they had voted against it, it still would have passed.

By the way, Obama didn't just simply vote against it. He also spoke out very much against it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. Good post

You summed up basically everything I was going to say. I would like to add one other point. We are told Obama has a magic ability to convince people of things, to bring people together of all stripes. After all, this is the man running on the theme of "unity"--the man who will unite America for the first time in 200+ years. Surely someone with the gifts of Mr. Obama could have had an impact on Kerry-Feingold had he used the talents we are so often told about... It is a shame that Obama has never led on ending the war in the senate. The only time he did anything was when he began running for president in 2007, and even that was a token bill identical to Hillary's plan.

[beachmom]

53. You know, you really nailed there my disappointment in him.

He had TOTAL CRED to be anti-war because of that great, great speech he gave in Oct. 2002. And he pissed it all away just to "fit in". You know Carl Levin voted against the IWR, but his amendment in June '06 was beyond lame. I think all of this goes to show that the IWR litmus test is way too simple. Time doesn't stop after that vote. Things happened afterwards, and I think we should be noticing an elected official's ENTIRE RECORD -- votes and what they have said.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

117. I agree on all counts. Sorry I missed this great post from you

Unfortunately, I was caught up with a hero worshipers' effort to hijack the thread to divert attention from the inconvenient truths of Kerry-Feingold.

==He had TOTAL CRED to be anti-war because of that great, great speech he gave in Oct. 2002.==

I agree. He should have been fighting alongside Kerry and Feingold on this, not siding with Hillary and Lieberman.

==I think all of this goes to show that the IWR litmus test is way too simple. Time doesn't stop after that vote. Things happened afterwards, and I think we should be noticing an elected official's ENTIRE RECORD -- votes and what they have said.==

Bingo! This is why you saw such emotional reactions from some in this thread. These people have promoted a myth that time froze after October of 2002, that nothing relevant to the war occurred afterward. They do not want us to look at the entire record because the truth is that after he got to the senate Obama has been exactly like Hillary, a woman they love to vilify. I will not be cowed by their efforts to silence these inconvenient truths. Voters are entitled to know the entire record, not just a self-serving portion of it.

[Milo_Bloom]

19. You ignored reason 2.

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

When someone says 2 reason, you can't pick 1 of the reasons, ignore the other and think you have scored a point.

The second reason is the sticky one... There are legitimate debates in HOW to end the war.

Let me give a silly example.

Say you have two children and you see them playing in and around some crazy neighbors Hummer. Over your strenuous objections, the children ignore you, get in the hummer and manage to start it rolling down a hill. Although your initial objection was don't get in it... and just before it started moving you may have screamed "GET OUT"; however, now that it is in motion, there are many different solutions.

Jumping out may be the best move, but it could lead to serious injury of the children and the out of control hummer could hurt someone.

Trying to shout instructions on how to steer and stop may be the best move, but it might result in serious injury to the children and/or people they run over trying to gain control.

You can watch it fly out of control and hope that the size of it will protect the children within when it eventually crashes.

You can try and get crazy neighbor #2 and 3 who each have an Expedition to try and cut it off and slow it down with less damage to the children and neighborhood.

In short, to go back to the non example, you can be totally against the war, but still have a reasonable objection to the best way to end it with the least long term damage to the world.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. Yes, Kerry-Feingold were right on how to end the war; too many Democrats were wrong

Obama himself changed his position when he began running for president to essentially the Kerry-Feingold position after opposing a timetable for withdrawal from 2005-Jan. of 2007. What changed from June 22 of 2006 to January of 2007? ;)

[Milo_Bloom]

22. Not true...

The timetables were different. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Obama is essentially following the recommendations and the timetable of the Iraq Study Group.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. That is because Obama's plan was presented in 2007. The essence was the same

Kerry-Feingold would have done the same things in 13 months, Obama's token plan (when is it getting to the senate floor?) would take 14 months.

So what changed between June 22, 2006 (the day of the Kerry-Feingold vote) and January of 2007 (when Obama began running for president) that caused Obama to not only switch his longstanding position on having a timetable for withdrawal, but go as far as presenting his own bill?

[Milo_Bloom]

24. You are kidding, right??

http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf

Released on December 6, 2006

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. Obama needed James Baker (R) to convince him to end the war?

So he listened to former Republican Secretary of State James Baker on Iraq but not John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, and his fellow Illinois senator Dick Durbin? This from a candidate saying he has the best "judgment" of any of the 18 candidates for president? Sure. :crazy: Or perhaps he changed his position for the same reasons Hillary did exactly the same thing (she had the same position as Obama on timetables from 2005-2006, Kerry-Feingold, Murtha, etc. and then presented a bill with a timetable after she began running for president in 2007, like Obama).

[Milo_Bloom]

30. Didn't like the answer, eh?

You know someone has gotten themselves into trouble when they start pulling out the emoticons to CYA.

I'll go slow for you.

The point that I raised was that several people can want to end a war, but DIFFER on the best way to do it (just as in the silly hummer example I mentioned).

You then asked what happened between June 2006 and January 2007 that would cause Obama to alter the STRATEGY he supports.

Shocked that you didn't already know the answer to that, I provided a link to the document, which Obama, wisely, adopted as the roadmap to ending the war.

Then, in Kool Aid drinking like fashion, tried to distract the debate by jumping to an idiotic conclusion.. that Obama didn't WANT to end the war until the Iraq report came out.

You aren't really trying to claim that, are you?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. The answer is suspect, at best

The notion that someone suddenly--especially someone who was "against this war from the beginning"--changing their position after two years because of Republican James Baker but did not listen to Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, and Durbin a few months earlier is a stretch, at best.

==The point that I raised was that several people can want to end a war, but DIFFER on the best way to do it (just as in the silly hummer example I mentioned).==

Sure. Kerry-Feingold believed the war should have ended today. Others took a different view. Some of them reached the Kerry-Feingold conclusion after they began running for president and a timetable became popular in light of the Iraq Study Group.

==Shocked that you didn't already know the answer to that, I provided a link to the document, which Obama, wisely, adopted as the roadmap to ending the war.==

Hillary, I believe, says exactly the same thing. :)

==Obama didn't WANT to end the war until the Iraq report came out.==

Kerry-Feingold speaks for itself. Kerry-Feingold was a vote to end the war. Period. He voted against it. Did he desire to end the war? Yes. Did he want to end the war by July 31, 2007--today? No.

What you said is very interesting. You are saying Obama saw a different path to reaching a particular result. We are told, especially by the Obama camp, that a vote for the IWR was a vote for the war. Hillary's argument is that it was Bush's war, that she did not vote for a war but voted for inspections and diplomacy. Do you accept her argument or is there one standard for Obama and another for others?

==Kool Aid drinking like fashion==

Calm down. You are getting very emotional for someone who claims he does not support a candidate...

[Milo_Bloom]

34. And here come the instanity...

The notion that someone suddenly--especially someone who was "against this war from the beginning"--changing their position after two years because of Republican James Baker but did not listen to Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, and Durbin a few months earlier is a stretch, at best."

What is the POSITION that changed? What was his POSITION, that the war should not be ended? Again, is that what you are trying to claim?

"Sure. Kerry-Feingold believed the war should have ended today. Others took a different view. Some of them reached the Kerry-Feingold conclusion after they began running for president and a timetable became popular in light of the Iraq Study Group."

The ISG laid out an excellent strategy and a plan that people could easily sign onto. Again, are you trying to claim that Obama was AGAINST ending the war?

Hillary, I believe, says exactly the same thing.

So?

Kerry-Feingold speaks for itself. Kerry-Feingold was a vote to end the war. Period. He voted against it. Did he desire to end the war? Yes. Did he want to end the war by July 31, 2007--today? No.

This is an idiotic statement. Not voting for a particular item, doesn't mean that someone is AGAINST a specific goal of the item.

What you said is very interesting. You are saying Obama saw a different path to reaching a particular result. We are told, especially by the Obama camp, that a vote for the IWR was a vote for the war. Hillary's argument is that it was Bush's war, that she did not vote for a war but voted for inspections and diplomacy. Do you accept her argument or is there one standard for Obama and another for others?

No, I don't accept her argument, b/c I have already proven it false.. Iraq agreed to the unconditional return of UN inspectors on Sept 16, 2002, so claiming that the vote was for "inspections" is a lie. Second, the Levin amendment restricted the the IWR to diplomacy by forcing bush to come back to congress before actually deploying, but she voted against it., thus the "diplomacy" cover is also untrue.

Calm down. You are getting very emotional for someone who claims he does not support a candidate...

If people stop acting stupid, I will happily calm down. However, when I see people swallowing Kool Aid and begging for more, I am going to call them on it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. reply

==What is the POSITION that changed? What was his POSITION, that the war should not be ended?==

Opposing a timetable for withdrawal. Maybe if you calm down you will catch what is being said.

==The ISG laid out an excellent strategy and a plan that people could easily sign onto. ==

The ISG also helped shift public opinion on setting a timetable for withdrawal...

==So?==

We have been told by the Obama camp that Hillary shifted for political reasons, chiefly the fact that she needed to do so to win the nomination and was able to do so in 2007 because of the change in public opinion on the issue.

==Not voting for a particular item, doesn't mean that someone is AGAINST a specific goal of the item.==

Technically, yes. Perhaps something magical could have happened from June 22 to today that would have ended the war. In reality, a vote against Kerry-Feingold ensured the war continued past today.

==No, I don't accept her argument, b/c I have already proven it false.. Iraq agreed to the unconditional return of UN inspectors on Sept 16, 2002, so claiming that the vote was for "inspections" is a lie.==

That is spin. There was no guarantee the inspections would have continued or been allowed to occur without interference. Perhaps Clinton wanted to give the president the leverage to ensure inspections occurred and were completed?

==Second, the Levin amendment restricted the the IWR to diplomacy by forcing bush to come back to congress before actually deploying, but she voted against it., thus the "diplomacy" cover is also untrue.==

The Levin amendment did not have the votes to pass. Perhaps HRC supported the IWR because she feared what bill the Republicans could have rammed through Congress in a close vote instead of a 77-23 vote on a bipartisan bill? The IWR contained a provision calling for diplomacy.

==If people stop acting stupid, I will happily calm down. However, when I see people swallowing Kool Aid and begging for more, I am going to call them on it.==

The same things could have been said about your post...I just did not start to hyperventilate when presented with things that contradict what I believe.

[Milo_Bloom]

40. Ahh, the truth almost comes out...

Opposing a timetable for withdrawal. Maybe if you calm down you will catch what is being said.

Well, this is first time you have admitted that is the specifics. Now, we are getting somwhere. So Obama was FOR withdrawl, but against a congressionally mandated timetable in June of 2006. HOWEVER, changed that position in January 2007. Your question was what happened between those two times. The answer is the Iraq Study Report.

The ISG also helped shift public opinion on setting a timetable for withdrawal...

So? Are you trying to claim that Obama only now supported a timetable because it was popular??

We have been told by the Obama camp that Hillary shifted for political reasons, chiefly the fact that she needed to do so to win the nomination and was able to do so in 2007 because of the change in public opinion on the issue.

On a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE or are you trying to claim that Obama is faulting Clinton for also following the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group? No, Obama is attacking her for changing from PRO-WAR to ANTI-WAR in general, a much different shift than a disagreement of STRATEGY for withdrawal, which is all this is.

Technically, yes. Perhaps something magical could have happened from June 22 to today that would have ended the war. In reality, a vote against Kerry-Feingold ensured the war continued past today.

Only in Kool Aid land. You see, here in reality land one could WANT the troops home immediately, but believe there are greater risks in that than planning a proper withdrawl. So, one could be FOR THE GOAL, but vote AGAINST the specific bill. The answer was obviously no. A vote against Kerry-Feingold didn't ensure anything and a vote for Kerry-Feingold would't have ensured anything either.

That is spin. There was no guarantee the inspections would have continued or been allowed to occur without interference. Perhaps Clinton wanted to give the president the leverage to ensure inspections occurred and were completed?

No spin, actual facts. The IWR had nothing to do with inspections.

The Levin amendment did not have the votes to pass. Perhaps HRC supported the IWR because she feared what bill the Republicans could have rammed through Congress in a close vote instead of a 77-23 vote on a bipartisan bill? The IWR contained a provision calling for diplomacy.

The IWR contained no mandated diplomacy provision. This is another lie being fed to people. It contained SUPPORT for diplomatic efforts, but didn't require them in the least.

"SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
"
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

So can we stop telling this lie as well?

The same things could have been said about your post...I just did not start to hyperventilate when presented with things that contradict what I believe.

No, you just lied, spun and made things up to try and defend an indefensible position.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

72. The truth was there. You simply missed it because of your hyperventilating

==draft_mario_cuomo (1000+ posts) Journal 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 Tue Jul-31-07 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Yes, Kerry-Feingold were right on how to end the war; too many Democrats were wrong

Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 02:38 AM by draft_mario_cuomo

Obama himself changed his position when he began running for president to essentially the Kerry-Feingold position after opposing a timetable for withdrawal from 2005-Jan. of 2007. What changed from June 22 of 2006 to January of 2007? ;).==


==Well, this is first time you have admitted that is the specifics. ==

That is false, as I showed.

==So Obama was FOR withdrawl, but against a congressionally mandated timetable in June of 2006==

People can reach their own conclusions. What does a vote against Kerry-Feingold mean when one favors a generic "withdrawal" without any teeth to it?

==Are you trying to claim that Obama only now supported a timetable because it was popular??==

Who knows? I can't read his mind. Nor can I read Clinton's mind or anyone else's. People can look at the facts and reach their own conclusions. I just know that several people conveniently switched their position once the ISG made it popular.

==On a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE==

That is false. We are told by some that her entire evolution on Iraq over the past 5 years was poll-driven.

==Only in Kool Aid land. You see, here in reality land ==

This is ironic coming from someone who thinks Congress could raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 70%. :rofl:

==one could WANT the troops home immediately, but believe there are greater risks in that than planning a proper withdrawl.==

People can look at the vote and decide for themselves. It is interesting how those "greater risks" vanished when James Baker said essentially the same thing that Kerry and Feingold were saying a few months earlier... Politicians can also have it both ways on an issue. You seem to naively believe there is only one available explanation for a given thing.

==No spin, actual facts. The IWR had nothing to do with inspections.==

That is false. Part of the rationale for the IWR was to give the president leverage, and inspections were one of the goals to be achieved by that leverage.

==The IWR contained no mandated diplomacy provision. This is another lie being fed to people. ==

Of course it didn't. It did however, include diplomacy--much better than any Republican bill that would have passed 52-48.

Relax. Everything will be ok. Your hero is safe and sound.

[Milo_Bloom]

95. And now you are caught lying... again...

You make this far too easy... you really should stop and think before posting...

So, let's get to it.

Obama himself changed his position when he began running for president to essentially the Kerry-Feingold position after opposing a timetable for withdrawal from 2005-Jan. of 2007. What changed from June 22 of 2006 to January of 2007? .==


==Well, this is first time you have admitted that is the specifics. ==

That is false, as I showed.

Well, no. This is what had to be dragged out of you, kicking and screaming. The entire gist of your post is that Obama is somehow not anti-war because he opposed a specific timetable for withdraw. You then attempt to claim that the ONLY reason he could have changed his opinion is a decision to run for president, but somehow completely ignore the signficant develop that happened on December 6, 2006.

People can reach their own conclusions. What does a vote against Kerry-Feingold mean when one favors a generic "withdrawal" without any teeth to it?

Then you should follow that and try to let them without lying, spinning and redacting quotes and attempting to change history.. but I don't believe you are capable of that.

Who knows? I can't read his mind. Nor can I read Clinton's mind or anyone else's. People can look at the facts and reach their own conclusions. I just know that several people conveniently switched their position once the ISG made it popular.

==On a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE==

That is false. We are told by some that her entire evolution on Iraq over the past 5 years was poll-driven.

Of course you can't read his mind. You can't even read a timeline or state accurate facts. For example, the issue that Obama and others take Clinton to task for is COMPLETELY different, but you claim it is false... however, you know that is a lie, but you state it anyway.

==Only in Kool Aid land. You see, here in reality land ==

This is ironic coming from someone who thinks Congress could raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 70%.

See, here is another lie. I never said what you claim. I said that would be a better PLAN and then explained that in negotiations you ask for far more than you need and then can fall back to a different position. However, when you ask for far too little, such as raising from 15->28, you have left no fallback position.

People can look at the vote and decide for themselves. It is interesting how those "greater risks" vanished when James Baker said essentially the same thing that Kerry and Feingold were saying a few months earlier... Politicians can also have it both ways on an issue. You seem to naively believe there is only one available explanation for a given thing.

I just use the most reasonable, which is that the findings of the ISG carried significant weight in people's minds and could cause them to change their opinions based on its weight.

That is false. Part of the rationale for the IWR was to give the president leverage, and inspections were one of the goals to be achieved by that leverage.

Which is disproven by the fact that Iraq agreed to unconditional inspections on Sept 16, 2002, 3 weeks BEFORE the IWR.

Of course it didn't. It did however, include diplomacy--much better than any Republican bill that would have passed 52-48.

Relax. Everything will be ok. Your hero is safe and sound.

No, It didn't. It SUPPORTED diplomacy only, didn't include it, require it, or even suggest it. There was absolutely 0 mandated, required or even suggested dimplomacy in the IWR.

And now for your next lie... I have no hero... I am sick of your incredibly hypocrisy and will continue to call you on it when I see it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

98. There you go again...more lies

==Well, no. This is what had to be dragged out of you, kicking and screaming. ==

That is false, as the earlier post confirms. You had trouble comprehending what was said and reached an incorrect conclusion.

==. The entire gist of your post is that Obama is somehow not anti-war because he opposed a specific timetable for withdraw.==

False. I never said that. That is your Kool-Aid drinker's interpretation of anyone daring to question Obama on Iraq.

==You then attempt to claim that the ONLY reason he could have changed his opinion is a decision to run for president==

Another flat-out lie. I never said that.

==Then you should follow that and try to let them without lying, spinning and redacting quotes and attempting to change history..==

You have not pointed to any lies, "spin", or relevant redactions. Levin-Reed was irrelevant to the issue because it was non-binding. History changed? Where.

==You can't even read a timeline or state accurate facts.==

There you go again, making schoolyard attacks without offering an supporting evidence. How about any quotes?

==For example, the issue that Obama and others take Clinton to task for is COMPLETELY different,==

The reasoning applied by Obama apologists can easily be applied to Clinton's. Of course, this contradicts the Official Story so you can't grasp this.

==See, here is another lie. I never said what you claim. ==

You cited the capital gains tax being cut from 70% to 28% and fantasized that if they could be done why couldn't the reverse be done.

==which is that the findings of the ISG carried significant weight in people's minds and could cause them to change their opinions based on its weight.==

If you believe it took James Baker to convince people that a timetable for ending the war was necessary...

==Which is disproven by the fact that Iraq agreed to unconditional inspections on Sept 16, 2002, 3 weeks BEFORE the IWR.==

That is deceptive. As everyone knows, nations can change their positions. A sovereign nation can change the terms of inspections, or even kick out inspectors. Perhaps Hillary believe leverage was required to ensure that the inspections actually occurred, were not interfered with, and allowed to finish? You dismiss Senator Clinton's own perfectly reasonable explanation (while accepting Obama's on Kerry-Feingold, a timetable for ending the war, lock stock and barrel) out of hand without recognizing the issue is hardly as simple was you think was.

==It SUPPORTED diplomacy only, didn't include it, require it, or even suggest it. There was absolutely 0 mandated, required or even suggested dimplomacy in the IWR.==

Once again you are misleading. Without the IWR, which passed 77-23, the Republicans could have shoved through a much more pro-* bill in a close vote. Perhaps Clinton, being a realist (unlike some), believed the IWR was the best possible resolution?

==I am sick of your incredibly hypocrisy and will continue to call you on it when I see it.==

And I will continue to get a laugh out of your sanctimony, lies, hypocrisy, and deception. :)

[Milo_Bloom]

109. Why do you make this so easy?

That is false, as the earlier post confirms. You had trouble comprehending what was said and reached an incorrect conclusion.

That is what you CLAIMED, unfortunately, it doesn't jive with the actual facts or text.

==. The entire gist of your post is that Obama is somehow not anti-war because he opposed a specific timetable for withdraw.==

False. I never said that. That is your Kool-Aid drinker's interpretation of anyone daring to question Obama on Iraq.

==You then attempt to claim that the ONLY reason he could have changed his opinion is a decision to run for president==

Another flat-out lie. I never said that.

Do you even read what you wrote previously before claiming things are lies?
I mean, comeon, you JUST DID IT one step up the thread and now you want to claim you didn't.
From your previous post "Obama himself changed his position when he began running for president to essentially the Kerry-Feingold position after opposing a timetable for withdrawal from 2005-Jan. of 2007. What changed from June 22 of 2006 to January of 2007? "

Are we going to have to play the Daily Show game of proving that often asking "questions" is the same as making a statement? Could DMC be getting paid by the Edwards campaign to spread disinformation about other candidates on DU? I'm not saying it... just ASKING THE QUESTION?!?!

==See, here is another lie. I never said what you claim. ==

You cited the capital gains tax being cut from 70% to 28% and fantasized that if they could be done why couldn't the reverse be done.

See, here is your reading comprehension problem (or just the lying problem). You see the CONTEXT of that was me pointing out that Edwards doesn't ask for enough and the complaint was, "It would NEVER HAPPEN", so I pointed out that it had happened in the past", which seemed unreasonable at the time... but it happened. Again, this was in the context of what Edwards FAILED TO address in his tax plan, which is the real inequities in the system.

That is deceptive. As everyone knows, nations can change their positions. A sovereign nation can change the terms of inspections, or even kick out inspectors. Perhaps Hillary believe leverage was required to ensure that the inspections actually occurred, were not interfered with, and allowed to finish? You dismiss Senator Clinton's own perfectly reasonable explanation (while accepting Obama's on Kerry-Feingold, a timetable for ending the war, lock stock and barrel) out of hand without recognizing the issue is hardly as simple was you think was.

It is called Occam's razor and it is about looking at the facts as they existed. Since Iraq had agreed to the unconditional return of the inspectors 3 weeks before the vote, you can't claim that the reason for the vote was to get the inspectors in. There was no sense of URGENCY at that time for this vote on that issue, since that issue was settled. If Iraq kicked out inspectors or hindered the process, they can also pass a resolution at that time. Using the inspectors as "cover" is completely disingenuous because it ignores the actual facts that existed at the time.

On the other hand, you look at who was supporting Levin vs who was supporting Kerry-Fiengold and it is easy to see how one could reasonably accept one over the other. Both Democratic Plans, both supported by people against the war in the first place. You don't have to jump to crazy conclusions, like Obama being against bringing the troops home by July 2007 (which is what you said here, "Did he want to end the war by July 31, 2007--today? No."

Once again you are misleading. Without the IWR, which passed 77-23, the Republicans could have shoved through a much more pro-* bill in a close vote. Perhaps Clinton, being a realist (unlike some), believed the IWR was the best possible resolution?

No, they couldn't have. The Dems controlled the senate and had enough votes to fillibuster the more ominous bill.

What you said is very interesting. You are saying Obama saw a different path to reaching a particular result. We are told, especially by the Obama camp, that a vote for the IWR was a vote for the war. Hillary's argument is that it was Bush's war, that she did not vote for a war but voted for inspections and diplomacy. Do you accept her argument or is there one standard for Obama and another for others?

No, because you are not including the Levin amendment in the IWR consideration, which is the important factor. To vote FOR the IWR and AGAINST LEVIN, it was a vote for war. There were NO restrictions in the IWR, none, 0, zilch. No diplomacy required or suggested. It was an authorization for use of force against Iraq. That is all that is in there, whether you like it or not.


Go ahead, keep on spinning.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

111. Why do you keep lying?

==That is what you CLAIMED, unfortunately, it doesn't jive with the actual facts or text.==

There you go again. How about showing the actual text? I showed one post in which I was clear on the matter. It is not my fault you couldn't grasp it.

==From your previous post "Obama himself changed his position when he began running for president to essentially the Kerry-Feingold position after opposing a timetable for withdrawal from 2005-Jan. of 2007. What changed from June 22 of 2006 to January of 2007? "==

Those are the stubborn facts. He changed his position on a timetable for withdrawal. Do you dispute that? There is a quote from him in this very thread opposing a timetable for withdrawal in 2006 (also his 2005 position)...

==See, here is your reading comprehension problem (or just the lying problem). You see the CONTEXT of that was me pointing out that Edwards doesn't ask for enough and the complaint was, "It would NEVER HAPPEN", so I pointed out that it had happened in the past", which seemed unreasonable at the time... but it happened.==

That is false. It was politically reasonable at the time, which is kind of why it happened. :crazy: The opposite is not achievable right now.

==Since Iraq had agreed to the unconditional return of the inspectors 3 weeks before the vote, you can't claim that the reason for the vote was to get the inspectors in. There was no sense of URGENCY at that time for this vote on that issue, since that issue was settled. If Iraq kicked out inspectors or hindered the process, they can also pass a resolution at that time. Using the inspectors as "cover" is completely disingenuous because it ignores the actual facts that existed at the time.==

That is a very naive view of international relations. Hillary does not have such a view. Moreover, with your obsession with "purity" you ignore political realities. An Iraq resolution was going to be passed in October of 2002. That is a fact. That throws your whole argument about coming back and passing another resolution out the window. So the question is what motivated Hillary to support it? Perhaps it was, as she says, to give the president leverage to have inspections and to encourage diplomacy?

==On the other hand, you look at who was supporting Levin vs who was supporting Kerry-Fiengold and it is easy to see how one could reasonably accept one over the other. Both Democratic Plans, both supported by people against the war in the first place.==

Levin-Reed was a symbolic, toothless bill. Kerry-Feingold was the vote the counted at the time.

==ike Obama being against bringing the troops home by July 2007 (which is what you said here, "Did he want to end the war by July 31, 2007--today? No."==

That is what his vote against K/F meant. Does that mean he was pro-war? Of course not. That is easy for anyone to see, but I guess I have to spell it out for you. Did Obama believe the war could be ended that quickly? No.

==No, they couldn't have. The Dems controlled the senate and had enough votes to fillibuster the more ominous bill.==

Nice try. You ignore the political realities of the time. The president had sky-high approval ratings and the IWR 70% support. There was no way they were going to be able to block the IWR. Did anyone filibuster the IWR?

==because you are not including the Levin amendment in the IWR consideration, which is the important factor. To vote FOR the IWR and AGAINST LEVIN, it was a vote for war. There were NO restrictions in the IWR, none, 0, zilch. No diplomacy required or suggested.==

Levin did not have the votes.

[Milo_Bloom]

113. Because I'm not and I have proven it?

==That is what you CLAIMED, unfortunately, it doesn't jive with the actual facts or text.==

There you go again. How about showing the actual text? I showed one post in which I was clear on the matter. It is not my fault you couldn't grasp it.

I have shown your contradictory posts in other responses. Go find them.

Those are the stubborn facts. He changed his position on a timetable for withdrawal. Do you dispute that? There is a quote from him in this very thread opposing a timetable for withdrawal in 2006 (also his 2005 position)...

Duhhhhh. No, no one disputes that. What people dispute is the idiotically loaded questions you ask or the loaded way you make the statement, stating (either in question form or in direct statements) that the ONLY REASON he could have changed his opinion is either A) he wanted to be more popular for a presidential run or B) the nation was behind it, so he decided to change his position.

That is false. It was politically reasonable at the time, which is kind of why it happened. The opposite is not achievable right now.

Lie on all counts. It is true. It wasn't politically reasonable at the time (in fact it was even called voodoo economics in the GOP primary race), but became so once Reagan was put in office with a wide margin, suggesting popular support for it. And I never claimed the opposite WAS SPECIFICALLY ACHIEVABLE. It was in context of asking for more than you can achieve to have a fall back position. Please get your facts straight.

That is a very naive view of international relations. Hillary does not have such a view. Moreover, with your obsession with "purity" you ignore political realities. An Iraq resolution was going to be passed in October of 2002. That is a fact. That throws your whole argument about coming back and passing another resolution out the window. So the question is what motivated Hillary to support it? Perhaps it was, as she says, to give the president leverage to have inspections and to encourage diplomacy?

No, and Iraq resolution didn't have to be passed in Oct of 2002. Maybe you forget, but the Dems controlled the Senate and could have controlled the timinig of it as well. The problem with your claim of Hilary's motivation is that the law she passed doesn't state any of those goals. Are you suggesting she didn't understand the text? Or maybe you don't. Who knows.

That is what his vote against K/F meant. Does that mean he was pro-war? Of course not. That is easy for anyone to see, but I guess I have to spell it out for you. Did Obama believe the war could be ended that quickly? No.

It didn't mean that either. Keep trying.

Nice try. You ignore the political realities of the time. The president had sky-high approval ratings and the IWR 70% support. There was no way they were going to be able to block the IWR. Did anyone filibuster the IWR?

Hmm, Lie, Lie and oh yeah, Lie.

Lie #1) The president no longer enjoyed "Sky-high" approval ratings in Oct of 2002. They had been on a very steady decline, down 30 points from their highs. ()

Lie #2) The IWR did NOT have 70% support http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:BNRd3cM062sJ:www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/c2k/iraq106.pdf+Poll+approval+of+Iraq+War+Resolution+in+October+2002&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us In fact, it was the LEVIN Amemdment that had popular support

q44 Do you think the President should have to get the approval of Congress before taking military action against Iraq, or should he be able to make that decision himself? 63% said GET APPROVAL

Lie #3: Yes, there was a fillibuster attempt by Robert Byrd which was shot down by DEMOCRATS, who were in control of the Senate at the time.

Levin did not have the votes.

It would have if people voted for it and bush would have been forced to accept it, or come away with nothing. Unlike in June 2006, where the GOP controlled Congress, The Senate AND the White House.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

115. You haven't proven anything

==I have shown your contradictory posts in other responses. Go find them.==

You have only showed you failed to grasp what was being said, presumably due to emotional reactions to them.

==What people dispute is the idiotically loaded questions you ask or the loaded way you make the statement, stating (either in question form or in direct statements) that the ONLY REASON he could have changed his opinion is either A) he wanted to be more popular for a presidential run or B) the nation was behind it, so he decided to change his position.==

I never said the only possible reasons he changed his position were those. I am not in the camp that believes there is one Official Story that is flawless and cannot be questioned.

==Lie on all counts. It is true. It wasn't politically reasonable at the time (in fact it was even called voodoo economics in the GOP primary race), but became so once Reagan was put in office with a wide margin, suggesting popular support for it.==

More lies from you...It was called "voodoo economics" by a guy who lost. The majority of his party did not believe that. The truth is there was a lot of anti-tax, anti-government fervor at the time and Reagan and other supply-siders took advantage of that to push through a series of tax cuts, such as that one.

==I never claimed the opposite WAS SPECIFICALLY ACHIEVABLE. It was in context of asking for more than you can achieve to have a fall back position. Please get your facts straight.==

How do you know that isn't being done? Why do you think your hero and Clinton have not come out for such a capital gains hike? Perhaps 28% is a realistic way to get 25% or 22%.

==No, and Iraq resolution didn't have to be passed in Oct of 2002.==

That is naive. It was not realistic to block an Iraq resolution at that time. Did anyone filibuster the IWR?

==Maybe you forget, but the Dems controlled the Senate and could have controlled the timinig of it as well.==

That is deceptive. There was a popular president, a lot of support for the war, a successful campaign to promote the war at the time. There was no realistic way to stop there from being an Iraq resolution at that time in those conditions.

==The problem with your claim of Hilary's motivation is that the law she passed doesn't state any of those goals.==

Again you are taking a naive and simplistic view of legislation and international relations. If you can't grasp what Hillary was trying to say--whether honest or dishonest--I can't help you.

==Lie #1) The president no longer enjoyed "Sky-high" approval ratings in Oct of 2002. They had been on a very steady decline, down 30 points from their highs. (This image link contains an illegal code)==

Once again, you are deceiving DUer. You mention that his ratings fell 30 points but offered no specific number? The reason is because his high was 94%. :eyes:

Here is the truth:





==Lie #2) The IWR did NOT have 70% support==

From your own link:

==Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq
to try to remove Saddam Hussein from power?
Approve 68
Disapprove 26==

==Do you think the President should have to get the approval of Congress before taking military action against Iraq, or should he be able to make that decision himself? 63% said GET APPROVAL==

Nice try. Anyone who knows anything about polling knows how such a question works. Of course people are going to say that in respond to such a question. How about a poll on the IWR itself?

==Lie #3: Yes, there was a fillibuster attempt by Robert Byrd which was shot down by DEMOCRATS, who were in control of the Senate at the time.==

Another lie from you. I did not say there was no filibuster. I was not sure. Hence, the question. The filibuster was shot down by Democrats. Put down the pipe and think about what that tells you about support for the IWR at the time...

==It would have if people voted for it and bush would have been forced to accept it, or come away with nothing.==

That wasn't going to happen given the political climate at the time. There was going to be a war resolution of some sort, whether it was the IWR or an even more pro-Bush one.

[Milo_Bloom]

118. See DMC Fall apart at the seems.

==I have shown your contradictory posts in other responses. Go find them.==

You have only showed you failed to grasp what was being said, presumably due to emotional reactions to them.

Lie. I have shown that you directly accused Obama of only changing his opinion for specific reason. You chose to ignore the proof. That is your problem now, not mine.

I never said the only possible reasons he changed his position were those. I am not in the camp that believes there is one Official Story that is flawless and cannot be questioned.

Actually you did. In your original post you only offered one POSSIBLE explanation as to why someone could change their view and stated it was solely "political winds". Go back and read your own words for a change.

More lies from you...It was called "voodoo economics" by a guy who lost. The majority of his party did not believe that. The truth is there was a lot of anti-tax, anti-government fervor at the time and Reagan and other supply-siders took advantage of that to push through a series of tax cuts, such as that one.

What is the 'lie'? You admit it was done and that it wasn't even supported by the entire GOP, but, it got done. Seems like you caught me telling the truth. LOL.

==I never claimed the opposite WAS SPECIFICALLY ACHIEVABLE. It was in context of asking for more than you can achieve to have a fall back position. Please get your facts straight.==

How do you know that isn't being done? Why do you think your hero and Clinton have not come out for such a capital gains hike? Perhaps 28% is a realistic way to get 25% or 22%.

Because they ALL server the same master. 28% is woefully insufficient and 22/25 is even worse. It doesn't solve the problem or even address the issue as proven previously. The difference is that Edwards is hypocrically claiming that his tax plan helps the poor, when it does very very little for the poor and only maintains a status quo tax policy that favors the rich.

That is naive. It was not realistic to block an Iraq resolution at that time. Did anyone filibuster the IWR?

Yes.

That is deceptive. There was a popular president, a lot of support for the war, a successful campaign to promote the war at the time. There was no realistic way to stop there from being an Iraq resolution at that time in those conditions.

Already previously proven a lie. Try again.

Once again, you are deceiving DUer. You mention that his ratings fell 30 points but offered no specific number? The reason is because his high was 94%.

Umm, idiot... I gave you the link. 64% Ain't SKY HIGH when it is a fall from 94.

==Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq
to try to remove Saddam Hussein from power?
Approve 68
Disapprove 26==

But that did NOT translate into support for the IWR as proven in the same poll.

Nice try. Anyone who knows anything about polling knows how such a question works. Of course people are going to say that in respond to such a question. How about a poll on the IWR itself?

That WAS the IWR. The IWR was giving approcal for war WITHOUT coming back to congress, WITHOUT ANY preconditions or diplomacy required or suggested. That is exactly what this question was and what the vote represented.

Another lie from you. I did not say there was no filibuster. I was not sure. Hence, the question. The filibuster was shot down by Democrats. Put down the pipe and think about what that tells you about support for the IWR at the time...

Wow, this is dumb even for you.... From earlier in this very post, "That is naive. It was not realistic to block an Iraq resolution at that time. Did anyone filibuster the IWR?" Are we trying to play the daily show question game again???

Dude, you have to at least TRY and maintain the lie throughout the same post, it makes it too easy this way.

That wasn't going to happen given the political climate at the time. There was going to be a war resolution of some sort, whether it was the IWR or an even more pro-Bush one.

Says the person who has been proven lying within the same post several times.

Dude, you really need to learn when you have backed yourself into a corner.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

125. And the beat goes on...

:boring:

==I have shown that you directly accused Obama of only changing his opinion for specific reason.==

That lie was debunked earlier. :boring:

==Actually you did. In your original post you only offered one POSSIBLE explanation as to why someone could change their view and stated it was solely "political winds". Go back and read your own words for a change.==

I wasn't writing a dissertation on Kerry-Feingold. The explanation I cited explains most of the votes. I stand by it. However, I did single out any senator and claim that is why they voted for it. What is so difficult for you to grasp about this? Where did I mention your god in the OP?

==What is the 'lie'?==

That the proposal was not politically reasonable at the time.

==You admit it was done and that it wasn't even supported by the entire GOP, but, it got done.==

You are distorting, yet again. It was opposed by a rival of the guy who became president during the primaries. Once Reagan got in office, riding a wave of anti-government, anti-tax fervor he had his way early in his presidency. Do you have any clue what you are talking about? :rofl: @ the absurd notion that it was hard for Reagan to get that tax cut through.

==Because they ALL server the same master.==

Where are you on your hero's plans?

==64% Ain't SKY HIGH==

Only a naive fool with no knowledge of presidential history would think a 64% approval rating doesn't equate to a powerful president.

==But that did NOT translate into support for the IWR as proven in the same poll.==

Only in your ignorant world. You seem to no nothing about polling.

==That WAS the IWR. The IWR was giving approcal for war WITHOUT coming back to congress, WITHOUT ANY preconditions or diplomacy required or suggested. That is exactly what this question was and what the vote represented.==

Your ignorance is on display again. If you ask people "Do you support the IWR?" the result is going to be different then the question you cherry-picked. The Democratic leadership in Congress understood this.

I don't worship daily at the altar of the IWR like some. I am not familiar with every detail of what happened in Congress at the time.

==Says the person who has been proven lying within the same post several times.==

Only in your world. Your failure to understand what is being sad hardly means someone was lying. You are like someone hard of hearing who rants without even knowing what was said. :rofl:

[Milo_Bloom]

142. Desperate DMC tries to spin some more...

==I have shown that you directly accused Obama of only changing his opinion for specific reason.==

That lie was debunked earlier.

Nope.

==Actually you did. In your original post you only offered one POSSIBLE explanation as to why someone could change their view and stated it was solely "political winds". Go back and read your own words for a change.==

I wasn't writing a dissertation on Kerry-Feingold. The explanation I cited explains most of the votes. I stand by it. However, I did single out any senator and claim that is why they voted for it. What is so difficult for you to grasp about this? Where did I mention your god in the OP?

Yeah, just lie some more, I guess no one can go back to the original post and where were you specifically mention "presidential candidates" and no one can see that you only offered one possible explanation. Nah, no one can do that.

Why do you lie when your own original post proves you a liar?

==What is the 'lie'?==

That the proposal was not politically reasonable at the time.

LOL. Wow, that's some powerful stupid pills you have taken. Yet another claim of lie rests unproven by the squirming DMC.

==64% Ain't SKY HIGH==

Only a naive fool with no knowledge of presidential history would think a 64% approval rating doesn't equate to a powerful president.

It doesn't. Clinton's approval ratings were higher and then he was IMPEACHED, so sell crazy somewhere else.

==But that did NOT translate into support for the IWR as proven in the same poll.==

Only in your ignorant world. You seem to no nothing about polling.

Yeah, I can only read the question and the answer. Guess there is some secret subtext that is traded in the cabal of looney tunes.

Your ignorance is on display again. If you ask people "Do you support the IWR?" the result is going to be different then the question you cherry-picked. The Democratic leadership in Congress understood this.

I don't worship daily at the altar of the IWR like some. I am not familiar with every detail of what happened in Congress at the time.

Yeah, why should you educate yourself about the very topics you are talking about. Seems par for your course. Your polling knowledge is right on target with your knowledge about the IWR... none at all.

Only in your world. Your failure to understand what is being sad hardly means someone was lying. You are like someone hard of hearing who rants without even knowing what was said.

Yeah, the fact that you have contradicted yourself several times, failed the read the very amendment you claim to support, admit you don't know about the history of the IWR proves that I don't understand the subject.

You are so done.

[karynnj]

49. The ISG gave cover to people to accept

what was in essence very close to Kerry/Feingold. The steps needed were very simple - which is why many felt that the ISG vindicated what Kerry and Feingold had proposed. One difference was that the ISG did not use the word "deadline". Given that both Kerry and Feingold had indicated that the President would have some flexibility, this was not a huge difference.

If you want, you can say K/F was not politically likely to succeed before the ISG, but it seems wrong to not credit the Senators for proposing the framework that the ISG pretty much recommended. Neither are running for president, so there seems no reason not to give them the credit they deserve.

[Milo_Bloom]

64. Not taking any credit away from them at all!

This has nothing to do with taking credit away from Kerry/Fiengold, this is solely about Obama and his decision making process.

The OP suggested that there was no possible reason (other than popularity and/or running for office) that Obama could have had to change his approach from June to January when, in fact, the ISG came out in December.

The OP doesn't want to consider the fact that people opinions may have been swayed by the report.

That doesn't mean others didn't have similar ideas first

[draft_mario_cuomo]

74. I did not suggest there was no other possible reason

Hence, the question, which you emotionally answered. :)

==The OP doesn't want to consider the fact that people opinions may have been swayed by the report.==

You don't want to consider the fact that public opinion was swayed by the report. The substance of the arguments remained the same from June of 2006 to the ISG. Were the arguments so much more compelling when James Baker, not John Kerry made them?

People can look at this and reach their own conclusions. Perhaps some suddenly "saw the light" when a former Republican secretary of state said exactly what John Kerry and Russ Feingold said. Or perhaps they moved with public opinion. There is no way to determine what someone was really thinking.

[Milo_Bloom]

Yes, you did...

Hence, the question, which you emotionally answered.

This is reflected in every twisted, spun and factually incorrect response you have offered here. You purposely ignored the ISG until you were forced to face it and then try to write it off as nothing. Pathetic.

You don't want to consider the fact that public opinion was swayed by the report. The substance of the arguments remained the same from June of 2006 to the ISG. Were the arguments so much more compelling when James Baker, not John Kerry made them?

People can look at this and reach their own conclusions. Perhaps some suddenly "saw the light" when a former Republican secretary of state said exactly what John Kerry and Russ Feingold said. Or perhaps they moved with public opinion. There is no way to determine what someone was really thinking.

Yes, in this instance, it SHOULD have more weight coming from a former republican secretary of state than Kerry. Obama considered both Kerry-Feingold and Levin and chose to co-sponsor Levin. Levin has been a consistent leader on this issue from the very beginning offering a sane amendment that would have helped to stop the war before it started.

In short, if I was going to choose who to listen to on something to do with the Iraq War, I would certainly listen to Levin over Kerry, since Levin actually took positive steps to start it BEFORE it got started.

However, once someone "from the other side" endorses a particular strategy for withdrawal, it is time to examine it much more carefully.

The entire text of your posts is to suggest that somehow Obama had become "pro war" or "anti-withdrawal" which is completely false and you know it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

99. Where did I do that? Show the quote to back up another lie from you

Thanks in advance...

==Yes, in this instance, it SHOULD have more weight coming from a former republican secretary of state than Kerry.==

For a Democratic senator who was "opposed to this war from the beginning"? Keep drinking the Kool Aid...

==Obama considered both Kerry-Feingold and Levin and chose to co-sponsor Levin.==

Levin was a sham. It was symbolic and had no teeth; Kerry-Feingold did.

==In short, if I was going to choose who to listen to on something to do with the Iraq War, I would certainly listen to Levin over Kerry, since Levin actually took positive steps to start it BEFORE it got started.==

That is a very simplistic way to look at the issue. How about a man, who cites his judgment on the campaign trail, evaluating the merits of their respective arguments? Obviously a Harvard lawyer could have done that. Obama simply siding with the Hillary wing of the party on Kerry-Feingold. Admit it. It isn't the end of the world. Why the obsession with preserving the Official Story on Obama's Iraq record?

==The entire text of your posts is to suggest that somehow Obama had become "pro war" or "anti-withdrawal" which is completely false and you know it.==

That is absurd.

[Milo_Bloom]

110. DMC comes undone...

Let's see we have this quote, "Did he want to end the war by July 31, 2007--today? No" (stating very clearly that Obama was for keeping the war going."

And then we have this gem of stupidity, "Obama himself changed his position when he began running for president to essentially the Kerry-Feingold position after opposing a timetable for withdrawal from 2005-Jan. of 2007. What changed from June 22 of 2006 to January of 2007?"

Here we play the Daily Show game of trying to claim that "i'm only asking the question..." I'm not making a statement, just ASKING... nothing wrong with asking, right?

Or then we have your original statement claiming it was ALL based on popularity, "Sadly, politics prevailed. It is hard to conceive of this but a little more than a year ago the political winds were blowing in a different direction on Iraq. It was unpopular to support a timetable for withdrawal then."

Or this quote, "Few Democrats, including those who switched to favoring a timetable to end the war now that the political winds are blowing in favor of a timetable (especially for presidential candidates), stood with Senators Kerry and Feingold. "

But, no, you NEVER said anything like that, did you???

READ WHAT YOU WROTE BEFORE CLAIMING WHAT YOU DID AND DID NOT SAY!!!

Levin was a sham. It was symbolic and had no teeth; Kerry-Feingold did.

In your fairly useless opinion. In actuality, neither had teeth, but let's not bore you with details.

That is a very simplistic way to look at the issue. How about a man, who cites his judgment on the campaign trail, evaluating the merits of their respective arguments? Obviously a Harvard lawyer could have done that. Obama simply siding with the Hillary wing of the party on Kerry-Feingold. Admit it. It isn't the end of the world. Why the obsession with preserving the Official Story on Obama's Iraq record?

Why the obsession with trying to distort it when the facts are quite clearly against you?

==The entire text of your posts is to suggest that somehow Obama had become "pro war" or "anti-withdrawal" which is completely false and you know it.==

That is absurd.

Oh, of course... no one could POSSIBLY read THIS LINE, '"Did he want to end the war by July 31, 2007--today? No"' and think that you meant Obama didn't want to end the war.


Dude, you are so done.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

116. Did you wet yourself in excitement? More lies from Milo_Bloom

=="Did he want to end the war by July 31, 2007--today? No" (stating very clearly that Obama was for keeping the war going."==

That was debunked earlier. Why do you continue to revive it? Read what I said earlier on it.

=="Obama himself changed his position when he began running for president to essentially the Kerry-Feingold position after opposing a timetable for withdrawal from 2005-Jan. of 2007. What changed from June 22 of 2006 to January of 2007?"==

I addressed that earlier as well. Once again, you are wrong.

==Or then we have your original statement claiming it was ALL based on popularity, "Sadly, politics prevailed. It is hard to conceive of this but a little more than a year ago the political winds were blowing in a different direction on Iraq. It was unpopular to support a timetable for withdrawal then."

Or this quote, "Few Democrats, including those who switched to favoring a timetable to end the war now that the political winds are blowing in favor of a timetable (especially for presidential candidates), stood with Senators Kerry and Feingold. "==

Once again, you are being deceptive. I was making generalized statements. It is true politics prevailed. It is true the political winds are blowing in favor of a timetable--especially if you are running in a Democratic primary for president. I did not say anything about your hero--he was only listed along with 30+ senators who voted against K/F. Then you decided to hijack a thread about Kerry-Feingold into one about Obama.


==In your fairly useless opinion. In actuality, neither had teeth, but let's not bore you with details.==

Oohh, Milo is getting emotional again. What's the matter? Did I hurt your hero with a mere post on the internet? :( Kerry-Feingold was binding; Levin-Reed was not. Kind of a big difference...

==Why the obsession with trying to distort it when the facts are quite clearly against you?==

Things are not as simplistic as you think they are.

==Oh, of course... no one could POSSIBLY read THIS LINE, '"Did he want to end the war by July 31, 2007--today? No"' and think that you meant Obama didn't want to end the war.==

That was addressed earlier. Yet, you continue to lie about what I said. Relax. Your hero will be fine regardless of what this thread contains. No one is even going to read the middle of this thread except us.

==Dude, you are so done.==

This must be the point you wet yourself?

[Milo_Bloom]

120. DMC didn't read the Kerry Fiendgold Amendment, did he?

=="Did he want to end the war by July 31, 2007--today? No" (stating very clearly that Obama was for keeping the war going."==

That was debunked earlier. Why do you continue to revive it? Read what I said earlier on it.

=="Obama himself changed his position when he began running for president to essentially the Kerry-Feingold position after opposing a timetable for withdrawal from 2005-Jan. of 2007. What changed from June 22 of 2006 to January of 2007?"==

I addressed that earlier as well. Once again, you are wrong.

==Or then we have your original statement claiming it was ALL based on popularity, "Sadly, politics prevailed. It is hard to conceive of this but a little more than a year ago the political winds were blowing in a different direction on Iraq. It was unpopular to support a timetable for withdrawal then."

Or this quote, "Few Democrats, including those who switched to favoring a timetable to end the war now that the political winds are blowing in favor of a timetable (especially for presidential candidates), stood with Senators Kerry and Feingold. "==

Once again, you are being deceptive. I was making generalized statements. It is true politics prevailed. It is true the political winds are blowing in favor of a timetable--especially if you are running in a Democratic primary for president. I did not say anything about your hero--he was only listed along with 30+ senators who voted against K/F. Then you decided to hijack a thread about Kerry-Feingold into one about Obama.

You don't really believe this, do you? I mean, you did read what you wrote, right? Are you really now trying to claim that this line, "Few Democrats, including those who switched to favoring a timetable to end the war now that the political winds are blowing in favor of a timetable (especially for presidential candidates), stood with Senators Kerry and Feingold" Doesn't say what it actually says? It doesn't accuse presidential candidates of changing their opinion ONLY BECAUSE OF POLITICAL WINDS?!

That isn't what you said there?

Wow, that is some powerful stupid stuff.

Oohh, Milo is getting emotional again. What's the matter? Did I hurt your hero with a mere post on the internet? Kerry-Feingold was binding; Levin-Reed was not. Kind of a big difference...

No, it actually wasn't. It left tons of room for discretion (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109Aw32AV:e201953:)

"leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel. "

This line could leave 100,000 troops in Iraq, as it was left up to discression as to how many troops would need to COMPLETE that mission. How many is minimal? What many are critical? How many are necessary for these tasks?

It had NO REAL TEETH since it didn't contain HARD NUMBERS.

You should actually try READING the Amendment before stating what it did and did not accomplish.

That was addressed earlier. Yet, you continue to lie about what I said. Relax. Your hero will be fine regardless of what this thread contains. No one is even going to read the middle of this thread except us.

Yes, you addressed it AFTER you claimed you didn't say it and I was forced to shove it in your face... then you came up with some idiotic CYA line about what you really meant when you said it, despite the fact that it said the opposite.


Yep, you're done.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

126. zzzzz....

Someone needs to take nuance 101. I made a generalized comment about the political situation and then compared it to today's political situation. Yes, there is more pressure on the 8 presidential candidates (in case you weren't aware, Obama is not the only candidate and he is not even the only senator running) to support a timetable than there is for a Democrat in Congress not running for president. What can't you grasp about this?

How much would Levin-Reed leave? Exactly the same amount since it was not binding.

==. then you came up with some idiotic CYA line about what you really meant when you said it, despite the fact that it said the opposite.==

This seems to be a big problem for you. You have your own version of reality and cannot grasp that your interpretation may be wrong. Before you and another emotional Obama supporter entered the thread no one was even talking about Obama, aside from one reply to a post that unfairly singled out HRC for criticism on K/F. If you and another BO fan did not hyperventilate this thread would have remained focused on Kerry-Feingold and the courage of Kerry, Feingold, and 11 other senators. Thanks for constantly bumping this thread up, though. :rofl:

[Milo_Bloom]

143. Can't deny it, can you? You didn't know what it said, did you?

Someone needs to take nuance 101. I made a generalized comment about the political situation and then compared it to today's political situation. Yes, there is more pressure on the 8 presidential candidates (in case you weren't aware, Obama is not the only candidate and he is not even the only senator running) to support a timetable than there is for a Democrat in Congress not running for president. What can't you grasp about this?

How much would Levin-Reed leave? Exactly the same amount since it was not binding.

How many, EXACTLY THE SAME AS KERRY-FIENGOLD because it didn't call for anything specific. Let's see, so far in this thread you have claimed.

#1) Kerry-Fiengold would have ended the war - Not true.
#2) Obama was not for ending the war by July 31 - Insane lie.
#3) All senators who didn't vote for Kerry-Fiengold did it for political reasons - From the land of crazy.
#4) All Senators who changed their position did it because the political winds changed - Also from the land of crazy

And now we have this lie "Before you and another emotional Obama supporter entered the thread no one was even talking about Obama, aside from one reply to a post that unfairly singled out HRC for criticism on K/F. "

Thanks for constantly bumping this thread up, though.

No problem, people need to see just how insane and misguided you are and I am more than happy to amuse them by slapping you around with your own words.. You make it all so easy.

[beachmom]

55. Kerry testified before the ISG. He influenced them. You're saying

that Obama wouldn't listen to Kerry until it was coming out of a bipartisan commissioner's mouth? Maybe understandable, but hardly politically courageous.

[karynnj]

48. One person who had significant input to the ISG was John Kerry

Many of their recommendations reflected things that John Kerry had proposed in 2004 or 2005. What the ISG did was to give people the cover needed to back what is essentially Kerry/Feingold. (The timetable - a year - was the same and reflected the need for various actions - that were not taken - to be done.)

[beachmom]

54. Goal vs. deadline is VERY similar. Look Kerry testified before the ISG.

He had an influence on them, and he knows they listened to him. Put it this way -- Barack's 1/07 plan is WAY closer to K/F than the lame Levin/Reed amendment he voted for in June '06. He said NO DATE CERTAIN. March 2008 sounds like a date to me.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

75. I agree nt

[Milo_Bloom]

114. No one is debating that his opinion changed.

The debate is over the motivation for that change.

The OP is trying to force people to believe that it was ONLY the political winds, while others suggest that the ISG played a bigger roll.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Obama supporter here, wish he'd voted for it

And if Someone like Feingold, Durbin, Kennedy, or Boxer were running I'd definitely vote for them. But they're not, so I'm going with Obama.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Kucinich is running. He has always fought against this war

Kucinich even went to court before the war, along with several other members of Congress, to stop the rush to war. If Kucinich were in the senate he would have voted for Kerry-Feingold. After all, Kucinich was pushing for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq long before Kerry-Feingold.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Kucinich hasn't done the necessary work to be a viable candidate

I agree with many of Kucinich's positions. But there are one of two conclusions I've drawn about Kucinich. One, he knows he can't win, in which case I don't support candidates who don't believe they can win. Two, I don't he thinks he can win on ideas alone. I also don't have much respect for those candidates either.

Kucinich hasn't done the work making friends and connections both in Ohio and nationally. From what I've read, he tends to hire amateurs to run his campaign. Also, congressmen generally don't have large enough constituencies or enough name recognition to be viable candidates unless they are in the leadership. Kucinich has had several opportunities to make a run for Senate or Governor but he hasn't. If he were to be Senator or Governor of Ohio he would very quickly be seen as viable because Ohio is such a hotspot in the general election. In the case that he can't win statewide in Ohio I don't see how he can win nationally.

[Clintonista2]

133. I agree with you on this one, however

What I don't understand about many Obama supporters, is how they act as if the Iraq war is the *only* important issue, then refuse to support Kucinich, the only truly anti-war candidate. If Obama supporters want this to be 100% about Iraq, I'm completely fine with that, but at least be consistant. The truth is, Hillary and Obama have a completely identical record in the senate when it comes to every single vote regarding Iraq.

[Hippo_Tron]

141. The IWR is more a case of judgment than it is about the war for me

Obama saw through the administration's rhetoric and listened to the minority viewpoints in 2002 when it counted. That correct decisions indicates to me that he had good judgment and also a willingness to take a very unpopular stance when it matters.

There were people in the Senate, Ted Kennedy for one, who were asking the tough questions of the administration and weren't willing to give him unilateral authority until they had made a better case to give it to them. The fact that Hillary Clinton was clearly not one of those people. It's not so much about being pro-war or anti-war for me, it's that trusting a bunch of warmongering neocons with preemptive unilateral authority to wage a war and then turning around and saying, "Well we thought they would let the inspectors do their job" is either a complete crock of shit or just plain stupidity.

As far as an identical record in the senate, I'm not going to criticize him or anyone else for funding the mission once the war had already started. We had an obligation to at least try and stabilize the country, although the opportunity for that has obviously long since passed.

[Clintonista2]

146. Point taken

Hillary was very wrong in her vote, and I will always admit this. It's just very very frustrating to see Obama supporters make claims like "Hillary is the most pro-war candidate" when she is today highly critical of this war, and has exactly the same voting record as Obama.

[Hippo_Tron]

147. Dupe n/t

[sniffa]

59. and hiLLary supporters are their usuaL

:eyes:

[TeamJordan23]

18. DMC, I expect you to start a similar post on October 11, 2007 naming all those who STARTED THIS WAR

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. Sure, if I am here

But I expect I will be beaten to it by others. ;)

Everyone knows who voted for the IWR. Kerry-Feingold has been self-servingly airbrushed from history by some and forgotten by the rest, though. We need to look at the IWR, votes on funding (continuing) the war from 2003-2007, the Murtha plan to end the war in 2005, Kerry-Feingold in 06', the call to cut off funds for the surge in Jan. of 2007, Reid-Feingold in 2007, and even Lamont vs. Lieberman in 2006 when assessing past records on Iraq. Kucinich amazingly was right every single time (except perhaps, Lamont. I don't know if he officially endorsed Lamont. At least he did not endorse and campaign for Holy Joe, like some others).

[bling bling]

31. For some reason your comment made me check your profile.

You've only been here since MARCH???? God, I thought it had been so much longer than that. I wondered why until I saw how many posts you have. Good lord Mario, 1,000 posts per month average???? No wonder it felt like you'd been around forever.

[jillan]

33. More good stuff from DMC!

k/r!

I remember how proud I was of Kerry and Feingold that day.....

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. Thanks

:hi:

[ProSense]

35. Actually the date was a month ago, July 1 2007. n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. It seems to have changed to July 31

==The debate will culminate today with votes on an amendment sponsored by two potential Democratic candidates -- John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Russell Feingold (Wis.) -- and an alternative backed by most party leaders.

The Kerry-Feingold plan would order President Bush to withdraw nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by July 31, 2007. The alternative, sponsored by two Democrats not weighing White House bids -- Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Jack Reed (R.I.) -- is a nonbinding resolution urging Bush to begin a troop "redeployment" by the end of this year. It does not specify a pace or a completion date.==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101393.html

[ProSense]

56. The WaPo article made an error

Here is the Congressional Record (PDF:

(2) STRATEGY ELEMENTS.—The strategy required
in the report under paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) The schedule for redeploying United
States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, developed
pursuant to subsection (a)(1).
(B) A schedule for returning the majority
of such redeployed forces home to the United
States.
(C) The number, size, and character of
United States military units needed in Iraq
after July 1, 2007, for purposes of
counterterrorism activities, training Iraqi
security forces, and protecting United States
infrastructure and personnel.
(D) A strategy for addressing the regional
implications for diplomacy, politics, and development
of redeploying United States
forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.
(E) A strategy for ensuring the safety and
security of United States forces in Iraq during
and after the July 1, 2007, redeployment,
and a contingency plan for addressing dramatic
changes in security conditions that
may require a limited number of United
States forces to remain in Iraq after that
date.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

76. Thanks for the correction

Unfortunately, it is too late to edit the OP.

[bling bling]

43. Obama's statement on this (the parts that MARIO DIDN'T BOTHER TO QUOTE)

"What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy.

For example, let's say that a phased withdrawal results in fifty thousand troops in Iraq by July 19, 2007. If, at that point, our generals and the Iraqi government tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an additional three or six months would enhance stability and security in the region, this amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing the optimal policy.

It is for this reason that I cannot support the Kerry Amendment. Instead, I am a cosponsor of the Levin amendment, which gives us the best opportunity to find this balance between our need to begin a phase-down and our need to help stabilize Iraq. It tells the Iraqis that we won't be there forever so that they need to move forward on uniting and securing their country. I agree with Senator Warner that the message should be "we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it." At the same time, the amendment also provides the Iraqis the time and the opportunity to accomplish this critical goal.

-above copied from Mario's source above.

This is bullshit the way a supposed Democratic Party supporter picks and chooses statments in the the same way the Republicans do and in the same way the media does.

Is there no refuge from this shit. I stopped watching CNN for this fucking reason. That's why I'm here.

I understand debating, I understand all that. But deliberate mischaracterizations and ommissions of relevant information in an effort to deviously try and get people to like or dislike a politician is what I was running away from when I found DU. I came here looking for the straight talk. Trying to make it look like Obama sat on his ass on this issue and just voted no to make him look bad is incorrect. He thought another plan was a better idea. He even co-sponsored it.

Fuck. This is fucking beyond ridiculous.

[beachmom]

57. Levin/Reed was LAME and did NOT get our troops out.

Look, these are the facts. Why are you calling DU "CNN" when CNN goes out of its way to bash or ignore senators like Kerry and Feingold, while there has been an MSM lovefest for Obama? You're just mad that Obama voted the wrong way.

[bling bling]

63. You think you got me pegged.

You don't. I don't get hot under the collar when people have a beef with Obama. You've *obviously* missed the last several threads where I've called out this OP for various bullshit.

I don't give a flying fuck about K/F. You think the K/F amendment was the right one. Obama didn't. You're probably right. If you'd like to discuss it somewhere else, and if this was almost anyone else's thread, I would probably find myself on your side because you sound like your genuine about this topic. The OP isn't. This is ultimately about the OP. Not K/F.

My point here, beachmom, is that the OP tries ALL DAY LONG to distract, deflect, and persuade opinion using selective quotes, half the story, and full-blown LIES to distort. This on all kinds of various topics. Not just K/F. All kinds. You HAPPENED to see me lose it in the K/F thread.

This isn't about K/F. It's about the tactics of the OP and his buddies. This is just one of 500 threads I could have lost it on. It's culminated to this. It has nothing to fucking do with the subject. It's about tactics. And even if YOU don't believe me, I would bet my HOUSE the OP understands what I'm talking about. He knows damn well what he does around here.

So please, stop now. I'm frustrated enough but your hounding me on K/F is sooooooooooo beside the actual point of my frustration that it's making it even worse.

[AtomicKitten]

66. I agree the after-the-fact hand-wringing serves

only to validate the drive to deflate the viable contenders on behalf of a candidate that doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning and he knows it and perhaps on behalf of a candidate who isn't running at all.

While it's easy to wistfully sigh that if "a" had happened, "b" would have occurred, what matters is the confidence the candidates instill. The drive to shake that confidence continues but cannot undermine certain facts, the one that resonates here is Obama was most certainly against the war in 2002 when it mattered, when the party was gearing up into a "yeah war" platform in 2004 (one that I hope received the same no mercy scrutiny - I wasn't here in 2004).

Obama still comes out ahead.

[bling bling]

73. Thank you, AK.

I almost always feel like I'm on the same page as you when you discuss something. I totally "get" what you say. I just wish I could stay as level headed as you always do about everything.

[AtomicKitten]

85. hang in there

Don't let the vicissitudes of DU get you down. Choose to believe good intentions, let the rest slide, and garner confidence in your point of view, tested here on a daily basis, as the cornerstone of who you are.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

80. The thing some fail to realize is others have different opinions

This is a discussion board. We discuss politics here. People have different opinions. The problem some have is they cannot fathom why others would look at things in a different way than them. Not everyone buys into one Official Story on the record on Iraq, for instance, over the past five years.

[AtomicKitten]

84. I'm fully into discussion.

And believe it or not I try to put myself in another person's shoes to understand their POV. I do get what you are saying and appreciate the reminder regarding votes in Congress. It's important information to factor into deliberations.

However, in the final analysis, Obama still stands apart from the other front-runners and although not perfect or pristine in his course so far, I would have no problem casting my vote for him and barring Gore entering the race, I plan to do just that.

I would think people that don't support any of the front-runners might consider backing the candidacy of Obama as a reasonable alternative to their idea of the perfect candidate and prevent the race from going to what most certainly would be construed using the criteria you have put forth as a more egregious nominee.

I hope people consider joining that endeavor.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

89. That is your opinion--and you have a right to express it on DU

==However, in the final analysis, Obama still stands apart from the other front-runners and although not perfect or pristine in his course so far, I would have no problem casting my vote for him and barring Gore entering the race, I plan to do just that.==

Not everyone agrees--even on Iraq, the only real issue Obama is running on and even in that case it is about what he did 5 years ago, not in the senate (he did exactly what Hillary did during that time) or his Iraq plan going forward (which is identical to Hillary's).

==I would think people that don't support any of the front-runners might consider backing the candidacy of Obama as a reasonable alternative to their idea of the perfect candidate and prevent the race from going to what most certainly would be construed using the criteria you have put forth as a more egregious nominee.==

This is one of the biggest things that distinguishes me from most DUers. The conventional wisdom is that Obama and Hillary are far apart on the issues (with Obama being perceived as better--largely because he has no real record to attack while HRC does). I consider Obama and Clinton to be like Pepsi and Coke: same concept, different marketing. I do not accept the notion that Obama is somehow better than Clinton. They are identical and Clinton's experience is a big tiebreaker for her. However, while I express my views on this, I do not try to enforce a self-prescribed orthodoxy at DU on this issue. No one should. This is a discussion board, not a cheerleading board.

I also don't accept the new Team Obama talking point (over the past month or so) that this is a two-way race, that everyone else is out of it. What is implicit, of course, although few will directly say it, is that all votes belong to Clobama and people should support Obama because Hillary is the spawn of satan.

[AtomicKitten]

96. bottom line

[wisteria]

97. Exactly, and some people don't like their opinions challenged. n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

100. I agree. Some think there is one Official Story on this issue

And that no one should dare question it.

[beachmom]

67. Okay, bling bling. I'll cease and desist. It is only the topic that interests me.

I'll be honest that I skip over a lot of the GDP threads because to me they're not all that interesting, so I apologize if I don't completely understand what you were talking about. I don't have a horse in this race, so maybe I am missing out on the vitriol. To me, it is coming from multiple parties/candidates, and is a normal part of a primary battle. Sometimes what is best is to just take a break and refuel.

[bling bling]

78. Thank you, beachmom.

I think that if GDP was filled with people like you it would be the best place to come to discuss politics and I wouldn't feel frustrated right now. I totally appreciate people who genuinely want to discuss the candidates positions openly and honestly. That includes Obama, truly. When I feel like people have a legitimate negative opinion I'm usually driven to want to write the candidate about it and try to make them change their position. I'm honestly not a blind loyalist.

Like I said before, if this had been anyone else's thread I would have never had that kind of an outburst.

Thank you for your kind response. It's been a rough couple days because I've let it all get to me and you're right I think I do need to refuel.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

88. You need to get a grip if you let posts questiong *HIM* "get to you" nt

[bling bling]

94. Yeah. You're probably right to some degree. n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

79. You've attacked me, called me names, not disputed anything I present

You don't dispute any of the facts I present. Just look at what you have done in this thread. You don't respond to Kerry-Feingold and instead mislead people into believing that Levin-Reed mattered because you can't handle that your hero was wrong on K/F.

==I don't get hot under the collar when people have a beef with Obama.==

:rofl:

==is that the OP tries ALL DAY LONG to distract, deflect, and persuade opinion using selective quotes, half the story, and full-blown LIES to distort.==

Those are a series of lies. You are obsessed with me and on a jihad to discredit me. The fact is that if I am wrong, people would correct me. What usually happens is (since this is a discussion board) I present an opinion. Others disagree and present their opinion. This is a discussion forum. You are not going to be able to force people to fall in line and adhere to a sacred Official Story.

If what you say is true, why is this thread on the Greatest Page? :crazy:

[bling bling]

86. I don't want you to fall in line. I want you to quit spamming and polluting the discussions.

I want you to stop distorting and distracting using spam methods on the forum. You spam Obama, Clinton, and Edwards threads with distortion and distraction.

The other night you spammed the Edwards poverty thread, didn't address any of the legimate questions, and then mimicked and copycatted my legitimate questions from the Edwards thread onto a new copycat thread that you twisted around to be about Obama regarding the IWR.

You have a childish sense of humor. And it brings the level of discourse down to the gutter. And legitimate conversations get lost in in the chaotic confusion that you intentionally bring to the threads.

This K/F thread is about distracting the attention from Edwards and you know it. Don't play innocent.

If you *must* distort and distract it would be the least you could do to minimize it a little. Your 18 hours a day of rabid distortion and distraction spamming is just too much. I can't escape you. Any thread that interests me I click on it and sure enough, there's DMC stinking it up with distorted information in an effort to draw some poor sucker into a maddening battle where all you really do is dance around and push the right buttons in order to keep the argument going.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

87. You are not Skinner. You don't run this board

The audacity of arrogance...

There is a simple solution. Put me on ignore.

I offer opinions, not distortions. Just because you disagree with it does not make it a distortion. You are not the arbiter of all that is correct; you are also not the regulator of DU. Get a grip and use the ignore function. You are a bitter Kool-Aid drinker who wants to silence any dissent regarding your hero. This is a discussion board, not a Obama red book discussion club. What hypocrisy...you do do exactly what you bitterly cry about when it comes to Edwards but want others to not question *OBAMA (D-God)*. :eyes:

==This K/F thread is about distracting the attention from Edwards and you know it==

That is profoundly idiotic. People can walk and chew gum at the same time. Everyone knows Edwards' record. Kerry-Feingold has nothing to do with Edwards. This thread is in the Greatest Page--and had little to do with Obama in the OP (he was just one of 30+ Democrats who opposed K/F) until HRC was singled out in a reply. Clearly, DUers thought it was a valid thread. :)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

77. Exactly. It is misleading to claim Levin-Reed mattered

"bling bling" is once again guilty of what he/she criticizes others for doing. :crazy:

[BeyondGeography]

44. The thought that an amendment would have ended the war today is absurd

Bush is still President, he refuses to sign anything with deadlines attached, and we lack the power to override. There have been many attempts to impose deadlines, including Obama's own resolution which would have the troops out by Jan. 31, 2008, and all have failed. They will continue to fail until we bring enough Republicans over to our side, which is becoming increasingly difficult, not easier, especially now that Democratic security experts like Michael O'Hanlon are saying we actually have a chance to win this war. He's talking out of his ass, but don't think for a moment that the Pollack/O'Hanlon column published yesterday and seized on by supporters of the war as proof that timelines are wrong, hasn't just made it harder to end the war that Edwards and Clinton voted for and that Obama opposed.

http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?are...

Once authority was granted Bush to pursue this war, we were certifiably fucked. As for the "Obama has voted to fund the war" meme, Congress has NEVER de-funded troops while they were in the field. NEVER. The Vietnam War only ended when we withdrew all but a skeletal force and we cut off aid to South Vietnam. Obama's and Clinton's votes against the last funding bill were purely symbolic because passage was assured. They both did what they had to do to appease primary voters. If funding had depended on their votes, they would have voted in favor of the measure, and they would have been politically right to do it. The real opportunity to oppose was five years ago. Too bad so many otherwise bright Democratic lights turned into dim bulbs for the occasion.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. It might have spurred the anti-war movement, but it had no chance to become law

There were and are good arguments for why more Democrats should have supported that amendment, but Democrats were still in a minority in each house. It would not have passed, and if by some miracle it did, it would have been vetoed just as Bush did this year. There were arguments on the other side as well that were tactical considerations. In order for Democrats to really challenge Bush we needed to gain control of one or both houses of Congress. That was always going to mean winning some new seats in some relatively conservative districts and states, and not losing any that we already had. It could and was argued both ways how Democrats voting as a bloc for that amendment (without being able to make it law) would effect the 2006 mid-term elections. The fact is that we did not lose a single incumbent and picked up more seats in both houses in November than anyone at that point thought was possible. The same may or may not have happened if more Democrats voted for the amendment, we could have done better or worse, it is only speculation at this point.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

81. So that excuses not leading on trying to end the war? Should we just wait until Jan. 20, 2009?

[wisteria]

104. It would have opened discussion and compromise. We could have a strategy in place that protects our

soldiers and holds the Iraqi's government responsible for their country. In other words, it would have done a lot of good had Dem's gone along with it. The public would of been behind us and we could have perhaps persuaded more Republicans to compromise before the elections.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

127. Agreed nt

[CTLawGuy]

46. October 11, 2002. The war could have never started

This is the day the IWR passed. Over 3000 US soldiers and untold thousands of Iraqi lives could have been saved had this war never started.

which presidential candidates voted for it:

John Edwards (co-sponsor),
Hillary Clinton,
Joe Biden,
Chris Dodd

Guess who spoke out/voted against it at the time:

Barack Obama,
Dennis Kucinich

(the others I am not sure of their position).

Voting for Kerry/Feingold is a sad substitute for never having condoned this war in the first place.

No bill that anyone could support today could come close in moral righteousness to never having supported this war in the first place.

[karynnj]

50. This infers that the war would not have started if the IWR was defeated

From the DSM, it is clear that Britain and the US had already decided to go to war and would manufactor a "cause" if needed. The US already had troops amassed in the Persian Gulf.

I wish NONE of the Democrats had voted for the IWR, but I think you need to look at what each of them individually did and said in the entire 2002 - 2003 time period. Obama did sound an alarm that a war against Iraq would be disasterous. Edwards clearly believed in the war and was a supporter at least through the first year of the war.

In my opinion, the two most important things to know in picking the 2008 nominee are - 1. what would he/she do now to get out and stabalize the region? and 2. What are the circumstances under which he/she would take the country into war in the future. At this point, I do not have a clear idea on either of these points from any of the three front runners.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

82. Exactly. They make the IWR vote sacred but dismiss other votes by citing * being prez nt

[TeamJordan23]

91. It may be 'sacred' because it has caused politicians to flip their opinions on their vote.

Like some of the candidates running for President.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

92. Sure but you guys can't have it both ways. Obama has also shifted with the political winds

The only time he showed "courage" on Iraq happened to be when it aligned with his political interests...since 2005, when his interests changed, he has mirrored Clinton's shifts the entire time. When HRC moved, there was Obama doing the same.

[CTLawGuy]

103. the OP presumes something similar

that if Obama had voted for Kerry-Feingold, the war would have been ended.

[karynnj]

121. Exactly, good catch

John Kerry knew that the amendment would not pass - he said as much, but he said it was immoral not to speak out and try to change a policy that he knew was not working - while soldiers died. Even now, after the situation has gotten worse and the ISG came to many of the same conclusions, we still do not have the 67 votes needed to overcome a veto - which would come.

The people I have a problem with on this are those who supported those ridiculing Kerry and speaking behind his back because they thought it was the wrong time to speak about Iraq politically. Politics should not have outweighed concern for the troops then. (I do not think either Edwards or Obama did this at that time.)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

128. The OP doesn't mention Obama

Except when he was listed along with 30+ other Democrats who voted for this.

As far as the Obama angle (I notice several BO supporters are awfully defensive on this. I don't see this from HRC supporters, Biden backers, or Dodd supporters. I wonder why? ;) ), Obama supporters can't have it both ways. They can't apply one set of rules to the one Iraq vote that Obama never had to cast a vote on and then change the rules when it comes to bills Obama voted on. Using the standards set regarding Kerry-Feingold, I suppose we are no longer going to see Obama supporters blame Hillary for the war? After all, she was just one of 77 votes.

[Imagevision]

51. feingold was sooo right on Bush censure but gained no support from um, colleagues?

[karynnj]

58. Not true - he got at least 3 co-sponsors - Harkin, Boxer and Kerry

that was in the 109th Congress. I don't know if he has introduced the Censure measure in this Congress yet.

[wisteria]

62. Awesome post! The Kerry-Feingold amendment was a defining moment for me.

It spoke volumes about who are leaders actually are in our party and which ones were ready to take the heat and make the tough decisions necessary on Iraq. Much of the Democratic party disappointed me that day. They were clueless about true public sentiment over Iraq and more concerned about themselves and the upcoming elections in 06.
Senator Kerry shined in my eyes.He took all the heat for this amendment from his party and the media. He was not even allowed to speak on the amendment until late in the evening and spend at least an additional hour on the floor debating its merits with Republican Senator Warner, who admitted it contains well thought out and reasonable measures. Senator Warner's major concern was that it was binding.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

83. Thank you

:hi:

[knight_of_the_star]

90. Thank you John Kerry!

With him doing things like this it makes me wish more and more he had won in 2004!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

93. Same here. Imagine a President Kerry in office today instead of *! nt

[AtomicKitten]

108. of course we would have been better off

But I wonder if you acknowledge Kerry's contribution to the status quo. He also voted 'yes' on the IWR and went on to stand by that vote through the 2004 election effectively crafting a 'we do war better' campaign.

Nobody's hands are clean.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

112. I do. I acknowledge the realities of 2002. I just don't blindly act as if time froze then

Being right in 2002 is no excuse for being wrong in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007. Some think it is. Look at Kerry. He was wrong in 2002 but has been right--and shown real leadership, not flashy rhetoric on the campaign trail--to try to end the war in 2006-2007.

[AtomicKitten]

124. The IWR was a pretty significant moment frozen in time

... one that I wish had gone down very differently because it aided and abetted this administration.

Everything since then has been a reaction to that watershed moment.

We all have our own conscience to reckon with in the process of deciding which candidacy to throw in with in moving forward. It would probably be helpful for you to examine your rhetoric and not assume a different view is "acting blindly" or some such not particularly flattering assessment of how somebody else thinks. I understand more clearly now where you are coming from, but my conclusion remains different than yours.

We have an epic battle ahead with the GOP and this protracted pounding on our own candidates, distinctly different than simply discussion, can be a real drag sometimes. I for one would appreciate it if you spent more time rallying on behalf of a candidate rather than working so feverishly to knock others down. I think many at DU would agree with that request. Thanks.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

130. Sure it was and it is mentioned here every single day

So why all the complaints when another important Iraq vote was mentioned? You know the answer...

You guys can't have one set of rules for criticizing Obama and one set for everyone else. Team Obama attacks Hillary repeatedly and every day. I don't see any complaints there from Obama fans. Obama is running for president, just like everyone else. Obama is not a sacred cow who is exempt from criticism.

How about starting with yourself? Will you agree to never criticize any of Obama's rivals for the presidency? ;)

[AtomicKitten]

134. The sum total of my criticism of the candidates

... revolves around the Iraq War. I have been consistent about that.

I am confident and steadfast in my opinion because I have given the matter thoughtful consideration; we all have. It's rather boorish to make cracks to others demeaning people you don't agree with. That's certainly not conducive to honest discussion, but I think perhaps you are the type of person that doesn't really listen to others and just waits for your turn to speak/post.

Your challenge for Team Obama is misdirected at me in particular. I remain waiting patiently for the word from Al Gore. He is the one I want to see as the Democratic nominee.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

136. I see. So you will continue to criticize other candidates

Thanks for being honest about it.

Like you, when I disagree with a candidate I will state it. After all, this is a discussion board, not a cheerleading board for one candidate.

[AtomicKitten]

137. critical analysis is good

Sorry you disagree, and I feel perfectly at peace about that because I have not piled on the haircut, the house, being black enough, cleavage analysis and all the other BS de jour that titillates most DU'ers.

It's all about the war for me. That's a litmus test that resonates still and is not something I will likely sweep under the carpet, not now or ever.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

138. I don't disagree. We are in full agreement on this

I have several issues of interest. When I disagree when a candidate on an issue I will say so. The only difference we have is you are a single-issue voter.

[AtomicKitten]

139. that's right -- this war is wrong on so many levels

There is nothing more important in my opinion than extricating ourselves from this illegal, immoral war. The integrity of this country has been breached in so many despicable ways as a result: torture, warrantless wiretapping, etc., etc.

I proudly make this my single issue in this election. It's kinda funny that you make light of something I take so seriously, and it is that lack of respect that resonates. I guess some can't resist the snarkiness the cover of anonymity provides.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

140. Huh? I am not making light of it

There are many single-issue voters. For many of them it will be Iraq, for others it will be abortion or health care. That is fine. All I said was the only difference between us is that you are a single-issue voter. Due to that your criticisms are limited to Iraq. I am not a single-issue voter so my criticisms are more wide-ranging. There is no right or wrong; we are both equal when we step into the voting booth.

[AtomicKitten]

144. thanks

My delicate underbelly was showing. :)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

145. No problem

:)

[karynnj]

122. He voted yes and stood by his reasons for voting that way ithroughout 2004,

but he did not support the war. In Fall 2002 and early 2003, he spoke of avoiding war. When it was clear that war was coming, he spoke at Gergetown University against going to war as there was more the inspections and diplomacy could do. At that time he said it would not be a war of last resort. Speaking that way in DC and in Iowa, should put to rest any thought that the vote was political.

He has said that the war was immoral (which in fact is true if it was not a war of last resort) and that his vote was wrong. Given his life long committment to issues like this, that admission likely came at a far greater cost than many other politicians admitting that they were wrong.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

131. That is true. Kerry shows how the IWR is not the black-and-white issue it is made be

These days the IWR is presented as a black-and-white issue, especially from certain people, who tend to want to ignore the fact that the IWR was not the only Iraq vote ever taken.

[AtomicKitten]

135. many, many Americans view that vote as black and white

The IWR separated the wheat from the chaff, the posers from the real people.

We would be remiss to let that vote slide like it was no big deal - just another vote as you say. But you go right ahead. That is your right and your prerogative. Just know many people vehemently disagree with your assessment of that particular vote. Ignore that.

[LittleClarkie]

123. He appeared to be waiting for certain benchmarks

even setting a deadline after which he was going to start pushing for us to get out. There was about a six month window after their elections when some things had to happen, and they didn't.

No his hands aren't clean. But he stood by what he'd said because he believed it then. As things deteriorated in Iraq, his opinion changed with the situation. There's something our current administration doesn't know how to do. Re-examine and change.

It would have been easier for him if he could have said what he though people wanted to hear instead of what he actually thought at the time.

[Mass]

101. Not having cosponsored the IWR bill would have gotten a long way as well.

Yes, I would have preferred to see Obama vote for the Feingold Kerry vote, but I certainly would have heard Edwards be as vocal as possible in support of the same vote, now that he does not have to cast a vote.

This simply did not happen.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

105. Edwards does not excuse the individual records of senators on Iraq

Were the 86 wrong on Kerry-Feingold? Yes. Someone else being wrong on the IWR four years prior is hardly a justification for being wrong on Kerry-Feingold. Look at the bill itself. Kerry-Feingold. An IWR supporter wrote the bill! He was wrong in 2002 but right in 2006. Kerry, Feingold, and 11 other senators deserve some credit for being correct on K/F.

[Mass]

107. I do not remember Edwards going out of his way to support Kerry-Feingold.

I wonder why?

Kerry, Feingold and 11 other senators deserve A LOT of credits, but, for some reason, I am not sure this is not who voted for the bill who motivates this post.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

132. What does Edwards have to do with the K/F vote?

I didn't see him on the roll call list.

Edwards was wrong on Iraq. He admits it. All his supporters do. He was wrong for years until recently. We are not trying to misrepresent his position on Iraq. It is others who want to re-write Iraq history for self-serving reasons--and Kerry-Feingold is airbrushed from that new history.

[bigwillq]

102. Thanks for posting this.

Good thread.

K and R

[draft_mario_cuomo]

106. Thanks nt