So far, Kucinich, Clark and Edwards have advocated cutting off funds for Iraq

[Totally Committed]

as a means to end the occupation of Iraq.

Poll Question: Do you agree that this is the only option left to end this occupation, and if so will you support a candidate who does not vote to cut off funds when this comes up for a vote?

[GreenTea]

1. Doesn't it bother Obama, Clinton, supporters that they never will?

[redqueen]

2. i don't think so

i think many view continuing funding as being the popular thing to do, and therefore the right thing to do

[ripple]

3. Clinton and Obama voted 'no' on the last supplemental

What is this "never" stuff?

[GreenTea]

4. Let's see either one stand up and say no more fucking money for this war EVER!!!

Oh, but it might not get me the fucking moderate votes, I'm told... It would be better if I let kids die over there, because I would get more votes by NOT cutting off funds for this endless war for corporate profit!

After all I get lots of money from these corporations and it just wouldn't be right, (and they would cut off my donations).

[ripple]

7. Again, they both voted 'no' on the supplemental

Just because they aren't saying exactly what you want them to say doesn't mean they aren't trying to end the war.

[bjobotts]

46. Yeah, after they waited to find out their vote wouldn't matter.

Some didn't need to think about it or wait to see how the others voted.

[sampsonblk]

50. Its important to SAY something

If you can't even say it, you ain't for it. We all know how the game works.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. Are they going to take a stand on this and lead or quietly vote at the last minute?

They were so opposed to the supplemental they were not sure how they would vote until the last minute...

[bvar22]

33. They didn't REALLY vote no.

They kept SILENT on the issue before the vote, and then
waited until the vote was already decided before casting their vote.
It was a throwaway that kept their WARPROFITEERING owners happy.

<May 25, 2007>
Clinton & Obama...Bunker Boys?

"Bunker Boys" is a pejorative term used to describe the cowardly behavior of certain types, usually field officers, during Vietnam. These individuals would cower inside reinforced bunkers while the bullets were flying and the mortars were dropping. AFTER the action was over, they would make an appearance prancing around the battlefield pretending to be brave heroes, posing for the cameras, and recommending themselves for medals. The grunts in the holes knew them for what they were.


Dodd, Kerry, and Feingold STOOD UP and fought DURING the battle.

Clinton and Obama hid behind their SILENCE during the real fighting. Hillary actually RAN from the question at a press conference on Wednesday.
Clinton & Obama stood up ONLY AFTER the battle was over.
They will now parade around showing off their "NO votes like a badge of courage, and some of their camp followers will applaud them. But the grunts in the holes know the truth.

[frylock]

37. right. just as soon as it was safe to vote no.

[ripple]

5. In fairness, Clark and Edwards aren't in a position to cast a vote

So their armchair quarterbacking should be taken with a grain of salt.

When Edwards was in a position to cast a vote- wait, make that co-sponsor the resolution that got us into the war to begin with, he blew it.

[Totally Committed]

6. But, they put themselves out there with an opinion.

I think that's pretty gutsy.

TC

[ripple]

8. I respect that, but I think it's more gutsy when one has constituents to answer to n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. So "Mr. Judgment" needs to take the pulse (polls) of Illinois before deciding to finance the war?

At least you admit it.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

21. TC, I don't thinks it takes guts to say what voters want to hear.

Gutsy would have been to stand up against the PNAC-pack back when this all started.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. So you think Clobama are silent for fun? Or is it because coming out for this is politically risky?

If this was so popular everyone would be on the bandwagon...

[AtomicKitten]

25. Edwards knows all about jumping on the bandwagon ....

he led the "yeah war" parade into Iraq.

[AtomicKitten]

26. self-delete (dupe)

[Bucky]

35. "Clobama"? Was that supposed to be part of a serious response?

Portmanteaus don't automatically display wit.

[bvar22]

36. Its not Politically risky.

Its Financially risky.
All those $MILLIONS from War Profiteering Corporations and AIPAC would dry up if Clobama took a REAL stand against the War/Occupation, or took a stand AGAINST the nefarious "Oil Law".

[AtomicKitten]

40. I would love it if Congress allocated the $50 billion to ---

rebuilding New Orleans and doing it right. Well, it would be a start.

And not to proselytize, but Obama has a lot of experience as a community organizer and would make that money work, completely cutting out the middle-man charlatan war profiteers.

[Totally Committed]

27. Okay, granted I guess, but Kucinich, at least, has been against this war from the beginning.

And, he has never strayed from that, as far as I can see AND he has a vote. At least his call for a cutoff of funds is genuine.

TC

[GreenTea]

11. What a bullshit cover & excuses for these corporate fucks!-What a Rove tactic point the finger

away from ones own candidate and point it at others for saying the right thing........And what about Kucinich?

Stop the hiding with excuses! So that makes it ok for Obama and Clinton not to stand up and say stop the funding immediately for this senseless occupation for profit while kids continue to die?

[Clark2008]

12. Actually, Clark's been asked several times of Congress to

give his expert opinion, which was first, don't go in and then, get out soon. Edwards didn't listen to him back in 2002.

So, it's not actually armchair quarterbacking when you're asked to provide expert testimony, is it?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. Clark also said he "probably" would have voted for the IWR and then switched the next day nt

[AtomicKitten]

22. and Edwards and Hillary ACTUALLY voted for the IWR

It's funny watching you spin your wheels declaring how you think others might have voted or stating and then summarily trashing their alleged rationale for opposing the war (all this deliberation a puppet show in your own head), at the same time completely ignoring the fact that YOUR GUY - John Edwards - led the parade into Iraq, co-sponsoring the IWR and writing an Op-Ed rallying support for the invasion so convincing the State Department put his Op-Ed on their website.

Your game is transparent.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. Conversely, when Obama has had a vote he has voted with Clinton every time on Iraq

The only time he was right was when he was an armchair quarterback eyeing a senate seat he was a longshot for and needed an issue, something that would give him a statewide base to run with in what proved to be a 7 candidate primary.

[AtomicKitten]

20. Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq as far back as 2002.

As much as you like to try to marginalize that good judgment by impugning his rationale, the bottom line is he got it right on an issue of grave importance. Edwards and Hillary, not so much.

[Adelante]

31. I dunno, ripple

General Clark is a recognized expert on national security, military and foreign policy. He advises the Democrats in Congress on those areas and has done for years. He has written and edited books on those subjects and lectures as a fellow at UCLA law school. He speaks to those issues all over the world and is called on for guidance by many different governments. He's a military and foreign affairs commentator. Not to mention he has actually led a war and helped broker a peace. So I think "armchair quarterbacking" is not quite what he is doing.

[polichick]

9. I don't know why I should support a candidate who...

Continues to fund Bush's Bogus War; refuses to do his or her job by impeaching Bush and Cheney; and is too busy drumming up votes to deal with the escalating situation with Iran.

Those are opportunities to LEAD NOW ~ where are they???

[Totally Committed]

10. Exactly.

Ditto here.

TC

[AtomicKitten]

13. funding is a REALLY dicey call

Many Americans believe the strategy of cutting off funding jeopardizes the troops in the field. Although I don't agree with that rationale particularly when we are desperate to bring this fiasco to a close, I can understand why others feel the implication of cutting off funding is unthinkable. Imagine your kid stuck over there.

Any funding in the future should be attached to a no-nonsense brief timeline to get the soldiers out en masse, putting the onus on Junior.

Let us not forget it was Hillary's and Edward's votes that put us in Iraq; Obama was against the war as far back as 2002. I believe he deserves that distinction acknowledged.

IMO impeachment is the way to go to end the war, in fact, it may prevent invasion of Iran.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

17. I will NOT vote for ANYONE who voted for the IWR...

...and certainly not a person who co-sponsored the damn thing.

...I will not vote for anyone who continues to fund this war.

[AtomicKitten]

19. word

The IWR vote was the watershed moment.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. So you are voting for Kucinich by default nt

[mikelgb]

28. y & n

[ludwigb]

29. Where Does Edwards Advocate Cutting Off Funding

That's news to me. If true, he'll have my full support.

[Totally Committed]

32. I saw this thread earlier:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3485752

TC

[maximusveritas]

38. You misread it; He does not advocate cutting off funds

He's just saying we shouldn't fund without a timeline.

[ludwigb]

39. That's Not Quite Cutting Off Funding

Marginally better than Obama and Clinton maybe (though Obama is still better positioned strategically since he opposed the mess from the beginning). But definitely not up to the standard of Richardson (who has promised no residual forces) or Kucinich (who is for starting the withdrawl right away). According to Edwards, he is ok with us being there for another year at least, with no definite word on residual forces.

Still, I could accept a timeline if a few concessions were offered

1) No Oil Deal under duress imposed by a military occupation. No Oil Deal that might legitimize a return to Iraq to safeguard newly won corporate assets.

2) Bring the UN in. For real.

3) No US combat troops remaining in Iraq except under a UN peace-keeping mandate, or protect the Kurds IF the UN fails to take appropriate measures.

[Rainbowreflect]

30. Yes and no in the primary.

[Bucky]

34. After the nomination I will support whoever the fuck the party tells me to support

That's not negotiable. Unless we nominate a Lieberman which we won't, the nominee will be acceptable to me. The Republicans are trying to drown the Constitution. I can't get worked up for a debate over what color the life preserver should be.

[AtomicKitten]

41. I definitely can live with --

any of the Democrats on deck. At the very least, they are capable people that are smart enough to ask for help if they need it. This administration, not so much. Plus the GOP bench is a sideshow of freaks that scare the bejeezus out of me.

A victory by any of the Democrats guarantees the next Supreme Court justice(s) will be appointed by a Democrat. That is HUGE in my world.

[slipslidingaway]

43. Food for thought...

"A victory by any of the Democrats guarantees the next Supreme Court justice(s) will be appointed by a Democrat. That is HUGE in my world."


"Stopping the Repukes" How has the long term strategy worked?

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

"Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation...

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly...

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda."


And George W. was in the position to appoint 2 Supreme Court judges!

[AtomicKitten]

44. I think the reluctance to pursue this further --

had more to do with getting on with a new presidency than anything nefarious. Much of this was closed down anyway.

I don't subscribe to the theory you have referenced. I have read the material and, in my opinion, that material is an extrapolation of facts woven together with a pretty clear negative bias as evidenced by the harshness of the judgment.

But I'm not concerned. I don't support that wing of the Democratic party.

[slipslidingaway]

45. Sorry you do not see how NOT holding people accountable

let many of the same people from prior administrations or family members assume control of our nation once again. Unfortunately for us they were in the right place and the right time to appoint 2 Supreme Court Judges.

I do not know what wing of the Democratic Party you refer to, but truth and accountability matter to me, and so do the unintended long term consequences as I believe we are now witnessing.

In 2009 it will be time to get on with a new presidency, we have to worry about the short term :(


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/index.htm

"Iran-Contra also echoes in the re-emergence of several prominent public figures who played a part in, or were touched by, the scandal. The most recent is Robert M. Gates, President Bush's nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense (see below and the documents in this compilation for more on Gates' role).

This sampling of some of the most revealing documentation (Note 1) to come out of the affair gives a clear indication of how deeply involved the president was in terms of personally directing or approving different aspects of the affair. The list of other officials who also played significant parts, despite their later denials, includes Vice President George H.W. Bush, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, CIA Director William J. Casey, White House Chief of Staff Donald T. Regan, and numerous other senior and mid-level officials, making this a far broader scandal than the White House portrayed it at the time."

[AtomicKitten]

48. How you construe my response --

to mean "... Sorry you do not see how NOT holding people accountable ..." is beyond me.

I simply do not believe that particular extrapolation of history accurately reflects the reality of it. While it is convenient to start shoveling blame in an avalanche of bitterness, the pile-on in the end does not, in fact, accurately reflect the journey from point A to point B. There is a whole lot of inappropriate, inaccurate blaming going on with some unmet, unrealistic expectations.

This theory of 'all is connected' leaves no room for certain facts that just don't fit, i.e., GHWBush having the good sense to not invade Iraq when the PNAC boys tee'd it up for him and the 2000 election being decided in a virtual judicial coup d'etat. There are all kinds of holes in the theory you have invested in. It is my prerogative to be discerning which is very different from "not holding people accountable," that assumption yet another leap of faith rather than fact or reason.

Peace.

[slipslidingaway]

49. I see you edited the middle paragraph after I had opened my

reply window, there was something about going down a rabbit hole etc.

We have a difference of opinion.

Peace.

[Greyhound]

47. "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable,

and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

[MasonJar]

42. I am not going to tie my vote for president to one decision. There

are many factors to be considered. That said I do NOT think that the Congress should give Bush his extra 50 billion dollars. Let him and Cheney supply the money from their blood-splashed, dishonorable, war-mongering spree. Cheney has certainly piled up enough blood money to pay the whole amount personally, and W can maneuver it out of the Saudis like he has always been prone to do.