Should Sen Obama attempt to Filibuster the next Iraq War funding Vote?

[rndmprsn]

i am an obama supporter and i would like to see him lead an effort to shut this war down, and i think it would good politics too...i believe his support would soar by leading such an effort...what do you think, obama and clinton supporters...and why?

[QC]

1. Sorry, but that would require him to take a position on a controversial issue.

It's not going to happen. Why risk alienating people when you can just dispense breezy New Age platitudes?

[boston bean]

2. He will NEVER EVER do that. dream on! nt

[BlueCaliDem]

20. Not "dream on" but "thank heavens" because, unlike Hillary, Obama didn't vote for the war resolution

as he said before, "the bus has run into a ditch and it makes no sense to stop funding and to not try to help get it out now".

Point is, Obama didn't help the "bus" into the ditch. Hillary did and not only that, she cast a "yea" vote for a similar resolution authorizing Dubya to use military force against IRAN which, according to, I believe Pat Buchanan or was it Jack Murtha, he plans to launch in October just before the GE to help McShame.

And for those who kept pooh-poohing Obama's 'speech' about being against the Iraq war and occupation saying he wasn't in the Senate then and could make this claim, the fact he voted against the Iran resolution last year proves his words weren't hot air, unlike the "dove" Hillary's suddenly become during the course of this campaign.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Hilly and Billy would be the first to call him a traitor if he did.

[DevonRex]

23. You're so right. They would. nt

[onehandle]

4. Yes. We'll never know how he would have voted on the war. This would be his chance.

Let's see him fight!

He Can Do It!

[Aloha Spirit]

5. No. Not a fan of filibusters.

[DevonRex]

6. Bush wouldn't pull the troops out even with no war funding.

Nixon did, way back when, but he was glad to have an excuse to end the war without looking like a wuss to the republicans. Dubya does NOT want out. And he's crazy enough to let our troops be sitting ducks, without ammo, equipment, and even food, JUST to be able to blame democrats.

THINK about it.

Our troops need to be withdrawn from Iraq in the safest way possible, with the best military leadership figuring out how to accomplish it. We don't have the best military leadership in place right now and they certainly have not drawn up any plans for withdrawal. Is THAT what you want to subject our men and women over there to?

[Cant trust em]

7. As long as that numbskull is in charge, the troops are NOT coming home

If we pulled the funding Bush would leave them fighting with cardboard armor and shooting spit wads before he pulled them out.

[DevonRex]

8. Absolutely. So glad someone else has thought it through. Phew.

For a minute there I thought I was the only one who thinks Bush is evil enough to do just what you said.

[Cant trust em]

11. that's what I was thinking when I read your post

I think Obama should name us to cabinet positions. I'd make a great SecDef.

:rofl:

[DevonRex]

12. LOL! Can I be the NatSecAd?

I'd be better at it than that idiot Rice was. I even know a lot about the Russians, which was her "claim to fame." She even screwed that up when she was NatSecAd.

[Cant trust em]

15. Actually, I think I'd prefer to be the SecAcry

The Secretary of Acronyms.

[QC]

13. Then it's time to impeach Bush.

Would Obama lead the way on that?

[DevonRex]

14. Oh Good Lord. So you'd be in favor of putting our troops in

even MORE danger just to impeach Bush, which would fail anyway? Think MATH.

[QC]

16. No. Impeach the SOB, then bring the troops home.

Or make a deal with the SOB: bring them home or we impeach you.

We have the power, don't we? Aren't we the ones we have been waiting for? If we can't impeach the most hated president in history, then we shouldn't be waiting for ourselves, as ineffectual as we are.

[DevonRex]

18. The numbers are NOT THERE to impeach the SOB. Math.

Simple math.

[Cant trust em]

19. I'm more in favor of impeachment than I am of cutting war funding

But frankly I doubt that we've gone this far in his presidency only to impeach when he's such a lame duck. Secondly, since impeachment proceedings begin in the House, I doubt that Nancy would allow it to happen.

[Exilednight]

9. We can cry "cut funding" all we want, but it's the wrong thing to do...........

The troops are there and they're not coming home. Why cut funding and take away needed equipment like body armor and vehicles that keep our soldiers safe?

It makes no sense.

[DevonRex]

10. Amen, amen, amen. nt

[Kaleva]

17. It'd be like bringing a nerf baseball bat

to a gunfight. The end result ought to be quite predicatable.

[Zachstar]

21. Neither him or Clinton need to do this.

The simple fact is that Bush is never going to end this war. We cant stop it now and it just has to be endured until one of them gets into office.

Starting a filibuster will only harm congressional races.

[DevonRex]

22. Yep. Just think of the pictures. Troops with holes in their boots.

No food. No ammunition. But it'd be great ammunition against democrats running for office.

[Zachstar]

26. Good point.

Democrats were doing good when they were sending bills that had timetables in them. That meant that Bush was denying the money.

But if we prevent any kind of funds that will mean republican victory.

[book_worm]

24. Of course not and neither would Hillary. The GOP would say he/she was cutting funds against our

troops who are in harms way in Iraq. The American people want us to get out of Iraq, but not in a way which would use our current troops as political pawns. I think Obama much more than Clinton would begin to get us out of Iraq in a timely fashion.

[AllentownJake]

25. He'd be pegged as against the troops

It would cost him huge in November.

[LWolf]

27. Why would he do that now?

He's been supporting it ever since he got to the senate. He's not anti-war, remember: he's anti-"dumb" war. I think he must have decided that Iraq was not a "dumb" war, since of course he wouldn't have voted to fund "dumb" wars...would he?

I don't know why you'd think he would suddenly do a 180 and take a principled stand now.

[stillcool]

28. I think it would be the opposite...

of the position he has taken, and stated all along. I think if people do not understand that position, or have a problem with it, they should take it into account when choosing who to vote for.

[Milo_Bloom]

29. No, because it won't accomplish what you think it will.

Stopping the funding for the war DOES NOT stop the war.

When will people get this through their heads?

[DevonRex]

30. Milo, you're so right. nt