Kos Resumes The Circular Firing Squad with Obama the New Target

[Dr Ron]

Kos is at it again!! See post at Liberal Values for links on Kos:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1331

This morning Barack Obama was interviewed on CNN. I was doing other things at the time and did not play especially close to every word he said, but the gist of the interview I heard was that Obama conceded that those supporting the Congressional measures to force a withdrawal of the troops from Iraq did not have enough votes to sustain a Presidential veto but that they would keep fighting. Obama described this as an ongoing effort to increase support for ending the war, and spoke of convincing more Republicans to vote with them in future efforts. A common Republican meme is to claim that Democrats not only want to end the war but that they want to stop funding for the troops as if they would leave them sitting there with no supplies and no way to get home. Obama has been careful to distingish between ending the war and providing support for the troops.

If I were to go back to the transcript it is very possible I could find things to nitpick about. I might not even agree with every word. However, I see no point in this. The goal is to develop a Congressional majority large enough to sustain a veto who will force an end to the war.

Despite his long standing opposition to the war, Obama has come under attack at Daily Kos. Kos has a previous history of setting up the circular firing squad among Democrats, and his motives have long been questioned, especially when money is involved.

As I noted previously, In November 2002, Kos wrote that Kerry is “untouchable on foreign policy matters (though I said the same about Max Cleland), and has been one of the few voices from the Democratic side of the aisle criticizing Bush’s war efforts directly.” Once he was on the payroll of the Dean campaign, Kos changed his tune and spread the false claim that Kerry supported the war, often misquoting Kerry to do so. Seeing Kos cherry pick statements from Obama out of context looks like more of the same. If opponents of the war search for reasons to attack other opponents of the war, this only leaves the supporters of the war in a stronger position. George Bush started this war, over the oppostion of both John Kerry and Barack Obama.

I also find it ironic that many Edwards supporters are jumping aboard the Bash Obama bandwagon. How soon they forget that Edwards supported the war while Obama opposed it. My goal in choosing a President is not merely what they say today, but in finding a candidate whose judgement I would trust in future questions as to whether to go to war.

[wisteria]

1. My guess is that once again, Kos has an ulterior motive in doing what he is doing and

it isn't to support Edwards. If I remember correctly, the most important thing to Kos is winning.

[Dr Ron]

2. Hillary?

Per one of my links in the original post, there is also speculation that Kos is being influenced by all the money Hillary spends on ads at Daily Kos. I'm still not so sure about that, but must keep the possibility open after seein an inane attack like this on Obama.

I just checked the track backs to my post and found one amusing. It starts with quoting Kos attacking Obama. Then it says MyDD and 99% of the commenters are attacking Obama. Then it quotes my post, and concludes "I'm sticking with Obama." I'm not endorsing nay candidate yet, but was happy at least to see that my post is cited by an Obama supporter as reason to stick with him as opposed to listening to Kos and MyDD.

[kerrygoddess]

3. Considering

Obama, JK, Edwards and Dodd have advertised on Kos and other liberal blogs including here at least once or twice in the past few months, the ad argument is absurd.

[karynnj]

4. The Kos one looked like it was more the Edwards supporters

There is a fight for the anti-war position.

They are taking this comment, Bill Clinton's cherry picked 2004 Obama statements and the "NO" on the Kerry/Feingold vote to try to make Obama less attractive as the anti-war candidate than Edwards.

Some are cheating on the Edwards' side as well - saying that his vote against the $87 billion was because he was already against the war then - which he wasn't. In addition, they are distorting the issue on the overall funding. Edwards, himself, only said not to fund the surge - as in the Kennedy bill, but many posters were using that call to say that Edwards would not vote for the funding.

Edwards is the benificiary of tarnishing Obama's anti-war credentials. They are turning the issue to what should be done now and claiming that Edwards has the best plan out. The question is whether Edwards will now be forced to answer how he would vote on each vote if he were still Senator. This is not like 2004, where in 2003, Dean was allowed to say what he would have done in 2002. This will be real time. The danger to Edwards is that he could become Kuchinich.

This does show that Kerry, who was the genuine leader with an exit plan would have been well positioned had he stayed in. Kerry's foreign policy and military knowledge dwarf Edwards' and his plan has layers of thought that Edwards' lacks. Unlike Edwards and Hillary, Kerry was publicly against the war before it started and when it was very popular. Hillary and Obama voted against the exit plan in 2006.

But, this really does show how leading the effort in the Senate and running for President would be tough - Kerry's statements a few weeks ago were far clearer than Obama's. He was unflinchingly in saying they were going to get vetoed, it was to be expected, but then pointing to the shift from 13 to 48 to 51 Senators. Kerry has said they won't cut off the funding as well.

[Mass]

5. Feingold and Reid raised the bar (and IMHO the right way).

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/20070402.html

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER COSPONSORS FEINGOLD BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ

April 2, 2007

Washington D.C. -­ U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.

“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”

“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,” Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.”

The language of the legislation reads:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

They added to the Kerry-Feingold bill the part that was missing: what will happen on March 31, 2008.

This time, the bill says clearly that, after this date, funding can only be used for the operations that were targetted by the previous bills.

It is not exactly what the previous Feingold bill was saying, but, for once, it says clearly what will happen, and is certainly a good start.

I wonder how fast presidential candidates in and outside the Senate will run to support this bill (except for DK, of course, who has been supporting that for a very long time).

[karynnj]

6. That is clever

It's not cutting off funding now, but at the point we want soldiers out.

In fairness what Kuchinich supported was more extreme than this, cutting funding now, which is what Kerry thought was a bad idea. This seems to make the funding consistent with the plan they already passed.

This does indicate that the Democrats need to get co-ordinated. Reid and Feingold really should have had a heads up - especially to the candidates. This would have allowed Obama or Hillary to allude to being ok with making funding approvals consistent with the withdrawal plan even without details. (this assumes they support it.)

I wish Feingold were running.

[Firespirit]

7. I honestly think that Kos is just bashing for its own sake

Kos can yammer on about how he wants the Democratic Party to win elections, but the guy is a former Reagan Republican who still identifies as a libertarian rather than a liberal, and I find it very hard to believe that he is as loyal as he makes it out to be. I think that Kos is all about Kos.

The blogosphere has some VERY legitimate criticisms of the Beltway press and the media machine that seems absolutely determined to dictate public opinion rather than simply report on it. But I don't think Kos's heart is in it. I think he criticizes the media because he wants to be one of those opinion shapers. His attack on Obama is no different from the constant, unending MSM attacks on Kerry, the hit job on Gore for his house, the Couric interview with the Edwardses, or any number of similar such attacks. It's the same lowlife mentality of tearing someone down.