Why isn't Obama held responsible for funding the war...

[rndmprsn]

that he wasn't in the senate at the time to vote on...he gets a free pass from the media and his own supporters on this crucial issue, but as per the record goes, he voted to fund the war at every step...aside from the last vote when by that time he was an official candidate.

this came up in another thread and i wanted to invite people to respond, i'm just curious why this isn't a bigger issue...i'm especially curious to hear from his supporters.

[Robbien]

1. Why isn't this thread in GDP

which is another good question

[bryant69]

2. I suspect you won't like the answer

but it's because all of the credible candidates have the same problem to one degree or another.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[rndmprsn]

3. true enough...

correct me if i am wrong, i think kucinich is the only one with "clean hands" in this regards

[Kagemusha]

4. Uh, Hillary's vote on the authorization of military force wasn't for funding either even

So what are you talking about? I didn't think that responsibility for FUNDING the war was the issue that he and his supporters have raised at all, but AUTHORIZING the war by giving Bush discretion to abuse. So what's your point here?

[rndmprsn]

5. my point is exactly what i stated...

why obama is not called on for his funding of the war, notwithstanding what has been raised in the media and among supporters.

[Kagemusha]

6. Because it's an irrelevancy wrapped in a straw man.

Obama never sought a free pass on funding the war. He and his supporters do want credit, however, for having opposed the initiation of the war, even though he was not yet a federal senator in a position to vote against it. Edwards and Hillary were, so Obama doesn't want them to get credit for having been in a position to make the right choice.. and not having done so.

The war having been started with that fig leaf of congressional approval, cutting the funding off without any plan in place for withdrawal would seem reckless to a lot of people. Obama has always been for a phased withdrawal, not a cold turkey cut-off of bullets and fuel. (Since without those two things, it's hard to withdraw from a war zone.)

Go ahead and call Obama on wanting to fund a withdrawal all you want. Be my guest.

Edit: The alternative to a funded withdrawal would look something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabasis_%28Xenophon%29

[rndmprsn]

11. thanks...

for the substantive reply, its nothing personal to your candidate or you personally, i am just trying to figure out who is going to earn my vote in the primary, so far edwards and kucinich are far ahead but i wanted insight into some of obama's rhetoric and actions from his supporters so i can make a more informed decision.

[Kagemusha]

12. Okay. Fair enough.

Seriously, I want American troops to SURVIVE a withdrawal from Iraq. That's why I think funding a withdrawal is a good thing. But the President is determined to force a choice between 'victory' or death, sadly.

[still_one]

7. Funding troops is different than destroying the war powers act

which allowed this administration to invade Iraq without congressional oversight

If the war powers act was in force, 2 months after bush invaded Iraq, Congress would have been required to either declare war, call for immediate troop withdrawal, or extend deployment to give time to saftely withdraw

Once Congress decided that the executive branch could wage war without Congress, the funding was purely a formality

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE IS CONGRESS SHOULD REPEAL THE Iraq War Resolution, that would be the start to actually DO SOMETHING to get us out of there

[BlooInBloo]

8. Becuase ONLY Clinton is held to such a standard....

... DUers realize that if they held EVERYONE to the standards they hold Clinton to, there'd be no one to vote for. So they sanctimoniously sputter that bullshit about Clinton while ignoring what's bad about everyone else.

[still_one]

10. Funny, all THREE of the leading candidates believe ou prescence should continue

in Iraq for some time. That makes me wonder if anyone really wants us out of Iraq

How come there isn't a major push by the leadership for repeal of the IWR?

[obnoxiousdrunk]

9. And he was

lucky that he was not in the Senate at the time the war was authorized.

[Disturbed]

13. "phased withdrawal,'

If there were no Bill of funding then a phased withdrawal would have to take place. That would last for at least eight months. Kucinich, Richardson & Gravel are calling for no more funding.


The majority of Rethugs & Dems support the US Occupation of Iraq for an indefinite time frame. There are various reasons for this. You can speculate as to those reasons. The US Occupation will continue & the Dems will keep funding it. There will be a draw down but at least 60K US Troops & 140K Mercs will remain in Iraq. US presence in Iraq will continue for decades.

[Beerboy]

14. Why should he be held "responsible" to a vote like that?

It doesn't make sense. At the time this war started, Obama was in the Illinois State Senate. Then carpetbagger Alan Keyes tried to take his seat. No dice.
Obama has said consistently throughout his career that he's entirely opposed the American mis-adventure in Iraq.
He has nothing to apologize for.