Obama surrenders to Bush

[Generator]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/13/ap/politics/main3258409.shtml

(AP) Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama predicted Thursday that Congress won't directly challenge President Bush's plans and will focus instead on putting a ceiling on the number of troops deployed to that country.

Obama, on the second day of a trip to Iowa, conceded that Democrats who control Congress lack the votes to cut off funding for the war or even to tie continued funding to a timetable for withdrawing troops.

The Illinois senator said the most likely scenario would be to grant troops more time at home between deployments, a politically popular step that's difficult to oppose and one that would have a practical impact

~

I like Obama. But do those that fail to lead on the most important issues of our day DESERVE the presidency? This is what I'm really asking myself. Oh yes-I know he is a realist. But when you are dying-you want somebody that does a little more than let less of you die.

[Mountainman]

1. Should the Dems propose a bill that they know will not pass?

I'm just asking. We don't have the votes with the small margin we have but should we still propose to end the war time and again until it gets done? I say YES!:kick:

[redqueen]

2. I hate that subject line. Inflammatory and unnecessary.

That said, I don't know why the hell he is talking about funding and not tying deadlines / withdrawal targets to appropriations bills.

[bunkerbuster1]

6. The actual headline would've sufficed...

"Obama: Congress Won't Challenge Bush"

[redqueen]

7. Media whores aren't the only ones playing the spin game.

I get so disappointed and disgusted reading some of the titles I see here.

*sigh*

[Generator]

12. I hate it too

It was my first thought though. I like Obama. But AGAIN he's offering defeat before any game was even played. It's the surrender ahead of time. It's honest, I'll give him that. And you know I've liked Obama so much more since he took on Clinton and said some damn honest(though not nice!) things. I think he's smart. He knows what he's dealing with.

He's just telling the truth. But again-where is the leadership?

Leadership means you get others to follow. You inspire. I don't think we have any leaders on the hill. NONE. That was Kerry's problem. They never listened to him, and he never got them to follow him.

[redqueen]

13. Hard to lead people to taking courageous positions

when all the $$$$ and media attention comes with the pricetag of mollycoddling the corporatocracy.

[The Stranger]

3. "Democrats who control Congress lack the votes to cut off funding for the war --" that's a lie.

The Nancy doesn't even have to bring a funding bill to the floor.

[rateyes]

11. You tell the truth...

we only need ONE vote: Nancy Pelosi's.

[snappyturtle]

4. Democrats are going to have to make some tough decisions to

end the maddness of this occupation. It might mean not letting the funding come to the floor. It either goes on ad infinitum and many die or they cut the funding and many die.....but many more will come home!

[Richard Steele]

5. We don't NEED "the votes". We have enough votes to simply NOT FUND THE OCCUPATION.

Clearly, what's REALLY lacking in Congressional Dems
is the genuine DESIRE to end it.

[partylessinOhio]

8. No guts, no glory.

We need Kucinich. He will leave Iraq. He will install a Department of Peace. Just give him the power like the SC gave it to *. Make him president and there is not a damn thing you could do about it - you will learn to love PEACE.

[Windy]

9. You people do realize that if the Webb Amendment passes

he won't have enough troops to continue the war unless he starts a draft. They've all had LONG deployments and are overdue for time home. Most of the troops will have to come home for a year if the amendment goes through.

Don't just jump to conclusions. This IS the best way to go.

[Kagemusha]

10. I read what Obama actually said. I'll quote below, even. It's uh, different.

Rose: Realistically, how many American troops do you think we will see—American troops—in Iraq when the next president takes office in January of 2008?

Obama: Well, obviously, it depends on what Congress does in the next several weeks. I know that based on conversations I've had with my Republican colleagues that we may not have enough votes to set up a firm timetable for withdrawal. There are other approaches, though, that are being explored. For example, some of my colleagues and myself have been talking about if we can get 60 votes in the Senate for legislation that would restrict the use of our troops to the regular schedules and the regular tours that the army itself had established, then that would essentially place a ceiling on how many troops could be there. But realistically speaking, unless we get movement from our Republican colleagues, we're still going to have numerous brigades in Iraq when the next president takes office. And obviously, the biggest cost is borne by the troops who have performed valiantly. But I also think it defers and delays further the kinds of bold statement we need to make to the Iraqi leaders that they've got to get their act together. And we are putting off the inevitable, which is that it's going to have to be a political accommodation that actually stabilizes the situation.


http://www.slate.com/id/2173857/

---

My comment: He's saying that there's nothing that Democrats can do to get 60 votes unless the Republicans start moving, because, uh, the Democrats don't have 60 senators. And that this is unfortunate and a shame.

So somehow Kos and others like the original poster are up in arms because Obama won't make Republicans vote for a funded withdrawal and so on.

No, he's not a supporter of the Anabasis solution. You know, where the 10,000 Greeks fight their way out of Persia (which at the time included Iraq) back to the Ionian coast, devoid of any friendly support. I don't want that for the US Army. It's not fun.

[partylessinOhio]

14. IF they had 60 votes there is not even a chance they would stick together

and vote passage on any bill. They would still be divided standing on their soapboxes and spieling their own rhetoric. If they had 90 votes they might get 60 that would hang together.