Barack Voted To FUND THE WAR!

How are his supporters overlooking this?

:evilgrin:

He's consistently voted to withdraw troops. In the end, he's made the decision, like almost all of the liberal lions in the Senate to vote yes to funding after bush has vetoed bills that call for withdrawal. Should he have? I'd rather he didn't, but it's not the simple equation you're making it out to be.

after nothing was found. She voted for UN inspectors. Next.

with us/against us mentality. How has Kennedy voted? Durbin? Feingold?

If only life was as simple as simple minded people make it out to be.

Stupid is as stupid does.

In fact they ignore it, along with whole bunch of policy issues. He has voted many times to FUND THA WAR!! bUT yet runs around "I'm the only one who didn't vote for the war!...Excuse me...He also stated...HE DID NOT KNOW HOW HE WOULD VOTE...HE DID NOT HAVE THE "intelligence"...ANYONE AFTER THE FACT CAN MAKE THAT CLAIM OBAMA!

Particular every senator has done this.If you bash Obama you have to bash Hillary too.

Obama is out there SREAMIMG "He did not vote for the war!" yet refusing to elaborate on his decisions for FUNDING the WAR his entire time in Senate...along with other key votes...HE voted with BUSH!! AND NOT FOR THE PEOPLE as he would like to have you believe....go look it up!~





THIS IS WHAT SHE VOTED FOR...AND remember..Barack was NOT in the Senate..Barack said "He did not know how he would vote then" in an interviewed before running for President...

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly

complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.


This was NOT a vote to invade a sovereign country without a UN resolution!


She is quoted as saying:

the Bush administration's short-circuiting of the U.N. weapons inspection process didn't permit "the inspectors to finish whatever task they could have accomplished to

demonstrate one way or the other what was there."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary /












copy and paste

And, we point out the spin the Hillary and Edwards supporters use to deny that they voted to start the war.

OBAMA VOTED TO FUND THE TROOPS FIGHTING BUSH'S ILLEGAL WAR.

A war that would have never been authorized if congresspeople thought like Obama in 2002/2003.

THIS IS WHAT SHE VOTED FOR...AND remember..Barack was NOT in the Senate..Barack said "He did not know how he would vote then" in an interviewed before running for President...

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly

complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.


This was NOT a vote to invade a sovereign country without a UN resolution!


She is quoted as saying:

the Bush administration's short-circuiting of the U.N. weapons inspection process didn't permit "the inspectors to finish whatever task they could have accomplished to

demonstrate one way or the other what was there."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary /

he accurately predicts the outcome of our invasion. I didn't see that from too many Democrats in 2003.

:thumbsup:

How are her supporters overlooking this?

That's how.

Thanks for you concern.

I will not support any candidate that tries to defund the war. Like it or not, we have an obligation to our brothers and sisters that are in harms way to give them the resources they need to stay alive until we can bring them home safely. I know it's not a popular opinion on DU but I don't give a shit. I have two nephews serving over there and several friends with children serving. I will never support a candidate that leaves them high and dry.
Obama has proven yet again that my faith in him is not misplaced. One of the reasons I support Biden is because he fought so hard to get MRAP (Mine Resistant Armor Plating) to the troops.

:crazy:

I find it bullshit that Obama supports 'assume' that Obama would have not voted for the Iraq War Resolution when Obama wasn't even in the senate at that time.

It's really easy to jump on the "I would have never supported the war" bandwagon when you were never in the position to consider it in the first place.

Being in Delaware, I've had plenty of times to hear Biden speak, sometimes even just a few feet away from me. And I heard his reasoning about the war. Most of the people in Congress and especially the democrats were in a "Damned if you Do and Damned if you Don't" situation. And sometimes we keep forgetting that our elected officials represent EVERYONE not just those in their party.

He called it when he was running in a primary for the Senate against seven other candidates when it was risky. He didn't stutter. He said it loud before cameras at an anti-war rally on 10/26/02.

http://progressohio.magnify.net/item/C62JXLLYBX47QMF3

Here's the text: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

I say it's a bullshit argument.

It's easy to say "Oh I wouldn't have voted for it" when you're not there in Congress debating the issue. You think Joe Biden wants us to be in Iraq? He made that vote knowing that his youngest son could be called up and shipped out to Iraq (which, btw, Beau is getting ready to head over the beginning of 2008).

I'm glad that Obama was there, outspoken against the war. But unless you're actually there in congress with your butt on the line to vote "yeah" or "nay" then I say 'bullshit'

And remember - Congress never gave Bush the authority to go to war. They gave him the authorization to go to the UN with their case. Bush was the one that violated the IWR vote.

I call bullshit on your argument. You have the facts: Obama was running in a crowded Senate primary when he gave an anti-war speech at an anti-war rally. It was not only hard but it was risky to do so in late 2002 when the drum beat for war was getting louder. That not only counts, it matters.

Ignoring the obvious is convenient rationalization but the truth is already out there, particularly about the nature of such measures as the IWR and Kyl-Lieberman. And it is sad (at best) that Democrats are so willing to sweep their complicity under the carpet.

The war-mongers of the world appreciate your efforts on behalf of their Tactical Advance Team of Dis/Misinformation. Yeah war!

And even more bullshit with the "running in a crowded Senate Primary" - that one is even a bigger joke.

:rofl:

Was Obama in the Senate in 2002? No
Obama can surely claim of his 'anti-war background' but it's utter bullshit for him or for any other candidate not in the senate in 2002 to claim "Oh I wouldn't have voted for that".

There are hundreds of things I would or perhaps wouldn't have done IF the opportunity presented itself. Saying that would would act a certain way if you were there and actually being in that position to make a choice are two very different ballgames.

Obama can happily claim he was anti-war but he's doing nothing but bullshitting us with the "I would have never voted for it" because we don't know if he would or wouldn't of done so since he never had the opportunity to make the decision.

what Edwards says now that he's NOT in the Senate is meaningless?

:shrug:

I'm just asking.

but claiming how you'd vote for something you weren't around to vote for is something completely different.

So yes, I'm challenged if Edwards says he would have voted a certain way in the senate AFTER he left

what people *do* is more important than what they say.
But Obama did speak out against the war while some of the other candidates not only voted to authorize it but spoke out in support of it.

unfortunately one can point out examples where each candidate has fallen short of their rhetoric when it mattered. None of them are perfect. But on the whole it's a great set of choices and in a way I'm glad I don't live in Iowa and have to choose at this point.

This whole primary season has me just sick to my stomach. I've read some place where this campaign spending equals about $200 per Iowa voter. That's just ridiculous - how many people could we help feed with that kind of outrageous money being spent

with this super early campaign this cycle, we can get the Presidential campaign out of the way and start focusing on getting a filibuster proof Senate.
---
Tired of the Presidential race? Help NC dump Dole!

The only thing that is bullshit is how willing you are to sweep Democratic complicity for the war under the carpet and in the same breath declare that a candidate's anti-war stance just isn't good enough. You can't have it both ways. And I'd post the ROFL smilie but that is usually reserved for people that resort to ridicule when their argument doesn't hold water.

Yeah war!

I'm just saying that I'm not buying into the bullshit of "Oh if I were in the Senate I would have voted 'no'"

He wasn't in the senate therefore that statement is bullshit because who knows how he would have voted. It's a whole different world between being a candidate in Illinois with no DC experience (at the time in 2002) vs. actually being in the Senate in 2002 when the vote occured.

It's like saying "If I won the lottery I'd quit my job" but then never actually playing any lottery tickets.

It's not like the situation in Iraq got extremely complex and dangerous the minute we invaded.

Nothing to see here, move on to the cheerleading section in the next thread.....

:sarcasm: