3,931 reasons I cannot support Edwards or Clinton

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Shame especially on Edwards, who co-sponsored the IWR.

While running for Senate in 2003, Sen. Obama acknowledged that he took his anti-war speech off his campaign website, calling it 'dated.' Specifically, State Senator Obama maintains that an October 2002 anti-war speech was removed from his campaign web site because - the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips."

In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution. When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’ -- Note: No one disputes that Sen. Obama opposed the war from his "vantage point" as a part-time state senator in Illinois. The point we are making is that Sen. Obama acknowledged that he did not know how he would have voted had his vantage point been from the U.S. Senate.

In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush’s position on Iraq. In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, "On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. <...> There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

Until he ran for president, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq, some $300 billion. <2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06, HR5631, 9/7/06>

Sen. Obama waited 18 months to give his first speech on the Senate floor devoted to Iraq, in which he opposed a timeline for withdrawal. Obama said "I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them."

Sen. Obama didn't introduce legislation to end the Iraq war until he started running for president.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5161

to help stop the war? BS. He is just as much ankle deep as they are.

You continue to exhibit blind loyalty.

If this was such a horrific terrifying war mongering bill, why did Obama remain silent and not even bother to show up?

And further, there was no "instigating" Iran. If you look back at history, Obama also suggested that Iranian guard were terrorists and warned them about nuclear arms. Obama believed the same thing that was in the bill--he just conviently passed on voting--cause then...as is his pattern, he can say anything he damn wants about it.

Kyle-Lieberman bill was changed before the vote to make it acceptable to the likes of Dick Durbin-one of the most anti-war (didn't vote for Iraq) and also bff of Obama. Hmm-seems like maybe you should demonize him along with Clinton if you must-even though Wes Clark, one of the most ant- Bushco rush to war with Iran. Clark, if you recall, has been warning us against their intentions for almost a year. He supported the vote of both Clinton and Durbin on the grounds that it would lead (and it has) to a different route of diplomacy.

More distortion and spin from Obama camp: and of course I cannot end without pointing out the double standard. Clinton is held to every action. Obama gets away with no action.

What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’ This is what obama actually said!!

This is from the HRC website and what the Clinton campaign said (refer to previous post)

-- Note: No one disputes that Sen. Obama opposed the war from his "vantage point" as a part-time state senator in Illinois. The point we are making is that Sen. Obama acknowledged that he did not know how he would have voted had his vantage point been from the U.S. Senate


WOW!! Clinton and crew try and make their case by parsing Obama's words and putting words in his mouth. They also have gratiously decided to tell the American public what the man meant by what he said. Good to know that they can read minds. Good to know that the clintons' can tell you what you actually meant by what you said in case you might have been confused at the time...

Jesus people wake up. this is a Bush/Cheney tactic.

Do I like the fact that Obama voted to continue to fund the war? NO. But Hillary voted that way too!

This spin is ridiculous on its face!

But expected.

nice. btw has he voted to fund the war?

Remember Congress stopped the Vietnam War by discontinuing the funding.

So Obama is doing nothing to stop the war, but he is trying to get alot of credit.

it was a rhetorical question but hay at least the answer is their for those whom is a legitimate question.

Obam ais allied to the wing of the party that has been working to change the policy and get out. HRC was one of those who fought to keep Kerry on bringing up an amendment to set a deadline.

The proposals to restrict funds and force withdrawal produced intense pressure on Nixon to bring an end to the war on his own terms before his legislative opponents gained too much ground. During Nixon's first term, there were 80 roll call votes on the war in Congress; there had only been 14 between 1966 and 1968. In 1971, Mansfield attached an amendment to three pieces of legislation that required withdrawal of U.S. forces nine months after Congress passed the legislation. The White House warned that the president would not abide by this declaration. Congress agreed to pass the amendment but only after deleting the withdrawal date and declaring it to be a sense-of-Congress resolution, rather than a policy declaration, which was stronger. While the Senate had watered down the amendment, the expanding number of votes in support of it made the administration well aware of an increasingly active and oppositional Congress.

In 1972, Church and Senator Clifford Case of New Jersey were able to push through the Senate an amendment to foreign-aid legislation that would end funding for all U.S. military operations in Southeast Asia except for withdrawal (subject to the release of all prisoners of war). Senate passage of the legislation, with the amendment, marked the first time that either chamber had passed a provision establishing a cutoff of funds for continuing the war. Though House and Senate conferees failed to reach an agreement on the measure, the support for the amendment was seen by the administration as another sign that antiwar forces were gaining strength. The McGovern-Hatfield amendment was enormously popular with the public. A January 1971 Gallup poll showed that public support for the amendment stood at 73 percent.

During the final negotiations with the Vietnamese over ending the war, culminating with the 1972 Christmas Bombings and the Paris Peace Accords in January 1973, the president knew that he only had a limited amount of time before Congress finally used the power of the purse to bring the war to an end -- regardless of what the administration wanted. Indeed, to make certain that the president could not reverse course, in June 1973 Congress passed legislation that included an amendment sponsored by Church and Case to prohibit the use of more funds in Southeast Asia after August 15. Sixty-four senators voted in favor. When the House assented, its vote marked the first time that chamber had agreed to cut off funds, too.

Most importantly, Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 over Nixon's veto. The legislation imposed a series of restrictions on the executive branch to ensure that the president would have to consult with the House and Senate before authorizing the troops for long periods of time.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12438

It's naive in the extreme to assume that the * admin will obligingly pull the troops out if Congress cuts the funds. They don't have to. They were funding pre-IWR military actions with money they illegally diverted from other allocations AND they are currently engaged in activities in Iran, using money from god-knows-where and without Congressional authorization. I don't fault any member of Congress, whether they were for or against the war at the outset, for funding it. The crazy fuckers in charge right now have already demonstrated they have no qualms about leaving our troops there with inadequate supplies.

There's even an obscure Civil Rights funding law called the Feed and Forage Act that enables the president to acquire credit for arms and supplies if Congress refuses funding for war. Do not put it past them to use it.

This is why I just can't bring myself to vote for Edwards or Clinton in the primary. They screwed up the most important vote of their lives. Took a political stance rather than a principled one. Not trying to flame them because I do find many things about them both that I like, but I can't overlook a lapse of judgment of such magnitude...

The more I know I will not vote for Obama. The man has voted for every bill funding the war but one, and he waited to the last minute to vote "no" on that one because he knew it would pass anyway.

If I have been trying to make up my mind on what to do if Edwards does drop out, and I have now come to the conclusion that I will vote for Hillary before I will vote for Obama! Her supporters are not near as bad as Obama's, and that says something to me!

Support whomever you damn well please. But also please be aware that this was a different America in 2003. People had been lied to for 2 years, and if was not a vote for war, it was a vote of confidence in the President. People expect the President to tell the truth, he didn't. It is all well and good to point fingers now, but hindsight is always 20/20.

zalinda