Obama kept voting to fund the war. How does that let him off the hook?

All the money does not go for the well being of the soldiers, so think of another one.

That exactly what you will be labeled if you vote against it

You would have no chance in this election. You can't send them and then all of sudden not give them what they need. Thats exactly how the Repukes would play this. And the Veterans and the Military vote would be against you.

And there is no downside. Bottom line

It's just bullshit. There was no need for the IWR.

Equipment will beak down and not be repaired. The unit will just "make do". That doesn't mean the troops will be brought home.

Don't you remember that originally, the troops were sent there without body armor and without armor for their vehicles?

Why would anyone think that lack of funding or equipment would cause Bush to withdraw the troops? Sure if it got bad enough he might "have to" - maybe -

but in the meantime, my nephew could die or be maimed because of not having properly maintained equipment.

Just like the Iraq war would've still happened if Hillary voted no.

you'll understand. Its just not that simple once we have sons and daughters in the field.

they are not all get up and leave next week. A phased withdrawl over the months needs funding.

just like she did if he was in the senate.

All he was doing was running for the senate. He was running against a dufus that didn't have a chance in hell of getting the win. It was a completely safe position for Obama to be against the war like the vast majority of Americans were.

He wasn't there where she was having to make a national security decision where he had to put his name on that vote. Nor did he have the intelligence briefings she had, which were phony, or the pressures of being one of fifty senators that thought they should be able to rely on the word of a Goddamn president of the United States.

Obama voted for the funding because of the very same pressures and I'd bet you ten to one, he would have voted just like she did on the IWR, and just like John Edwards did, if he was in the US Senate Take it to bank.

It's just a shame we can't roll back the clock to see it.

He was against going in, but he isn't about to leave the troops unfunded and exposed to danger while they're there.

why not keep his same style and vote no. The war budgets are huge and all the funds are not all destined for our troops.

exactly my position from the start also, I really don't understand the problem with this.

They had to vote for the GOP funding bills to get armor to the troops. So you hold your nose, you vote for the appropriations, and then you work to get Repukes out of office.

To NOT do so is to say "Screw the soldiers, i oppose THEM AND THE WAR".. that doesn't play out very well politically at ALL.

You have to get them the equipment they need, even if you don't want them to be there.

How many votes will Obama get if his position plays as "Obama wanted to strand young soldiers in Iraq without even the bare neccesities that they needed to survive". Exactly - you would vote for him either way.. so let it go.

It's pretty simple.

Besides, the Pentagon has plenty of money to bring our troops home.

Than I am of the votes that got us there in the first place

Under UN resolutions we were still at war. I argued this to the fucking death here back in 2003. People are fucking stupid.

Amazing we have to keep schooling them on this.

I wish he had been quicker to realize we needed to cut off funding, but it's not even close to as big a sin as that initial IWR vote.

It's just as big a sin, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Obama is a hypocrite to keep using this vote against Clinton.

They are both in it up to their eyeballs. The question is, who will be able to fix it.

People are making this false comparison to Vietnam. The President can secure nearly unlimited credit, without authorization from Congress, for military actions via an obsure Civil War era law called the Feed and Forage Act. President Clinton used it for operations in Haiti. I don't know if that's what motivates our Congresscritters to keep funding the war but I don't believe for one second that these crazy neo-con fuckers in charge right now would end the war because of a trifle like funding. They'd sooner leave our troops over there with no food or ammunition before they'd do that.

I don't blame either candidate for voting for funding.

That's what he did and that's all he has to say. Plus add that he will only vote for funding WITH timelines.

McCain wouldn't be able to attack him on that. Obama can easily pick up the mangled, bloodied gristle ring of the war and strangle McCain with it around his neck.

Hillary can't.

Obama is a hypocrite to keep bringing up the subject.

Hillary will not have any trouble with McCain, except remembering to honor the elderly and not give him a heart attack on live television.

But he did have both better judgment and more strength of character than Senator Clinton did before the war, and he has been better on all war related issues since. There's a reason Bush prefers to be succeeded by Hillary over Obama, and it's IRAQ and how it will be handled.

He shook the hand of his buddy.

Obama has not shown better judgment, except in one speech that he pretty much abandoned.

in soldiers' mouths. I'll keep saying this until it sinks in.