Display:
What's his voting record on the Iraqi Appropriation Bills?
by ATinNM on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 04:09:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Uh oh.

Obama's record shows caution, nuance on Iraq - The Boston Globe

Campaigning for the Illinois Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama scolded Bush for invading Iraq and vowed he would "unequivocally" vote against an additional $87 billion to pay for it. Yet since taking office in January 2005, he has voted for four separate war appropriations, totaling more than $300 billion.

Last June, Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry's proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an "arbitrary deadline" could "compound" the Bush administration's mistake. And last week, he voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in Iraq.

Not quite the dedicated opposition you'd expect from a passionate anti-war candidate.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 05:22:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
FWIW, I do distinguish between opposing the war and voting for appropriations, esp. when your consituents are calling you asking why their sons in Iraq don't have any body armour.  Granted most of that money is going to line the pockets of private corporations.  But that's very hard to sell to constituents.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
by poemless on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 05:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
FWIW, I do distinguish between opposing the war and voting for appropriations, esp. when your consituents are calling you asking why their sons in Iraq don't have any body armour.

It's probably not a winnable argument with the electorate, but I think there's also a reasonable argument that says voting for the appropriations is simply keeping the soldiers in harm's way while shoveling money to Bush's corporate buddies.  Cut the funding, and he might have to end it.

The problem, of course, is that Bush may then simply tear Iraq money out of the rest of the Pentagon budget and say, "Nope, you lose again.  Hehehehehehehe."

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 05:55:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or blame the Democrats when the number of people coming home in body bags rises. Think he wouldn't dare?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 05:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, that hasn't worked for three years, so while I've no doubt he'd try it, it wouldn't sell.  He's wedded to the image of the wood coffins.

Really, my read of it is that he just doesn't care.  Why should he?  It's his war, and he can't run for reelection, so fuck everybody else.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 06:02:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well yes, but calling his bluff would require bravery ...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 06:03:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Best to not hope for a show of bravery when dealig with the Democrats.  It's been -- what, at least 40 years?

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 06:22:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I should have known that but it's no surprise.  There is a solid agreement in the US House and Senate "support for the troops" = "leaving them there to die for a bit longer so it doesn't harm my career."  
by ATinNM on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 05:39:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series