Anti-War Crowd Turns On Obama

Democratic Hopeful's Comment On Iraq War Funding Presents Opportunity For Clinton, Edwards

(The Politico)  By The Politico's Ben Smith.

---

As Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. defends himself against anti-war critics this week, his rivals are taking the opportunity to cast themselves as more firmly opposed to President Bush's Iraq policy than Obama – who happens to be the only leading Democratic candidate who publicly opposed the war when it began.

Obama has found himself facing a storm on leading liberal blogs over a weekend interview in which he spoke as though he were an observer, not a participant, in the confrontation between Congress and Bush over a threatened veto of legislation that sets a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

"I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground," he told the Associated Press, adding: "I don't think we can muster at this point a majority of Senate Democrats or Republicans to vote for a cutoff of funding."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in contrast to Obama, has refused to take Bush’s veto for granted. She launched a petition drive Monday to demand that Bush sign the bill. Asked in Crawfordsville Tuesday whether Obama's willingness to look past the veto was helpful or unhelpful to the Democratic position, she responded: "I'm only going to speak for myself, and my position is we have to negotiate with the president from a position of strength.

"We need to change the approach of the White House, which means you've got to stand firm and say, 'We don't expect you to veto something that represents the will of the American people,'" Clinton said.

On a two-day swing through eastern Iowa this week, Clinton has put the idea of a confrontation with Bush on Iraq – and the implicit distinction between her and Obama – at the heart of her stump speech.

One local Democratic Party official told The Politico that a Clinton aide had also suggested that he and other audience members ask questions about the confrontation.

Clinton’s focus on the issue reflects her campaign's preoccupation – expressed openly by her husband in conversations with donors – with presenting a muddier and more nuanced view of the politics of Iraq than the narrative embraced by some political observers, which casts Obama as an opponent of the war and Clinton as a supporter.

Former North Carolina senator John Edwards has also sought to define the confrontation with Bush more sharply in the wake of Obama's comments.

"Now is not a time to back down; it is a time for strength and conviction," Edwards said in a statement Tuesday.

Obama's opposition to the Iraq war in 2003 is unquestioned. But what was a sharp anti-war line on the campaign trail in 2004 – when he said he favored voting against funding the war – turned into a more pragmatic Senate performance, where Obama has taken a less aggressively anti-war tack than fellow Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and others.

As a review of their votes by the website TPMCafe showed last week, Clinton and Obama have almost identical voting records on Iraq in the Senate; they cast different votes just once, when Obama voted to confirm Gen. George Casey as the Army chief of staff and Clinton voted against his confirmation.

Obama's choice of pragmatism over confrontation has long frustrated some anti-war figures, and their sentiment boiled over after Obama's comments to an Associated Press reporter in Iowa last weekend.

"Obama just surrendered to Bush," wrote Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga. Faced with complaints from Obama supporters, he asked them to "imagine if this was Hillary saying these things. You'd be demanding her head on a pike, and so would I."

Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, declined to comment on Clinton's new tack, and it remains unclear whether the nuances of the present Iraq debate can displace a fact of which Obama frequently reminds his audiences: that he campaigned against a war his rivals voted to authorize.

And even as Clinton pressed to exploit what could be a momentary advantage, the playing field shifted again, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid signed on to Feingold's threat to cut off funding for the war after March 31, 2008.

Pressed by reporters about the Feingold legislation, Clinton said she hadn't yet read it.

[houchin21]

how do we know if he opposed the war, just because he said so. he didnt get to vote on going to war or not, he should not be our next president

[trueprogress]

The American people want to fight this war like a real war, as we did in WWII. Say for example.
1. start bombing all areas where OS bin may be in PAkistan, give warning to clear and be inspected, and then go section by section. We got planes and bombs lets use them.
2. Shut down Al Jazeenra, and interrogate all those with contacts with the man.
3; Banks- Stop all transactions that may be terrorist involved.Worldwide.
4/ Become truly independent of Arab oil in 5 years. Bush we have had enough of the Saudis. What are they doing in the White House !
5. / Announce that if there is another terrorist attack on Europe or USA, we take out a holy site of Islam or worse.
6. Deport all Islamic affiliated groups that do not pass the smell test. They want to hate us, we will give them a reason to. take their assets, homes and kick them the hell out.
7. Open all Mosques to public inspection/records/ sermons recorded/ detain and deport bad guys.
8/. Encourage Europe to do the same as above. There won't be a Europe in 10 years.

This is not a war on terror. ( stupid phrase !) This is a war on radical Islamic groups, including members of CAIR and similar US groups that do not pass the smell test, like theri IMANS on flights. Get over it, pledge to freedom or get out.

[kansas1946]

It seems to me that Hillary's stand on the war is in direct relationship to the polls. She doesn't really have a stand, just what looks the best. At least Barack Obama was against it from the start.

[tibu987]

I truly believe that Bush and his cohorts, his evil cabal, is not in the real world. I believe that they are people from elite backgrounds that have never suffered the ills of the common people, any people, anywhere. They are not caring, empathetic to so many of the electorate and those in third world countries.
They come from backgrounds that has forced them to believe that they are so much better, so much more intelligent than others.
I believe that their lack of the reality of the world in which we live is the base cause for their inability to govern effectively.
It is a government of and for the few.
Unfortunately, it affects everyone in the world, detrimentally.

[jbb333]

Again, the troops are funded. Bush doesn't like the terms. Boo hoo.
As far as pork, only a guy who funds an entire *WAR* as an "emergency" would have the balls to call true EMERGENCY funds "pork." Troop brain injuries, farmers who threw away good crops to save our lives, and added Katrina funds is "pork"? I think most of us believe the Republican Bridge to Nowhere is the proper definition of pork.
Now how about we all demand that Bush get the Iraq War ON BUDGET?
And the GOP challenge for Democrats to have the "courage" to stop funding the troops?
It takes NO courage to stop funding the troops, just like it would take no courage to impeach George W. Bush -- the authority exists right now. Using one's authority with care is a lesson BUSH could surely learn.
Because Republicans have divided all ideas into Bush's or Not Bush's, they only see Bush's way or the highway.
As far as shaping a war, Congress actually has MORE authority in the Constitution than the President and, although Bush will never admit it, there are actually LOTS of things that can be done to move the war home without the need to cut off funds.
Meanwhile, I enjoy the headlines:
"Republicans Continue to Rubberstamp Bush"
With nearly half of the GOP Senate seats up for grabs in 2008, I feel another Thumpin' comin'.

[ammianus]

At last, Aurelius Victor proclaimed: %u201CThe politics of the Hegemon manifests two parties: The party of the voters and the party of the donors. Invariably the latter wins and the former loses. But the liberty of our country and the safety of humankind alike demand that the party of the donors be abolished!%u201D

[gkc99]

The US has been in this war longer than they were in WW2, but the Bushits haven't been able to subdue a bunch of "dead enders" as Cheney described them. Obviously, the neocon "strategy" has failed, miserably. Nobody's been stopping you neocon fascists from doing whatever you wanted to "win" a "victory" but you have failed to do so. It's time for you to shut up and sit down, along with President Bonzo and Darth Cheney.

[gunnerv1]

What, Did Mama Obama get caught talking out of both sides of his mouth!He*l, the paleolibs should be use to this, they do it all the time

[theusa1st]

"We need to change the approach of the White House, which means you've got to stand firm and say, 'We don't expect you to veto something that represents the will of the American people,'" Clinton said.

The American people are also sick and tired of all the pork and earmarks that both sides of the aisle put in bills. The Dem's put the pork in the bill so Bush would veto it. Then they can say we supported the troops but Bush didn't. Politics as usual. The Dem's want to stop the funding but don't have the courage to do it. Americans do want the war to end BUT we want our troops fully funded...whether in war or not. The Dem's are already back tracking on things stated before the last election...both sides of the aisle can't give an honest answer if their lives depended on it. Bring on term limits if you truly want to get a better government.

[Razzl]

All Democrats in Congress are going to have problems until they get past the myth that "we can't be seen as not supporting the troops". The public wants the war defunded in order to end it, and knows that Bush isn't going to let the troops go unprovided for. Democrats in Congress need to stop answering Republican talking points from the 2004 election and instead embrace the new reality of voter attitudes from the 2006 election.

[burko777]

Congress isn't holding up any funds. They have given Bush all the funds he wants. Bush just doesn't like the terms, and is thus refusing the troops the money Congress is trying to get to them. If Bush cares about the troops, then he shouldn't dilly-dally with his veto nonsense. Fund the troops, Bush, and accept that they can't stay in Iraq indefinitely. That's all he has to do, but Bush would rather play games with American lives.

[bigsk8fan]

"needs to get over themselves and help the troops that are there now!" Posted by ozziepooh90

Congress needs to understand that we voted them in last November to end the war. Since then Bush wants to actually send more troops. I say hold up the funding and bring the troops home.

[ioweign]

What would happen if the military doesn't get money?? Didn't that happen with the Contract with America? The "Government" got shut down because of lack of funds. Maybe the Iraq government can come up with some cash. Or better "The Republican Party" can fund their "Great Decider"!

[ozziepooh90]

Congress needs to quit fighting among themselves and fund the troops. They are there now and need the funding.!!!!!!! Maybe the war shouldn't be happening but they need what they needs. Congress needs to get over themselves and help the troops that are there now!!!!!!!!

[ozziepooh90]

Congress needs to quit fighting among themselves and fund the troops. They are there now and need the funding.!!!!!!! Maybe the war shouldn't be happening but they need what they needs. Congress needs to get over themselves and help the troops that are there now!!!!!!!!

[processor2]

then refusing to fund the troops in that war.
Posted by dallison7 at 11:08 AM : Apr 04, 2007



DALLISON7

The article is about THE LEFT TURNING AGAINST OBAMA's FOR SAYING THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO FUND THE TROOPS.

It's the left-wing that wants to defund the troops.

READ THE ARTICLE DUMBAZZ

Are all liberals as ignorant as you ???