Obama Says It: No War Funding Without Withdrawal Timetable

Comments (10)

OUtside the beltway wrote on September 17, 2007 8:04 AM:

Maybe next time Obama can use Edwards' exact phrase

No timeline, no funding, No excuses - John Edwards

too bad edwards won't get credit for leading on this or the healthcare issu Jan wrote on September 17, 2007 8:30 AM:

I could be wrong, but I thought Obama said he would not support any "long-term" funding.
Either way, I support the overall idea of no funding. But as ex-military, I know that it can get tricky to just simply suddenly de-fund the troops when they already in a combat theatre.

Just like the withdrawal, there needs to be some details as far as, "What's next?"

The very best way to end the war responsibily, imo, is to go with Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel -- no re-deployments into Iraq until the military mandates on rest and re-training are met.

However, I support all these candidates speaking out, and I too hope my candidate, Senator Clinton, continues to call for withdrawal. She is asking -- with Senator Byrd -- that the current war resolution is sunsetted and the current mission in Iraq is defined.
I am fully behind that measure as well.

colonpowwow wrote on September 17, 2007 9:18 AM:

As a Clinton supporter, I can only say "Way to go!" to Barack Obama. I know Hillary and the other fine Democratic candidates will support this effort. I am proud of this whole field of Democrats and will gladly vote for any of them if they end up taking the nomination with the support of the majority of liberal progressive voters (aka Democrats).

Oops, what did I just say? Did I just praise Obama and the entire fine field of Democratic contenders. Now I've started something. The "anyone-but-Hillary" Hillogynists should begin their daily gratuitous swipes at her in 10 ... 9 ... 8 ...

Anyhow, again, way to step out on effectively ending the war, Mr. Obama.

mopper wrote on September 17, 2007 9:36 AM:

Eh, this seems like symbolic pandering to me, but if it helps him, so be it.

Brian wrote on September 17, 2007 9:38 AM:

Pres '08
Sep 14 Rasmussen
Clinton (D) 46%, Giuliani (R) 45%
Pres '08
Sep 14 Rasmussen
Clinton (D) 48%, Thompson (R) 43%

This narrow margin and Clinton's huge negatives are the reasons I don't support her. She is defeatable and is conservative-light. If she wins the right-wing hate radio jocks will be screaming 'Why not a real conservative!, and BJ Bill is back in the White House!' for 4-8 years.

I am sick and tired of both the Bush's and the Clinton's thank you, and I am a progressive dem. The independents and especially any potential crossover Republicans are much more so... and she will get none of their votes.

NCSteve wrote on September 17, 2007 9:51 AM:

colonpowwow,

Nope, no swipes at Hillary. Just one at you for your continued insinuation that Democrats who oppose Hillary do so because of the arrangement of her reproductive organs rather than some substantive problem or problems with her as a person or as a candidate.

Frankly, I think the the overwhelming majority of those Democrats who are unduly preoccupied with Hillary's gender are her supporters, not her opponents.

Concededly, there still plenty of nutters on the far right who have an issue with it, but its not like any of them were voting for a Democrat under any circumstances. However, I really don't think any of them are regular commenters at TPMEC. Unlike Huffpo, this is still largely a Republitroll-free zone.

RaymondA wrote on September 17, 2007 9:54 AM:

Maybe because my degree is in history, I do not entirely agree with Markos Moulitsas and many commenters on this site who say that that the candidates are saying now about Iraq is more important than what they said before the invasion. Being on record against something that is popular shows far more about the candidate's thinking than the statements the candidate makes with the benefit of polling data and Democratic focus groups composed of a cross-section of likely Iowa caucus-goers. Why? Because the next President won't only face the Iraq draw-down but some crisis none of us can predict, and the best gauge of who would be best to handle that one is how they responded to others and whether they were willing to buck the polling data of the moment.

I do agree in part with Marcos, because,
obviously if a formerly anti-war candidate like Obama came out for another surge, that would be disqualifying. But when it comes to choices among various tactics in trying to bring the Iraq war to an end in the face of a recalcitrant President and a sufficient number of willing Republicans, the choice does not tell me that much about who will be the best candidate.

What Obama may be thinking is that, because the "moderate" Republicans have been all talk and no action, and will not compromise and do the responsible thing by allying to resist Bush, it is not irresponsible for a Dem to support a "no timeline, no funding" bill, because such a bill will not pass anyway, and all the alternatives that might conceivably pass the Senate would perversely reward the all talk no action Republicans like Lugar, Coleman, Collins, etc, and give them political cover in their home states that they do not deserve.

So, though I sympathize with mopper's sentiments, I think what Obama is doing is justified.

I also think Hillary won't hold out now; she waited until Obama voted last time and cast her vote the same way he did. She's not afraid to buck Edwards or the hapless Richardson. But she doesn't want to be isolated either. In fact, I think Bill Clinton, having himself been a very young talented politician who rose at a meteoric pace, recognized that potential in Obama in 2004 and knew Obama might enter the race in 08 before Obama himself knew that; and has counseled Hillary since to not allow too much space between them.

wayne wrote on September 17, 2007 10:22 AM:

Does it really matter what funding approach Obama proposes? Bush would veto any timetable and Congress can't find an override. All it does is give more fodder to the "won't support our troops" bunch.

colonpowwow wrote on September 17, 2007 11:18 AM:

Hi, NCSteve,

I think you're confusing "misogyny," hatred of women, with my made-up word "Hillogyny," which I define as an irrational hatred of HRC.

If you didn't like her vote on the Iraq War authorization and her not apologizing for it. Fine. Don't like that she voted for Patriot Act. Neither do I.

The condition I call Hillogyny is best characterized by otherwise sane liberal progressive Democrats who say that they would, for example, sit out the election on behalf of President Thompson before they would vote for her. This is also commonly stated throughout all spheres of the blogosphere as "anybody but Hillary." Where are the "anybody but Obama" or "anybody but Edwards" people in lefty blogland.

When one starts calling her "Shrillary", "hysterical," "another Lieberman," "Bush-lite," or any such hateful nonsense that I regularly read from posters here, then I think one has entered the realm of Hillogyny (Not to be confused with Billogyny).

Now if you HAVE happened to slide one step further into mysogyny, I can only say, examine the motive for your legitimate distaste turning into anybody-but-Hillary hatred and if the shoe fits . . .

NCSteve wrote on September 17, 2007 11:56 AM:

Guess it was the "gyn" that fooled me.

Acually, I'm more of a anybody but Hillary other than Richardson, Kucinich or Gravel but I'll cast my futile (in this state) vote for her if she gets the nomination kind of guy.

But its not just the AUMF vote that I, and a lot of others, object to. That's just part of a pattern that includes, e.g. her disgraceful and disgusting triangulating on the flag burning amendment. The First Amendement is off-limits. Period. It is the fundemental bundle of rights from which all of our other freedoms flow. If you call yourself a liberal and an attorney, you don't even talk about messing with it.

And yet, in a misguided effort to make people who hate her like her, she did. Its not about conservatism or being Bush-lite. Its about the evident lack of any principles that are more important to her than being president, combined with the lack of vision and political acumen inherent in believing that compromising those principles will help her.

Will she be better than any of the loons the R's are running this year? You bet. But am I happy with the notion of putting someone who's shown herself so willing to put expediency over principle into close proximity to that Ring of Power the Dark Lord Cheney has spent the last six years forging? Nope.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)