Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Obama, Clinton side with anti-war Democrats, vote down troop funding

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740

    Obama, Clinton side with anti-war Democrats, vote down troop funding

    Just a little historical perspective.....The last Senator who voted not to fund our troops in a war(Vietnam War) and then campaigned on this stance while running for President won just one state(his home state) and lost the other 49. Answer: Walter Mondale.
    Obama, Clinton side with anti-war Democrats, vote down troop funding
    05/25/07
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton earned praise from anti-war activists but criticism from Republicans on Friday for voting against a measure to pay for the Iraq war that sets no timetables for withdrawing U.S. troops.

    The two leading 2008 Democratic presidential contenders had been under heavy pressure from the party's influential anti-war wing and from other Democratic candidates to oppose the emergency funding bill sought by President George W. Bush.

    Unlike an earlier funding bill Bush vetoed on May 1, the measure passed comfortably on Thursday by the Senate and House of Representatives did not have deadlines for pulling out U.S. combat troops.

    Obama and Clinton had refused to say how they would vote, but ultimately sided with opponents of the increasingly unpopular war. Liberal advocacy groups like MoveOn.org had warned Democrats who backed the measure of possible political consequences.

    Republican presidential contenders John McCain and Mitt Romney blasted Obama and Clinton for not supporting U.S. troops -- a criticism likely to linger into next year's general election campaign and the November 2008 vote for the White House.

    "I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender," said McCain, an Arizona senator who backed the bill.

    "This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it's the equivalent of waving a white flag to al Qaeda," McCain said, setting off a testy exchange with Obama.

    Obama said Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and McCain "clearly believe the course we are on is working, but I do not," and said proof could be found in McCain's need for heavy security on a recent stroll through a Baghdad market.

    McCain, a Vietnam War veteran, said his experience gave him a different view than Obama had gained during "two years in the U.S. Senate."

    Two other Democratic senators running for president split their votes, with Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd voting against it and Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden for it.

    The bill passed 280-142 in the House and 80-14 in the Senate.

    Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, praised the bill's opponents.

    "Senators Obama, Clinton and Dodd stood up and did the right thing -- voting down the president's war policy," Pariser said. "They're showing real leadership toward ending the war, and MoveOn's members are grateful."

    Other Democratic contenders like John Edwards, a former senator, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had urged Congress to reject the measure.

    Clinton has angered anti-war Democrats with her refusal to apologize or repudiate her 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq, while Obama stresses his early opposition to the war.

    While initially reluctant to back withdrawal timetables, Clinton and Obama voted for the earlier bill that included them.
    Analysts said opposing the bill was a safe choice for Democrats given the public mood against the war. But the delay in making a decision by Obama and Clinton made them appear calculating, said Cal Jillson, a political analyst at Southern Methodist University in Texas.

    "Neither Hillary nor Obama have been beacons of courage," he said. "People are saying 'Do you guys have the sense of self and the confidence to state a position and then defend it?' And both of them have been hiding in the bushes."

    Clinton, of New York, said she supported the troops but opposed the bill because "it fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq." Obama, of Illinois, said U.S. troops deserved more.

    Biden, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, said Democrats did not have the votes yet to overcome Bush's veto and the troops needed to be funded.

    "The president may be prepared to play a game of political chicken with the well-being of our troops. I am not. I will not," Biden said.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,553
    The troops deserve to come home... fcuk this stupid war in Iraq... I don't understand how requiring withdrawal timetables is the same as abandoning troops. Wouldn't that be better for the troops?

    I like this part.
    Obama said Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and McCain "clearly believe the course we are on is working, but I do not," and said proof could be found in McCain's need for heavy security on a recent stroll through a Baghdad market.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by scriptfactory
    The troops deserve to come home... fcuk this stupid war in Iraq... I don't understand how requiring withdrawal timetables is the same as abandoning troops. Wouldn't that be better for the troops?

    I like this part.
    You like that part because it solves........what? Personally, I prefer to see solutions not political quibs.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    You like that part because it solves........what? Personally, I prefer to see solutions not political quibs.
    Uh... there is a solution. Bring those American soldiers home. I have good friends in Iraq. I could care less what happens to that country. They obviously to want us over there. Fcuk the Iraqis... bring my friends home.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by scriptfactory
    Uh... there is a solution. Bring those American soldiers home. I have good friends in Iraq. I could care less what happens to that country. They obviously to want us over there. Fcuk the Iraqis... bring my friends home.
    Let's think beyond 1 day after pull-out, shall we? Do we deal with Iran and Al Quaeda after they have full control of Iraq? Leaders need to give us answers to this even larger problem, not just pander to their voting blocks(which you are apparently one of).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Vegas, bitches!!!
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    You like that part because it solves........what? Personally, I prefer to see solutions not political quibs.
    So in your estimation Logan, what is the solution? What does staying there for an undetermined amount of time solve?

    It's definately a double edged sword. If we stay in Iraq, all we do is intensify the hatred against us there and in the broader middle east, allowing terrorists to recruit more terrorists, plus eventually more and more Iraqi's will join the fight against us. Not to mention the longer we are there and the more troops we ***loy also means more US casualties. But on the other side, if we leave Iraq, what happens with Iran and Al Quaida? We don't know for sure, but it doesn't look good. There is no easy solution, so it's my opinion that when there is no clean cut solution, our leadership should listen to the people who elected them to office.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by BgMc31
    So in your estimation Logan, what is the solution? What does staying there for an undetermined amount of time solve?

    It's definately a double edged sword. If we stay in Iraq, all we do is intensify the hatred against us there and in the broader middle east, allowing terrorists to recruit more terrorists, plus eventually more and more Iraqi's will join the fight against us. Not to mention the longer we are there and the more troops we ***loy also means more US casualties. But on the other side, if we leave Iraq, what happens with Iran and Al Quaida? We don't know for sure, but it doesn't look good. There is no easy solution, so it's my opinion that when there is no clean cut solution, our leadership should listen to the people who elected them to office.
    Bg, I do not know what the solution should be, I just know what the outcome will be of us pulling out, and it is not good. Our leadership was elected by the people to do the people's bidding as he/she sees fit. The general public does not know everything about what is going on, even with ABC and the NY Times trying to stop interfere with it, our Gov't still has confidential intelligence that we do not. One thing is for sure, a "quick and easy solution" right now to appease the Average Joe which creates even more complicated issues down the road is NO SOLUTION - postponing the inevitable I am afraid.

  8. #8
    i was watching cspan today and i heard that clinton and obama waited until the resolution passed before they cased a no vote. this is the kind of stuff the pisses me off with most democratic congressman. i also don't get how they keep falling for republican talking point like "if we don't vote for funds, we don't support the troops". what, do the dems think the troops will be swimming how if they cut the war funding? they need to grow sum balls and cut the war funding. if they stood there ground when bush vetoed their previous, the money would of run out and the troops would have to go home.

    al qaeida is not going to take over Iraq if we leave. the majority shia hate them and will kill them and the sunni are made at them because they been killing sunnis lately. Iran is and will continue to be an ally with Iraq because the Iraqi government is now dominated by shia. i have no clue whether the fighting between shia and sunni will get better or worse but i believe Iraq's neighbors will intervene to stop the violence if we leave.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants
    i was watching cspan today and i heard that clinton and obama waited until the resolution passed before they cased a no vote. this is the kind of stuff the pisses me off with most democratic congressman. i also don't get how they keep falling for republican talking point like "if we don't vote for funds, we don't support the troops". what, do the dems think the troops will be swimming how if they cut the war funding? they need to grow sum balls and cut the war funding. if they stood there ground when bush vetoed their previous, the money would of run out and the troops would have to go home.

    al qaeida is not going to take over Iraq if we leave. the majority shia hate them and will kill them and the sunni are made at them because they been killing sunnis lately. Iran is and will continue to be an ally with Iraq because the Iraqi government is now dominated by shia. i have no clue whether the fighting between shia and sunni will get better or worse but i believe Iraq's neighbors will intervene to stop the violence if we leave.
    Wow, I did not hear about that. I can believe it about Hillary, she is a politician first and foremost. At least Obama has been publicly against it since before it started.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    Wow, I did not hear about that. I can believe it about Hillary, she is a politician first and foremost. At least Obama has been publicly against it since before it started.
    obama's is not as anti-war as he pretends to be and the media portrays him to be. he made some wishy washy comments back in 2002 that Hilary camp is throwing out. he usually votes to fund the war which is not an anti-war position. he has also made some hawkish comments about Iran along with Hilary and Edwards. the only anti-war presidential candidates are Congressman Dennis Kucinnich, Ex-Senator Mike Gravel, and maybe Congressman Ron Paul.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants
    obama's is not as anti-war as he pretends to be and the media portrays him to be. he made some wishy washy comments back in 2002 that Hilary camp is throwing out. he usually votes to fund the war which is not an anti-war position. he has also made some hawkish comments about Iran along with Hilary and Edwards. the only anti-war presidential candidates are Congressman Dennis Kucinnich, Ex-Senator Mike Gravel, and maybe Congressman Ron Paul.
    None of those later three candidates will win even one state in the primaries.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    None of those later three candidates will win even one state in the primaries.
    sadly they won't but they're the only candidates that a like.
    Last edited by mcpeepants; 05-26-2007 at 01:28 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Download FREE 396 Page Steroid Book/Guide!!

396 Pages of Anabolic Steroid resources, techniques and facts. Discover the best types of Steroids to use to reach specific goals and outcomes.