Updated: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . . . again.

Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . . . again.


Front page poster Jerome Armstrong wrote a diary today entitled Making Iraq the Issue in which he offers a strong critique of Obama's anti-war credentials given, according to the author, "[Obama's] lack of consistency [on the issue of Iraq]." Now I make no claims of being unbias, unlike Mr. Armstrong, and I am quite vocal to my fellow MyDD peers about how strong of a supporter I am for the Obama campaign. I do not dispute that Mr. Armstrong's piece was indeed fact based, however, his interpretation of the facts are just plain wrong.

First is Jerome's following interpretation:

In the run-up to the US invading Iraq, Obama was a candidate whom spoke out against Bush's unilateralism, while at the same time, Edwards voted in favor of giving Bush the authority and he supported of the invasion. So if that's the only measure of having credibility on ending the war, then it's an easy question; but ending the war means cutting off funding of the war, and that's not been something that Obama has been in favor of, until just recently.

Let's examine Jerome's measure of having credibility to end the war. According to Mr. Armstrong, the only way to have continued credibility on ending the war is to support complete discontinuation of the war funds. First and foremost, there is no democratic candidate who supports completely cutting off the funds for the war except for Kucinich and Gravel. In particular John Edwards, who I suspect Jerome supports (not fact based so do not go crazy over this suspicion), even to this day does not support complete cut off of funds. He supports the solution that originated with Obama which calls for phased withdrawal and then using funding restrictions to force the strategy. Edwards very recently went Meet the Press(see included video) to emphasize that he will not advocate for defunding the troops while they are in battle.

More importantly, Obama has been the most consistent in terms of his position on the war of any of the major democratic candidates. He opposed the war from the start, however, he clearly stated the once we were in that there would be no easy way to get out and he said this as far back as 2002.

Us rushing headlong into a war unilaterally was a mistake and may still be a mistake. If it has happen, then at that point what the debate is going to really be about is what's our long term commitment there [hint, hint Jerome if we go in, you just don't pull out precipitously]. How much is it going to cost? What does it mean for us to rebuild Iraq? Can we stabilize and insure this country does not splinter into factions between the Shias, the Kurds and the Sunnis? . . .

- Barack Obama 2002 Interview with Jeff Berkowitz

Then in November of 2005 during a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations Obama also reiterated this point:

. . . I believe that, having waged a war that has unleashed daily carnage and uncertainty in Iraq, we have to manage our exit in a responsible way - with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future, but at the very least taking care not to plunge the country into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis. I say this not only because we owe it to the Iraqi people, but because the Administration's actions in Iraq have created a self-fulfilling prophecy - a volatile hotbed of terrorism that has already begun to spill over into countries like Jordan, and that could embroil the region, and this country, in even greater international conflict.

- Moving Forward in Iraq, November 22, 2005

Again, even as he opposed the war from the start, he has been consistent in his advocacy for a responsible withdrawal. This position was made very clear at the recent AFSCME presidential forum when Obama stated that, "we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in [wink, wink, Jerome that in no way means he believes in cutting off funds]."

Jerome implied that Obama now in favors defunding as evident by his recent no vote on the last supplemental. Contrary to popular opinion, a "no" vote on a bill is not a conclusive indication that someone does not support the bill itself. It could, as it did in Obama's case, mean that the person does not support the current form of the bill. Obama's no vote was the result of the bill not carrying any restrictions on the funds (i.e. a phased withdrawal or shortened supplementals, both of which he took the lead on) and not, as Jerome suggests, him making a grandstand show of support for defunding as a way to end the war. Therefore, we can conclude that his voting record on funding as well as the recent no vote on the latest spending supplemental is quite consistent with Obama's previous position. I say it again: Obama never agreed with this war but he does believe it is our responsibility, since the war was initiated anyway, to make withdrawal as painless as possible.

Oddly, Jerome attempts to contrast what he believes is Obama's lack of consistency on Iraq with John Edwards 2003 vote against the 87 billion dollar supplemental. However, I did a diary on this particular topic about a month ago entitled Wrong! My response to Do the Math: Edwards Critical of Iraq war Since 2003 which illustrated John Edwards continued inconsistencies on the issue of the war. Suprisingly, with just a few sprinkles of google we find that just three days before the $87 billion supplemental vote that John Edwards went on Hardball and said:

I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

Consistency? And just a month earlier than that he said, "We have young men and women overthere in a dangerous environment. They're in a shooting gallery, very dangerous situation, and we have to make sure they get what they need. That's pretty simple." (CBS's "Face The Nation", 9/21/03). As a matter of fact, the following video shows just how consistent Obama has been in contrast to Edwards during the period between 2002 to 2004.

Jerome then goes on to state:

Obama wants to make a preemptive differentiation that only he is prepared to be the Democratic nominee based on his original opposition to invading Iraq. It's as if Obama is trying to become the Dean of '08 in attracting those of us who were against this war from the beginning. But the comparison of Obama to Dean ends in 2003. Dean never supported funding of the war, Obama continually did until the most recent vote.

Where to begin? Foremost, Jerome suggests Obama is trying to become this cycle's Howard Dean which exemplifies a serious lack of understanding about the Obama campaign. Obama is not trying to be a 2008 Dean. He knows he only have to be the 2008 Obama. Dean, as Jerome accurately states, never supported funding for the war, however, Obama has never once tried to emulate Dean's position. Obama, as I have stated before, advocated for funding with restrictions with the end goal being a total withdrawal. Furthermore, Howard Dean was never in a position to effect change on the issue while Obama, Edwards and Clinton were or are. Therefore, Obama can make the "preemptive differentiation" that he is the only credible democratic nominee of the top contenders on the issue of the war precisely because he did, on record, oppose the war from the start and very presciently at that.

Then Jerome goes on to make the following implication:

And why did Obama all of a sudden change his position on funding the war in Iraq? He said something vague about not wanting to give Bush a blank check, but given his abrupt 180-degree change in position, a more detailed response seems necessary.

What 180? Short of a total cut off of funds, Obama has consistently stated that he would only support measures of funding that allowed for restrictions leading up to a phased withdrawal of the troops. He introduced a bill on January 30th of this year that called for a phased withdrawal of all combat troops by March 2008. This bill was the basis for the initial supplemental that Congress sent to Bush and it ultimately fell victim to a presidential veto. But it was Obama who got the ball rolling on this issue. Russ Feingold reiterated this sentiment back in March of this year when he said to the Chicago Tribune,

"I regard him as clearly stronger [on Iraq] than Sen. [Hillary Rodham] Clinton, indeed than [former] Sen. [John] Edwards," Feingold said. "Of all the people I've worked with that are running for president, I think Sen. Obama probably made the proposal that was most helpful in moving the [Senate Democratic] Caucus in the direction I would like to see it go."

- Chicago Tribune: Carefully crafting the Obama 'brand'

Jerome attempts, without evidence to back it up mind you, to make the following accusation:

Particularly when you consider that Obama, just weeks prior to the vote, made the outlandish claim that the vast majority of Democrats supported funding of the war, and voiced the Republican frame that to not fund the war was to deny material support of the troops.

What? It is true that the vast majority of democrats support funding of the war. However, Jerome intentionally leaves out the fact that the vast majority of Democrats only supports funding of the war if it results in restrictions or timetables. Additionally, Jerome's claim that Obama saying "to not fund the war was to deny material support to the troops" to be a purely Republican frame is not entirely accurate. George Bush is a lame duck president with nothing to lose and has shown time and again that he is hell bent on taking this war to the end. What is to stop him from keeping the troops over there once the funds are discontinued? Has George Bush shown any past inclination to adhere to the laws of reason that would make this so called "republican frame" be any less a statement of truth? Truth supercedes partisanship.

Finally, Jerome asks the question,

Where does Obama really stand on ending the war in Iraq now?

Answer: 16 votes away from building a veto proof majority in Congress to bring this war to an end. Instead of sending the same bill back eight million times to a president who has shown an unwillingness to compromise, Obama has been using the leverage of his people powered campaign to urge citizens in states with key Republican senators to force the hand of these representatives on the war. Frankly, it looks like this strategy is working as evidenced by the following article, Who's next to defect on Iraq?

Cool Obama Videos

Obama and Gore: Leaders to deal with Global Warming: A tribute to two leaders past and present who are significantly changing the political landscape.

Barack Obama: Pre-war Iraq assesment: Obama explains the thought process that led to his 2002 speech against the war in Iraq.

Obama addresses Hillary Clinton's experience on CNN: Obama took issue with the percieved notion that somehow Senator Clinton was more prepared for the presidency than the other candidates.

What Obama is About: A summary of his policies


Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)



Re: Why lovingj is wrong about Jerome. . . again.


by JollyBuddah 2007-07-13 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Why lovingj is wrong about Jerome. . . again.

Its there now.  I put the code in afterwards, sorry about that.

by lovingj 2007-07-13 01:03PM | 0 recs
Thank You , John.

Like I said, the attempts to merge Obama and Clinton's position on Iraq will render ineffective. I also believe that the claims being made about Edwards, who totally hijacked Barack Obamas position on the War and trying to pass them off as his own, are hilarious. I personally, did not fall for the bait. Honestly, I have expressed elsewhere , what I think Jerome's motives are and what really fuels his Diaries about Obama and I related that to the Obama Rapid Response Team as well as the Obama Campaign HQ. But, I am not falling for the bait. What you did, in your response was appropriate and mature. I appreciate an intelligent response like this. There is a difference between biased opinion and fact. You have presented the facts.

Thank you.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-13 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank You , John.

What do you mean hijacked?  Edwards was among the first to come out for defunding the war in the Senate in 2003/2004, voting against more money.  Obama has taken every chance he's had to vote for more money for the war and to top it off, advance some right-wing talking points along the way.

by Peter from WI 2007-07-13 03:10PM | 0 recs
But he didn't want to defund the war

in 2003. Check out the diary

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-13 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: But he didn't want to defund the war

he being Edwards

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-13 04:15PM | 0 recs
Obama hijacked his own position

by saying he was agaisnt funding then voting for it and supporting the war until he decided to run for president.

by okamichan13 2007-07-13 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Jerome is spot on about Obama

Would someone please explain with linkies how in the blazes Edwards hijacked Obama's ideas?  Excuse me, but it was Edwards who said he was wrong (yes, I know Obama was against the war or so he says he was_) and was the first to propose withdrawl of troops over an 18 month period.   Moreover, Obama voted for funding many times for the troops (until recently when it was made clear that the progressives were backing Edwards' on no more funding of the troops without a timetable) and for the confirmation of Condi Rice, who along with the other neo-cons in the WH, have made the situation worse.

This diary is a nice tribute to the candidate, but I quibble with some of the content.  Moreover, I'm not certain Jerome backs Edwards necessarily either.

by benny06 2007-07-13 01:53PM | 0 recs

I said it was a suspicion that Jerome supports Edwards considering he usually writes very favorable pieces about the Edwards campaign.  However, I am by no means, saying as a statement of fact, that Jerome indeed supports JRE.

when it was made clear that the progressives were backing Edwards' on no more funding of the troops without a timetable)

What progressives?  Every last one?  Furthermore, Obama has been as consistent if not more so than Edwards in advocating a funding bill with restrictions.

by lovingj 2007-07-13 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: asdf.

>>>Would someone please explain with linkies how in the blazes Edwards hijacked Obama's ideas?

You didn't answer benny's question.

In Nov. 2005 Edwards apologized and said he was wrong on Iraq and began calling for redeployment - during the same time that Obama gave a speech to the Foreign Something. Now - what did Obama say in that speech?

by annefrank 2007-07-13 07:40PM | 0 recs
the same thing he said the time before...

are you now suggesting that edward$ has been stealing obama's ideas???

by bored now 2007-07-14 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . . . again.

Great counter.  

I've truly enjoyed reading your very well thought out and intelligent posts about Obama. When I read those hit diaries especially ones like Jerome's, I'm tempted to think just let all the haters have their feeding frenzy.  But I realized that people like yourself and Ice and few other great supporters need to set the record straight.  

Sometimes it's difficult to be the voice of reason in some of these posts and I like that you present your views in a reasonable and fact filled manner.  

by Jalenth 2007-07-13 02:04PM | 0 recs

by lovingj 2007-07-13 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks.

Yeah, you do good work.

Don't know how you can keep it up with all the Edwards people and the two Hillary people attacking all the time.

by Bush Bites 2007-07-13 05:57PM | 0 recs

Just proves that Obama suppoters are fanatically attached to him.  Unles there is abject worship, one is demonized as a hater.  That kind of hero worship is dangerous in a democracy.

Barack Obama is just a man. Maybe he would be a good president; maybe not.

The bile and vitriol I see here directed at Jerome for criticizing Obama on the issues amazes me.

You really cannot tell the difference between attacks on Obama because of race or background and criticisms of his positions on issues.  The former is hate; the latter is disagreement on issues.  Jerome is the latter.  

Obama supporters are convincing me to make Hilary Clinton my second choice.  I agree with Obama more than Clinton on the issues, but this cult of personality is just wrong in a democracy.  Clinton does not inspire such irrationalism in her followers.  In the end, Obama is responsible for creating this.

by littafi 2007-07-13 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Haters?

Ah, you're just jealous.

by noquacks 2007-07-13 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Haters?

You mean financially attached to Obama.


by BlueDiamond 2007-07-13 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Haters?

I have read some crazy stuff from Hillary supporters.  But I would not let a blog or board, make a decision of whom I would support.  Find out the facts on all candidates and then line them up, close to what you believe.  There are folk on both sides of the line with this, and fortunately, the majority of America don not read these posts.  And Jerome, yes, he has written some things spot on about Obama, and I agree a man, not God.  But I disagreed with him on this last diary, stated so in the diary, offered some pieces to support what I was stating.

by icebergslim 2007-07-14 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . . . again.

Obama haters???  Jeeez! you sound like a Bushie.

by annefrank 2007-07-13 07:41PM | 0 recs
nice counter

the only thing I would change is the assertion that jerome supports edwards. Without facts, who knows if he does, but it is largely unnecessary to the larger point you want to make, namely that Jerome is incorrect on Obama.

but again. good counter and post.

by dpg220 2007-07-13 02:10PM | 0 recs
Maybe, however,

I did state that it was my own personal suspicion.  I am not claiming it to be fact and only my opinion based on the content of his previous diaries.

I do believe that I can conclude as fact that he cares very little for Obama.  I've read his diaries here and on Huffington Post and he does Obama no favors in his pieces.

by lovingj 2007-07-13 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: nice counter

Isn't it just being factual saying that Jerome supports edwards?  He may not like Edwards enough to vote for him, but his actions support edwards.

by sterra 2007-07-13 04:01PM | 0 recs
Good Counter Punch, love...

Jerome was a tool on this one.  And the bias reeked, it did.  

by icebergslim 2007-07-13 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Counter Punch, love...

You call the guy a "tool" because he writes something you disagree with?   That is basically trollish behavior.   Those types of personal attacks don't belong here.   Bizarre that you would get 3s for a ridiculous attack post like this.   A "tool"?  Really?   You honestly don't see the inflammatory nature of your attack?  

by georgep 2007-07-13 05:19PM | 0 recs
Why the troll rating?

She is not trolling in Jerome's frontpage post she just stated an opinion in a pro Obama post.  She merely suggested Jerome was way off base in his assesment of Obama as do I.

by lovingj 2007-07-13 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the troll rating?

She called a poster here a TOOL.  That is a major personal attack that should not be accepted by anyone, least not the diarist himself.  Are you saying it is ok to use such attacks in discourse?  It is not ok, you know it, but you don't care to admit it.  If you don't realize that name calling like this is unacceptable on a blog, then you are dead-wrong.  

by georgep 2007-07-13 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the troll rating?

He think he owns this site.  He does.  Period.

by icebergslim 2007-07-13 06:14PM | 0 recs
Georgep remove the trollrating.

by lovingj 2007-07-13 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Counter Punch, love...

It would have been inappropriate if I answered directly to him, but I did not.  And Jerome is a big boy, I have seen folk call him WORSE on this site.  Next, don't worry about me.  I know the boundaries, just go back to Clinton Land, where everything is a "poll number".  God Bless You, georgep.

by icebergslim 2007-07-13 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Counter Punch, love...

Another trollish comment.  

It is inappropriate to call a poster a TOOL (or IDIOT or JERK) in any setting.  What the heck is the matter with you if you think that it is ok to do so as long as you don't state it to the poster DIRECTLY?   You are using inflammatory insults which are not cool at all.  It is trolling, plain and simple.   Heck, yitbos has decided to trollrate anybody who uses Hillbot or Obamaniac.   You get all huffy because I take exception to you using the inflammatory term TOOL against a well-known frontpager here?

You may want to think first before you go off on someone in the future.  A TOOL is a very nasty dismissive.  Please do better next time.  Thanks.

by georgep 2007-07-13 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Counter Punch, love...

That was not a trollish comment, period.  And you know it.  I know you are upset because you were called out for your previous posts, concerning race, and tried to clean it up.  Fine, but you know it was not a trollish comment.  God Bless you georgep, you need it.

by icebergslim 2007-07-14 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Good Counter Punch, love...

That was not a trollish comment, period.  And you know it.  I know you are upset because you were called out for your previous posts, concerning race, and tried to clean it up.  Fine, but you know it was not a trollish comment.  God Bless you georgep, you need it.

by icebergslim 2007-07-14 05:53AM | 0 recs
That is insulting.

You are usually better than that.  A "tool"?

Well, if one of the best of the Obama supporters lowers herself to personal insults rather than issue discussions, well, I give up on you and Barack Obama.

I am disapointed.

Can't you just say you disagree and explain why?

by littafi 2007-07-13 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: That is insulting.

I did, read the comment in the original piece Jerome wrote, and read the whole thread.  Again, if you are going to let folk or posts, persuade you on your choice of candidate, then you are not informed.  I am not going to let anyone dissuade me on a candidates issues, that is what is most important, not some posts on a board, which 50% of them are not even fact checked.

by icebergslim 2007-07-14 05:55AM | 0 recs
Judgment vs. Experience

Jerome was analyzing what most Obama supporters seem to agree Obama is doing now: attempting to contrast his judgment against Clinton's experience. The question is this, yes Obama had better judgment about entering the Iraq war, but how is his judgment different since then? How does his judgment about what to do now differ from Clinton's?

The problem for Obama is that his policy prescriptions on Iraq are not different from Clinton's. His initial good judgment gives him an opening, how does he use that opening to differentiate himself now?

by souvarine 2007-07-13 02:20PM | 0 recs

He was the first to call for a phased withdrawal.  Clinton did not jump on board until later.  He introduced a bill that the eventual timetable supplemental was modeled after that Clinton strongly favored.  Hell, just a year ago Senator Clinton opposed a timetable of any kind.  She is the least consistent of the top three candidates.  Obama has been consistently suggesting drawing down troops as a way of putting political pressure on the Iraqi government for the last two years while Clinton did not even jump on board to this way of thinking until this year.

Trust me, there are differences beyond the votes.

by lovingj 2007-07-13 02:32PM | 0 recs
I don't think you're right on this


Obama did call for withdrawal first and he did support a deadline first. But Obama did oppose deadlines for awhile too.

I think sep is largely right except in demanding that Obama "show good judgment now" by differentiating himself from hrc when that's impossible because hrc is taking the sensible approach now. of course, her strategy is to mimic obama on every iraq vote and move in order to cretae this false sense that their judgment on war are the same.

by dpg220 2007-07-13 02:39PM | 0 recs
oops meant souvarine

not sep

by dpg220 2007-07-13 02:40PM | 0 recs
Not quite.

He may have not been a clear advocate of deadlines but he has been suggesting redeployment and regional diplomatic efforts for quite some time.

by lovingj 2007-07-13 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Not quite.

Sure, Obama has been consistently correct on Iraq, but Clinton was also advocating regional diplomacy and an exit plan from the beginning.

by souvarine 2007-07-13 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Not quite.

He spoke very strongly against deadlines and a "date certain" until recently.  

by georgep 2007-07-13 05:21PM | 0 recs
Got links?

I got links on Clinton though.

by lovingj 2007-07-13 05:41PM | 0 recs
I thought you were an Obama expert

here you go:

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-fl oor_statement_6/

"But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, 1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; 2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and 3) bringing our troops safely home."

Apparently he changed his mind on that pretty quick once he announced his presidency.

by okamichan13 2007-07-13 05:47PM | 0 recs
key word is total

withdraw.  Obama's explained what his preferred approach to withdraw was (and still is).

...and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counter-insurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support.

by JoeCoaster 2007-07-13 07:52PM | 0 recs
You forgot this part

1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement;

I guess that is what we are doing now and for the last few years.

by okamichan13 2007-07-13 08:44PM | 0 recs

is what he said of the Kerry/Reid proposal before. I guess it took another year of war to change his mind.

by okamichan13 2007-07-13 05:44PM | 0 recs
that's well said but

here's the problem with your analysis. Nobody is arguing that Clinton is showing poor judgment now on iraq, she's got in line with the idea that we need to responsibly exit.

Obama says the same thing now because it is the responsible thing to say and do now.

Nobody is arguing (nobody should) that Obama and Clinton have differed on Iraq much since he got into the senate. They haven't. But Obama showed good judgment back then which suggests that he will show good judgement in the future. at this point, that's all he can argue. he showed state that he is ready to lead and his anti-war stand before the war shows that.

by dpg220 2007-07-13 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: that's well said but

I should be clear, Obama's opposition to the Iraq invasion is a big point in his favor. Moving from "too little, too late" to "judgment" is what he should be doing. But I don't think asking people to extrapolate from his opposition to the invasion to judgment in the future is a strong argument. I think it is hard to make the "we should not have gone in but now that we are there we have to exit responsibly" argument. I think Hillary has a better case with "we tried, Bush failed, we should leave" and I don't see how Obama counters that.

Jerome would like to see Obama take a more partisan anti-war position, supporting de-funding and the withdrawal of all troops. That would allow Obama to draw a stronger distinction with Clinton, but I think it is a policy mistake that Obama will not make.

by souvarine 2007-07-13 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: that's well said but

What's the responsible way to get off a sinking ship that everyone knows is going to sink? I mean when was the time to get off the Titanic? I also don't understand if the war itself is immoral then what is moral about continuing it?

by bruh21 2007-07-14 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: that's well said but

I don't think any war is moral. A cause for which one fights might be more or less just, and some tactics or actions in war can be less moral than others, but war itself is never moral.

Though the Iraq war is a sinking ship, Iraq will still be there when we leave, the world will continue to rely on middle eastern oil and the terrorists Bush drew into Iraq will continue to train and recruit. There is no Titanic we can get off of.

by souvarine 2007-07-14 07:10AM | 0 recs
hillary's poor judgment...

isn't just demonstrated on her vote to invade iraq, but in her leadership in hillarycare, her hiding of her billing records, etc.  she's brilliant at the small stuff.  but when it comes to the big issues (or the rule of law) her record is not so good...

by bored now 2007-07-13 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: hillary's poor judgment...

I'd like to see her tax returns.

(And Edwards' too, by the way.)

by Bush Bites 2007-07-13 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: hillary's poor judgment...

Look who she chose for a husband?

by noquacks 2007-07-13 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: hillary's poor judgment...

You can troll rate me for this if you want but if your best friend chose a guy who cheats, not once, not twice but more than a few times and blows his job because of it, you'd have to wonder about her choice in men.

Now, Presidents....that's another matter.

by noquacks 2007-07-14 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . . . again.

This is an excellent, exhaustively researched diary. Thank you for taking the time to put together comprehensively many of the things some of us tried (probably in vain) to argue in the mess of comments on Armstrong's post.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-13 02:24PM | 0 recs
Actually I have been writing pro

Obama diaries for quite a while and I have done a great deal of the research found in this diary in some of my past diaries.  I've spent a lot of time studying the Obama campaign in detail.  I've always been mildly into politics but the Obama campaign ignited a passion for this area that I never knew existed.  I really think Obama is one of those politicians that come along once in a generation.

by lovingj 2007-07-13 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually I have been writing pro

Yes, I've been appreciating your excellent diaries for quite some time now, I just especially appreciated this one because it lessened some of my frustration about Armstrong's post this morning. I've also been interested in politics for a while, but am particularly excited by Obama.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-13 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually I have been writing pro

Sorry, I need to leave this thread now. I don't want to get diabetes...

by Michael Bersin 2007-07-13 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually I have been writing pro

That's actually pretty funny. Good on you.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-13 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually I have been writing pro

Well you did and excellent job and your passion for fact-based analysis is obvious. Thanks.

by jazzyjay 2007-07-13 04:12PM | 0 recs
Obama Girl? Is that you?

Obama comes by once in ageneration.  He is so superior to mortal men.  I saw him once.  His halo glowed. I touched the hem of his garment. I saw him heal a leper.  

You have convinced me that Hilary Clinton is prefferable to Obama.

You see a deity, not a candidate.  This is a religion, not a campaign.  It is absolutely ridiculous.  

It is wrong and I oppose it.

by littafi 2007-07-13 07:46PM | 0 recs
nice exaggeration...

I think you're having a argument with a imaginary friend  because nothing you repeated has been said in the real world.

If you oppose high caliber, insperational people in general for political leadership then .... who are you supporting again?

by JoeCoaster 2007-07-13 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Girl? Is that you?

It is obvious that you were not going to vote for him anyway.  And anyone that let some posters dissuade them against valid information of positions on a candidate is uninformed.

by icebergslim 2007-07-14 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Jerome is wrong about (fill in the blank).

I have a question about the strategy of sending the same bill back to Bush to veto again, and again, and again.  That makes it sound like you send a messenger with the bill and when he comes back you send him out again. Wouldn't this strategy require Congress to continually pass new legislation and get more than 60 Senators to invoke cloture again and again?  

by DD2 2007-07-13 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . . . again.

Excellent rebuttal for those thinking objectively.  

by noquacks 2007-07-13 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . . . again.

Ive never understood fellow liberals that advocates for sudden pull out of Iraq...Some of those people dont have a clue on why we can't pull out of Iraq so fast.

First of all, the U.S can not leave Iraq untill the Oil is secure and they are clearly sure that it wont be used as a money-maker to fund terrorist groups or to fund Iran nuclear bomb.

Some of those liberals dont give a fuck and they just dont get it that this war is an american war,not a Bush or a GOP war...Under no circumstance we can leave Iraq and allow it to become a failed state where terrorist would be able to organize and plan their next attack on us freely.

When you listen to them on the blogs, you'd think that if we were to pull out tomorrow,everything would all of a sudden be great in Iraq and the sunniiz and shiites would make peace etc etc...This is extremily optimistic to think that the U.S troops being in Iraq is the sole problem and if they disappear tomorrow, things will be great here.

I sincerily think that a quick pull out will make life miserable for all Iraqis,not better...I see a huge civil war between kurd and Turks, sunniies and shiites and they will all be fighting over territory and oil and more people will be killed from that then the invasion....The only things keeping those groups from wages all out war is the U.S troops.

Iran is waging a proxy war against U.S troops because it is in their best interest to see the U.S fail so that they could move in and take over the oil and create their big ShiiTe state which will anger nearby sunni states like Jordan and saudi arabia.

Obama had always stated that the instant we entered Iraq, we could not just pick up and leave the country worst then when we got in.

by JaeHood 2007-07-13 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . . . again.

You are confused,you should be supporting Joe liberman.

by bebe 2007-07-13 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . . . again.

Is it inappropriate to make a Lieberman/Obama joke here?

by Peter from WI 2007-07-14 07:04AM | 0 recs
I think your candidate disagrees with you

He is saying the war "must end now".

And you sound like a Republican. Maybe another surge?

by okamichan13 2007-07-13 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . . . again.

Love your diary,lovingj. Well-thought out arguments, sane tone, just-the-facts-'ma'am, plus the sentiments inspired by Obama's actions as well as his words. Obama's supporters are not only driven by feelings, but despite what some political-junkies may think, feelings are intensely important in elections. The "feelings" that Hillary is undesirable have an impact, as do  "feelings" that Obama is reliable. Positive feelings inspire volunteers to act, voters to vote. Obama's record does not say he wants to fund this war, it says he wants a timetable, withdrawal and the troops home safe, with some semblance of order left behind. If people think Iraqis should be left holding this bag, so be it. Can't change the lack of relating to other human beings. If my country'd been attacked and bombed to hell, my infrastructure destroyed, my relatives dead, refugee'd or maimed, and the attackers then up and left their mess and took our resources, I'd be tempted to follow them to the ends of the earth for vengeance. It's not smart, but there go feelings again. Funny how they impact such lofty things as foreign affairs. You don't just back out of an illegal war with a "whoops, my bad", not if you want to protect your own country. What part of the al Qaeda buildup did Jerome miss? Does he think it's just a hobby for those folks? Does he think Iraq exists in the middle of the Mediterranean all alone? Our illegal war and the Iraqis' subsequent misery has kicked up some funk. I'm glad Obama is mature and smart enough to know he'll have to deal with those consequences when he takes over, much as he'd like to take the money and run and deal w/all the problems here. Oh well, seems like Jerome's mad Edwards isn't gaining, I understand. The main thing I dislike about Edwards is what I dislike about my own Dem Sen. Feinstein - they both were on the Intelligence Comm. and had greater access than the rest of Congress, but voted for the war anyway. Edwards and Feinstein are both DLC Dems, like Hillary (and Lieberman), and Obama's not, and I want our presidency out of the hands of the DLC at last. Great job again, lovingj.

by VCubed 2007-07-13 03:39PM | 0 recs
Thank you.

Great analysis by the way.

by lovingj 2007-07-13 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . .

You missed the whole point of Jerome's diary.  He wasn't contrasting to Edwards.  He was pointing out that Obama's positions were contradictory to his own principles.  This makes it difficult to differentiate himself from Clinton.

As to the whole withdrawal from Iraq, the leader on that has been Feingold.  The Edwards put out his plan before Obama.  Obama has not been particularly vocal since he got into the senate, except to undermine Feingold.  

However continue to congratulate yourselves.  Edwards supporters at least acknowledge his error and his positions since.  Obama supporters have to contort themselves to keep Obama from ever having to explain his inconsistencies.

And Jerome was right.

It is nice not to have the woosh, woosh.

by pioneer111 2007-07-13 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . .

Woosh woosh is gone just for you.

Jerome was wrong.

Obama never contradicted his own principles because he never stated that cutting funding was the right way to go about getting out.

Feingold has definitely been a vigorous leader on the issue of Iraq.  That at least we both agree on.

Finally, there are no inconsistencies like the ones Edwards truly got (i.e. I have plenty of video examples of these as well but I'm sure you know that).  You assume that voting to fund the war after Edwards, Clinton and Bush started it is the same as wanting to be there in the first place and it is not.  However, at least Obama has the judgment to know that our country is responsible for breaking Iraq and is just as responsible for making the best out of a bad situation.  There are no good options and if Edwards and Clinton would have listen to Obama, Durbin, Byrd, the NIE report, the inconsistencies in intelligence mounting before we even invaded then I suppose we would not be having this conversation now . . . now would we?

by lovingj 2007-07-13 05:48PM | 0 recs
Nice selective quoting of Feingold

when after Obama voted for the Gregg amendment, he had this to say:

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/sta tements/07/03/20070315Iraq.htm

"By warning against "the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field," the resolution embraces the misleading rhetoric the White House has used to try to prevent serious discussion of Congress ending the war. Those who engage in such rhetoric pretend that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise the specter of troops somehow being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. Not a single member would ever vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. Using our power of the purse to end our involvement in the war can and would be done without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers.

But by putting forth misleading and baseless arguments - by suggesting that ending funding for the war is tantamount to ending funding for the troops - they are making it that much harder to have the open, honest and essential debate about the Iraq war that this body, and the American people, so badly need."

Seems like he was talking directly to Obama.

and then ironically Obama, in his most recent funding vote does a complete 180 and votes against funding, completely contradicting Gregg and his earlier statements that defunding would not be responsible, and would endanger the troops.

And he did it all without a peep except "no comment" beforehand.

Leadership? Hardly.

by okamichan13 2007-07-13 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice selective quoting of Feingold

What is so hard to understand?  He doesn't agree.  That doesn't mean he's pro-War.  It means he's principled and holds to it.  Especially given this fact that Feingold and Obama disagree over what is the best basic strategy to achieve their common goal, Feingold's praise of Obama efforts in the Senate are especially meaningful.  

by DD2 2007-07-13 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice selective quoting of Feingold

Well... a fine mess Edwards has left for Clinton and Obama to clean up.  Squabbling about how to get out of Iraq that Edwards not only voted  but co-sponsored and advocated for, now have you guys blaming and criticizing Obama for adjusting his thinking and support in the Senate to the fluid situation in Iraq. Edwards can afford to promote starting  a war.. leave the senate and then talk as having a superior stance on the same war.  

Well, Obama should be able to sleep well at nights knowing he wasn't a contributor the the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis and is doing his best to support the troops, and work with those who want to get out of this mess.

by Jalenth 2007-07-13 07:19PM | 0 recs
You completely missed Jerome's point

which in a nutshell is imo, if Obama wants to lead us out of the war, he needs to act like it and lead.

Focusing on where he stood in 2002 isn't leading.

by okamichan13 2007-07-13 05:36PM | 0 recs
That is not his only focus man.

Phased withdrawal

16 votes

shortened supplementals

He has been making some of the best suggestions for how to deal with the mess Edwards, Clinton and Bush made when they authorized and wage this war.  They broke it and now its ours to own.  Thats the reality no matter how you try to spin it in Edward's favor.

by lovingj 2007-07-13 05:50PM | 0 recs
Hmm pretty different from June 2006

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-fl oor_statement_6/

"But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, 1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; 2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and 3) bringing our troops safely home."

God he sounds just like McCain

by okamichan13 2007-07-13 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Hmm pretty different from June 2006

The key phrase here is "total withdrawal." Emphasis on "total."

And to add to lovingj's shortlist, Obama also consistently has been the one
pushing for the earliest, most aggressive start dates for troop withdrawals.

by horizonr 2007-07-13 06:36PM | 0 recs
Aggressive parsing

that just does not compute, and you are also wrong.

by okamichan13 2007-07-13 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Hmm pretty different from June 2006

He is NOTHING like McCain.  McCain, is Bush II, when it comes to Iraq.  This and immigration has been his "death nail".

by icebergslim 2007-07-13 06:45PM | 0 recs

how is his position as quoted above any different from what McCain has been saying?

by okamichan13 2007-07-13 07:00PM | 0 recs
Wow - it gets worse

he also said:

What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy.

who does that sound like?

by okamichan13 2007-07-13 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

Sounds like Barack Obama.  Who does this sound like:

"The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror."

by DD2 2007-07-13 07:21PM | 0 recs
And the continuation of Obama's quote above

explainging why he doesnt support a phased withdrawal:

"For example, let's say that a phased withdrawal results in fifty thousand troops in Iraq by July 19, 2007. If, at that point, our generals and the Iraqi government tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an additional three or six months would enhance stability and security in the region, this amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing the optimal policy"

and wow, here we are, almost July 19th 2007

and just a few months after giving this speech, after announcing his candidacy, he submits a withdrawal bill. Go figure.

by okamichan13 2007-07-13 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: And the continuation of Obama's quote above

Have you ever read his proposal?  It covers the objection he had to the proposal.  There is no inconsistency.

by DD2 2007-07-13 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

I do not think any candidate is perfect, so we should strengthen each other.

by Todd Bennett 2007-07-13 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

my position is the same as yours. but the frame that the obamaniacs is that obama walks on water. i have had good conversatiosn but this discussion of the war hasn't been one of them precisely because they won't admit that none of our candidates are perfect on these issues. everyone else, in their mind, has tainted hands except obama. for me, that's crazy because if this war is immoral, there is no way he can say some of the things he has said.

by bruh21 2007-07-13 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

Saying that none of our candidates is perfect is just plain wrong on matters of war;  if they voted, for political expediency, no less, Edwards and Clinton do not have the same moral high ground as Obama, period.  This is unlike any other issue, the time to think and be responsible, especially if you are not the c-in-c and cannot bring them home when you so see fit, is before casting a vote to authorize it, when the country can still be led to a sane position.

Right now, there is no good option, as he keeps saying thousands of times over.

So right, Edwards wants, now, when it is too late and he does not need to cast a vote (and be held responsible contemporaneously), to withdraw precipitously (cutting off funds will have that effect) -- is he going to be responsible if a carnage of both Iraqis and our soldiers erupts there out of sheer desperation and chaos, as it may very well and which is the only thing we should all be worried about now?

At which point, he (Edwards) will simply pivot one more time and say that "I am sorry, I was wrong" and act as though that absolves him of culpability for wrong judgment at every (important) turn.

Look, I do not begrudge Edwards his late mea culpa and I'd rather he came over to light later rather than never.  But one must question his (and Clinton's, of course) judgment because he did not even get the smaller judgment right -- he could have simply heeded the words of Al Gore (Gore, Gore! how courageously he stood up when all those thugs and some dems were calling him everything from deranged to insane!) who spoke out well before they cast votes in Congress, specifically to influence them to do the right thing.  I remember that many conflicted dem senators and reps made up their minds and did the right thing, after he spoke.

Having been at the wrong end of the stick on important issues when he (Edwards, that is!) was in the Senate, he should at least have the decency to be a bit more modest about excoriating those that are in the position he was in then.  Again, you only need witness how Gore handles this on tricky political issues (made so by the noise machine, but tricky nevertheless) vis-a-vis the elected dems -- he never harangues them (as Edwards and his supporters keep doing shamelessly) but merely lays out the right position as he sees fit and gives them room to move over to his side at vote time, in their own time.  That is what a true dem would do -- what y'all are doing, together with Edwards as the rather shameless cheerleader, is rather stunningly stupid, both in terms of the party's positioning in '08 and in terms of efficacy.

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-14 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

I will repeat my premise: if you think the war is immoral as much as you claim. So much so that the war, and only the war, is enough to judge a candidate's character and judgment, how then are you able to ignore funding of the war or the war's continuation or contiuation of the narratives that allows the war to continue? Some of you do it by pretending defunding or the other messaging issues means leaving the troops without financial support etc, but that is either so ignorant of what defunding and messaging or dishonest that I don't know what to do say. I don't understand how you think it's convincing to anyone, but yourselves, that you tell us that Edwards started the fire, but we should ignore that Obama has poured the gasoline that makes sure it continues.  I don't see how two wrongs in your mind makes a right, but make a right it does. So you continue with your diatribes on this or that, and I will still conclude as I have based on the very premise that you set up (that this is an immoral war) that none of our candidates comes from this with unclean hands.

by bruh21 2007-07-14 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

No one is ignoring anything. The answer to your questions are in this Diary and in several other Diaries by lovingj. Click on his user name and watch the video of Obama explaining BEFORE we went to war, that we would have to take care of the Troops by FUNDING THEM! . That's what " figuring out the cost" means ! You just don't like to read. Obama is not the one who's the inconsistent fake. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are. You cannot merge Barack Obama with Hillary and Edwards and you can't merge his position with Kucinich either. He is Barack Obama. He's not Pro-war. He's not Anti-War. If you can't wrap your little head around that, it's on you. But 358,000 Americans don't seem to have a problem comprehending that! I'm really getting sick of the bullshit!

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-14 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

what I don't like is wasting my time with spin. good luck.

by bruh21 2007-07-14 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

I am not (nor are most of his supporters) ignoring his votes for funding the war -- but equating it to Edwards helping start the fire (correct analogy) and then (incorrectly analogizing it) to Obama adding fuel to that fire is just plain wrong.  

The correct post-war-vote analogy is that the fire drew a whole lot of flame-fanners around itself, not the least of which is the incompetent and criminal cabal in the WH with c-in-c command over the military.

What Obama and others trying to exit as carefully as possible are most like, are the firefighters trying to get inside that ring  of flame-fanners, and up close to the fire, so that they may put it out.

Edwards and others here are like hecklers shouting at the firefighters, rather than at those flame-fanners inside.

There was a time when his (Edwards) position was perfect -- he laid out what he wanted done and kept it at that.  But then leading up to the second debate, he started taking explicit shots at the dems and got mightily whacked by Obama in the debate, when he tried it again with unbelievable chutzpah.  Edwards, if he had any good judgment at all, should have then made the pivot to taking the fight to the 16 thugs who can help change the dynamics.

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-14 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

will say the same to you. it's clear you and others want to spin. i dont need to do that in order to support a candidate- so good luck. i tried to solicit something other than denial out of you, and all i got back was more denial.

by bruh21 2007-07-14 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

It has nothing to do with denial.

I have really no idea what is the correct thing to do now -- I wake up in a cold sweat at night sometimes thinking that the whole thing is going to go up in flames if we leave -- and other nights I wake up wondering if the same is going to happen if we stay.

Look, leaving saves exactly the number of soldiers we have there and some Iraqis who are fighting alongside.  In other words, staying endangers 250,000+ people in all -- leaving could endanger millions -- what is a rational course here?

There is no winning position in this...

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-14 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

Oh, and adding that, seeing as how we started the carnage, leaving and possibly endangering millions to save thousands of our own seems exceedingly selfish -- that is the conundrum there.

It seems particularly callous to me that some people say that it is their civil war and we cannot referee it.  Well, we started the damned civil war with our hubris and incompetence, we are damn well responsible for what we leave behind.

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-14 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

Obama said we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. If these people want to pretend they are stupid and don't know what that means, then let them be fools. I have had it arguing the same darn argument over and over and over again, only for some jerk to call it spin just because he was silenced. Ignore them.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-14 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

Spin spin away. The fact is to believe any of what you say you must believe in the GOP frame of 2005, 2006 and 2007 to have voted the way he did. It's pretty much that simple. At no point did he lead in pushing for an exit strategy. As someone else reminded me in another diary Feingold and others were early on pushing for legislation to change the dynamic, and Obama didn't support it, choosing instead

You also choose quite conveniently to choose the frame for what defunding means that happens to again leave Obama with clean hands on this. As I said in order for your argument to work you have to spin the fact. but don't assume that just because you say it that people here haven't read up on the issues or that we are confused as to what has happened in the last 3 and half years.

Here is a post on the subject:

Re: And a (none / 0)

You answer with Obama talking points but you didn't respond to the facts.

Obama did not speak out against the war in 2005 and 2006 and 2007 until just recently."

Obama did vote for the supplementals in 2005 and 2006.  He only voted against the supplemental in 2007 after the great outcry of Democrats.  He voted for the Gregg amendment even after Feingold explained why it was flawed.  Obama decided to believe Republican talking points instead.  Then he voted against the supplemental in contrast to the Gregg amendment.  What does he believe?  His votes don't make it clear at all.  

Being against the war from day 1 and then voting to keep it going is contradictory.  Obama is NOT the anti war leader in the senate - Feingold is and Obama has not readily supported him.  Edwards is a much more forceful voice against the Iraq occupation and much more convincing about strategy.  Obama will never get 16 Repubs to break rank and cetainly not over 60 House members.  Feingold is the one with the right strategy in the senate.

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein
by pioneer111 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:05:33 AM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This |  "

another key quote for those of you claiming he has done all he could on the issue:

"Remember Feingold's bill to Censure Bush last year? Feingold stood alone for many weeks - then Harkin and Boxer joined him. Obama voted against Censuring Bush."

Let's say your frame is correct as to the funding, why then no censure? Like I said denial isn't pretty.

There are actually other issues I could raise that brings into question the whole idea that Obama has lead on this issue. If he was so anti Iraq War- where has he been in terms of leading in bringing new efforts. I've seen Feingold and others, but not much from Obama.

Look, as I said- let's be clear- I am not holding any of our candidates to the standard that they must be perfect. Where we differ is in your game of let's pretend one candidate is better or worse than another candidate in terms of judgement based on one vote, but then on the same topic, not another.

You continue to make excuses by then spinning the facts. Spinning facts isn't an answer to the questions being raised. It may convince you, but not those of us who bother to do a little research on teh counter arguments.

by bruh21 2007-07-14 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

see my response below to diamond

by bruh21 2007-07-14 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

Answer my problem first:  why are you so certain now that leaving immediately is the best thing?  (In the face of a possible carnage ensuing, that is.)

I am not saying that I want our troops to stay either, I am saying neither position is airtight in any logic whatsoever, because there is absolutely no winning in the short term with either course.

Which comes back to the same place we started -- we should never have gone in there to begin with (and I did my darndest as a citizen to prevent it -- I marched, petitioned our Senators, held candle light vigils, spoke out to every body who would listen and not, wrote letters to the editor etc).

Acting now as if one of the positions has all the merit and the other none is merely perpetrating the same mistake that got us into this unholy mess to begin with (even if Lieberman/Bush advance the same arguments -- just because lunatics say one thing does not mean that the opposite is necessarily correct either) -- a lack of proper assessment, divorced of emotionality.  

It now has to be a calculation of how best to minimize the total number of casualties, not just American casualties (because that is all withdrawing will do, in the short run).  And if you ask me, those that got us into this mess should have the decency to humbly advance a view or shut up and sit in the corner.  They do not get to preening in an unseemly demagoguery, especially against those that are trying to salvage the situation as best they can.

Questioning mere tactics on the path to the same goal, by those who put us on the path to purgatory is downright stupid.  Because while you question mere tactics, you can be questioned about motivations -- thou doth protest too much?

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-14 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow - it gets worse

a) it's been 5 years- how much longer does it take for you?

b) no let me answer how you falsely frame this- defunding is about forcing bush's hand. the money for the troops support, harms way etc- would not be touched- only the money needed to sustain the active engagement.

c) you aren't going to minimize anything- that's your fantasy world. I am not going to waste time explaining the history of Iraq if you don't know it. You are delaying ,not ending what will eventually happen. Talk to people who have the background in the region, the military history, the involvement of the British, how Saddam first came to power (as a reaction to the divides that existed) etc

d) You keep saying we shouldn't have been there in teh first place. I hope that makes you feel better saying that. Because it does shit for now. In many ways some of you are scary to me. I was once like you. Unable to deal with direct realities. The reality is that we  are there. How we got there, whether we made mistakes- humans do that. The problem with this entire conversation, and why I know I am wasting time, is that you keep spinning Obama;'s actions as something other than political when they have been. That doesn't mean he's not going to make a great president. but it does mean he doesn't walk on water.

by bruh21 2007-07-14 02:36PM | 0 recs
Good analogy

What Obama and others trying to exit as carefully as possible are most like, are the firefighters trying to get inside that ring  of flame-fanners, and up close to the fire, so that they may put it out.

Edwards and others here are like hecklers shouting at the firefighters, rather than at those flame-fanners inside.

Russ Feingold said something along these lines (not the analogy but the import).

by NuevoLiberal 2007-07-14 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Good analogy

You are seriously not used Feingold as a comparison to Obama are you? I mean one has lead on teh issue and hte other simply hasn't.

by bruh21 2007-07-14 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: That is not his only focus man.

You and Jerome are both wrong about Dean.  In a 2003 debate Dean said to fund them now that they are there.  However, Jerome should know that funding the war and backing up troops are two different perspectives.  It is very hard to look a troop in the eye when you have further undermined his or her safety.  I would not cut funding because I would be afraid that Bush would leave them there defenseless to prove a political point.

by Todd Bennett 2007-07-13 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: That is not his only focus man.

Edwards has run in two different cycles with polar opposite views of the war.  That does not augur well for his judgment I believe.

by Todd Bennett 2007-07-13 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: You completely missed Jerome's point

No one else can "lead" us out of Iraq now, except the idiot-in-chief, because 70%+ of the country is already there -- if you notice, the country needs to be led to a position only if they are not yet there.  All of us should be searching for ways to make that man do the right thing, if there is such a thing now.

Casting aspersions on people without the power to do it is lunacy.  You should be rallying to get Edwards to put more pressure on the 16 thugs we need to get it done -- what have you or Edwards done about this, other than excoriate the one candidate who is showing good judgment?  Why aren't you or Edwards talking about how just 16 thugs could change things on the ground -- why is your vituperation saved for Obama, seeing as y'all claim to be dems and all?  What is with this obsession on dumping on the one candidate that did do the right thing?

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-14 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . .

I know the be all and end all as a litmus test on the War is Russ Feingold, but we have in California a pretty fine Senator named Barbara Boxer who also voted alongside Obama for the Gregg Resolution.  

by DD2 2007-07-13 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . .

It is not too late for Russ.

by Todd Bennett 2007-07-13 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . .

I do believe in Feingold.

by Todd Bennett 2007-07-13 07:32PM | 0 recs
MYDD is for the truth not attitudes + egos

Yesterday i left the following blog

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/7/13/1329 1/2578

Renewing American Leadership BY BARACK OBAMA july / august 2007
by DANIELLECLARKE, Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:29:01 PM EST

""Summary: After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral -- to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America."""

............. ...........................
Yesterday i also wrote local and national newspapers as you can read my letter below::

Dear Editor,

First of all i am a Vietnam veteran, who volunteered with the USMC. During that war, I was trained to make the air President Nixon would breathe when flying above 20k feet.
 During the Vietnam War we at least had plenty of soldiers to give others a break. Today our soldiers are at the breaking point.

I am writing to express my dismay over President Bush's reaction to the recent threat assessment from U.S. counter-terrorism analysts. The assessment found that al-Qaeda has regained strength in a safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistani border. Despite this evaluation, the White House issued a statement claiming that we are making security progress in the war on terror. George Bush only knows what war to start and who to attack but he doesn't have the ability to ask how to complete a war and why to start one, other than because he just wants too. Now we have an almost broken military.

During the Clinton administration our defict was low, but that was because Bill Clinton closed bases and reduced troop levels. So Clinton knew when and where to close bases and reduce troop levels, however, he also didn't know to ask why he should do it and how it would affect our military..

This administration is also in denial, and its failure to acknowledge the facts is putting the United States in danger. The report found that al Qaeda has regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001, the year our nation was rocked by a devastating attack.

During the vietnam war we had a draft. We at least had enough troops. Today's military / soldiers will never be able to resolve any future wars due to George Bush and Bill Clinton.  The thought of another attack of that magnitude on U.S. soil is very upsetting to me, and I am seriously concerned that our president continues to disregard this information.

George Bush only knows to ask who and what and The clintons only understand to ask when and where. Those without mirror neurons, who can't ask how and why are like robots, which is a form of artificial intellegence. A robot only knows to ask what and who and when and where but doesn't have the foresight to ask how and why.

Personally i am throwing my support to Barack Obama, who i feel, has the best understanding and ability to know how and why to go to war. He understood "why" we shouldn't have gotten into this stupid war and "how" this would affect our troop level and safety.

I can only hope and pray that you post my letter in hopes that our country and our military soldiers are not totally destroyed with this war in Iraq.
If George Bush and his republican congress can't give our troops a break, and stop breaking our military, then i ask them to at the least propose a draft or get us out of Iraq now!

Thank you for your time.

.......................... .............

Now if you really want to Say Something write a letter and say something instead of just saying something here!

To me, here at MYDD, only becomes a place of ego and atitude when you go back and forth.

MYDD and DailyKos, Newsvine etc etc etc are to me places to post the truth and not ego and attitudes.

by DANIELLECLARKE 2007-07-14 04:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . .

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you! for setting the idiot front pagers right once more.  These people need to go and join the MSM already.

They are absolutist when it comes to impotent votes such as funding (the crazy man in the WH will keep the troops in Iraq, even if the funding is cut off) but will give Edwards a pass on the biggest vote of his life.

These idiots with front page power should be doing to the others what they do to Obama -- snicker, and snivel and poke petty impotent holes.  He stood up and was counted when it really mattered.

The others cowered then and are preening around now, much as the thug in the WH has done -- get every important thing wrong and then talk about leadership.

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-14 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . .
Responses like yours don't help your cause.
by bedobe 2007-07-14 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . .

Well in the face of an intransigence like we see regularly in these parts, desperation is pretty normal...

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-14 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . .

Also, the problem with Edwards' position and that of his supporters' here, is that:

True contrition goes hand in hand with a certain humility -- in this case, the apology seems to have only been a necessary prelude he undertook to position himself for lecturing others and demagoguing the issue.

I have not seen an apology (on so serious a matter) so insincere in its follow-through, and therefore so transparently political in retrospect.  When he wrote that op-ed, I was pretty hopeful that this would lead to a period of thoughtfulness and true leadership from him on behalf of the party and the country, much like Gore has been (if only the people in our party would wake up and think and see Gore for the visionary that he truly is, sigh!)

by DraftChickenHawks 2007-07-14 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Why Jerome is wrong about Obama . .

I have no idea what would have satisfied you; however, his apology for his Iraq vote and his initial support does seem genuine, and did hit the right cord.

I sincerely do not know what else, at this moment, Edwards could do to satisfy his pro-Obama critics on this point.

by bedobe 2007-07-14 12:57PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads