Sunday, April 01, 2007

Oh no he didn't!

Senator Barack Obama told the Associated Press in an interview on Sunday that if President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops,"

Say it ain't so! Obama is trying to show that he is different than Hillary Clinton when it comes to the war in Iraq. Hilary says she would end the war if elected and won't apologize for her vote to attack Iraq back in 2002. She said she understands the the frustration and outrage people are feeling about the lack of progress in Congress to end this war. Obama says that he was against the Iraq invasion from the beginning.

It seems to me that both of them have given up on bringing the troops home during the next 2 years until one of them gets into the White House.

I understand there is a narrowly divided Senate. I understand when both the House and the Senate say the resolutions they put forward were the best they could do, although I don't agree. It is not time to throw their hands up and say "My bad, I'll end it when I am president". It is not time to abandon the troops and support them by letting them sit in this undefined mission until *they* get elected as president.

With 9 months until the first primary in 2008, I am already tired of the campaign for president. I am tired of the campaign overshadowing the issues the took them to Washington. And I am really tired of them asking me for money. They aren't doing what I asked; *they* are not bringing the troops home. Why would I send them back to DC again for the next term if they didn't do the job I sent them there to do in the first place. If Obama & Clinton, especially, are courting the American people for their vote, they need to listen to the people. If this is the best leadership that the Democrats can offer this country, then we are in sad shape.

Leadership is setting the record straight and making sure people know that the appropriations money that remains from the last supplemental will last into July and will not undermine U.S. troops and the war in Iraq if it did not approve approximately $100 billion within weeks.

According to a Congressional Research Service memo dated March 28 and sent to the Senate Budget Committee, "The Army could finance the O&M (operations and maintenance) of both its baseline and war program ... through most of July 2007" by shifting around money in existing accounts.

Leadership is making it very clear to George Bush that he is the one that is undermining the US troops. Leadership is standing up to the president and letting him know that he is no longer the "decider" and that Congress holds the purse strings now and they will use them. Leadership is letting the president know that the he and his warmongering cronies *will* be held accountable of the mismanagement of this war, because this Congress will hold them accountable. Leadership is telling the 43rd president of these United States NO. No more troops, no more money.

Another presidential hopeful, John Edwards said "Silence is a betrayal" "It is a betrayal not to stop this president's plan to escalate the war when we have the responsibility, the power and the ability to stop it. We cannot be satisfied with passing nonbinding resolutions that we know this president will ignore."

We can do better for the troops. Obama is ceding his responsibility as a member of the US Senate when he says no one "wants to play chicken with our troops," Of course no one does, but by giving unnecessary and continuing power to the president, Obama is turning his back on the troops and buying in to the presidents false claims just as Karl Rove planned. How dare he?


Anonymous said...

Note the quote marks in the offending passage.

Looks like some editorializing by the AP. Imagine that.

dk2 said...

I am for Edwards and his we the people video: