Obama Gets Punked On Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:50:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via dpg, in an interview with Ed Schultz, Barack Obama chose to insult those of us committed to ending the Debacle in Iraq while simultaneously getting punked by George Bush, and bringing Jim Webb along for the ride:

There are no good options on Iraq . . . People are going to have concerns no matter what proposals are offered. . . . In the Senate you still need 60 votes. . . . There's gonna be a discrepency between those who want to EXPRESS a full throated desire to end the war and those who want to actually pass something through the Senate and have to take Republican votes into account . . .

I find that answer extremely insulting. I neither want to EXPRESS a full throated desire to end the war or have "something pass" through the Senate. I want the war to end. I believe it is clear that defunding is the only viable way. I have suggested the announcing a date certain in the future when no more funding will be provided is the way to do it. I won't repeat my arguments again. But Obama's condescension and sheer nonsense on this is insulting.

On defunding:

I have concerns about cutting off funding . . . Jim Webb has some concerns, both of us have been consistent critics of the war. I think there is a possibility, given how obstinate the Administration is, that if we try to cut off funding, Bush is hellbent on doing what he is doing . . . he may decide to play chicken and say 'you guys do whatever you want [I'm keeping the troops there]' . . .

Hell, why does Bush even need to play chicken with Senate Dems? Obama and Webb seem to have been pre-punked by Bush. For if Obama lets Bush's "obstinancy" paralyze him when Bush has said the Congress has the power to end the war through the Spending Power, then what in the hell is he proposing? Oh, let me guess, Obama 2008. A lot less likely to have my support after hearing Obama on Ed Schultz. Pathetic.

< Defunding The Iraq Debacle: There Would Be No Constitutional Crisis | Libby Trial: No Verdict, Two Jury Questions >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Gets Punked On Iraq | 43 comments (43 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I've been saying (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by HeadScratcher on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:34:52 AM EST

That's what I've been saying since this congress was sworn in. No more excuses. It's time for action. Blame Bush/Cheney/Haliburton and the others, but the fact of the matter is this could end tomorrow if they wanted to.

That's why the non-binding resolution was such a joke. Make a non-binding resolution with your spousue and see how far that takes you.

If you want the war to end quickly, and that's your biggest issue, then you must not support any of the presidential candidates who don't move on this. Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Obama, etc...

Which Debacle? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:42:41 AM EST

How will pulling the troops out end the debacle?

It will certainlty end the loss of American blood and treasure, for starters.

From what I understand most of the violence is due to the American pressure cooker called US occupation.

Do you think that the Iraqi people are children?

Is this addressed to me? (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:45:02 AM EST

: No (none / 0) (#13)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:55:21 AM EST

ok (none / 0) (#12)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:53:49 AM EST

It will certainly end the loss of American blood and treasure, for starters.

I agree with you that this is a good reason.

Everything else remaining the same I would say that we should withdraw.

But there are reasons against immediately withdrawing too, and they should be considered as well.

My point is this - withdrawing may be the best option or it may not be the best option. We need more debate and analysis. And no option may end the debacle.

What gives you this impression? I can cite you many countries where there was ethnic violence even though we did not have a presence there.

I have no idea what you are talking about. They are not children, but so what?


tristero nails it (none / 0) (#14)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:04:27 PM EST

"It Could Potentially Be Like Rwanda"

According to Evan Kohlmann, founder of globalterroralert.com. But, it ain't going to happen as long as Bush is in office.

In a perfect world, George Bush and his government would resign today, an interim US government would schedule elections six months hence (with unrigged voting machines) and we could all discuss the nuances and complications of imminent withdrawal with confidence. The potential for a sizeable bloodbath would certainly have to figure prominently in such discussions as would, somehow, finding a way to involve the entire international community in stabiliizing a region we all have a stake in.
But the world is not perfect. Barring the publications of photos of Bush and Cheney in a 3-way with Jeff Gannon/Guckert (eeeeuw!), Bush is going nowhere, and neither are American soldiers, until 2009.

Bottom line:

We need a serious, organized, and sober movement to impeach the Bush administration and remove it from office.

tristero

Sadly, I couldn't agree more. And I say sadly because I do not see the lilly livered congress critters defending America. There is no money in it, and way too much liability.


And no action may end the debacle (none / 0) (#24)
by Electa on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:53:22 PM EST

How much more analysis and dissecting is necessary? They brought the wizards and architects together under Hamilton & Baker. Their options were laid on the drawing board, finally, Rice is loosening up from being stuck on stupid and engaging Iran & Syria. Why the studies, analysis, probing and poking is going on our and the Iraqi peoples are dying. There are circumstances when the best action is no action. That approach is incomprehensible to me when lives and this country's financial stability are being jeporadized everyday.

The American peoples gave the Democrats the authority and their blessings to END this war on 11/7/06. Democrats have the Constitution on their side but they're chickens, cowards, yellowbellies, and spineless. Even Bush wants them to pull the strings and end his madness.

Obama shouldn't be pussyfooting around on this issue. In fact, he should be the first one to propose a bill to cut off the funding since his stomping mantra is anti-war.

The power is in the hands of the people. Now what we gon do? I say stay on these candidates and the Congress asses like white on rice. Every stupid action they take and lack thereof take them to the whipping shed.


Baker & Hamilton (none / 0) (#30)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 01:18:12 PM EST

How much more analysis and dissecting is necessary? They brought the wizards and architects together under Hamilton & Baker. Their options were laid on the drawing board

Ok so since you cite the wisdom of Hamilton & Baker, let me quote from their study:

Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating events that have led to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.


The defunding is targeted at (none / 0) (#33)
by Electa on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 01:56:10 PM EST

the escalation, not the existing troops, although there should be measures taken by the Democrats to begin deployment and reductions. That would demonstrate to the American peoples that they're making a meaningful effort to resolve this disaster. The American peoples are not stupid, they know full well that after Bush's creation of this mess in Iraq the precipitous withdrawal of all troops would be disasterous and would further tarnish this country's image for decades to come.

If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.

Iraq has been in chaos since the day the US invaded its shores and overthrew a sovereign nation. Iraq is in chaos right now with the Americans there. Now they've resurrected OBL from the caves and stirred his ire back up. Why not reprogram the funding that bush is asking for use it to bring the troops home and direct the rest to the Iraqi peoples so they can rebuild their county according to their specifications.


Then we'll have to stay until...? (none / 0) (#39)
by Dadler on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 05:41:11 PM EST

...until there is no possibility that awful things will not happen when we leave? The Iraqi people want us all gone in the next year. Do you think they believe all will be well in a year? Of course not. But. They. Want. Us. Gone. It is folly to believe anything will be accomplished while our military occupies a nation we invaded in a war of aggression. And I find it amazing that you give the Iraqi people no say in this. That you assume they don't KNOW how awful it is and "worse" it might become when we leave.

But we're not getting rid of those bases there anytime soon, so don't worry. Empire is still clinging to its failed paradigms and perpetual ignorance.


: Good points (none / 0) (#42)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:17:54 PM EST

It may mean that we'll have to stay until we reduce the chances that real bad things will happen when we leave. And stay does not preclude constant and gradual reduction of our troops. Permanent bases should be completely off the table. And we should be making them ready to bring their country back to normal.
A majority of Iraqis have wanted us gone since Saddam was toppled. Iraqis deserve a say in this if they can demonstrate that they have things under control. And besides what the majority in Iraq wants may be very bad for the minority in Iraq and very bad for us.

Electa (none / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 02:06:27 PM EST

The American peoples gave the Democrats the authority and their blessings to END this war on 11/7/06.

That is utter nonsense. What they did was elect X number of Demos.

The Demos can now introduce any number of bills. They may even pass then in both Houses.

But what they can't do is enact them into law without the President signing, or re-pass them with a two third majority.

Really. Where do you get this stuff?


: Dems were elected due to Americans ... (none / 0) (#41)
by Sailor on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 06:22:49 PM EST

... being overwhelmingly against the iraq war.
Just ask the troops.

Some, at least... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Edger on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:43:07 AM EST

...are not afraid of the punking.

Kucinich Calls For End To Iraq Occupation

It makes you wonder a little (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Peaches on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:28:38 PM EST

Dennis Kucinich was always against this war. He has a record going all the way back to the last Presidential campaign. After 2006, when Americans supposedly sent this message that we want out of Iraq, here comes Edwards saying he was wrong, Obama saying he spoke out against the war as an Ilinois representative and Hilary saying she would not have invaded Iraq if she had been President. The only one who has any bona fide credentials as voting against the invasion and speaking out strongly against it is Kucinich.

But, do we hear about Kucinich being a front runner as the democratic candidate despite his experience as a presidential candidate and in the House in the MSM. Of course, not. We have been programmed to believe before this thing even gets started that Dennis Kucinich has no chance so don't even go there if you want a viable candidate, despite the fact that this war is so unpopular. What is going on?

Elections, not domocracy - I do believe.


Dennis Kucinich is too weird. (none / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:37:54 PM EST

He has a disease called integrity.

No one who could back and fund a presidential candidate all the way into the WH wants to go near him.

Maybe they are afraid it is contagious?


Dennis Kucinich (4.00 / 1) (#21)
by Peaches on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:43:46 PM EST

is not safe. He is dangerous to the power-elite structure in the US. If his grassroots campaign gains momentum and he gets some wind behind his sails, there will be no shortage of money thrown his way to discredit and embarass him. He will be the subject of ridicule on every talk news show and his reaction to this campaign will be the subject for frontpage stories in the times- with the intention to highlight his nonpresidential features. If this doesn't remove him from being a legitimate candidate, I wouldn't go near an airplane for the rest of his campaign if I were him.


Some would say that is why (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:48:13 PM EST

he can say the things he says, and introduce the bills that he does, and be honest.

I think it is the other way 'round, myself.


Besides..... (none / 0) (#23)
by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:52:17 PM EST

Kucinich is single....automatic disqualification for the highest office.

No single people and no smokers....It's somewhere in the fine print of the Constitution I think.


That too.. (none / 0) (#25)
by Edger on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:59:01 PM EST

But I think the biggest thing is - an honest man or woman has zero chance in Washington.


: Agreed.... (none / 0) (#28)
by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 01:12:02 PM EST

I'm sure some politicians start out with honest and pure intentions...then they campaign (aka take money) and meet the lobbyists. The lobbyists