Another hit diary on Obama by Jerome.

I wish you would take a look at Hillary and her flip flops on Iraq. Especially her vote on the AUF and her support against a time table as of June 2006.

Why should some one believe she would get us out of IRAQ based upon her record?

Jerome, once again is showing his true color

I like the guy and all, but his consistant bashing of Obama is ridiculous.

Edwards war vote is fair gain and Edwards did attack Obama on his funding votes....Obama has always stated that once the troops were in theater fighting,he decided that the best way to bring them home alive was to fund them so that they could get the ammunition,nightvision glasses and food so that they could survive.

At least, Obama did not co-sponsored this war and never led for the invasion of Iraq.

My support for a candidate is on judgement. Their will be issues coming up in four years that maybe very different and will require the judgement of the president.

An example is the cuban missle crisis of 1962. It was Kennedy's judgement that got us through that ccrisis not the advice he got from the military leaders of the time.

Obama is a fraud on the iraq issue,he voted continuosly to fund the war,now he thinks he is the anti war candidate,he is all rhetoric and no substance.

I am curious.  Because you do focus on Obama, with a weekly tirade, or update.  Which is cool, this is your site, but who is your dog in the race?  And I do disagree, Obama does need to differentiate himself from the others.  Clinton has been clever to let the "Iraq Vote and Support" issue become a vaccum, that has or is being swept away.  So, yes, this issue is a concern of all Democratic Voters, and many Independents, too.  As, this group is growing in angst, versus dwindling.  This is one reason why Clinton is going to YKos.  She need to address this group, and to be honest, she probably did not think she had to.  But she does.  So, thanks for reminding us, you do not care for Obama, but again, do not have an "official" dog in the race.

It's about Hillary Clinton.  Obama's not specific about "who", but to me it's abundantly clear this is targeded way more at separation with Clinton than with Edwards.

True, he defended himself in a recent debate when Edwards was pushing the "leadership" meme...and Obama pushed back.  But the context of most of the quotes seem to be aimed at Clinton (dueling speeches in Iowa, for example).

The 2002 context is important, because it allows Obama to contrast his "judgment" with Clinton's "experience".  As far as the "funding" issue...sure, take issue with that if you want.

Edwards has been a much stronger advocate for ending the war than Obama since Obama entered the Seante.  For years now, Edwards has supported using the funding power to bring troops home.  

Obama voted agaisnt Kerry-Feingold in 2006 and for the Gregg Resolution in March this year that said cutting funding is wrong.  Then, under pressure from Edwards and Dodd, Obama and Clinton finally voted to cut funding.  They showed no leadership on this issue.

Excellent post, Jerome.

Oh please Jerome. Pointing out clear differences on Iraq is now an "attack"?

Obama's position on the war has emphasized judgment in making big decisions as opposed to political expediency. Sending men and women into war requires the utmost judgment from our leaders. This is what Obama refers to when he points out his long held opposition to the war when it wasn't even a popular thing to do back in 2003.

He's at it again.

go over to Obama's site and send him fifty bucks, in coin.  Thanks, Jerome!!!

for a judgment call which Hillary and Edwards utterly failed to make.

He is also not pandering about what the reality is, which is that any troop withdrawal will be a long, arduous process which will probably take over a year. He is not stooping to Clinton's flip-flop-flip from unapologetic hawk, to hawk chastened by the polls but figuring she loses more by flopping than by sticking by her vote, to ludicrously promising "all troops gone in 60 days," (Why not just make it 60 seconds?) which is logistically absolutely impossible.

Are all correct judgment calls now off the table as "part of the past," Jerome? (WTF.) What the hell is your problem with Obama?

While this is a pretty transparent hit-piece, I think Jerome does raise a valid issue--albeit from the standpoint of a very high-information voter.

However, I would argue that most people weren't paying attention to the nuance around Obama's war funding votes--and I think it's these voters that are being targeted.  To most people Obama is still the only major candidate who was right on the major issue of our time.

In my opinion, Obama is simply trying to consolidate his hold on the "judgement" issue--and he's perfectly capable of doing that.  It's also plausible that he could use this positioning to peel off Clinton and Edwards support as the war and those who at one time supported it (even just initially) continue to look foolish.

I don't see how you can criticize his strategy in this case.  You may have gripes about how he handled a vote or two, but that doesn't invalidate the "judgement gap" Obama is trying to highlight.

But Obama's record on funding is even sligtly worse than you state, because he supported defunding before he got to the Senate, then when he got to the Senate he kept arguing that defunding would hurt the troops--a GOP talking point that undermined proponents of defunding. In other words, not only did he oppose defunding, he did active harm to the defunding cause.

Obamaniacs in whining mode again.

Righton, Jerome.

I made similar points in response to Todd Beeton's post yesterday.

Given Obama's voting record, as well as the fact that most people's view of Iraq has evolved, and rightfully so, since 2003, Obama's attempt to finnesse these minute differences alone won't yield the gains necessary to eat into Clinton's current 15.2% lead over him.

Further, as her post today at TaylorMarsh.com illustrates, Obama's vagueness with regards to residual troop presense only butresses the publics opinion of Obama being light on substance.

Most Americans blame BushCo for the Iraq disaster, and rightfullyl so.  Candidates would be wise to focus on concrete plans for the future, as opposed to trying to win rhetorical points on issues from the past.

Why do you hate Obama?

But seriously, a similar thing actually happened to Dean in 2004. Dean got a lot of notice early on by being the Democrat who was firm and loud in opposition to Bush and critical of the war. Most of the other candidates blurred their positions with Dean's and he didn't stand out so much anymore. If you were a purist on who voted against the war at the beginning (not to mention in favor of US withdrawal), the only one still in the race in January 2004 was Kucinich.

I suppose that Obama supporters have a fair point that Obama can argue that his judgement in 2002 trumps others' experience, even if that's a very overstated point. But that doesn't explain his flip-flops on funding the war. He voted (and voiced support) for the Gregg Amendment, and then he voted for defunding a short time later. Those two are completely at odds with each other!

If you'll recall, in 2004 the Dem objections to funding the war were not based on the desire to withdraw from Iraq.  It was that the reconstruction aid we gave to the Allawi gov't were grants rather than loans.  And frankly, I thought that idea repugnant - that the Iraqis would have to pay us back for the corporate welfare we gave to Bush's cronies and cash pocketed by corrupt American favorites (remember how the Ministry of Defense "lost" billions of said aid?).  Edwards (and Kerry 31 other Dems in the Senate) was moved by these sentiments, and he was dead wrong.  It's worth pointing out that after the 2003 funding vote, the Dems voted virtually lockstep in funding the war.  So the 2003 vote is certainly not indicative of whether Edwards supported defunding at the time.

You say that "Edwards continued to vote against funding until he left the Senate in 2005," but I'm at a loss at figuring out which votes you're referring to.  AFAIK, Edwards didn't come out for withdrawal until the end of 2005, i.e. after he left the Senate.

What is true is that Edwards supported withdrawal a year before Obama.  My personal view is between the two, that is the point of no return was the al-Askari mosque bombing in Samarra, and the subsequent reprisals.  So Edwards gets kudos for supporting Kerry-Feingold soon afterwards, but it's also true that Obama wasn't that far behind.  And he was quicker on figuring out the politics regarding timetables/funding.  But let's not pretend that there was a four year gulf in Edwards' favor.

All things considered, I'm a lot more comfortable with Obama's foreign policy judgment than with Edwards'.  Making the wrong call on the authorization vote is a much worse judgment call than missing the point-of-no-return date by a few months....

There's very little for Obama to gain by trying to make this attempt at a preemptive differentiation between him and the other candidates, especially Edwards, because for anyone whom pegs that single vote in 2002 as the black-and-white issue for whom they will support for the 2008 nomination, that voter would want a much more anti-war candidate than Obama has been over the past 2 years. They have Kucinich.

This is just silly.  I for one consider the 2002 AUMF vote as an indication of a candidates judgment under fire--that was the single biggest vote any of the Senate Dems now running ever faced, and I cannot trust the judgment of anyone who supported it back then, because we already knew enough to know that it was a terrible idea.

My personal rule since 2002 has been to never support any primary candidate who voted to invade Iraq, because I cannot trust them to have either the political fortitude or the good sense to do the right thing in high-pressure situations.  That vote was the most important vote of their careers, and the ones who blew it don't get my primary vote, period.

Now, should a candidate like Edwards, who has expressed regret for his role in taking us to war, get the nomination, I'll be a hell of a lot more enthusiastic about helping him than I would a candidate who blew the 2002 vote and still doesn't admit to what a massive failure in judgment that was.  But nobody who voted to invade should expect my support in a primary at any level, federal or state.

I don't like Kucinich, and it's stupid to try and use his vanity candidacy to stereotype antiwar voters.  Biden, Clinton, Edwards and Dodd lost my vote back in 2002.  I will, of course, support our eventual nominee, but I'd prefer that nominee to be someone who, when the chips were down, made the right call.

Although it's almost becoming too easy to point out that Jerome generally offers very little in the way of real analysis anymore, and every post is a either a hit-piece on Obama couched in "analysis," a completely uncritical touting of Edwards with wishful thinking pretending to be "facts," this one takes the cake.

Now, there are valid points to be made that Obama's position on funding has been inconsistent, or at least that there has been an evolution in his thinking when it comes to that.  No candidate is perfect on this issue and no candidate is all bad on this issue.

But, there is no way to argue that Obama's "wrong" if he thinks that getting it right from the start won't help him.  Because it is, and it has.  It may not make a difference to Jerome, but can any honest observer of this campaign say that Obama's original opposition to Iraq isn't helping him gain supporters?  

So when Jerome writes: "If Obama thinks he's going to move primary and caucus voters toward him by making a vote that happened 5 years earlier, given his strident support of funding the war, he's wrong."  Um, no, he's not.  He has already moved primary support because of this fact.  So, how can Jerome honestly write this as if it's a fact?  

And by the way, Edwards wasn't just wrong on the vote in Iraq, he then publicly campaigned for two years on how he did, in his words, "exactly the right thing."  He said it over and over again.  It wasn't until after his loss in 2004 and in 2005 that he acknowledged it was a mistake.  

Now, to be fair, both have done a lot wrong and done a lot right when it comes to this issue.  The problem with Jerome is, of course, that he cannot honestly analyze the position of every candidate.    We all know the distaste he has for Obama and for the "movement" candidacy.  We all know his positive feelings for Edwards.  That's fine.

But pretending to analyze honestly and call out certain opinions, beliefs, or hopes of his to be "truths" or "facts" has become Jerome's stock-in-trade lately (almost all directed against Obama or in favor of Edwards), and I'd wish he'd take a step back and see how much his credibility has been damaged by it.  

Easy to say "Obamaniacs in whining mode again," which is fine.  But from an intellectually honest standpoint, let's stop pretending that these posts of Jerome represent anything other than his personal bias masquerading as "analysis" or "fact."

the more the Clinton and Edwards supporters on the site like Jerome say things like this the more convinced I am that Obama is hitting a nerve. The reason for the frontpage post is that Obama is hitting a little too close to home, I'm glad that the campaign doesn't seem to be listening to people who want to see them fail like this, it's kind of like when the FOX news heads offer "advice" to democrats or when W said he feared Joe Lieberman as dem nominee. Jerome and others on here don't like Obama and don't think he's good for the party, it's obvious and it's good for debate that that they post thier thoughts but frankly thier roles as "unbiased" observers offering advice on how to appeal to democrats is at this point to be taken as about ad seriously as Fox news's is.

(Of course, Iraq will be the issue.) I fully support defunding legislation as a means of wending our way out of the morass and find Obama's voting record on that issue regrettable. But right or wrong: to fund? or not to fund? has been, in fact, arguable.

OTOH, enabling/authorizing/co-sponsoring the bush-war-agenda initially and sending 3,600 (and counting) troops to their deaths in an illigitimate war? It never was.

arguable, that is
...in the minds of many.

It has been easy for Democratic Senators to stand up and say they have to vote for funding the troops because to do otherwise would deprive soldiers in harm's way of bullets and armor and food, etc. "I'm against this war but I support the troops, that's why I am voting for this bill."

The response to this position is now and has always been "Bull shit!" By continuing to provide this Administration with every penny they have requested for the misadventure in Iraq, the Congress acted as enablers.

It has never been the case that voting against funding this war would have put soldiers in jeopardy or armor in short supply (that's a whole other issue for another day, again). Even the most stringent defunding efforts would not have deprived US military in harm's way of the equipment, supplies, etc. necessary but would have required that funds no longer be expended for escalation of troop numbers or continuation of troop levels in country.

Defunding is and has been about forcing Bush to either comply with moving troops out of Iraq or move monies from other parts of the Defense budget--both of which would be better than the situation we are in now.

Every Democratic Senator who has voted for defunding or voted against funding has stood against this war with far more courage than anyone making nice speeches. Those who have voted for funding are enablers.

Obama is focused on Hillary.  We are in a two-person race for the nomination.  

Obama has the good judgment to lead this country in times like this.

Hillary and Edwards both lack that type of judgment they voted to drag us to Iraq.

Hillary more than anybody else, lacks the good judgment to be our commander-in-chief.  She didn't even bother to read the intelligence report.  Now she's started flip-flopping

Jerome,

There are ways to oppose the war other than through defunding.  Obama sponsored a bill with a firm withdrawal date long before he voted to defund -- so I think you're really overgeneralizing.  Moreover, a lot of folks who are both popular with the netroots and definitively anti-war -- like Jim Webb -- disagreed with defunding for some legitimate reasons.  Not the least of which is that this administration has shown it is ENTIRELY willing to place/keep troops in harms way even if a defunding bill calls for withdrawal.  Recognizing that about the administration isn't playing into a GOP frame, it's simply noting that this President doesn't care about the human beings fighting his pointless war.

Anyway, that's my two cents.  I don't think this is a hit piece against Obama, and I respect your point of view, but I don't think you're criticisms are particularly accurate this time.  

This is exactly what many of us were saying in Todd's post. Obama hasn't been a strong voice against the war as a Senator, actually very tepid, and him focusing on what he said in 2002 is bound to lead to a lot of questions on what he didnt do in 2005 and 2006 and his confusing turns on Iraq in 2007.

And if he is going to push the merits of what he said in 2002, then certainly everything he's said and done, and not done, since then is fair game. Voters are rightly going to ask, yeah you were against the war in 2002 when you didnt have a vote, but what happened when you got to the Senate?

Seems like a double edged sword and I think voters, especially in the early primary states, are not going to be fooled.

Sometimes you make the right decision initially.  Sometimes you make a mistake - hopefully you eventually correct it.

If your name is George W. Bush you always get it wrong and then you refuse to correct it.  F

If your name is Hilliary Clinton you got it wrong on the AUMF and then refuse to correct your mistake by apologizing for it.  You get it wrong on war funding, but you eventually come around (following, not leading).  C-

If your name is John Edwards you got it wrong on the AUMF, but had the good sense to correct your mistake.  You also make the right decision on war funding and stick with it.  B-

If your name is Barack Obama you got it right on the AUMF.  You then proceed to make the wrong decision on war funding, but thankfully you fix it (and you vote before Hillary). B

Barack gets the better grade because I happen to think that getting it right on the AUMF was a weightier decision than funding bills.

Jerome your facts are correct, but the tone of your analysis doesn't have to be so negative.  Your give Barack very little credit for his decision to oppose the AUMF when it was an extremely unpopular stance.  He then messed up a little, but eventually got it right.  Cut the guy some slack.  I happen to think he still was the best performer on this issue of the presidential candidates.

I COMPLETELY disagree with this take.  It's also doesn't make sense as Obama's not a one issue candidate.

And what does one make of this:

http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2007/07/s en-clinton-john-edwards-our-guys.html

Here's what I've never gotten about this argument.  People claim there is an inconsistency between the initial opposition and his votes in Congress on funding, and yet Obama has made it clear from the start they are two different issues.

1. The Opposition: was not from a peace position like Kucinich. As he said clearly in his speech, Obama is not against all Wars, just dumb Wars, and then goes on to analyze the situation, exactly, as to why this would be a wrong move.  This speech shows judgement, knowledge of foreign affairs, and an ability to take historical perspective and apply it to the present state of things.

2.  The Funding Votes: he explained throughout that we need to be as careful getting out as we were reckless going in.  He has never been for de-funding as a way to stop the war and has always been for passing a bill with a gradual withdrawal of troops.  That is what he has been working for and that is what Congress is congealing around - not de-funding.  At the same time it is inaccurate to say he has been working against de-funding as some sort of enemy. If he was Sen. Feingold would have not given him the praise he has for his efforts and accomplishments in the ultimate struggle to get our troops home.  The only time he has voted against de-funding was once we had a withdrawal bill passed.  This isn't a switch, it's a way of concentrating on getting the votes needed to overturn the withdrawal veto.

The people who look to make this an issue are trying to twist things by saying there is an inconsistency.  There is no inconsistency - he is not for using de-funding as a way out of Iraq. A leader does not become a leader by taking a stance he doesn't believe in.   You can argue his judgement is wrong, but I think there are two points which shows the faultiness of the de-funding approach.

1.  It is not an idea which is going to fly in Congress.  Just look at the difference in votes between the withdrawal vote and the de-funding vote.  It is not a good strategy even if he thought it was the best policy - which he does not.  His goal is to bring the kids home as soon as we can and de-funding is the slower route through Congress and this President.

2.  People talk about de-funding as if it is a stream of water we just turn off and suddenly there's no water so the troops have to come home.  That is not realistic.  De-funding would result in a gradual decrease of money as Bush could run around re-allocating money.  It eventually would come down to a game of chicken of how far will Bush allow the troops to have insufficient funding before pulling them back.  Or how far will Congress go before it blinked.  It is based on a belief that Bush gives a damn about the troops.  If he did why wouldn't every soldier in there already have the safer helmets that parent groups are running around to try to provide to their kids?  Why wouldn't we already have the better Humvees?   There is a certain responsibility that Obama has to the kids from Illinois, as well as the rest of the country, that he takes very seriously, which is why the funding bills have had earmarks in them for better equipment to try to protect them while working politically to bring them home.

I think everyone realizes that the solution to Iraq is not a military one, but a diplomatic or political one.  Obama's position on how to get our troops home the soonest and the safest applies the same principle here.  He has been working for a political solution and has done a very good job behind the lines in accomplishing that.  He doesn't compromise his principles in doing it.  He doesn't make enemies of people, like Feingold, who has an opposing point of view.   The position has been principled, consistent, and correct.

We have to realize a distinction between "voting for funding" and "supporting the war." There are many of us who think that paying the armed forces (our men and women in Iraq) is important as long as they are there. I may not belive that that is right, but I understand that position. I also believe that a candidate can be against the war, want to plan for withdrawal, want to get out of there, and not have made the choice GWBush made to invade. I think both Obama & Clinton can in fact be against the war and be anti war candidates and still fund the stupid thing. The realities the everyday soldier would have to endure if funding was halted would be far greater than we all imagine. The process of getting everylast troop out of Iraq is going to take longer than we think as well. I think Edwards will have a hard time following up on campaign promises if he becomes president because of his rigid stances on funding and withdrawal times. Obama & Clinton are trying to vote according to how they would act in office, judge them kindly or not, but I do not think they are being coy about their views, just more pragmatic. Iraq is not black and white. Nothing is. Both of them have a more complicated view. Something our current idealogical president lacks. I want nuance brought back to the presidency as well as someone who listens to the country. Candidates are allowed to hear what we say and change thier stances accordingly, isn't that something we have wanted for the last 7 years?

The issue is integrity.  Many of us are grateful that he was against the war when the other dems were  cowtowing to the GOP.

Edwards has been on both sides of several issues.  He did not start out as a progressive--far from it.  And Hillary makes decisions based on the polls and electability issues.

A lot of us believe that Obama is different.  That he is more likely--most likely to stay true to his principles.  He has integrity.  Is he perfect? No.  

nevadadem wrote polling shows 52% of americans won't even CONSIDER voting for Hillary, should we bet the whole 2008 cycle hoping they aren't telling the truth?

This is so true.

If the democrats nominate Hillary, they'll lose the general election like they did in 2004.
Hillary has too much negatives to win the general elections.
52% of Americans don't like her and won't vote for her - wake up guys!!!

I can somewhat understand why Obama supporters here consider this a hit piece. It directly questions the intelligence of Obama making Iraq the focus of his candidacy. Apparently in Obamaland this is a big no no. Ya don't question the Barack.

Jerome only brings to light the painfully obvious contradictions of Obama's claim to purity. He gave a great speech in 2002. He was right back then. Then he gets himself elected to the US Senate and proceeds to go against everything he stood for way back in 2002. Now, I don't have the slightest idea why he did this. From what I can tell he is intelligent enough to make his own decisions, so no one was holding a gun to his head. But then he decides to run for President and tries to switch back to the Barack of 2002 and hope no one notices that he had switched positions once again.

So aren't these valid observations? I know they don't make Obama look the strongest but they aren't distortions of his record or Neocon talking points. They are actual facts. I know... they're scary.

I think the main reason Obama keeps going back to the Iraq vote thingie is that it is a great applause line and it brings in the cash. And I'm sure if he talked about what he has done since that wonderful speech it wouldn't get too much applause.

I seem to remember a certain candidate named Howard Dean running for President and beating Kerry and Edwards. The cynic in me says he may have had something to do with their need to vote for defunding

Another conflation of an attack on strategy/message and an attack on Iraq voting purity. Obama is certainly doing the right thing strategically, even if it doesn't resonate here on the blogs.

Have we who were against the war from the start really forgotten how we felt at the time? I know I'd never felt so betrayed or disillusioned in my life. There is so much of a difference between voting wrong about a doctrinally disastrous war and voting to fund it after our troops are on the ground (Obama came in, of course, in 2004). One shows a complete disrespect for precedent or, frankly, the scientific method, and the other is representative of the longstanding Congressional condition of obedience to the President in wartime.

As Ted Kennedy has said, that war authorization vote was the most important he's ever cast. I couldn't agree more, and at least for me, having been right at that time is a HUGE deal.

Obama's initial opposition to the war and his current Iraq stance is a large part of what makes him appealing to me. He has said that he is not anti-war, just anti this war, which, like Gore, shows good judgment on matters of war and peace. Many of his early supporters, and many in the media, assumed that because he opposed the invasion of Iraq he was anti-war in general, but since April those supporters seem to have noticed his more hawkish message and are leaving him.

The question of what tactic is most effective (Edwards outspokenness and de-funding, Obama's fund the troops and we need Republicans so don't call them out, Clinton's call Bush out and fund the troops) does not obscure that they all want to end the occupation as quickly and safely as possible.

Jerome's post here crystallizes for me why I prefer Clinton over Obama, or that matter Edwards, on Iraq. Everyone knows that Clinton voted for the war, will end the occupation, and will maintain some kind of presence in Iraq after withdrawal to defend Iraq's borders, fight terrorists, and protect our middle east interests. Obama and Edwards, in an attempt to preserve their anti-war reputation, use convoluted reasoning to blur the fact that they will do the same thing. Any president will make good and bad judgments in the course of their administration, but clearly communicating where you stand on important issues is critical to a successful presidency.

When this site attacks Obama and his supporters cry foul, we are told that the criticisms are based on fact and that the author is trying to have an honest debate.

When Edwards is disparaged by the media or another blogger, we are told that his critics have bought into right wing talking points & don't know what they're talking about.

This is getting tiresome!!

what is wrong with this post?

because it never gives voice to barack's speeches in 2005, 2006 calling for phased redeployment.

it is also why senators never win presidential elections.

leave this blogger and come over to mine at newsvine

http://danielleclarke.newsvine.com/_news /2007/07/13/834890-renewing-american-lea dership-by-barack-obama-july-august-2007 ?threadId=125085&cmt=862918#c862918

leave this blogger and come over to mine at newsvine

http://danielleclarke.newsvine.com/_news /2007/07/13/834890-renewing-american-lea dership-by-barack-obama-july-august-2007 ?threadId=125085&cmt=862918#c862918

""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.

It bothers me a bit too and I think he is a bit misleading- it's like he wants people to know his first stance on Iraq and the last one where he and Hillary voted against funding and wants to leave out the middle where he kept voting for funding, which leads some people to think he was adamantly opposed to it all from start to finish.  If he was really so against it as he makes himself out to be, he wouldn't have voted to keep funding it.  The truth is, all three big candidates (Edwards, Clinton, Obama) have had their hands dirty at some point with the war.

We have fad to fund the war, and still have to.  I think defunding the war is a stupid idea, because we have an insane president who will allow troops to die in Iraq until congress turns the funding back on.  Congress must pass directives for withdrawal attached to funsing bills - they just can't not give Bush money.

And, while we have to pull out we cannot just shut down one day.  A withdrawal should take up to a year with a small force protecting our national interest and fighting bacl Al Queda.  It is the policing operations that U.S. troops need to stop.

Responsible voices from all parts of the political spectrum are coming forth to say this in increasing numbers.

Colin Powell had the courage to call his presentation to the United Nations on Iraq a "blot" on his distinguished record. And recently John Edwards said he made a mistake in voting to go to war in Iraq, and accepted responsibility for this decision.

It is no coincidence that both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Powell no longer serve the government in Washington. Those of us in Washington are falling behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq. We are failing to provide leadership on this issue.

Iraq was a major issue in last year's election.

But that election is now over.

We need to stop the campaign.

The President could take the politics out of Iraq once and for all if he would simply go on television and say to the American people "Yes, we made mistakes. Yes, there are things I would have done differently. But now that we're here, I am willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out."

Nearly four decades ago, John F. Kennedy took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs Invasion. He admitted that mistakes had been made. He didn't spend a good deal of time publicly blaming the previous Administration, or the other party, or his critics. And through these decisive actions, he earned the respect of the American people and the world - respect that allowed his diplomacy to be trusted a few years later during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

http://www.barackobama.com/2005/11/22/mo ving_forward_in_iraq.php

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all trying to appeal to primary voters who want out of Iraq as soon as possible.

So what are their specific withdrawal plans? Where are they getting their numbers from? How many troops must stay behind and for what specific purposes? Do they have a political plan to address what happens in the region for after these troops leave Iraq?  How do they plan on engaging other regional powers in order to stabilize Iraq? Do they believe the US bears any responsibility for what happens after troops are out?  Are they concerned that a failed state in Iraq will become a disaster for the region and a threat to the US?  This is complicated stuff, but they aren't telling you much more than "I'll end the war."

Thanks for voicing some of my similar criticisms.

Paying the fighting soldiers (aka, funding the war), is way different from authorizing the war.

Obama continues to vote to pay our soldiers.

He opposed the war from the start and has consistently done so up to this very moment.

Hillary is flip-flopping.  I like her a lot as New York Senator; she cannot be a president.

Hillary cannot be our commander-in-chief, she's a flip-flopper!!!

Edwards wanted the congress to cut-off the soldiers' paycheck?  That is an awesome record  for "the champion of the poor" who authorized to send our soldier to a mission and turns back to stop their paycheck.

http://www.juancole.com/2004/07/john-edw ards-and-iraq-war-now-that.html

Q: After voting to authorize the president to go to war in Iraq in 2002, you voted last fall against an $87 billion expenditure to support the troops there and aid the anti-terrorism effort. Why aren't they inconsistent?

EDWARDS: Because I said before the first resolution was ever voted on in the Congress, that in order for this effort to be successful it was absolutely critical that when we reached this stage that it be international, that it not be an American occupation. And so long as it was that, we'd see the problems we've seen right now. Bush needed to change course. We needed to have the UN in charge of the civilian authority.

Q: So was it a protest vote?

EDWARDS: It was not a protest vote. Had I been the deciding vote, I would have voted exactly the same way. Because what would have happened, had that occurred, is the president would have immediately come back to the Congress with a plan, changing course. We came to the point where we had to stand up and take responsibility.
Q: Please respond to the variety of opinions expressed by your rivals on the Iraq war.

EDWARDS: Leadership is standing up for what you believe in. I believe Saddam was a threat; I voted for the congressional resolution. Then the president says, "I want $87 billion." I am not willing to give a blank check.
Partial yes on $87B-irresponsible to not support troops
Q: [Bush asked for] $87 billion for the ongoing war on terrorism. Your vote, yes or no?

EDWARDS: We have young men & women in a shooting gallery over there. It would be enormously irresponsible for any of us not to do what's necessary to support them. When we went into Iraq, the US assumed a responsibility to share with our allies the effort to reconstruct. That does not mean Bush should get a blank check.

I will vote for what's necessary to support the troops. But we have a lot of questions that have to be answered first. We have to find out how he plans to bring our allies in, how much control he plans to give up, and what is our long-term plan there.

Q: So you might vote for something less than $87 billion and cut off money for reconstruction?

EDWARDS: I will vote for what needs to be there to support our troops who are on the ground. I will not vote for the additional money unless we have an explanation about what we're going to do to share the cost with our allies.
Source: Debate at Pace University in Lower Manhattan Sep 25, 2003
Q: If we cannot get international forces to Iraq, should we increase the US presence or leave?

EDWARDS: I don't accept that premise. We have to have the help of our friends and allies around the world. [First], to help relieve the burden on American troops and be able to bring some of these troops home. Second, to reduce the burden on the American taxpayer. We need to lead in a way that brings others to us and creates respect for America, because at the end of the day [that will make] a safer world.
Q: Will you vote yes or no on the president's request for $87 billion to continue the effort in Iraq?

EDWARDS: Well, I'm going to do what has to be done to make sure our troops get what they need, but not without the president telling us how much this is going to cost over the long term, how long we're going to be there and who is going to share the cost with us.

Q: So if the president says, "I need $87 billion to protect the troops," you're ready to say yes to that?

EDWARDS: It would be irresponsible not to do what needs to be done to protect our troops. But having said that, it would also be irresponsible not to do something to stop this president from giving billions of dollars in American taxpayer money to companies like Halliburton in unbid contracts.

This is obviously an important issue and I'm glad you raised it.  I'm a Richardson supporter, and want to point out you should include Richardson in your review.  This is a four person race.  Richardson is polling in Iowa close to where Kerry was at this time in 2003.

And what Richardson had to say on Iraq immediately prior to the invasion - as is the case with all the candidates - gives us an insight into his decision-making process on the most important decision taken by our government this decade.

Richardson has offered a crystal clear approach to Iraq - complete withdraw combined with a diplomatic offensive.  As noted by the Rocky Mountain News Richardson stated in Iowa:

While all the other Democrats call for an end to the conflict, Richardson goes a step further by saying virtually every American soldier - with the exception of Marine embassy guards - should be pulled out by the end of the year. He is pressuring congressional Democrats to pass a resolution by the end of the summer revoking authority for the war.

Richardson also addressed the question of the process he would employ if as President he believed war necessary:

If I am president, I would only go to war if I get authority from Congress. If you go to war, it's my view that first you exhaust every diplomatic option, you exhaust mediation, even sanctions, build international support for your goals.  I would not hesitate to go to war if it preserved the security of this country, but I believe this administration has been too trigger-happy. And I would use diplomacy.

Richardson has been consistent on the primacy of diplomacy in conflict resolution.  Specifically, on Iraq, Richardson advocated that the U.S. explore all diplomatic avenues, including returning to the U.N. and developing support within the Security Council for U.S. objectives.  Under the U.N. Charter, only the Security Council can authorize a member state to wage war.  

Richardson's view, that the U.S. had to return to the U.N. and directly place the question of invading Iraq to a vote before the Security Council prior to commencing hostilities, was vehemently opposed by many in Congress, including John Edwards, and also opposed by Hillary Clinton, and ultimately rejected by President Bush.  We invaded Iraq without U.N. autorization.

On March 11, 2003, eight days before President Bush announced the U.S. was at war with Iraq, Richardson was interviewed on CNN.  He urged patience and diplomacy, criticizing the Bush Administration's rush to war. This was a courageous statement.  At this time, polls showed most Americans supported going to war and were highly critical of the U.N.

Richardson defended the work of the U.N., explaining unilateral U.S. military action in Iraq would undermine the U.N., hurt the prestige of the U.S. abroad and negatively impact our post-war reconstruction effort:

CROWLEY: I want to ask you the question, first, if there is no Security Council resolution approving of a war on Iraq, and if the Bush administration should go ahead, who loses in that scenario?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think the United Nations loses because it shows a lack of relevance to this crisis.

And, secondly, I think, Candy, that the United States loses because we're going into a major conflict without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, without some of our major allies like France and Russia, and also those 10 other members of the Security Council, the 10 non-permanent members that have a voice right now.

So I think it would come at considerable cost especially if we're to win the war, which we would, issues relating to a post-Iraq configuration to the prestige of the United States worldwide to bring some kind of order to the Middle East and bring some kind of Persian Gulf-lessening attention. So, I think everybody would be a victim. The United Nations, the United States and, certainly, our NATO allies. I think would be hurt, too, because if they don't support us the breakdown of the NATO alliance might be next to go.

CROWLEY: Well, I want to cite a couple of figures for you. One of them just came from a CBS/New York Times poll, which showed that right now only about 34 percent of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a good job handling this situation.

Fifty eight percent think it's doing a poor job. On top of that, we also found that 55 percent would support an invasion, even if the Security Council says don't do it. What does that say about how Americans view the U.N., and has that changed since you were the ambassador?

RICHARDSON: Well, the United States as a populous, here in new Mexico, there's not much support for the United Nations. But at the same time, Candy, what everyone should understand is the United Nations does a lot of things that we, the U.S. as the only superpower, don't want to do.

They get involved in conflicts in Kosovo, in the Congo in Africa, in Guatemala and Latin America. Immigration issues, AIDS, refugees. We don't want to get directly involved in these, but we use the arm of international support, legitimacy of the United Nations to do it.

Now, in the Persian Gulf, conveniently, the U.N. supported our efforts in 1991 to get a broad coalition. And I think we've used the U.N. in the war on terrorism to get international support.

But clearly in this Iraq crisis, the U.N. has to step up and simply enforce its [1441] resolution. And it's not doing that. So, it's going to be a big loss for the U.N. in terms of its peacekeeping relevance, unless it really steps up and gets tough on Saddam Hussein. I think that's the issue.

CROWLEY: So, am I right, am I hearing you correctly that you believe that the U.N. Security Council should pass the resolution that Britain and the U.S. are proposing?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would go a little differently, Candy. I think the U.S. and Britain should compromise. That's the essence of diplomacy. To get nine votes, if it means postponing for 30 days, or 15 days or 10 days, a new resolution with benchmarks on Iraq's behavior, let's do it. I think that France and Russia are basically gone.

They are going to veto. But it would be a partial victory if we get nine votes for a victory of a majority in the Security Council. If we don't do that, I think it's going to be tremendous prestige loss overseas. I think, domestically, it's going to cause more problems for the administration. The Congress will be divided. This is a time when it's frustrating, but what's the rush, really. Iraq is not heading down Baghdad into the United States.

Again, it is a threat, but it's not an immediate threat. It's not something that is like the war on terrorism, where we're under alert from a potential terrorist attack in this country. So let's be judicious. Let's be calm. Let's be patient.