Breaking: Hillary Clinton finally Apologizes on Iraq Authorization Vote
From Faux News:
Senator Hillary Clinton addressed the nation in a must anticipated live news conference to make the following prepared remarks:
“After four years of a mishandled war which began under false and misleading intelligence of WMDs, I now believe my decision was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. With this in mind, my responsibility will be to do everything in my power to hold President Bush accountable and bring our brave men and women home from Iraq as soon as possible”
Anonymous sources from Obama, Edwards, and Richardson campaigns have acknowledged Hillary’s new revelation could derail the candidates’ bids to be the Democratic nominee.
In other news, Kucinich will make a formal announcement on Faux News to end speculation on whether Nader will be his runningmate.
Related posts:
Sadly, this isn’t an April Fools Joke…Obama caves to Bush on the War
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/1/135422/4038
“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,” Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.”
After that statement I think I’m about ready to call myself an Edwards supporter.
You might want to take a look at Bill Richardson.
Why would they do this? Maybe the Pentagon can cancel the new Air Superiority fighter at the tune of a billion dollars a piece (the F-22 if memory serves), then there is star wars crap. In theory they run out of funds in July without adjusting the existing budget.
Maybe they can cancel some of those Haliburton contracts…
I want a strong military - strengthening it means sound middle east policy and troops out of Iraq.
First of all, that Obama “statement” includes words written by the paper and words spoken by Obama. To clarify your post, the only words that Obama actually said from that blurb is the last part: “wants to play chicken with our troops.” So we don’t know what the first part of that statement was.
I’ve watched the outrage in the blogosphere over Obama’s comments with some surprise. What did people think was going to happen? Voting on the timetable was a move to get Bush to veto it. That we were able to cobble together the votes to get those bills passed with the timetable intact was outstanding, an act of political courage and exactly the right move at the right time. However, the fact remains that we were BARELY able to get those bills passed. Nobody expects Congress to override the veto. They’ll continue negotiating to get the best result possible, but of course we’re going to provide the money. Do people really think that withholding money from our engaged troops is a good idea, morally? militarily? politically? It would be electoral suicide NOT to provide the money, to say nothing of morally reprehensible to leave our troops without the funding they need while they’re overseas, actively fighting an illegitimate war.
I think it’s outrageous that our guys (and girls) are still over there, but as long as they are, the baseline here is give them the money and supplies they need to ensure that they are effective and stay as safe as possible. It’s paramount that we negotiate for their withdrawal while keeping them safe.
The vote on the timetable was a move, one in a series, aimed at the final goal. With only a narrow margin in each house, this is a chess game between Democrats and the executive branch of the government. Should Obama have worded his comment more carefully? Like I said above, we don’t know how he worded it, as the AP saw fit to add 29 of their own words to frame Obama’s seven. But even if that was the spirit of his comment, he’s simply being honest. Is it possible that the Dems would engage in a stalemate and NOT provide money for the troops that are overseas? Of course not. Once the veto comes down, they will engage in negotiations, maybe go back to try to sign up a few more Republican supporters with some concessions, and they may even submit the bill with altered timetables a few times. But if it gets to a point where the troops are going to run out of money, of course we’re going to find a way to get it to them. He’s just telling the truth.
Gov. Dean used to say that when you tell the truth, Washington calls it a gaffe. In this case, all Obama did was tell the truth. Isn’t that one of the reasons that he caught fire? Because he’s different? Because he’s not Hillary-calculating? Because he’s honest? And yet, he did it here, and of all the places that could be lashing out at him for such a “gaffe,” the fire is coming from the blogosphere.
Well I want to clarify a few things.
I like the point about what exactly did Obama actually say. However, the point here is to allow himself to be put into a position where someone fills in the blanks or in this case the words - is not good. To leave the impression that Congress is beholden to Bush’s veto so why bother is a lousy negotiating tactic. It also undercuts the debate when Harry Reid says - We are providing the funding (all of it) a Bush Veto denies the funding.
I need to disagree with this section of your comments as well. it plays into the talking points and framing of the right.
“Do people really think that withholding money from our engaged troops is a good idea, morally? militarily? politically? It would be electoral suicide NOT to provide the money, to say nothing of morally reprehensible to leave our troops without the funding they need while they’re overseas, actively fighting an illegitimate war.”
Yep we should have spent more money in Vietnam and Somalia? Was it electoral suicide for those Congresses? I frankly don’t know but monies were withheld and our troops came home. They were not left, discarded on the battlefield with a #10 can begging for bus fare home which is what your comment containing the phrase “morally representable” implies. DoD spends and without funds it redeploys. It get everyone home.
The central point of your argument is that the AP added 29 words and we don’t really know what Obama said (I agree) then however, you go on and toss a good Howard Dean quote about the truth and proceed to defend Obama as telling the truth. Maybe I read the comments too fast but if we don’t know what he said - how can we know which version is true or what he meant to say?
Let Obama clarify for himself.