another obama flip flop - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 8 (permalink) Old 04-09-2009, 08:52 AM Thread Starter
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Smile another obama flip flop

Looks like he's headed for trouble with the liberal dems now LOL.... voting against the war and criticizing those that were for it during the campaign, and now asking for funding to keep us in Afghanistan.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123923540395603311.html

Quote:
ASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama plans to request new funding from Congress for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he risks a backlash from antiwar lawmakers.

Mr. Obama is expected to seek congressional approval of $75.5 billion for the wars, perhaps as soon as Thursday. The issue is already raising tensions on Capitol Hill, especially among liberals who are sympathetic to the president's broader agenda but voice concerns about his timeline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq and his plans to beef up forces in Afghanistan.

"I can't imagine any way I'd vote for it," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat and leader in the 77-member congressional Progressive Caucus. It would be her first major break with this White House.

Ms. Woolsey fears the president's plan for Iraq would leave behind a big occupation force. She is also concerned about the planned escalation in Afghanistan. "I don't think we should be going there," she said.

Similar sentiments echo across the House. Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) said he fears Afghanistan could become a quagmire. "I just have this sinking feeling that we're getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end," he said.

Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) dismissed Mr. Obama's plans as "embarrassingly naive," and suggested that the president is being led astray by those around him. "He's the smartest man in American politics today," Rep. Conyers said. "But he occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances."

The supplemental-spending request is intended to provide funding for the wars through the balance of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, and into the early weeks of fiscal 2010. Beginning in fiscal 2010, Mr. Obama intends for the wars to be funded as part of the regular Pentagon budget. That is a change from the Bush White House, which annually sought war funding outside the regular military budget.

The bill is likely to run into political turbulence from more conservative Democrats as well. Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha -- chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense -- has said he will look to add several billion dollars to the bill to boost spending on equipment.
Question of the Day

The emerging rifts present a new political challenge for Mr. Obama. As a senator, he voted against Iraq war funding bills. In his campaign for the White House, he criticized rivals Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries and John McCain in the general election for their hawkishness on the issue.

As commander in chief, Mr. Obama made a surprise visit to Baghdad this week and praised the U.S. military's accomplishments, including the ouster of Saddam Hussein and the reduction of violence. Now he is responsible for keeping the efforts funded.

Democratic opposition isn't likely to block the bills, since many Republicans will support them -- if the White House can keep the legislation free of measures imposing stringent conditions on commanders in the field, and doesn't allow unrelated spending to be tacked on.

"Everyone wants to make sure our troops in the field have the resources they need," said Michael Steele, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio). "If the Democratic leadership in the House puts together a package that does just that, they can expect Republican support."

The danger for Mr. Obama is that a chorus of criticism could stir new public unease with the U.S.-led wars. A public backlash could be particularly problematic for Afghanistan. Mr. Obama's strategy envisions that the U.S. military could be engaged there for years to come.

"The president certainly has a case to make," said Rep. John Tanner, a moderate Democrat from Tennessee who supports the White House.

Mr. Obama has announced plans to draw down U.S. forces in Iraq. Many of the 140,000 troops now stationed there would exit by the summer of 2010. About 50,000 would be left behind and drawn down further the following year.
[adding up]

U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, meanwhile, would grow by more than 20,000, on top of the 38,000 already on the ground. The president argues that Afghanistan has been neglected, allowing al Qaeda to regroup and exposing the U.S. to new dangers.

Rep. John Larson (D., Conn.) suggests Democrats may be less inclined to joust with the current White House on the issue than they were with former President George W. Bush. "We have somebody that Democrats feel will level with them," said Mr. Larson, the House's fourth-ranking Democrat. But he says the debate will come down to whether Mr. Obama can point to a way out of Afghanistan. "It's more about the exit strategy," he said.

The administration has begun trying to build support on Capitol Hill. Last week, a team of top Obama advisers, including Bruce Riedel, who is leading a review of policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, conducted a briefing for members of both parties.

"We look forward to working with Congress to give our men and women in uniform what they need this year to do the hard work we are asking of them in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the White House budget office.

But some members of Mr. Obama's party aren't planning to cooperate. Rep. Woolsey and two other congresswomen recently urged the president to set a clear timetable for redeployment of troops from Afghanistan and to reopen the congressional debate over what the U.S. role there should be.

"A clear authorization of the use of military force must be established," Ms. Woolsey wrote, along with Reps. Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, both California Democrats.
mikeb is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 8 (permalink) Old 04-09-2009, 09:01 AM
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!
 
Sgt Beavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,859
So, where is the flip flop?

During his campaign he said repeatedly that he wanted to greatly expand troop presence in Afghanistan. The only real change he has made since the campaign is that he is taking longer to pull troops out of Iraq. Of course, his pullout time line is pretty much identical to the one that Bush has.

We're Adopting. Contact us through our website.

http://www.theboyetts.com

You can also LIKE us on Facebook
Sgt Beavis is offline  
post #3 of 8 (permalink) Old 04-09-2009, 09:19 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
You mean his war policy is really no different than Bush's was?

Oh my God, this is all so suprising....if you happen to be a dumbass.

What is funny is that most of the people who have an issue with it are the ones who would hate any sort of military action. For any reason. I'd like to see Maxine Waters get punched in the face on television. That would be hilarious.
AL P is offline  
 
post #4 of 8 (permalink) Old 04-09-2009, 09:34 AM Thread Starter
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Beavis View Post
So, where is the flip flop?

During his campaign he said repeatedly that he wanted to greatly expand troop presence in Afghanistan. The only real change he has made since the campaign is that he is taking longer to pull troops out of Iraq. Of course, his pullout time line is pretty much identical to the one that Bush has.
He came out strongly against the war, giving the impression that he intended to pull us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible. While the Iraq pullout is in progress (and as Al said, on bush's original time schedule), he is beefing up the troops in Afghanistan, and is asking for more money. This move is NOT going to set well with the liberal dems who had the impression that we were going to pull totally out of both wars.
mikeb is offline  
post #5 of 8 (permalink) Old 04-09-2009, 09:41 AM
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!
 
Sgt Beavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb View Post
He came out strongly against the war, giving the impression that he intended to pull us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible. While the Iraq pullout is in progress (and as Al said, on bush's original time schedule), he is beefing up the troops in Afghanistan, and is asking for more money. This move is NOT going to set well with the liberal dems who had the impression that we were going to pull totally out of both wars.
I might be wrong here (and someone will correct me pretty quickly) but I'm pretty sure he never said he wanted to pull out of Afghanistan. I've heard him say that he agreed with the military action in Afghanistan. His main problem with it was that we took our focus away from it. Basically he was calling Iraq a distraction. From what I've seen, he has been fairly consistent on that point.

As for Iraq, he stated he wanted to withdraw (or redeploy) in less than a year. But I do recall him qualifying his statement by saying that he would listen to the Generals. I'm pretty sure he covered his ass with them before signing on to the same withdraw table that GW had created months before. I guess that could be called a flip flop but I think we should be glad he did flip on that one...

We're Adopting. Contact us through our website.

http://www.theboyetts.com

You can also LIKE us on Facebook
Sgt Beavis is offline  
post #6 of 8 (permalink) Old 04-09-2009, 09:46 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Beavis View Post
I might be wrong here (and someone will correct me pretty quickly) but I'm pretty sure he never said he wanted to pull out of Afghanistan. I've heard him say that he agreed with the military action in Afghanistan. His main problem with it was that we took our focus away from it. Basically he was calling Iraq a distraction. From what I've seen, he has been fairly consistent on that point.

As for Iraq, he stated he wanted to withdraw (or redeploy) in less than a year. But I do recall him qualifying his statement by saying that he would listen to the Generals. I'm pretty sure he covered his ass with them before signing on to the same withdraw table that GW had created months before. I guess that could be called a flip flop but I think we should be glad he did flip on that one...
He did say that about Afghanistan. But he slung bullshit on his followers when it came to Iraq. They bought the whole story. Personally I think it is fantastic.

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
AL P is offline  
post #7 of 8 (permalink) Old 04-09-2009, 09:50 AM Thread Starter
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Beavis View Post
I might be wrong here (and someone will correct me pretty quickly) but I'm pretty sure he never said he wanted to pull out of Afghanistan. I've heard him say that he agreed with the military action in Afghanistan. His main problem with it was that we took our focus away from it. Basically he was calling Iraq a distraction. From what I've seen, he has been fairly consistent on that point.

As for Iraq, he stated he wanted to withdraw (or redeploy) in less than a year. But I do recall him qualifying his statement by saying that he would listen to the Generals. I'm pretty sure he covered his ass with them before signing on to the same withdraw table that GW had created months before. I guess that could be called a flip flop but I think we should be glad he did flip on that one...
I didn't say he had plans to pull out of afganhistan, I said that he gave the impression that he was anti war and was going to pull us out of both wars. This is the stumbling block that the anti war dems have.
mikeb is offline  
post #8 of 8 (permalink) Old 04-09-2009, 10:14 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb View Post
I didn't say he had plans to pull out of afganhistan, I said that he gave the impression that he was anti war and was going to pull us out of both wars. This is the stumbling block that the anti war dems have.
From his campaign website here http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

"Barack Obama will work with his military commanders to responsibly end the war in Iraq. Obama will refocus our resources on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and finish the fight with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11."

Emphasis is mine.

I have, for the most part, stayed out of defending Obama since the election. Mainly because there isn't a need. In 1 1/2 years the country will give its verdict on the all Democratic Party run government. (Personally, I am hoping for small Rep gains in both houses.) But I couldn't help correct some things here.
1fastdem is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome