Monday, April 02, 2007

Obama says Congress will fund Iraq war after expected Bush veto


If this is an example of Obama's intelligence, he doesn't deserve to be a Senator let alone President. He's offering Bush the spending bill he wants on a silver platter.
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.

“My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage.”

Obama, D-Ill., has made his opposition to the war a centerpiece of his campaign and has used it to differentiate himself from rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

In effect he's saying, "So sorry, Bush. Just continue to act like a petulant five year old and veto this bill. We'll acquiesce and give you what you want." Fuck! That isn't even good parenting.

"OK, Johnny, I know you don't want to eat your spinach, but keep refusing and you won't have to eat it."

The ass is campaigning here. Its all posturing. He's saying he opposes the war, but is telling Bush not to worry. Anything Bush wants he'll get. Some opposition.

I've not been a big fan of Obama's. There are more qualified Dems available and Obama's appeal is the equivalent of an American Idol. He isn't deep-down opposed to the war. Its a political game. Watch what he says and read between the lines. He's no more anti-war than Bush.

Obama does deserve some credit. He's a very good politician. He knows how to play and win the game. All the contenders are playing this game, but he comes off to me as more ingenuous than most. Should he be the nominee and be elected, I hope I can eat my words.

(read more)

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Scott said...

Try to grasp the difference between making a realistic prediction about what WILL happen and proclaiming that's what he wants to happen.

The Democrats simply don't have the votes to override a veto, and Obama's right, the President is stuborn enough and stupid enough to leave the troops there with or without money.

4/03/2007 03:28:00 AM  
Blogger spiiderweb™ said...

My point is, although its a realistic prediction which Bush, you and I know is likely, it doesn't need to be voiced.

As Obama stated, most Senators will vote for the funding without restriction, but the other Senators aren't telling Bush that.

A little poker sense is needed in these situations.

4/03/2007 06:57:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home