Obama’s mentor in the U.S. Senate is Joe Lieberman. Obama has learned a great deal from Lieberman. Obama has now decided to attack Democrats with the same lack of judgement and intellect and qualification and honesty as Joe Lieberman attacks Democrats and their plans to end the Iraq War.
We hoped that “this time all Senators, even Senator Clinton’s opponents for the Democratic nomination, support her plan to end the war.” The plan itself is simple “The 2008 defense authorization bill is now before the U.S. Senate. This legislation presents a vital opportunity for Congress to step up and force the President to change course in Iraq. Amending the bill to deauthorize the war would do exactly that.”
In 2002, Senator Robert Byrd proposed an amendment to the Iraq resolution to limit any war authorization to one year. Hillary tried to impose limits on Bush and therefore voted for the Byrd Amendment. Unfortunately the Byrd Amendment failed in 2002. The Byrd amendment failed but the strategy by the wily Senator from West Virginia was sound in 2002. It is just as sound and smart in 2007. Good Democrats with honest desires, not political motives, who want to honestly end the Iraq war should support the Byrd/Clinton deauthorization proposal especially in light of the fact that even some Republicans might join in such an effort.
Yesterday, we received the answer from Obama as to whether there was any honesty left in his campaign.
Instead of putting “politics aside“, instead of being a uniter and not a divider — Obama chose to follow his mentor, Joe Lieberman and attack fellow Democrats’ plan to end the Iraq war.
Here’s the latest act of shamelessness and lack of judgement from Obama:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday that his top rival’s attempt to pressure the Bush administration to end the war in Iraq is “a convoluted approach to the problem.”
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to introduce an amendment repealing the congressional authorization for the war. It would require the president to seek new authority from Congress if he wanted to continue operations past Oct. 11, 2007, five years after initial authorization was given.
“If you simply repeal the language, then presumably you’d have to reauthorize something. You’ve got 150,000 troops over there and support personnel,” Obama told The Associated Press in an interview after a campaign stop in Las Vegas.
“Why we would try that approach as opposed to simply setting a timetable for withdrawal strikes me as a convoluted approach to the problem,” he said.
Later, Obama said he believed the U.S. had a “humanitarian obligation and national security interest in ensuring there’s not a complete collapse in Iraq.”
He said if elected he would meet with military leaders to determine an exit strategy that would draw down combat troops in about a year.
How convoluted is Obama? He deludes himself by thinking he will be president in 2009 and only then will he “meet with military leaders to determine an exit strategy that would draw down combat troops in about a year.” According to Obama then, he will keep troops in Iraq until 2010. How convoluted is that?
Obama also does not understand, perhaps due to his inexperience, that the Byrd/Clinton deauthorization proposal will attract Republican votes which timetable legislation will not attract.
Obama, a 2 year Senator with no accomplishments, presumes he knows better the byzantine ways of the Senate than Senator Robert Byrd? Senator Robert Byrd who knows the Senate, Senate rules and how to block or pass legislation better than probably anyone else in the history of the republic? Senator Robert Byrd of Virginia who practically single handedly stopped the pernicious “Balanced Budget Amendment” by employing his vast knowledge of arcane Senate rules — Obama presumes he knows more than Senator Robert Byrd? How convoluted is that?
Obama who opposed funding the Iraq war when he was running for Senate but once in the Senate voted for every funding bill dares call anyone else’s plan convoluted?
Obama who campaigns on “the future” and “turning pages” but premises his entire campaign on one speech he delivered years ago opposing the Iraq war resolution but then admitting he might have voted for the same Iraq war resolution if he had been in the Senate — dares to talk about convoluted?
Let’s look at who is the one with convoluted plans and convoluted priorities and convoluted self-images and convoluted motives. Why is Obama attacking Hillary and her plan to end the Iraq war? Because Obama is desperate. This is why Obama is saying such desperate convoluted nonsense:
Things look worse for Obama when one starts digging into those very same polls to see how Democratic voters are breaking down. In a June 4 Washington Post/ABC News poll, asked to name which candidate was the strongest leader, 50% said Clinton, 26% said Obama; asked who would best handle a major crisis, 47% said Clinton, 24% Obama; and, finally, asked who had the best experience to be president, 66% said Clinton, while just 9% said Obama. No matter which party one is talking about, those three criteria – strength, good judgment and experience – are how Americans choose presidents.