What a ridiculous thing to say. Not only is it bad policy, not only is it bad politics, it’s also a terrible negotiating approach.
Instead of threatening Bush with even more restrictions and daring him to veto funding for the troops out of pique, Barack just surrendered to him.
Let me repeat that ” Obama just surrendered to Bush.
kos is angered by this statement from Obama:
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.
As Ian pointed out, Rangel was on Meet The Press and made the following statement:
MR. RUSSERT: Chairman Rangel, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS. Want to talk about your book in a second, but let me start with the war. The House voted for funding for the war with a date certain, March of ‘08, to begin a withdrawal of U.S. troops. But in that bill was $20 billion of so-called pork, money for cricket infestation, tours of the Capitol, security at the National Convention, peanut crops. Why would the Democrats put that kind of money in such a serious bill?
REP. CHARLES B. RANGEL (D-NY): Because they needed the votes. That bill, we lost so many Democrats, one, because people thought we went too far and others because we didn’t go far enough. And so a lot of things had to go into a bill that certainly those of us who respect great legislation did not want in there. But the real question was, were we doing something to stop this immoral war and what could we do instead of doing nothing except do what the president asks us to do? I think the most important thing and the worst thing that’s ever happened to this country in recent history is getting involved in the Middle East, and I didn’t care what was in that bill if there was anything to slow down, to, to say what the American people said in the last election, “Get out of Iraq!”
MR. RUSSERT: If you want to stop the war, why not just simply cut all the funding off?
REP. RANGEL: Because you don’t have the vote to do it. There’s some people who believe that if you cut all the funding off, you leave our soldiers and, and, and military people exposed, and that they’d have no money and then we’d go back to the scene we had in Vietnam where we’re fleeing by helicopter. And so it’s all compromised. That’s what legislation’s all about, and you have to make the best moral and conscious decision.
And here I thought that the Democrats rode in on their white horses to save America from “the culture of corruption”, when in fact they just sold their votes for $20 billion!
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, guerrilla radio, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, LaTogaStrappata®, Rightlinx, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
What a great future the Defeatocrats have planned for America!
1. Delivering victory to our enemies, setting the stage for WW3.
2. Massive tax increases, dwarfing even the Klintonian tax hike
3. Destruction of what’s left of American culture and ensuring that we will eventually be a 3rd world Nation by absorbing even more illegals
Voters thought they were oh so clever by voting in the Degenocraps: they’d teach Bush a lesson!
They just might get what they asked for. And it isn’t going to be good. The only question, if they succeed, is if anything resembling America will be left to save.
We need a new “Passover”. The Angel of Death appears in the night, and next day, a select 15% of our population is just gone. The Country would be much better for it.
Barak’s position, I’m not 100% certain of as the AP ‘parsed’ his words from the interview instead of supplying a transcript.
But I really don’t understand the outrage from the minority extremists regarding redeployment language in the bill. A majority of this country wants us *out* of this Iraq quagmire and as congress does serve at the pleasure of the people, it makes sense that our representatives to congress should reflect our wishes, which may be different from a President beholden to a minority extremist wing of the Republican party, right?
Reid and Feingold have already introduced a new bill, no pork (only about the war) and mostly the same language as the previous bill Bush intends to veto. He won’t be able to hide behind the facade that his veto is because of ‘pork’.
For a president who has time-and-time again shown his unwillingness to work with anything other than a rubber-stamp congress, this is refreshing. You are either with him or against him; he’s such a simple minded fool. If the military doesn’t get their supplemental funding, it will be because of Bush’s refusal to comprimise and instead throw a tantrum. He’s got the money sitting on his desk, all he has to do is sign it. The ball of “supporting” the troops is in his hands.
2- I don’t think his words were parsed TT, I think he meant what he said, but it came out rather matter of factly. I disagree that Congress serves at the pleasure of the people. Congress is elected to speak for us, but only to a certain point. They are to govern for the greater good, and not to put partisanship ahead of policy…neither side seems capable of doing that. You take your polls way too seriously. If I add up all the polls on any given week, we are talking about 5000 people taking 5 different polls answering for all of us? I think not..
Reid and Feingold are re-introducing the bill without the pork and it has no chance of passing, hence 20 billion in pork was added to the last one….Barak is correct in that they will give the money to the troops..no strings attached.
3- “Congress is elected to speak for us, but only to a certain point.”
Show me.
And besides, who decides what “the greater good” is? The president? He’s not king, ya do know that I hope.
“Reid and Feingold are re-introducing the bill without the pork and it has no chance of passing”
Why? So the Republicans will show their true colors beholden to pork? This Iraq second bill I agree is challanging the pork and challanging to the congress members who voted for it. Did the vote for the bill for the pork or did they vote for the Iraq redeployment? We may soon find out.
Um, we already found out…The issue was dead for both sides of the aisle until pork was added…
Show you? Okay: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
That is the extent to which their job depends upon your voice…
5- Yes, right. And so the new Reid/Fiengold bill…..
Can the House ignore it? Vote against it? Their feet will be held to the fire in the media (re: the pork from the previous bill).
It’s win-win for the Democrats to push on this now.
Bush is mostly without friends at this point. The time to start pounding the nails in his reign is now.
I read the Kos link, and I also read the article at the guardian.
I think Obama is 100% right, regarding what he said there.
Read the interview – he makes sense.
Daily Kos is run by a fascist crybaby. “WAH! DON’T DEBATE ON THIS NETWORK BECAUSE FOX DOESN’T AGREE WITH COMMUNIST IDIOT TED TURNER!”
Tofu, you are a moonbat. You are delusional. The would be gods are running the Democrat party. I don’t believe you really know how a representative republic works and are really ignorant of the role of the chief executive.
A majority voted for Bush over Kerry. Get used to it loser.
7- I read it. He isn’t going to play games, but he is correct, they need to work together to come up with a veto-proof piece of legislation that works.