Vilsack chides Obama on Iraq


Barack Obama


February 16, 2007

ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: Sen. Barack Obama’s, D-Ill., “out by March of ’08” Iraq war position came under criticism Thursday from a Democratic presidential rival who argued that Congress has a “moral responsibility” to immediately cut off funding for U.S. fighting.

Congress has a responsibility to get the U.S. out of Iraq, said former Gov. Tom Vilsack, D-Iowa, “not in March of 2008 — but now.”

Vilsack said that if Congress does not immediately act to cut off funding, the Bush administration will send more troops to Iraq and more Americans will risk dying.

Obama has introduced legislation in the Senate which sets the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by Mar. 31, 2008.

After his Chicago homecoming rally was disrupted earlier this week by protestors holding a sign that read “cut the funding,” Obama said: “We need to bring this war to an end but we need to do it in a way that makes our troops safe.”

14 thoughts on “Vilsack chides Obama on Iraq

  1. Governor Vilsack is illustrating why it is so difficult for a sitting member of the Senate (e.g. Obama, Clinton) to be elected to the White House. John Kennedy is the exception that proves the rule.

  2. algoredotorg,

    Welcome to Skeptical Brotha. I would agreee. He and Hillary have a steep hill to climb. This time though, I believe the next President will be a Democrat, and a Senator.

  3. Obama said: “We need to bring this war to an end but we need to do it in a way that makes our troops safe.”

    Quick question for the good senator…ain’t getting the troops home NOW going to be safer than leaving them there another year?

    Let’s see…if you do the math that would be about several hundred to a thousand less DEAD troops and maybe several thousand less HORRIBLY DISFIGURED troops.

    Interesting definition of “safe”. Does running for president cause some folks to lose their power of logical thought?

  4. Brotha, I’m bettin on Al, obviously. It’s definitely true that whoever the Dem nominee is, that person will have a leg up after eight years of BushCo. I’d just like to have the guy who was right all along about the big stuff. But if one of the big three breaks out before Gore makes up his mind, it could be all over.

    On the other hand, Al’s movie is up for two Oscars in February, Congressional testimony on climate change on March 21, his book is coming out in May, then the 777 concert in July, so there’s still plenty of time.

  5. renee

    Interesting, Sen. Obama has a point. However we know what will happen when we leave. If and when we leave, the real war will begin. It is kind of sad but the rest of the world and that includes Iraqis standing up and coming to the table. unfortunately, I do not see that happening anytime soon. I saw a piece some time back on CNN. An Iraqi man was asked if he is better off now than when Saddam was in power and his response: “as terrible as Saddam was, we didn’t have car bombs going off everyday”.

  6. rikyrah

    The war was wrong. Period.

    Anyone who knew any history knew that Iraq was an Arab Yugoslavia, and Saddam was its Tito.

    And, we all know what happened to Yugoslavia once Tito was gone.

    Same thing here.

    It’s our fault, but I don’t care. I hate to be cold, but it’s time for us to leave. leave. leave. leave.

    Let them have an unfettered civil war. They’ve been fighting one another for centuries. Only American arrogance could think that ‘we’ could control it. So, let us leave. Let them have at it. Let them slaughter one another, and draw it into a true Middle East conflict.

    Bring Saudi Arabia into it…make those punk ass financiers have to step up to the plate with actual soldier, as well as the Iranians, who are nowhere near capable of a nuclear bomb. Maybe if they’re drawn into another war, that will be delayed for a few more years.

    Yes. We will be to blame. Yes. It will forever stain us. But, quite frankly, I don’t care.

    Not one more American life is worth us being there to protect Saudi, Israeli, Haliburton and oil company interests. Not one more American life is worth that to me.

    There actually IS a War on Terrorism that we need to be fighting. But, we can’t fight it, because we’re bogged down in Vietraq.

    I apologize to the Iraqi people, but I gotta look out for my soldiers. Bring them home.

  7. Denise

    ditto, Rikyrah.

    I frankly don’t think the Administration gives a damn about sectarian divisions.

    The bottom line is that Iraq and Iran are sitting on the world’s largest (and best grade) oil reserves.

    I say we pull the troops and let those folks handle their internal business in about land rights and their preferred social order.

    When THAT dust has settled, corporate interests will do with this they have always done – figure out who is in charge and exploit their greed in order to gain access to the resources.

    Yes, it’s sheisty and underhanded… but it’s more humane than what’s going on now for all interested parties.

  8. When has George Bush and his Administration cared about anything other than George Bush?

    The concept of the “Ugly American” has taken root and is spreading faster than you can say Abu Ghraib.

    The next Prez will be a Democratic Governor, or Al Gore. They won’t be from the Senate unless they’re Russ Feingold. He’s the only one that can point to his vote on the Iraq war and it’s not coming back to bite him in the ass.

  9. Meanwhile, there are three elephants in the room that are being ignored by Big Media and in their eyes are totally taboo and off the table for discussion. This is where the blogs have to step up.

    1. Some folks are getting rich off this war. And you can bet they aren’t the same people sending their kids over there. This difference in profit/cost of war has been going on since at least the Civil War, when robber barons hired people to fulfill their kid’s military service. We need to name names and companies that are profiteering and make ‘war profiteering” household words that the network news cannot ignore (even if they are owned by those same companies, i.e., General Electric).

    2. Some people are pushing this war not to make the United States afer, but because they see it as a way to make Israel safer (Joe Lieberman). Not only that, but the United States government is awash with AIPAC money and this has obviously affected our foreign policy to a huge degree. There’s no way this war would still be going on, much less the threat for it to widen into Iran except for that. This is taboo of course, because if you point out the obvious you will immediately be labeled something akin to a neo-nazi (or if you’re jewish, a self-loathing jew). But a dispassionate observation of the mess can only lead to the conclusion that this war makes the U.S. a much bigger target for terrorism than it would be otherwise. It is NOT our job to eliminate all the earthly threats that are posed to a foreign government. Unless we are talking about making Israel the 51st state, we need to cease and desist.

    3. The Rapturists. This one is scary…end of the world scary. The blogs need to take the mask off these folks. Who are these shadow warriors? Does Bush just humor them, or do these so-called Christians led by a few sexually impotent old men actually have enough juice to bring on the Apocalypse? What is known is that they get listened to and briefed on what is happening in Iraq more so than most people, especially the media.

  10. For some reason when I visited this site over the weekend I skipped this particular offering. Great stuff.

    For Vilsack, the former DLC head to take a positiion to the LEFT of Obama on this issue is quite telling.

    Also the news that antiwar folks are stalking his campaign, truth-squadding him on the war is a welcome sign, even though mainstream news media can be counted on not to cover it. Similarly, over at Stan Goff’s blog there is reference to a wave of occupations of congressional offices by antiwar people — also mysteriously not covered in the news.

Comments are closed.