Markos: "Obama caves to Bush"

Kos (front page) with 742 comments that slice and dice:

I wish this was an April Fools Day joke:

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.

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.

Matt Stoller says "I agree with Kos" and 99% of the 58 commenters on MyDD agree. Brad Friedman does too, on The BRAD BLOG. Ron Chusid says "Kos Resumes The Circular Firing Squad with Obama the New Target":

This morning Barack Obama was interviewed on CNN. I was doing other things at the time and did not play especially close to every word he said, but the gist of the interview I heard was that Obama conceded that those supporting the Congressional measures to force a withdrawal of the troops from Iraq did not have enough votes to sustain a Presidential veto but that they would keep fighting.

Obama described this as an ongoing effort to increase support for ending the war, and spoke of convincing more Republicans to vote with them in future efforts. A common Republican meme is to claim that Democrats not only want to end the war but that they want to stop funding for the troops as if they would leave them sitting there with no supplies and no way to get home. Obama has been careful to distingish between ending the war and providing support for the troops.

If I were to go back to the transcript it is very possible I could find things to nitpick about. I might not even agree with every word. However, I see no point in this. The goal is to develop a Congressional majority large enough to sustain a veto who will force an end to the war.

Despite his long standing opposition to the war, Obama has come under attack at Daily Kos. Kos has a previous history of setting up the circular firing squad among Democrats, and his motives have long been questioned, especially when money is involved.

As I noted previously, In November 2002, Kos wrote that Kerry is “untouchable on foreign policy matters (though I said the same about Max Cleland), and has been one of the few voices from the Democratic side of the aisle criticizing Bush’s war efforts directly.” Once he was on the payroll of the Dean campaign, Kos changed his tune and spread the false claim that Kerry supported the war, often misquoting Kerry to do so. Seeing Kos cherry pick statements from Obama out of context looks like more of the same. If opponents of the war search for reasons to attack other opponents of the war, this only leaves the supporters of the war in a stronger position. George Bush started this war, over the oppostion of both John Kerry and Barack Obama.

I also find it ironic that many Edwards supporters are jumping aboard the Bash Obama bandwagon. How soon they forget that Edwards supported the war while Obama opposed it. My goal in choosing a President is not merely what they say today, but in finding a candidate whose judgement I would trust in future questions as to whether to go to war.

Howie says, "I'm staying the course with Barack."