This diary has been percolating in me for a long time now, probably from the first time I heard this formulation of the Obama shot-across-the-bow to his fellow candidates. If they were as thoughtful as he was, they would have steered clear of being too noisy about "it" (funding for the war, more context below). If they were even more thoughtful than that, they would have quietly worked with him and others in the Senate to actually bring about an end to this war, rather than carping from the side and making it a campaign issue, yet again, cynically, just like the thugs.
But as with all the stupid charges being flung at Obama, the "Obama voted for the funding" will ultimately backfire on the hurlers, if people are as thoughtful as I think they ought to be.
Think about it: Rove's CD-ROM of ppt encouraging the GOP to run on "the war" gets splattered on almost all major publications in early summer 2002; Andy Card's statement about "a new product ["the war"] being unveiled only after Labor Day" is broadcast far and wide in late summer 2002; troops start amassing in the gulf in late summer 2002; Al Gore enumerates these two events, lays out a strong case for why it would be stupid to turn our focus away from Afghanistan, in a speech in late September 2002; Barack Obama gives a stunningly lucid speech on the stupidity of the contemplated war; AND YET, Edward, Clinton and their ilk voted for the IWR, claiming that they did not think Bush was going to war.
They are Democrats and Bush mal-admin transparent duplicity was laid thread bare by both the media (Newsweek, Time, among others, were doing numerous stories in late summer 2002 indicating that war prep was proceeding rapidly and inexorably) and AL GORE. These Dems in congress took Bush's word against Gore's. What does that tell you about their judgment? This is not, as they would have you believe now, a question of trusting Bush. This was a deliberate choice to ignore Gore and his counsel and save their own political skins, no ifs buts and ands about it.
Fine, may be they did not realize the enormity of their complicity and compliance then. The way to atone for that serious, fatal bit of lapse in judgment now, has to come in the form of a penance equal in measure to the sacrifice of the soldiers they put in harm's way: quiet, diligent, hard work every waking moment of their lives to right the wrong.
The utter shamelessness of using the funding issue as yet another campaign wedge in a primary, no less, is entirely too enraging for me, and I suspect many others, to even merit a civil response. Here is a bit of the comment that I wrote in response to the billionth shameless (purported) insult at Obama, that precipitated this diary: "he voted to fund the war" (from supporters of that candidate who voted against the 84b in 2003; question: why did he not filibuster it, if he was serious about actually defunding the war, as he and his supporters claim and use as a bludgeon against a candidate who had nothing to do with the mess, to beginwith?)
Look, my point is not to compare minutiae of their resumes. I simply had to push back against this bum rap on Obama and the war-funding issue that was dumped in his (and others') lap by Edwards and Clinton among others.
Once the war was authorized, precious little you can do to stop it, unless the public rises up and demands it. Voting against the 84b in 2003 was purely a symbolic gesture, since he knew that the bill was going to pass anyway. If he wanted to actually do something about it, he should have filibustered it. If he had, may be Obama wouldn't be saddled with it now. You see how irrational this can get? So don't go down this stupid funding the war path again, since there is not much any one of them can do individually and they each have not, so nobody is any more culpable than the other on this issue.
This war is a monster that was unleashed due to the political interest of many of the current holier-than-thou players. They and their supporters need to be a bit more humble and a bit more cognizant of just how nefarious their dereliction of duty was in 2002.
Atonement for that sin will not come from sanctimonious noise now; it will come by forming coalitions and working together to end it. Just what has Edwards done about this part, other than yelping in the background? Has he talked to Senators Clinton or Dodd or Biden or even Obama to come with a plan to attack the deadly serious problem of soldiers dying in part for his career, or is he again using it as a political survival mechanism?