There's the Dodd approach:
What was clear to me before, and what should be abundantly clear to my colleagues after today, is that this President is not going to change course unless we force him to. There is only one way to do that - we must set a clear, hard and fast deadline for redeployment and, in order to enforce it, that deadline must be tied to funding.
And then there's the Obama approach:
Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama predicted Thursday that Congress won't directly challenge President Bush's plans and will focus instead on putting a ceiling on the number of troops deployed to that country.
Which senator is showing leadership, and which one is preemptively capitulating?
Is there anything Obama will fight for? Because at this point, I don't even get the sense he's fighting for the nomination.
Update: Obama, the first time around back on April 2:
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.
Anyone can predict Senate Democrats will cave. A true leader, however, will fight to try and make sure it doesn't happen. He's a high-profile member in the Senate. He's got a media soapbox. Yet instead of fighting for change, he just shrugs his shoulders and says, "oh well!"
Not good enough.
Update: The Obama camp responds, which I used in a new post. They have a legitimate gripe.
Comments are closed on this story.