Previous versions of this bill had contained language with a specific timetable, but that language was removed so the bill would have a better chance of passing a Bush veto. The only provision to end the war contained in this bill is $3 million for a study to determine how the troops could be redeployed out of Iraq. Yet $10 billion in domestic spending was tacked on anyway, increasing the chance of a veto and negating the effect of removing the requirement for withdrawal. http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20080516_8031.php

Obama lost an opportunity to prove himself here. He is fond of pointing out that he opposed the war from the start, but when it comes time to stand with the true progressives and vote “No” on a bill that furthers the war, he fails to follow his principles. Given that the bill is likely to be vetoed anyway, I’m doubly disappointed in his decision.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/no-more-blank-checks-vot_b_43834.html

Previous versions of this bill had contained language with a specific timetable, but that language was removed so the bill would pass. The only provision to end the war contained in this bill is $3 million for a study to determine how the troops could be redeployed out of Iraq. http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20080516_8031.php

Obama lost an opportunity to prove himself here. He is fond of pointing out that he opposed the war from the start, but when it comes time to stand with the true progressives and vote “No” on a bill that furthers the war, he fails to follow his principles. Given that the bill is likely to be vetoed anyway, I’m doubly disappointed in his decision.

You are right — in the case of abortion no “deliberation” is necessary, unlike war, in which deliberation must occur through traditional just war teaching. But this deliberation occurred. The war was, and continues to be, in clear violation of just war teaching. It is not a complex case. Ratzinger, et al. repeatedly gave us short answers to the question of whether the war is or is not just: and they said of course not. The “deliberation” you refer to was, in this case, quite easy. The killing involved is unjust, and it is just as unjust as abortion.

The difference has been the same all along: unjust killing is unjust killing, but in the case of abortion no deliberation is needed to render the judgment that it is unjust; in the case of the occupation of Iraq and related military activity, it is not nearly as straightforward to render the judgment of unjust killing, and the issue of funding becomes even more complex. While I tend to agree that funding the war perpetuates an unjust campaign, any reasonable person can understand the complexity involved when funding also terminates in measures to protect and nourish soldiers. To skip over these complexities to a neat equation is a disservice.

Pax Christi,

If the Iraq War is indeed an unjust war, which you must at least hold out as a legitimate possibility because the Vatican opposed the war from the beginning, then you must also admit that equating the war with abortion is also legitimate. Unjust killing is unjust killing.

Considering how few bills he’s actually authored, it’s interesting to note what he chooses to spend his energy on.

I guess I’m just forgetting that he’s the supposed “catholic” candidate!

What would you have said had the British Empire forcefully intervened in OUR civil war “to prevent anarchy and future bloodshed”? Can’t you understand that ours is a racist and patronizing attitude when we dictate a people’s political fate to them? The IRAQI PEOPLE do NOT WANT US IN THEIR COUNTRY–no matter what are the consequences to them in terms of “anarchy and future bloodshed.” It is only a handful of American cronies and war profiteers who are propping up the Malaki government and us: the great majority of Iraqi people, in poll after poll, have said they want us OUT NOW.

PLEASE go up and read the article I linked to in my comment above: the LEADER of the Shiah faith in Iraq is now quietly issuing fatwas telling his devotees that it is canonically legal to slaughter American soldiers, in order to drive America from the “sacred soil” of Iraq!

Sometimes I think you “neo-conservatives” and Republicans are the most incorrigibly ignorant and blindly chauvinist people on the face of the earth!

The policies you urge–blind to all the lessons of modern post-colonial history–are leading a great nation into a military-political catastrophe from which she may never recover. With the sinking dollar, the over-extended military forces, the enormous loss of credibility and respect, the undermining of republican democracy by the erosion of separation of powers and civil liberties, it is no longer Iraq’s survival which is in question, but America’s!

Morning’s Minion: I don’t think that it’s legitimate to equate supporting funding the troops in Iraq, which appears to be a necessity to prevent anarchy and future bloodshed, with the chosen destruction of innocent human beings in abortion.

MM, Feddie’s own post at his blog, mirroring this one, reveals precisely that in the post’s title:

Dems/Obama seek to “support our troops” by funding Murder, Inc.

Of course it does not occur to Fed that since the Iraq War is not justified, they are participating in murder, murder that is just as intrinsically evil as abortion.

Sadly, this thread exposes yet again the blinkered vision of the “support our troops unreservedly but oppose abortion vigorously” crowd.