We Told You So! Part 3,245,874

It keeps going and going...

THE biggest argument that Obots made early on in favor of Obama was that he would be the president to end the war in Iraq. He gave a speech or something saying how very much he objected to it. Meanwhile they wailed and moaned that Hillary Clinton was never to be trusted given her vote to authorize the president to enforce UN Sanctions in Iraq. Never mind that Obama wasn’t even a Senator at the time, and didn’t even have a record on the issue. Which was exactly our point. He was an unknown whose trustworthiness and experience were questionable. That was racist according to them.

Well guess what Obots? We told you so!

President Barack Obama plans to request new funding from Congress for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he risks a backlash from antiwar lawmakers. Mr. Obama is expected to seek congressional approval of $75.5 billion for the wars, perhaps as soon as Thursday. The issue is already raising tensions on Capitol Hill, especially among liberals who are sympathetic to the president’s broader agenda but voice concerns about his timeline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq and his plans to beef up forces in Afghanistan.

His loyal fan base might bend over backwards to explain this away, but members of congress who are weary of neverending wars are justifiably upset.

“I can’t imagine any way I’d vote for it,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat and leader in the 77-member congressional Progressive Caucus. It would be her first major break with this White House.

Ms. Woolsey fears the president’s plan for Iraq would leave behind a big occupation force. She is also concerned about the planned escalation in Afghanistan. “I don’t think we should be going there,” she said.

Similar sentiments echo across the House. Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) said he fears Afghanistan could become a quagmire. “I just have this sinking feeling that we’re getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end,” he said.

Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) dismissed Mr. Obama’s plans as “embarrassingly naive,” and suggested that the president is being led astray by those around him. “He’s the smartest man in American politics today,” Rep. Conyers said. “But he occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances.”

Leave it to Conyers to figure out a way to excuse Obama. If incompetence is an excuse that is. Some of them come right out and admit that they were basing their previous opposition to war funding purely on a partisan basis.

Rep. John Larson (D., Conn.) suggests Democrats may be less inclined to joust with the current White House on the issue than they were with former President George W. Bush. “We have somebody that Democrats feel will level with them,”

But for most Democrats it comes down to the same question they hounded Bush with for years when it came to Iraq.

…the debate will come down to whether Mr. Obama can point to a way out of Afghanistan. “It’s more about the exit strategy,” he said…

Rep. Woolsey and two other congresswomen recently urged the president to set a clear timetable for redeployment of troops from Afghanistan and to reopen the congressional debate over what the U.S. role there should be. “A clear authorization of the use of military force must be established,” Ms. Woolsey wrote, along with Reps. Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, both California Democrats.

In the end it won’t really matter because Republicans will certainly give Obama the votes he needs to continue our unending, undefined experiments in nation building. So what do the obots have to say about “the speech” now? Let me guess…