The continuation of the Obama: Congress Will Fund Iraq War After Veto headline into Monday in Iowa is not good news for Obama. Alongside the headline saying that Reid may move to cut Iraq war funds, it pits Obama into the position of defending funding of the war, while other Democrats move forward to cutting off funding of the war, including the Senate leader:
Bush has said several times he would veto the measure, and Republicans say they'll back him. On Monday, 154 House Republicans sent Bush a letter promising to stick with him in opposition to the legislation.
Mindful that they hold a shaky majority in Congress and that neither chamber has enough votes to override a presidential veto, Democrats are already thinking about the next step after Bush rejects their legislation.
Reid said Monday that if that happens, he will join forces with Sen. Russ Feingold, one of the party's most liberal members who has long called to end the war by denying funding for it. Reid and others have previously been reluctant to propose cutting funding out of fear it would leave troops in the lurch.
"Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security," Feingold, D-Wis., said.
Reid said Monday he was willing to take the tougher tack in light of Bush's refusal to begin pulling out troops.
"If the president vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period," Reid said in a statement.
Update [2007-4-2 19:18:9 by Jerome Armstrong]: Obama is already staking out his position:
Obama's position on ending the war has been strong, but he seems to be displaying caution now. It's sparked the quote in the paper that: "Other campaigns privately pointed out the Associated Press report and questioned if Obama has changed his stance." He says he hasn't, but supports funding-- the question is whether the effort to end the war has moved to the point of taking on the question of ending the funding of the war. Obama is not there, but other Democrats, and I think its significantly more than Obama portrays, are already there.
Update [2007-4-2 19:39:46 by Jerome Armstrong]: Obama fans, there's no condemnation in this post. Obama's got a position and I'm merely asking if that position is really in line with where Democrats are now. Cutting off the funding of the war is much more of a recognized plan of action than he portrays, especially among Democrats outside the beltway; and increasingly inside the beltway, with Reid now joining Feingold.
Update [2007-4-2 20:17:45 by Jerome Armstrong]:
I've been looking around for actual poll numbers on cutting off funding for the war. I did find a reference to it in regards to the Bush/McCain surge:
Update [2007-4-2 22:5:13 by Jerome Armstrong]:
Here are the poll numbers:
Would you favor or oppose Congress taking each of the following
actions in regards to the war in Iraq? How about Denying the
funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq?"
Favor Oppose Unsure
3/23-25/07 36 61 3
3/2-4/07 37 61 2
2/9-11/07 40 58 2
I don't have the partisan breakdown, but can break it down in general. We know that Republicans are 80-90 percent still in favor of this war, full funding, even escalation, and it's likely the independents split about 50-50 over the issue, or maybe 40-60. If that's the case, and I strongly would predict it is, than at the least, Democrats are divided over the issue of cutting off funding of the war, but the numbers point toward a strong majority of Democrats, along the lines of 60-40 percent of those polled, are in favor of cutting off funding. In all likelihood, the vast majority of Democrats would favor cutting off funding to end the war.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 94 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
