Posted on 04/03/2007 9:55:00 AM PDT by Lucky9teen
11 hours, 56 minutes ago
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama says he has not softened his position on Iraq, despite suggestions to the contrary from other presidential camps and liberal blogs.
The Democratic presidential candidate yesterday took issue with a weekend report suggesting that he believes that if President George Bush vetoes a withdrawal bill, Congress should quickly provide full funding for the war with no strings attached. Other campaigns privately pointed out The Associated Press's report and questioned if Obama has changed his stance. The liberal blog Daily Kos carried a headline Sunday stating, "Obama Caves to Bush."
In a telephone interview in the midst of two days of campaigning in the first-primary state, Obama said he has not backed away. But he said that neither he nor "the vast majority of Democrats" are interested in cutting funding for troops in the field.
He said that after a veto, Congress should "keep on ratcheting up the pressure to try to make the President see we're on the wrong course and have him respond to Congress and the American people."
Obama said that since there are not enough in the House or Senate votes to override a veto, "My object at that point would be, explore passing a new version that also has some sort of constraints on the President's actions."
He said it would be unacceptable for Congress "to fold up tent because the President vetoed the bill." But he also said troops should have "night vision goggles and armored Humvees and other equipment they need."
He said that "because we're in favor of a timetable doesn't mean we aren't committed to making sure the troops have the resources they need to complete their mission and come home safely."
Obama's campaign said Obama's Iraq De-escalation Act has now attracted 60 co-sponsors in the House and three in the Senate.
"We have now provided adequate funding for the troops in a bill that contains timetables," he said. "None of us are interested in playing chicken with the well-being of the troops on the ground. So, we are going to do what it takes to ensure they have the equipment that they need."
He said he never suggested that after a Bush veto, Congress should pass a funding bill without timetables.
"There are a lot of options we should explore," he said. "We could put a very tight leash on the President and say that we're funding troops for a much shorter period of time. If he won't accept a timetable that's written into a bill, then we may not be willing to fund the operations there for an indefinite period of time or a full year. We might fund for a shorter period of time and reassess based on whether some of the benchmarks that were outlined in my bill have been met.
"That's one an example of the range of alternatives we have available to us," he said. "I don't think it is sufficient to simply have the President veto the bill and do nothing."
Also yesterday, Obama declined to announce his first-quarter fund-raising figure, saying, "It will be (announced) soon and we feel good about what we have accomplished."
He said he supports public financing or free television time "as a strategy to reduce the impact of money" on presidential elections.
You're just trying to "buy" votes, like all of the Democrats. One day you say this, and the next, it'll be whichever way the wind is blowing....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.