Chicago Sun-Times
The scoop from Washington

Sweet column: Obama pressed on his war funding votes.


WASHINGTON -- Democratic White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama was pressed on why, when he was running for the Senate in 2003, he opposed extra funding for the Iraq war, yet voted for supplemental spending bills bankrolling the war once in office, in an interview broadcast Sunday.

Obama also declined on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos to say what he would do if confronted with a war-funding measure that did not include a timeline for withdrawal.

That's because Obama's short- term strategy is to mount a campaign-within-a-campaign to try to find enough GOP senators to get the 67 votes needed to override President Bush's veto of an Iraq war funding bill with mandated timelines sending soldiers home.

Getting a Senate supermajority is very much a long shot. On the House side, Democrats would also need Republican defections to override a veto.

In recent appearances in Louisiana, Iowa and Missouri, Obama has taken swings at Republican senators from those states for not supporting the bill Bush recently vetoed with war funding plus timelines for getting troops out of Iraq.

War spending, and Obama's record, came up in the ABC interview, taped Friday in Des Moines, Iowa, because the Democratic-controlled Congress is searching for a compromise to commit Bush to winding down the war while still supplying money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Trying again, the House on Thursday passed a measure 221-205 providing money only until August and with no firm target dates for getting soldiers out of Iraq. That vote, mostly along party lines, showed House Republicans are not yet ready to break ranks.

Meanwhile, Senate Democratic leaders are searching for an alternative because, they say, the House approach will not win Senate approval, much less stand down the veto Bush has promised.

When it comes to Iraq war spending, Obama faces a more complex and vastly higher-stakes situation in 2007 running for president than he did in 2003 running for an Illinois Senate seat.

Obama told Stephanopoulos it was "political suicide" for him to be against the Iraq war in 2003. However, antiwar sentiment in Illinois was higher than in the rest of the country. In the March 2004 Illinois primary, Obama was helped by being the only antiwar contender.

Against this backdrop, Obama said while running for the Senate that he would not, if in the Senate, vote for an $87 billion supplemental appropriation to bankroll the war and Iraqi reconstruction. Once in the Senate, Obama voted for all of the Iraq war funding bills.

Obama told Stephanopoulos he opposed the $87 billion because "I was trying to establish a principle at that time," and the $87 billion legislation included wasteful spending.

Some antiwar Democrats have been voting for war appropriations these last few years because they have wanted to be supportive of U.S. troops and send them the supplies they needed.

Obama, once in the Senate, became one of them.

To read the entire interview, click to blog entry below this at blogs.


I think he is trying to be responsible with the troops. Rock and a hard place thing. Bush will let the troops suffer and go without (notice the lack of armor and helmets during the war) before he will stop his war. He'll let them starve first.
We know the stupid thinking of Bush and Cheney. They will not hand over their wartime powers as that is what they used to create their little dictatorship.
Knowing this, how would anyone vote???
Before Jan 2007, the congress was controlled by repubs.

Once again, Bush and Cheney are not running in 2008. Save the retro sixties rhetoric for the college campus. Our soldiers should never be politicized by either party. Just give them respect and your prayers if you are prone to do so. Also, if you are any thing but an extreme left-winger, you might consider offering suggestions on how to handle Muslim extremism in the future. "Making nice" with extremists doesn't work, so stretch yourself in pondering the question. If Obama wants my vote, he is going to have to do more than play to the neurosis of the left concerning Iraq.

His votes for funding shows what a phony Obama truly is. He wants it both ways and thinks we are too stupid to realize the hypocrisy of his stands.

If there were no funding the troops would have to come home and there would be no money to send new troops over. It's that simple.

is very difficult to be consistent with their ideas, before receiving the Chair op power of united states of america, the thirst for power, the desire to remain attached to the chair is more coveted by the world ..... even lie .
Today we learned that in late August will only soldiers in Afghanistan, 50,000 to provide informationand training the army of the place.
Obama must make ends meet, since we are close to zero vote to reelect.
Is trying to appropriate permission to continue in its purpose.
Too bad that America can no longer wait
lorenzo from italy

Leave a comment

Get the Sweet widget

More widgets


Lynn Sweet

Lynn Sweet is a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times.

Stay in touch

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Lynn Sweet published on May 14, 2007 7:33 AM.

Obamaville: Obama triple funder Monday in New Jersey. was the previous entry in this blog.

Sweet column: Obama in New Jersey--three fund-raisers, two mayors and one strong pitch to AFL-CIO is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.