Chicago Sun-Times
The scoop from Washington

In anticipation of Dem debate Sunday, the Republican National Committee takes aim at Dem White House hopefuls over Iraq war funding.

| 2 Comments

WASHINGTON--The day before the second Democratic debate in New Hampshire, the Republican National Committee research department hit the Dem front runners on the Iraq war funding bill

from the RNC......


NEW HAMPSHIRE DEBATE: W2W4

A Quick Guide On "What 2 Watch 4" As Candidates

Explain Their Recent Positions On The Iraq Funding Bill

____________________________________________


SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL)

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) Voted Against Providing Funds For U.S. Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan:

Obama Voted Against The Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)

"Courting The Anti-War Constituency, Democratic Presidential Rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton And Barack Obama Both Voted Against Legislation That Pays For The Iraq War But Lacks A Timeline For Troop Withdrawal." (Liz Sidoti, "Clinton, Obama Vote 'No' On Iraq Bill," The Associated Press, 5/25/07)
But Just Last Month, Obama Said That Congress Would Provide Funding For The Troops, Saying "Nobody Wants To Play Chicken With Our Troops On The Ground":

Obama: "I Think That Nobody Wants To Play Chicken With Our Troops On The Ground." (Mike Glover, "Obama Says Congress Will Fund Iraq War After Expected Bush Veto," The Associated Press, 4/1/07)

"[W]hat You Don't Want To Do Is To Play Chicken With The President, And Create A Situation In Which, Potentially, You Don't Have Body Armor, You Don't Have Reinforced Humvees, You Don't Have Night-Vision Goggles." (CNN's "Late Edition," 4/1/07)

"Given That Bush Is Determined To Veto A Timetable For Withdrawing U.S. Troops From Iraq, Congress Has Little Realistic Choice But To Approve Money For The War, Obama Said." (Mike Glover, "Obama Says Congress Will Fund Iraq War After Expected Bush Veto," The Associated Press, 4/1/07)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Voted Against Providing Funds For U.S. Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan:

Clinton Voted Against The Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Clinton Voted Nay)

Earlier This Month, Clinton Said "Of Course" She Would Support Funding For The Troops:

Clinton Will "Of Course" Support A Measure To Fund Troops. "Clinton said she 'of course' eventually will support a measure paying for the troops ..." (Mike Glover, "Clinton Won't Set Early Fund Restriction," The Associated Press, 5/7/07)

"[Clinton] Declined To Say What Restrictions Should Be Included In New Stopgap Legislation To Pay For The Troops, But Made Clear She Supports Providing The Money Needed." (Mike Glover, "Clinton Won't Set Early Fund Restriction," The Associated Press, 5/7/07)

FORMER SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC)

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) Said Congress Should Withhold Funding To Force A Withdrawal Of Troops From Iraq:

Edwards: "Washington failed America today when Congress surrendered to the President's demand for another blank check that prolongs the war in Iraq. It is time for this war to end." (John Edwards For President, "Edwards Statement On Congressional Passage Of Iraq War Funding Bill," Press Release, 5/24/07)

Edwards: "Congress should immediately use its funding power to cap troop levels in Iraq at 100,000, stop the ongoing surge, and force an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 troops, followed by a complete withdrawal in about a year." (John Edwards For President, "Edwards Statement On Congressional Passage Of Iraq War Funding Bill," Press Release, 5/24/07)

But Previously, Edwards Said The "Real Test For America" Would Be Our Commitment To The "Post-Saddam Iraq":

Edwards: "[T]he real test for America will come in the post-Saddam Iraq. Will we make the commitment to give the Iraqi people a real chance for success, a real chance for a democratic government? Or will we have the same kind of follow-through that we had in Afghanistan once we got rid of the Taliban?" (Sen. John Edwards, Remarks At The Democrat National Committee's Winter Meeting, Washington, D.C., 2/22/03)

Edwards: "We Must Make A Genuine Commitment To Help Build A Democratic Iraq After The Fall Of Saddam." (Sen. John Edwards, Remarks At The Center For Strategic And International Studies, Washington, D.C., 10/7/02)

Edwards: "[L]et's be clear: a genuine commitment means a real commitment of time, resources, and yes, leadership. Democracy will not spring up by itself or overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated, society that has suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations." (Sen. John Edwards, Remarks At The Center For Strategic And International Studies, Washington, D.C., 10/7/02)

SEN. CHRIS DODD (D-CT)

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) Said It Was "Not Difficult" To Vote Against Funding For The Troops:

Dodd Voted Against The Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Dodd Voted Nay)

"[Dodd] Said ... It Was Not Difficult For Him To Vote In The Senate Against Continued Funding For The Iraq War. 'That Wasn't A Courageous Vote. It Was The Right Vote To Cast,' Dodd Said." (Philip Elliot, "Dodd Calls For End To Iraq War," The Associated Press, 5/27/07)

Dodd Said He Voted Against The Bill Because It Did Not Contain A Timetable For Withdrawal From Iraq:

"In Explaining His Decision To Vote Against The Bill, Senator Dodd Cited The Lack Of Strong Timetables For Troop Withdrawal ..." (Sen. Chris Dodd, "Senator Dodd Votes Against Iraq Supplemental, Rejects President's War Plan," Press Release, 5/24/07)

Dodd: "I had hoped that this supplemental would have passed with strong timetables for withdrawal ... The Feingold-Reid-Dodd bill contained just such timetables ... all backed by Congress's constitutional power of the purse. But I cannot, in good conscience, support the half-measure that has taken its place." (Sen. Chris Dodd, Congressional Record, 5/24/07, p. S6696)
Dodd Previously Opposed An Arbitrary Withdrawal From Iraq:

Dodd: "[P]aying lip service to withdrawal and having a realistic plan to do so are not one and the same. We can't approach withdrawal from Iraq in the haphazard and shortsighted way ... We have to have a plan or we could turn a difficult situation into something much worse." (Sen. Chris Dodd, Opening Statement By Senator Chris Dodd Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing On Strategies For Reshaping US Policy In Iraq And The Middle East, Washington, D.C., 2/1/05)

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D-NM)

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) Said He Would Have Voted Against A Funding Bill That Did Not Set An Arbitrary Date For Withdrawal From Iraq:

NBC's Tim Russert: "You would have voted against a bill that did not have a fixed withdrawal date." Richardson: "Yes." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 5/27/07)

Richardson Said The Democratic Congress Missed An Opportunity To End The War By Supporting Funding For The Troops. "The best way to support our troops is to get them out of Iraq, and this bill will not move us any closer to that. The Democratic Congress is missing an opportunity." (Richardson For President, "Governor Bill Richardson: Support The Troops, But Get Them Out Of Iraq," Press Release, 5/24/07)

But In 2005, Richardson Said We Could Not Leave Iraq "Before The Iraqis Have Achieved Control Over Their Own Internal Security":

Richardson: "At this point ... we must see this mission through. We mustn't stay in Iraq past the point where the new government asks us to leave, but neither can we unilaterally pull out before the Iraqis have achieved control over their own internal security." (Bill Richardson, Between Worlds, 2005, p. 348)

Richardson: "We owe them the opportunity to make their democracy work. We must not undermine their efforts now." (Bill Richardson, Between Worlds, 2005, p. 348)

HIGHLIGHTS OF WHAT THESE DEMOCRATS OPPOSED IN THE IRAQ EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL

The Iraq Supplemental Provided $99.5 Billion In Critical Funding To Support Military Operations, Force Protection And Veteran Healthcare Needs, Including:

$3 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs)
$1.6 billion for individual body armor, including advanced combat helmets
$2.4 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund for developing and fielding the necessary tactics, equipment, and training to defeat improvised explosive devices
$295 million to protect Army helicopters from shoulder-launched missile threats in Iraq and Afghanistan
$1.6 billion to establish the Strategic Reserve Readiness Fund, $1 billion of which will be used for National Guard and Reserve equipment to support improvements in the readiness of the Army National Guard
$20 million to repair facilities at Walter Reed
$900 million for brain trauma injury (BTI) and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment and research
Funding for repair activities which involve the necessary depot and intermediate maintenance required to restore equipment returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to pre-deployment conditions
Funding for the development of aircraft survivability systems for the CH-53E and H-1 helicopters
Funding for aircraft survivability equipment for Army helicopters
Funding for Bradley Fighting Vehicle sustainment
Funding for force protection modifications for Stryker vehicles
Funding for M1 Abrams tank upgrades
(House And Senate Committees On Appropriations, "Summary Of The Fiscal 2007 Supplemental Funding Legislation," Press Release,

2 Comments

Why on earth do they capitalize the first letter of every word? Beyond the grammatical flaw, it makes it an absolute nightmare to read. If I were a reporter, I'd be tempted to just throw it away.

What they should be debating is the cost of this frivolous Immigration Policy they are trying to push down the throats of the AMERICAN TAXPAYER. When they were voted into office and took the oath they vowed to UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Since at least 1986 and the LAST Amnesty no Immigration laws have been upheld. What should happen is all money in the Congressional Retirement Fund and any money paid forward to any Congressional Employee since retiring in 1968 or since be stopped as payouts and put into a fund to pay ANY fees they want to put on the American Taxpaye. We pay for the Congressional Retirement Fund so that's where we start paying Fees. If that doesn't work, all Retirement payouts to ALL retired Congressional Employees should be put into this fund with NO Payments going to ANY retired or Future retired Congressional Employee until the Laws they Swore to uphold are upheld either by deportation or litigation.

The next step would be to litigate all Congresspersons, Impeachment of the President and Vice President for NOT upholding the Laws they swore to uphold and for NOT protecting the Borders of this Country to protect the citizenry of which the United States Constitution calls them to uphold.

Next would be to get someone to look into which, if any, Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch employee has employed someone residing illegally in these United States of America and make them pay all cost associated with this Legislative bill of immigration and all such companies who HAVE employed or now DO employee illegal ALIENS. After all these "costs" have been paid and Congressional Retirement stopped, the "NEW" congress and Executive Branches may then pay into Social Security even if incarcerated for any illegal dealings with illegal ALIENS, or any lobbyists opposed to upholding the current laws of THIS GREAT AMERICAN NATION.

What also should be debated is the question of how Laws are voted on in this country. We should make it mandatory that any legislation made by either Hoouse of Congress be put to an open vote of the AMERICAN people so the Lobbyists, both IN congress and outside of Congress, can not do anything THEY want or feel is the right thing for the AMERICAN people. They were voted in to vote what their CONSTITUENTS want and NOT how they feel or want to vote just to get "paid" extra by some outside influence.

We have already seen how an arrogant, self-centered, misguided drunk has handled the White House and STILL does not want to see the Evil of his ways or the ways of the American people he has sworn to protect from ALL enemies. Anyone crossing our border illegally, by land or air, is a terrorist and should be treated as such, given the same dignity they have shown this country, our laws and every American citizen - NONE!

Leave a comment

Get the Sweet widget

More widgets

Video

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 June 2, 2007 11:28 AM.

Sweet blog extra: Obama skips Iowa dinner to fund-raise in California. Dems debate Sunday in N.H. was the previous entry in this blog.

Sweet column: The spin on Spin Rooms. Dems debate 7 p.m. (eastern) from Manchester, N.H. On CNN. is the next entry in this blog.

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