more of Obama on war funding
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3D2970930&page=3D1
Obama Changed Position on War Funding Democratic Presidential Contender Opposed War Funding in 2003 but Has =
Voted Four Times for Funding in Senate
By JAKE TAPPER and JONATHAN GREENBERGER March 21, 2007=97 - In a conference call with reporters Wednesday, Sen. =
Barack Obama, D-Ill., said that his votes to fund the war in Iraq do =
not contradict his opposition to the war.
“Once we were in, we were going to have some responsibility to try to =
make it work as best we can,” the presidential candidate said. “More =
importantly, you make sure the troops are supported. I don’t think =
there’s any contradiction there whatsoever. We should not get in; =
once we were in, we had to make the best of a bad situation.”
There isn’t necessarily a contradiction in this position; other =
opponents of the war vote to fund the troops so as to ensure they’re =
as safe as possible. But there certainly seems a contradiction =
between this view of war funding and Obama’s view just a few years =
ago, after the war in Iraq had been raging for more than six months.
Obama Opposed War Funding in 2003
In video obtained by ABC News of a Winnetka, Ill., Democratic event =
from Sunday, Nov. 16, 2003, then-state senator Obama told a cheering =
crowd that it was wrong to vote to fund the war.
“Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 =
billion dollars, I said ‘No,’” Obama said to applause as he referred =
to a bill to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say =
‘No’ to George Bush,” Obama said. “If we keep on getting steamrolled, =
we are not going to stand a chance.”
Obama’s campaign says that he opposed the $87 billion war supplement =
because a portion of the funds were to be directed toward =
reconstruction of Iraq, which he feared would be distributed =
inappropriately.
“He was against this $20 billion in no-bid contracts that was forced =
into the bill for reconstruction for the country of Iraq with no =
accountability,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
In a questionnaire he completed for the liberal group Council for a =
Livable World and in a 2003 press release he issued as a state =
senator, Obama suggested the Congress delay the $87 billion in =
funding “until the president provides a specific plan and timetable =
for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to =
ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and =
contributors, and provides ‘investment in our own schools, health =
care, economic development and job creation that is at least =
comparable’ to what is going to Iraq.”
But at the time, Obama’s public statements suggested he opposed =
voting for the supplement as a way of opposing the president’s =
overall strategy in Iraq, and not just the reconstruction funds.
Obama told the Chicago Sun Times in November 2003 that he opposed the =
funding because it “enables the Bush administration to continue on a =
flawed policy without being accountable to the American people.”
And in that Council for a Livable World questionnaire he completed =
while a Senate candidate in September 2003, Obama wrote that he =
wanted to delay approving the additional funds until President Bush =
provided a timetable for withdrawal, although the Obama campaign =
notes that he also wrote he was concerned about the reconstruction =
money going to political friends of the White House.
Clinton Camp Counters Obama’s Iraq War Stance
The Clinton campaign has aggressively tried to point out or poke =
holes in how consistent Obama’s anti-war stance has been.
Earlier this week at a forum at Harvard University, Clinton pollster =
Mark Penn said, ”When they got to the Senate, Sen. Obama’s votes =
were exactly the same [as Clinton’s votes].
Members of the Clinton campaign — most notably former President =
Clinton — have also tried to fuzz the record as to whether Obama =
would have hypothetically voted against the war had he been in the =
Senate in October 2002, though Obama’s public comments at the time on =
the subject are consistently opposed to the war.
Regardless of the reason for his initial opposition to funding the =
war, since taking office two years ago, Obama has voted four times =
for a war appropriations bill, which together add up to more than =
$300 billion.
On the Ed Shultz radio show earlier this month, Obama said, “There’s =
a possibility, given how obstinate this administration is” that =
attempts to cut off funding would result in Bush deciding to “play =
chicken, and say, ‘You know what, I’m going to leave these folks here =
and you guys do whatever you want.’”
Obama continued to explain to the liberal talk show host, “And then =
suddenly we’ve got a situation where these folks, they don’t have =
body armor, they don’t have the kinds of equipment that they need to =
have a shot of coming home in one piece. You’re already seeing =
deployments of National Guard units that have not been adequately =
trained, that’s been acknowledged by the armed forces, and, so, it’s =
a real concern.”