The picture of Obama is becoming a bit clearer -- if duller and darker -- as time goes on. This from the AP wires:
Two leading congressional Democrats yesterday said their party would have little realistic choice but to fund U.S. forces in Iraq without withdrawal timelines if President Bush vetoes a war-spending bill as promised.
"I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. "Obviously we're constrained by the fact that a commander in chief who also has veto power has the option of ignoring that position," Mr. Obama, a 2008 presidential contender, said in an interview with the Associated Press.
Compare and contrast with this statement from Reid and Feingold regarding their newly introduced bill calling for a defunding of the war and a timeline certain.
U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.Should Obama be the Democrat leading us out of this war rather than giving up and giving in to Bush's threatened veto?
“Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security." Feingold said. "By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.”
No comments:
Post a Comment