Obama To Support Feingold Amendment Cutting Off War Funding
Obama will vote for the Feingold amendment:
“Tomorrow, I expect cloture votes on two other proposals. One is the Reid-Feingold plan, which would begin a withdrawal of troops in 120 days and end all combat operations on April 1. The other is Senator Levin's proposal, which would create standards and benchmarks for additional funding.”“I will support both, not because I believe either is the best answer, but because I want to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the President and my Republican colleagues that it's long past time to change course.”
“Meanwhile, I'll continue to press for my own plan, and work to find the 16 votes in the Senate to pass it with a veto-proof majority and bring our troops home quickly, safely and responsibly.”
Perhaps most interesting is Obama's optimism that ultimately Dems will be able to secure enough support to override subsequent Presidential vetoes. He says the following about the Congressional approach vetoed by the President last month: "I think it will become the framework for a bipartisan coalition the President can't resist."
Seems like a long way from here to that veto-proof majority to us. But who knows?
Meanwhile, we'll bring you Hillary's position when it becomes available.
Comments (21)
RWN wrote on May 15, 2007 2:27 PM:Even Hagel has said one cannot have a war based on partisanship. I think more this will also force the Saudi's, Kuwaiti's, UAB's Syrian's, Jordanian's, Turk's, Iranians all to come to the be vested in not having this fall into a worse disaster.
Although from the start this situation has the similarities to Post WWI Russia, post Vietnam War Cambodia and Laos, post Warsaw Pact Balkans.
It appears that Senator Smiling Biden could be right that the only way to not having a disaster is breaking Iraq up into a Confederation.
Bearpaw wrote on May 15, 2007 2:29 PM:With this President, "benchmarks" are just a framework for lying. So only support for the Reid-Feingold plan is meaningful.
terry hallinan0 wrote on May 15, 2007 2:36 PM:Thanks, Barack.
What took you so long?
I agree the benchmarks are worthless.
Best, Terry
puissant wrote on May 15, 2007 2:37 PM:I continue to be impressed with Obama's judgement and deductive reasoning for how he comes to decisions.
His optimism is what we need as well in terms of having visionary leadership.
Now let's see what Hillary has to say.
Obama called Edwards bluff.
gqmartinez wrote on May 15, 2007 2:37 PM:A series of short term funding bills would force Republicans to continually support a non-strategy. The GOP is softening their stance on this almost every day and being forced to vote for Bush every month or so would soon lead to a complete dismantling of GOP support. The GOP has intimated that Sept. would be a cut off so we should hold them at their word and force a vote in Sept. (I'd also like at least one vote before then.)
If we have a veto proof majority by Sept., we can probably start getting out by the end of the year as opposed to March 2008. Having R-F vetoed (or filibustered) is pretty pointless if the goal is to get us out. I understand the symbolism of the bill, but I prefer results to a vote that makes me feel happy inside. I can't get excited about a bill that will fail. I hope I'm wrong, though.
Ekim wrote on May 15, 2007 2:41 PM:Pardon me for being suspicious, but Obama says he expects "cloture votes" which he will vote for. He did not say he would vote for Reid/Feingold if cloture were approved--which he is well aware it probably won't be.
stlounick wrote on May 15, 2007 2:46 PM:Iraq may break apart into different countries. I favor the Iraqis making that decision--even if it is made by war amongst their factions--rather than America imposing this solution. Self-determination matters.
zk0sm0 wrote on May 15, 2007 2:53 PM:so is he saying he will support both proposals or just support cloture votes for both proposals???
zk0sm0 wrote on May 15, 2007 2:54 PM:ah. same point as Ekim (sorta).
joejoejoe wrote on May 15, 2007 2:55 PM:Feingold-Reid has never been on the floor of the US Senate before. What exactly does "what took you so long?" mean in that context? Obama said he'd vote for it. Would you be happier if Obama wrote "I Love Feingold-Reid" on his Senate notebook?
stlounick wrote on May 15, 2007 3:01 PM:It would be great if Senate politics and the partisan divide there functioned in the "ought to be" world some of you are stuck in. The reality is that 60 votes are needed to bring anything to the floor for a vote. The reality is that 67 votes are needed to override Bush's veto.
This is one cloture vote in what I suspect will be a string of cloture votes over the summer. And why would we want that? Because Democrats want to exert never-ending pressure on the Republicans UNTIL these vote levels are met and Bush gets a bill that cannot be vetoed.
Every wrong vote cast by a Republican is fodder for an ad that can run now or an ad that can be used by in a campaign against this Republican. Pressure is everything if we want the start of the end of this war before 2009.
Bearpaw wrote on May 15, 2007 3:05 PM:I can understand your suspicion, but it seems to me:
1) It doesn't make much sense to speak of "supporting" cloture votes.
2) His statement is going to be understood by nearly everybody as supporting both proposals, so I'm not sure what point sneaky wording would have.
wglad wrote on May 15, 2007 3:05 PM:Maybe he misspoke. I've heard those amendments are coming up under rules that require 60 votes to pass, finessing the cloture issue. If that is true, it's significant in itself, because it means the Republicans are going along with an up or down vote on the amendments, as they did on the non-binding resolution. I'm not sure I see the distinction Obama is making between his bill and Feingold's. Maybe he needs his name on a bill or something. Pretty lukewarm "support" for the Feingold/Reid bill.
hoppycalif2 wrote on May 15, 2007 3:07 PM:The Democrats have a one vote majority in the Senate. And, that includes Lieberman as a Democrat, which he isn't. Reid-Feingold has almost no chance of winning a Senate vote. The way the Senate rules work, before that vote can even take place, the Senate will have to cease debating the issue - pass a cloture vote. That is what Obama says he will vote for. His statement the he would support Reid-Feingold means he will actually vote for it, assuming the cloture vote goes thru. Neither the cloture vote or the vote on the bill have much chance of winning. Obama's strength is getting people to work together - I want to see if he can gain enough Repub support for his bill or a version of it to pass that.
Hoppy in Sacramento
Would you be happier if Obama wrote "I Love Feingold-Reid" on his Senate notebook?
That would have been nice.
I wrote to the senator and was rather pleasantly surprised to get an answer from a staffer. Essentially the answer said that Obama had his own bill. That has been pretty much the stock answer.
Obama has not been a supporter of those trying to stop funding of the war but talked instead of trying to get Republican votes for overriding a veto. Fat chance of that but rather meaningless in any case in my view. All that needs to be done is not continue funding this damnable war. Obama called that playing chicken with the troops. I have called it supporting the troops. Edwards has begun saying the same.
Best, Terry
wglad wrote on May 15, 2007 4:13 PM:You know, it may just be symbolic, but I think it has some impact whether they vote on cloture or on the bill itself under a rule that requires 60 votes to pass. I'm disappointed to learn from you that they'll be voting on cloture and not the bills themselves. That kind of vote gives Obama, Clinton and others who want to stay in Iraq and try to "win" the occupation a lot of cover at this point. With respect to benchmarks, the Obama plan says: "Should these benchmarks be met, the plan allows for the temporary suspension of this redeployment, subject to the agreement of Congress." That's either cynical or indicative of a mindset that thinks the occupation can be "won."
itsbenj wrote on May 15, 2007 4:36 PM:nonsense. there is no way that iraq will break up voluntarily into separate countries. a total fantasy. people like joe biden suggest and support such things because they have no idea what they're talking about, coupled with no knowledge of the cultures with which they are dealing.
if we forcefully separate iraqis into distinct ghettos based on their declared religious/ethnic loyalties, it will still serve as a major, major point of contention for centuries to come. centuries. or until they're able to re-draw their own map as they see fit again. if we get so ingrained in there that we somehow develop the ability to actually partition the country by force, it will be decades before we get out.
itsbenj wrote on May 15, 2007 4:39 PM:oh whatever, edwards was refusing to comment on the bill until a month ago. who cares? of course having his own bill going through the senate, obama has been focused on that. who on earth is surprised by such a thing?
it really doesn't matter a great deal, other than symbolically, what happens with Reid-Feingold, it will be vetoed just like any and all attempts to end the war, short of simply not sending a funding bill.
joejoejoe wrote on May 15, 2007 4:39 PM:What Obama said:
"I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground," said Obama. "I do think a majority of the Senate has now expressed the belief that we need to change course in Iraq.
"Obviously we're constrained by the fact that a commander in chief who also has veto power has the option of ignoring that position," Obama said.
I think it's reasonable to say Obama was suggesting President Bush was playing a game, not Congress. The idea that Congress can not fund or block further funding for Iraq and then rely on President Bush as Commander-in-Chief to responsibly redeploy troops from Iraq is a farce. If you don't have the votes to override a veto in Congress then you won't have the votes to impeach President Bush when he looks the Defense, Intelligence, and other federal budgets to fund his precious war. Only a veto-proof majority can both redeploy the US military from Iraq and provide a threat to the President to check him from simply ignoring the will of Congress. The will of Congress is supreme when that will is composed of 2/3 of both houses. That may be inconvenient and unpleasant but it's the coldest, most realistic reading of our current situation.
The Iraq War started with bipartisan agreement and it's going to end with bipartisan agreeent - however painful or long that may take.
NH Dem wrote on May 15, 2007 8:28 PM:
No, Biden knows full well what he's talking about. And he knows it'll be ugly no matter what. And he isn't talking about separate countries, he's talking about following the Iraqi Constitution that allows a region to declare itself essentially autonomous if a certain percentage (60%?) votes in favor of it.
And his idea is basically to let them re-draw the map now, in a legal and basically orderly way, to fix the screwups of the British when they blithely jotted lines down on a map in 1920.
Say what you will about Joe Biden -- and I have aplenty the last few years -- but lack of knowledge of the world and history is not his problem.
upper left corner wrote on May 16, 2007 11:36 AM:Logic and information don't seem to have much of an effect on the "pissed off and not going to take it any more" wing of the progressive netroots. People seem to confuse rhetoric and proposals with results. Obama's pragmatism and orientation to results or viewed as a sin by this crowd.
I have been posting over as MyDD the last few weeks, it is even worse over there.
