Obama defends votes in favor of Iraq funding

Obama defends votes in favor of Iraq funding - The Boston Globe
By James W. Pindell and Rick Klein, Globe Staff | March 22, 2007

Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war, asserting that he has always made clear that he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war.

"I have been very clear even as a candidate that, once we were in, that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could, and more importantly that our troops had the best resources they needed to get home safely," Obama, an Illinois Democrat, told reporters in a conference call. "So I don't think there is any contradiction there."

Obama's comments represent a direct response to attacks launched by aides to Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, who have pointed out that despite Obama's antiwar rhetoric, he has voted along with Clinton for some $300 billion in war funding since entering the Senate in 2005.

"In reality, when they both got to the Senate, Senator Obama's votes are exactly the same as Senator Clinton's," Clinton strategist Mark Penn said Monday at a Harvard University forum.

As a candidate for his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he would have voted against an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush.

"When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."

Yet Obama has voted for all of the president's war funding requests since coming to the Senate, and is poised to vote in favor of the latest request when it comes to the Senate floor this spring. Liberal groups have demanded that lawmakers cut off funds for the war as a way to force its end, but Obama has joined most Democrats in the House and Senate in saying he would not take such a move.

We put troops in harms way.

Then the choice is to not fund them or not while they're in that situation.

I'm not defending that funding of the war, but just trying to imagine what the alternative choice is if the POTUS won't ship them home.

That's silly to imply that the troops would be left in the middle of the desert with no food, protection nor ammo.
You just can't get over the fact President Bush won a great victory of the Al Qaida and made the world a safer place. That's true leadership!

On second thought, that's what Clinton did to the special forces in Somalia.
They were running on foot for their lives, no protection, no ammo, no food etc....