Under Obama Progressive Reps Still Opposed To War Spending
In 2007 and 2008, when George Bush was still President, Democrats took a lot of heat from their supporters for their inability or unwillingness to end the war in Iraq. To the extent that they tried, though, the challenge within the party fell to leaders to convince their right flank to sign on to the efforts.
Now that a Democrat is president and the war in Iraq is (or at least seems to be) coming to an end, the situation's somewhat flipped. Obama wants to ramp up U.S. efforts in a different war and--with most Democrats in support, but without an exit strategy--the new challenge may lie in convincing their left flank to play along.
The Wall Street Journal reports that some high profile members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are demurring at, or downright rejecting, calls from party leaders to sign on to war spending.
Mr. Obama is expected to seek congressional approval of $75.5 billion for the wars, perhaps as soon as Thursday. The issue is already raising tensions on Capitol Hill, especially among liberals who are sympathetic to the president's broader agenda but voice concerns about his timeline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq and his plans to beef up forces in Afghanistan.
Among the protestors are CPC chair Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)--"I don't think we should be going there"--Jim McGovern (D-MA)--"I just have this sinking feeling that we're getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end"--and John Conyers (D-MI), who had the harshest words for the President of all. He called the strategy, such as it is, in Afghanistan "embarrassingly naive," saying that though Obama may be "the smartest man in American politics today...he occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances."
Supplemental war spending will almost certainly win plenty of Republican support, and the members of the CPC (though numerous) don't always march in lockstep--so there's little reason to believe Obama won't get the $75.5 billion he's looking for. But we'll keep our eye on this rift, which could widen and deepen over weeks and months...and even years.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Is this really a bad thing? OK, so the anti-war left won't vote for war. Surprise?
Is this actually going to stop Afghanistan funding from going through? And if not, what is the problem?
April 9, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can no longer afford guns and butter. There's a commentary in The New England Journal of Medicine this week on the prospects of dwindling funding for medical research inspite of the short term funding increase to NIH in the recent stimulus bill. What's it going to be folks? Are we going to cure cancer or fight phantom terrorists in caves on the other side of the earth? How many of you have lost a loved one to cancer? to terrorism?
Our national priorities are totally irrational.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/360/15/1482
April 9, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank God for progressives who actually believe what they have been saying and who are unwilling to suspend their principles for the sake of an ill-advised strategy for the sake of partisan unity!
They should raise hell over this and demand two things: first a real end to the occupation in Iraq which means a total withdrawal of our troops not keeping 50,000 members of a regional quick strike task force in a fortress in the middle of Iraq and second a real and detailed plan for leaving Afghanistan. Without those two things, no member of Congress should support another penny for our disasterous military adventures in those countries.
April 9, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe the current hysterical efforts to convince Americans that we are every bit as over the top in favor of increasing defense spending as Republicans. We should be making a totally different argument. Instead, it's "Horrors!!! They'r accusing us of wanting to cut defense!!! NO. NO. NO.!!! Democrats won't cut defense! We won't! We won't! Never!!!"
Next thing you know Republicans will excuse us of trying to end a war and we'll have to start a 3rd one to prove them wrong.
April 9, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sister was about a mile away from the Pentagon at a medical conference when the plane hit in 2001. I for one am glad the President is going after the man who facilitated that.
Those of you who agree with oleeb that Obama's Afghanistan policy is a "disasterous military adventure" would deal with Bin Laden, how? You can't just be against something. You have to be for something. Otherwise, you risk becoming just as much a "party of no" as the Republicans.
And bluebell, my sister is a pediatric oncologist. I think she'd say we can go after cancer and Bin Laden at the same time; it doesn't have to be an either/or choice. My sister in law had about with breast cancer two years ago. So yes, I have almost lost loved ones to both cancer and terrorism.
April 9, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious, can we really say the war in Afghanistan constitutes "going after" Bin Laden? As far as I'm aware if Bin Laden is actually alive he is most likely in the state-uncontrolled regions of Pakistan. Our goals in Afghanistan on the other hand seem to mostly constitute propping up the fledgling regime there long enough for it to secure control of the country. There are maybe good foreign policy reasons to do this (for example, we could say our goal is to prevent the people who once sheltered Bin Laden in Afghanistan from regaining political power, which if it happened might allow people like Bin Laden to once again use the country as a haven?) but nothing I've seen in the news indicates "going after Bin Laden" would be a primary part of our mission there. It seems like if the goal is to go after Bin Laden that would be more part of our diplomatic mission with Pakistan.
April 9, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd guess your sister would say she wouldn't have much of career as a pediatric oncologist had there been no funding for medical research. The point of the NEJM piece is that there will not be funding for medical research and that many young research scientists will be forced to choose other careers. Perhaps, they'd like to go into special operations or join the marines.
April 9, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sister was in the Pentagon when the plane hit in 2001.
She survived. Some former co-workers of mine were in the high floors of the first tower to be hit in NYC. No one from up there survived.
What's my point?
THIS: What we're doing isn't working. Whoring for defense corporations and attempting to be the Global Hegemon isn't working.
It's time to change.
~
April 9, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I can think of is that Obama must know something that we all don't know when he gets those daily briefs.
April 9, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way I see it, Obama is going back to square one and taking care of the business we should have finished - take out Bin Laden and the Taliban. Iraq was nothing more than an exercise in jerking off - it served no useful purpose other than wasting taxpayer dollars, and innocent civilians and US military people loosing their lives. And since Bu$h's attention was off on a Don Quixote quest in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has deteriorated to a point where renewed violence is poised to ignite within both countries and spill over into India. And both Pakistan and India have nukes and they wouldn't give a second thought about lobbing a few across each other borders. Also, the Taliban has made significant progress in usurping Pakistani territory and political power in the government. The way things are shaping up, the Taliban could gain control of Pakistan and their nukes - would that make anyone feel safer? My personal opinion is that Obama is having to go back and fix the problems Bu$h started, but failed to complete and have grown bigger in with the absence of someone to keep them boxed up and corralled in the no-man's lands around the Kyber Pass and Tora Bora. If Obama doesn't take both bin Laden and the Taliban out, 9/11 was nothing more than a dress rehearsal for what's to come.
April 9, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Attention liberals: we have you surrounded. Prepare to be teabagged.
April 9, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
April 9, 2009 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful. Simply beautiful.
April 10, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"embarrassingly naive"
Brilliant. This from the man who considered the "sternly worded letter" a form of action. What a useless man.
April 10, 2009 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink