[Peace-discuss] Rep. Johnson on the supplemental

[Robert Naiman]

What is absolutely certain is that it's appropriate to encourage Rep.
Johnson to support ending the war. We know he is hearing from war
supporters. He should also hear from us...

On 4/24/07, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> Surely it's appropriate to encourage Rep. Johnson (and the rest of the
> Congress) not to support the supplemental, whatever their motives.
> Giving the administration more money for the war, even with some
> non-binding goals for withdrawal, is no way to cramp its war-making.
> Most people have seen through the argument that not voting more money
> for the war is a matter of abandoning the troops, much as that line is
> repeated by Democrats and Republicans alike.
>
> A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll two weeks ago found that if Bush
> vetoes the Dems' bill attaching a withdrawal date to troop funding, more
> Americans by a very slim margin want Congress to refuse to send the
> President another bill without withdrawal timetables than want Congress
> to give him the no-strings-attached bill that he's insisting on. (And
> that Democrats from Murtha to Obama suggest.)
>
> Here's the question:
>
>      Q: If George W. Bush vetoes the legislation, do you think Congress
> should pass another version of the bill that provides funding for the
> war without any conditions for troop withdrawal, or should Congress
> refuse to pass any funding bill until Bush agrees to accept conditions
> for withdrawal?
>
>      Fund the war without conditions: 43%
>      Withhold funding until Bush signs: 45%
>      Don't know: 12%
>
> --CGE
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
> > Rep. Johnson gave two reasons for not supporting the supplemental:
> >
> > - the binding timetable for withdrawal
> > - the controversial domestic spending provisions (e.g. "spinach
> growers")
> >
> > The conference report is now closer to the Senate version - the
> > withdrawal date is a "goal," not a binding timetable. Also, some of
> > the controversial domestic spending provisions - including the money
> > for spinach growers - were removed.
> >
> > So it will be interesting to see if Rep. Johnson changes his vote. The
> > Democratic leadership, in negotiating the conference report, stated
> > that they were trying to attract more Republican support. Presumably,
> > as one of the 17 House Republicans who voted for the resolution
> > against the surge, he is the target audience.
> >
> > For those who wish to call Johnson's office, the number is 202-225-2371.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070424/3fc73c82/attachment.htm