[Peace-discuss] Rep. Johnson on the supplemental

[C. G. Estabrook]

I entirely agree.


Robert Naiman wrote:
> 
> 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 
> <mailto: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.