Note: Dave Loebsack is the newly elected Congressman from the Iowa 2nd District.
DAVE LOEBSACK BEFORE (Source: http://www.loebsackforcongress.org/issues/):
The situtation in Iraq: Nowhere has the failure of the Bush approach been more evident than in Iraq. This is a war that did not need to happen and one from which we should begin to disengage immediately. Our troops have successfully laid the groundwork for the Iraqis to construct
a political system of their choosing. The costs of a continued U.S. presence will far outweigh any conceivable gains. Nor should the removal of American combat forces from Iraq be followed by any kind of permanent or semi-permanent base presence in that country or even a redeployment "on the horizon" as called for by Congressman Murtha. The continued presence of U.S. troops near Iraq would only bring more instability to the region and place U.S. troops at constant risk from enemies of America. Complete disengagement from Iraq in the next year will serve to enhance America’s security. The current legislation before the Congress that comes closest to my position on Iraq is H.J. Res. 73, [Which includes: SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date. SEC. 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region. SEC. 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.] introduced by Congressman Murtha last November. I support his efforts to end America’s involvement in Iraq as quickly and effectively as possible.
DAVE LOEBSACK AFTER (Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16467353/)
Despite his criticism of the Iraq war, Loebsack said Wednesday he’d vote for the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan when it comes to a vote on the House floor in the spring.
“I do favor conditions” limiting how President Bush spends the money, he said. “How that gets framed, I’m not sure at this point.”
But “if there were a straight up-or-down vote at the moment, I would not vote against the appropriations — in large part because I have relatives who have been there” serving in uniform in Iraq.
3 comments:
I don't see how these are connected. Loebsack didn't campaign for pulling funding for the war. Personally, I totally for redeploying our troops from Iraq, but have debated if funding should be stopped or not.
Why not stop funding the occupation? We're not going to strand the soldiers. Surely Congress would fund a safe withdrawal.
He did campaign to remove the troops from Iraq. It does seem to be at cross purposes to continue funding the war if ending it is what you want to achieve.
Post a Comment