Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Defends Afghanistan Strategy to House Progressives

Updated 6:54 p.m.
By Perry Bacon Jr.
President Obama defended his strategy in Afghanistan to a group of liberal House Democrats who have been skeptical of his approach, telling them an increase in troops and billions in spending there are the only way to stabilize the country.

In their first meeting with the president, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus repeatedly questioned Obama on his $83 billion request for funding on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Congress will vote on next month. Members of the Progressive Caucus say that too much of the money is being spent on military operations in Afghanistan, including a 17,000-troop increase, instead of investing in diplomatic solutions.

But Obama urged the members to allow him time to implement this strategy and then judge how it works. The liberals, about 50 of whom attended the meeting at the White House, said they were happy Obama listened to them, but still disagreed with some of his proposals. Several said after the meeting they still planned to vote against Obama's war funding request, which could still pass in Congress because many Republicans support Obama's approach.

And Rep. Lynn Woolsey (R D-Calif.), one of co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus, said some members of the caucus remained concerned Obama had not set a firm deadline for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and his pledges to remove troops from Iraq remained too vague.

"We said, 'We need timelines,'" Woolsey said. "He was adamant. He said, 'We have timelines in Iraq.' But he knows those timelines are too far away for most of us."

The progressives' concerns come against a backdrop of public support for the course the president has set. In the new Post-ABC poll, 82 percent of liberal Democrats and independents who lean Democratic said they approve of the way Obama has handled the situation in Afghanistan; among all Americans, the figure is 63 percent.

And while liberal members of Congress also have generally backed Obama, they have raised a variety of concerns over his stands and strongly advocated a "truth commission" to investigate alleged abuses by the Bush administration in fighting terrorism -- an idea Obama has opposed.

In the hour-long meeting, the group decided to push Obama on only two issues: health care and the war funding bill. Some liberal members have threatened to vote against health-care legislation unless it includes a "public plan," a health insurance option in which Americans could buy a health plan from the government designed like Medicare instead of through a private health insurance company. The progressive caucus members pressed Obama on the issue, and he assured them he was "an ally," as he advocated the idea himself during the presidential campaign.

But Obama told the members his focus was on signing a bill that would reduce costs for both the uninsured and people who already have health insurance, and he would not commit to insisting on a public option in any health care legislation he signs.

After several of the lawmakers urged him to consider a true single-payer health care system, Obama repeated arguments he has made since the campaign -- that such a system might have been desirable if one were designing the health care system from scratch but is not effective or practical now, according to a White House aide who was in
the meeting.

Despite Obama's lack of movement on their issues, the members pronounced themselves pleased with the meeting.

"I walked out happier than when I walked in," said Michael Capuano (D-Mass.). "I'm willing to give him some time to see if his approach works."

White House officials described the meeting as "cordial" and said the president began by praising the liberal lawmakers for their help passing much of his early agenda.

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 28, 2009; 5:57 PM ET
Categories:  Democratic Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: With Eye on Industry, Ag Secretary Stops Calling Outbreak 'Swine Flu'
Next: Sebelius Confirmed as Secretary of HHS

Comments

The "new strategy" for Afghanistan, if the media coverage of the various generals' statements is an indication of coming events, is Pax Romanus.

Posted by: scott3108 | April 29, 2009 11:01 PM | Report abuse

it has been said that it will take 30,000 troops just to "man" and run the US Embassy in Iraq.

is that withdrawing?

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 29, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

there is no firm date for withdrawing from Afghanistan..
and rightly so...

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 29, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Well, given expectations from Progressives the president still has some explaining to do. But that's not easy given what the options are in Iraq -- the killings while less, continue; on Afghanistan, he's doing what he promised.

But Mr. Obama needs to find a way to show he really hears their concerns (50,000 troops in Iraq is still a great deal).. 'cause they got him elected and he just cannot afford to lose their full support. See my take http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuB1bOjPjEU

http://www.vernasmith.com

Posted by: Victoria5 | April 29, 2009 11:56 AM | Report abuse

President Obama is from Cook County Illinois. I will take a liberal from Cook County anytime.
He has stated, in interviews, the goal is to capture and/or kill bin Laden (when asked and grilled on it).

He has used the word kill in reference to bin Laden. The Prez just might pay the bill Bush never did.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 29, 2009 10:20 AM | Report abuse

gee Saint...seems to me that Baby Bush, #43, took Al Gore's No Child Left Behind and put his NAME ON IT !!
Big time.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 29, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

BO has signed on to defend Afghanistan. But he is a liberal so that the Taliban and Al-Quada know that he believes that war is not the answer and will change his mind when the going gets tough. Liberals gave Bush authorization to go into Iraq but yellowed when that war got difficult. They approved rough treatment of terror detainees but changed their minds when the facts got out. Liberals will not fight. Except with Republicans.

Posted by: mhr614 | April 29, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Hey Congressional Progressive Caucus - next month is way too long to wait for a vote on this.
Taliban's little "retreat" from the Bruner District on what---Sunday night--meant nothing. There is no trust here.
You want to believe the Taliban?

Oh and another thing Congressional Progressive Caucus ----
it's called September 11, 2001.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 29, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

If you are uninsured and does not have insurance, you should check out the website http://UninsuredAmerica.blogspot.com - John Mayer, California

Posted by: johnmayer76 | April 29, 2009 1:01 AM | Report abuse

TAINT -- The wrote: "O'Bomba is off to fight a War!(We already won!)"

Mission Accomplished, eh? You're such a hapless sap. Tell me, where's Osama? Or have you forgotten the purpose of the Afhan war? Or did you ever know it?

Posted by: nodebris | April 29, 2009 12:14 AM | Report abuse

LOL! :-D

O'Bomba is off to fight a War!(We already won!)

Sorta like slipping his Name on someone else's Bill(An Art he perfected as much as being "Present"!)

When WILL this sickening Media Love-Fest for this Clown BE OVER ALREADY!

Posted by: SAINT---The | April 28, 2009 8:23 PM | Report abuse

MEMO TO POTUS:


Plese re-read, and heed, Dwight David Eisenhower's farewell address.

And please... beware hawks bearing "photo ops."


http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | April 28, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company