ProgressOhio

I was one of a number of Ohio peace activists who linked up with Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown earlier today via conference call to talk about the war funding bill now approaching a Senate vote.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Iraq (or Iran), the senator didn't have much encouraging news to share.

Brown said he will vote against the $165 billion supplemental funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan which will soon be on the Senate floor. This is no surprise, since Brown cast a similar vote against a $70 billion supplemental war-funding bill last December.

Once again, however, the war funding bill is expected to pass without significant concessions by the White House.

Brown's position on war funding has hardened since last June when he vowed in e-mail to Ohio Quakers to "continue to fight to fully fund our troops.."

And, in fact, in May 2007 Brown voted in favor of an earlier $120 billion war supplemental bill brought to the Congress by the Bush administration.

Now, however, "I don't trust anything he (Bush) says when he's talking about Iraq," Brown said. In view of the administration's failure earlier in the war to provide adequate body and vehicle armor, Brown said legislators can't be sure the President would recall U.S. troops even if future funding was denied.

Brown said in voting against continued war funding, he is taking a risk that congressional opposition could weaken U.S. forces abroad.

"It's a real hard call," he said. "In an election year, a lot of Democrats flinch from it. (Note: Brown was elected to a 6-year term in 2006 and isn't up for re-election until 2012.)

"But politics aside, it's a hard legitimate question," he said. "Do you cut funding when you have soldiers in the field? It's more than politics."

In his response to Ohio Quakers last June, Brown said, "I voted against the Iraq war and I generally support the principles of the (withdrawal) legislation. I will continue to fight to fully fund our troops, to ensure accountability and oversight, for economic and political changes that benefit all Iraqi citizens and to redeploy our troops as soon as possible."

Brown said he opposes any attempt by the Bush administration to ink a long-term security agreement with Iraqi officials that ties the hands of the next administration. The U.S. reportedly wants to preserve more than 50 U.S. bases in Iraq under such an agreement, and give U.S. soldiers and contractors immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law.

Administration officials say they don't need to get congressional approval for such an agreement. Brown said he's not sure Congress could block such a move, although the next President could overturn any Iraqi pact not approved by Congress.

Likewise, if the outgoing administration launched a pre-emptive attack against Iranian nuclear facilities before leaving office in January, its congressional critics might not be able to do much more than complain.

"If there's an attack on Iran, and they (Iran) haven't attacked us,....there will be all sorts of reaction," said Brown. "That would be met with skepticism and rage by a lot of us..."

The bottom line, he said, is that the debate on the war has now shifted from Congress to the Presidential campaigns.

"The party will take the lead from Barack, he said. "In the end, what he says is pretty much what we follow. And we'll just have to fight about it after the election."

It was announced by Cleveland Peace Action during the conference call that an Iran Coordinating Group will meet this Saturday in Cleveland as part of the National Assembly to end the Iraq War and Occupation. For more information, go to www.natassembly.org or call 216-736-4704.