In Broder's world, only Dem -- not GOP -- "nays" on funding bills are votes "to cut off support for troops"

In his June 7 Washington Post column, David Broder wrote that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) have "abandoned their cautious advocacy of a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces and now are defending votes to cut off support for troops fighting insurgents in Iraq." Broder was referring to their May 24 votes against the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act. He also claimed, "They are able to escape the charge of abandoning U.S. combat troops only because they knew when they voted that their Republican colleagues in Congress, joined by a few Democrats, would keep the funds flowing at least for a few more months." Broder did not address how President Bush -- who vetoed an earlier Iraq supplemental funding bill -- or Republican members of Congress -- most of whom supported the president's veto and have themselves voted against a supplemental -- "are able to escape the charge of abandoning U.S. combat troops."

Moreover, in writing that Clinton and Obama "have abandoned their cautious advocacy of a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces," Broder ignored their statements after the May 24 vote, in which they reiterated their support for a phased redeployment. In her May 24 statement, Clinton said: "Tonight I voted against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill because it fails to compel the President to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq. I believe that the President should begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq and abandon this escalation." Obama, in his May 24 statement, said: "With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly."

In writing that Clinton and Obama "are defending votes to cut off support for troops fighting insurgents in Iraq," Broder -- in addition to ignoring the Republicans' votes against the April 26 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill -- ignored Clinton and Obama's support for that bill. After her vote, Clinton said: "With this vote, Congress has provided funding for our troops while also putting forward sensible provisions to begin the withdrawal of troops from Iraq." Obama said: "We are one signature away from ending the Iraq War. President Bush must listen to the will of the American people and sign this bill so that our troops can come home."

From Broder's June 7 column:

But the dynamic on both sides is trending toward extreme positions that would open the door to an independent or third-party challenge in 2008 aimed at the millions of voters in the center.

The danger may be greatest for the Democrats, even though President Bush's failings have put them in a favored position to win the next election. Prodded by four long shots for the nomination and threatened by the rhetoric of former senator John Edwards, a serious contender, the two front-runners, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, have abandoned their cautious advocacy of a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces and now are defending votes to cut off support for troops fighting insurgents in Iraq.

They are able to escape the charge of abandoning U.S. combat troops only because they knew when they voted that their Republican colleagues in Congress, joined by a few Democrats, would keep the funds flowing at least for a few more months. But if Clinton or Obama is nominated, that vote is certain to loom large in the general election campaign.

—R.D.