Funding The Troops

When did it become more important to put the agenda of the party BEFORE funding the troops?

This political wrangling that has been going on for the past few months should enlighten voters that the intent of the Democratic party is to throw the Country and the troops under a bus if it will further their agenda. stated it would not support anyone that voted for the funding bill.  To that end, Hillary, Obama and Dodd voted against it.  When leftist loon groups such as gain political importance, this country will be under the bus.

The Wall Street Journal posted an editorial on May 26th that discussed the political jockeying that took several months, included the vetoed timeframes for withdrawal and the pork barrell spending and not surprisingly, the funding legislation PASSED BY A LARGE MAJORITY, but of course included the pork.  David Obay, the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee is even quoted as saying “There has never been a chance of snowball in hell that Congress would cut off funding to the troops in the field.”

So what’s with the gamesmanship?  The only ones losing are the ones that have our backs.  The military should not suffer for the sake of a political agenda.

Say what you will about President Bush, but he has NEVER turned his back on the troops.

They tried mandatory deadlines and “benchmarks,” a do-over of the October 2002 war resolution that most of them voted for, a “slow-bleed” gradual reduction in war funds, and stuffing the bill with $17 billion in domestic spending to attract antiwar Members. Four months and a Presidential veto later, they abandoned everything except the $17 billion in pork. As the Democratic Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, David Obey, put it this week, “There has never been a chance of snowball in hell that Congress would cut off funding to the troops in the field.”

So all of the Iraq maneuvering was merely for show to appease the antiwar left that elected Democrats. Ms. Pelosi couldn’t even deliver a majority of her own Members for the war spending bill, and she voted “no” herself. Thus she can claim to oppose the war but also sleep easily knowing that others voted to fund it. The troops will be funded because 194 Republicans joined 86 Democrats to support it. Two Republicans and 140 Democrats opposed it.

At least Majority Leader Reid voted for the bill, which passed 80-14 in the Senate. To his credit, so did Joe Biden. But the main story in that body was the “no” votes by Presidential candidates Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. The vote won them praise from the likes of, which threatened not to support anyone who voted for the bill. “Senators Obama, Clinton and Dodd stood up and did the right thing — voting down the President’s war policy,” said Eli Pariser, MoveOn’s executive director. “They’re showing real leadership toward ending the war, and MoveOn’s members are grateful. This bold stand . . . won’t soon be forgotten.”

We hope he’s right about that last part. Here are three politicians bidding to be Commander in Chief, and they vote to undermine U.S. troops in the middle of a difficult mission, albeit knowing like Ms. Pelosi that their vote won’t determine policy. Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Clinton both voted for the Iraq War resolution in October 2002, which means that they were for the war when it was popular but are against it now that public opinion has changed.


  1. jofa

    To Morning coffe.

    At the end of the year the Iraq parliament most certainly will block the extension of the U.N. mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq.

    Ignore it or veto?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: