170 out of 175 Republicans voted AGAINST troops

[Evangeline]

Remember when the Republicans all said the Democrats who voted against funding the troops don't support the troops?

Well now, 170 House Republicans apparently don't support the troops anymore, and only 5 of them do.

More blatant hypocrisy from the Republicans. Maybe we should change their name to the Hypocrisy Party.

To hold up a war-funding bill would be “the equivalent of waving a white flag to al Qaeda.” It would be “nothing less than a disgrace.” Why, it would be using “our troops as pawns in a political game.”
That’s what GOP lawmakers said when a Republican president was in the White House, and it was Democrats who were trying to put on the brakes on a war supplemental bill.

Boehner, back in June 2008, was quoted as saying in Roll Call: “The Democrats' failure to pass a troop funding bill that will actually get our armed forces the money they need is nothing less than a disgrace.”

And Boehner was quoted by The Washington Times in May 2008: “Speaker Pelosi is using our troops as pawns in a political game to appease far-left, pro-surrender allies in the Democratic caucus. ... This is demeaning to our men and women in uniform, particularly at a time when they are putting their lives on the line to protect our freedom.’”

John Boehner voted against the troops yesterday. He's a disgrace, in his own words.

Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), then the minority Republican whip, was quoted in The Washington Times in March 2007: “There's a reason the supplemental bill is filed under 'emergency spending,' and it's not so that we can sit around and wait for Democrats to think through their political challenges instead of actively engaging the logistical ones.”

Roy Blunt is another hypocrite of major proportions.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23817.html

See if your congressperson voted for or against the troops.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll348.xml

Mine did.

[Michael]

Remember when the Republicans all said the Democrats who voted against funding the troops don't support the troops?

Well now, 170 House Republicans apparently don't support the troops anymore, and only 5 of them do.

More blatant hypocrisy from the Republicans. Maybe we should change their name to the Hypocrisy Party.
:rofl:

Yes, you are quite right to call the Repubicans out on this for a level of hypocrisy that seems to go well beyond their usual mendacity.

The level of 'treason' rhetoric they previously tried to apply to anyone who didn't vote in favor of these supplemental war funding bills makes their present posture particularly odious, obnoxious and pure political theater.

That being said, how did Russ Feingold vote? He's always led the vote against these bills in the past...

[Dominick]

I may be wrong here but aren't the Democrats doing exactly what the Republicans did before and vice versa ? It seems to me that only the labels have changed but that the policies and politics remain the same. Aren't they both hypocritical then ? And where's the 'choice' and 'change' for the US public ?

[dilettante]

I may be wrong here but aren't the Democrats doing exactly what the Republicans did before and vice versa ? It seems to me that only the labels have changed but that the policies and politics remain the same. Aren't they both hypocritical then ? And where's the 'choice' and 'change' for the US public ?

Yes, this does seem to be just a reversal of roles with hypocrisy for everyone.

"Party X inserts controversial (non-military) legislation into war funding bill, Party Y balks and demands that controversial material be stripped, Party X then accuses Party Y of treasonously failing to 'support the troops."

All this shows is that (X,Y) = (R,D) | (D,R)

[Michael]

I may be wrong here but aren't the Democrats doing exactly what the Republicans did before and vice versa ? It seems to me that only the labels have changed but that the policies and politics remain the same. Aren't they both hypocritical then ? And where's the 'choice' and 'change' for the US public ?
Not entirely true.

All previous supplemental war funding bills since 2002 have been passed by Democratic controlled Congress. That required a substantial number of Democratic member votes to pass.

"No" votes from various Democratic party members in Congress previously were only a small minority (such as Senator Fiengold for example).

As such, the Democrats are indeed reasonably consistent here. They funded the war before and they are funding the war now - specifically on the basis that playing politics with the wages for the troops in battle was wrong. As such, many Democrats who opposed the war have indeed voted to fund the war.

It is the Republican party that is making a major about-face on the issue since Republican members voted (almost unanimously) in support of these bills in the past but as soon as they lose the White House, all of a sudden they are unanimous in opposition.

Ergo, I don't think it is fair to characterize this particular issue as 'a pox on both houses'. The hypocrisy on this issue has a particularly Republican flavor at this time.

[Michael]

"Party X inserts controversial (non-military) legislation into war funding bill, Party Y balks and demands that controversial material be stripped, Party X then accuses Party Y of treasonously failing to 'support the troops."
There is some element of this certainly, but with respect to IMF funding specifically, the Republicans have previously voted strongly in favor of funding the IMF with substantially larger amounts than the present request.

As such, $5 billion in funding for the IMF is not at all controversial. It is just the Republican 'posture-issue-of-the-week'.

Btw, Gringrich in 1994 passed $18 billion in funding for the IMF - so the Republicans clearly aren't standing on any principle here - just grandstanding partisanship.

If the $5 billion for the IMF was a seriously controversial provision, then I'd agree.

[Evangeline]

:rofl:

Yes, you are quite right to call the Repubicans out on this for a level of hypocrisy that seems to go well beyond their usual mendacity.

The level of 'treason' rhetoric they previously tried to apply to anyone who didn't vote in favor of these supplemental war funding bills makes their present posture particularly odious, obnoxious and pure political theater.

That being said, how did Russ Feingold vote? He's always led the vote against these bills in the past...

The bill's with the Senate now. We'll see how they vote soon......

[Evangeline]

I may be wrong here but aren't the Democrats doing exactly what the Republicans did before and vice versa ? It seems to me that only the labels have changed but that the policies and politics remain the same. Aren't they both hypocritical then ? And where's the 'choice' and 'change' for the US public ?

What do you mean? The Dems aren't calling them traitors like they did. The Dems are calling them hypocrites, as they are.

[Evangeline]

There is some element of this certainly, but with respect to IMF funding specifically, the Republicans have previously voted strongly in favor of funding the IMF with substantially larger amounts than the present request.

As such, $5 billion in funding for the IMF is not at all controversial. It is just the Republican 'posture-issue-of-the-week'.

Btw, Gringrich in 1994 passed $18 billion in funding for the IMF - so the Republicans clearly aren't standing on any principle here - just grandstanding partisanship.

If the $5 billion for the IMF was a seriously controversial provision, then I'd agree.

And Boehner voted to fund the IMF in 1998. So this is a fake excuse.

And besides the 5 bil for the IMF, here are the other things in the bill -

$7.7 Billion for flu pandemic.

$1 Billion for cash-for-clunkers.

$700 Million for international food aid.

$10 Billion for development/security aid for Pakistan/Iraq/Georgia/Mexico.

$534 Million in stop-loss assistance for the servicemembers affected.

$2.17 Billion for the C-17.

This is what the Repubs voted no on - in addition to no on funding the troops.

[Evangeline]

Yes, this does seem to be just a reversal of roles with hypocrisy for everyone.

"Party X inserts controversial (non-military) legislation into war funding bill, Party Y balks and demands that controversial material be stripped, Party X then accuses Party Y of treasonously failing to 'support the troops."

All this shows is that (X,Y) = (R,D) | (D,R)

The Democrats really wanted to pass a bill to stop the credit card companies from raising the interest and other shady things they do. So when the Republicans inserted the legislation that said you can carry a gun into a national park, the Democrats didn't vote no, they voted for the credit card bill, because they sincerely and honestly wanted that bill to pass.

Do the Republicans sincerely want to fund the troops? Or have they been just using that as a political tool all these years?

[Dominick]

What do you mean? The Dems aren't calling them traitors like they did. The Dems are calling them hypocrites, as they are.
Well, I don't know really. I don't follow the Republican-Democrat dichotomy very closely. It's not very interesting to me personally because from my -extreme left- perspective there's hardly any difference between the two.
I'll have to decide whether Dilettante is right when he says it's simply a role reversal or Michael when he says that there is in fact a distinction.

[dilettante]

The Democrats really wanted to pass a bill to stop the credit card companies from raising the interest and other shady things they do. So when the Republicans inserted the legislation that said you can carry a gun into a national park, the Democrats didn't vote no, they voted for the credit card bill, because they sincerely and honestly wanted that bill to pass.

Do the Republicans sincerely want to fund the troops? Or have they been just using that as a political tool all these years?

Or one could ask "Are democrats just using a troop funding measure as a 'political tool' now to pass their own legislation"?
Fact is, both parties love to sneak controversial legislation into otherwise widely supported or crucial bills so that their opponents HAVE to support it. Whether its the Republicans sneaking gun legislation into a credit card bill or the Democrats smuggling IMF funding into a war spending bill, neither party has clean hands here and, honestly, it would surprising if they did; the legislative system is set up in such a way that it encourages this kind of underhandedness.
Frankly, I appreciate it when one party or another makes a ruckus about this kind of thing and draws attention to it. I'm glad there was a stink over the gun legislation in the credit bill and I'm glad someone's calling attention to the non-military aspects of this bill. Both passed because the core legislation was important and valuable, but I applaud those (on both sides) who refused to let the serendipitous and unrelated "extra" clauses slip by unnoticed.

Here are a couple quotes pulled from one of your links:

From the Democrats today: "...now Boehner and Co. vote to leave the troops high and dry for political reasons. This is a real game-changer on national security..."
From Boehner last year: “Speaker Pelosi is using our troops as pawns in a political game to appease far-left, pro-surrender allies in the Democratic caucus..."
Sounds like the same old song to me.

[Evangeline]

From the Democrats today: "...now Boehner and Co. vote to leave the troops high and dry for political reasons. This is a real game-changer on national security..."
From Boehner last year: “Speaker Pelosi is using our troops as pawns in a political game to appease far-left, pro-surrender allies in the Democratic caucus..."

Sounds like the same old song to me.






Sounds completely different to me. The Republicans voted no on troop funding because they didn't like some of the stuff in the bill, they claim it was the IMF funding, which they voted FOR previously. That's political reasons.

Some of the Democrats have voted no on troop funding for years, because they are against the Iraq war. That's anti-war reasons.