Today, moments ago, Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins voted to defund the war in Iraq.She, along with every other Republican in the United States House of Representatives today made the decision to oppose approving any more money for the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan because of disagreements amount to 5% of the $106 billion spending measure. Regardless of their uniform "no" vote and a number of progressive Democrats voting no on principle, the measure did pass 226-202.
Think, for a moment, about what Republicans told Democrats when they worked to defund the war in Iraq as recently as last year.
From The Hill:
House Republicans are preparing to vote en bloc against the $106 billion war-spending bill, a position once unthinkable for the party that characterized the money as support for the troops.
For years, Republicans portrayed the bills funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as matters of national security and accused Democrats who voted against them of voting against the troops.
In 2005, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) went so far as to say sending troops into battle and not paying for it would be an “immoral thing to do.” And just last year, more House Republicans voted for the war supplemental bill than did Democrats, who opposed the legislation because it did little to wind down the military effort in Iraq.
Today, though, the rhetoric from the Right that a vote against the supplemental is unpatriotic or immoral is gone, replaced with political gamesmanship that has nothing to do with the wars, our troops, or what is right for America.
I know my progressive readership is probably not with me on this, but I wouldn't ever in a million years vote to cut off money that supports our troops in the field. Now, I wouldn't want to vote for a bill that didn't include a timetable for withdrawal from a conflict like the ones we are in, but I would ever, ever consider just saying, "Nope, sorry, no more cash." The logistical nightmare that would cause is simply more than I could do.The Democratic aide charged House Republicans with “hypocrisy” for opposing a bill because of the IMF funding, which amounts to less than 5 percent of the proposed spending in the legislation.
“It seems like they’re putting the interest of the Republican Party and the ability for them to develop a campaign narrative ahead of the interest of the troops,” he said.
But, in the end, that's exactly what Congressman Todd Tiahrt, Congressman Jerry Moran, and my Congresswoman, Lynn Jenkins, did today.
22 comments:
Even the discussion of using the "power of the purse" in relation to military funding during the reign of Bush the Younger was tantamount to being against the troops. That is, if you were an anti-war Democratic member of Congress.
Why does the GOP hate the troops so much? The political cynicism is embarassing to behold.
And Jason, as part of your progressive readership; I am always against having non-policy makers--like duty bound soldiers, pay some real price so that politicians, safe at home, don't have to pay a political one. That goes for the Democratic members who voted to authorize the wars when it was politically expedient, but then talked about defunding the guys in the middle of their authorized mess afterward, as well. Shame on them all.
Call this what you will, Dems weighed this down with more GOVERNMENT spending and GOVERNMENT Control, Republicans are going to re-write the bill w/ out the Democratic Crap.
"Republicans are going to re-write the bill w/ out the Democratic Crap."
And that bill won't pass either house of Congress because the Democrats now have a majority. This isn't rocket science.
And exactly how is the MINORITY opposition going to pass their re-written bill? They're not passing anything but gas. It's once again the obstructionist regime.
Tell me, why do you hate the troops so much?
Let's see, I count 1,2,3,4 posts today about Jenkins. The others could have perhaps been ignored, but this story is as much about the other members of the Kansas delegation as it is about Jenkins. Yet she is the only one in the title.
Nope, not obsessed at all.
Anonymous said...
Let's see, I count 1,2,3,4 posts today about Jenkins. The others could have perhaps been ignored, but this story is as much about the other members of the Kansas delegation as it is about Jenkins. Yet she is the only one in the title.
Nope, not obsessed at all.
---- Ha, their right!!!
REPUBLICANS ARE IDIOTS.
It never ceases to amaze me just how blatant republicans are with their hypocrisy. They never make any attempt to hide it, and the corporate controlled media never calls them on it.
*Sigh*
Posts on this blog by the numbers:
# Kathleen Sebelius (166)
# KS GOP (148)
# Barack Obama (87)
# Todd Tiahrt (85)
# Lynn Jenkins (82)
# Sam Brownback (72)
# 2010 (61)
# Jerry Moran (59)
# KS-Sen (58)
# Mark Parkinson (55)
Obviously- obviously obessed with Lynn Jenkins because I write about her less often than Todd Tiahrt, Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius.
As a percentage- Jenkins has been in 10.5% of the 778 posts I've written.
I'm just sayin'.
Thank goodness it passed. Now we can stay in Afghanistan, a nation that has experienced decades of war, and try to encourage peace and stability by having more war.
Hopefully when we elect a Democratic majority in 2008 these wars will end...oh never mind.
Anon 7:06 Remember that it was leaving a power vacuum in a post-Soviet occupied Afghanistan that led to the rise of the Taliban and collusion with Al Qaeda in the first place. We (the U.S.--and when I say the U.S. I mean the Republican administrations of the 80s) propped up warlords and religious zealots to fight the Soviets when it was to our perceived interests--and then promptly stopped funding development as soon as the Soviets left. The U.S. helped build the Taliban and by extension the conditions for their partnership with Al Qaeda! That's what happens when you don't clean up after yourself.
Surely you were never so naive to think that as soon as a Democratic majority was elected that the problems caused by a poorly and inattentively executed war in Afghanistan and an elective war in Iraq would suddenly disappear, were you?
And Anon 7:06, I have always been for a long term, non-military, developmental commitment in Afghanistan. I believe we wouldn't be there now if we had done it correctly starting in 1989 when the Soviets left. It probably would have been far cheaper, too.
Johnny, so you are for permanent occupation. The way the American empire is, where ever we invade we have to set up a permanent occupation. Better up that defense budget, we have more nations to permanently occupy. Perhaps we should reinstate the draft so we can trample a few more nations under our boots.
I'm sure we can solve all our problems by bombing a few hundred more civilians. War is peace.
think if nancy boyda would have voted against funding the war because she didn't like something in the bill? think how the GOP would have ripped her apart...
the gop is playing politics with our men and women in uniform, and it's disgusting.
"the gop is playing politics with our men and women in uniform, and it's disgusting." --anon@10:38
Welcome to America.
Anon 10:12, No, I'm not "for permanent occupation." Sadly, I do agree that that is what it is going to look like, now, though. It would have been MUCH better had developmental funds been channeled through non-military agencies and NGO's in the beginning (1989 and throughout the 1990's). Unfortunately, we don't have a time machine. Look at the recent history there; when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan did peace bloom across the land? Of course not!
Of course war is not peace--I am anti-war. But pretending that absence of war without coherent plans for the aftermath breeds a suddenly peaceful region is unrealistic and disproven by history. Mere absence of war is also not necessarily peace.
I think KansasJackass, specifically Jason, have a right and overriding interest to post more Jenkins posts than others, primarily because (a) she is his Congresswoman and (b) that seat, before CD1 and CD4, is anyone's ballgame. I think you assbag Congressional staffers sitting in Jenkin's office collecting a government paycheck to be obsessed with KJ are well aware that this seat is anybody's ballgame, or you wouldn't read KJ more times in one hour than I read it in a day.
Honestly, I encourage all my progressive readers to read me as often as the folks that work for the United States House of Representatives do. I'd be better read than the frickin' Kansas City Star.
Five Republicans actually broke ranks and votes for the war funding bill...
Anon@11:29 is right. The Second District seat is the only Congressional seat in play for Democrats (other than the Third, which is Moore's until he retires).
Being progressive and supporting the military don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I'm as tired as anyone of unrelated spending/legislation being lumped together in the same bill, but nevertheless: I would love to see our congresswoman look my husband in the eye and explain to him how she could vote against this. Given that he's in Afghanistan, however, that might have to wait.
What really galls me is that during her term, Congresswoman Boyda was a tireless champion for men and women in the armed services. She never once, not once, voted against any kind of funding or benefit for the troops. Yet the GOP (successfully) painted her as being anti-military and "against the troops." Now our GOP congresswoman has actively voted against funding for the military, and yet no one but this one blog is going out of their way to challenge her for hurting the troops. Where is the Cap J full page article? They printed a HUGE article about how much Nancy hated the troops... an article they later had to retract and apologise for. Where's the Lynn Hates the Troops headline? Sometimes I really want to move to another, more progressive, state.
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting- try to stick to the subject of the post. ;-)
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.