Republicans Filibuster Troops Funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. Where is the outrage?

[IHOPSkins]

I wonder where the War Protestors vs this Pro-War President are?

Maybe they are to busy Kidnapping baby Jesus and holding him ransom?

http://tristatehomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=118332

Its Politics

Then again.......Chrissy Mathews DID think that the military was the enemy camp

[Midnight Judges]

But I do see somebody who (I suspect. I admit I haven't checked) didn't have a problem with the Democrats filibustering a troop-funding bill, starting a thread to object to the Republicans doing so.

See, funny thing is, if the one side flip-flopped, and the other side didn't, then they'd both wind up on the same side.

That's really not the point.

I don't have a problem with Republicans voting against the bill or filibustering (I don't think Democrats ever filibustered a defense appropriations bill anyway, because if they had, they would have succeeded). There are many reasons to vote against a bill given the way congress works. That's my point.

Reasons for voting for or against a bill are often more complicated and yay or nay on the name of said bill.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I want my 2 minutes back for reading this thread

[DeanCollins]

Nevermind....I'll allow you to wallow in your own bitterness.

unbelievable, hog, I distinctly recall you beating the "treason" drum when the dems did it. So I guess you're not the great patriot that you claimed to be. :doh: :laugh:

[JimboDaMan]

Well, there was a thread then, there's a thread now.

If any republican office holder actually said "democrats hate our troops" the first time around, I would condemn that too.

(But I've been in enough of these threads to know who the "victims" are.)

If your concern is limited to that you can probably rest easy, I don't recall any prominent Repubs claiming any specific Democrats hated the troops. But John Kerry's alleged failure to support the troops was a mainstay of Bush's 2004 campaign despite the fact that it was transparently false.

[PeterMP]

Because it is a political stunt, and they actually have no interest in defunding the wars vs. to the Democrats had some interest in defunding the wars as a way to pressure Bush into ending them.

Oh and from what I read, they didn't actually fillibuster it. They just didn't let it move to a final vote as fast as they could have.

[Midnight Judges]

Because it is a political stunt, and they actually have no interest in defunding the wars vs. to the Democrats had some interest in defunding the wars as a way to pressure Bush into ending them.

Oh and from what I read, they didn't actually fillibuster it. They just didn't let it move to a final vote as fast as they could have.

In John Kerry's case, he didn't actually vote against the 87 billion to defund the Iraq war (that he voted for). He did it to try and support another resolution that would have repealed the Bush tax cuts.

He voted for an alternative resolution that would have approved $87 billion in emergency funds for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was conditioned on repealing much of Bush's tax cuts, and it failed 57-42. On the key, up-or-down vote on the $87 billion itself Kerry was only one of 12 senators in opposition, along with the man who later become his running mate, Sen. John Edwards.

http://www.factcheck.org/bush_ad_twists_kerrys_words_on_iraq.html

You might be right about some of the other Dems though. I didn't check them all.

[Larry]

Oh and from what I read, they didn't actually fillibuster it. They just didn't let it move to a final vote as fast as they could have.

As I understand it, fillibustering (in the classic movie sense of some guy standing on the floor reading the phone book) really hasn't happened for decades.

That would be both very dramatic and controversial, and would cause all of the other things the Senate is doing to halt, too.

Instead, (near as I can tell from reading between the lines of a lot of articles) what they have is kind of a sign-up sheet, where Senators say whether they would vote to end a fillibuster. If they don't have 60 names on the list, then they simply don't bring the bill to the floor.

[isle-hawg]

Just this week Republicans filibustered the defense appropriations bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They obviously were not doing this because they believe in letting our troops operate without the necessay resources, they were doing so because it was a parliamentrary tactic to delay other items on the agenda in the Senate. But my point is this: Does anyone else remember when voting against funding the troops was regarded as an act of treason in Republican circles? Particularly in 2004 ($87 billion blah blah blah) and especially last year at the Republican convention and on the camapaign trail when Cindy McCain said:

That was Bush's tactic "if you are not with us you are against us". It worked for a short while after 911. It wore tired on most soon after. It played in part to why the R party is on the outside looking in right now. That and their total lack of anything remotely looking like fiscal discipline while in power.

Obama and the D leadership with his/their trillion dollar bailouts and budgets is doing everything he can to make us wish for the "good ole days" of fiscal irresponsibility under Bush and the R leadership.

[Zguy28]

Stupid rhetoric then, stupid rhetoric now.

[Rudechain]

I heard about this on NPR yesterday morning. And the report was claiming the delay in the defense bill was more about ensuring the healthcare bill did not get voted on in 2009.

[Mad Mike]

For me, I'd add "and most people."

Stupidity irritates me and people often disappoint me but it usually takes a serious personal affront for me to hate someone.

[PeterMP]

In John Kerry's case, he didn't actually vote against the 87 billion to defund the Iraq war (that he voted for). He did it to try and support another resolution that would have repealed the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.factcheck.org/bush_ad_twists_kerrys_words_on_iraq.html

You might be right about some of the other Dems though. I didn't check them all.

Yeah, but at that point in time it was a vote to defund the war. He wanted to either cut the Bush tax cut or defund the war. He had a condition on continuing the funding of the war. Right?

These guys have no interest in defunding the wars under any circumstances. They are just trying to slow everything down.

[NavyDave]

Just this week Republicans filibustered the defense appropriations bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They obviously were not doing this because they believe in letting our troops operate without the necessay resources, they were doing so because it was a parliamentrary tactic to delay other items on the agenda in the Senate. But my point is this: Does anyone else remember when voting against funding the troops was regarded as an act of treason in Republican circles? Particularly in 2004 ($87 billion blah blah blah) and especially last year at the Republican convention and on the camapaign trail when Cindy McCain said:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/10/cindy_mccain_bl.html

So now that John McCain not only voted against funding the troops, he participated in a filibuster against funding the troops, do you think Cindy is making him sleep on the couch?

And for those of you who listen to Republican radio, how do you square this filibuster with all the troop funding rhetoric from a year ago?

Yeah and what was attached to the alleged Patriotic Bill for the troops by Liberals??

Remember we know that without the LIES, LIbEraliSm in 2009 doesn't exist.