The honeymoon is over. After Democrats, led by Speaker Pelosi, voted 218-212 in support of a date-certain deadline to bring home American troops. The $124 Billion supplemental provides funding for ongoing operations in Iraq & Afghanistan but the bill is also laden with millions in “Ear Marks.” You can’t paint Republicans as a party that supports a “Culture of Corruption” – then turn around a few months later and pay out upwards of $28 Billion to feel-good, irrelevant, non-war related projects – AND expect the President, or the American people, to take it laying down.
The Senate version will hit the floor for debate sometime next week. Oh joy.
Shortly after the vote, President George Walker Bush delivered remarks and threw down the gauntlet. Check out those remarks HERE!
Democrats are finally showing their elitist, blue-blooded & yellow-bellied colors. Their incremental approach towards dismantling the US military is well underway. They voted against the troops, and without regard for the uniformed flag officers.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a seasoned enough Republican operative, with some active duty service under his belt, willing to get out into the public domain to utilize his nail gun and decorate this coffin. Democrats will go on and on, even after President Bush vetoes the pork-laden bill. They won’t stop until Republicans make them.
I won’t hold my breath.
—Media Lizzy
NEWS COVERAGE:
Politico: Tropical Fish With Your Pork?
NPR: Bush: House Timetable on Iraq Won’t Survive Veto
Washington Post: Democrats: Bill Reflects Voters’ Demands
New York Times: House, 218 to 212, Votes to Set Date for Iraq Pullout
San Francisco Chronicle: House rewards Pelosi’s tenacity on Iraq timetable
Los Angeles Times: Dems Challenge Bush With Iraq Timetable
Reuters: House approves 2008 troop withdrawal from Iraq
Jerusalem Post: US House approves Iraq withdrawal bill
FROM THE LEFT:
Daily Kos: Purity, Pragmatism, and Iraq: What’s Next
FROM THE RIGHT:
RedState: Traitors Without A Cause
Democrats aren’t “not supporting the troops”. They are supporting the troops by protecting them. By setting a deadline, they give the surge a chance to work. If it doesn’t work, or something else bad happens and there’s no chance of success, the troops get pulled out. It gives the President’s plan 2 years to work unless something goes horribly wrong. Who loses?
Thanks very much for the nice blog and it’s so great to see a debate on policy finally taking place!
I have to agree with simmons on this one. The phrase “not supporting the troops” has been used often in association with anyone who questions the war, often to shut down real debate on the purpose and merits of this war.
I would argue that there’s nothing more supportive of the troops, than ensuring they are there for a real purpose. And should that purpose be hollow, there’s nothing more supportive than working to prevent further sacrifice.
- Heida