Democrats Block Troop Funding
May 15th, 2008 at 11:46pm Matt Margolis
A whopping 147 House Democrats voted against our troops today.
David Dreier, the Ranking Republican on the Rules Committee, reported heared a Democrat laughing about their strategy to vote against the troops. “It was a process the likes of which this country has never seen. In our 219-year history, never before on a war-funding supplemental have we had the minority denied an opportunity to have a motion to recommit. It was an outrageous, atrocious, unprecedented process that was never, ever going to succeed.”
Why am I not surprised that a Democrat would laugh about defunding our troops.
Entry Filed under: Congress, Democrats, War on Terror
15 Comments
1. Mark Noonan | May 16th, 2008 at 12:52 am
It is a rather sad spectacle - and all just a game, anyways…the Democratic leadership wanted to allow their leftist members to record a vote against war funding…next week, the supplemental will pass out of the Senate, and then the House will agree.
2. What? | May 16th, 2008 at 1:31 am
You know what is also outrageous? How the Republicans opposed the new GI Bill. Only 32 Republicans voted for the bill that would only tax those making $500K+ a year. Bush has also said he would veto it. Support the troops, indeed.
This is the same man you think will be missed come January.
3. Freedom1 | May 16th, 2008 at 1:42 am
The Demoncrats are traitors to America.
4. Gaijin | May 16th, 2008 at 1:44 am
Well, it is also interesting in the Republlican primaries, the person who received the most money from the troops was Ron Paul. Who said he would bring the troops home. I wonder if they are big fans of Bush’s foreign policy?
“David Dreier, the Ranking Republican on the Rules Committee, reported heared a Democrat laughing about their strategy to vote against the troops.”
Not only is this gramatically incorrect to the point of almost making no sense, no name is given, nor context, nor what was said. Unless after the vote, the entire Democratic MAJORITY started laughing, this is pointless and groundless.
Peace, Gaijin
5. Baton Rouge | May 16th, 2008 at 5:57 am
It’s about time. Defund it bring them home and make the Iraqis stand up for themselves. I find it odd that you don’t mention the 130 odd Republicans that voted “present” rather than vote in favor of the funding bill. A number that correct me if I’m wrong would have passed the bill?
6. Danish Artist | May 16th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Democrats - loading up a bill with pork KNOWING that it will be rejected. And at the same time voting for it (while not wanting its passage) so they can use it at political ammunition during an election year.
“The Republicans voted against it” - you can hear it now and the usual liberal lemmings, as illustrated in the posts above, fall for it.
Truly pathetic. Why do they hate the troops so much?
7. Baton Rouge | May 16th, 2008 at 6:40 am
6. Danish Artist | May 16th, 2008 at 6:16 am
If you want your little war purse DA then maybe a little sausage and a few chops woukldn’t hurt would they? The Democrats took a huge political risk in the one hand but in the other they put the GOP in the box where they have to stand in front of microphones and literally write campaign ads for the DCCC and the DNC saying how much they support the war in Iraq.
The closer they are to Bush and his war the farther away they get from being reelected. The Iraq War and the economy are in the Democrat’s back pocket and now the Left can see their Congress persons “doing something” with this and the Farm Bill passing.
It’s such a brilliant political strategy it’s almost Rovian!
8. Greg-O | May 16th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Meanwhile, Democrats win seats in Louisiana and Mississippi in the recent special elections by running as pro-life, pro-gun conservatives and denying any allegiances to Barack Obama. I wonder how they will get along with Nancy Pelosi, and if they do get along, how will they explain their voting records in contrast to their winning platforms in the 6 months ’till November?
9. InDaVa | May 16th, 2008 at 9:36 am
“You know what is also outrageous? How the Republicans opposed the new GI Bill. Only 32 Republicans voted for the bill that would only tax those making $500K+ a year. Bush has also said he would veto it. Support the troops, indeed.”
The Repugs also blocked 3 other bills for our troops. Support our troops indeed.
Danish Artist, get your head out of your ass. The GI Bill was not full of pork, it was pretty straight forward. Most Republican bills are FULL of pork as well, so try another talking point. I’m sure someone here will listen.
10. Danish Artist | May 16th, 2008 at 11:18 am
InDava, it’s your head that is up an ass.
The bill full of PORK was the funding bill for Afghanistan and Iraq, not the GI Bill. This is the usual Democrat tactics to load a bill full of BS and then jump up and down screeching “The Republicans are against……”.
Just like you did - lemming. Democrats just love playing with our troops for political points.
You have your talking points confused, which is not surprisingcoming from a useless idiot. Facts, indava, are what we are concerned with not appearances.
I grow bored arguing with you mental midgets.
11. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 16th, 2008 at 11:30 am
10. Danish Artist | May 16th, 2008 at 11:18 am
It is sort of not worth arguing when you do not have a leg to stand on.
I leared when studying law when your opponent starts to insult you he is out of facts and hopes to make others think less of you. Well Danish Artist you might be a smart fellow but you really have only your loyalty left to your party or conservatism to cling to because the blocking of that spending bill was truly the end of the GOP as America has known it. Even Mark Noonan admits that the party must change to suit conservatism not vice versa and that in itself is the wedge that Liberals have always wanted to chop the opposition up into the Conservative Party and the Center Right Party of fiscal issues. By the 2016 elections when the Democratic party will hold more than 75% of the seats in Congress a new shift will come where fearing a real permanent Liberal majority in Congress, evangelicals and other social conservatives will flood the Constitution Party and elevate a candidate that can compete on the national stage for President launching the new multi-party system in American politics.
12. Danish Artist | May 16th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Cav,
when you start to ramble off topic……….
lawyer? ’nuff said…… keep using distraction, bait and switch, whichever you want to call it.
InDava started with the insults, not that it matters to you and your pitchfork ilk, who are notorious for it.
Before you deny it, I have been to your so-called “site” and have seen first hand the postings there not only directed at this blog, but specifically at its members, BY NAME! Unforturnately, I can’t post here what has been said there without moderation or banishment.
Don’t you have an ambulance to chase or a slip and fall case to settle???
13. ohno | May 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
again, the evil ambulance chasing lawyer bit…….
14. Oceandeep | May 16th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
132 Repugs didn’t have the guts to vote one way or the other and simply voted present. If Repugs were serious about their involvement in the war and not just playing politics with the troops lives all it would have taken just 10 of these Repugs to vote for the measure. But they wasted their vote and the peoples’ time and sat on their hands.
15. Danish Artist | May 17th, 2008 at 12:24 am
“132 Repugs didn’t have the guts to vote one way or the other and simply voted present.”
If liberals would not play politics and load a bill they really did not want with pork, it would have passed? They knew the republicans would not go for it. So they loaded it up and used it as a politcal tool? Why not vote against a funding bill without the pork? THEY WON’T - HOW GUTLESS IS THAT??
how many times has Obama voted “present” on issues?
130! HOW GUTLESS IS THAT oceandeep???
Dems show again what cowards they are.
Nice try. Next talking point.