Republicans Vote to Cut Off Funding for Our Troops

"I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence ... because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option."

-- Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

--Former Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX)

Even President Bush agrees:

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

--George W. Bush

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has even voted for withdrawal and for cutting off funding. Wow, the Republicans have really done an about face on timetable for withdrawals. These are some outstanding voices for a reasonable exit strategy in Iraq!

Except as we know, these were not comments or votes on Iraq. They were Republican statements on Somalia and Kosovo when Bill Clinton was Commander in Chief. Apparently, it's okay to be for timetables, exit strategies, withdrawal and cutting off funding for a war - as long as there is a Democratic president!

There are a lot more Republican quotes where those came from. You can read some more of the hypocritical comments here and here. You can read John McCain and other Republicans clamor for an exit strategy out of Kosovo here.

But what is most amazing is that Congress voted to cut off funding for our effort in Somalia - and no one brings this up. It's as if it never happened. Now, everyone talks about cutting off funding for the war as if this is the first time anyone has ever proposed the idea. Was the media born yesterday?

Of course, Vietnam also ended when Congress cut off funding. Does no one remember this? But I think Somalia is more instructive because a lot of the same Republicans in Congress voted to cut off funding for our troops for that conflict, but think it is treasonous when it comes to this one. Why won't anyone point out this enormous hypocrisy?

By the way, look at the Tom DeLay quote again. He was insistent on timetable for withdrawal a month into Kosovo. A month! The Iraq War has been going on for over four and a half years now and the Democrats still can't muster up the courage to demand a mandatory withdrawal. They are politely asking for a voluntary withdrawal if the president is in the mood. Have two political parties ever been so different before?

John Boehner is the House Republican leader now and he voted to impose a timeline for withdrawal in Somalia, voted to move up the deadline for removing our troops from that country and even voted to cut off all funding to our troops in the field in that conflict.

I'm sorry back then it was "cutting off funding for the war" and now it's "cutting off funding for the troops." That framing is critical and it is a distinction completely unsupported by the facts. Hello, Democrats, how about you fight back against it?

The only Democratic senator I have seen who points this out is Senator Feingold. Why aren't the Democrats drilling these points home at every opportunity as we debate whether we should set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq now? You don't think that it might be relevant that Republicans loved timetables for withdrawal just a short time ago?

Every single interview with a Democrat should start with President Bush's 1999 quote from above and have the Democrat saying, "We agree with President Bush that a timetable for withdrawal is critical." You are letting them get away with astounding hypocrisy when you don't bring up their statements and votes from a few, short years ago.

Meanwhile, does the press not have access to Google? Why don't they ever question Republicans on their votes for withdrawal and cutting off funding in Somalia?

By the way, the correct answer for the different votes is that different situations call for different solutions. But that's not what the Republicans are saying now. They are saying that cutting off funding for our troops is never acceptable. That's the obvious lie that must be exposed.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[BMBTHC]

It is sometimes suggested that there is no difference between R and D. In some conversations this is clearly true. But over all the biggest difference is that one is stupid and crazy and the other is stupid and lame.

[dexxjones]

the only possible mindset i can conjure for much of the GOP behaviour is that they are thinking like defense attorneys. you know? they have that "through the lookingglass" mentality. that or they are being blackmailed. i would bet though, in their minds, they are acting like attorneys. is that remotely possible?

[RobertPaul]

The republicans started out wanting a "Permanent" majority.

When things got so bad that they lost in that effort, they decided to go with a different approach.

Now they have decided to be permanently obstructionist.

You will never get anywhere by quoting these liars back to themselves. AND...I got 20 bucks says you will never see any of those quotes in the MSM after today.

They are basically going back to the Clinton days when everything he did was wrong...be­cause he was, after all, a Democrat.

Now when Clinton had sex with an intern he got impeached.

Now a days people like Vitter and "wide stance" don't even get brought up on ethics charges.

I don't know what the answer is, but I'm sure getting tired of all the hypocritical BS that's coming out of our Government.

And frankly, I'm not real thrilled about the "apparent" candidates either...

Maybe it's time to take another look at Obama, or Dodd...

[RedRooster]

Q. "Was the media born yesterday?"

A. The media are born-again at end of every news cycle or deadline. They live almost entirely in the present with little, if any, appreciation of the past.

[estabon32]

Cenk, you nailed that puppy! How's about we tattoo a dozen or more of these GOP 'cut and run' quotes on a large, inanimate object (such as Rush Limbaugh) for all the world to see....!

[Annoula]

Cenk:
As usual, you are right.
But I think by now, most of us have given up on our expectations from the Dems. With a few exceptions, like Feingold, Kucinich and, occasionally, Murtha, the rest are paralized by fear of being "labeled" by the Republicans as "not supporting our troops" just like they have applied other labels so succesfully (e.g. "cut and run", "soft on defense", "tax and spend", "flip flop") to stygmatize Kerry et al. while they keep doing precisely what they criticize for the past seven years!
How come the Dems can't find a single label that sticks???? God help America!

[darker]

It's time to read some REAL REPORTING on what these BUSH WARS will cost us. Our "entertainment & rubbernecking" news is just pathetic, diversionary garbage -- when Americans WANT THE FACTS. The media just give us drivel.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FB053225-B01A-4725-AD8B-F8B483BB60FA.htm

[wldnswmmr]

But Cenk, isn't it fairly obvious that the reason the Democrats don't use such obvious tools is because they're not really committed to ending the war? I DO hear Democrats talk about the role of the power of the purse in ending the Vietnam War, but then they distinguish the situation by saying the plan for withdrawal was already in place before they exercised the power. The Democrats do not want to be the party which abandons the military investment in Iraq, the bases, the embassy, the possibility of oil contracts with INOC, which then become up for grabs by the Russians, Chinese and Indians. The current $50 billion finesse move is instructive. Why did they authorize any money at all, especially when they know the Senate will never get the same bill to the floor? It's because they don't really want the war to end. They want the appearance of wanting to end the war, to placate their base. I think, esteemed and very smart sir, you doth fight the facts too much. The Dems ain't dumb; they're in on the game.

[snaggster]

Is there any oil in Kosovo or Somalia? Iraq is largely about oil. The (R)s won't be voting to cut off the funds for such a profitable venture.

[dclawyer06]

You're absolutely right, Cenk. Why don't reporters bring this up whenever the question of "cutting off funding for the troops" comes up.

I can understand this issue not being raised at first, but these quotes have been out there for a long while now and I've never heard any reporter bring it up, not even the progressive commentators on the gab-fest shows do.

Love your show, Cenk!
More Christy Harvey!!!

[lgillooly]

But I thought we had a Liberal Media! Gee,you better tell Rush and his minions that it has changed a bit.
What a joke! The number 1 priority for us is to drastically fix the incredible imbalance of the media. 91 percent of talk radio is right wing hate.The Fairness Doctrine MUST be reinstated or this crap will never end.
They own it. Until we regain a balanced truthful media the Democracy is in jeopardy.

[Pdubya]

money is in the pipeline for the generals to use to get our troops home. ruse on both red and blue sides of the hill. pander, posture, procrastinate. all equal more money from lobby and their fat wallstreet portfolios.

at our expense, of course.

blue dog democrat for ron paul

[JoeBlough]

More people are making money off the Iraq war than the Kosovo and Somalia action. When the Dems were in office and running these military actions, the Republican Corporations weren't getting their cut. Under Bush/Cheney, there are huge fortunes to be made for these corporations and the execs. So, of course, this will be a forever war. Forever profits. Forever death and destruction.