Republicans: "We Abandon the Troops"

No one ever went broke betting on the hypocrisy of congressional Republicans.

For seven years, they blustered about how Democrats had failed to "support the troops in the field" by voting against appropriations to fund the war in Iraq. Now, almost all House Republicans have themselves voted against funding the war in Afghanistan. To be fair, they've come up with an iron-clad reason for their own decision to abandon the troops: the IMF.

That's right, Republicans voted no on a $106 billion war funding bill because it also includes $5 billion assigned for the International Monetary Fund.

Why, you ask? How could a group of yellow-ribbon displaying, troop-backing Republicans possibly vote against funding for things like body armor, ammunition, and jet fuel over an international aid organization. Well, it's simple really - according to convoluted GOP logic, voting against the troops was really a vote for the troops. As House Minority Whip Eric Cantor helpfully explained, funding the IMF would put the United States in the position of supporting state sponsors of terrorism. Got that?

This logic-defying proposition is obviously wrong on the merits, and it adds yet another level of hypocrisy to the Republican position.

First, as National Security Advisor James L. Jones and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, recently wrote to congressional leaders, "[f]inancial hardship and poverty breed desperation, which helps terrorist networks to attract new recruits with messages of hate, violence and intolerance. IMF funding reduces this threat...". Jones and Gates concluded their letter saying that "the IMF will strengthen our national security by mitigating the economic crisis and inhibiting the growth of terrorist networks."

Second, Mr. Cantor's position would appear to put him at odds with his boss, House Minority Leader John Boehner, since Mr. Boehner has stated: "Given the crisis we have around the world, the U.S. needs to provide leadership. The only real avenue is the IMF." But no, Reps. Cantor and Boehner are on the same page - apparently Mr. Boehner was for the IMF before he was against it. Yesterday, in the interest of political expediency, he voted against the supplemental bill based on the support for the IMF.

But of course, the transparently political flip-flop on the IMF is just a side-show; the real debate is the flip-flop over whether we fund our troops. In 2005, Rep. Tom Cole, currently the fourth-ranking Republican in the House, declared that "sending troops into battle and not paying for it would be an 'immoral thing to do'." Just last year, after Democrats wanted to require the defense appropriations supplemental bill to state that the US would begin to draw down our forces in Iraq, Mr. Boehner himself savaged Democrats with claims of holding "our troops hostage for political leverage".

Clearly the Republicans' attack--that voting against a funding bill is the equivalent of hating America--was always ridiculous. But they now should have to live by their own standards. The rank hypocrisy of Republicans is nothing new, but it remains a reason the American public rejects their party and their ideas.

So, in their own self-declared world: Boehner, Cantor, Cole and their team have turned around and voted against funding the troops, in an effort to rally the base around the traditional Republican bogeyman of international aid. But this is not a political game. If their effort to execute the agenda of the Limbaugh Wing of their Party had succeeded, our troops in the field would have been the ones to pay the price.

Scott Payne is a National Security Policy Advisor at Third Way

Comments

[jhamm1]

As usual, Republicans are perfectly content to "support the troops", until of course their activities happen to be wielded by a commander-in-chief who happens to be democrat.

[gs425]

Since when does the Dums of the Congress or Sentate need the Pugs for anything? This is a non issue. The Dums don't need them...jus­t pass the bill and get the troops the money they need. Next item.

[lj72]

Does anyone else think a constitutional amendment should be passed limiting all bills to one subject? Troop funding should be one subject, IMF funding should be it's own bill. Then we would know where our elected representatives stand on the issue at hand.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

Sounds like a good idea until you consider how little they presently get done. Requiring their vote for funding of all the additional bills would cause total gridlock, as compared to...???

[larry278]

This could get wierd; I mean the GOP ending the pattern of starting wars, invading & occupying allegedly unfriendly nations started by W. The GOP could prevent Pres Obama from reaching his goal of becoming a clone of W. Does Obama really want to be called W, Mark II? Obama may have to settle for much less.

[ThermoChemist]

As I've stated in the past, the GOP (and the Bush Admin) has continually shown their [faux] "love" and support for the troops..! [sarc]

[a] Vets Group Grading Proves GOP Does Not Support Troops
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-geiger/vets-group-proves-gop-doe_b_32292.html
http://iava.org/index.php
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/10/iava-support-troops-rankings-for-senate.html

Thirteen Senators received a rating of A- and all of those were Democrats.
The 44 Democrats had an average military-support grade of B+, while the 55 Republicans averaged a pathetic D.

[b] In 2006, the Bush administration:
- sought to cut $75 a month from the “imminent danger” pay added to soldiers’ paychecks
- sought to cut by $150 a month the family separation allowance offered to soldiers
- budget for Veterans Affairs cut $3 billion from VA hospitals.
- proposed levying a $250 charge on all Priority 8 veterans
- was charging injured GIs from Iraq $8 a day for food when they arrived for medical treatment at the Fort Stewart, Georgia, base.
- had proposed increasing retired veteran's healthcare premiums 2 to 3 times the current rate

[c] Marines go hungry in Iraq
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nellie-b/marines-go-hungry-in-iraq_b_20425.html
http://www.projo.com/news/bobkerr/projo_20060426_

Halliburton serving contaminated water to troops, using depleted uranium, lack of body armor, etc...

[Rogan]

You don't have to examine the facts and figures, if you know 2 or 3 (or more) people who were serving in Iraq, during those years. Even earlier: by 2004, long before the widespread corruption and incompetence then Bush administration dealt wholesale in, was widely and publicly detailed, anyone with family or friends in the military, knew those clowns were doing a very, very bad job of running the war(s), by any standards. And the troops? They were writing home begging for armor and other necessities, as soon as they arrived. Pathetic.

[rjmiller]

"No one ever went broke betting on the hypocrisy of congressional Republican­s."

Can I get the number for your bookie?

[breakingpoint]

Both sides do this and continue to jerk the American People around.

The question should be when will we all wake up and take our country back form these crooks?

[gavrielle]

The headline should really read: Right-wingers spit on American soldiers.

[ThePeoplesKey]

What a surprise . . . Now that they've left the Dems to come up with a solution to ending the war they HAD to wage, republitards show their true patriotism by abandoning the very troops and their families they claim to support. Keep digging the hole. At the rate their going, the only members left in the GOP after this election cycle will be the few remaining in congress now. That's OK by me. The world will be a much better place with no republican party at all.

[jsgaetano]

Why do conservatives hate the troops?

Why do conservatives hate America?

[BassMonk]

Selfishness.

[Rogan]

I knew when I was a teenager, twenty-some years ago, that the line of "conservative" thinking, that emphasizes (to steal a phrase from their saint Rand) "the virtues of selfishness," would eventually lead to a place where a pack of angry morons are loudly refusing to help one another out of a big pool of quicksand.­.. I (and people like me) tried to tell those people, that eventually, if they, like the frog, remained in that boiling water, they would become completely irrational, negative, angry, unhappy, unpleasant people, incapable of fulfillment or satisfaction, incapable of any kind of "spiritual" or intellectual proactivity or positivism­... incapable, eventually, of thinking, itself, of even helping THEMSELVES out of the figurative quicksand. Some of them wouldn't listen... obviously.

[holeybuybull]

The only people who hate the troops are the ones who approve of the funding to either send them into, or keep them in harm's way. The IMF's policies don't help the general populations, they further the aims of the oligarchs. The republicans may have voted against this bill for the "wrong" reasons, but they wound up on the same side as a real man of peace, Dennis Kucinich.

[Rogan]

So, we shouldn't fund an organization that exists to alleviate poverty and associated ills, because the money won't be spent optimally? That's sort of a universal woe, isn't it? Maybe if you, or someone else, could provide some details, about why you don't like the IMF...