« Veterans Of The Safeway Wars? | Main | Obama's Successful Foreign Policy Spree »

Congressional Republicans Poised To Vote Against Funding The Wars They Created

This week it is highly likely that all 178 GOP members of Congress will vote against the further funding of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the fact that these are both wars supported and created by the previous Republican administration. Under the guise of opposing a $5 billion dollar support for the IMF(International Monetary Fund), all Congressional Republicans might vote as a block to defund both wars, despite so many claims over the past few years by GOP members of Congress how vital these efforts were to America's security.

Further, some GOP foot soldiers such as former Vice President Dick Cheney recently went on the attack against the Obama Administration claiming that America's security was at risk unless the administration continued to support so-called harsh or enhanced interrogation techniques. And failed 2008 GOP candidate Mitt Romney even chimed in by attacking the Obama foreign policy. Yet The GOP Congressional members may all walk lockstep and oppose the $95 billion dollar bill to voted on this week to further fund both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Unfortunately, with the support of a few hardcore antiwar Democrats such as Dennis Kucinich and others, there is a hope among the antiwar community that a majority in Congress may vote to defund both wars. However, this isn't a proper course to follow.

The Obama Administration has presented a moderate and pragmatic war strategy to reduce the american efforts in Iraq and to leave more responsibility up to to the Iraqi military to defend their own nation, while leaving a supporting role for american troops to continue to train or backup Iraqi forces. Further, with recent Taliban efforts to capture the capital of Pakistan, resulting in increased warfare there, Afghanistan becomes a vital front to defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda as well.

The Obama war policy in Iraq and Afghanistan seems both reasonable and pragmatic, and seems to have the best interests of defending America and defeating terrorism at interest. It reduces the American role in Iraq, while greatly refocusing efforts to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. While the hardcore of a few antiwar Democrats may be a lost cause here, the fact that all 178 Congressional Republicans could actually vote against defunding the war is outrageous, especially since all of the noise that their party continues to make on every national security issue. This is just irresponsible politics of the worst variety that does not have the best interests of the national security of the United States at interest here. The security of the United States deserves to be above politics.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.3/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.3/5 (3 votes cast)


Comments (6)

J.R.:

The Obama war policy in Iraq and Afghanistan seems both reasonable and pragmatic, and seems to have the best interests of defending America and defeating terrorism at interest. It reduces the American role in Iraq, while greatly refocusing efforts to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

I think you would find most Republicans in Congress would agree with this statement. However why the hell is this:

a $5 billion dollar support for the IMF(International Monetary Fund)

in a bill to fund the wars?

If you truly believe your last sentence here:

The security of the United States deserves to be above politics.

Then you too should be appauled that someone would insert a 5 billion dollar bailout to an international organization to a war funding bill. The insertion of that is all politics Paul and you know it. No matter which party does it, it's petty politics at its worst.

Mac Lorry:
Further, some GOP foot soldiers such as former Vice President Dick Cheney recently went on the attack against the Obama Administration claiming that America's security was at risk unless the administration continued to support so-called harsh or enhanced interrogation techniques.

So the way to shut Cheney up would be to release those memos he's been asking for. The White House has admitted that Obama has the authority as the President to release those memos regardless of them being part of some lawsuit. Some Democrats claim they have seen the memos and that they don't back-up Cheney's contention that EIT's work. Obama promised in his campaign that he would run a transparent administration, and cherry picking other memos to release shows that promise was a lie. Specific information about sources and methods could be deducted, although the methods have already been released. There seems to be no rational reason to withhold those memos from the American public.

The GOP is making gains by claiming that the only reason the memos haven't been released is that they do in fact show that Cheney is right, and that information will destroy Obama's contention that EIT's don't work. A contention Obama has made into a fundamental principle of his foreign policy, a foreign policy that may be founded on a lie. The only way to stop the GOP making such gains is to release those memos, unless of course, Cheney is right.

Oyster:

"Under the guise of opposing a $5 billion dollar support for the IMF(International Monetary Fund),...."

Would you call it a "guise" that pro-Israel Democrats are balking at it now for the very same reasons Republicans are? Would you call it a "guise" that Democrats who have always voted against war funding are now using the rhetoric of "Anti-FOIA Legislation" in the bill as the reason they'll vote against it?

Or are you just writing under the "guise" of objectivity?

Allen:

Mac, I agree, release those memos, in fact, release all memo's that have to do with the enhanced treatment program.

And if he does that, what will the GOP say? I can guess there would be a big outcry. But it would also serve to let people know who knew what and when they knew it. That may scare the elected critters on both sides of the political parties.

ed davis:

Only the ones that say waterboarding is torture and because waterboarding was used, the US is guilty of torturing people.

We will find that those elected critters are only on one side of the aisle.

If they knew it was being used, especially if they have been vocal to the point of demonizing our country in front of our enemies regarding EIT, what does that make people like Pelosi? What would you charge her with in comparison to Cheney?

Cheney says it is not torture. Pelosi says it is.

Believe it or not, repeating something over and over does not make it true. But condoning its use while being of the opinion that it is torture is hypocritical to say the least. Then to play the blame game and shirk any responsibility for signing off on its use is plain cowardice.

Big difference between the two perspectives.
Who knew what and who believed what.

Mac Lorry:

The U.S. waterboarded 3 people using a modified version of waterboarding that does not force water ingestion. Nevertheless, some consider it torture, but the real question is, did it accomplished what Cheney said it did? That is, did the information gained prevent more attacks and save thousands of American lives? If so, then I believe torturing the very masterminds of terror was justified, and Bush and Cheney should be commended for having the guts to do what was needed to keep the U.S. safe.

Obama says torture never works, so in the same situation we were in after 9/11 he wouldn't have used torture and the terrorists may have been able to succeed in attacking America again. That's Cheney's point, that in never being willing to use torture Obama may cost Americans their lives.

As long as Obama withholds the memos Cheney has asked for the public can't know if Obama has put us all in danger or if Obama is right that torture never works. Release the memos Mr. Obama, the American people have the right to know the truth.


Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.