House Republicans Block War Funds
Republicans this afternoon pulled off an ambush on Democrats on the House floor, helping to vote down a $160-billion plus measure for military operations in Afghanistan.
The GOP has grown increasingly angry in recent weeks over the procedures the majority has used to bring the supplemental package to the floor. The measure has been split into three parts, and the first part -- which consists solely of war funds -- lost 141-149, with 133 132 Republicans voting "present." Republicans knew that Democrats were divided on the money, with some antiwar members voting against it, so they decided not to help the majority get the bill passed.
The House has now moved on to the other two parts of the package, one containing troop withdrawal language and one containing educational benefits for veterans but it is unclear if anything will actually be sent over to the Senate if the House can't pass the military funding, the whole purpose of doing the supplemental in the first place.
UPDATE: 5 PM EST: The House has now approved the last two parts of the supplemental package. Those elements -- the troop withdrawal language and the veterans' college benefits, coupled with a new tax on millionaires -- will now go to the Senate without the war funding. But the Senate is expected to included money for Iraq and Afghanistan in whatever it passes, and then the two chambers will go to conference. President Bush has vowed to veto a bill that exceeds his request or includes any extraneous domestic funding.
At a press conference following the votes, Republicans said they voted "present" on the war funding in order to prevent Democrats from using the minority to pass war money that the bulk of the majority party doesn't actually support (147 Democrats voted against the military funding, while 85 voted for it). And Republicans said they needed to take a stand after being completely shut out of the legislative process.
"It was a process the likes of which we've never seen," complained Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), the top Republican on the Rules Committee, calling the procedure "outrageous, atrocious and unprecedented."
Republican leaders expressed confidence that they would not be damaged by headlines suggesting they were at fault for scuttling war funding. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called the Democrats three-part package "a cynical scheme to deny our troops in Afghanistan the resources they need for success," because Democrats knew their package was headed for a veto.
But Democrats made clear where they thought the blame would lie for the day's events. "Republicans chose to continue to play political games," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), suggesting that American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would have a hard time understanding that the GOP's complaints about process might delay money for their activities.
The second part of the Democrats' package, an amendment calling for withdrawal of troops to begin within 30 days and for Congress to approve any status of forces of agreement with the Iraqi government, passed by a narrow margin, 227-196, almost completely along party lines. The veterans' benefits piece of the measure was approved more comfortably, 256-166, with 32 Republicans joining nearly every Democrat in voting "aye."
By Ben Pershing |
May 15, 2008; 3:55 PM ET
Iraq
Previous: Cole Still in Charge at NRCC; GOP Agenda Emerging |
Next: Antiwar Forces Resigned to Another Loss
Posted by: pj451 | May 15, 2008 4:26 PM
And this will help the Republicans, how? Their president wants more money. Now it's postponed. Can Bush blame Congress? Not if his own party voted the funding measure down. So, House Republicans look like the Pinkertons. Nice.
Posted by: CT | May 15, 2008 4:33 PM
Republicans refuse to fund the war they insist we must win. They refuse to support the troops when they're overseas trying to do their job. Republicans want to play games in Washington instead of support their own Commander in Chief. Republicans are going to dismissed by the American public in November for gross negligence and incompetence.
Posted by: thebob.bob | May 15, 2008 4:37 PM
I broke down and my eyes teared up when I heard the news that our leaders in Washington D.C. will not pass improved education benefits for my brothers and sisters in uniform. I've served 18 years on active duty in uniform. There is no reasonable argument against "supporting the troops," with this funding ... NONE!!!
Posted by: bs niffer | May 15, 2008 4:41 PM
Great. Should have done it years ago.
Posted by: ladyxx | May 15, 2008 4:52 PM
This is a simple political stunt.
Five months from now, the republicans will say that the "Democrat-controlled congress" failed to support the troops.
Posted by: dsmason807 | May 15, 2008 5:06 PM
I just wrote my congressman Chris Van Hollen, and demanded that he vote against the continued funding of the occupation of Iraq.
This is a losing issue for the Republicans.
Posted by: jrmoffett | May 15, 2008 5:07 PM
Once again... the Republicans are all talk... present and no action when it comes to our troops. Mccain admitted the war in Iraq was for the corporations oil and gouging us Americans for profits. And McCain now wants timetabels for withdrawl.....he was so much against any timetables and now he wants them? This flip flopping cannot be seen as supporting our troops. Sick old men sending our Military to war with no support and no purpose! Treason!!!
Posted by: Elvis1 | May 15, 2008 5:07 PM
The Republican "obstructionist" tactics continue and give cause for the voting public's concern for the party's mental welfare. Perhaps they see the writing on the wall that looms in their future this coming November.
I have witnessed many of them come to the floor and do thier own personal impression of "open mouth - insert foot."
This however, marks a new and extreme measure I have never witnessed..... tantamount to "taking aim with a revolver and shooting oneself in the foot!"
Posted by: motiv8ed | May 15, 2008 5:17 PM
So, it would never occur to the House GOP that by voting present, the Republicans can tell their knuckle-dragging base they didn't vote against Bush Jr, while telling their constituents that this vote proves the GOP Representatives are willing to repudiate Bush Jr publicly.
This is a strategy already at play in the Congress, with the Republicans insisting the Iraqis pay their own reconstruction costs. This allows the GOP to claim it's standing up to Bush Jr while bleating to the knuckle-dragging fringe base that they still support nothing other than an "all out victory" only possible with a heavy US military occupation of Iraq.
Of course, those "surge" supporters who voted to require Iraqi funds for Iraq's reconstruction have now put themselves in a bind they can't spin in a positive way.
Namely, if the Iraqis tell these particular politicians to stuff their reconstruction demands, will those same Representatives & Senators then favor removing the US military from the country?
If not, then just what enforcement mechanism do these political slugs propose so their reconstruction requirements are actually implemented by the Iraqis?
The Republicans are going to get smacked around by the voters even worse this year than it did in 2006.
And all right-thinking people should be reveling in pure, unadulterated Schadenfreude for the GOP's woes, Republican problems that were, and are, ALWAYS self-inflicted through corruption, incompetence and unearned arrogance.
Posted by: KingCranky | May 15, 2008 5:28 PM
in your writing, please, "cut to the chase". thank you.
r.
Posted by: | May 15, 2008 10:55 PM
the damn Dems could not get their act together if a class 5 hurricane was
heading down upon them! a total bunch of ignorant useless clueless asses!
and that includes reid, pelosi, teddy (take a drive with me) K, john (let's go windsurfing) Kerry, and golden child obama, as they say, the Dems are about as useless as a tit on a bull!
Posted by: dave | May 16, 2008 12:14 PM
This action only shows to what extent our elected representatives play games just for one-up-manship in politics. Our country is really in a sad state. When you can buy admittance to this group you don't need a brain just ambition.
Posted by: Iris | May 16, 2008 6:47 PM
GO AWAY BUSH and your oil connections that must be rich with oil at $125 a barrel.
DEMS Like me with GOP RAGE only 244 days tell the BUSH is gone.
Are you FURIOUS, sick of watching our soldiers die for OIL.
Our dollar and homes lose 50% of value.
USE THE RAGE. BOOT THE GOP CROOKS.
Posted by: | May 17, 2008 3:16 PM
For 12 years the house was in control and they behaved like tyrants. Now suffer you crybabies.
Posted by: truth1 | May 20, 2008 3:19 PM
I FIND it truly amazing that we have a war which costs $520,751,063,848 and tax cuts at the same time. This idea that Iraq will pay the bill is far from being a reality. Why should they make that possible? What do we do resurrect Saddam if they don't pay the tab.
Posted by: Roger | May 21, 2008 5:34 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
The dems should craft a bill, titled the GW Bush War Fund. This fund will pay for all of the past and future costs of the Iraq attack. It will be funded by a new across the board "war tax" that every working american ,ust pay. It will work like the 7 percent social security witholding, only with the Bush War Tax, the benefits are paid indirectly in the form of knowing that bush has made you safer. If bush wants his war funded, a war tax is the way to go.