When Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama joined 12 other Democratic senators in opposing Bush's war-funding package, Republican presidential candidates pounced. If Dem presidential hopefuls are willing to reject funding for the troops in a time of war, we now have proof, the GOP concluded, that they must hate the men and women in uniform.This issue is a continuous, and unfair, one.
* Giuliani: Obama and Clinton have "moved from being not just anti-war, but to being anti-troops."
* McCain: "[I]t is so irresponsible to tell these young men and women who are serving in uniform with the orders of their commander in chief that you're not going to give them the necessary ability to defend themselves."
* Romney: "Voting against our troops during a time of war shows the American people that the leaders of the Democrat [sic] Party will abandon principle in favor of political positioning."
Got it. But I have a quick follow up question: If opposing money for the troops in a time of war is necessarily anti-military and un-American, why did Bush reject war funding less than a month ago? If supporting the military means supporting funding measures, didn't the president deny those in uniform the resources they need?
Or is it more likely that rejecting funding for the troops in a time of war is perfectly acceptable to Republicans, just so long as they think there's a good reason to do so
At the start of the war, when Kerry and others were preparing a bill that would have put...expectations, on the president, he threatened to veto. He suffered none from a vow to block military aid. But Kerry later acts hurt him.
Bush, just last week, VETOED aid. And now, apparently, the only ones at fault are the Democrats that acted this week. McCain voted against funding last week, but he's a hero, in his own mind. But he think body armor a troop around and birds over head is a quiet nice and safe day and place. And Giuliani thinks he is a foreign policy savant because he was the mayor on 9/11.
No comments:
Post a Comment