Out of the litany of hypocrisy we have seen from Republicans in the last five years, perhaps the most galling is their contrived support-the-troops rhetoric, apparently designed to mask how they consistently screw over active military and Veterans at ever turn.
The latest smackdown came this week when Senate Republicans voted to
take $1.9 billion from President Bush's funding request for the Iraq war and use that money to boost border security.
S.Amdt. 3594, sponsored by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) was intended to pay for new aircraft, patrol boats, and land vehicles and to bolster checkpoints and a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border crossing near San Diego.
The problem and the bald-faced hypocrisy comes in Gregg's amendment, which passed
59-39, funding border security by grabbing money that would have provided body armor, tools to defeat improvised explosive devices for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and money for training the Iraqi security forces.
This was an amazing stance for the GOP leadership, given their ongoing assertions that the war should be our highest national priority and their tendency to quickly jump any Democrat who they can even remotely claim doesn't "support the troops."
"Isn't it interesting, when it comes down to these choices, so many on the Republican side of the aisle say: Now we are going to be fiscal conservatives, fiscal conservatives at the expense of our soldiers. It is plain wrong," said Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), in opposing Gregg's legislation. "We can take the Republican approach of making our borders safer while making our soldiers less safe, or we can take the approach which Senator Reid is suggesting: Declare this an emergency at our borders that deserves emergency status."
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) offered an almost identical amendment -- there was bipartisan support for the overall border-security initiative -- but his bill would have been paid for by truly declaring border security an emergency and opting to add slightly to the Republican budget deficit if the only other option presented was to deprive the troops of the equipment and care they need.
After Gregg's amendment was passed, Reid's bill,
S.Amdt. 3604, was shot down
54-44 on an almost straight party-line vote.
We should not be cutting Iraqi security force training funding. We should not be cutting the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund that is intended to protect our troops from the scourge of deadly IEDs that threaten them in Iraq," said Patrick Leahy (D-VT), in fighting the GOP legislation. "We should not be cutting but should be improving health programs for our veterans and, sadly, the death benefits for their families. I agree with Senator Reid and will support his amendment to better secure our borders and years of neglect but will do so without shortchanging the needs of the troops whom the President has committed to fighting in Iraq."
Senate Republicans fired back, hitting the Democratic side of the aisle with the old tax-and-spend mantra.
"So I guess it is all right to be fiscally irresponsible, but at least you ought to stand up and say: Yes, I am the one doing it. I am the one who has the good idea and then does not want to pay for it -- which is exactly what the Reid amendment does," said Lamar Alexander (R-TN).
The sheer nerve of such a statement, given the deep tax cuts given to the wealthy in a time of war and the total neglect of border security after presenting budgets for five years after 9/11, was not lost on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY).
"The other side of the aisle has been expert in running up the largest deficits we have ever had," said Clinton. "We had a balanced budget, we had a surplus 5 years ago. We were on the right track economically. We were fiscally responsible. But the combination of this White House and this Republican majority has blown all of that to smithereens.
"With all due respect… this is a rather strange argument to be making at this point in time as though none of the history of the previous five years had occurred."
And leave it to a Republican to attempt to seize the initiative by invoking terrorism -- except in this case, it's in talking about Mexico, not al Qaeda.
"This bill is about national defense, especially relative to terrorism," said Gregg in speaking for his amendment. "And, yes, fighting the war in Iraq is critical to this war on terrorism. Fighting the war in Afghanistan is critical to this war on terrorism. But I have to think equally important is making sure that our borders are secure."
Perhaps Gregg simply needs to be reminded that the almost 2,400 troops who have died fighting without adequate supplies and equipment, did not perish along our border with Mexico.
You can reach Bob Geiger at geiger.bob@gmail.com and read more from him at Democrats.com.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(505 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
