Who votes AGAINST funding the troops?

[hiaasenrocks]

Last week 198 Republicans voted against funding the troops.

Have that many Democrats voted against troop funding in the entire four years of the Iraqi Civil War?

Just wondering if anyone has researched this.

Thanks.

[whistle]

1. Joe Lieberman voted with those repukes

[onenote]

4. as defined by your question, its probably close to that number if not more

If you define voting against the pending resolution as voting against funding the troops (which is how the repubs defined votes against the supp resolution in 2003 -- the vote that the repubs hammered Kerry on in 2006 -- then the answer is that quite a few Dems have voted against funding. There were 18 Democratic votes in the Senate against passage of the 2003 supplemental and 115 Democrats voted against it in the House. If there were other funding bills, then I suspect the numbers go up.

Of course, it was a bullshit way to look at the issue back in 2006 and so it should be a bullshit way to to look at it now. On the other hand, the repubs deserve a dose of their own medicine, don't they...

[Dhalgren]

2. Kucinich voted against the funding and I admire him for it.

[hiaasenrocks]

3. I do too. I'm just looking for info to turn their talking points

back on them.

When they talk about "supporting the troops" and such, I want to be able to point to the 198 nay votes and say that the Republicans vote against troop funding in larger numbers than Democrats.

[onenote]

6. probably won't work

As pointed out above, in 2003 around 130 plus Democrats voted against a supplemental approps bill. If there has been any other approps bill for the war (and I don't know if that's the case) the number of Democrats voting "against" exceeds the number of repubs.

The point is that the best retort isn't that more repubs have opposed funding the war than Democrats. Its that if you believe that the votes cast by Kerry and other Democrats in 2003 were funds against funding the war -- which is what the repubs claimed in ad after ad -- then you have to accept the fact that it is the repubs voting against funding now.

[hiaasenrocks]

7. Thanks for the info. And your second paragraph is a great point. n/t

[NI4NI]

11. Be sure to mention the "non binding House resolution"

that passed which specifically said, "The House of Representatives supports the troops".
182 Reptilians voted against that.

As for this recent DOD budget, I'm still waiting for ONE Democrat to blast anyone who voted against it for "not supporting the funding of our troops". Dems let the debate be framed around so called "pork", "micromanaging the war" and "surrender", instead of the fact that they authorized billions more funds than Chuckle Nutz requested. They're foolishness just bewilders me to anger.

[bryant69]

5. Yeah he's proving useful to Republicans

As they write articles about how "Even some Democrats were uncomfortable with Pelosi's bill"

Course you can't blame him for their lies.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Dhalgren]

8. Kucinich pointed out on Democracy Now that the funding being voted for

extends funding for the war into 2009, which makes the March 2008 date for withdrawal seem kind of odd. He said he voted against the bill because it extended the war funding and therefore the war and that it called for withdrawing troops next year instead of this year. Both good reasons for someone to vote against the bill.

[bryant69]

9. Good enough for him apparently

But I think Pelosi made the right call her, not him.

Bryant

[Dhalgren]

12. Different strokes, my friend. Only history will tell who was right politically in the long run.

Ethically, morally, I would argue in Kucinich's favor...

[mike_c]

10. the republicans did the right thing for the first time in six years, IMO....

Everyone in Congress should vote against further funding for this war.