"We don't support the war but we do support the troops"

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Horse hockey
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/troop-funds-diverted-to-pet-projects/

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat...

more at link.

The vote whores have no shame.

[beauslx]

So what happened to that hopey changey thing about no earmarks? Oh it went the same way as that transparency thing. Just not important I guess?

[TCUFan]

That's like saying, "We support police officers...as long as they don't pull anyone over for speeding."

TCUFan

[7ranz]

So what happened to that hopey changey thing about no earmarks? Oh it went the same way as that transparency thing. Just not important I guess?

Obama was an idiot to promise such a thing. Earmarks are a congressional necessity. Now "pork" that is the problem. The sort of thing the OP describes is pork projects at the expense of the military that so many have claimed they supported.

It's just another example of Obama making stupid promises and congressman being obvious hypocrites.

[TinCan]

I wonder whether that new Aegis Destroyer will be built down here or up in Bath, Maine?

[Jagergeist]

Obama was an idiot to promise such a thing. Earmarks are a congressional necessity. Now "pork" that is the problem. The sort of thing the OP describes is pork projects at the expense of the military that so many have claimed they supported.

It's just another example of Obama making stupid promises and congressman being obvious hypocrites.

I will agree earmarks are the lifeblood of Congress and no president will be able to stop them. Sadly the gross waste of tax dollars are directly responsible for destroying our country but we waste our time arguing whether (D) or (R) is a more responsible whore.

[TinCan]

It's a MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD that we live in today. I sure do love all of this Hope, Change, Transparency, 5 Days to Review Bills, and Bi-Partisanship, don't you?

Isn't it wonderful that Congress is now full of wonderful "Progressives" looking out for not only our best interests but those of our troops in harm's way?

[FidelisAdMortem]

Politicians doing what politicians do best.

You want real change?

You know what it'll take, but I dont believe we can advocate revolution on here.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Obama was an idiot to promise such a thing. Earmarks are a congressional necessity. Now "pork" that is the problem. The sort of thing the OP describes is pork projects at the expense of the military that so many have claimed they supported.

It's just another example of Obama making stupid promises and congressman being obvious hypocrites.

Why are they a necessity?

[MadazzVeteran]

I wonder whether that new Aegis Destroyer will be built down here or up in Bath, Maine?

Answer: If Snowe votes for HealthScare, it will be built in Maine; just a little political payback for toeing the line.

[simssk]

Answer: If Snowe votes for HealthScare, it will be built in Maine; just a little political payback for toeing the line.

Looks like you have figured out the obama administration.

Just look at everything Montana has had lately.

This administration is ALL about power, corruption, payback, power, money, and did I mention power.

This congress has no shame. No wonder it has the lowest rating of any congress in history.

[HoracioMendez]

Why are they a necessity?

With earmarks, at least we know exactly where the money goes. Eliminating them wouldn't save us one penny, they would just spend it in even less transparent ways.

[MadazzVeteran]

Horse hockey
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/troop-funds-diverted-to-pet-projects/

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat...

more at link.


The vote whores have no shame.

On Fox this evening; the little turd from Hawaii, Senator No Oh E said the monies came from OMA funds and that the troops had enough money for beans, bullets and fuel to conduct the war. Boy, that warms my heart they had foresight enough to make sure their thievery was Okie Dokie. Now all we need is a full month with no days designated for some fringe element celebration, the CIC might be able to make a decision on Afghanistan.

[simssk]

On Fox this evening; the little turd from Hawaii, Senator No Oh E said the monies came from OMA funds and that the troops had enough money for beans, bullets and fuel to conduct the war. Boy, that warms my heart they had foresight enough to make sure their thievery was Okie Dokie. Now all we need is a full month with no days designated for some fringe element celebration, the CIC might be able to make a decision on Afghanistan.

Wonder if that Hawaiian Senator would have said the same thing after Pearl Harbor was attacked. How quickly they forget.

[Mr. M]

With earmarks, at least we know exactly where the money goes. Eliminating them wouldn't save us one penny, they would just spend it in even less transparent ways.

Indicia earmarks are the very definition of opaque spending...

[MadazzVeteran]

With earmarks, at least we know exactly where the money goes. Eliminating them wouldn't save us one penny, they would just spend it in even less transparent ways.

Maybe we can get a cheap memorial built wherever these earmarks land - for the troops sacrificed for this incredibly stupid and callous action. It will make the parents, wives, friends and children feel so warm.

[jwil59]

What a load of crap

[7ranz]

Why are they a necessity?

If one is a congressman it is inconceivable to imagine wanting to end the most effective ability one has in assuring your own re-election. If your a legislator you want to be certain the money goes where you want it to go.

The only way it does not become a necessity for a congressman is if the public of the earmark becomes cancerous. Hell pork doesn't even have a bad enough image to harm any a politicians standing.

The earmark is not dying.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

With earmarks, at least we know exactly where the money goes. Eliminating them wouldn't save us one penny, they would just spend it in even less transparent ways.

If they hadn't stolen the money, it would have gone to the troops.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

If one is a congressman it is inconceivable to imagine wanting to end the most effective ability one has in assuring your own re-election. If your a legislator you want to be certain the money goes where you want it to go.

The only way it does not become a necessity for a congressman is if the public of the earmark becomes cancerous. Hell pork doesn't even have a bad enough image to harm any a politicians standing.

The earmark is not dying.

Oh I see, the earmarks are a necessity for the vote whores,not WE, The People. Ok, I'm with you now.

[Thanatos144]

I think anyone who supports earmarks get paid from earmarks otherwise there is no reason for someone would support stealing from me to pay for something that is another state responsibility. I hear people talking about the states having more power like the founders wanted and I say first let get the states off the fed tit.

[Celtic Pax]

Wonder if that Hawaiian Senator would have said the same thing after Pearl Harbor was attacked. How quickly they forget.Would he have had the same opinion when he was serving during WW2 if the congress then had done the same. Or if a senator had said the same thing HE did? I seriously doubt it. No one ever has enough ("beans, bullets and fuel to conduct the war") to fight any war.

[Mike Griffith]

You can indeed oppose a war and still support the troops. What if the troops have been sent on a fool's errand? What if they've been sent to fight an unnecessary war? What if, to top it all off, they're being forced to follow an idiotic strategy, e.g., the idiotic Bush-Rumsfeld-Casey 2004-2006 strategy in Iraq?

So, yes, you can absolutely opoose a war and still support the troops 100%. In fact, if the troops are being forced to fight a stupid war, those who truly support them will oppose that war.

[curtis123]

I will agree earmarks are the lifeblood of Congress and no president will be able to stop them. Sadly the gross waste of tax dollars are directly responsible for destroying our country but we waste our time arguing whether (D) or (R) is a more responsible whore.

Amen. Earmarks are the lifeblood of getting reelected.

Congressmen love handing them out and getting their picture on the front page with the big cardboard mock-up check starting a new project and talking about how many jobs it supposidly creates (as long as it continues to be funded).

Spending money is the only thing they know to do, and it makes them look like they're actually accomplishing something, so they get re-elected, which is their ONLY goal.

Term limits, anyone?

[waynevan]

You can indeed oppose a war and still support the troops. What if the troops have been sent on a fool's errand? What if they've been sent to fight an unnecessary war? What if, to top it all off, they're being forced to follow an idiotic strategy, e.g., the idiotic Bush-Rumsfeld-Casey 2004-2006 strategy in Iraq?

So, yes, you can absolutely opoose a war and still support the troops 100%. In fact, if the troops are being forced to fight a stupid war, those who truly support them will oppose that war.

Making them fight a war without full funding is no way to show opposition.

[spinach]

congressional thievery.

their names should be used in commercials next time around.
And folks need to get out and make sure others know what these slimy sacks of turds are doing

[spinach]

Making them fight a war without full funding is no way to show opposition.

correct.
the way to show opposition was to vote against the war in the first place.
once that vote was made, and the war passed, any concept other than victory is de facto treason.

I'd have no problem with every single treasonous scumbag being locked away for 20 years

[ModerateVoice]

Reading the OP makes me shake my head in disgust when I think about how much our troops were valued during World War II, and the sacrifices made to ensure they had everything they need, compared to modern times where money is being siphoned off to honor a crooked politician best known for Chappaquiddick.

In reference to the World War II museum...........We are fighting a war NOW, let's focus the money needed to support the troops fighting this war -- the millions being siphoned off for the museum and the Ted Kennedy memorial could be used to save American soldiers lives.

[Thanatos144]

What number is this bill? I would love to know where all this pork is going.

[Quaere_Verum]

That's like saying, "We support police officers...as long as they don't pull anyone over for speeding."

TCUFan

Brilliant analogy.

The dems. are so cynical regarding defending this country. We all know they won't do it but they make noises as though they will. Deep down they all, every single one, believe the US is implicitly bad and we deserved 9-11. The whole Afghanistan is the 'right' war and Iraq was the 'wrong' war was nothing but a cover. The truth is liberals, democrats, 'progressives' and all of their ilk are treasonous scum. Every single one of them.

[poorblackman]

Politicians doing what politicians do best.

You want real change?

You know what it'll take, but I dont believe we can advocate revolution on here.

Isn't a lot easier to vote for a third party? If we all did that, it would send a message.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

You can indeed oppose a war and still support the troops. What if the troops have been sent on a fool's errand? What if they've been sent to fight an unnecessary war? What if, to top it all off, they're being forced to follow an idiotic strategy, e.g., the idiotic Bush-Rumsfeld-Casey 2004-2006 strategy in Iraq?

So, yes, you can absolutely opoose a war and still support the troops 100%. In fact, if the troops are being forced to fight a stupid war, those who truly support them will oppose that war.

How?