I was going to say that the Republicans voted against a bill today that would allow US troops to spend equal time at home with family as they do deployed in Iraq. The ratio of home/away time for the British is 4:1. Well, if i told you they voted against it, i'd be fibbing. they actually filibustered the bill so that no one would vote on it. It would have passed and the President would have to personally veto it. My question is why do this? the Senator takes heat for not being supportive of the troops and they KNOW the president would veto the bill without worrying about political heat for re-election. maybe my thinking is off here.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
because this way it doesn't have to be so out in the open. If it passes and the prez smacks a veto on it then we reveal that the commander in chief doesn't give a rat's ass about the individual soldiers. He's only concerened with makin war, because war equals money, power and legacy. Soldiers are only people...and mostly poor people at that. If you reveal that your war is worthless then you have to defend yourself and your job as a politician way too much. This way it can all be swept under the rug and nobody really gets a chance to call you on your piles and piles of bullshit.
Post a Comment