Why Do Republicans Hate Our Troops? (snark)

I'll tell you, after reading this, it would be so easy to do what Republicans have done to Democrats over and over again, accuse them of being "traitors" and of "hating our troops" blah blah blah. Check this out.

House Republicans are preparing to vote en bloc against the $106 billion war-spending bill, a position once unthinkable for the party that characterized the money as support for the troops.

For years, Republicans portrayed the bills funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as matters of national security and accused Democrats who voted against them of voting against the troops.

That's right, Republicans are about to do what they consistently said was treasonous - vote against funding for our troops. And why? This is the part that's truly incredible.

...Republicans say this year is different. Democrats have included a $5 billion increase for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid nations affected by the global financial crisis. Republicans say that is reason enough to vote against the entire $106 billion spending bill and are certain voters will understand.

That's right, the reason Republicans are citing for their opposition to "funding our troops" is not some great matter of national security, it's frickin' $5 billion for the IMF! To put that $5 billion into perspective, The Hill notes that it "amounts to less than 5 percent of the proposed spending in the legislation." So, in the end, Republicans are going to vote as a bloc against supplemental war funding because of a pittance. This is the party that will do anything to "support the war" and "the troops?" So much for that!

P.S. Meanwhile, NLS points out that there is "a critical vote coming up tomorrow" on the war funding supplemental. One crucial question is whether a withdrawal requirement, timetable, and/or benchmarks should be included in the funding. Personally, I have mixed feelings about laying down timetables and benchmarks. On the other hand, perhaps it's time for Congress to send a signal that it hasn't forgotten about the ultimate goal here - getting out of Iraq, carefully of course, but getting out once and for all?