Fact Check: Obama Did Vote to Defund Troops in Combat, McCain Didn’t
Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 10:01AM At the 2nd presidential debate this week, Democrat Barack Obama continued to perpetuate a the fraud that he did NOT vote to defund the troops in Iraq and that in fact John McCain voted not to authorize funds to the troops.
Here on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes last night, John McCain explained the difference between his vote and Obama’s:
If that isn’t clear enough, allow me.
On September 20, 2007, bill H.R. 1585 , the Feingold-Reid Amendment, was brought to the Senate floor for a vote. The bill authorized the defunding of troops in Iraq and called for the redeployment of troops from Iraq.
John McCain voted against the bill, which was defeated 70-28.
Barack Obama voted for this bill along with 27 other anti-war democrats.
Senator Russ Feingold, who co-authored this bill with Harry Reid, wrote this on his Senate web site:
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER COSPONSORS FEINGOLD BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQApril 2, 2007Washington D.C. - U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.The language of the legislation reads:(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
READ FEINGOLD’S COMPLETE STATEMENT
So when you hear, and you undoubtedly will hear it again and again from Barack Obama and Joe Biden as you did in the previous debates, that both Obama and McCain voted for the same bill and they both voted to cut off funds to the troops in Iraq, it is a lie. Obama/Biden are banking on the American people watching Saturday Night Live skits about Sarah Palin rather than looking up the Senate votes themselves.
McCain was all in favor of funding the troops without a mandatory withdrawal date, which by the way would have likely lost the war in Iraq. Obama voted to cut off the troops at the knees by drying up funds in combat.
Trackback URL: http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/2407015
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (34)
Another losing battle for McCain.
Reasonable voters know that neither candidate ever voted, as a practical matter, to leave soldiers without guns and ammo. Every vote regarding funding, on either side, was tied in to some larger issue, as you well know.
Trying to paint any of the candidates as not caring about American soldiers is disingenuous at best.
Disagree, grumpy. How a politican votes and how he views the troops is vital. In every poll, McCain leads Obama in the "who would you trust as commander in chief" category.
There's a reason for that.
The fact remains that Obama voted to DEFUND the troops. I remember when it happened and having a husband return from Iraq just months prior to the vote, I was horrified.
McCain must be quick. Ask ObMao what was the number of the bill, then state that it was not about Iraq money only, and why is he trying to trick the people? He could be sly as a fox and say, well As I remember that Bill, it contained money for raising the minimum wage. ObMao is then stuck to tell the truth. I understand McCain is old, a wrong choice because of his age, we could have nominated someone younger )( I tried) but we have to deal with what we have. The other choice has friends that are anti-whitey ( Ayers, Said, Jeremiah, etc...list goes on and on) and a full blown anti-westerner -- wants full scale dictatorship-communism. He is so dishonest he keeps the reporters guessing and waiting and does not allow them time to get their reports in --least they say something that is not flattering.
Thank you Amy for continuing to set the record stright by exposing the truth about Obama that the mainstream media refuses too. The truth always wins out! Keep it up. This election is too important! Our country's future is too important!
Grumpy: "... Reasonable voters know that neither candidate ever voted, as a practical matter, to leave soldiers without guns and ammo. Every vote regarding funding, on either side, was tied in to some larger issue, as you well know."
SG: Well ... Everyone knowz, you go into an election with the facts you wish you had, not the facts as they are.
Snerd
Golden (R)ule: "... The other choice has friends that are anti-whitey .... wants full scale dictatorship-communism. "
SG: Ahhhh ... a racist, communist, dictator .... is that all!?
You know, Golden (R)ule ... peoples' adrenal glands (R) all wore out with all the previous "liberals is terrorists" yellow and orange alerts ... So is you, or is you aint, issuin' a McCarthy level (R)ed Alert!?
Snerd
Just a quibbling point to be sure, but McCain did NOT vote against H.R. 1591 as stated - follow the link and you see that he is designated as "Not Voting." Questionable editing job as well, omitting the three exceptions to the Feingold-Reid Amendment (although the provided link makes them easy to find). Those three "narrow" exceptions cover just about every reasonable expense associated with the Iraq war.
Golden ...
I think David Brooks has become a commie lovin'. dictator supportin', anti-whitey racist too ...
"... David Brooks spoke frankly about the presidential and vice presidential candidates Monday afternoon, calling Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican party" ... Brooks decried Palin's anti-intellectualism and compared her to President Bush in that regard:"
Sheeesh! .... First David links the Palin/McKane ticket to Bush. Then, we know already McKane has cancer, but David suggests Palin has given it to the whole (R) party!
Snerd
Clearly you have already been reminded where you are incorrect in your fact checking.
I have a hint for you - Perhaps using Faux News and a Hannity interview with John McCain as your fact checking isnt a very neutral idea.
You are welcome.
It's doubtful you'll listen to reason, but I'll try anyway.... How exactly is it "defunding" the troops if there are much fewer troops there? The Feingold-Read Amendment is clearly an attempt to begin the withdrawl and let Iraqis start taking more responsibility. What's your per-capita troop funding requirement? Less troops means less money required, no?
I think the timeline (120 days) is too aggressive, but I'm definitely for a gradual re-deployment to other parts of our world (Afganistan, to start), and, more importantly, to get troops home who have seen way too many deployments already.
So where you stand, Amy, is you think troops should be continually torn from their families on third and fourth (fifth?) deployments, and that we indefinitely fund the Iraqi security apparatus with our money and our soldiers no matter the toll it takes on our economy or the problems it creates for military families? Is that right?
Obama and McCain each voted several times for troop funding.
Obama and McCain voted each voted against funding once.
Obama once because he didn't want to give Bush a blank check.
McCain voted againt troop funding once because he opposed a timetable.
McCain also chose not to support the GI Bill. Obama was a strong supporter
and voted for the Bill. Contributions to the Obama campaign from military outnumbers those for McCain 6:1. Obama has stronger support among
Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain (VVAJM) provides external links for its readers as a convenience and for informational purposes only. ...
www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/ - 37k - Cached - Similar pages
Read what David Hackworth ...
Unfit to serve as Command-in-Chief
Let’The Mythical John McCain
A First-Person Account US Documents pertaining to ...
Colonel Hopper and the True ...
About VVAJM
Dr
More results from vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com »
US Documents pertaining to McCain’s COLLABORATIONS with the Communist POW McCain seriously "collaborated" . . . listed below are 5 transcripts of approximately 20 interviews McCain gave the communist. ...
www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_declassified_landing.htm - 17k - Cached - Similar pages
YouTube - Vietnam Veterans Against McCain
The group Vietnam Veterans Against McCain attacks Senator ...
8 min -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g
STA: "... The Feingold-Read Amendment is clearly an attempt to begin the withdrawl and let Iraqis start taking more responsibility. What's your per-capita troop funding requirement? Less troops means less money required, no?"
SG: I think asking individual citizens for this level of assessment is 'unfair and imbalanced'.
What we need is an investigation ... conducted by a private contractor like Halliburtan, paid by a No-Bid contract, run through the office of the VP, and being a publicly funded study, Dick Cheney gets to decide, at his own discretion, whether to release it or not.
Finally, Amy should not have to answer that question. 'while there is an on-going investigation' ...
Snerd
Speaking of funding...the Dow is tanking again. This after both Presidential nominees supported a bailout...er,...excuse me, a rescue.
Note Obama has repeatedly praised General Patreaus
Correction:
McCain also chose not to support the GI Bill. Obama was a strong supporter
and voted for the Bill. Contributions to the Obama campaign from military outnumbers those for McCain 6:1. Obama has strong support among veterans
Veterans Supporting Obama Speak About the Candidate | Online ... Aug 27, 2008 ... Conversation from the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: Veterans Supporting Obama Speak About the Candidate: As the theme of Wednesday's Democratic ...
www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/military_08-27.html - 62k -
Amy, this is a great post.
However, sadly, it will fall on the deaf ears of those who adore and worship Obama.
At least Hannity & Colmes set the record straight.
Good Lord, Amy.
You sure know how to pick the topics to make blood ooze from the eyes of moonbats, LOL!
In spite of posting facts (they can't be bothered with facts), and links to actual records (they can't be bothered with those either), they refuse to give up the obaMAO kool-aid. Their socialistic agenda drives them to a feverish pitch resulting in convulsions and frothing at the mouth when the ‘terrorist abetting’, ‘NOI supporting’, ‘Chicago Politician’ is laid bare.
No drugs can counteract the affects of the toxic venom in the kool-aid of Barack HUSSEIN OBAMAO.
Ok, that was fun to type.
I truly do feel sad for you Leticia. I will pray for you. Hopefully God can guide you and your poor family in the right direction in the future.
Ben: "Speaking of funding...the Dow is tanking again. This after both Presidential nominees supported a bailout...er,...excuse me, a rescue."
SG: Yup, the end of Reagan-omics ... but where will it actually end!?
Apparently "W" is now talkin' about takin' over banks ... yup, nationalizing banks ... as the only way to deal with the collateral damage of his deregulation, laissez faire, trickle-down, economic policies ...
The irony is ... a little more 'liberal' application of regulation and oversight on the front end and we wouldn't be in a position that requires the nationalization of banks ...
Snerd
On this one, Amy, I believe you'll have to let the documentation stand. No reason to give these yahoos more reason to heap abuse. Liberals hate the military until they need 'em for one reason or another. Like that time the Code Pinko was accosted by somebody on the street. She didn't yell for the police, she yelled for the Marines from the very same recruiting center she and the rest of her crowd had been protesting in front of and preventing people from entering.
HA! StephC
That was in Berkeley, CA earlier this year. They shoulda threw her under the bus like Obama does, ROTFLMBO!
That's the one, Gary.
To Ayers is human,
To Ayers re-Keatingly, is a sign ...
Snerd
First, someone pointed out that McCain didn't vote in the bill. There were 7 versions (I believe) of the bill and he voted against all that he was present for. I had several Senate voting pages open and linked to the wrong version of the bill. That will be corrected momentarily.
Also, I didn't do an "editing job", inferring I purposely edited out vital information. I linked to READ FEINGOLD’S COMPLETE STATEMENT so anyone who wanted the full context coudl get it. Its impratical to post the entire thing on my blog and those exceptions didn't make a difference. The exceptions don't contradict the fact that the purpose of the bill was to defund the troops.
It also shows what horrible military leaders democrats can be. Those exceptions are ridiculous. So, we'll pull the troops at the height of the surge as violence is just coming down but keep a small force to train Iraqi forces. 1) the troop reduction would make the remaining troops high valued targets for terrorists. You see, not only would al-Qaeda have been able to claim victory as the U.S. tried to scurry from the country, they coudl have snipered our soldiers, who would not be there to kill the enemy but train Iraqis. U.S. troops would have been ducking fire, adding to the perception that the U.S. is weak and unable to fight. 2) What exactly woudl a small residual force train Iraqis? How to put out fires? How to run away? How to fail at military strategy? There wouldn't have been enough troops left to successfully to anything but take cover.
Remember, this was during September when the surge was just starting to yield positive results and al-Qaeda was still very strong in Iraq.
Dolts. Dems don't have a clue.
PS... to make a point, you can look at the Feingold-Reid bill Obama voted for and see that McCain voted against it.
Okay, I fixed the links. I had 5 Senate bills and amendments open when I was linking and cross-referenced the wrong one. Thanks Blake for pointing that out.
Okay, I've been out of the discussion for a day but the link is fixed and goes to the proposed bill that Feingold described as "defunding". This isn't rocket science.
Just stand by your candidate. If you can support Obama's record, what little there is of it, just be honest about. Don't try to change te facts for the heck of it.
I apologize for intially linking to the wrong bill, i.e., the attributing a negative vote to a bill that Obama voted for (which he did) when in fact McCain didn't vote for that bill. The impact is the same. There were 7 versions of the defunding bill and whenever Obam voted, he voted for them. Whenever McCain voted, he voted against them.
I'm not sure what the uproar is about. The end result is exactly the same.
Amy,
why do you label everyone? Does it serve a meaningful purpose to demonize those that dont agree with you?
There are real issues that need to be addressed. Americans need to hear proposals for getting out of the mess were in. Were fighting a war on two fronts, the fundamentals of the economy are NOT strong, and people are losing their jobs.
Does it do more good to talk about Bill Ayers or to talk about what can be done to get us out of this mess?
In all seriousness, your priorities are skewed.
Why do I label everything... I don't label everything but point taken. It helps to generalize.
Mr. UniteUs, Obama repeatedly praised GEN Petraeus? Then why didn’t he get off his hiney in the Senate coffee room and make it to the floor and vote for a resolution condemning the MoveOn.Org “GEN BetrayUs” ad in the New York Times? The bill supported Petraeus' integrity:
There were only 3 Senators who didn’t vote. They were all Democrats and 2 are the Dem presidential tag team of Obama and Biden. I don’t know about Biden, but the scandal at the tiem wa that Obama was there and didn’t vote because he didn’t want to torque off his communist party members who hate the military and Petraeus.
And isn’t Obama the same dude who flew into Iraq during his European Middle Eastern fanstasy tour to try to sway the Iraqi government and undermine the current negotiations between Iraq and the U.S. for HIS political benefit?
This is a clear violation of the Logan Act.
Obama’s praise for GEN Petraeus is lip service and nothing else. There’s no other way to make sense of his voting record and history of undermining the great work GEN Petraeus has done in Iraq.
Let me show you how it works:
I LOVE Barack Obama! He’s so qualified to be president!
That’s lip service. It’s completely disingenuous and I don’t mean it, but I said it to make a point.
You didnt answer a single one of my questions.
Thanks for the attempt.
And I didnt say you label everything, I said you label everyone.
Nazis generalized in their labeling of "undesirables".
You engage in labeling people "anti-american" do you think this does not have an impact on perception? Does it not foment hatred of certain groups i.e Dems, Libs, Gays...etc..
If Barack Obama is assasinated would you hold FoxNews partially responsible for inciting hatred?
It's been a while since I've done this, but let me help bash some leftist skulls:
"It's doubtful you'll listen to reason, but I'll try anyway.... How exactly is it "defunding" the troops if there are much fewer troops there?"
Stop playing word games. The "defunding the troops" CLEARLY means to not allocate enough money for them to complete the mission in Iraq.
The Feingold-Read Amendment is clearly an attempt to begin the withdrawl and let Iraqis start taking more responsibility. What's your per-capita troop funding requirement? Less troops means less money required, no?
The Feingold-Read Amendment -- issued at the height of the sectarian violence in Iraq, would have had guaranted a Vietnam-like withdrawal. What you call "phased redeployment' our enemies understand quite well as "surrender".
I think the timeline (120 days) is too aggressive,
Then you shouldn't praise the bill, because that timeline is what made it suicide.
but I'm definitely for a gradual re-deployment to other parts of our world (Afganistan, to start), and, more importantly, to get troops home who have seen way too many deployments already.
You can only redeploy when the situation on the ground improves. When you pull out under fire, that's not "redeployment", as I've stated above.
So where you stand, Amy, is you think troops should be continually torn from their families on third and fourth (fifth?) deployments, and that we indefinitely
Straw man arguments. Try harder next time.
No, if Obama were assassinated I'd blame the person who did it. There has been unbridled hatred from the left toward Bush and Palin. Who would YOU blame if either of them were murdered?
As a whole the Republican party is far more balances and tolerant than liberals. They need to work on their anger issues before they preach to Republicans.
Well said, grumpy old fart :)
I was an independent voter until a few weeks ago, but I'm now voting for Obama due to the attacks and negativity from McCain/Palin campaign.
With the endorsements from both a prestigious military leader like Colin Powel and an economic genius like Warren Buffet, it's hard to say that he isn't capable to do the job.
Something similar to the "Obama doesn't care about our troops" smear is the "Obama is all about killing babies" smear. He voted against a partial birth abortion ban...but if you read the rest of the story it was because the legislation failed to take into consideration the mother's health or her LIFE.
Pro life, pro child, pro family, pro choice and pro Obama.
Questioning the American Bolshevik views
1. Is wealth redistribution taking money from stockholders and redistributing it to those who don’t pay taxes?
2. Is it more important to make sure that illegal votes are not disenfranchised or making sure that groups like ACORN do not nullify honest votes.
3. Would premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq grand jihadists a victory and make all of our accomplishments, money spent and lives lost a big waist?
4. Can this country afford to grant socialist Democrats total control of the government and allow them to sacrifice our safety by cutting the military budget by 25%?
Now comes the big question. How do we stop socialism from ruining our lives?
The answer is simple. Don’t vote American Bolsheviks into power and boycott the socialist propaganda media into bankruptcy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjvBEKrGkDI
Cybercorrespondent