Party of No to Vote Against War Supplemental

The same Republican party that likened voting against war spending bills as anti-American and against supporting the troops for the last six years is now planning to vote against the $106 billion spending bill.

...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.

Sure, the voters will understand the amazing hypocrisy of the Republican party. It doesn't matter to the GOP that the global financial crisis was our doing. They're taking a stand, dammit, and troops in Afghanistan be damned. It doesn't matter that there were non-war additions when they voted for the funding during the Bush administration, like farm subsidies or an increase in the minimum wage, luckily advanced by Democrats.

In 2005, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) went so far as to say sending troops into battle and not paying for it would be an “immoral thing to do.”

But this is different, isn't it Rep. Cole? Because It's OK If You Are Republican.

UPDATE (2:25pm): John Boehner now makes it all clear. Voting for war supplemental bills pre-2009 supports the troops. But now, voting against war supplemental bills supports the troops. Another bourbon, please!

Boehner Says a ‘No’ Vote on War Spending Bill Protects the Troops