March 19, 2007

Did Corker Vote to Defund the Troops?

According to a Senate roll call vote tally, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, voted against a "concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American Troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned mission."

A "No" vote in this case meant siding with 15 of the most liberal Democrat Senators who make up most of the Senate surrender caucus - Akaka, Biden, Bingaman, Byrd, Dodd, Feingold, Kennedy, Leahy, Menendez, Murray, Reed, Reid, Rockefeller, Whitehouse - and one socialist independent (Sanders) who want to defund the Iraq war.

Although I voted for him, I'm no big fan of Sen. Corker. But I don't believe for a second he meant to vote in favor of cutting off funding for our troops currently serving in harm's way in a war zone.

I suspect what happened here is Sen. Corker mistakenly thought voting "No" meant voting against cutting off funding for the troops. Another possibility - look closely at the description of the resolution: It says no funds shall be cut off "which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned mission." That would leave the door open to the defeatist Democrats now running the Congress to come back and try to cut off funds that they deem would NOT result in undermining the safety of the troops or their ability to complete their assigned mission. That's a mighty big loophole to leave in the hands of the Congressional Democrats who desperately want to defund the war in order to ensure American defeat in Iraq.

Update: Well, I needn't have speculated. Corker's website has an explanation: He has vowed to vote against all nonbinding resolutions dealing with Iraq, no matter what they say, calling them "political posturing" and a waste of time.

U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) today voted against all Iraq resolutions in keeping with the statement he made Wednesday that he would "vote against all resolutions - Democrat and Republican - that deal with Iraq."

On Wednesday Corker said:

"I think the American people recognize this debate for what it is - political posturing," said Corker. "The real debate on Iraq will occur in the coming weeks when we take up the supplemental funding bill.

"Congress has spent far too much time debating non-binding resolutions and resolutions that claim to be binding, and I plan to vote against all of them - Democrat and Republican. Though I strongly disagree with their position, if members of Congress want to oppose the war in Iraq they should vote to cut off funding, not pass more meaningless resolutions.

"I've been clear about my position. I believe we must give General Petraeus until mid-summer to see if we can turn the downward spiral in Iraq into an upward spiral so that Iraq has the ability to take over its own destiny and maintain its own security. Therefore I will be voting in the supplemental to give General Petraeus and our troops on the ground in Iraq the support they need and deserve."