One would expect that an emergency war supplemental bill to be a bill that primarily deals with funding for our troops, but under the Democrats’ regime that we currently live under, this expectation proves false. Essentially, the Obama administration has taken an emergency war spending bill that should mainly have been used to support the troops and added to it provisions that give an unaccountable international organization billions of dollars as a bailout. This means that the American taxpayer will now be footing the bill for not only the US financial institutions that got us into this economic crisis but also for European banks that made risky investments in Eastern Europe. The bill in itself is for $106 billion with about $80 billion going to our troops, but it authorizes a $108 billion loan to bail out the International Monetary Fund. This bill was a brazen attempt at tying “global bailout” efforts to supporting our troops, an underhanded move that split Senate and House Republicans, with the former supporting it and the latter voting almost unanimously against it. An emergency war supplemental bill should support our troops, not to spend taxpayer dollars to bail out other countries’ banks… instead, the administration should request the money for international organizations and foreign banks separately, but apparently they were betting that such a bill could not pass. They’re probably right.

This Supplemental Appropriations Act lost the support of 35 Democrats who were worried about the fact that Obama has not presented a thorough exit strategy for Afghanistan while allocating even more money to their military and non-military affairs and of course due to the $108 billion in loans to the IMF. Also, the bill initially requested funds for the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States mainland and for the release of photos of detainee abuse that could be used in terrorist recruitment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fortunately, the money was denied and it was decided that the photos would not be released, but it shows what the Obama administration’s agenda is all about and it’s not the safety of the American people or our troops. The bill prohibits the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is a premature commitment on the part of the administration. We cannot and do not know about the need for permanent bases, especially considering the worsening situation in both countries, therefore to ban bases is completely short-sighted. What this bill does is unnecessarily tie the hands of the military in the global war on terror… or should I say our “Overseas Contingency Operations.” What the military needs is a war spending bill that is not used as a Trojan Horse for the administration’s political agenda and that actually focuses more on the real-world security concerns of our country. With the deteriorating security situation in Iraq and Afghanistan we need more direct funding for the military, less funding for international organizations and foreign banks, and zero restrictions on our efforts to fight terror… it also wouldn’t hurt to resume the use of the ever-so-clear expression Global War on Terror.

Republicans should have been more united in opposing this bill and very loudly and publicly offering a better alternative, or at the very least demanding that the Democrats separate the part that actually funds the troops with the part that funds foreign governments, some of which actively support terror like Iran. With a united Republican opposition it may have been possible to secure more funds for the troops at a time when terrorism around the world is on the rise. The Democrats have been very clear on their plans for our enemies, diplomacy even if it means that they develop weapons of mass destruction while we negotiate with them. The Republicans must show that they are in complete opposition to this agenda by supporting a strong military force that will serve as a deterrent to rogue states developing nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism. If the Republicans do not know how to remain united, then they should listen to this guy:

Politics should never be put before our troops.

-AG