« Home | Who should we fear next? » | Presidents' Day Protest lands on CBS » | MySpace is just a series of tubes » | Thank GOD, the Dems are good for something » | Federal judge to US Gov: Grow more pot! » | Limbaugh: Obama should renounce race » | The *NEW* definition of 'Cut and Run' » | A new anthem » | The two-twenty-two » | Molly, get your pan »

Sam Johnson, during and after Clinton

Texas Republican Representative Sam Johnson is an unwaivering paragon of ideological fault.

Here's what he said the other day, regarding Rep. Jack Murtha's proposal to mandate combat troops are properly equipped ...

Debating non-binding resolutions aimed at earning political points only destroys morale, stymies success, and emboldens the enemy.

The grim reality is that this House measure is the first step to cutting funding of the troops…Just ask John Murtha about his “slow-bleed” plan that hamstrings our troops in harm’s way.

But in 1995, Johnson had a much different view of how Congress should respond to unwanted military action ...
I wholeheartedly support withholding funds… Although it is a drastic step and ties the President’s hands, I do not feel like we have any other choice. The President has tied our hands, gone against the wishes of the American people, and this is the last best way I know how to show my respect for our American servicemen and women. They are helpless, following orders. But we, we are in a position to stop this terrible mistake before it happens.
So was he for pulling funds from the President's war efforts before he was against it? Or does Rep. Sam Johnson think that playing partisanship with the lives of our soldiers is somehow acceptable?


Links to this post

Create a Link

The Weird, Turned Pro.

Created by The Gonzo Muckraker
Based in Dallas, Texas
More about the author.

Stories I'm Digging today ...