Skip to comments.Group Led By Iraq War Veteran Will Air Ad Attacking Allen (Will Target Others in Congress too)
Posted on 09/13/2006 10:26:11 AM PDT by areafiftyone
click here to read article
The ad cites Senate Vote #116, 108th Congress, 1st Session as proof of this accusation. True, Allen did vote to table this motion to an amendment. He voted that way because it was April of 2003, the amendment was specific ONLY to National Guard and Reserves, and the appropriation for it was ONE BILLION DOLLARS.
Remember what was going on April 2, 2003 when that vote was made? Well, on March 20, 2003 the Iraq war started. On April 9, U.S. ground forces occupied Baghdad. Landrieus amendment for ONE BILLION DOLLARS was an honorable intent to support our military, but given the timing it seemed fiscally questionable since our forces were beating the $*@t out of Iraqi forces and racing to Baghdad. McCain, Hagel, and Warner voted with Allen to table. [John] Kerry did not even vote.
Of course we learned later that our forces would need more funding and better equipment because of the insurgency. What the most comical thing about this is that Allen did vote to appropriate funds for body armor and better equipment in an emergency supplemental appropriations later that year (vote #400). That vote #400 is the same vote that got Kerry into so much trouble. He voted no on #400, and later told a crowd that I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it,
Oh, dear!!!! George Allen has a most distinguished endorsement at this link:
And I have a new tag line!
That's good. I figured there was something on this Bill Allen did not like.
Oh, my! It gets better:
Yep, ol' Jim's a staunch Democrat, the most democratic Democrat in the nation, that he is (snicker, snort).
in the long run, I see this as a PLUS for Allen.
First, it's absurd on its face. PUtting out a false statement by a 527 is not the way to go, especially on its first ad.
Second, Virginians really DO despite that level of negative advertising. It will backfire on Webb.
The article makes it seem that these ads are using the same loophole that the Swift Vets did, so I'd guess it's not illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.