Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Group Led By Iraq War Veteran Will Air Ad Attacking Allen (Will Target Others in Congress too)
Hampton Roads - Pilot Online ^ | 9/13/06

Posted on 09/13/2006 10:26:11 AM PDT by areafiftyone

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-58 last
To: areafiftyone; All
The Allen A-Team has responded - Dems try their own version of swiftboating

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. Landrieu’s 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,”

So. There.

;-)

51 posted on 09/13/2006 12:51:52 PM PDT by Corin Stormhands (HHD: Join the Hobbit Hole Troop Support - http://freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands; All

Oh, dear!!!! George Allen has a most distinguished endorsement at this link:

http://media.putfile.com/Webb-on-Allen

And I have a new tag line!


52 posted on 09/13/2006 12:56:59 PM PDT by Darnright (http://media.putfile.com/Webb-on-Allen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands

That's good. I figured there was something on this Bill Allen did not like.


53 posted on 09/13/2006 12:59:54 PM PDT by areafiftyone (Politicians Are Like Diapers - Both Need To Be Changed Often And For The Same Reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands

Oh, my! It gets better:

http://media.putfile.com/Webb-on-Clinton

Yep, ol' Jim's a staunch Democrat, the most democratic Democrat in the nation, that he is (snicker, snort).


54 posted on 09/13/2006 1:01:48 PM PDT by Darnright (http://media.putfile.com/Webb-on-Allen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Darnright

The Ward View

55 posted on 09/13/2006 1:01:58 PM PDT by Corin Stormhands (HHD: Join the Hobbit Hole Troop Support - http://freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands

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.


56 posted on 09/13/2006 6:13:19 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers
Aren't these ads illegal under McCain-Feingold?

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.

57 posted on 09/13/2006 7:12:15 PM PDT by Eagle Forgotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Good evening.

Since they don't have to worry about DemocRATS who voted yea, It will be interesting to see what races they do try to influence.

Michael Frazier
58 posted on 09/13/2006 9:19:00 PM PDT by brazzaville (no surrender no retreat, well, maybe retreat's ok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-58 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson