They Can Cry If They Want To

Finally, some money Congress managed not to spend last year! $20 million that Republicans set aside for a victory party -- you know, celebrating our victories in Iraq and Afghanistan -- has yet to be spent. AP reports:

The funds for "commemoration of success" in Iraq and Afghanistan were originally tucked into last year's defense measure, but they went unspent amid an uptick in violence in both countries that forced the Pentagon to extend tours of duty for thousands of troops.

When Democrats pointed out that a victory celebration was rather less helpful than a plan for victory, a spokesman for Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) argued that the bill passed unanimously, adding:

"Apparently they were for honoring the troops before they were against it."

So, the way for Congress to honor the troops is to plan elaborate parties while other people fight the war. Since that's the case, shouldn't Republicans have set aside more than $20 million? From what I gather watching reality television, that's the price of a low-end Sweet 16 party in Los Angeles.

Via To the People.

Comments

[JT Barrie]

For some idiotic reason I always equated supporting the troops with adequate post war treatment and counseling to transition them back to civilian life or post war life with their own families. I didn't know that it meant cheering the legisliars who set them against the civilian populations of foreign countries without clear moral guidelines. My do I feel foolish!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

$20 Million...

That is a lot of booze and strippers.

They should just go ahead and have the celebration, and call it something else.

Maybe the Foley/Hastert "going away" party.

[Pro Libertate]

"[A] victory celebration [i]s rather less helpful than a plan for victory."

That's funny. As much as I dislike political snippery, it's one of those things that makes too much sense to disregard as mere partisan bickering. A plan for victory would be nice. For only $10,000,000, I'm willing to spend the next year coming up with one.

[James]

It is sort of "Decline and Fall of Rome," isn't it? Budgeting a victory party while the military situation is deteriorating? But we live in an age where emotional events are planned and programmed for the masses by the State just as they were by the Church a couple of centuries ago.

My sister made the point that what made 9/11 so fascinating was the the elites had no narrative to accompany it. No spin, no explanation, no one to tell us what to feel. It was so unexpected that we were all left on our own to sort things out. The TV commentators were reduced to simply repeating what was happening without any information other than what was in the video feed.

That night when I went to work I got a new view of my coworkers who were forced to process the event without the benefit of State intervention. One of them startled me by giving the opinion that every city could use a couple of airliners smashed into it, starting with the lawyers' offices. Another, whom I had mistaken for common trailer trash, expressed concern for Middle Eastern immigrants. "They're going to have a sleepless night," he said.

When the victory celebration is held, and it will be, regardless of the outcome of the wars, there will be huge press coverage and many assertions of how Americans are proud of their fighting men and therefore proud of their war and the government that started it. You can tell they are because so many of them came out for the parade. And people will always turn out for a parade. That's why they have them.

[joe]

Shouldn't they have deducted a few hundred bucks for the White House's "Mission Accomplished" banner on the Abraham Lincoln? And that Marine tank must have burned some gas pulling down the Saddam statue.

Unless there's a change of course soon, the White House is going to have to digitally edit soldiers into the video of the victory celebration, like in Braveheart.

[MUTT]

With Hannity hosting, chickenhawks wil;l trample each other for good seats......