One would have thought that Krystal Ball – the Democrat running against Rob Wittman for Congress - would be more careful with her words (and her funds) after planting her foot so firmly in her mouth last month. Amazingly, one would be wrong, as her latest mailer reveals.
Ball claims that Wittman “repeatedly voted against our veterans and men and women in uniform.” She cites five of Wittman’s “no” votes: HR1105 (2009), HCR85 (also in 2009), HCR 312 (also 2008), and two on HR2642 (2008). There’s only one problem: some of these votes had nothing to do with our veterans and in the case of two of them, “no” was actually the pro-vet vote.
Let’s take these one at a time, shall we?
HR 1105: This was the Obama Omnibus Budget for FY09, basically a roll-up of nine appropriations bills that hadn’t been passed when they were supposed to be passed (September 2008), because the Democrats in Congress wanted then-President Bush to have as little a role as possible in the actual budget. Never mind that this bill including runaway deficit spending (including double-digit percentage increases in some agencies), and focus on this – none of the nine funding areas included Defense or Veterans Affairs, which were funded in separate appropriations bills. (UPDATE: The only affect the bill had was a rider that froze pay for federal workers called into active duty). In other words, Krystal Ball defines a vote against reckless spending that has no impact on the overwhelming majority our troops . . . as a vote against our troops.
Onward, to HCR85 and HCR312. These were the Democrats’ budget resolutions for FY10 and FY09 respectively. They reveal the priorities Congress will set for the coming years, including DoD and DVA. However, they do not appropriate a single dollar of government funds. They are nothing more than political statements that can (and usually are) ignored by Congress when it sees fit. Once again, Krystal insists that votes for a bunch of politically-driven numbers that will become irrelevant as sooned as they are passed (as resolutions, not bills, the President cannot sign or veto them) and have no impact on our troops . . . are somehow votes against our troops.
Wait, it gets better; here comes HR2642. This is the only legislation cited that actually affected our men in women in uniform – it was the 2008 WBK War supplemental (WBK War = Wahhabist-Ba’athist-Khomeinist War: my term for the War on Terror). Wittman voted against two amendments to the bill. Now hears the kicker: one of the amendments demanded a withdrawal from Iraq beginning in 30 days and a “goal” of complete withdrawal in 18 months, while the other included a boatload of unrelated domestic spending. As President Bush promised a veto of any bill with these amendments, voting “yes” in either case meant delaying funding for our troops in battle.
So now, Krystal would have us believe that votes against amendments that would effectively delay crucial funds for our troops on the front . . . are somehow votes against our troops.
I had hoped that Ball’s last missive was a simple rookie mistake, but after this fiasco, I’m not sure if she is patently dishonest or just transmogrifyingly dumb. Either way, she is clearly not qualified to represent me in Congress.