Fox News' Cameron ignores prior GOP votes for war spending bills with non-war spending

››› ››› DIANNA PARKER

Carl Cameron reported that House Republicans are opposing President Obama's war spending bill because it contains funds "improper in a war funding bill." But Republicans passed numerous supplemental war spending bills during the Bush administration that contained non-war spending.

On the June 11 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron reported that "Democratic leaders had hoped to pass the president's $105 billion war spending bill today. Instead, they have an embarrassing meltdown underway. There are a host of problems." As evidence of one such "problem," Cameron said that "House Republicans are threatening to withdraw their support, because Democrats added $5 billion in International Monetary Funds, which the GOP opposes as improper in a war funding bill." However, Cameron did not report that Republicans have previously supported supplemental war spending bills enacted during the Bush administration when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate that contained non-war spending, such as money for hurricanes, influenza pandemics, border security, and tsunami relief.

In May 2005, 225 Republicans voted for H.R. 1268, a supplemental war funding appropriations bill that included emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as committed funding to Indian Ocean tsunami relief, the Department of Agriculture's emergency watershed protection program, border security, and that prohibited states from issuing drivers' licenses to undocumented immigrants. On June 13, 2006, 204 Republicans voted for H.R. 4939, a supplemental war funding bill that also included funding for hurricane relief. Additionally, in 2003, 222 Republicans voted for a war funding bill that, among other non-war spending provisions, contained $11 million "for salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives"

From the June 11 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:

CHRIS WALLACE (Fox News Sunday host): Paying for the continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has proven to be a battle in its own right. Chief political correspondent Carl Cameron joins us live now from Capitol Hill to explain. Good evening, Carl.

CAMERON: Hiya, Chris. Well, Democratic leaders had hoped to pass the president's $105 billion war spending bill today. Instead, they have an embarrassing meltdown underway. There are a host of problems. There is no deal, and right now, the congressional House and Democratic leadership has egg on its face.

House Democrats face a rebellion among anti-war liberals who oppose the president's escalation in Afghanistan as a betrayal of its promise to reduce the U.S. military overseas. Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs anti-war liberal votes now because House Republicans are threatening to withdraw their support, because Democrats added $5 billion in International Monetary Funds, which the GOP opposes as improper in a war funding bill.

Pelosi had hoped to win back liberal votes by killing a provision the left opposes, allowing the president and the Pentagon to keep unreleased photos of alleged detainee abuse secret for three years, lest they incite violence against U.S. troops

We've changed our commenting system to Disqus.
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.