Politico points out Blunt's hypocrisy on war funding bill

More from the Department of How Things Change:

Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), then the minority Republican whip, was quoted in The Washington Times in March 2007: “There's a reason the supplemental bill is filed under 'emergency spending,' and it's not so that we can sit around and wait for Democrats to think through their political challenges instead of actively engaging the logistical ones.”

As noted earlier today, House Republicans are pledging to oppose a war-funding bill because it includes a relatively small amount of money for the International Monetary Fund. In years past, the rhetoric was a lot different:

To hold up a war-funding bill would be “the equivalent of waving a white flag to al Qaeda.” It would be “nothing less than a disgrace.” Why, it would be using “our troops as pawns in a political game.”

That’s what GOP lawmakers said when a Republican president was in the White House, and it was Democrats who were trying to put on the brakes on a war supplemental bill.

I don't really have a problem with principled opposition to a war spending bill.  It's not unpatriotic, or surrender to al Qaeda, or a disgrace. 

But it sure would be nice for Blunt, John Boehner and the rest of the previously-aghast bunch to explain why it's no longer unpatriotic to do exactly what they're doing.