Watch Kerry Explain Why He Voted No On $87 Billion

http://www.johnkerry.com/iraq_vote.html

WHY DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE BUSH APPROACH?

I disagree with the Bush approach because it simply doesn’t share the burden with other countries- it doesn’t show the humility necessary to build our friendships and bring people to us. It doesn’t do all that we can do to protect our troops. The question here is not whether or not the president MIGHT be able to succeed at all that he is doing, over a long period of time, the question is are we doing the most we can do, to MOST effectively protect our troops and most rapidly secure our goals. I believe that by having more countries share the burden and share our risks, by willing to move to get the international community more involved, we will fastest reduce the sense of American occupation, reduce the targeting of American troops, and advance our capacity to be successful.

HOW DO WE WIN PEACE IN IRAQ?

I think we win the peace in Iraq by internationalizing this effort. We have to have the UN be responsible for the civil transformation, the governance, and the infrastructure and humanitarian. And we have to be prepared to transfer authority to the UN to bring other people to us and get them invested in this. I believe that it is critical to the US to end the sense of American occupation as fast as possible, and to transfer authority to the Iraqis as fast as possible, and that can only happen when we begin to bring the international community in to a greater degree.

HOW DO WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS?

I believe the best way to support the troops is to make sure we take the target off them as fast as possible. The best way to support the troops, is get the international community in to help us, so we can have other troops on the ground share the burden and share the risks, and begin to bring them home as fast as we possibly can.

WHY IS YOUR PLAN BETTER THAN SPENDING $87 BILLION?

I’m prepared to spend money; I’m prepared to spend whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq. But I want to spend the money smart. I don’t want to spend 87 billion when it comes from the average American, when it ought to come from the wealthiest Americans instead of President Bush’s tax cut, which is unfair and unaffordable.

Senator Biden and I tried to reduce that tax cut from $690 billion over the next ten years; we wanted to reduce it to $600 billion over the ten years. That’s not bad, for the wealthiest people – 600 billion dollars. But the Republicans voted against even that. I think that’s wrong. Particularly when we need to be investing in education, in health care, in our communities at home, in housing and children. And instead this administration wants to put all of the money in the hands of the wealthiest people, and ask the American people to spend 87 billion dollars in Iraq.

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?

I know there’s a better plan for how we deal with Iraq, and here it is, very simply:

You've got to go the UN completely, not in this phony way that the President’s getting them to sign off just because of the games they play, but in a real transfers of authority to the UN for the civil development, for the governance, and for the humanitarian programs. Then it’s possible to have a broader, multination force come onto the ground, relieve the pressure from the American force, reduce the sense of American occupation and take the target off of American soldiers.

Once you do both of those things, you can train the Iraqi military and police faster, and you can set a date for the transfer of full authority for Iraq back to the Iraqis. If all of that were done simultaneously, you’d have a much faster transition of authority in Iraq and you’d make the ground much safer for American forces, and you begin to reduce the number of American forces who are overcommitted and overextended, and you could bring them back to the United States much more rapidly.

<>

gosh what a surprise.

How convenient for him.

Why hasn't he been around to vote on anything else?

That the Minority Leader will call him in for any needed votes. In the meantime, he is busy doing what is best for America - kicking Bush's ass.

Keep in mind that only Clark and Kerry have come out ahead of Bush in national polls. I'd say that's a pretty good indication that he is doing something right.

nt

Close or not his primary job is the Senate. Kerry has missed more votes than any other Senator in history I believe.

Go sing your high praises of Dean and continue to bash other people's candidates. It only makes you look like an angry twit.

Voting for the blank check for *.

Sorry.

Hawkeye-X

But do you agree with Kerry's statements here?

I can tell Dean felt awkward letting Kucinich take the more radical position at the debates, but Dean was right to agree with Kerry - pulling troops out now would be a terrible mistake in the long-run. And after 9/11, we have to think in terms of the long-run.

But s/he's not gonna just volunteer that info.

I told you so

Today I have come to let a lot of my frustration with Senator Kerry go. I am so very, very happy that he made this stand.

I'd ask all here to send the Senator a letter of respect and gratitude for his vote today. I am going to do so now.

Kick.

Seeing as how we totally fucked them over, in addition to "supporting the troops" and "wining peace" there was a specific part of somone's plan that said - hey you know there are a lot of tragically suffering iraqi's over there, and a lot of them are worse off than ever thanks to us, and we have an obligation to do something about that.

Don't you think peace in Iraq would help the Iraqis? Is it a requirement that candidates not only adopt policies you agree with, but promote them using your preferred language and phrasings?

Sometimes the roll call record is misleading.

The Senate has an old tradition called "pairing votes" that enables Senators to miss votes without affecting the outcome. Those Senators who are going to be absent are matched up by the bill's floor leaders: each Senator "for" a bill is paired with one "against" who will also be absent.

So long as a quorum remains to conduct business, Senators may freely skip the vote if there is someone on the other side to "pair" up with.

In the cases of close votes by the head-count, those Senators who have not been "paired" are called back to vote.

The way the Senate runs, a Senator doesn't have to be present to "have his vote count." Of course, those who miss a lot may have to answer to their constituents at reelection.

MoveOn.org sent this out yesterday in an afternoon edition of their e-mail alerts, the Daily MisLead.

A report released October 15, 2003 by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says the defense department budget has sufficient money to fund the troops in Iraq through May 2004!

From the Daily Mislead:

<snip>

The (Congressional Research Service) CRS study released yesterday suggests that the recently-passed $368.2 billion 2004 Defense funding bill plus the emergency funding Congress passed at the start of the war provides the Army alone with $37 billion in funding for personnel and operations and maintenance, enough to fund operations through early May.2

President Bush requested the money in September, saying, "We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq."3 But even prior to the CRS survey's conclusions, Republican aides said that the administration inflated its budget request in part to avoid having to ask for additional funds the following year -- during the election season.4

more: http://www.misleader.com/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df10162003.html

Here is a link a pdf of the CRS report. Note it is provided by Jan Schakowsky's House site:

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/04-Supp-availability_of_Army_funds-memo-15Oct03.pdf