Help me defeat this Repug talking point

Kerry shafted soliders by voting against the $87 Billion package, which included giving things like body armor to soldiers (Kerry keeps talking about how soliders arn't getting things that are supposedly mentioned in the $87 Billion.)

Each vote is brought before the senate several times.. they may vote against one version of the bill, get the version they want with their own certain pork added and vote for it... Its just a plain BS talking point... its the way the senate works..

I was talking about the general GOP BS about Kerry voting against intelligence etc... He did vote against that money... Didnt want to support ### bs war I guess.

to approve of that war through the purse strings. Senator Kerry did the right thing here. He had approved of the first resolution, which said that after all options had been explored, then and only then, could the President take our Nation to war.....Bush did not fulfill the requirements for this and all Senators should have done their Constitutional duty and not approved the funding! I give him high marks on this one!

If a majority of all Senators had not voted for this, then we would be truly supporting our troops, by bringing them home, where they would not need body armour!

in Iraq that they would not spend money on here in the United States, like schools. Also Bush would not allow any of the money to be a loan, it had to be a grant. Turn it back on them, ask them why the Republicans used US soldiers as hostages for money for Iraq. Money that is still not budgeted for, money that is driving the debt sky high.

Look for some of the more objectionable things in the package, and repeat the question, why were our soldiers used as a living shield to give money for X.

Kerry tried to stop it.

Simple.

but that bill combined Iraq reconstruction cost of about 60 B that was supposed to be financed by Iraqi oil. The bill passed so why didn't they get the armor and other materials needed. 2/3 of money was not in support of troops but Rs refused to seperate amounts so B*** and friends could get their money in guise of supporting troops.

I just remember the debate at that time. Unless someone else has it you'll have to research it.

I know if anything like this came up for Clark you could get an answer off the blog in no time.

Democrats wanted to pull out the $65.6 billion to pay for the troops and vote separately on the $20.3 billion because of the no-bid contracts. There was also the Kerry/Biden proposal to pay for the $87 billion Iraq appropriation by rolling back the tax cuts for top 1 percent in their final year which Republicans wouldn't agree to. There was plenty of funding for the troops for several months, this wasn't the kind of emergency that needed to be pushed through. And I just saw one of the manufacturers on TV the other day who said he still hadn't gotten orders for the body armor. Just more crooked lies and distortions.

I'll guarantee they'll use the "$87 billion body armor" lie at Kerry, especially in upcoming Mohamed Horton ads

I mean they started the war in March and they're asking for body armor in September? Where the hell is all our money going in the first place? Kerry wanted some accountability from this administration after their lies about the occupation paying for itself, weapons of mass destruction, and going in with NO plan. Then the administration came back, still without a plan, and asked for more money? Who would keep funding these bozos?

Notice the sig I wrote right before the pic.

I get the picture.

I wish you would devote such prominant space to someone more worthy, but not my call.

and the unchecked greed of Bush's cronies.

Just because someone offers a bill to deal with worthy problems doesn't mean it isn't thieving horseshit, and without the oversight provisions, it was rife for plunder.

Tell your friend that if he really wants to do the right thing, he has to stop shoving demands down people's throats and raging that they're traitors if they don't comply with larceny.

It's like the claim that the estate tax is to help preserve family farms and small businesses. If they gave a hoot about those two groups, they'd sculpt a bill that spelled it out as such, instead of one that benefits almost nobody except for people with GIGANTIC piles of money and property. (It costs taxpayer money to preserve and protect the grotesque and bloated greed of the hereditary rich, mind you...)

Kerry wasn't against supporting the effort--hell, he wants to add more troops to do it right--he just didn't want to go along with yet another greedy fleecing when we're emotionally vulnerable. Feh.