http://www.puddingbowl.org/archive/2004/09/kerry_bush_and.php<edit>
Kerry's issues with the bill that ultimately passed had to do with where the money would come from and where the $20 billion tacked on for "reconstruction" would go. Kerry and others wanted to repeal some tax cuts on the wealthy and/or loan the money against future Iraqi oil proceeds rather than tack the cost onto Bush's mounting deficit, and it was rightly disputed whether a bill providing much-needed materiel for our troops ought to be tied to carte-blanche cash for no-bid contracts awarded to cronies of the Bush administration.
However, Bush threatened to veto the bill that Kerry, Edwards, and others supported. He refused to sign a version that would cost him any of his tax cut and require advance explanation and oversight of the $20 billion for reconstruction. So the Republican majority made sure it was served up the president's way.
Reasonable people can argue that a bill providing aid and comfort to our troops should have been supported unanimously, and that Kerry and Edwards should have voted for the final version regardless of their disputes with it. Hell, you could even argue that Kerry was stinking up the primaries and needed to shore up his anti-war cred against Howard Dean.
But let's understand that Kerry's "No" vote had principle behind it, and that Kerry and Edwards did, indeed, support the funding for our troops before Bush forced passage of his version of the bill.
And let's also understand this: Bush threatened to veto a version of this bill, "this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor." One might even say that he voted against it before he voted for it.