The Infamous $87 Billion Vote - More Explanation

This is from the blog on www.johnkerry.com. It helps to further explain Kerry's votes on the $87 Billion vote for Iraq expenditures.

"John Kerry Voted to Fund Iraq’s Reconstruction Through Shared Sacrifice - Not a Blank Check for a Failed Policy. After witnessing the way in which the president went to war - without our allies, without properly equipping the troops, without a plan to win the peace - John Kerry supported a responsible plan to pay for George Bush’s $87 billion Iraq reconstruction plan, co-sponsoring and voting for an amendment to rescind the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans in order to pay for Iraq. The amendment failed, and the Bush administration still has no plan to win the peace or a way to pay the bill.

“The best way to support our troops and take the target off their backs is with a real strategy to win the peace in Iraq - not by throwing $87 billion at George Bush's failed policies,” Kerry said. “I am voting ‘no’ on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq.”

This Was A Vote to Protest Bush’s Failed Policy in Iraq - Kerry KNEW the $87 Billion Would Pass: “KERRY: It will get about 90 votes, maybe 85 votes. There's no question it will pass. But I think it is important to make it clear to America this is not the right way. We are--I mean, look, we're spending $30,000 for pickup trucks in this bill. We've got $6,000 cell phones. We're building prisons for them for years to come. We have an extraordinary amount of padding in this expenditure, and we do not have the kind of support on the ground that really protects our troops. There's a better way to carry out this policy, and I intend to stand up and fight for America's interests, for our troops' interests, for the long-term security of our country, and that's what I'm doing with this vote.”

The White House Threatened to Veto $87 Billion if Congress Made the Funds a Loan:

George Bush repeatedly says on the campaign trail that “There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.” But “The White House threatened … to veto its own spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress made reconstruction aid a loan, taking its most forceful stand on the issue even as more lawmakers supported a reimbursement by Iraq. … ‘If this provision is not removed, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill,’ Joshua B. Bolten, the White House budget director, wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders.” "

:thumbsup:

Please?

Thanks.

It's great to release it on a blog on his website, but no one will ever see that.

The campaign should have had a 3-4 sentence response to this question nailed down in March/April, something to the effect of:

"The first question is why did GWB send in the troops w/out proper equipment and armor. Families in Ohio had to have bake sales just to raise $ for body armor! I supported the full $87 billion with all of the money going to the troops, and paid for by rolling back tax cuts for the top 2%. Bush threatened to veto this, and instead what we've got is a $20 billion slush fund for Halliburton, and the troops still not having all their equipment!"


See was that really so hard? What the hell are campaign staffers being paid for??

After checking the facts on factcheck, I'm also wondering why JK didn't turn that around in an attack point. It was an obvious failure on the part of the bush admin, a whopping 300 million out of a 87 billion dollar bill to do something they should have done right at the start of the war. It's sad JK failed to grab it by the balls right there. His first debate barely touched it, he needs to do damage control with his second debate, but I doubt he'd get the chance given the topics.

with that on it.

Thanks for doing it for us!

message. Then it's off to Kinko's. :-)

You could say that Bush wasn't supporting our troops with his threatened veto. You could say that Bush favored the blank check and the lack of accountability. You could also make the case that Bush sending troops into combat BEFORE obtaining funding for body armor put them NEEDLESSLY in harm's way... especially considering THERE WAS NO IMMINENT THREAT.

Talk about wreckless endangerment... heh.