About the 87 Billion that Kerry/Edwards voted against?

[Sara Beverley]

Didn't it pass both houses? Didn't the military get the money?

So Kerry's vote in no way accounts for what is happening to and around our military readiness in Iraq. It in no way accounts for the obvious mismanagement and misdirection of the actions on the ground. It has nothing to do with how ill-prepared our soldiers were equipped for their actions on the ground. Will somebody please tell the Republicans that this just doesn't wash.

[trotsky]

1. That's why Kerry voted against the 2nd version.

It was obviously going to pass anyway.

Kerry (and many Republican senators, BTW) tried to get a different version passed - one that paid for the $87 billion by rolling back some of *'s tax cuts for the rich AND made part of it a loan to Iraq.

* threatened to VETO that version, and instead got his way - every penny of that sum was put on our national credit card.

[LynzM]

3. Why not let him veto it?

That's what I don't get.... Why not let him veto it, then submit another proposal? That way, it would be clear who was not supporting the troops, and why...

[trotsky]

4. Because Kerry doesn't control the Senate.

The version Kerry supported was voted down, primarily because of *'s threatened veto.

[denverbill]

2. Yes, it passed easily.

And Kerry voted for a version of the bill which required tax cuts to be rolled back to pay the $87 billion rather than borrowing the money and making our children pay it off, with interest. Bush was perfectly willing to let other people die for his war, but he didn't want to sacrifice one penny of his personal tax cut to pay for the war.

Of course, if Bush hadn't tried to pay for the war on the cheap and sent soldiers there with unarmored Humvees and no body armor, he would have asked for the $87 billion 2 years ago when it was really needed.

[MostlyLurks]

5. And Another Thing...

Most of us here have already heard that Bush threatened to veto the bill...

Interjection: My boss' mom disputed me on this and I sent her the following link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100777,00.html
and said "This memo was written by the administration and makes clear the fact that Bush was prepared to veto the bill. And, it's on the Fox web site so IT MUST BE TRUE." Haven't heard back from her. Have since used it to slap around a couple of other Bushies. Joy joy!

...Anyway, the Bureau of Veteran's Admin (BVA) states that the reason for the veto threat was in re: to an amendment which would have funneled some of the appropriations to the BVA. Actually, they don't lodge this as an allegation so much as they use the administration's memo (same one that appears on the Fox site) to prove it beyond a doubt.

The thing that's really a "smoking gun" is that the amendment was attached by Chris Bond...A REPUBLICAN! So the idiot you're arguing with can't even make the point that the amendment was a "Democratically inserted poison pill". http://www.bva.org/aut03bulletin/l_update.html

It's an absolute black-hole-trap for any Bush supporter and I highly recommend using it all possible opportunities.

This is a clear indication not just of the hypocrisy of the admin, as they condemn Kerry for his vote, but an indication of their real feelings about how vets should be treated.

Mostly.