Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

What is truly disgusting is how Kerry thought how it was appropriate to protest tax policy at the risk of not funding the military.

Dan:

The most interesting aspect of this is that only 3 other senators (all Democrats) voted the way Kerry did, by voting FOR the authorization of force bill, and AGAINST the appropriations bill.

This puts him out on a limb, rather than in concert with many others. And that means that he alone will have to provide explanation for his record of votes. He stands a good chance of having to take a position on this that is at odds with even his closest mentors, like Kennedy.

It will be fascinating to watch him try to dodge the landmines on this issue.

I’m not sure that the issue is as black and white as “fund the war or fail the troops.”

As I understand it, Kerry voted this way because the bill was framed in such a way that it would add greatly to the deficit this country faces, rather than providing for the funding through taxation or some other plan.

While you may disagree with his position on this matter, to say that Kerry failed the troops by taking this stance is to ignore the fact that the bill’s defeat would not mean that no funding could ever be sent to support the troops.

Voting this bill down in no way would have prevented other bills with different terms from being introduced on the same issue, that would have perhaps better addressed both the needs of the military and sound financial planning for our government.

It seems clear to me that although Kerry felt he could not in good conscience vote for this bill, he would not have opposed the introduction of a bill allocating funds for our troops which made different provisions for the source of those funds.

Isn’t that the way our government is supposed to work?

Well put, Jarin.

It is rediculous to suggest that Kerry voted against the bill because he didn’t want our troops to have supplies. He obviously had concerns about where the money would come from and how the money was going to be spent. After all, the entire 87 million was not solely to fund the troops (I believe it was less than half).

Bush has a lot of gall to attack Kerry on this issue.

Jarin:

You are correct, of course. Many bills that are put in front of Congress have variable aspects to them, and often have multiple clauses added to the original bill. So, Kerry most certainly did not vote the bill down simply because he didnt want to provide money for the reconstruction etc.

However, in the world of politics, the biggest thing is to avoid being pigeon holed, and Kerry has allowed this to happen on this issue. Despite all the nuances that of course go on, Kerry has shown an incredible proclivity to changing his mind, and to taking multiple sides on issues.

One could really argue that any politician’s vote on any single bill might not be the result of the bill itself, but rather the unintended consequences of the particular bill. But at some point, politicians need to step up and accept accountability for their actions.

Ummm, I get it - the quagmire is Kerry’s Fault! Of course, how dumb of me - this was obviously a pinko plot to embarrass poor George, who of course is shocked - just shocked - that all those troops were in ‘Nam (ooops, ‘Raq) WITHOUT FLAK VESTS due to Rummy’s running the war on the cheap.

Wake up guys! Mad Cowboy Disease should be a thing of the past come this November - unless, of course, he purposefully allows an attack and claims that we need Martial Law. Considering this group, that isn’t so unlikely….

FactCheck.org,God love them, has already investigated this one and found Bush’s commerical fairly unconvincing.

I’d like to know why Bush sent our troops into battle underarmored, and underpaid in the first place. It is hypocritical of this administration to allege that Kerry has tried to deprive troops of such things, when Bush did not previously ask or provide for them, prior to starting the war. I have little doubt, considering Kerry’s entire record on military appropriations that he would have said no.

Bush has maintained himself in the past as a fiscal conservative. It’s unfortunate, then, that he refused Kerry’s demand to pay for the war by doing away with his tax cuts for the rich, to pay for his extraordinary spending by appealing to today’s taxpayers and honestly requesting the money from them now, instead of saddling them with even more spending later as the bills (in particular, the treasury bonds) come due in a few years.

Even now, Bush speaks of international coalitions, but what does he get? Do the NeoCons here realize just how small the proportion of our allies contribution to this war is? 1300 troops, in the case of Spain. We have around ten times the troops of our nearest ally Britain, who has several times more troops there than Spain does. We have little token divisions there, most of whom work in the south of the country. The last Gulf War was vastly different, and we carried far less of the burden.

Of course, this is all the help Bush thinks we need, despite ongoing security problems that cost us the trust of the Iraqi people. Kerry was trying to strongly encourage the president to do what he should have done in the first place, and that is bring a true coaliton to the table, one where other countries are taking significant burdens on along side us, not just sitting back behind the lines as window dressing.

Kerry didn’t vote no with the idea that he would deprive troops of need supplies and material. I don’t know if he even expected to win that vote. What’s more, he didn’t send in our troops undersupplied, and underpaid, with false impressions of what they would come up against, and how the Iraqi people would react.

Bush ignored decades of military experience, and steamrolled over the intelligence gathering wisdom of years of CIA operation. It is he who is to blame for the real condition of our troops overseas. What Kerry was trying to do was force George W. Bush to pay for his mistakes.

Instead, because Bush won his vote, We’ll have to. Our repayment of debt now costs us as much as our defense. Much of this comes from the inflated defense Budgets of the past, Budgets which played little part in helping the Soviet Union Collapse. As I previously discussed in ““Was Iraq The First Time?”, the NeoCons were involved in exaggerrating facts and bypassing more dependable parts intelligence and defense establishment in that time, too. Since we are now paying for the fun they had during the cold war, it is quite valid to ask now whether we want to foot the bill for another party at taxpayer’s expense. That is was Kerry did.

Bush himself has been taught the talking point that declares Kerry’s time in the Senate has enabled him to take both sides on every issue. All this means is that you can cherry pick a senate voiting record and make it look anyway you want. Bush’s drastic cutbacks on veteran’s benefits is the most outrageous slap in the face of our soldiers I have ever seen. This is an issue he should stay away from.

Dave, It was more than half. The letter from the Director of the Office of Management and budget enclosed with President Bush’s request for the $87 billion supplemental appropriation breaks down the request. $65.6 billion of the $87 billion was to fund ongoing military and intelligence operations. $51 billion for Operation Iraqi Freedom, $11 billion for Operation Enduring Freedom and $4 billion for Operation Noble Eagle.

Jarin, When the vote for the supplemental appropriation came up in the Senate, Kerry’s presidential campaign was in a death spiral. Kerry was raising less money than Dean and Edwards. Kerry was on the defensive for his vote authorizing the war.

Kerry was more interested in appealing to primary voters than he was in supporting the troops.

Dan -

I beg to differ. Bush has been cutting $ the troops need, and the vets, but not for his own PR. I wonder how many flak jackets for the boys could’ve been bought with what it cost to land Flyboy One on that carrier, including the oh-so-stylish flight suit. Could you figure that for me, please?

And, oh, I forgot - add in the cost of that banner. And then make sure to send the explanation to the widow and mother of the soldier who’s flak jacket money Bush used for his own aggrandizement.

Flak jackets? Are you kidding? I thought the original flap about protective gear we heard so much about—beginning more than a year ago—was related to Kevlar Body Armor. And wasn’t this revealed to have mostly to do with the inabilty of the manufacturer with the patent and contract(DuPont, wasn’t it?), to keep up with Pentagon orders? And wasn’t the controversy demonstrated to have been based anyway on the fact that the precise number of available units didn’t match the precise number of activated persons in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the fact that many of those persons are secretaries, janitors, cooks, nurses and even dentists who are as far from actual combat as you and I, and when they’re not, wouldn’t be packed into burdesome plates of Kevlar anyway? If anybody has a link to actual data on this—or information that didn’t come out of the mouth of John Kerry— please supply it.

In the meantime, be assured that those actually jumping out of helicopters under fire are equipped with the best equipment American technology and money can provide.

Jessica Lynch and her unit were not jumping out of helicopters firing guns; they were a transport unit (non-combat) and 11 of them died. You don’t have to be in a combat unit to need this stuff.

If the Kevlar units (I call them flak jackets) were available all the time, why did I see so many pieces on the news (even Fox) about families raising funds to pay for a loved one in Iraq who had not been outfitted by Rummy?

fatbear, if you come under fire, it WOULD be nice to be wearing Kevlar. But if you’re in a noncombant logistical support role, you DON’T put on all fifty pounds of that stuff every single mornining after getting out of bed. It’s like putting on a condom every morning because you might, just might, get lucky that day.

Lynch’s unit got lost and wandered off the road they were supposed to be on into an enemy-controlled area. Even if they had Kevlar Body Armor on or in their trunks (which they may have—I have no idea), they had no idea what was about to go down and weren’t (as reports about that day attest) in full readiness for combat to begin with.

Oh, please. At the time Lynch’s unit was ambushed, our forces were making a bee-line for Baghdad. There was no flank or rear area security. They were all carrying weapons and were aware they were in an enemy-controlled area.

I don’t know if the unit had body armor or not, but I know for damned sure I would have been wearing it if I had it.

And if John Kerry gets elected, you might as well as put it on now.

Oh, excuse me - I thought we were interested in the welfare of the troops, and would search out the truth, for instance:

“I can’t answer for the record why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply,” Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command, told Congress last week. (Sept 28, 2003)

Now, I’m sure this is all Monica’s fault.

To enter into a war of choice without giving our troops the best materials is a high crime. Rummy wanted to do it on the cheap, and 500 American families are paying the price.

Needless to add, the National Guard and Reserve units were starved of essential supplies - do you need citations? - to the point that many were spending their own money to buy flak jackets before shipping out.

I notice that none of you have come up with an estimate on the price of Bushie’s PR moment on the flight deck. As the carrier cruised around for an hour before the light was right for the cameras, don’t forget to add that cost. My guess would be in a minimum of $250,000, all in, and that might have saved 250 lives since then.

Bush is only concerned with living up to “L’Etat? C’est moi!” - blinded by the light of his own importance, a legend in his own mind, and in his every action a substantial threat to our commonweal. As I pointed out in another thread, Bush is proving Lord Acton correct - his drive for absolute power is corrupting him absolutely.

Seems John McCain is a cheese-eating surrender monkey too:

from the wires:

Asked on NBC’s “Today” if he thought Kerry was weak on defense, McCain said: “No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He’s responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he’ll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense. I don’t agree with him on some issues, clearly. But I decry this negativism that’s going on on both sides. The American people don’t need it.”

When asked on “The Early Show” if Kerry’s election would compromise national security, McCain responded: “I don’t think that — I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. I think he has served his country.”

Dan, what I see is a pattern of insufficient preparation, research, and rationale on the part of the president. It’s part of the reason we needed such supplementals in the first place. Why? Because Bush underestimated the cost of the invasion and occupation.

What makes this worse, is that Bush is forcing the American taxpayer to pay more for war. Bush didn’t raise revenues to pay for that 87 billion dollars. He just piled it on top of the other economy-sapping debt. When the time comes, it won’t just be 87 billion, it will be that, and the interest on the treasury bonds issued to pay for the debt.

Dan, do you like forcing people to pay more taxes? We do it now, it will cheaper. Later, as you have suggested, it will be more expensive. Who’s really delivering the Tax Relief here?

so….the budget for the military and defense is over 400 billion dollars….

you all make it sound like if kerry had his way…our troops would be fighting terrorism with spit-balls….

get a grip folks…we spend more on defense than any other country on the planet COMBINED…..

The 87 billion Kerry voted for included $300 million specifically for body armor. He voted against a similar bill that didn’t include money for body armor. It is the Republicans who voted against body armor.