Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The bottom line is that it was a dispute about how to pay for the war, not whether to pay for it. This is from an ABC News article that I found in about three seconds on Google:
- On the Sept. 14, 2003, edition of CBS's Face the Nation, Kerry spoke at length about an amendment he and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., were offering which would have paid for the $87 billion by delaying some of the recent tax cuts.
Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."
Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."
Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said her boss' vote against the funding was a "protest vote."
At the time of the October 2003 vote, "The nation had four months before funds were needed but Republicans were hell-bent on moving this bill through as quickly as possible, before the tough questions could be asked and the president's failures would be discovered," Cutter said.
Cutter went on to say the Bush White House had threatened to veto the entire $87 billion supplemental bill if the Kerry-Biden amendment had passed.
No one in their right mind would accuse the White House of failing to support the troops by making this threat.
|
So he voted against the $87 million. What are you trying to prove with this post? That he and 11 other senators wanted to fund the troops a different way? Fine, and maybe his way was better (I honestly don't know), but when it came down to supporting the troops or protesting, he protested. Sound familiar?
