Need CLEAR, CONCISE explanation of the $87billion votes

[Lefta Dissenter]

I'm in the process of putting together a packet of information for my repub bro-in-law, and I am looking for a CLEAR explanation of Kerry's votes, that not only explains the reasons for Kerry's votes (funding from elim tax cuts vs. funding from my kids' pockets) but also tells about bush's threats to veto the spending bills if HIS version didn't pass.

Can you send me any good links? THANKS! :hi:

(this won't be my last request for info - I'm getting to the end of my list here)

[tishaLA]

1. It's the Halliburton Helper bill

Kerry vetoed it because he believes the government has a responsibility to its citizens to pay bills instead of passing them on, especially since george said the oil would pay for the war.

Here's waht Bob Somerby says about it <...> let’s take that $87 billion, which is just a completely phony issue. Kerry voted for a version of this bill he approved of—in which the $87 billion would have been paid for by a partial roll-back of Bush’s tax cuts. He voted against a form of the bill in which the money is simply borrowed—in which your grand-kids, not you, are going to pay for this spending. Make you feel good? And that’s what senators are paid to do—they’re paid to vote against bad bills and in favor of bills that are better. Meanwhile, how phony is Bush in the way he presents this? Bush also worked to defeat a form of the bill he opposed—he aggressively said he would veto this bill if it included any loans to Iraq. So Bush supported certain forms of the bill and worked against others, just exactly the way Kerry did. When Bush says “there was nothing complicated” about the bill, he’s simply deceiving the voters again, it’s just as simple as that. And by the way, Kerry was right about that $87 billion. Kerry kept insisting that Bush should provide a better plan for the $20 billion that was going to reconstruction projects. Well guess what? It’s ten months later, and that money still hasn’t been spent! But this is just a typical scam in which voters are fooled by a president they trust. Play that tape of Bush again—he’s flatly deceiving those voters.

Crib notes are also HERE

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. This is what I wanted Kerry to say about that

"George W. Bush pledged to veto the 87 Billion
appropriation for Iraq before he finally authorized
it. When will he level with the American people about
it? It's true, the bill John Edwards and I voted for
fully funded every need of our men and women serving
in Iraq. The pay, the benefits, the health care, the
ammunition, the armor, all of it. But George Bush
said he would veto that bill if it reached his desk.
Why? Because he doesn't care about the lives of
American men and women fighting for our country in
Iraq? I'm not cynical enough to suggest that about
George Bush, although obviously he is cynical enough
to suggest that about us.

No, George Bush was playing hard ball with Congress,
trying to force it into compliance the way he tried to
force the world to follow him into Iraq. It turns out
the great uniter who ran for President in 2000 prefers
to lead by divide and conquer. Would George Bush
actually have vetoed the 87 Billion to pay for Iraq
that we voted to send? Maybe someone could ask him
that question. Let me clearly state yes, we played
hard ball back at George Bush, for sound reasons.
Subsequent events proved our judgment right, and his
judgment wrong about Iraq. But we never would have
left our troops unequipped in Iraq. Had we defeated
Bush's bill Congress would have passed a temporary
appropriation bill to cover the full needs of our
troops while the search for the best comprehensive
bill continued.

That's how Washington works. George Bush knows it, but
he doesn't want you to know it, because that would
deprive him of an attack he wants to use against my
character. We could have had an election campaign
devoted to debating the real issues and choices facing
America, but instead Bush chose a campaign of fear,
smears, deceit and distortions. George Bush's endless
repetition of my comment about first voting for the 87
Billion before I voted against it is a perfect example
of his trivialization of real debate.

So, for the record, let me explain the differences
between the 87 billion dollar appropriation for Iraq
that I supported vs. the 87 billion dollar
appropriation for Iraq that Bush supported. I wanted
to know how America would pay the bill for George
Bush's war, so I backed asking America's wealthiest
tax payers to shoulder some of that cost by giving
back a portion of the huge tax cuts George Bush gave
them. George Bush said pay for it with plastic. I
wanted to know if George Bush had a real plan to spend
that money wisely in Iraq to help the Iraqi people and
to defeat the insurgency that was killing our
soldiers. George Bush said pay now and question later.
I stand by my votes in Congress, they were the right
votes for America.

When the chips were really down, while the Bush build
up to war in Iraq marched steadily forward, he
tenaciously fought to defend every last penny of the
tax cuts he gave to his millionaire friends and
allies, but he wouldn't spend the money needed to
properly equip the men and women he sent to face
possible death on the battlefield, with personal armor
and fortified vehicles that might have saved scores of
lives and prevented hundreds if not thousands of life
altering maiming injuries. Those are the facts George
Bush doesn't want debated."

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Here's the link to the appropriate Kerry/Edwards Rapid Response Page

Where they addressed this in early August. Unfortunately in my opinion, they never drove this one as far as it should have gone:


http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/002347.html

[eriffle]

4. Basically

Kerry wanted to loan the money to the Iraqis Bush and the Repubs wanted to just give it to them. Kerry voted for a funding bill that included a loan, which didn't pass, which Bush threatened to veto. Kerry then voted against the "$87 Billion" bill which passed and Bush signed. So Bush will only LOAN you money to go to college, but he'll just give it to the Iraqis who happen to have a shitload of oil.

[RafterMan]

8. Can we please drop that "loan" talking point?

It's disgusting.

[NAO]

5. Excellent Website Created EXPRESSLY for Explaining the Iraq Votes and Iraq

An Excellent Website Created EXPRESSLY for Explaining the Iraq Votes and Kerry's Iraq Stance:

Kerry on Iraq War
http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/

It has FAQs, papers, videos, downloads, links to quotes, downloadable flyers, etc.

[Lefta Dissenter]

12. B..I..N..G..O..!!!!!

PERFECT! That answers a number of the questions, in an easily-digested fashion!

[Bad Thoughts]

6. Blank Check: did not pay for armor on NG units

Look at the mutiny that occurred in Iraq--the guardsmen would not go on the mission because they did not have the armour they needed. That armour was supposed to have come from the $87 billion, but it was not itemized. The problem was that the much of the $87 billion was not earmarked for specific things, more like discretionary spending.

[RafterMan]

7. Here is the fundamental point.

Kerry's first vote gave Bush the AUTHORITY to go to war.

Bush misused that authority.

In the second vote, Kerry refused to reinforce failure, and demanded ACCOUNTABILITY from the president. Bush insisted on a blank check.

It would have been irresponsible for Kerry to act any other way.

[Lefta Dissenter]

9. Oh my gosh

thanks for all the responses! :yourock:

And LOOK at this site I just found (may be old news to you guys, but it's my first time to see it) http://flipflops.compassiongate.com/iraq-fp.htm#1_1 Just lookie at all of the linkies!!!

This is getting to be a full-time job - just trying to get ONE MORE VOTE for Kerry in Wisconsin!!! This is a brother-in-law I actually LIKE (of course, he's married to my sister, fellow-DUer 'Birthday'), so this vote means a LOT to me!

[ProfessorPlum]

10. Do a quick search over on

www.dailyhowler.com. Bob Somerby has been over this point a bizillion times, and he lays it out very clearly. You can find a lot of details there as well, and also Bob's fantasy replies from Democrats on this issue, which should help.

There is a search panel for the site, just enter "87" and I would think you'd get lots of hits.

[Killarney]

11. there were two versions

One version had an amendment filed by Kerry that paid for the $87 billion by rolling back the tax cut on those who make >$200K. Bush threatened to veto that version if they passed it. Kerry voted for it. It did not pass.

The version that did pass had no way to pay for the $87 billion. It was just added onto the deficit. Kerry did not vote for that one. It was fiscally irresponsible.