excellent response for Kerry re: $87 billion

[progdonkey]

I got this article through Buzzflash, and, while I recommend reading the entire thing, the following excerpt caught my eye.

One of the mixed messages Bush detected from Kerry was the senator's vote last year against an $87 billion appropriation that included money for body armor for U.S. troops. It was the vote that inspired Kerry's immortal line, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

But that vote took place in October 2003--seven months after the war in Iraq began. The only reason the administration needed to buy body armor for our troops after the invasion was that it didn't buy it in sufficient quantities before the invasion.

Why not?

Because the administration assumed postwar Iraq would be no more turbulent than Bingo Night at the retirement home. Kerry may be faulted for voting against the funding, but his decision didn't cost American lives. Bush's lapse did.

I think Kerry did a good job explaining his vote against the $87 billion in the debate (when something's going in the wrong direction, correct it before you throw more money at it), but I think the above is even better (ie. "Why did our soldiers have to wait for an omnibus spending package just to get the body armor they should have had on day one?").

edit: forgot the link

[sam sarrha]

1. What do they do with all the billions they get but dont spend ??giv it to

Israel..??

[displacedtexan]

2. The real problem with the $87B

According to Senator Byrd:


The fact of the matter is, when it comes to policy, the Iraq supplemental is a monument to failure.

Consider, for example, that before the war, the President's policy advisers assured the American people that Iraq would largely be able to finance its own reconstruction through oil revenues, seized assets, and increased economic productivity.

The $18 billion in this supplemental earmarked for the reconstruction of Iraq is testament to the fallacy of that prediction. It is the American taxpayer, not the Iraqi oil industry, that is being called upon to shoulder the financial burden of rebuilding Iraq.

The international community, on which the Administration pinned such hope for helping in the reconstruction of Iraq, has collectively ponied up only $13 billion, and the bulk of those pledges, $9 billion, is in the form of loans or credits, not grants. But still, the President claims victory for arm-twisting Congress into reversing itself on the question of loans and providing the entire $18 billion in U.S. tax dollars in the form of outright grants to Iraq. I readily admit that how his convoluted logic can be construed as a victory for the President is beyond me.
snip

The $66 billion in this supplemental, required to continue the U.S. military occupation of Iraq over the next year, and the steadily rising death toll, are testament to the utter hollowness of the President's declaration aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and the careless bravado of his challenge to "bring 'em on".

It has been said many times on the floor of this Senate that a vote for this supplemental is a vote for our troops in Iraq. The implication is that a vote against the supplemental is a vote against our troops. I find that twisted logic to be both irrational and offensive. To my mind, backing a flawed policy with a flawed appropriations bill hurts our troops in Iraq more than it helps them. Endorsing and funding a policy that does nothing to relieve American troops in Iraq is not, in my opinion, a "support the troops" measure. Our troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the world have no stronger advocate than Robert C. Byrd. I support our troops, I pray for their safety, and I will continue to fight for a coherent policy that brings real help - not just longer deployments and empty sloganeering - to American forces in Iraq.

The supplemental package before us does nothing to internationalize the occupation of Iraq and, therefore, it is not -- I say NOT -- a vote "for our troops" in Iraq. We had a chance, in the beginning, to win international consensus on dealing with Iraq, but the Administration squandered that opportunity when the President gave the back of his hand to the United Nations and preemptively invaded Iraq. Under this Administration's Iraq policy - endorsed in the President's so-called victory on this supplemental - it is American troops who are walking the mean streets of Baghdad and American troops who are succumbing in growing numbers to a common and all too deadly cocktail of anti-American bombs and bullets in Iraq.

more...

http://tinyurl.com/3qycz

[secular_warrior]

3. Kerry did allude to it during the debate:

"Even the administration has admitted they haven't done the training, because they came back to Congress a few weeks ago and asked for a complete reprogramming of the money.

Now what greater admission is there, 16 months afterwards. "Oops, we haven't done the job. We have to start to spend the money now. Will you guys give us permission to shift it over into training?"



But I agree, Kerry should've made this clear from the day Bush started attacking him, that the adminstration went to war without the armor, tanks etc and came back months later when things on the ground were going downhill.

[trotsky]

4. Also worth noting is the Bush veto threat.

Just because the version Kerry wanted rolled back a tax cut AND put some of it in the form of a loan to the Iraqi people. Bush wanted to veto this "important funding for body armor" because of that, and only signed the bill that passed, which was to put the full $87bil on the national credit card. Thanks, GeeDub!