Kerry Statement on Supplemental

[sandnsea]

It looks like he is going to try to get his Bill of Rights proposals into the supplemental. He's going to try and get this supplemental right, which is why he's supporting it. Poor guy, he is always out there all alone, being hit from the left and right, when he's the one trying to do the right thing.


Below is a statement from Senator John Kerry on the military supplemental spending request that Congress will soon consider.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

“It's the right thing to do for Congress to stand by military families as part of the supplemental funding that will soon face a vote in the United States Senate. Starting with the coming debate on the supplemental, I will fight to pass as much of my Military Family Bill of Rights as possible. There's no time to wait. Congress must act now.

“We're told that supplemental funding is needed to deal with emergencies around the globe, and I agree. But the urgent needs of our military families must also be addressed. Military families have higher expenses during deployments, and they should be able to make penalty-free withdrawals from their Individual Retirement Accounts for increased child care and other deployment-related expenses.

“We need to extend TRICARE military medical benefits to all members of the National Guard and Reserve, whether they are mobilized or not. It impacts readiness when a Reservist is called up and doesn't pass his physical because he hasn't been to a doctor in two years. We also need to expand Post Traumatic Stress Disorder programs within the VA system and require outreach efforts to find the vets who need the care.

“We also need to be more flexible with families who have lost a loved one. Widows currently have 180 days to move out of military housing if a spouse is killed in action. For those with young children, that may mean starting the school year in one state and finishing it in another. We should let them stay for a year. It’s the least we can do.

“It's time for a debate about what it really means to support the troops, in actions not just words. Truly supporting our troops requires that we act not just as individuals, but as a nation. We owe our troops the best-planned, best-equipped, and best-led military force in the world, and we owe them the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they and their families will be taken care of.”

[TayTay]

1. Smart move.

This undercuts those who say that he was 'soft' on defense and not supportive of the troops. It is a vote for the funding, but it also addresses the very things that * has cut out of his budget. Now let's see the Rethugs record a vote that is against the programs that the returning Vets need. (And they will. These Repukes have no shame at all. They don't care diddly about the Vets. Sigh!)

That story in his speech yesterday about the Vet who returned and did not get the mental help he needed and ended up a suicide was heartbreaking. I am glad to see the Senator trying to do something for returning vets besides just handing them a flag and telling them 'Great job, now get lost.' (IMHO, that's what the *ies do.) This is a warm, principled legislative list from someone who knows about the costs of war and how they affect the individual warriors who fought it. Nice job. (And it makes me sad that this is even up for debate. What kind of a country cuts and runs on Veterans. That's just sick.)

[whometense]

2. Oh, this is the kind of thing

that makes me love him so much. So smart. So caring. And so determined.
:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:
Floaties for doing the right thing - and making some lemonade out of that lemon of a supplemental.

[karynnj]

3. This statement puts the vote in perspective

It is for the welfare of the soldiers. These things seem so basic it's sad that they weren't enacted when the war started.

[blm]

4. You nailed it. Attach this statement to every thread on the vote.

They really have a hyped up sense of righteousness when damn few know what the hell they're talking about. ;)

Some folks out there have limited comprehensive skills.

[elshiva]

5. Yes, for their safety.

[LittleClarkie]

6. Like you said, getting hit by the left and right

How in the HELL can they claim he only does things for political purposes. Oh sure, he votes against Condi. It's political. He votes for the supplimental. It's political.

How can it be both? How the hell do they figure he's going political each and every time.

Trying to do the right thing, that's exactly correct. But does anyone see it? Oh no, they'd rather ride the vote rollercoaster. We love him... we hate him... we love him again.

Can't wait for Boxer's first bad vote. Funny almost nobody is freaking over the Chertoff Homeland Security Director vote.

Speaking of which, what do y'all think about that guy. Is Chertoff okay? Were some ranting over nothing, looking for things to freak out about like a good lefty? Or is the guy a scumball who shouldn't have gotten a unanimous vote?

[JohnKleeb]

7. I dont trust Chertoff but he would be better than Bernie Kerik

I do see why he was unamiously confirmed for the job, he's qualified likely and isnt as bad as Condi or Gonzales. You got that right though, damned if you do, damned if you dont is how those little punks treat John, he can't do anything to agree with them or else he's pandering and doing it for political reasons, and he can't do anything they disagree with because then "See we told you he was a Bushlite.", There is a reason why these people are Armchair stragetists, they know nothing about how American Politics works.

[sandnsea]

8. Pure politics

I think this one was purely a political vote. Chertoff had negatives, but they need to vote for something once in a while so they can fight the "obstructionist" label. I know our lefties want to just fight everything, but it isn't that simple. People really do want the country to be strong on security and most people don't see Republicans as evil quite the way DU does. Although this WH crowd really is.

[JohnKleeb]

9. Yes I agree

Chertoff is someone that we must keep our eyes on but I am not upset at the confimation. Yes, I understand especially knowing that some of our members of congress actually lost family in the trade center or pentagon that they want that, thats the problem with the train of thought many have, they think people who want to get tough on security are "bushlite", which really is bullshit. Well you know there are some republicans that I can handle who I wouldnt call evil really, like I dont hate Chuck Hagel, never would vote for him but would I groan like I do now with my senators, nah because Hagel I think unlike many republicans especially those who have never seen a day of combat is a shades of gray thinker and doesnt always think that war is the answer. There are few republicans like that today, sad to say.