Should Kerry address the Indumbent's lie about the $87 billion?

[Karmadillo]

Is it really too complex an undertaking to point out the Gerbil-in-Chief threatened to veto the $87 billion if the rich were inconvenienced by the expenditure? I realize this shouldn't be the major focus of the campaign, but I don't see the point of letting a lie be repeated over and over again without an effective response.

[Kira]

1. I'm so glad you said this

It is making me crazy that they aren't explaining this the right way. I don't understand them. I called their office in D.C. but I couldn't get through and their mailbox was full. I wanted to ask them why they won't explain about the two different versions of the bill. And how* said he would veto the first one which wanted to pay for it with loans and rolling back the tax cut for the rich.

[Karmadillo]

2. Here's a link that details the facts the media seems unable to reveal

http://www.puddingbowl.org/archive/2004/09/kerry_bush_and.php

<edit>

Kerry's issues with the bill that ultimately passed had to do with where the money would come from and where the $20 billion tacked on for "reconstruction" would go. Kerry and others wanted to repeal some tax cuts on the wealthy and/or loan the money against future Iraqi oil proceeds rather than tack the cost onto Bush's mounting deficit, and it was rightly disputed whether a bill providing much-needed materiel for our troops ought to be tied to carte-blanche cash for no-bid contracts awarded to cronies of the Bush administration.

However, Bush threatened to veto the bill that Kerry, Edwards, and others supported. He refused to sign a version that would cost him any of his tax cut and require advance explanation and oversight of the $20 billion for reconstruction. So the Republican majority made sure it was served up the president's way.

Reasonable people can argue that a bill providing aid and comfort to our troops should have been supported unanimously, and that Kerry and Edwards should have voted for the final version regardless of their disputes with it. Hell, you could even argue that Kerry was stinking up the primaries and needed to shore up his anti-war cred against Howard Dean.

But let's understand that Kerry's "No" vote had principle behind it, and that Kerry and Edwards did, indeed, support the funding for our troops before Bush forced passage of his version of the bill.

And let's also understand this: Bush threatened to veto a version of this bill, "this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor." One might even say that he voted against it before he voted for it.

[polmaven]

4. All of that PLUS

What business did Bush have sending the troops there without the proper equipment IN THE FIRST PLACE???? It's like they thought nobody would notice and when someone did, they had to salvage it politically.

The first version, which Bush threatened to veto, required Iraq to pay back some of the money...the part used for reconstruction.

The media (and the Kerry campaign, curiously) also fail to mention that only a fraction of the $87b was for the equipment. Actually, I don't think it was all for Iraq, though I could be wrong on that part.

[goodhue]

3. yes, it is too complex

Kerry is best to avoid issue unless it is brought up.
When it comes up he must respond by refering to tax cut for rich.

[Rambis]

6. I might be wrong

but I think this is something that Kerry has been saving until the end. I may be all wet but I think this is something he can become indignant about without seeming to mean and really hammer * with it in debate 2 or 3. He should have addressed it earlier and he has in every stop it just doesn't get covered by the Sheedia (if we can have sheeple we can have sheedia) BAAAAAA!

[sistersofmercy]

5. "Indumbent" hahahahaha! That's beeeeeaauutiful!

Yes, their lies need to be met head on each time.

[creeksneakers2]

7. Kerry should have knocked this down long ago

Its one of Bush's main points and Kerry never seems to respond to it. Bush sent the troops in without body armor. Bush threatened to veto the bill. Kerry's one vote wasn't going to hurt the troops. Bush's veto would.

[Sugarbleus]

8. Excellent responses to the $87 bil hot potato

I'd ALSO like Kerry to explain his position on going into Iraq. I'm sure he has one, it's just not clear.

First he says Saddam WAS a threat and had to be dealt with, then he says 'wrong war, wrong time'.

If Kerry agrees with me: Saddam had to be dealt with ........ but MUCH LATER ONin a much different way--then why doesn't he SAY THAT???

I don't understand why Kerry is being so vague on this.

[Karmadillo]

9. Kick

n/t