Skip to comments.John Kerry Explains War Funding Vote
Posted on 09/29/2004 5:40:10 AM PDT by Michael Goldsberry
WASHINGTON - On the eve of a foreign policy debate with President Bush (news - web sites), Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) said in an interview that his explanation of why he voted in favor of additional funding for the war in Iraq (news - web sites) before voting against it was "one of those inarticulate moments" in the campaign.
Kerry ultimately voted against providing $87 billion for military operations and aid in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites). Although he initially supported the appropriation when it was to be funded at least in part by rolling back tax cuts for those with the highest incomes, Kerry said he ended up voting against the final version of the bill in the Senate as a protest over its funding, which included no-bid contracts.
Bush has criticized Kerry throughout the campaign for the vote, which the president says shows a lack of support for troops in the field. Bush has mocked Kerry for saying, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
"It was just a very inarticulate way of saying something and I had one of those inarticulate moments," Kerry said in an interview broadcast Wednesday on "Good Morning America" on ABC. "But it reflects the truth of the position ... I thought that the wealthiest people of America should share in that burden. It was a protest."
Kerry rejected Bush's assertion that he would prefer that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) still be in power in Iraq and repeated his contention that Bush had misled the nation about the nature of the threat the Iraqi dictator posed.
"We should not have gone into Iraq knowing today what we know," Kerry told ABC. "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, I would not have voted to support war."
Kerry was among the senators who voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq and has said he would still vote for authorization so that the president could put pressure on Saddam to allow more inspections for weapons. However, the Bush campaign characterizes Kerry's position as an example of vacillation and indecision.
The lying SOS seems to have a lot of those moments.
Yada, yada, yada...not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
John F*ckin's entire life is an exercise in the power of inarticulation. And we're supposed to believe Republicans are the ones who are dumb.
"It was a protest."
Still protesting after all these years.
Its pretty clear that self aggrandization trumps the troops in John Kerrys case. Anybody voting for this asshole needs his head examined.
Oh, I get it now. Why didn't he say that before. But then I still would have been in the dark because I flunked Crystal Ball Gazing 101. If GW had only been able to see into the future and known then what we know today. Sigh---Just too nuanced for me I suppose.
He may be unhappy with being wealthy but he shouldn't take it out on those who have made it in America.
Yep. That's Kerry's arrogance rising to the surface. See, he just has to be smarter than every one else. He's never wrong about anything.
Protesting at the expense of troops on the battlefield.
Will this treasonous snake ever stop using the military for his personal "statements"?
When lives are on the line one should not be worrying about where the money comes from.
Would you want your government leaders to protest when 4 hurricane ravage a state?
sKerry's thought process on this one bill has absolutely stupid and he deserves everything he gets. Of course whether Bush43 will properly nail him on this in the debate is another thing. Here's hoping Bush43 explains the facts of life to sKerry.
It was a feel good thing. "If it feels good, do it!" Worry about the consequences later.
I guess Skerry thinks he can see into the future ping. Talk about being disconnected with reality, this tops them all.
After all of this time, this is all he can come up with to explain his position? Kerry voted NO on a bill to fund the troops who are fighting a war. That sucks. That's all the voters need to know.
But he's supposed to be so articulate! I know he meant that he wanted to attach a tax increase to the appropriation bill and when it didn't happen he refused to support it. But that's just as bad!
Don't bother explain the facts to liberals. They live in their own fantasy world and it angers them to be disturbed in their pleasant delusions.
That is a goofy explanation while troops are dying. And it is based on a wrong assumption.
The rich like teraza dont pay taxes at the same rate that the middle class does.
Kerry is no Marty McFly, that's for sure.
Bottom line: The Vietnam war was unpopular at home however, we did not have senators on the hill making protest votes on funding that war. How would you have liked it if your swiftboat had sunk because senators on the hill protested by not funding needed supply parts to support you in combat?
The simple fact that you were actually in combat and know the danger first hand makes your vote for no funds a true testiment to your flawed character. Your position is viewed as a radical leftist position and you therefore have no business seeking the office of Commander In Chief.
It seems like W doesn't want to whack Kerry any harder than he has to to win the election. It's frustrating as heck.
At the time, he claimed that the "NO" was due to the money not being partially structured as a loan. Somebody wrap this dude in wire and put big magnets around him - we could power the whole frickin' world with the way he "spins" and flip-flops!!! (Not to mention his flip on the "would you vote the same NOW' question)
How much did Kerry and his wife pay in taxes? He should tell 'em, he really should! Reminds me of the news about Arianna Huffington's taxes last year. Those who bang the drums loudest for higher taxes inevitably turn out to be the same people who squelch on being generous to the public treasury. See, its the "little people" who always ought to pay more you know, for the "common good."
The AP story "overlooked" the fact that Kerry was on TV a few weeks before the vote stating that anyone who voted against it would be irresponsible. Personally, I agree with him (on that one thing ;-)
And, knowing today what we know, we could have stopped 9/11.
Does Kerry even realize how ridiculous he is?
Myt friend, Kerry will self-destruct before Bush can lay a hand on him. That's what's so amusing. Its like Kerry is running to lose on purpose.
Kerry makes inconsistency sound well.... consistent! ;-)
Certainly not "dynamic";-P
Thurston Howelll III puts on an impressive performance every day! (laughing)
Very interesting point
Kerry was among the senators who voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq FULL STOP. /and has said he would still vote for authorization so that the president could put pressure on Saddam to allow more inspections for weapons.....He voted for the use of force NOT a THREAT to use it!
It was a protest against Dean leading him in the run-up to the primaries! I know I'm one of those dumb conservatives who does't understand "nuances," but I do think it's that simple. In all fairness (barf alert!), maybe he did know the aid package was going to pass anyway. But votes send signals - it's a chance for a representative to take a stand. Kerry did - a thumb to the nose, aimed at our troops. Now he wants to run away from it. Neither stance is acceptable in a leader.
And on his vote for the Iraq war - I'm so tired of hearing Kerry's "explanation" of his vote to authorize force in Iraq as "a vote for a process." Show me where the heck he said that at the time of the vote! No, for years he said we had to deal with Saddam, disarmng him by force and "going it alone" (i.e., without France and Germany) if necessary. The way he tells it now, he voted to give Bush the authority go go to war "only as a last resort" - in other words, this "explanation," cooked up long after the fact, passes the buck to Bush and allows Kerry to try to have it both ways. Imagine if Bush did NOT go to war, and it was politically advantageous for Kerry to keep up his pro-war stance. Would he have said "well, I left the decision to Bush, to initiate a process" or would Kerry be shouting from the rooftops that he wanted a war but that Bush had failed to follow his advice?
What utter garbage! (Not the word I wanted to use, believe me.) Leaders lead, not hide behind others or tack with the wind. that's why Kerry will never be a leader, I hope, of anything important. It's infuriating! Then again, I hope we can look back on his campaign and just laugh.
And knowing what we know today we could have had all our planes in the air and all our ships at sea on Dec. 7, 1941 and intercepted the Jap Zeros in the air!!
Wow, there is no end to this game. Can we name some more gang?
Kerry effective tax was much lower. ARound 12% versus 20% for Bush. Kerry and spouse realized less income and less taxable income. Munni bonds.
The wealthy uses these to not pay taxes. Bush realized much more income ( wages PRODCUCTIVE use of capital)
This from a man who has not attended his senate duties for over a year and when he has free time he windsurfs???????????????????
It has gotten to the point that whenever I see a Kerry/Edwards sign, I feel like that homeowner is not quite right. And there are a lot of them around here... time to move.
So true, so true.
The police always say "if you draw your weapon you'd better be prepared to use it." Kerry's statement that he voted for the authorization only to threaten Saddam is just stupid.
He was freaking protesting? HOW DARE HE EVEN THINK OF PROTESTING ANYTHING WHEN IT COMES TO FUNDING OUR TROOPS! And he has the nerve to call himself a hero! He's a traitor to our country and should be treated as such!
There was nothing "inacticulate" about a Schizo voting reocord than alsmot any voter can see is illegical at best.
Kerry's lack of articulation just means he cannot explain his way out of an intenable voting position where no logicical explantion (beyond the expediancy of the specific day)exists.
and that would be the theme of a Kerry adminsitration: drip drip flip flip,
FoxNews has a video of lurch saying in a Town Hall type meeting (filmed during the dim primary), that he had to make the decision (to vote against the 87 billion) for "political reasons"! You can bet this will be in a new commercial!
ABC radio news had lurch stating this morning that the "people" would like to see "his" opponent "solving their problems", instead of clearing brush at his Ranch... this from senator " snow-board, windsurfer, security committee slacker, girley-man liar bastard!!!
And his treasonous activities during the 70s were "protests" too.
How sick that he won't see that throwing a hissy because he wants to raise taxes is not a valid reason to vote to leave our military dangling in the breeze...
Where's the referral to sKerry's own words. He said it would be totally irresponsible for a Senator to not vote to fund the war effort, two weeks later he did just that.
It should make a great TV ad, say around Oct 20 or so, LOL.
HUH? I've sure seen a whole lotta wacking going on.
All year long FReepers were complaining about Bush not fighting back. Of course he just kept his powder dry for the fall.
I'd say sKerry got wacked real good at the Convention. Zell Miller comes to mind.
Stay tuned the wacking will build all next month, I'd bet on it.
Considering sKerry is senator no-show in the senate, he has no room to talk.
Kerry flip flops on his positions so often, there is no way you can trust him to carry through on any of his current promises in the future.