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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.