Skip to comments.Kerry/Edwards Voted Against Funding the Hunt for Bin Laden
Posted on 10/06/2004 3:35:41 PM PDT by Go Gordon
All along the campaign trail Kerry and Edwards have complained about the "$200 billion" being spent in Iraq. Kerry and Edwards have also complained that the Bush administration "took its eye off the ball in Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden by going to Iraq".
In the debate last night, VP Cheney slapped down Edwards' allegation that the US was spending $200 billion in Iraq by pointing out that the $187 billion appropriation (I'm sure everyone remembers this one - its the one that Kerry vote for, before he voted against it) included $60 billion to fund our efforts in the WOT in Afghanistan.
Cheney also remarked that Kerry and Edwards voted for the war, but against the funding for the troops. However, the real gotcha in the Kerry/Edwards' position is that in not voting for the $187 billion, THEY VOTED AGAINST funding the efforts in Afghanistan - including efforts to capture/kill Bin Laden.
None of the talking heads have yet to connect these dots. How can Kerry/Edwards argue that the administration abandoned the hunt for Bin Laden when, in fact, had Kerry and Edwards had their way, there would be no US presence in Afghanistan.
Moreover, in the debate last night, Edwards made a specific effort to inform the viewers that he was in favor of, and approved of the war in Afghanistan. But what does it say about Edwards that he approved of the war in Afghanistan, but voted (along with Kerry) against the funding of continued efforts to fight the remnants of the Taliban, Al Quaeda and insurgents?
Did they think a volunteer army means that the soldiers literally volunteer their services and accept no pay? Did they think that the volunteers bring their our arsenal of weapons and amunitions? Maybe Zig Zag Zell Miller was right in his nomination night speech and in that Kerry thinks all our military needs is a bunch of spitballs. afterall, you don't need $60 billion to buy spitballs.
But I do think that the more serious question going forward is, what are we going to do? I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. And I think they -- as a result, we have to, as we go forward and as we develop policies about how we're going to deal with each of these countries and what action, if any, we're going to take with respect to them, I think each of them have to be dealt with on their own merits. And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.
got a working link on this?
Sounds like Kerry.
Not George W. Bush or Dick Cheney.
Yes I noticed that "little" tidbit too. The lack of coverage on this is further evidence of the ignorant leftist MSM.
Cheney brought many great points out yesterday like the non-funding. Notice, the media is ignoring it today with the exception of Limbaugh and Hannity.
The RNC PR team could do a better job, as well.
At least I had the right team...lol
When did he say this?
The MSM is not ignorant. They are not covering the news against Kerry on purpose. They know exactly what they are doing, in undermining our country.
I know that its been pointed out before that Kerry/Edwards voted against the $187 Billion, but nobody has pointed out that this funding also included the WOT in Afghanistan. It would destroy Kerry if laid out properly by Bush Friday night and the major networks will be force to comment on it afterwards.
I agree, they have made the point about the supplies for the troops, now they need to hit the Afganistan point....hard.
$187b? You mean $87b, Mr. Author...
Did they point out the funding votes with regard to funding the efforts in Afghanistan? If not, which Freeper has an inside connection with Sean and/or Rush?
Ofcourse they are ignorant (uninformed or unaware). They probably don't have a clue as to where the money is being spent.
I don't think so. I think it was a total of $187 BILLION. $60 Billion was for Afghanistan. Of the remaining $127 Billion, a large chunk was for re-construction. Thats what Cheney was pointing out when he mentioned the contributions from other countries: $14 Billion in pledges for the war, the cost of other countries military efforts which they are eating, and the huge amount of forgiven Iraqi debt (I forget the total, but I thought it was $60-80 Billion.
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.