Misterio
19-09-2004, 20:22
Not some wuss like Tom Daschle. He was on "Meet the Press" today, and he was asked about Kerry voting against the $87 billion for aid to the troops:
MR. THUNE: Didn't Senator Kerry vote against $87 million for aid to the troops?
SEN. DASCHLE: He did. I disagree with that. And when I was over there, that was one of the most important things we could do is to send the message, I think, that these members of the Guard and reserves, our active duty personnel, need the support need the equipment they've got to have. And I think that's something that this administration, frankly, has failed to do in addition to listening to their military commanders. If they'd have listened to the military commanders going in, we would have had a plan now. But to subject these people to the tremendous pressures they're feeling, to ask these thousand people to put their lives on the line as they did and lost, to see those 7,000 wounded, and then not to have a plan and not to listen to your military commanders is just a big mistake.
Link to transcript. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6030941)
Thanks for helping out our nominee for President, Daschle. :rolleyes:
Daschle failed to mention why Kerry voted against the $87 billion aid to the troops. Here is why:
1. John Kerry was backing the troops 100%. John Kerry voted against the funding package because Bush didn't provide a way to pay for it. His concerns have been proven well founded. This year the nation's deficit is expected be $455 billion. The bill Kerry preferred would have simply passed the funding but offset it by rolling back tax cuts for those making over $200,000 a year.
2. George W. Bush threatened to veto $87 billion in funding for operations in Iraq. If the money wasn't provided in exactly the way Bush requested, he threatened to veto the bill. In other words, Bush did the exact same thing that he is criticizing Kerry for doing. Bush argued for a particular set of requirements for how the money would be appropriated and was willing to oppose the funding package if he didn't get his way. Proof here. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/30/politics/main580877.shtml)
Kerry's vote was not a flip-flop. Voting for a spending proposal when it is responsibly funded and against it when it isn't responsibly funded does not show indecision. It shows a basic understanding about public policy. The two votes (one that included a tax rollback for the rich and one that didn't) were very different. There is nothing contradictory or weak about changing your vote based on how things are funded.
MR. THUNE: Didn't Senator Kerry vote against $87 million for aid to the troops?
SEN. DASCHLE: He did. I disagree with that. And when I was over there, that was one of the most important things we could do is to send the message, I think, that these members of the Guard and reserves, our active duty personnel, need the support need the equipment they've got to have. And I think that's something that this administration, frankly, has failed to do in addition to listening to their military commanders. If they'd have listened to the military commanders going in, we would have had a plan now. But to subject these people to the tremendous pressures they're feeling, to ask these thousand people to put their lives on the line as they did and lost, to see those 7,000 wounded, and then not to have a plan and not to listen to your military commanders is just a big mistake.
Link to transcript. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6030941)
Thanks for helping out our nominee for President, Daschle. :rolleyes:
Daschle failed to mention why Kerry voted against the $87 billion aid to the troops. Here is why:
1. John Kerry was backing the troops 100%. John Kerry voted against the funding package because Bush didn't provide a way to pay for it. His concerns have been proven well founded. This year the nation's deficit is expected be $455 billion. The bill Kerry preferred would have simply passed the funding but offset it by rolling back tax cuts for those making over $200,000 a year.
2. George W. Bush threatened to veto $87 billion in funding for operations in Iraq. If the money wasn't provided in exactly the way Bush requested, he threatened to veto the bill. In other words, Bush did the exact same thing that he is criticizing Kerry for doing. Bush argued for a particular set of requirements for how the money would be appropriated and was willing to oppose the funding package if he didn't get his way. Proof here. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/30/politics/main580877.shtml)
Kerry's vote was not a flip-flop. Voting for a spending proposal when it is responsibly funded and against it when it isn't responsibly funded does not show indecision. It shows a basic understanding about public policy. The two votes (one that included a tax rollback for the rich and one that didn't) were very different. There is nothing contradictory or weak about changing your vote based on how things are funded.