08-02-2004, 04:03 PM
|
#19 (permalink)
|
|
Banned
|
There's a pretty good write up on the "Kerry voted against soldiers" business at today's DailyHowler (and less then-glowing-estimates of Tim Russert and Joe Biden). for those not familiar with the page, it is dedicated to exposing the blundering of the media.
http://www.dailyhowler.com
Quote:
Biden’s narration laid out some key facts. Kerry wanted to vote immediately for the $67 billion that would go to the troops. But he wanted a separate vote on the extra $20 billion—the money for reconstruction projects. Later, Biden returned to that unspent money—the $18 billion for reconstruction that ended up getting passed. “The bottom line was, I happen to disagree with the vote. But the irony of all ironies is that [Kerry] was more right about their ineptitude in how to deal with it than I was.” Throughout this session, Biden seemed more eager to cover his own kiester than to speak on behalf of Kerry. But even Biden noted the “irony:” as it turns out, Kerry was right in his concern about that extra 20 billion. “Kerry was more right than I was,” Biden finally said of that vote.
Kerry was right in his concern, Biden said. And Biden noted the obvious fact—Kerry was never against the money that would have gone to the troops.
-snip-
Two days before, the White House said that Bush would veto the Iraq spending bill if it passed in this form which he didn’t support. The Morning News was saying that Bush should veto the bill if that happened.
Of course, there was absolutely nothing wrong with Bush’s threat to veto the $87 billion. After all, if Bush had vetoed that form of the bill, that wouldn’t have left the troops unfunded! No, it only meant that Congress would have to create another form of the bill. The troops were always going to be funded; Bush’s veto wouldn’t have changed that. And neither did the votes of senators, including Kerry, against the form of the bill that later passed.
So no, there was nothing wrong with Bush’s threat to veto the $87 billion. And there was nothing wrong with Kerry’s vote against a different form of the bill. But there was something wrong—something grossly wrong—when Bush spoke in Canton, Ohio this weekend. As usual, Bush was playing the voters for fools. He voiced a familiar complaint:
BUSH (7/31/04): We must make sure that the men and women who wear our uniform have the very best—the best training, the best equipment. (Applause.) And so last September, while our troops were in combat in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I proposed supplemental funding to support them in their missions. This legislation provided funding for body armor and other vital equipment for hazard pay, for health benefits and ammunition and fuel and spare parts. In the Senate, only a handful, only a small, out-of-the-mainstream minority voted against the legislation. And two of those 12 senators are on the ticket opposing us.
AUDIENCE: Booo!
BUSH: Senator Kerry tried to explain his vote this way: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it. (Laughter.) End quote. (Laughter.) Now, he's offering different explanations. At one time he said he was proud that he and his running mate voted against the funding for the troops. And then he said: The whole thing is a complicated matter. (Laughter.) There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat. (Applause.)
There’s nothing complicated about supporting the troops? Bush was playing the voters for fools—and editors at the Morning News plainly know it. So isn’t it time for the eds to stand up and have the courage of their prior proposal? At the time, the Morning News agreed with Bush—they said he should veto the $87 billion! They knew there would be nothing wrong with that conduct. They knew the troops would always be funded. So here’s our question: When they see Bush playing voters for fools, why don’t these brave little boys and girls stand up and say something about it?
|
Hmmm...so Bush threatened to veto the bill, too. Maybe politics aren't as simple as the sound bites would have us think. |
|
|