Kerry/Edwards needs a better answer on the $87 billion question

[dolstein]

Here's the answer I would have given:

Mr. Cheney just accused John Kerry of failing to support the troops by voting against an $87 billion funding bill for the war in Iraq. What he fails to mention is that John Kerry and I supported a Democratic alternative that would have provided the funding without increasing the deficit. The president threatened to veto that measure, and because of Republican opposition, it was defeated. So I suppose you could say that the president was against funding the war in Iraq before he was for it.

The fact is, this administration doesn't want to pay for the war in Iraq. John Kerry and I believed that with young men and women of our armed forces being asked to risk their lives in Iraq, and with so many middle class families being squeezed here at home, it was only fair to ask the wealthiest of American to many a small sacrifice by giving up a portion of their tax cut to pay for the war. But apparently the idea of shared sacrifice is unacceptable to this administration. So instead of calling upon the wealthiest of Americans to help pay, for the war in Iraq, this administration has been borrowing the money from the social security trust fund and adding billions of dollars to the national debt. Which means that when the bill finally comes due, it will to be the same young men and women who fought the war who'll end up paying for it. And that's wrong.

[clydefrand]

1. I agree with you that they need to clean up this

point. Please, may I suggest that you send this to John Kerry.

[Sarvis]

5. in fewer words...

I don't remember who said it, but I like the summary of this someone made":

"I voted for it when we would pay for it now, and I voted against it when our children would have to pay for it."

Maybe Kerry even said it before... Not that I expect the Bush folks were listening.

[ProfessorPlum]

2. Totally agree.

I was just about to post something similar. This really isn't so hard.


How about this:

"There were several versions of that bill. The one I eventually voted against had us putting the costs on our grandchildren. Bush threatened to veto the one in which the wealthy of our country were asked to give up a few of their precious tax cut dollars to help pay for the war effort. So we all wanted to outfit the troops. I just wanted us to pay for it responsibly."

It's a lot like yours, but shorter. I really can't figure out why they keep missing an opportunity to clear that up. And not only is it convincing, but it is the truth!

[redqueen]

4. That's better, but it still needs to be shorter

How about: "That charge is ridiculous. Bush threatened to veto that very same bill if the cost wasn't charged to our grandkids instead of taken out of his tax cuts."

Or something along those lines.

[ProfessorPlum]

7. Even better

But it is good to point out to people that there were several versions of the bill. That way Kerry's original comment (taken out of context and replayed to death) will make sense to them too.

[lancdem]

3. I agree

[RobinA]

6. I'm Wondering Too

why they don't clean this up. I'm assuming there must be some reason lurking that we aren't aware of. I'm doing my part in the swing state of PA, but that's not going to cut it.

[liberal N proud]

8. I don't unserstand why they keep letting them take that shot

They just need to come clean with the people and the issue would be dead.

[ben_packard]

9. All of these responses are excellent, and each is suited to

a different environment. The first would be well suited to the next debate, where as the others would work well on the stump and on TV once that position is established. I pray that something similar is said on friday.

[demodewd]

10. no congressional oversight

What I remember about the 87 billion was that there was no accountability stipulated as to how it was going to spent. The administration basically apportioned the money with no congressional oversight.