« Why Did John Kerry Go To Vietnam? | Home | God Bless America »
John Kerry Still Would Have Voted For The War, Before He Voted Against Funding For Our Troops
By Matt Margolis | August 9, 2004
John Kerry Still Would Have Voted For The War, Before He Voted Against Funding For Our Troops
Does it get any stranger than that?
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.
Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: “I’ll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively.”
So there you have it, Kerry, with the benefit of hindsight said he’d have voted to give President Bush the authority to use force against Iraq.
But what does that say about his vote against funding our troops who are currently serving in Iraq?
I find this disturbing because John Kerry still voted against funding our troops who are fighting in Iraq.
John Kerry, who seems to be getting a free pass on this particular issue opted to “challenge” Bush to answer some questions, including “why he rushed to war,” “why he used faulty intelligence,” “why he mislead Americans about how he would go to war” and “why he had not brought other countries to the table.”
I’d like to know why John Kerry thinks that we “rushed to war” when he spent 14 years in the Senate warning our country about Saddam Hussein.
I’d like to know why in hindsight he can still say he’d vote for the use of force against Iraq and yet criticize Bush acting on the findings of the intelligence given to him.
I’d like to know why Kerry, who spent eight years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, can criticize President Bush for acting on “faulty intelligence” when Kerry has made a habit of voting to cut intelligence funding – even after the WTC bombings of 1993.
I’d like to know why after 14 years of warning us about Saddam Hussein’s regime why Bush was “rushing” rather than John Kerry was “stalling” on Iraq.
I’d like to know why a coalition of nearly 50 countries is unilateral without the permission of France, Germany, and Russia.
John Kerry may have given an answer, but his answer only brings up a lot more questions.
UPDATE: I got ahead of myself and didn’t realize that Kerry actually did NOT answer the question Bush challenged him to answer. Details at Blogs For Bush.
Topics: John Kerry Watch |
Related Posts:
August 9th, 2004 at 10:57 pm
John Kerry Still Doesn’t Answer The Central Question
I have to admit, when I first read that John Kerry answered President Bush challenge today, I thought “wow, Kerry actually gave a definitive answer,” But he didn’t. Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted…
August 10th, 2004 at 7:18 am
I would like to know, again, who are the annonymous leaders of other countries who will co-operate if there is a change in our presidency!
August 10th, 2004 at 12:17 pm
This is part comment/part question:
As far as I know, Kerry voted against the “funding” bill, because there were other things on there that he disagreed with (His vote did not have much to do with how much money the soldiers deserve).
However, this comment comes straight out of one of Clinton’s speeches, so if someone has specific evidence otherwise (from a reliable site, not a right-biased site), let me know.
August 10th, 2004 at 1:04 pm
[…] president to have but I would have used that authority effectively.”–AP Just like Matt Margolis did, at first I thought–hey –Kerry answered the question! But then as […]
August 10th, 2004 at 2:25 pm
also, isn’t “giving the president authority” different from voting for the war…?
August 10th, 2004 at 2:53 pm
qt - Kerry voted against the bill because he wanted a revocation of the bush tax cuts included. He set his revised one in and nobody wanted it so he refused to vote for the original funding bill.
August 10th, 2004 at 3:18 pm
yes i can. my parents do that all the time. they give our neighbor the key to the house and tell them to keep a watch on the house and go in to check if something appears to be wrong.
however, if the neighbors throw a party and trash the house, or go in every day just to hang out, we’d all be mad! my parents didn’t ask (vote for) the neighbors to be so irresponsible, right?
also, if we’re agreed that kerry’s vote for the bill to “fund the war” had nothing to do with his thoughts on the actual war, why do repubs keep using that against him, incorrectly?
August 10th, 2004 at 11:29 pm
John F. Kerry is a consumate political opportunist. He is willing to say anything to anyone to gain power. Problem is, we really don’t know what he stands for or how he would wield power. He HAS changed position - “evolving” he calls it many time.
He points to Viet Nam as his bona fides, yet won’t speek specifics and has claimed to have commited attrocities and to have been in Cambodia. Whats up with that? Is he a war criminal? HE claimed he was. His Cambodia exploits have been proved un-true. What up with that? Now his “campaign” says he mis-spoke. What does J.F. Kerry say? No - even if you are NOT for G.W. Bush (which I admit I am) how can you trust Kerry? Give me a break.
August 11th, 2004 at 9:29 am
What a great speech by Bush.
“Almost 220 days after switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance,” saying he “now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq. After months of questioning my motives and even my credibility, Senator Kerry now agrees with me that even though we have not found the stockpiles of weapons we all believe were there … he would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power,” Bush said.
“I want to thank Senator Kerry for clearing that up,
A new nuance!!! You’ve got to love it! If this trend continues, Bush will absolutely kick Kerry’s ass all over the stage when they debate.
August 11th, 2004 at 10:04 am
Actually, it’s even better. Bush demanded that Kerry answer the question…would he vote the same way, yes or no. Kerry took the bait, and Bush shoved it right back down his throat and made him gag. It’s still a long way until election day, but the “bumbling” Bush made the “nuanced” Kerry look like an absolute, utter fool in this exchange.
If Kerry thinks he’s going to win points back on this issue by claiming that he would have been able to build a bigger alliance to go to war…he’s not just pretending to smoke weed this time. No honest person in America actually believes that the French or Germans ever would have been persuaded to go to war, under any circumstances, short of Saddam firing off a nuke.
August 11th, 2004 at 11:19 am
i’m glad to see that no one was able to answer my question…did i stump you…?
August 11th, 2004 at 11:58 am
I assume you are talking about that question? The reason is because he is willing to sell our soldiers out for personal gain. While his decision not to back the bill was in fact not about whether he thought our troops needed the money, it is even MORE dastardly to withhold funds you know they need for political reasons.
August 11th, 2004 at 12:47 pm
It’s so elementary that even you should be able to grasp it, QT…Before every vote, Kerry sticks his finger in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing. Before the funding vote, he saw the way the wind was blowing in his party and the rising popularity of Dean, and that’s how he voted. As a previous poster said, he’s a political opportunist. Another example…during the primaries…against the Israeli-Palestinian wall. Primaries over…now he support’s Israel’s right to build it. The new issue today is the idea of a proposed early pullout date, and just as he has done every day this week, Bush is kicking his ass on that issue as well.
August 11th, 2004 at 1:33 pm
QT - We just assumed you were stupid or something. I don’t think you were really listening to what Kerry, Bush, the French, the Germans, or the iraqis were saying. Both Kerry and Bush say it was right to go - thing is kerry also critizes Bush for going. That is because he is full of crap.
August 11th, 2004 at 2:20 pm
Kahn,
1) making assumptions always gets people into trouble. never do that.
2)your post has nothing to do with my question.
August 11th, 2004 at 4:11 pm
What question? The one about your parents keys? I see no question. And, I’m also assuming you are an ass. I met Kerry once - when he was head of VVAW - and I thoght he was an ass - guess what? I was right. He was, and he still is.
August 11th, 2004 at 4:12 pm
Oh - what source? Tell ya what. If you compile a list of “acceptable” sources, I’ll see what I can do.
August 11th, 2004 at 4:14 pm
well, if you didn’t see the question, why did you try to answer it?!?!
the question is what ed answers in comment #12.
do you have anything to add besides insults? (i’ve noticed you guys always throw insults when you have nothing constructive to say.)
August 11th, 2004 at 5:02 pm
QT - no list eh? What do you have against making yourself cclear? Senator Kerry? Is that you?
August 11th, 2004 at 5:04 pm
What is not clear to you??!?! I think you might be the only one not understanding…actually, i’m unclear as to what it is that you’re not understanding.
i’m not listing every reliable resource for you. i don’t have the time. just show me what you have, and we’ll go from there.
August 11th, 2004 at 7:34 pm
well, I’m happy with the sources listed.
August 11th, 2004 at 7:37 pm
so…you don’t have anything…
that’s what i thought!
hence, my post.
August 11th, 2004 at 9:57 pm
Incorrect sir. I’m happy with my sources. I don’t think I can “prove” anything to you.
August 12th, 2004 at 4:25 am
I think I’ve lost track of exactly what the original question was!!
In any event, giving the president the authority is exactly the same as voting for the war. If you vote to give him the authority, you are saying that you accept the decision he makes. You’ve given him the authroity to make it, and you are willing to live with it.
It’s really moot, though. Kerry’s voting history on this is like every other issue. He checks the political wind first. Cheney was right today…he has absolutely no conviction about right and wrong.
August 12th, 2004 at 4:33 am
Let Kerry’s words speak for themselves:
“During the debate in the Senate, he declared that a vote on the authorization of war was ‘not a vote about sending a message. It is a vote about war.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp
August 12th, 2004 at 12:22 pm
There’s nothing to “prove.” Read the question again.
Are there any sources that either confirm or deny that Kerry voted against the “funding” bill for reasons other than compensation for the soldiers/war (tax cuts issue)?
It’s an easy question that only Ed has been able to answer so far.
August 12th, 2004 at 12:42 pm
also, i’m not a “sir.” read my name again!
August 12th, 2004 at 1:22 pm
I’ll have to answer your question Socratically, with a question.
What was in the appropriations bill that was so onerous that it justifies the risk of abandoning our troops, leaving them without extra armor, weapons, and most importantly, reconstruction funds?
August 12th, 2004 at 1:30 pm
random numbers,
that’s my question…do you have the answer?
August 12th, 2004 at 7:40 pm
qt - Well OK. Yes I have an answer. JFK2 didn’t want to help pay for Iraqi reconstruction with a grant (he wanted it to be a loan). It was pretty related to the funding for food, arms. armor, and ammunition. The reason for it being a grant was that we did not want to be seen as sucking the money out of Iraq by having them pay us to rebuild. And it wasn’t some off the wall amendment - it was part of the core purpose of the bill.
So - net effect was that JFK2 didn’t want to help Iraq, so he voted to screw our people in the field.
August 12th, 2004 at 7:46 pm
my understanding is that the bill had a provision for additional tax cuts. kerry was against those tax cuts, so he tried to get an amendment put on to get rid of the tax cuts. the amendment failed. so, kerry, realizing that his vote didn’t matter anyway, decided not to vote as a statement against bush’s tax cuts.
August 12th, 2004 at 8:53 pm
Matt, President Bush threatened to veto the first version of the funding bill. So why don’t you blame him for opposing funding for our troops? And why don’t you discuss this aspect of it? Is it because you’re:
dishonest?
stupid?
lazy?
dishonest and stupid?
dishonest and lazy?
stupid and lazy?
Or all three?
August 12th, 2004 at 9:01 pm
QT - That is not what was in the bill. Note - it passed and there were not additional cuts. He did not want to give the money to rebuild Iraq. If I was still in the Marines, I don’t think I would like not having a vest and bullets because he would not do for them what we did for Germany and Japan.
August 12th, 2004 at 9:02 pm
Lowell - You are an ass.
asshole
asslicker
lazy asshole
liberal - sorry redundant for asshole.
August 12th, 2004 at 9:03 pm
Oh and Lowell and QT - now its your turn to come up with sources since you’ve made unsubstantiated statements (except Lowell, you don’t need to prove you’re an ass - we got that point covered, OK?)
August 12th, 2004 at 11:00 pm
Kahn, Goddamn, you’re stupid.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration threatened for the first time Tuesday to veto an $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress converts any Iraqi rebuilding money into loans.
White House officials issued the warning even though many lawmakers agree that the bill’s final version is likely to bow to President Bush and omit any loans. By underscoring Bush’s opposition to loans, the administration threat could make it easier for congressional Republican leaders to nail down enough votes to help the president prevail.
The House bill included $18.6 billion to help Iraq rebuild its water supplies, health clinics and Army, and made the money a grant that country would not have to repay.
The Senate included $18.4 billion but would require Iraq to repay about half — unless Saudi Arabia, Russia and other countries forgave 90 percent of the debt Baghdad ran up under Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Bush and a host of administration officials had repeatedly expressed their opposition to loans in recent weeks, but had not issued a veto threat before. A letter written Tuesday reiterated White House arguments, but contained the first such veto warning.
“If this provision is not removed, the president’s senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill,” wrote White House budget director Joshua Bolten.
“Including a loan mechanism slows efforts to stabilize the region and to relieve pressure on our troops, raises questions about our commitment to building a democratic and self-governing Iraq, and impairs our ability to encourage other nations to provide badly needed assistance without saddling Iraq with additional debt,” the letter said.
Loan supporters say that with some of the world’s richest oil reserves, Iraq should be required to eventually repay some U.S. aid. That is especially true with the United States facing record federal deficits, and many members of Congress hearing requests from their home districts for more funds for local roads and other projects.
House-Senate bargainers hope to reach compromise on a final version of the bill next week.
August 12th, 2004 at 11:45 pm
Lowell,
Stupid eh? Where is the tax part in that article? Yes he threatened to veto it if it wasn’t enough. Much different from actually voting against supporting the troops because the bill was too big. So, are you thick - or can you not see the difference. Let me tell you my Marine, Army, and Navy friends here in the DC area see the difference.
August 13th, 2004 at 1:17 am
Kahn, I didn’t say anything about any tax part. I said Bush threatened to veto it. You are too stupid and lazy to look it up, so you demanded proof, so I gave it.
Oh, and the various epithets you use are meaningless; they don’t really convey anything except that you don’t like me. When I say that you’re stupid, lazy and dishonest, I can point to specific evidence. Namely, you seem unable to do a search, proving your stupidity and laziness. And you demanded proof of something I said, then complained because the proof I provided failed to address a point I never made. Thus proving your dishonesty.
August 13th, 2004 at 1:18 am
Ed, Kerry voted for a bill that would pay for the Iraq appropriation by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for those having incomes of over $400,000 per year. After a threatened veto by Bush, the bill failed on something like a 57-42 vote. So Bush opposed funding our troops because he believed that the tax cuts for the wealthy were more important.
August 13th, 2004 at 3:12 pm
The whole “Kerry still would have supported the war” attack is just one more negative attack on Kerry, nothing but election year politics. Just like that waste-of-time gay marriage amendment and the terror warnings that conveniently pop up whenever Bush’s numbers start to slide.
August 13th, 2004 at 8:54 pm
Lowell,
Correct I don’t like you. I grew up in extreme liberal western Mass and have dealt with arrogant abraisive people like you my entire life. You proved nothing with your article. You look at one aspect and ignore the rest. And, yes I can do a search (I think if you look at your own posts you’ll see I was responding to names you were calling someone else. Hows that for lazy - can’t even read your OWN posts!)
FYI tax cuts and raises almost ONLY affect the “rich” because the rich people of the country pay the vast majority of the tax bill. And, your vaugeness and generalization here is indicative of democratic talking points.
Exactly what tax rates would be applied to what income brackets? What economic data were the income assumptions based upon? I actually have a business degree and DO understand the issues. I attacked you because you attack conservatives with no justification. And, though you seem well versed in liberal double-speak you can’t see past the fundamental flaws that the liberal agenda is built upon.
Hows this for some questions? Which party has an admitted war criminal in the Senate?
Answer: Dem - Kerry (admitted attrocities).
Which party has an admitted terrorist in the Senate?
Answer: dem - Byrd (KKK).
Which party has a person guilty of negligent homicide in the Senate?
Answer: dem - Kennedy (Chapaquidick)
Which party has senators with more thasn twice the personal combined wealth of the other party in the Senate? Thats right, the democrats - despite being in the minority. They ARE the rich you fool. They have been leading the blacks, feminists, gays, and “intelligentsia” around by the nose for fifty years. Buy into it if you want. If you want wealth redistribution - start with Soros, Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, et al.
August 13th, 2004 at 10:17 pm
Kahn, what has all that got to do with anything? You demanded proof of what I said, so I gave it. You were too stupid and lazy to do a search yourself. Then you tried to change the subject, proving your dishonesty. I don’t know what this excursion into tax policy has to do with anything.
I said that Bush threatened to veto funding for our troops. He did threaten to veto funding our troops. Your dishonest attempt to drag the discussion into other areas doesn’t change that.
Now, you say that Kerry is an admitted war criminal. Is he? The only thing Kerry has special knowledge of are the actions he took. That is, he participated in attacking in free fire zones. The legal implications of that, and whether that action constitutes a war crime or not, is accessible to everyone. Kerry’s participation in the actions he took doesn’t give his legal analysis of those actions any special power. You can only say that Kerry is a war criminal if you agree that establishment of free fire zones was a war crime and everyone who participated was a war criminal. If you don’t believe that, you don’t believe that Kerry is a war criminal, no matter what he says.
And I do realize that all your vague and meaningless insults resulted from my pointing out that Matt is stupid, lazy and dishonest. The fact that you are also stupid, lazy and dishonest doesn’t alter that.
August 14th, 2004 at 7:55 am
“Read the question again. Are there any sources that either confirm or deny that Kerry voted against the “funding” bill for reasons other than compensation for the soldiers/war (tax cuts issue)?”
It’s an absolutely foolish question to begin with, because how can there be any sources to confirm or deny what was actually going on inside Kerry’s brain at the time, so how can any source possibly confirm or deny his reasons? Given that he’s now lied about where he was in Christmas 68, that he can’t remember who was President in 68…I could go on all day…you can’t believe anything he says about what his “reasons” were.
August 14th, 2004 at 7:56 am
“Read the question again. Are there any sources that either confirm or deny that Kerry voted against the “funding” bill for reasons other than compensation for the soldiers/war (tax cuts issue)?”
It’s an absolutely foolish question to begin with, because how can there be any sources to confirm or deny what was actually going on inside Kerry’s brain at the time, so how can any source possibly confirm or deny his reasons? Given that he’s now lied about where he was in Christmas 68, that he can’t remember who was President in 68…I could go on all day…you can’t believe anything he says about what his “reasons” were.
August 15th, 2004 at 12:03 am
Lowell - I rightly pointed out that in analyzing your “proof” that you ignore the whole and seize upon a small point. Much as you do in the mens room I would imagine.
And - who are you to question my honesty? I’m pointing out a tactic in rhetorical lying that you are using. Go on, deny it and insult me again.
Meanwhile - at least admit to yourself that the reason liberals are supporting Kerry is that they are assuming he is lieing about his war views - and his gun views, and other views. You have quite correctly assumed that his current platform, which is geared at the middle is really a lie. And that he is actually the liberal you know he is in your heart.