« Memories of Radio | Home | Taking On Liberal UHa »
Kerry’s Price Cap on Protecting Our Soldiers
By Matt Margolis | September 27, 2004
It never ceases to amaze what liberals find themselves proud of.
Teresa Heinz-Kerry speaking to a crowd of 600 Democrats in Colorado responded to a heckler questioning her husbands vote against supporting our troops…
During a question and answer session, a young man demanded to know why Kerry voted to give Bush authority to attack Iraq but voted against an $87 billion appropriation bill to support the war effort there.
“Is that the kind of thing he would do as president?,” the man asked.
Heinz Kerry sharply asked the man whether he had read the legislation that was voted on.
When he said no, she told him that Kerry had supported $60 billion in military appropriations for Iraq, but would not vote for the full $87 billion because he considered it a “blank check.” Kerry was one of 11 Democrats to vote against the bill.
Oh, so John Kerry thinks that there should be a cap on how much we spend to protect them in harms way? What is that all about? I didn’t realize John Kerry felt that we have to put a price tag on protecting our troops.
Is that the kind of Commander-In-Chief we want - one who believes that there is a price too high to pay to protect our soldiers in combat?
Disgusting…
Topics: John Kerry Watch |
Related Posts:
September 29th, 2004 at 5:47 pm
I have the feeling you haven’t read the legislation either, but thats just a premonition.
However there is sense in actually defining the sums of money you spend on a war of choice. The greater proportion of that money was not going to the soldiers themselves.
September 29th, 2004 at 9:34 pm
Miles,
That is a very interesting statement. The only money that actually goes to the soldiers, is the money that goes to the soldiers. Planes, ships, port services, railroad costs, drivers, trucks, gas, food, ammunition, communications, beds, blankets, gasoline, jet fuel, medicine, body armor, weapons, weapons maint., belts, shoes, socks - well you get the idea, that stuff doesn’t count? Don’t be obtuse.
September 30th, 2004 at 12:19 pm
Everyone talks about Kerry “politicizing” the funding vote. But who ever mentions that Bush threatened to veto the first bill (co-sponsored by Kerry…yes, that means he was actually the first one to think about the troops…the troops that Bush had sent into battle without enough body armour) just because he disagreed with the tax cuts repeal. So, our troops, which are out there in the midst of war, were at the mercy of a president who is more worried about taxes than them. Is that not politicizing?
Therefore, this attack against Kerry is ridiculous, because anyone who bothers to do research finds that Bush is not any more innocent that Kerry.
October 1st, 2004 at 6:38 pm
That money also was allocated for reconstruction contracts and grants to Iraq, Kahn. Thats what I mean by it was not entirely being spent on the troops, its therefore fallacious to argue that one is not supporting the troops for voting against such a bill.
October 3rd, 2004 at 4:01 pm
Well, can you jump the Tigris in a truck? Or drive a fuel truck on a cratered road? Yes - some of the money was for rebuilding. We did the same for Germany, Italy, and Japan. Go figure.
And above, not enough body armor for the troops? Please try not to embarass yourself here. Combat troops had armor. Some supprt units did not. It frankly didn’t occur to us that they would need it. We were wrong - and they have it now. No thanks to Johnny