Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

John Kerry Explains War Funding Vote
AP ^ | AP

Posted on 09/29/2004 5:40:10 AM PDT by Michael Goldsberry

WASHINGTON - On the eve of a foreign policy debate with President Bush (news - web sites), Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) said in an interview that his explanation of why he voted in favor of additional funding for the war in Iraq (news - web sites) before voting against it was "one of those inarticulate moments" in the campaign.

Kerry ultimately voted against providing $87 billion for military operations and aid in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites). Although he initially supported the appropriation when it was to be funded at least in part by rolling back tax cuts for those with the highest incomes, Kerry said he ended up voting against the final version of the bill in the Senate as a protest over its funding, which included no-bid contracts.

Bush has criticized Kerry throughout the campaign for the vote, which the president says shows a lack of support for troops in the field. Bush has mocked Kerry for saying, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

"It was just a very inarticulate way of saying something and I had one of those inarticulate moments," Kerry said in an interview broadcast Wednesday on "Good Morning America" on ABC. "But it reflects the truth of the position ... I thought that the wealthiest people of America should share in that burden. It was a protest."

Kerry rejected Bush's assertion that he would prefer that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) still be in power in Iraq and repeated his contention that Bush had misled the nation about the nature of the threat the Iraqi dictator posed.

"We should not have gone into Iraq knowing today what we know," Kerry told ABC. "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, I would not have voted to support war."

Kerry was among the senators who voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq and has said he would still vote for authorization so that the president could put pressure on Saddam to allow more inspections for weapons. However, the Bush campaign characterizes Kerry's position as an example of vacillation and indecision.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: kerry; kerryiraq; votingrecord
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last
To: Leapfrog
Kerry told ABC. "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, I would not have voted to support war."

Here's another flip-flop...He said in August that he would have supported the war even if he had known that Saddam did NOT have WMDs. This guy is all over the map. It's just delusional.
41 posted on 09/29/2004 6:16:22 AM PDT by mrs9x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anglian

The police always say "if you draw your weapon you'd better be prepared to use it." Kerry's statement that he voted for the authorization only to threaten Saddam is just stupid.


42 posted on 09/29/2004 6:20:06 AM PDT by johnb838 (John F'n Kerry: Communist Dupe? Or Do-gooder Idiot? You make the call.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog

He was freaking protesting? HOW DARE HE EVEN THINK OF PROTESTING ANYTHING WHEN IT COMES TO FUNDING OUR TROOPS! And he has the nerve to call himself a hero! He's a traitor to our country and should be treated as such!


43 posted on 09/29/2004 6:25:00 AM PDT by areafiftyone (Democrats = the hamster is dead but the wheel is still spinning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

There was nothing "inacticulate" about a Schizo voting reocord than alsmot any voter can see is illegical at best.

Kerry's lack of articulation just means he cannot explain his way out of an intenable voting position where no logicical explantion (beyond the expediancy of the specific day)exists.

and that would be the theme of a Kerry adminsitration: drip drip flip flip,


44 posted on 09/29/2004 6:26:55 AM PDT by rod1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy

FoxNews has a video of lurch saying in a Town Hall type meeting (filmed during the dim primary), that he had to make the decision (to vote against the 87 billion) for "political reasons"! You can bet this will be in a new commercial!

ABC radio news had lurch stating this morning that the "people" would like to see "his" opponent "solving their problems", instead of clearing brush at his Ranch... this from senator " snow-board, windsurfer, security committee slacker, girley-man liar bastard!!!

LLS


45 posted on 09/29/2004 6:34:44 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (kerry... a girlie-man who built his life on a bedrock of lies, and derives his strength from EVIL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog
I thought that the wealthiest people of America should share in that burden. It was a protest."

And his treasonous activities during the 70s were "protests" too.

How sick that he won't see that throwing a hissy because he wants to raise taxes is not a valid reason to vote to leave our military dangling in the breeze...

46 posted on 09/29/2004 6:41:32 AM PDT by trebb (Ain't God good . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog
I see the AP is still flacking for sKerry.

Where's the referral to sKerry's own words. He said it would be totally irresponsible for a Senator to not vote to fund the war effort, two weeks later he did just that.

It should make a great TV ad, say around Oct 20 or so, LOL.

47 posted on 09/29/2004 6:47:00 AM PDT by Mister Baredog ((Part of the Reagan legacy is to re-elect G.W. Bush))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
It seems like W doesn't want to whack Kerry any harder than he has to to win the election. It's frustrating as heck.

HUH? I've sure seen a whole lotta wacking going on.

All year long FReepers were complaining about Bush not fighting back. Of course he just kept his powder dry for the fall.

I'd say sKerry got wacked real good at the Convention. Zell Miller comes to mind.

Stay tuned the wacking will build all next month, I'd bet on it.

48 posted on 09/29/2004 6:52:56 AM PDT by Mister Baredog ((Part of the Reagan legacy is to re-elect G.W. Bush))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Considering sKerry is senator no-show in the senate, he has no room to talk.


49 posted on 09/29/2004 6:53:55 AM PDT by GailA ( hanoi john, I'm for the death penalty for terrorist, before I impose a moratorium on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog

Kerry flip flops on his positions so often, there is no way you can trust him to carry through on any of his current promises in the future.


50 posted on 09/29/2004 7:04:13 AM PDT by igoramus987
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog

"inarticulate moments" Story of Kerrey's life!


51 posted on 09/29/2004 7:19:01 AM PDT by KingNo155
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KingNo155

Kerry's


52 posted on 09/29/2004 7:20:16 AM PDT by KingNo155
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog
Why is everyone ignoring the points that are most obvious to me?

"I thought that the wealthiest people of America should share in that burden. It was a protest."

Don't the top 50% of wage earners already pay 90% of the taxes? What part of 90% isn't enough sharing?? Why shoud we further burden the productive members or our society?? So we can be like england was and have the top bracket something over 100% so that all the productive people leave the country?? That'll solve the problem won't it???


"Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, I would not have voted to support war."

1) Since we have discovered Saddam WAS funding Al-Queda, there is NO reason to believe that there was "no imminent threat" to America.

2) We have found weapons of mass destruction:

So why is everyone still saying there were no weapons of mass destruction. We have not found any huge stockpiles as we expected, but it is much more consistant with the facts we have and the known habits of Saddam that they were transferred to Syria as we invaded, than to foolishly believe they never existed. Also finding the long range rocket in Syria also supports the obvious assumption that the stockpiles of WMD's were shipped to Syria!

3) as previously stated, documentation has been found that Saddam financed Al-Queda and helped them with wome training. If that's not a "connection" what is???

53 posted on 09/29/2004 7:57:07 AM PDT by logic ("all that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KingNo155

He also apparently blame it on being tired late at night. They left that out of this report because it contradicts the fact that the comment was made at noon. The media will do anything to hide Kerry's flaws. If the race isn't close, they can't go on the air breathlessly each night. People may stay tuned if it's too close to call. They may not bother if it's "see how big a landslide it will be".


54 posted on 09/29/2004 8:52:04 AM PDT by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952

Is anyone counting his flip-flops? I tried but lost track weeks ago.


55 posted on 09/29/2004 9:27:51 AM PDT by Lady Jag (Googolplex Star Thinker of the Seventh Galaxy of Light and Ingenuity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lady Jag
Is anyone counting his flip-flops?

Now that would be a good job for someone like dan blather, the chief of forgeries.

56 posted on 09/29/2004 12:03:31 PM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (skerry's plan for oil independence - turn heinz tomatoes into oil????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
Now that would be a good job for someone like dan blather, the chief of forgeries.

You just gave a reason for it NOT to be blather.

57 posted on 09/29/2004 12:22:31 PM PDT by Lady Jag (Googolplex Star Thinker of the Seventh Galaxy of Light and Ingenuity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson