Bush flopped on terrorism and security, Kerry didn't flip
Published August 03, 2004
Kerry voted right on both Iraq bills:
He didn't vote for the invasion, and he didn't vote against supporting the troops.
If you knew the details, you might have voted the same way, no matter what your party preferences are. Because the two Kerry votes on the Iraq "War" and funding look different when you get past the glib mis-characterizations.
Let's start with the $87 billion Iraq funding bill.
It was a bad bill.
It included $20 billion for reconstruction in Iraq as well a troop funding, and it was not adequately funded. Kerry voted against the bill because he wanted to separate it into two bills, one for funding the troops and one for rebuilding Iraq.
Kerry was willing to vote for the $67 billion separately, and supported a comparable reconstruction bill at the time for the $20 billion. This would have been paid for, in part, by rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts and included more controls than the combined bill.
That bill didn't pass, and the bill that did pass was a flop: of the $20 billion voted last October, only about $0.5 billion has been spent on rebuilding so far and the Iraqi infrastructure is still a mess. Not to mention the corruption we've been hearing about, and the pork included in the bill:
[The bill which passed included] $3.6 million for 600 radios and phones, at $6,000 apiece; 80 pickup trucks at $33,000 apiece; $40 million for a $333-a-month computer training course that would cost $100 to $200 at a U.S. community college; and a $10,000-per-month business school that is twice the monthly cost of the Harvard Business School.
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, who is in charge of Northern Iraq, told a congressional delegation he was told by U.S. engineers that it would cost $15 million to bring a cement plant in his region back to Western production standards. Because he did not have the money, Petraeus gave the project to local Iraqis, who were able to get the cement plant running for $80,000 [yes, that's a markup of $14,920,000 dollars/hp].
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell bristled at the suggestion that some of the administration's requests — such as a $9 million plan to create Zip codes — are "luxury items." [Washington Post]
- Bush flopped on terrorism and security, Kerry didn't flip
- Published: August 03, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Hal Pawluk
- Hal Pawluk's BC Writer page
- Hal Pawluk's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
No, Tom, it's not both sides of the issue at all.
Having power and leverage in a situation does not mean that you have to use it.
Saddam was contained, a heavier threat of a possible invasion would have continued to keep him contained, perhaps moved things a long a bit more quickly.
Remember that the UN inspectors had inspected virtually all the sites where the administration had told them they "knew" the weapons were, and were not far from completing their job.
It was Bush who pulled them out so he could invade for no real reason.
And of course, by doing that he effectively abandoned - certainly minimized - the hunt for the terrorists, with the results we see today, in Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the world.
There was no reason to invade Iraq, no matter how many times Rumsfeld claimed it was an "immediate threat."
How about to authorize force and use it honestly, in the best interests of America and the world?
I'm sick of the simplifications that we see when it comes to claims about voting records. The next time someone says so-and-so voted against a bill that would have done something marvelous, check out the details of the bill, the other options available, and why so-and-so voted against the bill--as Hal has done here.
Great post, Hal. All 'we' hear is that Kerry "voted against supporting the troops".
Thanks for parsing the B.S.
Aside: Afghanistan is a friggin' disaster -- and getting worse every day. But most Americans don't give a shit anymore. They're headed off to the next 15 minute crisis/adventure.
And the daily deaths and explosions in Iraq barely make the news.
I feel for the soldiers in Iraq and their families, hung out to dangle in a foreign adventure that wasn't necessary.
How'd you like to die in a war that wasn't necessary -- and then be ignored by people too busy or distracted to give a fuck?
Ah, what a country...
Could you please link me to the text of the (87 billion dollar) bill? Can't seem to find it...
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/18198)
On the other vote, Kerry voted for a war powers authorization bill, not for the invasion of Iraq. The President was authorized to use force if it was necessary to defend our national security.
Repeat: the bill was not a vote on whether or not to invade Iraq. Look it up.
Talk about being on both sides of an issue. I voted to authorize force, but not use it?
Wha' Happened?
You should be a politician.