The $87 Billion dollar question: Kerry MUST respond!!!

[Cheneys_former_heart]

He has got to explain that vote clearly and concisely because that is the only talking point the RNC seems to be gaining ground on. I would suggest he explain it as a sop to Halliburton, and the 87 billion passed and our troops are still without Kevlar jackets and are running out of ammo. Where did the 87 billion go? Kerry had a chance to answer this on 60 Minutes, but he didn't. If we don't nip this bud it could become a "common knowledge" talking point that we won't be able to knock down.

[Caution]

1. he has responded.

but the bush heads just keep parroting this crap. By continuing to respond to it over and over again he woudl be letting them frame the debate. Let Bush respond to charges that he didnt show up for duty, to charges that he misled the public on Iraq and that he doesn't knwo how to properly chew his food when eating a pretzel.

[opihimoimoi]

13. Bush needs to respond how he did nothing for 8 months from

taking office re the terror threat. Nothing.... He did Nothing. Meetings with warnings meant nothing to him. Hart/Tudman Commission meant nothing to him.... He is in deep doo doo and wants to distract with shit....

He is not Proactive..... he is reactive....the worst possible kind of leader we can get....

[Dems Will Win]

2. Yes and what about the phony charge of being the most liberal Senator and

Edwards the #4 according to the National Journal for 2003. What a crock of shit!

They were both campaigning and only came back for votes that were close and were progressive!!

Look at the earlier years and ADA ratings!

[Cha]

3. Well, I heard the answer to that on c-span this morning when

Jeanne Shaheen was on and I posted it but there was no response.

Shaheen clearly stated that Kerry didn't vote for the $87Billion to Iraq because bush wouldn't say where the Money was coming from and bush wouldn't rescind the tax cuts to the wealthiest % to pay for it. VEry Simple.

[rumguy]

4. I so totally and completely agree

It was one of their main talking points. I've been thinking about this for awhile and I agree he must go out of his way to explain it. It's not hard to do, voters will understand. There were two versions of the bill, the version he wanted would have repealed some (not all) but some of the tax cuts for the rich and it would have provided more actual money for Iraq! On top of that, and just as important, it wasn't ladened with handouts to Bush's corporate buddies. It's about principle, that's what he has to say.

And this is the climax right here: BUSH THREATENED TO VETO THIS VERSION OF THE BILL IF IT REACHED HIM! In other words, Bush would have done the very same thing they are accusing Kerry of doing!!!!!!!!!

[Mz Pip]

5. It's hardly Kerry's fault

our troops didn't have body armour. Bush sent them to Iraq ill equipt. Blame Bush, not Kerry.

MzPip
:dem:

[noahmijo]

6. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that when he speaks tonight

he'll expain both the $87 billion and his vote on the Iraq war.

The public needs to know the truth not what the shills are parroting.

[bluedog]

7. he may be waiting

remember bush was going to go to war (considering it) without the approval of Congress this can be googled.

now ............

the $87 billion..well bush him self was going to VETO that bill.

White House threatens veto of Iraq aid bill over loans
House, Senate compromise bill in the works
Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Posted: 6:33 AM EDT (1033 GMT)



The House and Senate hope to reach compromise on a final version of the bill next week.




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.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/sprj.irq.congress.iraq.ap/

[nyhuskyfan]

8. It has a simple answer

Republicans voted against the 87 billion, too, since Bush said he was going to veto it. The bill was defeated 57-42, since the plan was to pay for it by rolling back some of the tax cuts on the wealthy.

The bill that passed was just added to our deficit. It passed 87-12, and he voted against it due to the fiscal irresponsibility. If his vote would have made a difference, he would have voted for it -- it was a symbolic protest.

So Kerry was for it, then against it -- and Republicans were against it, then for it. Almost everybody flip-flopped (except 30 Dems who supported both bills).

[MidwestTransplant]

9. It's so simple to answer

87 Billion was made up of two funding packages. 27 for the troops and 60 as a grant for the reconstruction. NOBODY quarreled with the 27 billion. In fact, many Republicans even wanted to have to separate votes. They weren't happy with a 60 Bil. grant to Iraq and instead wanted it to be a loan. Bush of course didn't want to split it so Kerry voted AGAINST the 60 BILLION grant because there would be no accountability and he thought it should be a loan.

[gratuitous]

10. What a coincidence! Check today's Daily Howler

Bob Somerby, in his incomparable manner, totally dismantles this talking point. But why does it keep coming up? Because the press corps likes repeating its script, and the script is: John Kerry, flip-flopper. Never mind that George W. Bush threatened to veto a bill for that same $87 billion before he signed the final version of the bill -- it's John Kerry who voted for it, then voted against it.

It's called spin, and the Mighty Republican Wurlitzer is playing this tune for all it's worth. Get yourself educated; read The Daily Howler; and don't fall for it.

[ProfessorPlum]

15. Nice to cross post with a similarly updated DUer.

Somerby is a treasure.

[gratuitous]

24. Appalling that we know this and the media don't

'Cause I know I sure don't make the kind of money those folks do. But we're better informed. Just appalling.

[Cheneys_former_heart]

27. Look, I AM educated--it's the non-political junkies

who are not. The mushy middle, the ones that Kerry is trying to appeal to now, have not gotten the message. It needs to come from Kerry's mouth, not his website or The Daily Howler, it has to come directly from him while the eyes of the country are on us.

[gratuitous]

31. So call in

Write a letter to the editor. Get after them. If you know the story, make sure the media talking heads do, too. Kerry's on the record, and he's explained this several times. Short of writing their copy for them, I'm not sure what else he can do.

But a couple dozen people keeping after them, and correcting the record, maybe even more than a couple dozen, and this fake "story" has a better chance of going away.

[Pallas180]

11. I have a better question. WHERE'S THE MONEY?? cause

it hasn't been spent in Iraq.

So who's got it?

[Joanne98]

20. Who do you think has it.........

Bushco stole the troops body armor money. It's probably in Riggs bank. This issue is a slam dunk for Kerry. I keep having nightmares about the Kerry camp losing the election because of PINK TUTUNESS. ugh!!!!!!

[ProfessorPlum]

12. Have everyone you know read this

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072904.shtml

It won't help against the presstitutes, but send it around to your families and friends.

[nyhuskyfan]

21. ARGHGGHHGGH

I can accept talking heads are stupid. I can accept that the Republians are playing politics. But a guy like Howard Fineman should be informed and bright enough to understand this, instead he hops on for the ride.

Can anyone actually research and think in the media? Is that asking too much?

[qanda]

14. Remind the people that Americans were against this

I don't know how they have managed to turn this issue completely around as a plus for Bush*. This war is costing us so much money that shouldn't even be necessary. If John Kerry is going to run a Mary Poppins campaign and be all nice then he gonna get creamed. These people are nasty and they will stop at nothing to turn every negative for Bush* into a negative for Kerry.

[Joanne98]

16. I agree.......

He needs to do a better job. This is turning into the Rethugs theme song. He could counter it by bringing up the "boob jobs" the pentagon is giving female troops or the missing trillion DOD dollars.

[SoCalDem]

17. Hard to explain

when the repubes have their fingers in their ears, and are chanting.."LALALALALALALALALALA"...

[Trajan]

18. I think Kerry and the DNC ....

SHOULD spend some of our money on Infomercials ...

YOU heard me: ... I N F O M E R C I A L S ....

JUST like that crickety-ole Ross Perot did in 1992 ...

Kerry and Edwards should take turns SMASHING the lies being ramrodded into the public sphere by the likes of the RNC and their friends at CNN, MSRNC and FAUX ....

He should show how he supported the FIRST vote for $87 Billion for Iraq, the one that was paid for by reducing the tax cuts for the very wealthy, and the vote that the GOP voted AGAINST .....

The GOP voted AGAINST $87 Billion dollars for the soldiers in Iraq: WHY do they hate america ? ...

I love the Infomercial idea: use fancy charts and calendars and stuff .... bring in special guests like: the diplomats that cannot tolerate the Bush WH ... the Generals who think Rumsfeld and Bush are fucking looney goons ... The Economists who think The Bush deficits are ANYTHING BUT 'conservative' economic policy ....

Informercials .... yeah .... Do it ..

[bobbyboucher]

19. When Kerry voted FOR it, why didn't it pass?

Enough said.

[displacedtexan]

22. Loved that bold, decisive use of the exclamation point!

Your answer can be found at

www.johnkerry.com

[rumguy]

23. Our party can't let the pigs inject a phony talking point into the media

This stupid fuckin' talking point is everywhere. I feel it's easy to explain away. You see: our party has to shame the media into telling the truth. We have to have people speaking for Kerry on this issue.

Here's Klein in the new Times article: KLEIN: Kerry is an oddly elusive character for a national politician. There are nagging questions about his steadiness, especially on issues located at the jittery intersection of politics and policy. His contradictory votes on Iraq—giving the President the authority to go to war, then voting against the $87 billion supplemental appropriation to pay for the occupation—have been at the heart of the Republican attacks against him this year.

Kerry's side of the story isn't even told! It's a fuckin' disgrace. They are going to keep repeating this stupid line until someone shames them out of it.

The Daily Howler takes apart this talking point.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072904.shtml

[SEpatriot]

25. Don't wait for the party!!

Seriously, we need everyone here to get this out. Post it everywhere you go, post it on every discussion board you come across. Personalize it, modify it to your own words and put it in a letter to the editor. Post it anywhere you can. Plaster it on the walls. Just get it out!!

I have confidence in the Kerry campaign, but we cannot sit back and wait for:

A) The press to correct itself - IT WON'T
B) The party to set everyone straight
C) The debates to clear up this issue

We must take citizen action, NOW!

[UdoKier]

26. He shouldn't just explain it. He should brag about it. He did the right

thing. He should pound away at the fact that Bush INSISTED on borrowing money to give to millionaires, while he was trying to protect our economic security by keeping the US solvent.

[genius]

28. What is the issue about not giving HALLIBURTON $87 billion?

[drbtg1]

29. the easiest way I know to respond

"There were two bills for the 87 billion dollars.

One bill that the president supported that kept those tax cuts in place for those president's friends like KEN LAY!

One bill was fiscally responsible and took away THE KEN LAY TAX CUTS! Kerry decided for the latter!"

Why aren't people calling "the tax cuts for the upper 1% of wage earners" something simpler? I say call them "THE KEN LAY TAX CUTS".

[Brotherjohn]

33. I LOVE it! The "Ken Lay Tax Cuts"! Great one! (n/t)

[drbtg1]

34. Thanks. Glad you approve.

Now if only someone in the campaign could be given this nomenclature. Anything to help, y'know.

Any chance Chris Heinz still lurks around here? ;)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. Here we go again....how many times has this come up on DU?...

Maybe you should ask FratBoy and Big Dick where the $87 billion went! How the heck is Kerry supposed to know how that money was spent by the NEOCONS!!!!

Do you know how the government is supposed to work...at least the one we used to have before the Coup of December 2000?? It works MUCH differently now because the unelected government is now a dictatorship!

Wake the heck up!!

[Brotherjohn]

32. I agree that it's a nonsense talking point that shouldn't merit a response

But I also know that it has stuck more than any other criticism against Kerry. The general charge of waffling and the specific claim of having voter for, then against the $87B.

Because of this, Kerry needs to take it on in a big forum, and what better forum than his speech tonight?

With a few cleverly chosen words, he could take control of the issue and have the last word, as it were (the "word" everyone remembers).

For example:
"My opponents would like to paint me as some sort of indecisive flip-flopper. And I'd like to go into this because it shows to what lengths my opponents will go to mislead the nation into believing what they know to be untrue."

"They like to use a quote from me saying that I voted for the $87B before I voted against it. In reality, Republicans did the EXACT same thing on the EXACT same issue. I voted FOR the $87B for our troops and Iraq's reconstruction in a bill that would have paid for it by repealing some of the president's tax cuts to the wealthy. Most Republicans voted AGAINST that bill, and the president campaigned against it as well. Then I voted AGAINST the bill that paid for these costs by borrowing more money, increasing our already record-level deficits, and they voted FOR this bill. So really, if anyone 'flip-flopped', we both did. But in actuality, no one did, since they were two entirely different bills."

"As to whether anyone misled, however, is another story. This is yet another example of how far this administration will go to mislead, how they are willing to completely misrepresent the facts, and how they will (as they were so fond of saying in 2000) 'do anything and say anything just to get elected'."