How I think Kerry should answer the $87 billion question

[dolstein]

The Republicans claim that I was opposed to funding our troops in Iraq. But the truth is, I supported funding for our troops. We differenced only in our approach. While the Republicans recklessly insisted on borrowing money to fund our operations in Iraq, I felt that it was time to call upon the wealthiest of Americans to sacrifice a portion of their tax cut in order to provide needed support for our troops without adding to the national debt. When you consider the enormous sacrifices we demand from the young men and women in our armed forces, I believed that was the least we could do. Unfortunately, the Republicans insisted on protecting those tax cuts at all cost, and as a matter of princple, I was simply unwilling to go along with that.

[Dookus]

1. Isn't that pretty much

what he already says?

[dolstein]

2. His answers have ranged from meandering to incomprehensible

Frankly, at this point, he should have a finely honed answer. He doesn't. He better get one in time for the debates, because you just know he's going to be asked about this.

[maynard]

3. another answer

current mismanagement of funds appropriated for the war. How much of that is really going to the troops? As Leno said one night....Mr. President, remember as you write that check, there are two L's in Halliburton.

[k in IA]

4. They wanted to put it on our children's credit card and I thought we

should pay as we go.

[Pepperbelly]

5. This is such a tricked up bunch of baloney they're spreading!

:grr:

This is the only answer necessary.

David Firestone’s 10/22/03 New York Times report:

The White House threatened Tuesday to veto its own spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress made reconstruction aid a loan, taking its most forceful stand on the issue even as more lawmakers supported a reimbursement by Iraq.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh073004.shtml