Election - Bush vs Kerry

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
In 2002, Kerry voted for giving Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq at his own discretion. What he voted against is the $87 billion needed by Bush (Kerry wanted the $87 billion to come from roll backs on Bush tax cuts for $400,000+ incomes.... the idea was rejected) There's a huge difference between those two.

Use military force at his own discretion, not spend $87 billion tax-dollars on it.
That'd be like me telling you you can use your own bed to sleep in or to do whatever you want to do in. And then you saying "OK, but I'm going to need a million dollars to do what I want to do in my bed".

---

Now, this may be an issue of symantecs here, but Kerry said that he voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it right? "The" as used in Kerry's sentence, is a singular discriptor. Thus we all understand this to be a singular instance of 87 billion. Hmm... was there really a different 87 billion. Lets see, I can believe Kerry's explanation that he wanted the 87 billion to come from tax increases. But what I cannot believe is Kerry's expectation, that the President was going to raise taxes in order to fund the 87 billion; and I doubt that President Bush ever agreed to raise taxes to fund the 87 billion. That leads one to the question of, "What prompted Kerry to vote for an imagenary 87 billion dollar tax increase, before he voted against the factual 87 billion dollar pricetag for the war on terror?" To me it seems like Kerry is a hero, well....a hero in his own mind that is.

or perhaps kerry should have taken a position at all...

Kerry's position was that yes, the president should be authorized to use military force at his own discretion, but no, that doesn't mean he can just have $87 billion for it.

Kerry voted for something, and Bush made that something into $87 billion, not Kerry (since he didn't agree with it).
Or: Kerry voted for something that was later turned into $87 billion by Bush, and in turn turned into a nay vote by Kerry. He shouldn't have said it the way he said it, true.
It's not as ridiculous as it sounds, though :)

Kerry didn't expect the President to raise taxes in order to fund the $87 billion. The proposition was to temporarily roll back the tax cuts for $400,000+ incomes, but was rejected
57 to 42.

Quote:

---

To provide funds for the security and stabilization of Iraq by suspending a portion of the reductions in the highest income tax rate for individual taxpayers.

---

Waita sec. This is still inconsistent. How'd he expect Bush to go to war? With water guns? Did Kerry not understand wars are expensive? Did the $87bill price tag of war actually surprise anyone?

C'mon...

In essence it's termed Back Pedaling.

- First, there was a vote about whether Bush should be granted the authority to go to war, using whatever means he had (not: whatever means he will be needing in the future, not: needing another $87 billion).

- Then, there was the $87 billion vote. Kerry voted against that extra $87 billion (this was long after troops had been sent already).

- As a compromise, a bill was proposed to fund that $87 billion by temporarily suspending the high imcome tax cuts. This was rejected 57-42.

Bush went to war without that $87 billion, and the $87 billion vote was looooong after that.

Quote:

---

John Kerry

And I might add, that vote for the $87 billion, which was was a vote to change our policy and get other nations involved and get other people on the ground and take the target off of American troops by sharing the responsibility, it was also a vote that took place long after they already committed the troops, long after they should have had the equipment that they needed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative


In 2002, Kerry voted for giving Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq at his own discretion. What he voted against is the $87 billion needed by Bush (Kerry wanted the $87 billion to come from roll backs on Bush tax cuts for $400,000+ incomes.... the idea was rejected) There's a huge difference between those two.

Use military force at his own discretion, not spend $87 billion tax-dollars on it.
That'd be like me telling you you can use your own bed to sleep in or to do whatever you want to do in. And then you saying "OK, but I'm going to need a million dollars to do what I want to do in my bed".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
Kerry's position was that yes, the president should be authorized to use military force at his own discretion, but no, that doesn't mean he can just have $87 billion for it.

Kerry voted for something, and Bush made that something into $87 billion, not Kerry (since he didn't agree with it).
Or: Kerry voted for something that was later turned into $87 billion by Bush, and in turn turned into a nay vote by Kerry. He shouldn't have said it the way he said it, true.
It's not as ridiculous as it sounds, though :)

Kerry didn't expect the President to raise taxes in order to fund the $87 billion. The proposition was to temporarily roll back the tax cuts for $400,000+ incomes, but was rejected
57 to 42.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
- First, there was a vote about whether Bush should be granted the authority to go to war, using whatever means he had (not: whatever means he will be needing in the future, not: needing another $87 billion).

- Then, there was the $87 billion vote. Kerry voted against that extra $87 billion (this was long after troops had been sent already).

- As a compromise, a bill was proposed to fund that $87 billion by temporarily suspending the high imcome tax cuts. This was rejected 57-42.

Bush went to war without that $87 billion, and the $87 billion vote was looooong after that.

---

The SPIN STOPS here (All Kerry's words 12 min worth)

Let us have a look on VIDEO (CNN,MSNBC,FOX ect...) what Kerry actually told the nation about the $87Bill.
I believe this is the biggest documentary of flips flops ever pertaining to the $87bill!

I willl post this in the waffle house thread as well as a few more I found.

Lol... if that's a documentary, then Fahrenheit 9/11 definitely is one :D

Kerry has always said that something should be done (9/23/01, 12/11/01, 12/14/01 - they seem to forget that there have been two wars in Iraq... I don't see what that '91 quote is doing in the "documentary"), has always stated that diplomacy should be given every chance it deserves (02/05/02, 05/03/03), and has always been in favor of disarming Saddam (9/23/01, 12/14/01, 05/22/02, 07/29/02, 09/15/02, 10/11/02, 05/03/03), but has since the beginning of the war been against how it was done (05/03/03, 10/12/03, 10/17/03, 03/16/04) like many other people.

What he voted for was indeed a war in Iraq ("as a last resort, if all diplomacy fails"), what he voted against was the way it was done, against giving Bush a blank check to do whatever the hell he wants. If that's flip-flopping, then fine.

What he probably did do wrong, were his 1998 statements.

And what might be considered flip-flopping, is the fact that in 2002, he stated that he agrees with a regime chance in Iraq, where in August 2003, he states that "we did not empower the regime change in the resolution". But then again: he may be right... I didn't read that resolution. It sounds like he didn't agree with it, though (although that's not what he's saying... he's simply saying that the resolution doesn't empower it, and he's probably right).

Note: all dates in my posts are the dates from the "documentary".

Oh: and the "documentary" implies that he changed his position after finding out that being against the war would gain him votes in the pre-elections. We could discuss that for months, and it would be the same discussion as the one we had about Bush going to war for oil... who knows :rolleyes:

Oh, should I use different fonts and colors to get my point across? :D

Aside from the war with Iraq, Bush has done nothing terribly wrong with the country. In fact, he's done nothing at all with the country.

Vote Kerry.

P.S. - Everything in Fahrenheit 9-11 was, at one point, discussed in the regualr media somewhere in the country, it's not pulled from nowhere by Michael Moore.

A_T

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.