"They voted for the war, but then voted against the funding...blahblahblah" Is it just me or is it ridiculous at this point that Kerry and Edwards can't smack this bullshit down? Maybe it is me, maybe I've got it wrong, but it seems to me that the answer is this simple:
"I voted for the bill that would have paid for itself, I voted against the bill that just added the debt to our growing deficit."
I was hoping that Edwards last night would articulate what Kerry wasn't able to do last week. BushCo keeps throwing around this accusation, and I'd hate to think it resonates with anyone, but it probably does. Those that are uninformed or just plain misinformed. They've talked about how resolute they are, that they wouldn't stand down to terrorism, but they've never defended this attack straight on and I think it would be easy.
"I voted for the bill that would have rolled back some tax cuts in a time of war to pay for that war. Bush threatened to veto that bill. I voted against the version Bush preferred that added another 87 Billion to our national debt."
Have I got the circumstances wrong? That's the way I thought things went down... not because of Dean pressure... Why don't they at least point out that Bush threatened to veto troop funding? Take this on the offensive.
If I do have my facts wrong can someone please correct me? It seems braindead easy to beat down that bullshit... but so far they've said everything but in defense.