The 87 Billion Dollar Answer

"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.

•  Yes

  I was thinking the same thing last night.  The $87b lie remains the one uncontested barb they have against us.  Both Edwards and Kerry have had numerous opportunities to smack it down, and haven't.

  Why?

  It doesn't look difficult.  You could easily distill it to say "Bush was going to veto the $87b until he could draw it in his way.  I was ready to vote for it when it was the right way; I voted against it when the money was to be drawn the wrong way."

  by Craziel on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:36:13 AM PDT

  •  exactly

    and simpler, "Bush was against the $87 billion before he was for it."

    by seamus on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:40:19 AM PDT

•  How about . . .

  "The scandal is not voting against the President's bill.  We had an alternative bill that would have funded the soldiers' needs without increasing the deficit by $87 billion.

  "The real scandal is sending our soldiers into battle without the battle armor, weapons, and support they needed in the first place."

  by WisforWhopper on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:39:23 AM PDT

•  Or:

  "I voted for the version that was paid for.  The president threatened to veto that version.  He wanted to instead preserve his tax break for multi-millionaires, and saddle our children with the $87 billion in debt.  

  The president got his way, but I stand by my fight to fund this war responsibly."

  by Irfo on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:48:28 AM PDT

•  agree

  probably the best way i can think of to finesse this is, coming out of the explanation (i.e., "the version of the bill we supported called on having at least a reasonable portion of that $87 billion paid for through the contribution and sacrifice of the wealthiest americans -- to just try and match the sacrifice of those who are actually fighting this war.  but bush promised his cronies, the enrons and halliburtons of the world, and big campaign contributors that he would rather veto the $87 billion than ask them for some sacrifice.  let me say that again in order to let that sink in with the American people, because I don't think the truth has been told about this nearly enough:  the president's priority was to preserve a tax cut for rich people -- people who, like the president and myself, already enjoy all the advantages America has to offer.  he preferred tax cuts for the rich over funding the troops -- the troops that he had sent into iraq for reasons that have all turned out not to be true."), to work in that cut on bush that i think we all were hoping edwards would've delivered against cheney:  the president's outrageous statement at the last debate that he can't afford to provide America with effective homeland security (i.e., "and this is a part of a pattern.  the president just last thursday asked how we could possibly afford to pay for all of the improvements to our homeland security infrastructure that i've proposed.  when it comes to america's security, this president says we can't afford the best.  that's not true.  the truth is, we can afford the best -- it will just require the contribution of all americans -- including the wealthy.  the only problem is, this president doesn't have the guts to ask his rich friends to make any sacrifice towards winning the war on terror.")

  by jev on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:52:54 PM PDT