I have a question - as a Kerry Supporter...

[julia & nicks mom]

how do you reconcile the fact that he voted for the war and then against the funding and now attacks the president for not providing proper resources to the troops?

 

[wvjules]

Does he say what his reasons were for voting against them?

 

[grinningghost]

Good question. After watching the St. Louis debate tonight, it remains a mystery to me.

 

[Kendra17]

It's not just his support against funding the war. It's also the partial birth abortion act and his fake empathy towards the woman who asked the abortion question.

His comments regarding partial birth abortion is BS. It's never necessary. If a pregnant woman's life is in danger, they can perform an emergency c-section rather than a partial birth abortion. Then, they could make the attempt to save the baby's life. The partial birth abortion is never necessary.

I thought Bush did so well. . .and Kerry looked like the panderer he is!

 

[Pig Pen]

Were we all watching the same debate?

 

[RNMOM]

Kendra, I don't feel you can say it is never necessary unless you hold an MD in OBGYN. There are times it is not possible to do a surgery.

Kerry said the reason he did not vote for the 87 billion because of the lack of accountability for the funds. Where the money was to go and who had decision making power was not clear or not stated.

 

[grinningghost]

Originally posted by Pig Pen
Were we all watching the same debate?

Let's see... the one I watched had two guys who want to be President... and Charlie Gibson lost his teleprompter when the two guys shook hands.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by RNMOM
Kendra, I don't feel you can say it is never necessary unless you hold an MD in OBGYN. There are times it is not possible to do a surgery.

According to physicians who commented on that issue, the chance of it being necessary is minute. However, okay, point taken, I stand corrected. Thank you.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by julia & nicks mom
how do you reconcile the fact that he voted for the war and then against the funding and now attacks the president for not providing proper resources to the troops?

Just as Bush threatened to veto the funding if it didn't come in looking the way he wanted it to, Kerry did not like the way the funding was set up nor did he like the way it was being funded.

Had the bill been voted down, it would've gone into re-negotiations whether it had been the Dem's or Bush who stopped it's passage.

That is a very tired, old and dishonest piece of propaganda the Bush camp put out.

 

[captJack88]

Originally posted by RNMOM

Kerry said the reason he did not vote for the 87 billion because of the lack of accountability for the funds. Where the money was to go and who had decision making power was not clear or not stated.

It's a nice story, but, IMHO, I think the VP's explanation of it holds more water. Howard Dean was gaining on him, so he took a anti-war stance abandoning our troops. I know all you Kerry supporters will flame me, but that is just how I view Kerry, he will do whatever he needs to to be popular, he even said it in the first debate, must pass a global test for premptive strikes, and I agree with the President that national security is more important than being popular. JMHO

 

[LoraJ]

Um, he clearly stated he is against partial birth abortion, but he wants the clause that will save the mother's life. Why is that so hard to understand?

And he has stated several times why he voted against that 87billon. He didn't lagree with the way it wold be funded and Bush would veto it if the amendment Kerry would tack on would pass. He knew the bill would pass and cast a no vote as a protest.

 

[peachgirl]

It's a nice story, but, IMHO, I think the VP's explanation of it holds more water

It's not as though anyone expected a Bush supporter to believe anything Kerry has to say.

That's ok, I don't believe a word that comes out of bush's mouth either.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by LoraJ
Um, he clearly stated he is against partial birth abortion, but he wants the clause that will save the mother's life. Why is that so hard to understand?

And he has stated several times why he voted against that 87billon. He didn't lagree with the way it wold be funded and Bush would veto it if the amendment Kerry would tack on would pass. He knew the bill would pass and cast a no vote as a protest.

To many, his reasoning isn't credible. It's wartime. If we vote to support the war, we vote to support the troops. I understand your attempt at simplification, but the focus ought to be on what's necessary and important, not an attempt to teach the Prez a lesson.

 

[grinningghost]

Allow me to play mediator (I'm pretty used to it living with a teenage girl and an overprotective Dad ).

No secret I support George Bush, but I do my best to keep an open mind, because there are things about Kerry that I DO like.

So, for those that support Bush, is there anything about Kerry that YOU like?

And for Kerry supporters, how about saying something nice about GWB too?

Just curious.

 

[peachgirl]

To many, his reasoning isn't credible

It's the same reasoning Bush used. Bush threatened to veto the bill if the funding was set up to his liking.

 

[peachgirl]

And for Kerry supporters, how about saying something nice about GWB too?

There are many Republicans I have good things to say about. Sorry, but Bush Jr isn't one of them.

 

[caitycaity]

how do you reconcile the fact that he voted for the war and then against the funding and now attacks the president for not providing proper resources to the troops?

well, first of all, you can't look at congressional records as black and white. bills aren't just one piece of paper that say one thing; typically they adress multiple aspects of an issue. for example, i could be in favor of funding more armor for troops, but because the bill says that the way that is going to be paid for is by increasing taxes on everyone whose first name is caity, i'm going to vote against it. that's not a vote against armor - that's a vote against the way to fund it. the majority of the american public does not seem get this distinction - that is why it is extremely hard for a candidate of any party to run for president from congress. it's much easier to run as a govenor. but i digress.

as kerry has stated numerous times, he wasn't againt the armor - he was against the non-competitive contract that was going to go to halliburton that was part of that bill.

that's my long answer to a short question.

 

[Kendra17]

Bush threatened to veto a policy that had to do with National Security and the War on Terror if the funding wasn't to his liking?

Would you mind clarifying?

Grinninghost, I wish I could say I liked something about Kerry. . .but, he's such a panderer, seems so insincere, and so pompous, that I can't!

I just asked dh if there's anything at all he likes about Kerry (he lived in MA until 9-11-01, coincidentally). He said "no", too.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by caitycaity
well, first of all, you can't look at congressional records as black and white. bills aren't just one piece of paper that say one thing; typically they adress multiple aspects of an issue. for example, i could be in favor of funding more armor for troops, but because the bill says that the way that is going to be paid for is by increasing taxes on everyone whose first name is caity, i'm going to vote against it. that's not a vote against armor - that's a vote against the way to fund it. the majority of the american public does not seem get this distinction - that is why it is extremely hard for a candidate of any party to run for president from congress. it's much easier to run as a govenor. but i digress.

as kerry has stated numerous times, he wasn't againt the armor - he was against the non-competitive contract that was going to go to halliburton that was part of that bill.

that's my long answer to a short question.

yes, the first part of your post is true. However, it's WARTIME. . .you vote to support the troops. Simple as that.

Secondly, because we are at war and because we have an immediate need in the battle zone, we sometimes don't have the time to go through the competitive bidding process which, in the Federal Government systems and in the military, can be a lengthy, convoluted, paperwork-laden mess. There are very FeW companies that have the capabilities and personnel to complete a time-critical mission at a moment's notice. This is why, and Halliburton is not the only beneficiary, sometimes a company is granted a contract and the bidding process is eliminated due to time-critical needs.

Criticizing Halliburton or the government or the military for this process is cynical and betrays a lack of understanding of logistics in a war zone. The liberal criticism of Halliburton--that it is somehow tainted by Cheney's previous involvement with it--is a red herring, as Cheney is not involved with Halliburton at all, anymore.

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

grinningghost -- Bush was cute when he was younger. He occasionally comes out with a statement or stance I have to agree with much to my chagrin (but not enough for me to vote for him...).

Hows that?