Bush twice threatened veto on $87Billion

mpotter · #1 (**permalink**) 08-06-2004, 04:13 AM

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/r...004_0805c.html

Quote:

Bush Threatened To Veto the $87 Billion Before He Used It as a Political Cudgel
For Immediate Release

Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said: George Bush can't be straight about his own record, let alone anyone else's. The fact is that George Bush twice threatened to veto this bill over the fact that it provided funding to veterans and reservists. As a combat veteran, John Kerry knows that you don't give a President a blank check to continue a failed policy, especially when our security and the lives of our men and women in uniform are at stake.

Bush Threatened To Veto $87 Billion Supplemental Over Additional Funding For Reservists And Veterans.

As part of the $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriations for security and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, the Senate passed an amendment that provided an additional $1.3 billion for improved medical benefits for reservists and veterans. OMB Director Josh Bolten wrote to the Congressional Appropriations' Committees, stating, "The Administration strongly opposes these provisions, including Senate provisions that would allocate an additional $1.3 billion for VA medical care and the provision that would expand benefits under the TRICARE Program. ...If this provision is not removed, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." [Foxnews.com, 10/21/03, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100777,00.html; BVA legislative bulletin, http://www.bva.org/aut03bulletin/l_update.html; CQ, 10/20/03]

Bush Threatened To Veto $87 Billion Package On Issue Of Allocating Grants Or Loans To Iraqis.

"Key senators reversed course yesterday and voted to make an $18.4 billion reconstruction package for Iraq entirely in the form of grants rather than loans, as House-Senate negotiators worked their way through President Bush's $87 billion request for military and rebuilding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 16 to 13 vote represented a significant victory for Bush, who had threatened to veto the bill if Congress insisted on making Iraq repay some of the money." [Wash Post, 10/30/03]

As for Kerry, I'm sure people will bring this up again so here is the answer again on why he voted against the $87 Billion:

Quote:

Kerry's staff said he was trying to indicate his support for an amendment funding the appropriation from increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans. When that amendment failed, he voted against the bill.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/r...2004_0316.html

Quote:

John Kerry DID NOT Vote Against Our Men and Women in the Military; Kerry VOTED Against the FAILED Bush Policy in Iraq: Of course John Kerry supports our troops—it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. John Kerry voted AGAINST the failed Bush policy in Iraq which is still putting US troops in harms way saying: "The best way to support our troops and take the target off their backs is with a real strategy to win the peace in Iraq - not by throwing $87 billion at George Bush's failed policies. I am voting 'no' on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq."

SplendidSplinter · #2 (**permalink**) 08-06-2004, 04:52 AM

And if this report came from FoxNews, it must be "fair and balanced" right?

So basically Bush wants to throw money at Iraq unless it means using some of that money for the veterans of the conflict. How heroic.

mpotter · #3 (**permalink**) 08-06-2004, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SplendidSplinter";p=&quot

And if this report came from FoxNews, it must be "fair and balanced" right?

So basically Bush wants to throw money at Iraq unless it means using some of that money for the veterans of the conflict. How heroic.

For your information, FoxNews is always taking the side of Bush, much more than they do for Kerry...with the exception of Bill O'reilly.

But my main problem with you post is that I don't see your point with the second statement. That is true...Bush did want to take the money away if it was going to be used for veterans of the conflict. Plus he was going to veto it if we tried to make Iraq help pay for the rebuilding. So what is your point? Bush wanted to squander the money and Kerry knew this, thus his reason for voting against a blank check for the president. He wanted to see the money used more wisely and when Bush's policy came out for Iraq, he opposed it because of its poor allocations of the money.

SplendidSplinter · #4 (**permalink**) 08-06-2004, 05:44 AM

Relax, I'm on your side. I guess my subtle sense of irony was a little too subtle. Sorry about that. I was poking fun at the fact that this whole time that the Bush side has been slamming Kerry for being a flip flopper, they had threatened to veto the appropriation if: a. it was given as a loan (which doesn't seem to jibe with Bush's supposed opposition to nation-building), and b. some of the money went to the VA, which would inevitably be charged with helping the soldiers who took bullets for Bush's invasion, and their families.

Bushs' attempts to paint himself as pro-soldier and anti-nation building are embarrassing.

mpotter · #5 (**permalink**) 08-06-2004, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SplendidSplinter";p=&quot

Relax, I'm on your side. I guess my subtle sense of irony was a little too subtle. Sorry about that. I was poking fun at the fact that this whole time that the Bush side has been slamming Kerry for being a flip flopper, they had threatened to veto the appropriation if: a. it was given as a loan (which doesn't seem to jibe with Bush's supposed opposition to nation-building), and b. some of the money went to the VA, which would inevitably be charged with helping the soldiers who took bullets for Bush's invasion, and their families.

Bushs' attempts to paint himself as pro-soldier and anti-nation building are embarrassing.

I posted it knowing that someone would attack it, and thought you were making sarcastic comments about it. I apologize, thanks for letting me know where you stand. I take back my attitude

my mistake.

JP5 · #6 (**permalink**) 08-06-2004, 06:22 AM

But Pres. Bush did NOT veto the bill.

AND John Kerry DID vote against it.

Let's deal with facts; not hypotheticals.

MarkH · #7 (**permalink**) 08-06-2004, 06:25 AM

So President Bush said he was going to Veto the bill before he said he was going to vote for it.

MUHAHAHAHAHA!

mpotter · #8 (**permalink**) 08-06-2004, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

But Pres. Bush did NOT veto the bill.

AND John Kerry DID vote against it.

Let's deal with facts; not hypotheticals.

For instance the reasons behind why Kerry voted against it which I listed in the original post. Also, lets deal with the fact that all of Bush's demands were met so that he would NOT veto the bill. He had absolute power in regards to Iraq, and this is wrong for any American leader. Absolute power leads to absolute destruction!

truebrit · #9 (**permalink**) 08-06-2004, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

But Pres. Bush did NOT veto the bill.

AND John Kerry DID vote against it.

Let's deal with facts; not hypotheticals.

He voted FOR the amendment approving the cash without adding to the deficit...that failed, so an amendment was offered to get the money by ADDING to the deficit. The only fiscally responsible thing to do was to vote no. Besides, the amendment was going to pass anyway so he cast a protest vote. A subtle nuance lost on the neanderthal bush supporters.....

mpotter · #10 (**permalink**) 08-06-2004, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truebrit";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

But Pres. Bush did NOT veto the bill.

AND John Kerry DID vote against it.

Let's deal with facts; not hypotheticals.

He voted FOR the amendment approving the cash without adding to the deficit...that failed, so an amendment was offered to get the money by ADDING to the deficit. The only fiscally responsible thing to do was to vote no. Besides, the amendment was going to pass anyway so he cast a protest vote. A subtle nuance lost on the neanderthal bush supporters.....

SOMEONE IS PAYING ATTENTION!!!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode