Do you approve of Kerry backing Bush's $81.9 Billion War Spending Plan

[dhinojosa]

Do you approve of Kerry backing Bush's $81.9 Billion War Spending Plan?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Resource:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=7637317


Kerry Backs Bush's $81.9 Bln War Spending Plan



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic Sen. John Kerry, whose baffling explanation of votes on Iraq war funding hurt his 2004 White House bid, said on Tuesday he would back President Bush's new $81.9 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I think we're in a very different situation," Kerry told reporters. "I'm going to vote for this ... I think this money is important to our being successful and to the completion of the process."

The Massachusetts senator, who failed in his bid to unseat Bush last November in an election focused on national security, defended his decision to not back the president's previous request to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Mine was the right vote at the time and I wouldn't change it if we went back to that point in time because it was the right vote," Kerry said. "We didn't have a plan and they didn't spend the money correctly."

For more click here

[IrateCitizen]

1. No, and here's why...

First, it continues the message that Kerry believes what we're doing NOW is the "right thing". Then again, Kerry may well believe that, in which case, I disagree with him 1000%.

Second, he's a Senator from a safe seat, so he could easily survive a symbolic vote against it to raise attention to the issue.

Third, it only solidifies the way in which the Admin doesn't have to include these expenditures in the general budget, something I've never agreed with. If they're not planning on leaving, there's no reason for "emergency appropriations".

[flpoljunkie]

2. You might read this from Fareed Zakarai regarding abandoning Iraq...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24753-2005Feb14.html

No Fast Exit From Iraq

By Fareed Zakaria

Tuesday, February 15, 2005; Page A17

On the night after the Iraqi elections, Jon Stewart began "The Daily Show" by saying, "We did it! We had the election. And now we can say to Iraq, 'Goodbye!' " It's not just late-night television stars; everybody seems to be searching for the exit from Iraq. Dozens of Democrats -- from Ted Kennedy to Lynn Woolsey -- are demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops. To be fair, there are many others, such as Joseph Biden and Hillary Clinton, who are not. But even centrist Democrats and Republicans talk about the training of Iraqi forces as the magic formula that will get us out. Perhaps feeling the pressure, Donald Rumsfeld said last week in Mosul that once the Iraqi army had been trained, "our forces, coalition forces will be able to go home." Addressing the troops, Rumsfeld added, "One day you'll see very clearly the history you made." But if this obsession with an exit continues, the history that we make in Iraq will not be worth seeing.

The situation in Iraq is gray. Partisans on either side would like to believe that it is black or white. In fact, while there are some hopeful indicators (the elections were a great day), there are also some troubling ones (the insurgency has had a great year). Things could go well, but they could also spiral down. And the easiest way to ensure that downward spin would be for the United States to pull up stakes and leave.

Does anyone really believe that America's leaving Iraq would improve the situation there? It would create a power vacuum, the insurgency would get stronger, the Shiites might retaliate against Sunni violence, setting off a civil war, and the Kurds could be tempted to secede. Iraq would then be exporting terrorism and instability. Some Americans might say, "That's fine, we'll be gone." But any withdrawal would take months, during which the violence would mount. The last U.S. forces to leave under these conditions might not get a more ceremonious exit than they did off the embassy roof in Saigon in 1975.

And even if U.S. troops are gone, chaos and civil war in Iraq will deal a body blow to U.S. interests and ideals. It's not just al Qaeda and its allies who will delight in the mayhem; all anti-American and antidemocratic forces in the region will be emboldened. Whatever you thought of the invasion, to advocate a quick exit from Iraq is neither hawkish nor dovish; it's the foreign policy of an ostrich.

more...

[IrateCitizen]

7. IIRC, Zakaria was a proponent of the invasion of Iraq...

He's essentially a moderated Reaganite who is the foreign affairs correspondent for Newsweek. As such, he's a voice not of the masses, but of the political establishment. I recall an article he recently wrote in which he described the necessity for "strongmen" to establish "market principles" in developing nations prior to the introduction of democratic process.

I am not at all surprised to see him taking such a tack. However, I vigorously disagree with him. In spite of the elections, things in Iraq have simply deteriorated over time. The insurgency has only grown in strength, and it is primarily the presence of US troops that has fueled this occurrence. The US blew its slight window of opportunity at the beginning of the aftermath by completely privatizing the economy (and throwing many Iraqis out of work) along with failing to get public services up and running. Ever since then, Iraqi feelings toward the occupation have only gone downhill with each successive military action.

Might there be bloodshed if we leave? Yes. But if Iraq is headed toward sectarian violence, our presence will only delay the inevitable. All I know is that it's chaos and bloodshed there right now, and I am really failing to see how things will be worse, in the long run, for Iraqis if we leave.

At the bottom line, Iraqis have to determine their own fate. The US acting to determine it for them -- which Zakaria is a big proponent of, BTW -- will only lead to eventual disaster, and possibly blowback.

[Zhade]

37. An accurate breakdown, IC. Thanks for the clarity.

Listening to a pro-war/occupation "journalist" on withdrawal is like listening to the klan preach racial tolerance.

[mike_c]

11. that's the price of failed imperialism....

The U.S. deserves a "body blow to U.S. interests and ideals."

[IrateCitizen]

19. And as much as it pains me to say it, the world would be better off...

... if this occurred. Why? Because it might compel the US to realize that it is NOT the center of the world anymore, and that acting in self-interest is now acting in enlightened self-interest, as a member of the community of nations.

I see it as the only way that we will realize that bullying and "my way or the highway" is not only inconsiderate of other nations, but also a self-destructive attitude, because it makes you a global pariah.

[Zhade]

38. It only worked for 30 years following our loss in Viet Nam.

NT!

[IrateCitizen]

53. Yes, but we're much weaker economically now...

... and overstretched militarily. Plus, back then, we had the Soviet menace as a unifying theme to keep Western Europe and Japan completely on our side, accompanied by the fact that they weren't nearly as strong economically back then.

Finally, our military is overstretched already from Iraq, nearly to the breaking point.

Vietnam was a sign that the American Empire was not invincible, that it could be defeated by an indigenous nationalist movement. Iraq is different, in the sense that it will be the death knell of the American Empire.

[Zhade]

55. Indeed.

NT!

[dhinojosa]

14. Those are imperialism views, "They cannot do it without us"

I know of those, and I am trying to balance right or wrong. Good article though.

[me b zola]

9. Agreed on all counts.

And what is with the Dems allowing this farce of a *budget* to be debated for serious discussion. I haven't heard one of them say that anything not on the budget will not have $$$ appropriated towards it. It seems as if that would have been a way to deal with this absurdity.

[dhinojosa]

16. Kerry doesn't have a safe seat...he is up for election in '06

and this action may not bode well.

I agree with your 1st and 3rd points

[IrateCitizen]

18. Massachusetts is a safe Senate seat for an established Dem.

Furthermore, perhaps a little certainty and showing of conviction would go a bit toward solidifying support. One thinks that Kerry might have learned that lesson from his Presidential campaign.

[LittleClarkie]

22. Furthermore, it's 08, not 06, so he will have to decide

probably if he's going to run for Senate again or Prez. I don't know how Massachusetts would feel about him running for both.

But even he has said the two things that are most important right now is getting Romney out of there and getting Kennedy re-elected first om 06. Too early to worry about what he's doing in 08, he says.

[dhinojosa]

23. How do you know?

Just kidding. :)

I stand corrected. Would you agree that this can hurt his chances for either?

[dhinojosa]

25. *SCRATCH* I see your post now down below.

:)

[LittleClarkie]

26. Not if he's doing what I think he's doing

which is, as I posted toward the end of the thread, trying to get as much military aid for families attached to the bill as he possibly can. I think that's his game, based on his statement on his site.

The thing is, if you know Kerry fairly well, you don't assume he does these things for political gain. How could he be both fighting Bush Co. for gain and going along with them for gain. One would step all over the other. I don't think Kerry's that politically stupid.

What I do think is that Kerry cares very much about the military, and must have a reason for what he's doing that is related to their well-being. He's trying to get the admin to actually take care of and support the troops the way they always say we should, but never do themselves.

If I'm not mistaken, on the 87 billion, he tried something similar, but when his measure was voted down, he voted against the original bill. Well, rather than go with that failed strategy, he's trying a different tactic. He'll vote for the thing, but he's going to attach as much good stuff to it as he possibly can.

[Acryliccalico]

3. No because it keeps the war going.

:kick:

[Sushi-Lover]

4. Not sure if it is the only reason he is backing it,

but that 81.9 billion includes ~950 million in tsunami aid money. Imagine as a politician the fear of being confronted someday with "You voted against aid to tsunami victims".

[me b zola]

10. How pinche' convievient

War $$$ to be mixed with humanitarian $$$. Tell who ever wrote the bill to *F* off.

[dhinojosa]

45. WOW! I didn't know that. That's digusting eom

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. Yes. They fucked him over already for being 'unpatriotic'

I just can't stand to see it happen anymore.

[jpgray]

6. Fear of criticism is not a good reason for a vote (nt)

[IrateCitizen]

8. Agree 100%. That's the problem that got Dems to where they are now.

n/t

[sampsonblk]

20. Ditto-nt

nt

[dhinojosa]

15. I agree with you.

I think he voted because of concensus on the Iraq War Resolution and he will do it again for fear of being seen as unpatriotic

[NewYorkerfromMass]

28. so then you cast a useless protest vote

which makes a handful of people happy but they get the money anyway and successfully make you look like an enemy of America.
Yep. That worked out so well last time.

You can cast a yes vote and still ask the hard questions and hold people accountable. Or at least try. But the propoganda war is (potentially) where you suffer in these things.

[LittleClarkie]

30. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't

The Condi vote was a protest vote, though, wasn't it?

Even so, I'm convinced part of the reason he's voting yes is because of what he's going to try and add to the bill for military families.

Let's face it, the thing's going to pass whether he votes yes or no. And as you say, the last thing he tried didn't work. So why use the same failed tactic again. That's what Bush does. Kerry, on the other hand, learns. He's trying to fight for what's right in the middle of this mess.

I'm sure he knows that just like last time, most of the money isn't even going where they say it's going. The money is going to Haliburton and others with their hands out. We haven't even spent most of the money from the last time I thought I read.

So I think he's going to try and get the money to go where it's really needed. I don't know if he will succeed, but he's going to try. I hope it works.

[dhinojosa]

35. The thing's going to pass whether he votes yes or no?

Sorry, I respect your judgements of course.

But Sen. Kerry should vote based on what either he sincerely believes or his constituency believes. Kerry should not just go with the flow, thats what got him in trouble during the election. By saying he is against the war, but framing himself as someone who "supported Bush going to war" by signing the Iraqi War Resolution, is one element that prevented him from getting the extra votes we needed.

He knows what is right, and he should know that throwing money to Bush is just going to give him an excuse to proceed further into an Iraqi mess.

I wonder how Barbara Boxer is going to vote. I am going to find out. :)

[Zhade]

40. Yes, he SHOULD represent his constituents.

He didn't with the IWR vote, thought he'd learned by now.

[Zhade]

39. What does it matter? He wouldn't lose in Mass. if he voted against it.

And he's not going to be president, so why not stand on principle?

Unless, of course, this is his principle, in which case I respect him standing up for it and utterly disagree with the vote.

[CWebster]

54. If he is so scared and he stands for nothing other than

what the Republicans manufacture as consensus, then he can join the Republicans and they will leave him alone--and we can have some real Dems who believe in something and are ready to stand up and fight.

[mike_c]

12. more proof that Kerry was a "safe" opposition candidate...

...who could be counted on to not upset the neo-con apple cart. When do we start calling someone who consistently carries water for the neo-cons a neo-con?

[jpgray]

13. If he consistently carries water, he also consistently opposes them

Cf. Condi and Gonzales. So I think "consistently" is out of place in your sentence. Insofar as he has consistent behavior, Kerry I think has too much concern about what the GOP is going to do and not enough concern about what he is going to do--especially when it comes to where he's been burned before.

[dhinojosa]

17. Yep, but I don't want Dems playing the defensive all the time

If we had a whole senate minority Barbara Boxers taking it to them, the GOP could be a bit more hessitant for passing large war chests like this.

[LittleClarkie]

24. Have we heard what she wants to do?

What will be her vote, I wonder. Has she piped up about it yet?

I'd say I would just hope Kerry would be consistent in his voting on the war, but that doesn't take into account the different reasons a senator will vote one way on one bill, and the other way on another bill. If Kerry can get military family aid attached to the bill, it will be a good thing and worth voting for. I hope he is successful. Even if he's not, I hope the Republicans look evil as they argue against attaching aid to military families on the bill, if it comes to that.

[Zhade]

41. They're not going to "look evil" when they control the media and debate.

NT!

[LittleClarkie]

21. Yes, and here's why

because I think one of the reasons he supporting it is so that he can attach as many of the items on his Military Family Bill of Rights as he can. That's the impression I'm getting from the statement on his Senate Website:

Here's a blurb on the front page that says it all really:

John Kerry Says Military Families Must be Part of Supplemental

"It's the right thing to do for Congress to stand by military families as part of the supplemental funding that will soon face a vote in the United States Senate. Starting with the coming debate on the supplemental, I will fight to pass as much of my Military Family Bill of Rights as possible. There's no time to wait. Congress must act now. "

http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/home.html

[dhinojosa]

27. I never understand why they don't break apart those bills

• Military Family Bill of Rights is important


• Afghanistan operations are important


• Iraq....well....I'll say it, we just need to get the hell outta there.

81.9 billion is a hefty amount that can be manipulated by the Bush admin to whatever they please. I don't think Kerry should've voted on it. I am sure that once the money is approved, Kerry will be left with nothing for his bill.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Ah, well, what's a few more dead so the senator can be "electable"?

"To collaborate, or not to collaborate?" Well, we can see how he answered that question.

[leftyandproud]

31. Who said yes? WHO SAID YES?

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:


There is NO EXCUSE for this.

[shance]

34. No legitimate Dem would say yes to this***

Im with you LP :)

[LdyGuique]

32. Three Budgets

Within the larger budget, there is a category for Veterans and one for the Defense Budget itself -- PLUS, the Supplemental Budget


The truth is we're spending a whole lot for defense/protection types of spending -- the combination is already at:

CIA is a secret budget and doesn't appear as a specific line item in any budget released for public view

Veterans Affairs -- 33.4 bn

Defense Budget -- 419.3 bn (increase of 5%) (EXCEPT total is actually 426 bn)

Protecting -- amount unknown for Homeland Security as the budget doesn't show line items -- and includes items from other budgets

State Dept -- a total of 31.8 bn, which includes 4.6 bn for "foreign military financing," -- or a total of 18.4 for "international assistance programs" -- State also includes $562 mn for propaganda (Broadcasting Board of Governors, which funds Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Al-Hurra, etc.)

I put the total at nearly $600 bn that can be easily traced (leaving out CIA and FBI)

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Zhade]

36. Absofuckinglutely NOT.

1) We're not going to succeed, Kerry. EVER. Shit, you faced that truth in Viet Nam, why do you ignore it now?

2) They still don't have a plan beyond funneling the money to groups like Halliburton, Kerry. Don't you fucking GET IT yet?

[txaslftist]

42. Yes...reluctantly.

They are there, we gotta pay for 'em being there. Do I oppose them being there? Sure. Do I oppose the Iraqi debacle and the coming Iranian/Syrian war? Absolutely. Do I want them to come home? You betcha.

Do I want them to have gas in the humvees and bullets in the guns?
Absolutely.

I understand the value of a protest vote, and I understand complaining about the bloated cost of Bush's middle-east adventures. But we gotta pay our boys and we gotta pay to keep them equipped and as safe as possible.

My opinion only.

[dhinojosa]

46. You have some good points.

But I think specific bills for each of these is better.

[Tinoire]

43. Nope. Absolutely not! Not surprised but even more digusted. n/t

[Califooyah Operative]

44. Yes. nt.

[marcologico]

47. Yes, and I'd check the numbers before pulling a Naomi Klein.

I think Kerry knows more than we do.

[dhinojosa]

50. Who's Naomi Klein? eom

[marcologico]

51. Murdoch-backed Bush enabler who bashes Kerry for Alternet

and other "alternative" outlets. All lies, all the time.

Recent example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1573117&mesg_id=1573117

[IrateCitizen]

52. Care to offer some backup for that wild-eyed assertion?

The idea that Naomi Klein is on the payroll of Rupert Murdoch is simply beyond laughable. Next you're going to tell us what... that Arundhati Roy is a signatory to PNAC?

:eyes:

[marcologico]

56. Link in message, more in thread. Click, read, and get back to me. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

48. Here's something else he said yesterday that Reuters didn't cover

I think it's quite important, myself.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=27209

Kerry unveils bill to help Iraq war veterans with transition home

By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Wednesday, February 16, 2005

WASHINGTON — Many guardsmen returning from overseas deployment are finding their families in debt and their small businesses on the verge of collapse, according to Sen. John Kerry, who unveiled a bill Tuesday to help ease that transition back home.

“A small veterinarian’s office or a small contractor, their business falls apart while their gone,” said Kerry, D-Mass., in a meeting with defense reporters. “In many cases they’re been sustained by the goodwill and patriotism of folks in their community so they can pick up when they come back, but it’s not without a lot of effort and a lot of work.”

Kerry’s legislation would provide tax incentives to employers who keep deployed guardsmen and reservists on their payrolls, and create new loans and grants for self-employed troops to help get their businesses running again.

“What we can do is try to provide economic incentives to cushion that impact and facilitate their efforts to survive,” he said.

[dhinojosa]

49. Good stuff....

I wonder if * will stop it from going there. Well, I need to be optimistic. Thanks.

[quaker bill]

57. He should vote for it before he votes against it.

Consistency is important in politics.

[marcologico]

58. If they gut his items again, I expect he will. It's called integrity :)

[erpowers]

59. Other

I think the troops should be supported. Therefore, I believe that enough money should be provided to assure that the troops have enough armored vechiles and body armor. However, I think the Democrats should fight to make sure that no unneccarsy money should be put into this bill. In addition, they should fight to put clear restrictions and rules for the use of the money. I do believe that all the people on this site who voted no this issue support the troops also.