What is Kerry's problem in giving such a weak answer to this question when it could easily be turned around on Bush?
Here's his answer from yesterday's debate:
KERRY: Not necessarily be in power, but here's what I'll say about the $87 billion.
I made a mistake in the way I talk about it. He made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is a worse decision?
Now, I voted the way I voted because I saw that he had the policy wrong and I wanted accountability. I didn't want to give a slush fund to Halliburton. I also thought the wealthiest people in America ought to pay for it, ladies and gentlemen. He wants your kids to pay for it. I wanted us to pay for it, since we're at war. I don't think that's a bad decision.
Right away, Kerry is smearing himself unfairly. He didn't make a mistake in talking about it. Anybody who has seen Schoolhouse Rock knows a bill can be voted on many times once before it's final vote (that's how they get those inflated "Kerry voted to raise taxes 98,000 times" numbers). But ok, I can understand where he's going with the "I made a small mistake, but you made the big one" thing. It's not a great maneuver, but it's not bad.
Then the next part of his answer is ok in explaining that the bill was poorly written. So far, not so bad, BUT then he quits on it when there are still OTHER and MORE EFFECTIVE angles on this.
First, he can explain the (should be) obvious fact that if the bill did not pass, it wouldn't have meant the troops wouldn't be funded. Congress would have come up with a different bill until one passed. Bush has so little respect for the public that he expects us to believe that the troops would have been left out in the Iraqi desert all alone without funding. No such thing was ever going to happen. It's so ludicrous that this attack has persisted this long into the campaign.
Second, the BEST thing he can say in his response is that Bush threatened to veto the very same bill. He should ALWAYS mention the Bush veto threat when this issue comes up. He can say something like, "My no vote wasn't a vote to not support the troops any more than if my opponent had vetoed the bill as he had threatened to do if the Iraqi aid was in the form of a loan instead of a grant. My opponent wanted to give your money away, driving up his record deficit even more, while I wanted to save your money and be fiscally responsible. This has not been reported widely, but my opponent would have vetoed the bill if it had not been written as he wanted it. How can he then criticize me for voting against a bill that I did not believe in? And the simple truth is neither my no vote nor his veto would have meant the troops would not have been funded. I agree with my opponent that there is nothing complicated about supporting the troops, but there is something crooked about the way he distorts the basic facts about this bill."
Or he could just use the Somerby response that has been diaried here before.
POSSIBLE KERRY STATEMENT: Diane, as a senator, I get paid to vote "yes" on good bills and "no" on bad ones. And that bill to provide the $87 billion--that was a bad bill, in my opinion. I wanted to see a better bill providing that money to our troops. I wanted to see that funding paid for by us, not by our grandchildren, and I wanted to see an actual plan for how that money was going to be spent. Diane, do you know that $20 billion of that money was designated for reconstruction projects, and that now, a whole year later, only five percent of that money has been spent? That's just incredibly bad planning! Those of us who said we wanted to see a plan before we authorized that money turned out to be right. This was just another case in which the Bush Administration had no real plan for their actions--none at all! They insisted that we hurry up and approve that money--and they had no idea how to spend it!
Diane, those troops were always going to be funded. That was never at issue--not at all. Everyone knows that, including the president, who talks about every day this as just another silly diversion. What was at issue was this president's bad judgment and inability to plan--and his willingness to let your grandchildren pay for what you and your pal Charlie Gibson should be funding. I can't believe a guy like that gets to moderate a presidential debate!
This issue is a golden opportunity to score major positive points by turning around a favorite B/C attack, a charge that is largely unchallenged in the media and public, and Kerry is wasting it big time.
Kerry has been impressing me greatly in his performances overall, but this glaring omission eats me up like nothing else in the campaign. Arggh! If he doesn't do something about it in the next debate, I'm voting Nader.
j/k.