March 19, 2004
Bush-Approved Lie About Kerry's Support for the Troops

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by One Citizen

The Bush campaign's most recent TV ad attacking John Kerry's vote against supporting our troops is a bald-faced lie.

That ad specifically refers to Senate Bill 1689 passed on 10/17/ 2003

Broadly speaking, it was for the appropriation of $87 BILLION to fund the occupation of Iraq.

The Bush camp has captioned what amounts to a short "clip" of that legislation for the purpose of selling their lie. Senators Kerry, Byrd, and others were actually for the full funding of the troops, but were, in that one Roll Call vote, attempting to place some oversight and accountability for those expenditures by forcing a vote which would have required it.

Because the GOP rubberstamp machine basically wanted to issue Bush's War Department a blank check, their attempt failed. And as a result of that failure, all that cash is now being pissed away on who-knows-what.

For an accurate grasp on how it all went down, check this:

"I twice tried to separate the reconstruction money in this bill, so that those dollars could be considered separately from the military spending. I offered an amendment to force the Administration to craft a plan to get other nations to assist the troops and formulate a plan to get the U.N. in, and the U.S. out, of Iraq. Twice I tried to rid the bill of expansive, flexible authorities that turn this $87 billion into a blank check."- excerpt Robert S. Byrd, October 17, 2003.

Read it and weep for the truth.

Byrd, Kerry, and a handful of other Senators were boldly trying to force Congressional oversight of those expenditures. Wouldn't it have been nice to place some fiscal responsibility over how that $87 BILLION was to be spent, given the rising stories of unchecked spending by the Administration's "rebuilding" contractors?


Before CEO Bush grabbed the reigns of the GOP, fiscal responsibility was one of the mainstays of the Conservative agenda. But thanks to our present Administration and its rubberstamping Congress, we're now facing deficits as far as the eye can see. Each and every baby born in America today is facing a $30,000.00+ debt because their unquestioning support of the Bush Administration agenda of wild deficit spending.

Comparing the date on the legislation to which the ad obliquely refers with the date Bush unleashed his blitzkrieg on Baghdad, I'd say that Bush has actually approved of an ad which proves that he basically sent the troops in ill-equipped.

Based on that simple fact, can any Bush supporter actually say that it was COMMENDABLE that Bush sent those troops into battle ill-equipped for seven months before Congress finally approved of the funds for adequate equipment?

And as a self-professed Christian, didn't Bush break God's Holy Word to never bear false witness against another? Or does all his Christianity fly the window when it comes to campaigning-Texas-style?

Here's an idea. To avoid such embarrassing "mistakes" in the future, Bush GOPeratives should advertise only positive messages of the good legislation that they're proposing in the future. What's could go wrong with sticking to the truth?

Like Gee Dubya's idea of sending Halliburton to Mars [Petroleum News], relaxing the Mexican border security [WJLA.com], his bold plan for curtailing the export of American jobs [Seattle Post-Intelligencer], and making permanent those tax cuts for the rich [New York Times], his future promises for requiring corporate responsibility [BuzzFlash.com], and legislating more secure marriages for heterosexuals.

That's the ticket.

- One Citizen



______________________________________________________________________________