http://blog.johnkerry.com/dbunker/archives/001388.htmlBush Ad Hits New Low: Misleads Americans About Kerry's Record
BUSH FICTION: From Bush's new attack ad: "Announcer: “Few votes in Congress are as important as funding our troops at war.” Announcer: “Though John Kerry voted in October of 2002 for military action in Iraq he later voted against funding our soldiers.”
FACT: 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 bill in order to get the President to change his failed policies in Iraq – policies that were increasing the risk to soldiers and the cost to American taxpayers.
FACT: It is HYPOCRITICAL for the Bush Administration to call this a vote against the troops when they threatened to VETO it themselves if the final version included a Senate approved provision to make $10 Billion of these funds into a loan to be paid back to the U.S. taxpayers. If there was time for the Administration to veto this bill and still get money to the troops, they cannot turn around and claim that Kerry’s vote would have cut off funding for the troops – they cannot have it both ways. The simple reality is that the troops were always going to get their funding – the only real question was whether the President was going to change his failed Iraq policy.
“The White House threatened Tuesday to veto its own spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress made reconstruction aid a loan, taking its most forceful stand on the issue even as more lawmakers supported a reimbursement by Iraq. After declining to threaten a veto last week before the Senate voted to lend up to $10 billion to Iraq, the White House surprised many people on Capitol Hill with its warning…Last week, without using the word "veto," Mr. Bush called on a series of wavering lawmakers and made it clear that he would not appreciate a vote for a loan. The statement on Tuesday, after eight Republican senators defied him last week and helped form a majority in favor of a $10 billion loan, was the strongest threat to date. "If this provision is not removed, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill," Joshua B. Bolten, the White House budget director, wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders.”
[Firestone, New York Times, 10/22/03]
As Kerry said in his statement about the vote: "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.”
FACT: Kerry Was a Lead Sponsor of the Amendment to Fund Our Nation’s Troops in Iraq Through Rescinding the Bush Tax Cut for the Wealthy. Kerry would have supported this legislation if the Bush Administration was willing to do the responsible thing and pay for it by rescinding the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans – which they refused to do.
As he said in his statement, “Rather than asking for shared sacrifice from Americans - as Senator Biden and I have proposed, he has refused to repeal any of his tax cut for the wealthiest to pay for rebuilding Iraq. Our troops are paying the highest price - and America's hard working families shouldn't have to subsidize President Bush’s failure or line the pockets of corporations like Halliburton trying to make a fast buck in Iraq.”
2. BUSH FICTION: Kerry voted against body armor for troops in combat.
FACT: The very fact that vehicle and body armor funds were included in this legislation – which was passed 7 months after the war began -- is an acknowledgment that Bush sent our troops into combat without adequate protection, forcing military families to scramble to pay for this essential gear. General Abizaid admitted as much in testimony before Congress.
“Soldiers will not patrol without the armor -- if they can get it. But as of now, there is not enough to go around… Last month, Rep. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) and 102 other House members wrote to Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to demand hearings on why the Pentagon had been unable to provide all U.S. service members in Iraq with the latest body armor. In the letter, the lawmakers cited reports that soldiers' parents had been purchasing body armor with ceramic plates and sending it to their children in Iraq. The demand came after Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command and commander of all military forces in Iraq, told a House Appropriations subcommittee in September that he could not "answer for the record why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply."
[Loeb and Labbe, Washington Post, 10/4/03]
FACT: Retired Generals Agree: Bush Sent Troops to Iraq Without Proper Protection.
“BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE (RET.), CNN ANALYST: In reference to armored vests, there was a shortage. I think most of that is solved now. And for a while there, there were fund-raisers to send vests and people were buying them for themselves. This is a long-term problem that should have been fixed, however, well before the Iraq war started.
BLITZER: General Joulwan, when people hear this, they go crazy. They can't believe, in this day and age, the United States would send military personnel into a war zone not fully prepared.
JOULWAN: Absolutely. I visited one of these units in December that was getting ready to deploy. That was December, they were deploying in January, and they were short basic equipment: radios, vests, armored Humvees, et cetera. We're better than that as a nation, and we're better than that as a military.
BLITZER: When you were there, General Shepperd, and you met with men and women on the ground in the military, what were they saying to you?
SHEPPERD: Well, they were saying that we are short on the up- armored Humvees, we're short of the proper body armor. Everybody had flack jackets and some body armor, but not the new body armor. They showed us the schedule, and said it was going to be done. They were short at that time, I believe, around 1,400 up-armored Humvees that were coming into the country, and the body armor was on schedule. So these shortage will drastically come down, but it does leave you wondering why couldn't we have done this before the war, and we simply didn't.” [CNN, 3/14/04]
FACT: It is hypocritical of the Bush Administration to criticize Kerry for this when they didn't even ask for the funds for body and vehicle armor to be added to this legislation – they were added by Congress because they were desperately needed.
"Before approving the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress added hundreds of millions of dollars for more body armor, armored Humvees, and other systems to protect soldiers from roadside bombs and ambushes."
[Loeb and Labbe, Washington Post, 10/4/03]
3. BUSH FICTION: Kerry Opposed Higher Combat Pay
FACT: The higher combat pay provisions were originally included in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2004, then extended under 2004 Supplemental Appropriations Bill for Afghanistan and Iraq – both of which Kerry SUPPORTED. The Bush Administration actually OPPOSED this and planned to cut pay for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan until Democrats objected.
“The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120-degree-plus heat. Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances." The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 8/14/03]
After criticism from Democrats, the Pentagon announced that current salaries for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be cut, but such efforts may come at the expense of troops serving elsewhere. [Knight-Ridder, 4/5/03; Los Angeles Times, 4/3/03; CQ, 4/16/03]
4. BUSH FICTION: Kerry opposed better healthcare for reservists and their families
FACT: Bush OPPOSED expanding the military reservists health care program, called TRICARE, in the $87 Billion legislation.
“The bill also included a provision opposed by Bush to expand the Military health insurance system known as TRICARE to include members of the National Guard and Reserves who are unemployed or lack health insurance coverage.” [The Associated Press October 31, 2003
FACT: The Bush Administration Threatened to VETO the FY04 Defense Authorization Bill if it included TRICARE.
Offering inactive National Guard members and reservists the same health care benefits as active-duty soldiers could force cuts in other areas of the military budget, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told lawmakers in a letter this week. Rumsfeld said he would recommend that President Bush veto the defense authorization bill if it included a Senate plan to expand TRICARE, the military health program… "These unfunded entitlements would drain resources from important programs benefiting our military, such as continued improvements in pay, quality of life, readiness and other pressing requirements," Rumsfeld said. [The Associated Press July 10, 2003]
FACT: John Kerry has consistently been one of the strongest supporters of the men and women of our armed forces, veterans, and their families. Today, he is launching a Military Bill of Rights to make certain that our military and their families receive the protections they deserve [see attached]
__________________________________________________________
