John Kerry seems to have found a good way to directly address the Bush Administration past deceptions on Iraq with the present problems in their conduct of the war and with their flawed fiscal priorities: "Protecting Our Military Families in Times of War" (03/17/04).
We were misled about weapons of mass destruction. We are misled now when the costs of Iraq are not even counted in the President's budget. But having gone to war, we have a responsibility to keep and a national interest to achieve in a stable and peaceful Iraq. To leave too soon would leave behind a failed state that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a threat to our future, a problem for the Middle East, and a dangerous setback in the war against terror.
But the answer is not a stubborn pursuit of the same arrogant policies; the answer to failure is not more of the same. Instead we must return more effectively to the international community, and share the authority and the burdens with other nations. We need to use the tools of diplomacy as well as the tools of war. All of us support our troops. But if we had built a true coalition, they would not have to fight almost alone - and Americans would not have to bear almost all the costs in Iraq. This President is so committed to tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that he refused to ask them to sacrifice even a small portion of that tax cut to give our soldiers the weapons and equipment they need. ...
If I am President, never again will parents or husbands or wives of soldiers have to send them body armor instead of photographs and care packages. Last month a young newlywed in Virginia who, as her husband was about to ship out to Iraq, gave him a bullet proof vest for Valentine's Day. I can tell you right now: in a Kerry Administration, no one will be getting body armor as a gift from a loved one; it will come from the Armed Forces of the United States of America. We will supply our troops with everything they need -- and we will reimburse each and every family who has had to buy body armor because this Administration made Valentine's Day part of the procurement process.
The story about the newlywed giving body armor to her husband is particularly effective.
5 comments:
So.. Kerry now favors the adequate funding of our military... a departure from his voting record. Let's just hope he doesn't flop back...
No, it's not a departure from his voting record. Bush's latest round of attack ads are laughable in accusing Kerry of opposing military pay increases last year. Both Democrats and Republicans had to fight against Bush's proposals to *cut* pay for soldiers in combat zones! - Bruce
If you'd care to elaborate on the pay "cut" you mention, we soldeirs would like to know about it. We soldiers haven't heard of this pay "cut." In fact, we've received only pay raises - no thanks to Kerry.
On 3/16, JFKerry said “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted AGAINST it.” (Stevenson & Nagourney, “Bush’s Campaign Emphasizes Role Of Leader In War,” The New York Times, 3/17/04).
Then, against. Now, for. Tomorrow... depends on what the polls tell him to say.
You can find the Army Times editorial on it reproduced here:
http://www.dailykos.net/archives/003248.html
See also articles at:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL
and
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/15/MN182084.DTL
- Bruce
None of us were ever in peril of "losing" net compensation. You have to consider the entire compensation package. I can take $10 from one "bucket" and put $20 in another and the net effect is a pay raise. None of us ever faced the probability of a smaller paycheck or loss of net benefits.
In fact, I received the highest-percentage pay raise I've ever received as a result of this year's budget plan. The net increase always was part of the budget proposal.
Post a Comment