Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I think not as well. If you read what Kerry was saying from 1996 to the Dean uprising, he was very hawkish on Iraq. This was completely politically driven, to give him cover with his base, seemingly without regard to the effect on the troops.
|
But Club, the point is that there was no effect on the troops, and would never have been any effect on the troops. That's not just because this bill passed, but because the funds weren't needed for more than 4 months and there was no question but that the Congress would provide the funding (the question was the source of funds).
Therefore, your criticism of Kerry's vote is rather like some GOP loyalist criticizing you (as a California resident) for voting Libertarian in the Presidential election in December (i.e. it doesn't make a damn bit of difference).
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I think taxes are a proxy for what should be a legitimate debate on the proper roll and size of the government, and I appreciate that you did not use the "tax cuts for the rich" line because I think that cheapens what is a very important question for our democracy to answer. I would like to say that Bush really believes that the government is too large and that is the reason for the cuts, but it's hard to make that argument given his spending habits. So, you may be right, it may be primarily politically driven.
|
Good. Now look at what you just said above. Would you admit that those words apply equally to Ronald Reagan, except that he talked a much better game?
S_A_M
