In this article, I hope to dismiss two common lines of thought: first, that John Kerry's vote against the $87 billion Iraq package was a vote against protecting our troops, and second, that George Bush's policies support the well-being of our troops and veterans.
As Republicans attack John Kerry because of a weak voting record against defense spending and a flip flop over the $87 billion Iraq funding package, it is worth taking a closer look at the facts. First of all, John Kerry voted for Pentagon money bills in 16 of his 19 years in the Senate. While he voted against several weapons, so did Dick Cheney and George Bush Sr. Cheney, Secretary of Defense in 1989, outlined $10 billion in defense cuts before Congress, including proposed cancellation of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and the elimination of the F-15E ground-attack jet.
Two years later, Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and targeted a total of 81 Pentagon programs for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. George H.W. Bush later called for the elimination of the B-2 bombers. Maybe Cheney, Kerry and Bush were unpatriotic politicians seeking to rid our troops of the weapons they needed-or maybe they were just making necessary cuts to outdated and unimportant weapons systems.
As for the two votes over which Kerry is most often criticized-as with most votes in Washington-they aren't quite black or white issues. Kerry's vote to authorize the president to go to war is very different from endorsing going to war. Instead, it gives the president the executive power he asked of Congress in order to have the ability to make the decision to go to war. For Kerry to vote "yes" is a vote for our system of government and a sign of confidence in Bush-a confidence that Bush betrayed by acting with false evidence and no plan for postwar reconstruction.
As for the $87 billion package, well, only one third of one percent of the $87 billion would actually have gone for body armor, despite public misperceptions. In fact, much of the bill was described as a "blank check," another opportunity to allow for unaccounted spending and bogus no-bid contracts like those Halliburton has received. And why did we need more body armor to begin with? Wouldn't our president only send American troops into war well prepared? Not according to Army General John Abizai, who testified, "I can't answer for the record why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply." Abizaid didn't deny that roughly 40,000 troops were sent without proper equipment. Why weren't our troops well-armored from the beginning? Does our president not care?
Additionally, John Kerry didn't fight against the $87 billion package. In fact, he proposed a measure that would allow the passage of the $87 billion without further damaging our country's debt by reversing Bush's tax cuts on individuals making over $400,000 per year. The measure was rejected 57-42, primarily by Republicans toting the party line.
I've already said that George Bush failed to properly arm our troops when going off to war, but how does he treat them when they come back home? Is Bush actively trying to meet the rising need for Veteran care? Yes and no. On the one hand, funding has increased significantly under Bush, to his credit. But funding has hardly increased in comparison with the rising costs of healthcare.
While Veterans Affairs (VA) funding has risen 5.4 percent, the consumer price index for medical care increased by 13 percent during 2002. Thus, VA funding has actually trailed real costs. The result: the Bush administration has been forced to close VA hospitals from New York to Texas. To compound matters, veterans are being forced to wait as many as two years in some cases before they can see VA doctors. Bush's own Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Anthony Principi, has complained that the administration has not done enough to help fund veterans' medical needs, hurting quality of care greatly.
In fact, Principi said he asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for $1.2 billion more than was received, and was rebuffed because the President didn't want that money going through to the VA. Under new Bush proposals, so-called "middle-class" veterans are no longer fully covered. John Kerry has proposed reversing this policy so that everyone receives full benefits. The facts are the facts and there's no flip flopping to be had here.
Just days ago, John Kerry accused Bush of planning an unforeseen call up of reserves and National Guard members after the election. Is John Kerry right? It's hard to tell. But can we trust George Bush on issues having to do with the military? Let's let the veterans being turned away at the hospitals give us their opinion.