John Kerry is Strong and Steady
Republicans often try to discredit John Kerry by saying he is a waffler, i.e. he changes his position on issues. They often use the example that he voted "for the war in Iraq" but "against the $87 billion to support the troops". This claim is either a sign that the purveyor of this misstatement fails to understand basic government, or it is a deceptive distortion, which in plain language, we call a lie.
Kerry did not "vote for the war" nor did anyone else in the Congress because there never was a vote "for the war". A vote for the war would imply a Declaration of War vote, which the Congress never attempted. The vote that this misstatement is referring to is the vote on 11 October 2002 to give the President the authority to use force, if necessary, to enforce the UN resolutions regarding Iraq (H.J.RES.114). Senator Kerry voted in favor of this resolution.
The second misstatement, that Kerry voted against the "$87 billion to support the troops" fails to recognize that there was not just one vote on this $87 billion appropriations bill. In reality there were dozens of votes on this bill and its related amendments. In total, there were 93 amendments to this bill. One amendment in particular, S.AMDT.1796, submitted by Senator Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, would have given the full $87 billion the President requested, but it would have paid for it by rolling back a portion of the tax break for the highest income bracket. In other words, instead of the $87 being paid for by our creditors (Japan, China, etc.) to be paid back with interest by our children, Senator Biden proposed that it be paid for now by the richest people in the United States making a sacrifice of a portion of their tax break.
Personally, I think this is a reasonable request, and is more responsible than just adding to the already record deficit we are facing. It is no secret that usually wars are disproportionately paid for, in terms of lives lost, by the poorest of people in the United States, so to ask the richest to pick up the financial tab in a time when the middle and lower income people are facing very difficult economic conditions, is reasonable and fair.
It is also important to point out that this $87 billion was not an appropriation to "pay for the war". In reality, it was an emergency supplemental amount to an already paid amount of $79 billion. In other words, because the war was not going well, Bush came to Congress and asked them to more than double the amount originally expected. Now this might be understandable. War is a difficult thing to predict, and that there might be unanticipated costs is forgivable. But as many have pointed out, these unanticipated costs were a result of poor "post-war" planning. Many agree to this point.
So for Congress to say, "Ok, Mr. President, we understand that you made some mistakes in planning for the post-war period, and we are going to support you in paying to finish the job, but we need to find a way to pay for it." this is very reasonable. In fact, this amendment, which was cosponsored by Sen. Kerry and 6 other senators, had fairly wide support. It was not a fringe, radical proposal. It failed only after a tabling motion that narrowly passed by a vote of 57 - 42. Later, Kerry stuck to his guns and voted against the bill that lacked this amendment.
So why is it that those who criticize Kerry pick out this one vote where Kerry actually did take a stand and stuck to it as an example of Kerry waffling? Why do they pick out this one vote and try to say he voted "against supporting the troops"? By the same argument, you could say the 57 senators who voted against the version of the bill that actually had a means to pay for the $87 billion as "voting against supporting the troops". You could also say they voted "against the economy", since they voted to increase the national deficit.
Kerry stuck to his guns. He stood up for fiscal responsibility. ...And Bush calls himself "conservative"...