Kerry did not support the troops when he had the chance, plain and simple. The troops know this.
Another desperate winger spin job.
Bush himself threatened to veto the bill if it meant rolling back those tax cuts for his millionaire buddies and if it included funding veterans. Talk about not "supporting the troops!" And the only way Bush was willing to "support the troops" was if the $87 billion tab was passed on to your grandchildren.
Kerry was smart enough to know that, with a huge budget deficit, funding two wars while giving huge tax cuts to millionaires would spell disaster for our economy.
Looks like he turned out to be right.
The Unelected Idiot could have very easily chosen to fund the appropriations bill with the same money he instead opted to give away to his super-rich friends, but God forbid that dubya should ask the weathiest Americans and big corporations to contribute or to shoulder their share of the burden during wartime!
Tax reciepts went up after the Bush tax cuts,(as supply side/Laffer curve theory suggests) not down. Kerry's fiscal responsibility is a load of horse ****
Is that why Gigglekill's own economic advisor (whose book is regarded as a definitive economic text) said that the supply-side economics of Reagan and Bush 41 were responsible for the massive deficits of the 80s? Is it why all those Nobel Prize-winning economists have called Smirk's economic policies "disastrous?"
So funding the troops to fight a war and making improvements to their equipment was an issue to be used as a political football for the Senator?
I'd say the question of where $87 billion is going to come from is hardly a "political football." It would be more accurate to call it a tremendously important economic issue that is going to have a far-reaching impact on our economy for generations to come.
But we already know that for republicans, every issue is a "political football."