Respond to Bush Deceit About the $87 Billion, Part II: Bush's Phony 'Nothing Complicated' Line

by Eric Jaffa

August 6, 2004

Bush and Cheney are touring the country, telling crowds that while John Kerry said the $87-billion-for-Iraq bill was complicated, "there is nothing complicated about supporting our troops."

Bush and Cheney leave out that Bush threatened to veto the bill if some of the $20 billion in reconstruction funds Bush requested were a loan to oil-rich Iraq.

Apparently, the bill was complicated enough for Bush to veto if American taxpayers weren't completely soaked by the expense. We are being completely soaked in the version the Republican Congress passed, so Bush signed the bill.

Thanks to deficit spending, we'll be paying down the $87-billion-plus-interest for years to come.

The Washington Post describes the ridicule of Kerry by Bush as follows¹:

In Bush’s revamped stump speech Friday, he drew particular glee in focusing on the vote over the $87 billion. “He tried to explain his vote by saying: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it. End quote,” Bush said to laughter. “He’s got a different explanation now. One time he said he was proud he voted against the funding, then he said that the whole thing was a complicated matter. Bush then added: There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.”

However, George W. Bush himself threatened to veto the bill if part of it were in the form of a loan. Apparently, bills for enormous spending are complicated.

Today's "The Daily Howler" blog by Bob Somerby calls the "nothing complicated" claim "utter nonsense" and then lists some of the complications:

Troops vs. reconstruction projects: The original measure included $67 billion for the troops and $20 billion for reconstruction projects. Some senators wanted to treat the two measures separately—voting the money for the troops and considering reconstruction on its own merits. In particular, some senators said they wanted to see a more detailed overall plan from Bush before giving him the reconstruction money. Congress ended up authorizing $18.4 billion in reconstruction.

Taxes vs. deficit spending: How would the $87 billion be paid for? Some senators wanted to borrow the money, adding to the national debt. Others wanted to raise current taxes by roughly $87 billion to pay for the measure.

Loans vs. grants: Would the reconstruction money be a gift to Iraq? Some senators favored this approach. Other senators wanted to extend this money as a loan, not a grant. Indeed, when the bill first passed the Senate on 10/16/03 (this was the date of Kerry’s “no” vote), half the reconstruction money was in the form of loans. Nine Republicans joined 42 Democrats in voting for this provision. The House, by contrast, had passed a bill in which the reconstruction money would all be grants.

“Nothing complicated” about that vote? As any sentient being can see, there was a great deal of complication. And yes, these complications mattered to Bush, who dissembles about this fact daily. How do we know that they mattered to Bush? Simple! Six days after Kerry’s “no” vote, Bush said he would veto the bill if the reconstruction money included loans, as the Senate had voted. Let’s repeat that: Six days after Kerry voted “no”—rejecting a form of the bill he disfavored—Bush said he would veto the bill if it included provisions which he didn’t like! Since everyone knows that Bush means what he says, we’re sure he would have vetoed the bill if it included measures he didn’t like. And by the way—there would have been nothing wrong with that. The Congress would have had to shape a new bill. The troops were always going to be funded. There was never any doubt about that.

No, there was nothing wrong with that veto threat, but this narrative raises an obvious question. If there was “nothing complicated” about this bill, why was Bush saying he’d veto it? And if Bush could oppose one form of the bill, why is it supposed to be wrong that Kerry opposed another?

But there are usually multiple versions of bills, and politicians usually support some versions and not others.

Bush's ridicule and claims of "nothing complicated" are an attempt by Bush to trick the audiences he addresses.

When you see a tv news story about this which doesn't tell the full story, PLEASE WRITE THE REPORTER.

When you see a newspaper article about this which doesn't tell the full story, PLEASE WRITE THE REPORTER OR SEND A LETTER-TO-THE-EDITOR.

For more information on the $87 billion, see my previous article, "Respond to Bush Deceit About the $87 Billion."

Reference

1. "A Low Profile for the Big Issue Kerry Treads Lightly on War in Iraq" by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, August 5, 2004.