If I hear some variation of this one more time, I am going to have the big one:
Edwards, who was the first of the pro-war Democrats to announce his opposition to the $87 billion, also shrugged off Lieberman’s attacks.
“My view of leadership is standing up for what you believe,” he said. “Here’s my view, Joe. For me to vote yes on that would be to give President Bush a blank check, and I am not willing to give George Blush a blank check.”
I am looking at my checkbook right now at a ‘blank check.’ It does not say $87 Billion anywhere on this ‘blank check.’ It does not say $86 billion. In fact, it does not even say ANYTHING. Not even one thin dollar. IN essence, that is because it is a ‘blank check.’
Senate Bill 1689, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004, is not a blank check. It is an itemized accounting of hwat money is needed for what, line by line, down to the dollar. No aspect of it is a blank check- in fact, this is best evidenced by the fact that we know how much it will cost- in this case, $87 billion.
Go take a look at the hundreds of pages in this so-called ‘blank check.’ Maybe they are just lying about it being a blank check because a couple hundred pages of appropriations legislating a massive amount of money for specific functions negates the Democrat’s equally idiotic claim that the administration has ‘no plan.’
These guys will say anything to get elected. The $87 billion dollars is clearly designated for things Edwards can feel free to vote for or against, as is his right. However, to claim it is a blank check, and the administration is going to spend it on whatever it wants, be that hookers, beer, or invading Syria, is absurd. Democrats- quit your damn lying.
Kimmitt
It’s not a blank check — it’s a blanket endorsement. Edwards needs to be more careful with his words, but the principle he puts forward is meaningful.
John Cole
It isn’t a blanket endorsement, either. It is simply financing a specific request. As much as all of them have been moaning about the president, we know there is no blanket endorsement.
Kimmitt
Filling a request as vague as that one (yes, it’s 200 pages long, but that’s quite short for an $87 billion bill, and the bill itself contains no provisions for oversight of the disbursements, including a huge slush fund which answers to Rumsfeld exclusively) in the timetable requested (a week or two after it was submitted) amounts to a blanket endorsement of Bush’s Iraq policy, since the only way one could vote for the bill is if one had tremendous faith in the Administration’s actions thus far and in the future.