Just once

I would like to see Kerry or Edwards explain why the $87 billion thing is crap. I think Pandagon mentioned awhile ago: at the least can't they bring up the fact that Bush was planning to veto it?

Their seeming reluctance to take this on seems a little too bizarre, so maybe someone has good reason to think they shouldn't be arguing about it. Maybe the strategy gods will find it a petty quibble and up their value-less nitpicker quotient. At the same time, Bushco continues to use it to justify just about every charge they can think of against Kerry, like some kind of free pass which permits the speaker to insinuate whatever they want about Kerry regardless of logic or taste or proof. Kerry could say something like: "I've heard you distort my vote on that bill for a year now and I'm not going to take it anymore. Myself and many of my colleagues felt that now that we were in a war we should be prudent about our finances, and knew that well-off Americans would want to join us in that small sacrifice. This is the first war in history during which taxes have actually gone down, and you can see the result in our half trillion dollar deficit. But the President doesn't understand what real sacrifice is, and thought he could get this war for free. He threatened to veto that same funding for troops to save his tax cuts, to choose breaks for the wealthy over body armor for our soldiers, and he bullied Congress into thinking likewise."