kerry's def/intel record, part2

advil

Diabloii.Net Member
kerry's def/intel record, part2

in light of bush's recent smear (lie?) this past sunday, this time out of his own mouth rather than a proxy's (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040308-115054-4775r.htm), how about we take a look at the actual bill and some pesky facts... gonna be a fun campaign season... :teeth:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096874/

Bush Insults Kerry's Intelligence
The president's latest attack is even more dishonest than the last.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, March 9, 2004, at 2:18 PM PT

There he goes again.

Yesterday, President Bush told a crowd of supporters in Houston that, back in 1995, two years after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Sen. John Kerry introduced legislation to cut the intelligence budget by $1.5 billion. "Once again, Sen. Kerry is trying to have it both ways," the president said. "He's for good intelligence; yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war." Bush further charged that Kerry's bill was "so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single-co-sponsor in the United States Senate."

Bush and his operatives are making a practice of mischaracterizing the voting record of the presumptive Democratic nominee. Two weeks ago, the Republican National Committee put out a "Research Brief" that flagrantly distorted Kerry's votes on weapons systems. (Click here for the real facts.) Bush's remarks yesterday are more dishonest still.

One thing is true: Kerry did introduce a bill on Sept. 29, 1995—S. 1290—that, among many other things, would have cut the intelligence budget by $300 million per year over a five-year period, or $1.5 billion in all.

But let's look at that bill more closely.

First, would such a reduction have "gutted" the intelligence services? Intelligence budgets are classified, but private budget sleuths have estimated that the 1995 budget totaled about $28 billion. Thus, taking out $300 million would have meant a reduction of about 1 percent. This is not a gutting.

Second, and more to the point, Kerry's proposal would have not have cut a single intelligence program.

On the same day that Kerry's bill was read on the Senate floor, two of his colleagues—Democrat Bob Kerrey and Republican Arlen Specter—introduced a similar measure. Their bill would have cut the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office, the division of the U.S. intelligence community in charge of spy satellites.

According to that day's Congressional Record, Specter said he was offering an amendment "to address concerns about financial practices and management" at the NRO. Specifically, "the NRO has accumulated more than $1 billion in unspent funds without informing the Pentagon, CIA, or Congress." He called this accumulation "one more example of how intelligence agencies sometimes use their secret status to avoid accountability."

The Kerrey-Specter bill proposed to cut the NRO's budget "to reflect the availability of funds … that have accumulated in the carry-forward accounts" from previous years. Another co-sponsor of the bill, Sen. Richard Bryan, D–Nev., noted that these "carry-forward accounts" amounted to "more than $1.5 billion."

This was the same $1.5 billion that John Kerry was proposing to cut—over a five-year period—in his bill. It had nothing to do with intelligence, terrorism, or anything of substance. It was a motion to rescind money that had been handed out but never spent.

In other words, it's as if Kerry had once filed for a personal tax refund—and Bush accused him of raiding the Treasury.

By the way, the Kerrey-Specter bill—which called for the same intelligence cut that George W. Bush is attacking John Kerry for proposing—passed on the Senate floor by a voice vote. It was sheer common sense. It also led to major investigations into the NRO's finances, both by the White House and by the CIA's general counsel.

John Kerry's bill died—its title was read on the floor, then it was sent to the Senate Budget Committee—but, again, not because it was an abhorrence. It died for two reasons. First, some of its provisions, including the intelligence cut, were covered in other bills. Second, Kerry's bill was not just about the intelligence budget; it was a 16-page document, titled "The Responsible Deficit Reduction Act of 1995," that called for a scattershot of specific cuts across the entire federal budget. (The New York Times today, reporting on Bush's attack, states that Kerry's bill "also proposed cuts in military spending." The story neglects to mention that it proposed just as many cuts in non-military spending.)

Through the early-to-mid-'90s, Congress was rife with bills and amendments to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. Most of them were tabled to committees, then hung out to dry. Kerry's was one of them—not because it was unpatriotic but because it was redundant.

Kerry's campaign office has thus far been a bit off-the-mark in responding to Bush's outlandish charges. A Kerry spokesman, Chad Clanton, is quoted in today's Times as saying that the senator had "voted against a proposed billion-dollar bloat in the intelligence budget because it was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors." Not quite. The NRO had a slush fund, but not for "defense contractors." It's difficult to correct the distortions of a 10-second sound bite. Usually, it takes a minute or so to set the record straight, and that's too long for the networks. But this one should have been easy. How about something like: "Sen. Kerry was merely trying to return unspent money to the taxpayers. Shame on President Bush for twisting a simple bookkeeping adjustment to make it look like an act of treachery."
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Like you said, it's gonna be fun. I'm already dizzy from all the spin.

Funny how these threads of yours only get one or two posts, Advil. Makes me think our conservative friends have difficulty with facts and truth, moreso even than our pinko-commie liberal friends.
 

advil

Diabloii.Net Member
maccool said:
Makes me think our conservative friends have difficulty with facts and truth, moreso even than our pinko-commie liberal friends.
i thought about not bothering posting this, based on the response the last one got. then i decided the response (or lack thereof) would speak more to the trouble with bush than anything else...
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
As our sitting president tries his best to brand Senator Kerry a liberal who flip – flops positions, let us look at how Mr. Bush has done in just his last few years:

· Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

· Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

· Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

· Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

· Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

· Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

· Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

· Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

· Bush is for states right to decide on *** marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

· Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

· Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

· Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.

· Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

· Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

· Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote

· Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.

· Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.





 

advil

Diabloii.Net Member
they're all public record, anyone following recent politics'd probably be aware of most of em. google. it's your friend.
 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
Everyone flip flops. First I'm for eating out, now I'm against it.

First I'm for doing my homework, then I'm against it.

I never really liked stupid accusations like these. Do we honestly expect politicians to not change their minds? I'd probably never vote for someone who refused to flip flop, times change, people should too.
 

Carnage-DVS

Diabloii.Net Member
AeroJonesy said:
Everyone flip flops. First I'm for eating out, now I'm against it.

First I'm for doing my homework, then I'm against it.

I never really liked stupid accusations like these. Do we honestly expect politicians to not change their minds? I'd probably never vote for someone who refused to flip flop, times change, people should too.
Yes, but politician's decisions have a much larger impact than simply choosing to go out and eat or not. That's quite a pathetic comparision. Although I know it's quite hard, they should stick to their original statements otherwise we get a picture of a person who either has no idea what's going on, or just lies a lot. In either case, we end up with Bush.
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
advil said:
they're all public record, anyone following recent politics'd probably be aware of most of em. google. it's your friend.
Heh ... at least I got our conservative posters fired up this time in your thread.:p
 

palerider

Diabloii.Net Member
Kerry has voted for at least SEVEN major reductions in Defense and Military spending, necessary for our national security:


1) In 1996 - Introduced Bill to slash Defense Department Funding by $6.5 Billion.


2) In 1995 - Voted to freeze Defense spending for 7 years, slashing over $34 billion from Defense.


3) Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution - Defense Freeze. "Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training."

4) In 1993 - Introduced plan to cut numerous Defense programs, including:

  • Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
  • Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
  • Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
  • Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program
  • Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year.



5) Has voted repeatedly to cut Defense spending, including:
  • In 1993, voted against increased Defense spending for Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years.
  • In 1992, voted to cut $6 billion from Defense.
  • In 1991, voted to slash over $3 Billion from Defense. Shift money to social programs.
  • In 1991, voted to cut defense spending by 2%
  • Voted repeatedly to cut or eliminate funding for B-2 Stealth Bomber
  • Voted repeatedly against Missile Defense - Weapons Kerry sought to phase out were VITAL in Iraq. "[K]erry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might-the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)
  • Military hardware he felt we no longer need since the "cold war" is past. The money would be better spent on "social" programs. These weapons are now the core of our military might.
    • F-16 Fighting Falcons.
    • B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s
    • M1 Abrams
    • Patriot Missile
    • AH-64 Apache Helicopter
    • Tomahawk Cruise Missile
    • Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser


6) During 1980s Kerry And Michael Dukakis joined forces with liberal group dedicated to slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense budget..."("Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs," The Associated Press, 6/3/**)


7) While running for Congress in 1972, Kerry promised to cut Defense Spending. "On what he'll do if he's elected to Congress," Kerry said he would 'bring a different kind of message to the president." He said he would, "Vote against military appropriations." ("Candidate's For Congress Capture Campus In Andover," Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)
"So you can look at all the potential threats of the world, and when you add the expenditures of all of our allies to the United States of America, you have to stop and say to yourself, 'What is it that we are really preparing for in a post-cold-war world?'"
(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/15/96, p. S5061)
http://www.hannity.com/story.php?content=/kerrydefense
 

Freemason

Banned
That list ain't going to cut it, not with the blind hatred for Pres. Bush here. I'll post a much more comprehensive list of Kerry's anti-military record and a bunch of quotes showing his flip-flops just as soon as I finish compiling it. Damn thing is so much it's taking way too long
 

Freemason

Banned
I don't hate the man. I reserve my hate for when it's personal. But I fear for this country if Kerry were to be elected.
I fear for massive terrorist attacks coming regularly.
I fear what N. Korea would do, knowing Kerry lacks the cojones to face them.
I fear the reprecussions against conservativism if another Democrat is EVER elected.
The only thing I don't fear of a Kerry presidency is any attempt to disarm America. But I expect he'd try.
 

Suicidal Zebra

Diabloii.Net Member
Two things Smeg...

1) There are a lot of the guys here, whom you label 'Bush haters', who have exactly the same fears about Bush. Fears that perhaps are more justifiable as they have been governed by Bush for 3 years now rather than having to rely on innuendo for their fears.

2) I remember you a long time ago posting that other nations hate the US because they fear the US, and that all hate is borne out of (and imtimately linked with) fear. Almost as if hate implies fear and fear implies hate. Care to comment on that now given you fear, but don't hate, Kerry?

And I doubt you need to fear for conservatism if a democrat is elected. You guys will be just as loud and obnoxious as ever, and still control the major lobby groups. Kerry can't really touch you in 4 years.
 

Carnage-DVS

Diabloii.Net Member
More terrorist attacks? I really doubt it. I think paranoi is getting to you Smeg. Saying that with a democrat in office would prevent terrorist attacks any less than say..now...is quite...well..stupid.
 

publius

Diabloii.Net Member
Freemason said:
I fear what N. Korea would do, knowing Kerry lacks the cojones to face them.
Well, we already know what North Korea will do, as they're doing it right now. One of the reasons they are so willing to defy the United States right now is because they know that the United States is already stretched thin across the Middle East. They know that we know that all the hegemonic powers of the past fell when they overextended themselves, and that we are not going to repeat those mistakes, therefore we are not going to get into any military confrontations with North Korea (whose army is much stronger than that of pre-war Iraq).
 

Amra

Diabloii.Net Member
maccool said:
Funny how these threads of yours only get one or two posts, Advil. Makes me think our conservative friends have difficulty with facts and truth, moreso even than our pinko-commie liberal friends.

Like this thread?
 
Top