Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

kerry's def/intel record, part2

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by advil, Mar 10, 2004.

  1. advil

    advil IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    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."
     
  2. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    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.
     
  3. advil

    advil IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    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...
     
  4. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    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.





     
  5. toader

    toader Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    5,443
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    hey llad...why dont you provide a link to every single one of those claims you made there please.
     
  6. advil

    advil IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    they're all public record, anyone following recent politics'd probably be aware of most of em. google. it's your friend.
     
  7. AeroJonesy

    AeroJonesy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    12,940
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    467
    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.
     
  8. Carnage-DVS

    Carnage-DVS IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    346
    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.
     
  9. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Heh ... at least I got our conservative posters fired up this time in your thread.:p
     
  10. Munch

    Munch IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
  11. palerider

    palerider IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2003
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    http://www.hannity.com/story.php?content=/kerrydefense
     
  12. Freemason

    Freemason Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  13. Suicidal Zebra

    Suicidal Zebra IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Given your blind hatred for Kerry that strikes me as really rather funny.
     
  14. axeil

    axeil IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Nothing smells better then the aroma of hypocracy.
     
  15. Freemason

    Freemason Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  16. Suicidal Zebra

    Suicidal Zebra IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    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.
     
  17. Carnage-DVS

    Carnage-DVS IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    346
    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.
     
  18. publius

    publius IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    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).
     
  19. Amra

    Amra IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    7,255
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    472

    Like this thread?
     

Share This Page