[Lerkfish]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106119

Lies, Damned Lies, and Convention Speeches
Setting Kerry's record right—again.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Sept. 2, 2004, at 11:50 AM PT


Half-truths and embellishments are one thing; they're common at political conventions, vital flourishes for a theatrical air. Lies are another thing, and last night's Republican convention was soaked in them.

In the case of Sen. Zell Miller's keynote address, "lies" might be too strong a word. Clearly not a bright man, Miller dutifully recited the talking points that his Republican National Committee handlers had typed up for him, though perhaps in a more hysterical tone than anyone might have anticipated. (His stumbled rantings in the interviews afterward, on CNN and MSNBC, brought to mind the flat-Earthers who used to be guests on The Joe Pyne Show.) Can a puppet tell lies? Perhaps not.

Still, it is worth setting the record straight. The main falsehood, we have gone over before (click here for the details), but it keeps getting repeated, so here we go again: It is the claim that John Kerry, during his 20 years in the Senate, voted to kill the M-1 tank, the Apache helicopter; the F-14, F-16, and F-18 jet fighters; and just about every other weapon system that has kept our nation free and strong.
Here, one more time, is the truth of the matter: Kerry did not vote to kill these weapons, in part because none of these weapons ever came up for a vote, either on the Senate floor or in any of Kerry's committees.

This myth took hold last February in a press release put out by the RNC. Those who bothered to look up the fine-print footnotes discovered that they referred to votes on two defense appropriations bills, one in 1990, the other in 1995. Kerry voted against both bills, as did 15 other senators, including five Republicans. The RNC took those bills, cherry-picked some of the weapons systems contained therein, and implied that Kerry voted against those weapons. By the same logic, they could have claimed that Kerry voted to disband the entire U.S. armed forces; but that would have raised suspicions and thus compelled more reporters to read the document more closely.

What makes this dishonesty not merely a lie, but a damned lie, is that back when Kerry cast these votes, Dick Cheney—who was the secretary of defense for George W. Bush's father—was truly slashing the military budget. Here was Secretary Cheney, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 31, 1992:

Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.

Cheney then lit into the Democratic-controlled Congress for not cutting weapons systems enough:

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M1s, F14s, and F16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.

I'm not accusing Cheney of being a girly man on defense. As he notes, the Cold War had just ended; deficits were spiraling; the nation could afford to cut back. But some pro-Kerry equivalent of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Zell Miller could make that charge with as much validity as they—and Cheney—make it against Kerry.

In other words, it's not just that Cheney and those around him are lying; it's not even just that they know they're lying; it's that they know—or at least Cheney knows—that the same lie could be said about him. That's what makes it a damned lie.

the article goes on...interesting reading.

[TampaDeveloper]

Interesting article. Doesn't seem to discredit Zell at all. After all, voting against an appropriations bill is essentially the same as canceling these programs.


I've watched both debates now. I've heard enough. Bush is my man. He addresses the issues that are hot buttons for me. Kerry wants to make everything thats currently wrong with this country even worse.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by TampaDeveloper:
Interesting article. Doesn't seem to discredit Zell at all. After all, voting against an appropriations bill is essentially the same as canceling these programs.


I've watched both debates now. I've heard enough. Bush is my man. He addresses the issues that are hot buttons for me. Kerry wants to make everything thats currently wrong with this country even worse.

[deedar]

Thanks, Lerk. We need to counter this BS at every turn.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deedar:
Thanks, Lerk. We need to counter this BS at every turn.

Too bad this thread didn't counter anything.

[deedar]

This bears repeating (taken from the article above):


This myth took hold last February in a press release put out by the RNC. Those who bothered to look up the fine-print footnotes discovered that they referred to votes on two defense appropriations bills, one in 1990, the other in 1995. Kerry voted against both bills, as did 15 other senators, including five Republicans. The RNC took those bills, cherry-picked some of the weapons systems contained therein, and implied that Kerry voted against those weapons. By the same logic, they could have claimed that Kerry voted to disband the entire U.S. armed forces; but that would have raised suspicions and thus compelled more reporters to read the document more closely.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by deedar:
Thanks, Lerk. We need to counter this BS at every turn.

Counter facts with BS. LOL.

[spacefreak]

"Clearly not a bright man, Miller dutifully recited the talking points that his Republican National Committee handlers had typed up for him..."

Typical liberal crap - implying that those with a different opinion are not able to think for themselves. And as usual, the original poster in this thread is the one "dutifully" reciting the talking points of someone else.

[PacHead]

Come one now people, let's not be too harsh on Kerry. Let's give him credit for the one weapon system which he did approve.

[itai195]

Originally posted by TampaDeveloper:
Interesting article. Doesn't seem to discredit Zell at all. After all, voting against an appropriations bill is essentially the same as canceling these programs.

No it isn't, how much do you know about defense appropriations bills? Besides this, why do you so readily ignore Cheney's role? Can I say that John Wagner and John McCain are weak on defense because they fought against a defense appropriations bill in committee last fall? (BTW, you might note that bill contained the now infamous Boeing 767 tanker deal)

The biggest lie in Zell's speech, IMO, was what he said about soldiers vs. agitators. I think some of the founding fathers might take issue with the assertion that agitators and protestors didn't play a major role in the creation of this country and the recognition of our highly valued rights. He might also be advised that no bullets were fired when the constitution and bill of rights were ratified.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by itai195:
No it isn't, how much do you know about defense appropriations bills? Besides this, why do you so readily ignore Cheney's role? Can I say that John Wagner and John McCain are weak on defense because they fought against a defense appropriations bill in committee last fall? (BTW, you might note that bill contained the now infamous Boeing 767 tanker deal)

I'm sure the majority of Congress has voted against any one defense bill at one time or another. The point is that Kerry seems to ALWAYS vote against such bills.

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'm sure the majority of Congress has voted against any one defense bill at one time or another. The point is that Kerry seems to ALWAYS vote against such bills.

Because he voted against a handful during his lengthy tenure in the US Senate? How many has he voted to support? And if he's weak on defense, why is John McCain defending Kerry's voting record? I think this is a very legitimate issue, but it's a disservice to the American public to bring up a few random appropriations bills and say Kerry voted against them, without actually mentioning the context or the details of Kerry's position. I know this is a political campaign and that's all I should expect to hear from any political campaign, but I'd expect the public to think for themselves.

Voting against a defense appropriations bill doesn't mean anything in and of itself... there are an untold number of potential reasons to vote against any particular bill.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'm sure the majority of Congress has voted against any one defense bill at one time or another. The point is that Kerry seems to ALWAYS vote against such bills.

Which is why he is should not be the Commander in Chief.

Kerry: Ready your spit balls. Aim, inhale, fire!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'm sure the majority of Congress has voted against any one defense bill at one time or another. The point is that Kerry seems to ALWAYS vote against such bills.

Kerry wants the UN to control it all. We should just stay out of it.

As a matter of fact, lets get rid of our military!

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Kerry wants the UN to control it all. We should just stay out of it.

As a matter of fact, lets get rid of our military!

You certainly have a knack for exaggeration, have you ever considered running for political office?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Kerry wants the UN to control it all. We should just stay out of it.

As a matter of fact, lets get rid of our military!

No military!!! Well except for the spitballs.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by itai195:


You certainly have a knack for exaggeration, have you ever considered running for political office?

Perhaps it is an exagerration, but the military should be the NUMBER 1 issue. This election will define how we defend ourselves for the next decade or so. And if we do not reorganize, we will have some serious issues if we are forced into another war.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by itai195:
Because he voted against a handful during his lengthy tenure in the US Senate? How many has he voted to support? And if he's weak on defense, why is John McCain defending Kerry's voting record? I think this is a very legitimate issue, but it's a disservice to the American public to bring up a few random appropriations bills and say Kerry voted against them, without actually mentioning the context or the details of Kerry's position. I know this is a political campaign and that's all I should expect to hear from any political campaign, but I'd expect the public to think for themselves.

McCain didn't defend Kerry's voting record. The actual Mcain quote was: “No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He’s responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he’ll have to explain it."

And study Kerry's voting record. It is not simply "a few random appropriations bills", as you portray. These were major bills. Besides, we know Kerry's position. Look at what he's run on in the past...

In April 1972 when Kerry moved into Massachusetts’ 5th District to run for Congress a second time, he won the Democratic nomination but lost the election to the Republican.

Still very much riding his anti-war wave, the young candidate had promised to cut defense spending. On what he’d do if elected to Congress, Kerry said he would “bring a different kind of message to the president.” He said he would vote against military appropriations.

Apparently with the Vietnam War still alive and well in Southeast Asia, the electorate was not quite ready for Kerry’s premature peace dividend.

Not to be dissuaded, when Kerry finally made his entrée into politics as Michael Dukakis’ lieutenant governor (1983-1985), he and his boss linked up with a liberal group dedicated to the proposition of slashing defense.

Sitting on the board of the Jobs With Peace Campaign, Kerry worked to bring into fruition the credo of that organization, which existed solely to drum up public support for cutting the defense budget.When first running for his Senate seat in 1984, Kerry explained carefully that he was firmly against such mainstays of the defense establishment as the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system.

He also ran on a platform of cutting back on the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:


You certainly have a knack for exaggeration, have you ever considered running for political office?

Yes I was exaggerating. I Believe it was obvious. But seriously it isn't too far from what Kerry and his liberal buddies want.

Heck Hillary dislikes the military and has made comments "behind the scenes" of the like.

They think our military is not needed anymore. That the UN should be the world's police.

We see that that doesn't work. Well cept Kerry. He still believes.

[itai195]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Perhaps it is an exagerration, but the military should be the NUMBER 1 issue. This election will define how we defend ourselves for the next decade or so. And if we do not reorganize, we will have some serious issues if we are forced into another war.

It's an important issue, I agree. Bush wants to do more with less, Kerry wants to do less with more. You decide which sounds better, but I wouldn't call a candidate that wants to add two divisions to the army 'weak on defense.'

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
McCain didn't defend Kerry's voting record. The actual Mcain quote was: “No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He’s responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he’ll have to explain it."

Okay sorry, he didn't defend the voting record, but he defended against allegations that Kery is weak on defense.

And study Kerry's voting record. It is not simply "a few random appropriations bills", as you portray. These were major bills. Besides, we know Kerry's context...

I'm going to get around to studying it when I'm on vacation, but two things: I don't trust NewsMax as an information source and his record on defense spending would truly have to be awful to change my mind.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
It's an important issue, I agree. Bush wants to do more with less, Kerry wants to do less with more. You decide which sounds better, but I wouldn't call a candidate that wants to add two divisions to the army 'weak on defense.'

Kerry wants to do a lot less with less. What are you talking about?

And where are you getting that Bush wants to do more with less?

[deedar]

A sampling of posts in this thread:

Come one now people, let's not be too harsh on Kerry. Let's give him credit for the one weapon system which he did approve.

I'm sure the majority of Congress has voted against any one defense bill at one time or another. The point is that Kerry seems to ALWAYS vote against such bills.

Which is why he is should not be the Commander in Chief.

Kerry: Ready your spit balls. Aim, inhale, fire!

Kerry wants the UN to control it all. We should just stay out of it.

As a matter of fact, lets get rid of our military!

No military!!! Well except for the spitballs.

Yes I was exaggerating. I Believe it was obvious. But seriously it isn't too far from what Kerry and his liberal buddies want.

Heck Hillary dislikes the military and has made comments "behind the scenes" of the like.

They think our military is not needed anymore. That the UN should be the world's police.

We see that that doesn't work. Well cept Kerry. He still believes.


Are you folks for real?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by itai195:
It's an important issue, I agree. Bush wants to do more with less, Kerry wants to do less with more. You decide which sounds better, but I wouldn't call a candidate that wants to add two divisions to the army 'weak on defense.'

Well, lets think about it. Right now, after 8 years of the impeached president clinton, our military has become quite proficient at providing humanitarian aid. That is not what the military is for. The military is a deterrent to war...and if the deterrent doesn't work, the military fights wars.

Adding two more divisions isn't a change in the military structure. It simply adding more manpower to non-combat roles that should be taken care of by civillian contractors or our allies. Adding two more divisions takes money away from developing technology, investing in weapons, and training elite soldiers. Adding two divisions is a band aid for a cut that needs quite a few stitches.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by itai195:
I don't trust NewsMax as an information source...

How about the Washington TImes? If that's no good for you either, then I'm sure you'll get the real deal at JohnKerry.com.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Kerry wants to do a lot less with less. What are you talking about?

Kerry wants to shuffle the defense budget, but he wants to add soldiers to the army, for example.

And where are you getting that Bush wants to do more with less?

That is Bush's vision for reformation of the military -- he wants increased reliance on technology so that we don't need to increase our forces. By 'more with less' I was referring to personnel, not money. That wasn't clear.

[itai195]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Well, lets think about it. Right now, after 8 years of the impeached president clinton, our military has become quite proficient at providing humanitarian aid. That is not what the military is for. The military is a deterrent to war...and if the deterrent doesn't work, the military fights wars.

Adding two more divisions isn't a change in the military structure. It simply adding more manpower to non-combat roles that should be taken care of by civillian contractors or our allies. Adding two more divisions takes money away from developing technology, investing in weapons, and training elite soldiers. Adding two divisions is a band aid for a cut that needs quite a few stitches.

This will surprise you, but I agree with you. I think I said previously that I favor Bush's vision for the military. BUT I would not say Kerry is weak on defense just because he has a different vision, and I'm not sure this difference is enough to swing my vote.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
Kerry wants to shuffle the defense budget, but he wants to add soldiers to the army, for example.

That is Bush's vision for reformation of the military -- he wants increased reliance on technology so that we don't need to increase our forces. By 'more with less' I was referring to personnel, not money. That wasn't clear.

aaah ok, a bit more clear.

I am ALL FOR reliance on technology.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by itai195:
This will surprise you, but I agree with you. I think I said previously that I favor Bush's vision for the military. BUT I would not say Kerry is weak on defense just because he has a different vision, and I'm not sure this difference is enough to swing my vote.

I am going to get you to change your vote by novemeber!

Just ask yourself this. If we are hurled in a war against N. Korea, who would you rather have as President?

[itai195]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I am going to get you to change your vote by novemeber!

Just ask yourself this. If we are hurled in a war against N. Korea, who would you rather have as President?

Probably not the guy who largely ignored the problem for 4 years.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by itai195:
Probably not the guy who largely ignored the problem for 4 years.

You mean Clinton, right?

Or did you want Bush to wage a war in Afghanistan and Iraq while puffing up in N. Korea's face?

[itai195]

Originally posted by dcolton:
You mean Clinton, right?

Or did you want Bush to wage a war in Afghanistan and Iraq while puffing up in N. Korea's face?

I don't understand why he pretends to take the nuclear threat very seriously by pumping up missile defense spending, but devotes more of his attention to Iraq, and now Iran. North Korea already HAS nuclear weapons and ICBMs, do something about it! Say what you want about the wisdom of the Clinton policy, but NK didn't start making these moves until after they were mentioned in Bush's SotU speech (IIRC, anyway).

[Zimphire]

ital once they HAVE them, it's hard to do ANYTHING about it.

Clinton should have instead of just waving money at them.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
ital once they HAVE them, it's hard to do ANYTHING about it.

Clinton should have instead of just waving money at them.

And he didn't have a chance to do something before they had them? They developed these weapons during Bush's term. It doesn't matter though, I've been disappointed with how he's handled North Korea. I don't think he's given them enough attention. Hypothetically I don't think it makes any difference who is in office if we're plunged into a war with NK, but I do know whose speech got the ball rolling and under whose tenure they developed these weapons. I'm not going to defend the Clinton policy either, and he's not running in 2004

[itai195]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I am going to get you to change your vote by novemeber!

BTW, it would hardly make a difference since I live in CA. The only weight my vote carries is on my conscience.

[ebuddy]

4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years!

[TampaDeveloper]

Originally posted by itai195:
BTW, it would hardly make a difference since I live in CA. The only weight my vote carries is on my conscience.

Yeah, that was interesting how Bush basically told California to pis*-off. It was fairly clear that he had no intention of appealing to their vote.

[zigzag]

After his speech, Miller was confronted with the fact that Kerry had voted for 16 of 19 defense bills, and that Cheney had opposed many of the same bills. Miller couldn't respond - he just kept trying to change the subject.

The strategy is that if you say something enough times to enough gullible people, it will become truth. There doesn't appear to be any shortage of gullible people.

Here we are overextended because this administration completely miscalculated, and people are questioning Kerry's judgment? What about the judgment of the people in charge right now?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
...the fact that Kerry had voted for 16 of 19 defense bills

Do you have a link regarding or documenting these votes?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by zigzag:
After his speech, Miller was confronted with the fact that Kerry had voted for 16 of 19 defense bills, and that Cheney had opposed many of the same bills. Miller couldn't respond - he just kept trying to change the subject.

The strategy is that if you say something enough times to enough gullible people, it will become truth. There doesn't appear to be any shortage of gullible people.

Here we are overextended because this administration completely miscalculated, and people are questioning Kerry's judgment? What about the judgment of the people in charge right now?

Repetition of the same schtick has been a Bush trademark ever since 9/11, and no one on the right ever calls him on it. They're at the point now where they're going to break their own arms patting themselves on the back for electing such a brilliant leader.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by zigzag:
After his speech, Miller was confronted with the fact that Kerry had voted for 16 of 19 defense bills, and that Cheney had opposed many of the same bills. Miller couldn't respond - he just kept trying to change the subject.

what, What, WHAT? I'LL CHALLENGE YUO TO A DUEL AND STAB YOU IN THE FACE WITH A SPORK!11! LIES LIES!!!!!!

But seriously, I thought it was funny to see his defense mechanism so ablaze! It's great seeing people like that caught in lies and misleading statements. He didn't disappoint.

The strategy is that if you say something enough times to enough gullible people, it will become truth. There doesn't appear to be any shortage of gullible people.

This is why I found the whole convention rather depressing. People will lap it up, though, and cheer it on. Willful ignorance was strong with this convention.

Here we are overextended because this administration completely miscalculated, and people are questioning Kerry's judgment? What about the judgment of the people in charge right now?

It doesn't seem to matter to anyone, least of all those at the RNC—to think that there are real sheep out there like that. I really think—and am hopeful—that people will work past the bullsh*t buffer the convention offered and make their voices heard in November. Of course, the actual voting machines are another concern.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Do you have a link regarding or documenting these votes?

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177

I'm just suggesting that we keep the criticism somewhere within the realm of reality.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Too bad this thread didn't counter anything.

Oh, come one. Lerkfish.app is very important to MacNN's ad revenue since his/her/its threads create page hits (which generate banner placements and the subsequent revenue).

I've come to the conclusion that Lerkfish.app is just an XML/RSS news feed running on Apache server here. Nobody with a real job has that much time and hate to sit here and post negative threads 24/7/365.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177

I like how they have isolated their "fact checking" to only the annual defense appropriations bills to make it look like he has only voted down defense spending 3 times.

A further examination shows Kerry has voted to cut or decrease military spending at least 38 times.

Shall we visit his proposals and votes to gut out intelligence services and budgets?

[Spoogepieces]

Yeah, some war hero there.

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I like how they have isolated their "fact checking" to only the annual defense appropriations bills to make it look like he has only voted down defense spending 3 times.

A further examination shows Kerry has voted to cut or decrease military spending at least 38 times.

Shall we visit his proposals and votes to gut out intelligence services and budgets?

I'm not going to go through the whole thing right now, but here's an example for you. The fourth line from the bottom of the second page was the defense authorization bill for 1994. From your link:

S. 1298, CQ Vote #253: Motion Agreed To 61-32: R 35-5; D 26-27, 9/9/93, Kerry Voted

Nay;

However, on final passage of the bill, Kerry voted YEA... Do I need to go through the rest? One can't just provide a laundry list of votes with no details and say Kerry is weak on defense. What does it prove, that he voted nay once and yea the other time? Your list doesn't say. I'd also like to point out that a defense authorization bill is not the same thing as a defense appropriation bill. There are multiple votes for each bill, some of them are nothing more than motions to table. In the end, Kerry has only voted against final passage of two annual defense appropriations bills and three annual defense authorization bills during his entire tenure in the US Senate.

It's just pure FUD that's getting spread around nowadays... Hell, I saw Saxby Chambliss claim that Kerry voted to cut the F-22 program, when it was Republicans who wanted to slash the program during the Clinton administration and still want to. This is the most advanced fighter jet available to the US military, why are Republicans so against it?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by itai195:
One can't just provide a laundry list of votes with no details and say Kerry is weak on defense.

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, 6/3/88)


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)

[spacefreak]

And more...

SENATOR KERRY FOUGHT TO SLASH INTELLIGENCE FUNDING BY AT LEAST $2.5 BILLION

1995: Proposed Bill Cutting $1.5 Billion From Intelligence Budget. Kerry introduced a bill that would "reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000." There were no cosponsors of Kerry’s bill, which never made it the floor for a vote. (S.1290, Introduced 9/29/95)

1995: Voted Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Yea)

1994: Proposed Bill To Gut $1 Billion From Intelligence And Freeze Spending For Two Major Intelligence Programs. Kerry proposed a bill cutting $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. The bill did not make it to a vote, but the language was later submitted (and defeated : see below) as S. Amdt. 1452 to H.R. 3759. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/94)

1997: Kerry Questioned Growth Of Intelligence Community After Cold War. "Now that that [Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as Government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary"? (Senator John Kerry Agreeing That Critic's Concerns Be Addressed, Congressional Record, 5/1/97, p. S3891)

When His Bill Stalled In Committee, Kerry Proposed $1 Billion Cut As Amendment Instead. Kerry proposed cutting $1 billion from the National Foreign Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence budgets, and freezing their budgets. The amendment was defeated, with even Graham, Lieberman and Braun voting against Kerry. (Amdt.. To H.R. 3759, CQ Vote #39: Rejected 20-75: R 3-37; D 17-38, 2/10/94, Kerry Voted Yea; Graham, Lieberman And Braun Voted Nay)

12 Days After 9/11: Kerry Questioned Quality Of Intelligence. "And the tragedy is, at the moment, that the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence. And we are weakest, frankly, in that particular area. So it’s going to take us time to be able to build up here to do this properly." (CBS’s "Face The Nation," 9/23/01)

SEN. KERRY’S DEFENSE STRATEGY: CUT CRITICAL WEAPONS SYSTEMS

In 1996, Introduced Bill To Slash Defense Department Funding By $6.5 Billion. Kerry’s bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote. (S. 1580,Introduced 2/29/96)

In 1995, Voted To Freeze Defense Spending For 7 Years, Slashing Over $34 Billion From Defense. Only 27 other Senators voted with Kerry.

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." (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181: Rejected 28-71: R 2-51; D 26-20, 5/24/95, Kerry Voted Yea)

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. (S.1163, Introduced 6/24/93)

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. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
• In 1992, Voted To Cut $6 Billion From Defense. Republicans and Democrats successfully blocked the attempt to cut defense spending. (S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 53-40: R 38-1; D 15-39, 4/9/92, Kerry Voted Nay)
• In 1991, Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion From Defense, Shift Money To Social Programs. Only 27 Senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut. (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91, Kerry Voted Yea)
• In 1991, Voted To Cut Defense Spending By 2%. Only 21 other Senators voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated. S. Con. Res. 29, CQ Vote #49: Motion Rejected 22-73: R 1-39; D 21-34, 4/25/91, Kerry Voted Yea)

Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Or Eliminate Funding For B-2 Stealth Bomber.

• H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203: Rejected 29-71: R 2-43; D 27-28, 9/26/89, Kerry Voted Yea;
• H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310: Rejected 29-68: R 3-41; D 26-27, 11/18/89, Kerry Voted Yea;
• S. 2884, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 43-56: R 8-36; D 35-20, 8/2/90, Kerry Voted Yea;
• S. 2884, CQ Vote #209: Rejected 45-53: R 9-34; D 36-19, 8/2/90, Kerry Voted Yea;
• S. 1507, CQ Vote #174: Rejected 42-57: R 7-36; D 35-21, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea;
• H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 36-7; D 15-41, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay;
• S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #216: Rejected 45-53: R 8-35; D 37-18, 9/18/92, Kerry Voted Yea;
• S. 2182, CQ Vote #179: Rejected 45-55: R 8-36; D 37-19, 7/1/94, Kerry Voted Yea
Has Voted Repeatedly Against Missile Defense.

• S. 1507, CQ Vote #171: Motion Agreed To 60-38: R 40-3; D 20-35, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay;
• S. 1507, CQ Vote #173: Rejected 46-52: R 5-38; D 41-14, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea;
• H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 38-5; D 12-44, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay;
• S.2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea;
• S.3114, CQ Vote #182: Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, 8/7/92, Kerry Voted Nay;
• S.3114, CQ Vote #214: Rejected 48-50: R 5-38; D 43-12, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Yea;
• S. 3114, CQ Vote #215: Adopted 52-46: R 39-4; D 13-42, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Nay;
• S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 10/9/93, Kerry Voted Yea;
• S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94, Kerry Voted Yea;
• S. 1026, CQ Vote #354: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 47-6; D 4-42, 8/3/95, Kerry Voted Nay;
• S. 1087, CQ Vote #384: Rejected 45-54: R 5-49; D 40-5, 8/10/95, Kerry Voted Yea;
• S. 1745, CQ Vote #160: Rejected 44-53: R 4-49; D 40-4, 6/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea;
• S. 1507, CQ Vote #168: Rejected 39-60: R 4-39; D 35-21, 7/31/91, Kerry Voted Yea;
• S. 1507, CQ Vote #172: Motion Agreed To 64-34: R 39-4; D 25-30, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay;
• S. 1873, CQ Vote #131: Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41; I 0-0, 5/13/98, Kerry Voted Nay;
• S. 1873, CQ Vote #262: Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 9/9/98, Kerry Voted Nay;
• S 1635, CQ Vote #157: Rejected 53-46: R 52-0; D 1-46, 6/4/96, Kerry Voted Nay;
• S. 2549, CQ Vote #178: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 52-3; D 0-45, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay
KERRY OPPOSED WEAPONS CRITICAL TO RECENT MILITARY SUCCESSES

• Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Promised Massive Defense Cuts. "Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system. He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

• 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)

• F-16 Fighting Falcons. "The Air Force would also play an important role in strikes against high-ranking officials of the Ba’ath regime. On April 4, two Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons dropped laser-guided munitions on the house of Ali Hassan al-Majid, a.k.a. ‘Chemical Ali,’ in Basra." (Abraham Genauer, "Technology And Volume Of Sorties Overwhelmed The Iraqis’ Defenses, The Hill, 5/21/03)

• B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s. "On the night of March 21 alone, the first of ‘shock and awe,’ coalition air forces flew nearly 2,000 missions. Involved were Air Force B-1B Lancers, B-2A Spirits, F-15E Strike Eagles and F-16 Fighting Falcons." (Abraham Genauer, "Technology And Volume Of Sorties Overwhelmed The Iraqis’ Defenses, The Hill, 5/21/03)

• M1 Abrams. "‘[M1 Abrams] tanks were the sledgehammer in this war,’ added Pat Garrett, an associate analyst with GlobalSecurity.org. ‘The tank was the tool that allowed [the ground forces] to progress as fast as they did.’" (Patrick O’Connor, "Revolutionary Tank Tactics Alter Iraqi Conflict, Future Of Urban Warfare, The Hill, 5/21/03)

• Patriot Missile. "U.S. Central Command says the Patriots have improved to the point where they intercepted nine of the Iraqis’ short-range al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 missiles in this conflict." (Andrea Stone, "Patriot Missile: Friend Or Foe To Allied Troops? USA Today, 4/15/03)

• AH-64 Apache Helicopter. "Recently, Apaches in Afghanistan achieved success directly supporting ground troops. Whether in shaping the battle in a combined arms Warfighter-type fight where intelligence of the enemy is known, or by conducting close combat attacks in direct support of a ground commander, the Longbow Apache provides significantly increased flexibility and firepower for U.S. Army forces ." (Maj. David J. Rude and Lt. Col. Daniel E. Williams, "The ‘Warfighter Mindset’ and the War in Iraq, Army Magazine, 7/03)

• Tomahawk Cruise Missile. "The first operational use [of Tomahawk cruise missiles] was in Operation Desert Storm, 1991, with immense success. The missile has since been used successfully in several other conflicts include[ing] Bosnia in 1995 and in Iraq again in 1996 [and in] strikes against training camps run by Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan in 1998. Cruise missiles were also fired during the air campaign over Kosovo in 1999." (Vivek Rai, "Cruise Missiles, By Air And Sea, MSNBC.com, Accessed 7/17/03)

• Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser. "During Operation Iraqi Freedom, [the Aegis cruiser] Bunker Hill was one of the first warships to conduct Tomahawk strikes against leadership targets in Iraq. The ship launched a total of 31 missiles during the war. Its embarked helicopter detachment supported the rescue of United Nations workers being forcibly removed from oil platforms in the Northern Arabian Gulf and provided medical evacuations from the Iraqi city of Umm Qasr." (S.A. Thornbloom, "USS Bunker Hill Makes Revolutionary Return, NavyDispatch.com, Accessed 7/17/03)

• 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, 6/3/88)

• 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.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
...................A whole bunch of devestating facts outlining why Kerry is anti-defense, anti-military, and anti-the protection of the USA.............

Ouch. . . . .

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And more...

And just what do you think Cheney was doing during daddy Bush's term in office?

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/...ios/cheney.htm

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/cheney_record/

There's more, if you want it.