[macintologist]

How can we trust a man like Kerry to be president??

He has voted for insane things that would harm America.

Let's take his vote to cut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion over 5 years in 1995!

Even if this amounts to only a 1% cut in intelligence spending, even if the budget deficit was out of control at the time, even if at the time it had been widely seen as cutting wasteful intelligence spending, even if it had been publicly revealed 5 days before he cast his vote that the NRO had been secretly hoarding $1 billion in unspent funds, even if the CIA was in the midst of an inquiry into the NRO's funding because of complaints that the agency had spent $300 million on unspent funds from its classified budget to build a new headquarters building in Virginia a year earlier, even if the very same day Kerry proposed his $1.5 billion cut, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment proposed by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996, even if Specter made clear he was attempting to recoup $1 billion in unused intelligence funds from the NRO, even ifKerry co-sponsored a companion measure to the Specter amendment, along with Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, even if the cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership, even if CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith who led the investigation into the NRO scandal said that Kerry's proposal was an attempt "to re-assert adequate Congressional oversight of the intelligence budget", even if it is true that at that time there was growing concern about the how effectively the intelligence agencies were spending the money they had, even if later in 1994 a 15-member bi-partisan Congressional commission the Aspin Commission, formed to assess the state of the intelligence services concluded that "Reductions to the existing and planned intelligence resources may be possible without damaging the nation's security,"...

Kerry was still wrong to vote to cut intelligence spending by 1%, and this shows how he wants to damage America.

Vote Bush!

[BRussell]

I hear he voted to let wolves roam free in our country.

[itai195]

I heard that Kerry once voted to increase taxes on internet access by cosponsoring a bill that would have extended the ban on those taxes and then voting against tabling an amendment that would have changed details of that bill, which he eventually voted for! What a bastard.

[effgee]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Kerry will destroy America!! ...

with what? saddam's wmd's?

[vmpaul]

What happened to the 'Peace Dividend'?

Are we supposed to continue Cold War level pork-barrel spending to the military-industrial complex forever?

[macintologist]

I want zimphire's reaction to my post

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
What happened to the 'Peace Dividend'?

We spent it in the 1990s. That's why our Army is now two divisions too small according to Kerry (at least 4 too small in my opinion) and why our intelligence services are so ineffective.

However, the latter has some roots. One is that Congress destroyed our human intelligence and covert action capabilities, beginning in the 1970s. They fretted that spies get up to nasty things and that couldn't be tolerated. Instead, we relied on satellites and other electronic means that are good at counting strategic missiles and bombers, but lousy at piercing terrorist cells.

Second, our agencies have too many useless former Soviet experts who are waiting to retire, and too few experts on other hot spots. It takes a while to recruit and train an intelligence analyst and I think we are just staffed up for the last war, not this one.

[effgee]

Originally posted by macintologist:
How can we trust a man like Kerry to be president?? ... He has voted for insane things that would harm America. ... Kerry was still wrong to vote to cut intelligence spending by 1%, and this shows how he wants to damage America.

and on a more serious note ... the question you should be asking yourself is whether or not (*) one (= me) should spend so much time in here that one actually skips over an entire paragraph of text and jumps right into answering the post. If I was a staunch advocate of republican values, I'd probably be telling myself that I was simply and passionately defending my cause - since I'm just a rotten communist bastard, it seems ebuddy was right in that I am a psycho and I am hoping to get a padded cell adjacent to the one aberdeenwriter is posting from



... "your guy" might already be harming america ...

• But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
  
  For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
  
  Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones . . .
  
  The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent . . .
  
  All of which brings us to the latest indignity — Bush’s $9.2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year’s budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill.
  
  But Bush’s tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004 federal budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on across the board.
  
  The result: Not only has the House Appropriations military construction panel accepted Bush’s proposed $1.5 billion cut, it voted to reduce construction spending by an additional $41 million next year.
  
  Army Times
  editorial
  June 30, 2003

then, for more general info, read this and verify the validity of those statements for yourself - google is your friend.

quite a few more examples of how "your guy" saves america and is steadfast on defense are available upon request ... tomorrow, though ... enough politics for one day


(* - edited to more adequately express the fact that nobody, especially not me, should spend too much time in here)

[macintologist]

effgee you obviously didn't read my whole post

[jojo gunne]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Kerry will destroy America!

ha ha!

it'll be hard to fix what damage bush has done. it may be impossible.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by jojo gunne:
ha ha!

it'll be hard to fix what damage bush has done. it may be impossible.

I'm curious in hearing how you would go about this, and how many ounces of vaseline you intend to use. Any thoughts ?

[jojo gunne]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I'm curious in hearing how you would go about this, and how many ounces of vaseline you intend to use. Any thoughts ?

you have a healthy supply in your closet?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by jojo gunne:
you have a healthy supply in your closet?

Not really, I'm no appeaser.

[effgee]

Originally posted by macintologist:
effgee you obviously didn't read my whole post

Why, you ... you ... you tricksed us ... you ...



stupid me ... **slapsforehead** ... like I said, too much politics in one day ...

[Asswip�]

I hope bush gets run over by a car and suffer a very slow and miserable death. Then that born again christian **** face can burn in hell.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by effgee:
with what? saddam's wmd's?

If Kerry destroys Americs, it will only be because he extended the culture of dependency past the point where society can be sustained any longer. Mind you, I think it's already past the point where our society can be sustained long-term, but I'd give it another 20 years or so given the status quo. After that, unless there are some truly impressive changes, we're toast.

I don't think Kerry is trying to strengthen the culture of dependency. He is not an evil man, and I believe he would be horrified to learn of the effects that his policies will have in the long term. Nevertheless, he either cannot or will not see these effects; I don't claim to know which is the case. He sees the short-term good, and it is very good indeed, but the long-term dangers he doesn't see are just plain not worth it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

let's see if we can rescue this. There is an excellent article here that I think might be of interest.

Forcing Democrats to 'Get Real' vs. The Spectre of Declinism

By Carroll Andrew Morse

* * *

Sullivan and Hitchens are being overly sanguine. They assume that "getting real" or "taking responsibility" for the war on terror can mean only one thing -- taking action to win the war on terror. (Hitchens has no quarrel with including Iraq as part of the war on terrorism, so I will assume that his idea of compelling the Democrats to get real also applies to the wider war.) The assumed equivalence is not justified.

Unfortunately, given the current state of political discourse, it is necessary to provide a disclaimer before continuing. The criticism of the strategic vision of John Kerry that follows is not an attack on Senator Kerry's patriotism. It is a legitimate question about whether John Kerry and the Democratic leadership believe that winning the war on terror is the duty of the President. This question is not as radical as it may initially sound. The idea that the power of the United States has peaked, and that the world has changed so that American victory is impossible has been influencing American foreign policy action and debate for at least three decades. The idea is called "declinism".

The first important wave of declinism was the Nixon-Carter policy of Détente. The Presidents of the 1970's believed that the idea of winning the Cold War was too confrontational and dangerous in a world where both sides possessed nuclear weapons. They believed that accepting the permanence of an adversary and stabilizing relations between the two sides was the more rational choice. Détente, of course, was eventually repudiated by the Reagan administration.

The next wave of declinism occurred in the mid-1980's. This time, it was more academic, less policy oriented. Yale historian Paul Kennedy, in a book titled The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, argued that the United States had overreached and was destined to contract like other dominant powers of eras past -- the British Empire, Napoleanic France, the Habsburg Monarchy, etc. Many took the rising economic status of Germany and Japan in the 1980's to be a harbinger of the end of the American era. America's economic boom in the 1990's, however, muted the talk of America's impending decline.

Now, a third wave of declinism is taking shape. The new declinists, like the first wave, assume that the idea of pursuing victory is too risky to be considered -- the world is too dangerous, and outright victory over terrorism is not possible for any President. Instead, the primary function of the President should be to manage the damage created by terrorism. Kerry expressed this view in his New York Times interview with Matt Bai, saying "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance". Senator Kerry is not alone in this belief. Just one year after September 11, for example, Arthur Schlesinger wrote an op-ed where he said, "Americans can learn to live with minor terrorism, as the people of Britain, Spain, India, Ireland, Italy, Russia, Sri Lanka and most of the world have already learned to do."


Declinism is the ideological glue that holds the hard left -- who believe that America is in decline because of its evil ways -- together with more mainstream Democrats who believe in America, but fear that the chaotic state of the world means that no nation can protect itself from terror. Once this alliance comes to power based on a shared view of America's decline, it may be difficult for them to ever let go of one another.

It's an interesting thesis. I think the whole thing is worth reading.

[effgee]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If Kerry destroys Americs, it will only be because he extended the culture of dependency past the point where society can be sustained any longer. Mind you, I think it's already past the point where our society can be sustained long-term, but I'd give it another 20 years or so given the status quo. After that, unless there are some truly impressive changes, we're toast.

I don't think Kerry is trying to strengthen the culture of dependency. He is not an evil man, and I believe he would be horrified to learn of the effects that his policies will have in the long term. Nevertheless, he either cannot or will not see these effects; I don't claim to know which is the case. He sees the short-term good, and it is very good indeed, but the long-term dangers he doesn't see are just plain not worth it.

Many, if not most, of the societal problems the US is facing are not rooted in any form of dependency (not sure what aspect of dependency you're refering to but it doesn't really matter that much). A lot of other "first world" societies deal with dependecies in regards to their economy, natural ressources, technology, etc., etc. that are far worse than the ones encountered in the US and yet, while they all have their package to carry, few of them actually face such large-scale societal problems (infant mortality, life expectancy, poverty, medical coverage, violent crime, just to name a few.)

While the caravan-rubbish-crowd will undoubtedly jump in here, screaming "if you're poor it's your own fault, stupid", they're simply too dim to realize that whether they think their tax money pays for these expenditures or not, all of these problems have a massive impact on the country - be it the federal/state budget or loss in productivity on a larger scale (GDP).

There's many factors one could cite to explain the origin of these problems - but a dependency on external factors is not one of them. At least in the context I believe you were using the term.

[macintologist]

I was hoping this thread would be about Kerry "gutting" the intelligence budget!

[cold_reality]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I hear he voted to let wolves roam free in our country.

Ya I saw that commercial too. Are we fightin terrorists or wolves?


I thought is was about nature or somethin. Bush and an untouched wilderness forest go to together like an oil spill in the ocean.

[Landos Mustache]

Do all Americans live in constant fear like this?

[effgee]

Originally posted by cold_reality:
Ya I saw that commercial too. Are we fightin terrorists or wolves? ...

That's classified ... but **ssshhhhh** among us commies ... it's "terrorists in wolves' clothing".

[mr. natural]

Posted by SimeyTheLimey:

..our agencies have too many useless former Soviet experts who are waiting to retire, and too few experts on other hot spots.

Yeah, you can say that again, and a big problem starts and ends right here:



Like a fish out of water, Condi has proven to be the most inept NSA ever!

Along with Dubya's upcoming retirement party, I can't wait to retire this "Don't Look At Me For Answers" bimbo.

Un-****ing-Believable.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
We spent it in the 1990s. That's why our Army is now two divisions too small according to Kerry (at least 4 too small in my opinion) and why our intelligence services are so ineffective.

However, the latter has some roots. One is that Congress destroyed our human intelligence and covert action capabilities, beginning in the 1970s. They fretted that spies get up to nasty things and that couldn't be tolerated. Instead, we relied on satellites and other electronic means that are good at counting strategic missiles and bombers, but lousy at piercing terrorist cells.

Don't forget those satellites are also good for targeting guided bombs and missiles. What would an antiseptic war be without them? It's a case of managing resources and vision. How many human operatives could we afford if we did without one B2 bomber?

Second, our agencies have too many useless former Soviet experts who are waiting to retire, and too few experts on other hot spots. It takes a while to recruit and train an intelligence analyst and I think we are just staffed up for the last war, not this one.

You don't know but you're hitting close to home on that one. Brother-in-law was a Army Russian linguist (trained at the DLI here in Monterey) who recently retired. So, I'd agree with you on that one.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
We spent it in the 1990s. That's why our Army is now two divisions too small according to Kerry (at least 4 too small in my opinion) and why our intelligence services are so ineffective.

So you prefer Kerry's military transformation plan over Bush/Rumsfeld's?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
Do all Americans live in constant fear like this?

Certainly not. But with politicians like these, it's hard not to live in fear around election time. Not that they're all that much better anywhere else, but the US political system loads power towards individuals rather than parties, which gives a good politician much more potential to do good but also gives an inept politician much more potential to do damage. I still think that this is as it should be, but it's not without side effects.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
So you prefer Kerry's military transformation plan over Bush/Rumsfeld's?

On the numbers, I think Kerry is going in the right direction. However, that's pretty bipartisan as Congress has already passed legislation to increase the Army by 30,000. However, I think Kerry is right that the numbers should be reflected in additional deliniated and flagged active duty divisions. But he only wants to add two, whereas I think at least 4 are needed. I also think his idea of designating certain divisions as "support" divisions is downright stupid.

Kerry's opposition to withdrawing troops from Europe is also stupid. He seems to think it is important for tens of thousands of troops to sit guarding Germany from the Soviet Union when there is no Soviet Union, I guess because he thinks that we ought to be providing German civilians with government contract jobs. That doesn't make any sense to me. You send troops where they are needed for strategic and tactical reasons, not just out of habit or for the economic convenience of others.

One of the reasons Rumsfeld has been so unpopular with the Brass is because he has been pushing the military to get out of its comfortable Cold War mindset. This isn't entirely new, the Clinton Administration was also trying to get the Army to go lighter. That's why there are new lighter and more mobile vehicles now being deployed like the Stryker. However, the Army is rather tradition-bound and wedded to the big Cold War weapons systems and formations. The same goes for the Air Force, which is wedded to fighters when the current war needs more unglamorous aircraft like transport planes, and the same with the Navy, where we need more sea transport. People's careers are tied up with stability of those ways of doing business. I admire Rumsfeld for taking on the sacred cows that need to be taken on to transform the military from a static-based Cold War force into something that can respond quicker and more lethally.

So basically, I agree with the imaginative and creative restructuring plans of Rumsfeld/Bush over the unimaginative and uncreative conservativism of Kerry. But I do agree with Kerry that we need more divisions. There is only so much you can do with technology and we can't keep up this pace with an armed forces 1/2 the size it was when it went to war in 1991. However, those divisions to be useful have to be combat divisions. Preferably, highly deployable ones. Just adding two divisions and calling them support won't fix the problems. And keeping troops in Germany so as not to upset Schroeder is just dumb.

[macintologist]

bump!

[Link]

haha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahahhshah ahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah hahahahahahahahahahahhaa

*looks at all the people saying this stuff and believing it*

hahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahaha hhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahah ahahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahhahaha hahaahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhah ahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaaha hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahh ahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahahah ahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha haahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahah ahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaahaha hahahahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahhah ahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahah hahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahaha ahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahah ahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaahahaha hahahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahhahah ahahaahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahha hahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaah ahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahah hahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahaha hahhahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahhahahah ahaa

This is all a bunch of FUD. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt..

FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD

[mitchell_pgh]

I find your sig horribly disrespectful

[effgee]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I find your sig horribly disrespectful ...

If you'd like to voice your concern about my sig send me a pm or, if that floats your boat, open a new thread and we'll talk about it. Let the folks in here discuss whether or not "Kerry will destroy America!!", alright?

[Rygar]

Originally posted by effgee:


with what? saddam's wmd's?

I heard one Bush supporter say "To most people, explosives are weapons of mass destruction" So if the U.S. has ever found a box of grenades, they've stubbled onto a stock pile of WMD's !!!!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
let's see if we can rescue this. There is an excellent article that I think might be of interest. It's an interesting thesis. I think the whole thing is worth reading.

It was and it isn't that lengthy, either!