John Kerry & the Republicans.....THE TRUTH!

[Gimpy]

Well...........it's time to set the "record " straight!

Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:

"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. ? The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."

The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

"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."

In the years under Cheney the budgets proposed and the final outcomes followed patterns similar to the FY 1990 budget experience. Early in 1991 the secretary unveiled a plan to reduce military strength by the mid-1990s to 1.6 million, compared to 2.2 million when he entered office . In his budget proposal for FY 1993, his last one, Cheney asked for termination of the B-2 program at 20 aircraft, cancellation of the Midgetman, and limitations on advanced cruise missile purchases to those already authorized.

When introducing this budget, Cheney complained that Congress had directed Defense to buy weapons it did not want, including the V-22, M-1 tanks, and F-14 and F-16 aircraft, and required it to maintain some unneeded reserve forces. His plan outlined about $50 billion less in budget authority over the next 5 years than the Bush administration had proposed in 1991.

Over Cheney's four years as secretary of defense, encompassing budgets for fiscal years 1990-93, DoD's total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291.3 billion to $269.9 billion. Except for FY 1991, when the TOA budget increased by 1.7 percent, the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent , from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000-25.8 percent of its strength. The Air Force declined by 22.3 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 9.7 percent.

Cheney proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems.

"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 M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s?all great systems ? but we have enough of them."

And then, in the last election he (Cheney) had the unmitigated GALL to say, "?I do not presume to speak for the military, but I am now speaking to them,? Cheney said. ?To all of our men and women in uniform, and to their parents and families: Help is on the way!?, end quote! Man did THAT turn out to be a WHOPPER of a LIE! What a HYPOCITE!

The Republican operatives might also have noticed Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.

Granted, these reductions were made in the wake of the Cold War's demise. But that's just the point: Proposed cuts must be examined in context . A vote against a particular weapons system doesn't necessarily indicate indifference toward national defense.

Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.

The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut?the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.

It is instructive to look at the footnotes however . Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans, you don't see the administration screaming about THEM though, DO YOU?)) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank and complete dishonesty .

Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference recently, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, informs what that cut was about : The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money?not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.

An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself. HUH???) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq?but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.

The B-2 came into being as an aircraft that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.

In the latest war, B-2s?modified to carry conventional munitions?were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars?the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions?there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.

The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.

Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.

At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But not the ones the republicans keep misleading us about!
######

Now, if you want to focus on something John Kerry said in 1971, that's fine. I said some things back then that I or you might not agree with now. But I would also point to something else John Kerry (and I when entering the Army) said earlier, back in the 60's when he joined the Navy: "I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." I am certain that he has remained steadfast and he will never waver from that oath. Neither will I.

I don't mind painful facts. But, I deeply resent selective memory and falsehood. I resent it even more when it comes from second stringers and bench sitters like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, etc, etc,....... who never got in the game.

Everyone needs to also read the Book "Home to War, A history of the Vietnam Veterans Movement" by Gerald Nicosta, Corte Madera, Calif Crown Publisher, 2001, of which many have called it one of the best books of the Vietnam era.

Gerald Nicosia spent 12 years researching and writing his massive history, HOME TO WAR, a comprehensive, 33-year chronicle of Vietnam veteran activism, readjustment, and healing.

It has already garnered great praise, including starred reviews in PUBLISHERS WEEKLY and LIBRARY JOURNAL, which BTW, wrote:?The frequently heroic, more often tragic saga of the veterans who fought in the war and then fought against it is told in this gripping narrative, which takes hold of the reader with its haunting cover and doesn't let go for almost 700 pages.?

It has been called ?an epic, narrative history that chronicles, for the first time, the experience of America?s Vietnam veterans, who returned home to fight a different kind of war.?

As we all know, the 3.4 million Americans who served in Vietnam fought two wars: one on the other side of the world and one for the hearts and minds of their countrymen when they returned home. Based on 600 interviews and 12 years of research, HOME TO WAR is the definitive history of that second war.

HOME TO WAR paints a fresh picture of the American war heroes who were rejected by the nation in whose name they fought and by the government that sent them to risk life, limb, and spirit in Southeast Asia. It chronicles their heroic?and ultimately victorious? battle on the home front, from their role in the anti-war movement to their campaign for medical help and compensation for Agent Orange exposure and post-traumatic stress wounds.

And, as this book states...............John Kerry did "not" emcee the winter soldier investigation in Detroit. It was emceed by several Vietnam veterans leaders of the VVAW, includingScott Moore, Mike Oliver, and AL Hubbard. The veterans testifying were carefully screened by the VVAW, and no "imposters" have ever been uncovered.

It is true that Jane Fonda did fund the Winter Soldier Investigation, but she did not finance the VVAW in any of it's other activities. John Kerry was not one of the original founding members of VVAW in 1967.

Furthermore Sen. Kerry's reference to atrocities was a very small part of his landmark speech to the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Mainly he spoke of American troops who felt abandoned by their government, and of their "sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped". Anybody can read the speech themselves

Several versions of stories about Kerry throwing his medals back, at the Vow's Dewey Canyon Convention Demonstration at the Capitol in April 1971. Records of his speech indicate he was quite clear about throwing back the medals of two close friends who had asked him to do so, one of them was still in a VA hospital.
####


Below are some more reviews for the book, Home to War:

?Home to War is a superbly researched book that needed to be written. It sets forth in compelling detail a whole other dimension of America?s tragic war in Vietnam, which, until now, has never been completely captured.?

-General Harold G. Moore, author of We Were Soldiers Once?And Young ###

?Home to War is simply the best. Gerry Nicosia has written the definitive story of the deep sense of human and humane conscience among ordinary soldiers during an extraordinary time in American history. Read this book and discover why the epoch of our war in Vietnam still keenly reverberates from the kitchen tables and porches, newspapers and journals, as well as classrooms all across this country.?

-Larry Heinemann, author of PAC's Story
###

?Gerry Nicosia has an uncommon understanding of the struggle of veterans to give meaning to their war and a struggle, too, to redeem themselves. Home to War is a powerful history of our times.?

-Gloria Emerson, author of Winners and Losers
###

?Home to War is a fascinating account of the generation of young Americans whose lives were thrown into turmoil and put at risk by the Vietnam War, of their bravery under enemy fire over there and their bravery under political fire at home.?

-Senator Alan Cranston, Chair, Veterans? Affairs Committee
###

?Every Vietnam veteran should read this remarkable book. It?s a part of our history that a lot of us don?t know anything about, and it?s essential for an understanding of how the war finally came to an end and what happened to the soldiers who fought it.?

-Angelo J. ?Charlie? Liteky, awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for ?exceptional heroism? while serving with the 199th Light Infantry Brigade on December 6, 1967, in Bien Hoa Province, Republic of Vietnam. ###

?After war, we forget. We lose history. Home to War is about veterans of the war in Vietnam who take on the responsibility of remembering. They serve again by telling the consequences of war. Gerald Nicosia has written a history that we as a nation have not faced. This book is a must-read if we are to understand the America we have become.?

-Maxine Hong Kingston, author of The Woman Warrior
###

?Home to War is an extraordinary achievement of research and writing. Its eloquence and power will serve the cause of justice for veterans, but also give to all Americans a sobering lesson about war, peace, and broken promises. I hope it will be widely read.?

-Howard Zinn, author of A People?s History of the United States
###

Blurbs for Home to War -- Page 3?A quarter century after the Vietnam War ended, the story of the Vietnam Veterans? Movement remains compelling. In this captivating work by Gerry Nicosia, the voices and stories of these American veterans force us to confront the issues of the war and the question of why soldiers who came home to peace could find none. The sense of loss and waste that pervades Home to War is overwhelming.?

-Duong Van Mai Elliott, author of The Sacred Willow: Four Generations in the
Life of a Vietnamese Family ###

?Home to War describes the complex history of those Vietnam veterans who returned to America (long before the 58,000-plus names of those killed-in-action were etched on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial) with the sincere conviction that the war was both misdirected and poorly-led. Refusing to be silent about the things they had learned, this generation of veterans protested in ways both creative and destructive?and Nicosia portrays it all in a book that is well-researched, well-written and ultimately courageous.?

-Asa Baber, ?Men? columnist, Playboy Magazine ###

?Home to War captures America?s struggle to heal the wounds of a war too many?particularly those at the highest levels of our government?would have preferred to forget. From triple canopy jungles along the Ho Chi Minh trail and the waters of the Mekong Delta, to VA hospitals across the nation, heated debates in both chambers of Congress, and an incredible grassroots movement led by Vietnam veterans aiming to keep faith with their brothers and sisters in arms"Gerry Nicosia?s important new book ties together the many threads of a difficult period in our history every American should take the time to understand in its totality.? ?He for the first time puts together a history that has been an intimate part of the lives of thousands of us in the veterans? community over the past 30 years?makes a coherent whole of that journey toward healing and recognition, which otherwise would probably have been forgotten. Thanks to Gerald Nicosia, these people and events are now preserved and will be remembered. This book needs to be on every library shelf in America.?

-Colonel David H. Hackworth, author of About Face
####

I HAVE TO SAY THAT SINCE THOSE PROTESTS BY THE VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR WE HAVE WITNESSED BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES (I'M NOT AFAID TO SAY THAT!) ALLOW THE BENEFITS OF OUR VETERANS, MILITARY RETIREES, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY OUR TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES DETERIORATE. BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESSES AND ADMINISTRATIONS ARE TO BLAIM FOR ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, FOR NOT TAKING NOTICE UNTIL WARTIME. HOWEVER, THIS LATEST REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESS HAVE FAILED EVEN MORE THAN THE PREVIOUS POLITICIANS TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS AFTER MAKING PROMISE AFTER PROMISE TO CORRECT THE SHORTCOMINGS AND DISARAY IN THE VA SYSTEM. NOT TO MENTION THE OUTRAGEOUS TREATMENT OF OUR CURRENT ACTIVE DUTY TROOPS!

VIETNAM VETS ROLE IN THE VIETNAM ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT MAY BE OVER, BUT IT IS EVIDENT BY THE PRONOUNCEMENTS COMING OUT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND ONE WHO LED THE VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR THAT OUR CAMPAIGN FOR MEDICAL HELP NOT ONLY FOR VETERANS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS, BUT FOR THE NATION AS WELL, COMPENSATION AND TREATMENT FOR ALL VETERANS WHO SUFFER AS A RESULT OF WAR, AND FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF THOSE WHO SERVE TODAY AND THEIR FAMILIES STILL GOES ON.

GETTING A VETERANS-VETERAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS ONLY A FIRST STEP. GIVING HIM A MANDATE IN THE CONGRESS WITH A GRASS ROOTS EFFORT TO FORCE THE CONGRESS TO PASS JOHN KERRY'S AGENDA IS WHERE THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD. AND...............THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO BE DOING IN THESE NEXT FEW MONTHS!

HELPING THAT HAPPEN!

IT IS FAR PAST TIME FOR THE REPUBLICANS TO ....................GO!

[MORTARDUDE]

Gimpy :

Great post, analysis, and follow-up !!! You Da Man !!!

Larry

[SuperScout]

[Some of this is direct quotes, some editorial comment of my own, which will appear between the brackets.]

During his war protest days in the early 1970s, Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry once denounced the United States of America as "the real criminal" in the Vietnam War. [Did he ever bother to read or examine or see who really invaded whom?]

In comments first reported by the New York Times 33 years ago, Kerry condemned the entire country as "criminal" [speak for yourself, Johnnie] during a 1971 demonstration on Wall Street, a few weeks after the trial of Lt. William Calley. "Guilty as Lieutenant Calley may have been of the actual act of murder, the verdict does not single out the real criminal ... the United States of America," railed the future Democratic presidential hopeful.
The damning comment was unearthed by the Baltimore Sun, which reprinted Kerry's outburst in its Saturday edition exactly as quoted above.

The Sun also revisited other anti-war comments by Kerry that have yet to receive significant exposure, including remarks Kerry uttered on NBC's "Meet the Press" a few weeks after the Wall Street protest.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others," he told the network, "in that I shot in free-fire zones, fired .50-caliber machine bullets, used harass-and-interdiction fire, joined in search-and-destroy missions and burned villages." [Since when did these acts constitute an act of atrocity, per se? If he knew about, or witnessed this mass scene of war crimes, as he alleges, why didn't he have the moral fiber, intestinal fortitude, or simple cajones to report it? Is he just a gutless wonder, or a a lying grandstander?]

Though NBC has the Kerry interview on tape, it has so far declined to broadcast his revealing comments.
The Sun also obtained reactions from two of Kerry's Swift Boat mates in Vietnam, who told the paper they were deeply disturbed by his anti-war activities. Kerry crewman James Wasser said he was "absolutely upset" over his former commanding officer's claims that the U.S. committed wartime atrocities as a matter of course. Saying he recalled no such war crimes, Wasser said of Kerry, "I felt betrayed."

Shipmate Bill Zaladonis was also offended by Kerry's claims. "I didn't like the idea [of Kerry condemning his fellow servicemen]," he told the Sun. "I certainly didn't believe that all Vietnam veterans were baby-killing women rapers. Most people I know agree with me - they didn't see it."

[For the hundreds of Vietnam veterans that I know personally, and the thousands more that I know through cyber-greetings, I know of no such atrocities that Kerry speaks of, and am grossly and profoundly insulted by his grandstanding lies which are only designed to make himself look good. What he has committed is an unforgiveable sin. He had no proof then, and he has no honor now.]

[Gimpy]

of "unforgiveable sins" committed by THIS administration.............and for the hundreds and hundreds of Vietnam Vets that I personally know and have contact with via service organizations, VA hospital volunteer work, internet access and political action activities I can say for SURE that George Bushs' days are "numbered"!

In the face of the Bush Administration?s failures, it's obvious what kind of campaign the Bush attack machine (and its' surrogates) will run. They did it to John McCain in South Carolina in 2000. They did it to my friend Max Cleland in Georgia in 2002 and continue to berate him even today with the horrible, insensitive remarks by Ann Coulter as recently as last week when attempting to downplay Kerry's friendship with him!

Well, it?s not going to work in 2004 ? for a very simple reason. They?re extreme. We who support John Kerry are mainstream ? and we?re going to stand up and fight back.

While this administration wraps itself in the flag and beats the war drum upon it's chest, most of whom BTW never wore a uniform and/or avoided combat service, send our children in harms way, and BEHIND their backs scheme and manipulate ways to cut their benefits, their pay, inadequately equip them, and over extend them.

The republicans and their mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and others now say they want to campaign on national security......... BULLSHIT!..... But this is the same Administration that slashes health care for veterans, attempts to cut combat pay for our troops in the field, makes injured soldiers pay for their own hospital meals, and forces our men and women in Iraq to buy their own body armor. How is it that any veteran could justify this administrations actions?? John Kerry and those who support him are fighting for the mainstream value of a stronger America ? and for the ideal that the first duty of patriotism is to honor those who wear and have worn the uniform of the United States. Not DENY them the benefits, pay, equipment, health care and dependent care they deserve as the Bush administration has done!

[reconeil]

YOUR typically echoed character assassinations like: "The republicans and their mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and others say they want to campaign on national security....BULLSHIT!"............IS A DEAD GIVEAWAY.

In fact, such typical and adnauseamly echoed Democratic public defamations of character for financial and/or political reward,...are actually libellous.

Besides, do Americans want THOSE (re. Dems/Libs/Leftists) IN POWER whom just want to: "RECAPTURE(WOW!!!...a very exposing word) The White House"?
Wouldn't Americans be much wiser preferring THOSE (re. Republicans and/or: "The Party of Lincoln") IN POWER whom want to: "Protect The American People" ABOVE ALL ELSE?

The too,...who needs the likes of Kerry, Kennedy and such governing America, much the same as political-machinerun Massachusetts? America deserves much better.

Granted, New Jersey is in much the same boat and/or one of the highest taxed by politicos states in America (if not the highest taxed?). But, SO WHAT??? Why foolishly make the entire Nation suffer political-machinerun rule,...just so some ruling elite in straw hats can sing: "Happy Days Are Here Again". America deserves better than even a New Jersey type governance.

Want such type socialistic rule? Some career zealots and/or politicos should move to France, Germany or Russia,...or amongst those more like-minded and/or more people-control oriented.

Neil :d: :b:

[colmurph]

Gimpy....do you want to see America subserviant to a "One World Government" under the United Nations? If so...then vote for Kerry as that is what he and the rest of the Democratic Party heirarchy want. I for one DON"T want to live in a United States that has given up it's soverignty to another Government. To me, putting Kerry into the White House would be like re-writing history and having Benedict Arnold as our second president. Kerry was a traitor after Vietnam. If you read the boards over on SOCNET you will find that there are a lot of Vietnam Vets who have some serious questions about the validity of his "Silver Star" and the 3 Purple Hearts as well. Having read the circumstances of the action that got him the Silver Star I question his status as a "Hero".

[Gimpy]

I'll tell you like I tell everyone else. You're falling for the same propaganda and misinformation from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann (nazi) Coulter, et al that will continue to try and warp and mislead folks into believing their happy horseshit!

And, I've got a "question" for YOU:

How is it that any veteran could justify this administrations actions??

This is the same Administration that schemes and manipulates its way to slashe health care for veterans, attempts to cut combat pay for our troops in the field, makes injured soldiers pay for their own hospital meals, and forces our men and women in Iraq to buy their own body armor. And have allowed the VA adjudication system to become so fouled up that it now takes more than THREE and one-half YEARS to get disability compensation case appeal heard by the Board of Veterans Appeals and some veterans are waiting up to a YEAR for treatment at VA hospitals and health centers????

And you tell ME that this is bringing "HONOR & INTEGRITY " back to the whitehouse??

Naw................I'll go with KERRY thank you very much!

[SuperScout]

Over the weekend, my bride and I helped stage a bon voyage party for son #2 prior to his deployment to Iraq later this week. One of the guests, and as it turned out, a fellow deployee, was a young captain, currently assigned as the S-2 of an aviation unit that will be stationed just north of where our lad will be. This captain had recently returned from Iraq, having been sent there on a pre-deployment recon for a TDY of 3-4 weeks. Naturally, I grilled him rather extensively about conditions, enemy situation, pre-positioned logistics, load plans, and everything else that was not classified. Of particular note was the issue of alleged lack of body armor. And contrary to all the tales of woe being spewed out by a media that has consistently been anti-military, his research revealed that there is no such shortage now, and that the only shortage existed for personnel in Kuwait, the jump off point for transit to Iraq. This shortage has long been erased, and every warrior sent northward is issued the requisite equipment. Were this not the reality, you can bet your sweet ass that this old warrior would have been in a shopping spree to acquire the needed stuff, not only for son #2, but for his unit as well. Fortunately for my credit card balance, this purchase was totally unnecessary! And oh yeah, combat pay has been increased.

I add this point for several reasons, first to dispel the prevailing myth that our warriors are ill-equipped, and also to remind you gentle readers that some of these current reporters have a distinct agenda in their stories. That same credit card will back up my wager that many if not all these tales of woe and foreboding are cranked up by the sons of the scorpions who ill-served us some 3 decades ago. It was the same mindset that leapt to publish all the unfounded lies and insults hurled by the 1970's-era Johnnie Kerry, simply because the press was too lazy or too stupid to seek validation of the bogus charges of widespread brutality and war crimes. Kerry knew it was a lie then, he knows it was a lie now, and he has failed to acknowledge his lack of moral fiber, decency and integrity by admitting his gross mistake.

This upcoming election is more than the simple, yet unresolved and under-funded issue of veterans care. For all the current ills of the VA system, I would simply repeat what I wrote before: the Democrats had 40 years of control to do something, and they failed or forgot to. And as one much more brilliant than I once wrote hereabouts, "When you're dead, you don't need benefits." With a profound grasp of the larger picture, he noted that waging a successful war against terrorism is the first priority of the government, for without that, all the benefits and promises therein are mute. The string of "successes" of the internationalists - Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Ruanda, etc. etc. - should be more than ample evidence that we don't need that variety of lunacy anywhere near the White House. People like Kerry who think we need the approval and blessings of the UN before acting in our national interest are a threat to our sovereignty. His failure to act with integrity in the past makes him patently unfit to govern in the future.

[Gimpy]

First and foremost my deepest, heartfelt wishes for a safe trip and deployment for your son to Iraq. He will be in my thoughts and prayers. As will you and your wife and families time of concern and worry while he is away. God speed and blessings of protection to him and all our troops over there.

But, you're badly mistaken about that "alledged body armor" shortage.

Just as recent as only shortly over 2 months ago retired Col. David Hackworth had this to say about that issue.

*****************
12-20-2003
Hack's Target
Have Vest, Will Loan

By David H. Hackworth

My British-made bulletproof Tetranike vest served me well in the badlands of ex-Yugoslavia, Somalia and Latin America back in my days as a war correspondent ? that is, before darling wife Eilhys changed the drill.

But that doesn?t mean the vest is also retired. No sirree. Since 9-11, my trusty Tetranike has served one tour with the Army in Afghanistan and three in Iraq: with the Army, FBI and presently protecting a retired ?snake eater? who?s training the Iraqi police force.

The reason that sucker?s so well-traveled is that the Bush administration just can?t get its priorities right when it comes to giving each and every one of our soldiers the right stuff to kick up the odds of their making it through the hit-and-run hell of insurgent combat.

About 40,000 of our sons and daughters in harm?s way in Iraq actually have to buy, borrow, beg or go without adequate body armor because a bumbling Pentagon bureaucracy hasn?t been issuing 100 percent of our troops the very best full metal jacket money can buy ? even though the money has been long appropriated.

Worried moms and pops are sending vests to their kids in care packages that in other conflicts contained cookies and Kool-Aid. A manufacturer?s ad in Army Magazine says it all: ?Our vest could be the best four pounds a soldier ever gained.?

The latest vests ? worn by a large percentage of our luckier grunts ? are composed of layered sheets of Kevlar with pockets in front and back for ceramic plates to protect vital organs and will stop a point-blank 7.62 small-arms fire. One-third lighter than the Vietnam-type gear, they, of course, aren?t the final solution, but they?re far better than anything else the engineers have cooked up to date.

Our soldiers swear by them ? and so do the docs. Body armor saves lives and has well-demonstrated its bullet- and shrapnel-stopping efficiency in bad places like Somalia, Afghanistan and now daily in Iraq ? where so far about 2,000 soldiers have been killed or wounded.

If these more modern flak jackets aren?t preventing hundreds of legs and arms from being blown off ? keeping the docs at Army hospitals like Walter Reed burning the midnight oil ? at least they?re standing between more of our kids and the morgue.
But too many troopers in Iraq tell me they still have Vietnam-era antiques that are about as effective as wrapping cotton batting around their torsos.

The reason for this Pentagon criminal negligence is twofold: first, the $310 million Congress approved for the vests got parked at various places, where bucks were siphoned off for noncombat-related items; and second, the Army has treated the vest issue the way it handles routine requisitions, such as portable toilets and tent poles.

Soldiers for the Truth executive retired Marine Lt. Col. Roger Charles was dead on target when he said, ?The Pentagon has handled the replacement of body armor as though it?s a routine general-issue item.?

A few years back, the top supply brass decided to implement a one-for-one exchange of new vests for old vests. Apparently, the realities of Afghanistan and Iraq still haven?t hit the radar screen of these logistics wizards, so biz-as-usual continues to be the order of the day ? despite the mounting casualties.

Congress is about to approve about $65 billion for the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Bush & Company haven't included one penny for body armor, even though the cost of the extraordinary security precautions on the president?s recent Asian tour would cover a vest for every soldier seconded to the Iraqi sand traps.

For sure, enough cash would be skimmed off that giant pile of taxpayer dough to fix this critical problem if Rummy, Gen. Richard Myers and a few of the Pentagon supply generals were outfitted with obsolete vests and sent off with our serving heroes to patrol the mean streets of Iraq.

The vests would suddenly be exchanged as quickly as Abrams tanks? and Bradley Fighting Vehicles? tracks get replaced ? with U.S. plants working three shifts and the heavy tracks then rushed by air to the battlefield.

Which is the way it always should be.

If we don't take care of our troops, how can they take care of us?

#####################


He also had this to say about a "shortage" of ammo.

****************
01-05-2004
Hack's Target

An Army Short of Ammo
By David H. Hackworth

?Bang, bang. You're dead.?

Neighborhood kids playing soldier in an empty lot with wooden rifles?

Nope! Regular United States warriors, during Exercise Crocodile ?03 at Shoalwater Bay, Australia, ?fighting? an Aussie reserve unit.

?We were loaded down with far more blank ammunition than we could fit in our ammunition pouches, but when we made ?contact? with the Yanks, we found that many of them had almost no blank training rounds,? Aussie Pvt. Simon Parmiter said.

?On several occasions when we opened fire we received perhaps half a dozen shots in return before the riflemen started yelling, ?Bang, bang? back at us, while the SAW ? Squad Automatic Weapon ? gunners shouted, ?Bullets, bullets, bullets?,? Parmiter continued.

?It was incredible ? the best-equipped military in the world was reduced to yelling at us instead of firing.?
?With the recent news that that unit will return to Iraq, I assume many of the chaps yelling, ?Bullets, bullets, bullets ... ? will soon find themselves in the real thing ? hopefully with more realistic training behind them, but if the shortage of live ammunition is as bad as the shortage of blank ammo appears to be, one has to wonder.?

Spoken with the wisdom of an Australian Digger, aka a mud grunt.
This report and similar accounts of ammo shortages during the past few months have caused me to check into this story with great urgency. Because soldiers fight as they train ? which, by the way, is the U.S. Army?s most heavily exercised mantra ? an Army without sufficient training ammo is an Army that will fail on the battlefield.

I posted a ?help wanted? ad on my Hackworth.com web page, and within 24 hours had received more than 500 messages from serving Army troops in the United States preparing for deployment to hot battlefields like Iraq or Afghanistan, as well as from warriors all over the world, confirming that our soldiers don?t have sufficient stocks of live or blank training ammo to prepare adequately for combat.

Although Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gary Tallman was most cooperative, it took him several weeks to line up the experts. When asked why, he said, ?Some folks here are busy playing ?pass the grenade.? ?

For sure, the ammo-shortage problem is a live grenade. But eventually I did speak with Brig. Gen. Louis Weber and Lt. Col. Susan Carlson.

Weber, recently back from Iraq ? where he served with the spearhead unit that took Baghdad ? insisted that the ?Army has adequate ammo for training and deployed units.? But he did admit that there was a lot of ground truth in the reports I?d received from the troops.

Gen. Weber explained that the Army ammo inventory includes 350 different lines of munitions, and that fragmentation grenades and blank training ammo are a problem, along with 23 other lines of ammo. When I asked for a list of the shortages, the Pentagon declined to provide it in the interests of ?operational security.?

Tallman assured me that small-arms-training ammunition is now the No. 1 single line item for procurement dollars for the 2004 budget. ?The Army will spend just over $1 billion, ahead of Stryker, upgrades for Apache, Abrams, CH-47, MLRS, procurement of communications systems and procurement of medium and heavy tactical vehicles,? he said.

West Point-trained Lt. Col. Carlson ? coincidentally the daughter of retired Col. Jerry Carlson, who served with great distinction alongside of me in Korea and Vietnam ? said that our Lake City ammo plant in Missouri ?has gone to three shifts.?

Sources say that Lake City ? both the largest Army ammo facility in the world and the producer of all the Pentagon?s small-arms ammo ? has reached ?capacity? and ?units in the field still don't have the right stuff to do the job.?

A regular Army major just back from Iraq says: ?President Bush told the armed forces, ?Help is on the way.? But in Iraq and now in the training business, I?ve seen very little help, but a whole lot of pork.?

You?d think that our Congress would have the good sense to read the coffee grains and demand that we reopen other ammo plants to prepare for a long, dangerous and most critical global war in which our very way of life is at stake.

######################

He also had this to say about recent problems within military veterans issues.

01-12-2004
Hack's Target
Politicians ? Read This before Self-Destructing

By David H. Hackworth

The recycled Pentagon types now merrily selling their ?expertise? to the weapon-makers and the rest of the current crop of shakers and takers who make up today?s military-industrial-congressional greed machine are as usual sucking up big bucks, while many of our vets continue to get the shaft. Also as usual.

Wesley Clark summed up what?s going down in a recent campaign speech: ?We've got veterans hospitals closing; we?ve got people who have to drive six hours to get a checkup; we?ve got veterans that are waiting six months to get an appointment ... that?s not health care."

If elected, Clark promises to add $2 billion to the vet health-care budget. ?We?ve got to fix the veterans? issues here in America,? he said. ?We're going to put the full funding we need to get the Veterans Affairs to meet our ... former service members? needs.?

Since 1996, the VA?s workload has increased from 3 million to 7 million vets without a comparable increase in operating funds. There?s presently neither the money nor the infrastructure to take care of all those who paid the hard price when Uncle Sam said, ?I want you.?

Which is why the enrollment of thousands of eligible vets in the category designated as Priority Group 8 ? non-service disabled vets and those with incomes higher than $24,000 a year ? were dropped like a live grenade last year.

According to VA honcho Anthony Principi, this suspension affects only the lowest priority group in the VA?s eight-tier system ? vets in Group 8. But he says Priority 8s already enrolled will be ?grandfathered? and allowed to continue in the VA health-care system.

?Who is Principi to play God?? asks Vietnam vet Lawrence Tahler. ?When is a vet not a vet, and why should these good men and women be penalized for not getting their paperwork in before some bureaucrat arbitrarily decides to change the system??

?I'm a Priority 8 Vietnam vet who was denied enrollment,? Donald Schlotz says. ?As a result, I annually spend over $7,000 on health insurance for promised care that would otherwise be provided by the VA. It looks to me like the Bush administration is trying to save money at the expense of vets who were assured they?d have health care for life.? Millions of vets who agree with Schlotz are angry because they believe the Bush administration has looked the other way when it comes to the aging veteran population.

?This action against Priority 8 vets is outrageous,? Schlotz says. ?It's particularly distasteful that this now pits vets against each other for benefits, rather than providing benefits for all. Moreover, by ?grandfathering? some vets, it discriminates between similarly situated vets based on nothing other than when they applied for benefits.?

The Priority 8s are the victims of a government that?s forgotten George Washington?s sage warning, ?The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.?

While Clark has low-balled the money needed to get the VA program back on track, he's spot on when it comes to the 2004 election. Veterans ? and there are millions of them from sea to shining sea ? have vowed to hold our politicians? feet to the fire this time around to make sure they honor our nation's sacred obligation to the men and women whose sacrifices have made our country the freest in the world.

Principi recently said, ?Our veterans deserve nothing less than the best a grateful nation has to offer.?

Sounds good. But Principi, the president and Congress should be told that America?s vets need action, not more glowing words. Payback begins at home. Our country?s service heroes must be properly looked after before the rest of the world gets any more goodies. And certainly before the powers that be give another thought to colonizing the moon or Mars.

##############

And, yeah I keep hearing about those "last 40 years" the democrats had to "fix it"..............But............now it's been TEN YEARS since the republicans have had it to "fix" and damned if ain't WORSE now than it was then!

[colmurph]

Gimpy...if you believe everything that Hackworth spews out of his garbage hole, I've got some Oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

[MORTARDUDE]

Gimpy :

Your efforts are commendable and worthy of praise, but these two are a lost cause...Just IMHO.

Larry

[Gimpy]

Unfortunately I believe you're right!

But, I'm sure as hell gonna keep tryin!

PS-Murph.............Just a few short yaers ago when "HacK' was hammering Clinton for HIS misdeeds you fine folks were chanting the PRAISES and heaping glorification of what an astute and intelligent military "expert" and judge of character he was????

Now......all of a sudden...since he's begun to point out the LACK of CHARACTER of GEE-W and his cronies and vile the actions (and IN-actions) they're guilty of.............NOW he's "spewing garbage" Huh?

NOW I GET IT!

As long as he points out the misgivings of Democrats .....it's OK, right?

But, NOT Bush & Company.................then he's just another "pundit" trashing those self-righteous jerks! :md:

[SuperScout]

There was no stopping Kerry?s assault on the Pentagon. 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. The average newspaper-reading American, of course, recognizes these systems as the veritable tip of the spear that not only crushed Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War but also smashed the Taliban in Afghanistan and punched through to Baghdad in the second Gulf War.
Once in the Senate, where he has been entrenched for the last 19 years, Kerry amassed an impressive record of defense bashing.

Here is a brief history of Kerry's anti-military voting record:

? In 1991 Kerry voted to cut defense spending by 2 percent. Only 21 other senators voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated.
? In 1991, Kerry voted to cut over $3 billion from defense and shift the funds to social programs. Only 27 senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut.
? In 1992, Kerry voted to cut $6 billion from defense. Republicans and Democrats alike successfully blocked this attempt to cut defense spending.
? In 1993, Kerry voted against increased defense spending for a military pay raise.
? In 1993, Kerry introduced a plan to cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews; reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force; terminate the Navy?s coastal mine-hunting ship program; force the retirement of 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year; and reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one. The plan was DOA.
? In 1995, Kerry voted to freeze defense spending for seven years, cutting over $34 billion from defense. Only 27 other senators voted with Kerry.
? In 1996, Kerry introduced a bill to cut Defense Department funding by $6.5 billion. Kerry?s bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote.
? In 1996, Kerry voted yes on a fiscal 1996 budget resolution ? a defense freeze that would have frozen defense spending for the next seven years and transferred the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training. The resolution was rejected 28-71.

Now, with this less-than-illustrious record of stabbing the military in the back, how can anybody seriously concerned with our national defense vote for him?

[Gimpy]

to tell you how.

All you have to do is read the TRUTH as reported by Fred Kaplan!

################

John Kerry's Defense
Setting his voting record straight.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004, at 3:41 PM PT




Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:

"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. ? The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."

The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

"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 proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems.

"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 M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s?all great systems ? but we have enough of them," Cheney said.

The Republican operatives might also have noticed Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.

Granted, these reductions were made in the wake of the Cold War's demise. But that's just the point: Proposed cuts must be examined in context. A vote against a particular weapons system doesn't necessarily indicate indifference toward national defense.

Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.

The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut?the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.

It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills.

The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference today, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget.

John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, told me what that cut was about: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money?not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.

An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself. ) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq?but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.

The B-2 came into being as an airplane that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.

In the latest war, B-2s?modified to carry conventional munitions?were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars?the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions?there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.

The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.

Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.

At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But these are not the ones. Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column.

################

Nice try Super................but that crap ain't gonna work!

[reconeil]

Believe you and many other: "Staunch Democrats" are arctually of well intent, and especially towards America's Disabled Veterans. Granted, you and others are much to politically-minded for my liking (I despise politics and/or ANYTHING that perpetually divides Americans, while only uniting cliques). But, so what?

This is: "Weirdsville USA" or the most greatly politicized and/or divided (in every aspect) nation on earth. Hell,...lately even RIGHT & WRONG (Left & Right also) is greatly politicized and/or entertainingly carnivalized.

That being said, I still can't understand why Democrats foolishly insist that if "They": "RECAPTURE("WOW!!!...a very exposing word) The White House" ONCE AGAIN, and ONCE AGAIN control The U.S. Congress (from where all Citizenry Monies are re-distributed),...everything will be hunky-doory. Also, all the standard road blocks or normal denials for Veterans Assistance will thusly all be rectified and/or no longer exist.

That's just not so,...whether I say it, any politicos say it, or even History says it (PROVES such not so also).

After all, and as somewhat alluded to by others,...for about a 60 year period, 45 years (or more) of Congressional MAJORITY CONTROL or control of: "The American Purse String" belonged TOTALLY to The Democrats. And, if memory serves correctly,...the Disabled American Veterans plight , whether handled conservatively, liberally or however, simply got worse and worse, and never ending.

So then Gimpy,...the attempted to be made point here is that even morally superior (supposedly?) and all caring (supposedly?)Dem Politicos never resolve anything favorable,...except for Dem Politicos, friends, associates and beholders.

Want to REALLY fix things for The American People (Disabled Veterans inclusive)? Then ACCOUNTABILITY MUST BE DEMANDED by The People in 2, 4 or 6 WEEKS. Then, and if not satisfactory, corrupt or mismanaging,...IMMEDIATE DISMISSALS (as most other large corporations in America normally do) are in order.

Screw that 2, 4 or 6 YEAR never ending lordliness and/or political carnival which ONLY BENEFIT politicos and their cliques and/or: "The Connected". Americans deserve better than that (Disabled Veterans inclusive).

Neil :d: :b:

[Gimpy]

Some of what you say I agree with.

However, some of I do NOT!

Especially about the "Dems" NOT fixing the disabled veterans plight.

The actual, documented evidence of ROLL CALL VOTES in the Senate and House of Representatives during the past 10 years (since the Repubs took over Congress) proves WITHOUT A DOUBT that that the "Dems" are the political party that will do MORE for us than the "repubs"! This is irrefutable, absolute proven FACTS that these "roll call votes" will substantiate for all to see!

Not JUST ME saying this............the FACTS DON"T LIE my friend!

[MORTARDUDE]

Scout :

I don't want to get into a big flame-war over this, but you make it appear that Kerry was a one-man-defense-spending-wrecking-crew !!! ..Weren't there 99 other Senators ? As I recall, he sponsored very little legislation during his years in the Senate, so whose ideas / sponsors were all the things you listed ? One of the reasons I chose not to frequent the "politics forum" anymore is that most all of us take things out of context. Remember, I am Libertarian and am only voting for Kerry because I dislike Bush much more...

Larry

[reconeil]

...You just don't get it. Apparently blinded by all the political bull and/or so much vicious and vilifying bull purposefully demeaning the opposition for political advantage flying around,...WHATEVER ADMINISTRATION: "RECAPTURES (WOW!!!...a very exposing word.)" The White House" is meaningless to The American Citizenry (Disabled Veterans inclusive).

Plus,...you make it sound like the past 10 years Repubs had 100% and/or TOTAL CONTROL of The U.S. Congress, which certainly isn't so,...and certainly no reason whatsoever for the slightly outnumbered Dem Congressmen and Senators having their way (when really wanted and as usual) on FAVORABLE (ie.non-objectionable and/or favored by The Public) matters of importance, such as America's Disabled Veterans.

Besides Gimpy, and all MEANINGLESS "For The People" political nonsense aside,....there just simply shouldn't be any PARTY that's better for Disabled American Veterans. Such People in most part were disabled defending BOTH PARTIES,...and even Independents.

All Veteran problems, denials of assistance and/or just plain being mercilessly-waltzed-around with tons of red tape and/or quite legalistically,...are caused by beaurocrats (both veteran and non-veteran alike) of one of the largest beaurocracies in America (re. The VA).

Hell man,...even when a decorated parapalegic named McClellan was head of The VA during The Clinton Years,...it didn't matter. Disabled Veterans, and whether with good legal representation or not,...it still was pretty-much a flip-of-the-coin (location also) as to whether a Veteran applying for assistance would be taken care of, waltzed around, just ignored repeatedly, and in some cases threatened for: "Making Waves" for their apparently Veteran Superiors and/or Court, Judge and Jury.

Neil :d: :b:

[Gimpy]

Your last statement PROVES that YOU are really part of the "problem" and NOT part of the "solution"..

You don't have a freakin CLUE about what in the hell is REALLY going on, do you?

McClellan, under the "Clinton" years???? What the hell are you talikn about?? There was NO one by this name under Clinton.

It WAS Max Cleland (from Georgia) under the Carter administration whose policy changes and reorganization of the Va are STILL PRAISED to this very day! No...............he could NOT get every thing he wanted................but he got MORE DONE IN HIS FOUR YEARS than the previous TEN VA administrators prior to him.

And NO AMOUNT of rhetoric, and eloquently phrased bullshit from you can change the F-A-C-T-S that I mentioned with the ROLL CALL VOTES in the Senate and House of Representatives for these past 10 years which P-R-O-V-E without a doubt that the Democrats ARE voting to increase $$$$$$$ for health care and treatment and all benefits for this countrys veterans. While the majority of your republican cronies have F-A-I-L-E-D to vote for these measures..................like I said............just LOOK IT UP...........IT IS IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD!

:d: :md: :d:

[reconeil]

Mispelling a person's name or misnaming one inept president for another is really no-big-deal (good side-steppin though). Whatever,...such certainly doesn't prove that I: "Don't really have a freakin CLUE about what in hell is REALLY goin on". Quite the opposite. It's just that I'm not taken-in by the typical Dem/Lib Dribble perpetually propagated by Dems/Libs and "THEIR" Press/Media in general.

And besides, if Old Max and Old Carter were so praiseworthy (ACCORDING TO YOU!!!), since doing s-o-o-o-o-o-o much better for The Veterans than the: "Previous TEN VA addministrators (ironically no doubt mostly Dem appointees, what with mostly Dem control over the years)",...why-the-hell has the Veterans plight always gotten progressively worse and worse, and never better?

Maybe such: "Praises" alluded to were just coming from the existing VA Beaurocrats and/or the many new Dem appointees, for making their jobs easier by hiring more lawyers for further confusing, denying or limiting assistance To Veterans? Whatever,...I never heard of any: "UN-Connected" Veterans praising such a NEW & IMPROVED VA.

Granted, and no doubt The VA beaurocrats and workers were better taken care of and/or better paid for whatever. But, so what? The Veterans still ended-up with the short-end-of-the-stick...AS USUAL. :d: :d: :d:

Maybe it's different in Georgia,...and if a Veteran In Need contributes generously to The Democratic Party, such gets him (her also) some: "Juice" and he (her also) is better served? Whatever, don't believe that such: "Juice" could hurt for a Good Old Boy (Girl also) anywhere?

Neil :D :D :D

[travisab1]

Remember the GAY thing???

I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours???

What u got that I don't???

How many people have to die in Iraq now and ten years after the fact before you get the picture???

It's not just the GAY thing... It's WHAT does JFK stand for and how or what will this protester of FOREIGN WAR'Sdo for his fellow "Veteran's/American's'/Illegal GD Aliens," who are depending on our GOVERNMENT to SUPP-O-GD-RT THEM??? TELL ME THAT GIMPY????

Johnzy Baby should have to stand before his VOTER'S and show them all his BATTLE SCARS that he so bravely ENDURED during our VIETNAM WAR ERA. He should say, This Is The Scar That Got Me My First PH, This Is The Scar That Got Me My 2nd PH. This Is The 3rd Scar That Gave Me a Ticket Back Home So I could Say What ASS#&les We Have In VIETNAM Killing KID'S & ALL...

YES Gimpy... Explain THIS to the people voting for JFK...

My most Kindest Regards,

Travis... :re:

[SuperScout]

What I had posted earlier was Kerry's recorded votes in opposition to what ultimately was passed, not that he had much if any effect on the final outcome of the vote. It is, however, illustrative, of Kerry's continual assault on the military's needed weapons systems. If he had his way, we'd still be using M-60 tanks, which were outgunned by the T-72's; using F-4's, which were outflown by MIG 23's and 27's, and on and on. You're right, Kerry's legislative record is as bleak and unproductive as blizzard in Maine.

And this is what is truly mystifying: a Libertarian voting for Kerry? Let's see, you believe in less government, lower taxes, greater national security, and more personal freedoms? And you think a liberal's gong to provide that? What has Kerry said or done in the last 19+ years that has you convinced that he'll do any of these things? Perhaps you need to reevaluate your choice!

[Gimpy]

Larrys' made the RIGHT choice! :)

Neil, you're STILL part of the "problem" rather than part of the solution! TALK ABOUT SIDESTEPPING...HA! :D

Evidently YOU are also Travis!

What the hell has the "gay" issue got to do with any of this???

[MORTARDUDE]

Well... I will try to explain myself for the LAST time. I dislike our President and his cohorts a great deal right now. More so than I disliked Clinton and Co. So what does that leave me with ?? .....Nader, Harry Browne ( Libertarian ), Larouche, write-ins, Communist Party, Socialist Party, or Kerry. I am only holding my nose and voting for Kerry because that is a way to CHANGE things, that in my mind need to be changed. I will be voting the straight Democrat ticket and encouraging others to do the same. We need some balance in D.C....If I could find a way to mobilize the 76,000,000+ folks TOO LAZY to even register, much less vote, to embrace the Libertarian agenda, then I would vote that way. I cannot support this President and Administration, no way, no f*cking how. Read my previous posts...If it is not plain enough, then I quit... LOL LOL ..This is why I don't post here anymore...

all IMHO

Larry

[reconeil]

Nothing wrong with that,...as long as I don't get confused with Gimpy. Don't want neighbors throwing rocks at my house.

Regardless, maybe: "The 'gay' issue" was brought-up because Kerry has functioned so well and so long in a State that Marches to a Different (stranger also) Drummer and/or where even the embarassingly-absurd is readily acceptable, quite common, and forced on ALL Residents, whether liked or not?

Kerry is truly well suited for lording over things in lordly Massachusetts. He should stay there and leave the rest of us Americans alone.

Neil ;)

[travisab1]

Thanks Neil;
I thought Gimpy knew that... He's so up on politics...
Travis

[reconeil]

"He"..."Knew that". But, in The Liberal/Democrat religion one cannot expose their head rulers or head zealots REAL INTENT or RECAPTURING OF POWER & CONTROL objectives and ends. All political hacks or dups doing so require ostrosizing or: "Shuning" or excommunication at minimum. The truly bad turncoat liberals get automatically labelled: "Racists" and "Homophobes" ALSO, by their unforgiving and phony masters.

Neil & TRUTHS & REALITIES.............."Problem" ONLY for Dems/Libs.
:d: :b:

[Gimpy]

yet to see anything but "bullshit" out of you two (or maybe more) folks rather than ANY evidence to the CONTRARY of what I posted originally and in a couple of subsequent posts about this administrations & the republicans in Congress abominations of despicable action(s), or LACK of action, regarding this nations retired, disabled veterans, active military and their families! And, the misinformation that has been PROVED about Kerry???

You're just like the main-stream-right-wing-radicals in the Whitehouse! Full of RHETORIC and continually using the three "d's" of these republicans "brand" of so-called "compassionate conservatisim"...........DECEIVE.....DISTORT ....& DENY......any and all evidence to the contrary that proves without a doubt what I have and many, many others have been saying all along.

I have YET to see anything from either of you to offer irrefutable "evidence" to the contrary!

Because you CAN'T!

[SuperScout]

Can you spell CRSC? This benefit passed during (GASP!!) a Republican administration, and signed into law by a (GASP!!) Republican president, for the benefit of all. And as I've said before, I think that the CRSC is the wonderful camel's nose under the tent of future and better benefits. Compare this benefit, which admittedly is too little, with the 40 years in which the Democrat party had ample opportunity to pass something like it, and find that nothing comparable was accomplished, and then quietly give thanks that something was done. I tend to take the position that it's better to light one candle than to curse the darkness, but then again, that's just me.

[reconeil]

Good points SS. But, don't expect Gimpy and like to recognize any merits from such for Veterans. It's just not a Democrat Plan.

Beside, Gimpy has so much: "Bullshit" backing-up on him that he even has; "Bullshit" in his eyes,...which severly clouds his vision, both optically and mentally.

Regardless, and in fainess to Bulls, I don't really believe that Gimpy ACTUALLY spouts the standard Democrat: "Bullshit". Still,...I don't believe that the standardly spouted Democrat: "Donkey or Jackass Shit" IS ANY MORE BELIEVABLE OR WORTHWHLE FOR AMERICANS. Only great for The Party, Foreigners and Minorities.

Neil :d: :b:

[travisab1]

Neil, Gimpy, SuperScout;
Not only can you see the spelling below but there's a link that may solve the problem.
Gimpy, Please read about Kerry's flip flops I posted under The Weekly Trunk; GOP. Maybe that will answer the question that you so desperatly are seeking!!!
Heh, Heh!!!

DMDC - Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Web Site
Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Web Site. Warning Notice ... link
below: Enter Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Web Site.
https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/crsc/ - 4k - Cached - Similar pages

Travis

[Gimpy]

at least I can depend on YOU for some solid "evidence" to back up some of the claims others around here seem to in so short supply of.

You ARE right (I can't believe I'm saying that BTW). It IS a "step" in the right direction (CRSC) and everyone involved in it's passage shoud be commended. Even the Pres. BTW.

OK..........so you found ........O-N-E............make that ONE, UNO, SINGLE, LESS THAN TWO, MORE THAN ZERO thing that has been considered an "accomplishment" for this administration regarding disabled, retired, military veterans and their dependents to bring to the arguement.

You FAIL to mention however that it WAS the Democrats (sponsered by a Democratic Congressman from my old home state of Georgia BTW and signed by just about EVERY single Democrat in the House and FIVE republicans) who put forth a bill in Congress last year to FULLY FUND "con-current receipt" and do away with the "veterans tax" that prohibits disabled vets from getting their FULL DUES! The CRCS was just another "ploy" by the republicans to attempt to placate the angry veterans! The bill put forth to fully fund "Con-current receipt by the Democrats.............according to ALL the military service organizations like the DAV, VFW, Paralyzed Veterans of America, AMVETS, etc, etc., was OPPOSED by the Whitehouse and they even went so far to THREATEN any Republican Congressman if they voted FOR this measure! Needless to say..............the REPUBLICAN MAJORITY SHOT THIS DOWN ALSO......................Just like they have the INCREASED funding for HEALTH CARE, BENEFITS and DEPENDENT CARE that has plagued this administrations abysmal and deplorable record with regards to RETIRED VETERANSand ACTIVE military so far!

These facts are THERE in the Congressional Record for ALL TO SEE! THEY CAN NOT BE DENIED! :d:

[BLUEHAWK]

Congressional record don't count I reckon... never has on either side for quite a spell now, if I recall correctly.

[Gimpy]

are YOU talkin about?

It clearly SHOWS who voted for what and when!

It is also CLEARLY DEFINED by the Military Service Organizations and THEIR evidence of WHO has supported the bills mentioned!

These honorable organizations have been HONEST and DEPENDABLE advocates for sick and disabled, retired military veterans and their depenednts and have been telling the TRUTH about the republicans and George Bushs' administration since their "reign" of terror against Veterans began in 2001!

You are about as full as crap as Gee-W if you can't believe THEM! :d:

[colmurph]

I'd rather see Al Sharpton as President than John Kerry. At least Sharpton is Anti-Communist while Kerry is so Pro-Communist that I'm sure he has a lot of friends in Hanoi who are hoping he gets in. If kKerry makes it into the Whitehouse you will see your taxes doubled, your military cut in half, and the VA will be sucking hind tit. Where do you think the VA gets it's funding from? It comes from the Military Appropriations Budget! The same budget that Kerry has tried to cut as long as he's been in politics. Gimpy.....you can't see the trees for the forest.

[Gimpy]

"see" very well Murph. It is you and others who are "blinded" by the truth I've posted about WHO actuallly "supports" veterans! Just like the voting record in Congress (and supported by evidence from ALL the military service organizations) shows for the past TEN years and ESPECIALLY the last THREE since GEE-W has been in the Whitehouse. It sure as HELL ain't the republicans!

I can not fathom how in the HELL you guys can continue to support an administration and the republicans in Congress when ALL THE FREAKIN EVIDENCE is there for all to see???

[travisab1]

Gimpy;
Remember reading about the Boston Tea Party... People are tired of being taxed to death by the DemocRATS!!! You damn sure don't want a DemocRAT in office during WAR TIME era. Especially one with the credentials Kerry has on his back and with all the flip flops he's been doing to get votes. I know you're going to go Apesh!t when you read my post here. I'll just have to go through reading your replies...
Take your blood pressure pills, have a hot cup of coffee and count to ten before you start punching those keys.
Thanks,

Travis

[colmurph]

If God were a Republican and Satan was a Democrat......God would only get the Republican vote. Gimpy and Mortardude would vote for Satan because God must be against Veterans because he's a Republican and only Democrats give a hoot about veterans.

[travisab1]

Sorry I posted this in the wrong place but Col. I agree with you If GOD were a Republican I also think thathe would most likely abolish the DemocRAT'S... too close to<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">Communism. Altho... There was the Garden of Eden, Milk &amp; Honey and all that good stuff...</SPAN>

Travis:b:

[Gimpy]

ain't got a FREAKIN CLUE!

[colmurph]

Just what gives you a "Clue" Gimpy. Do you have a Political Science degree? Ore are you just a "Master of cut-and-paste"?
What "Special Insight" do you have to the world of politics. Do you have an "Inside" or do you just parrot the Democratic Party Line and keep hoping for some more handouts? Do you work for a living Gimpy? Ore you 100% on the dole.

[Gimpy]

my "name calling"...loud mouth buddy!

I thought you were NOT going to read and/or respond to my "stuff" anymore????

WHATZAMATTA don't you have anyone ELSE you can run around calling names at your own playground!

Keep up the good work though..............your TRUE nature of childish, irresponsible, negative, name-calling will I'm sure let YOU offer some "insights" that we ALL will be proud to hear....YEAH RIGHT!

BTW......................I DO happen to have a couple of degrees.

And, you're damned right I worked for a "livin"......for more than 31 years until I became so "phucked-up" from all the GSW's and shrapnel I received in "service" to my country that I could no longer do that work. And, you're GD right I'm a "100%er". But NOT on the damn "dole" as you call it!

I EARNED MY GD 100% DISABILITY, and MY 100% SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY ALSO........WITH MY BLOOD and 14 FREAKIN OPERATIONS in military and VA hospitals that "YOUR BOY" GEE-FREAKIN-W is now allowing to fall into disrepair and neglect!

So you see my bigmouth friend......I suppose I DO offer some "Special insight" that may be of relevance here.

It folks like YOU that can offer only NAME CALLING and disrespectful comments rather than "solutions" to the current mess "your boy" has gotten us in that make me sick to my stomach!

[travisab1]

What the Gimpy does BTW mean???

Travis

[Gimpy]

should get out more Travis.

BTW = BY THE WAY.............in "cyber" language.

Now go back to your "corner" and try and learn some more "stuff", OK?

[travisab1]

Edited by admin.

[Gimpy]

Will you PLEASE shut this fool up!

[travisab1]

Sorry Gimpy;
You got the floor...
Travis