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

[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!

[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

[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

[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!

[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.

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