TJ:OK.I'll admit my ulterior motive.I fully believe you, Mel and others could come up with the goods...I honestly didn't believe John could, or perhaps would.. because I don't think John's done an ounce of research on it..I could of course be wrong and that makes me a jerk...Anywho.. I'm going to look at a few of those votes to understand them..Chris..
quote: George Bush didn't lie to make himself a hero.
No he sent a bunch of other people to die to make him a hero, since he had never done anything to merit it himself.What exactly would you call the trap on the carrier and the mission accomplished speech?Pat Paulsen for President.
TJC:That's a great website! It does an analysis of Kerry on a Left leaning vs. Right leaning basis (at the bottom of this page: [url=http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kerry.htm)]http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kerry.htm)[/url]Contrary to Right Wing Opinion, it does not put Kerry in the Left Wing quadrant! (They describe him as "John Kerry is a Moderate Liberal.") Carol Braun, John Edwards, and Paul Wellstone come up FAR more liberal...
I would be eternally dizzy if I allowed my mind to spin the facts and the webs that yours does, LL. Mel asked a reasonable question, using your line of logic. I'm surprised that you dismissed it out of hand; and that you actually did what your mother told you to do. The fact that she is your mother may give her a natural measure of authority, but how could you be sure she was 1) correct, 2) actually your mother - could you find ten notarized witnessess to her giving birth to you, and 3) that her instructions were in your best interest?Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter...I know those answers, call on me! And the answers are: Faith. You believed your mom (and that she is actually your mom) based on faith. You actually took her word, and most likely the word of your other relatives, that she is in fact you mom. Good for you. That was the correct thing to do. Faith works, you know. It doesn't require 10 witnesses or examples or evidentiary proof. It requires...faith, belief in what is known, but not necessarily seen or understood.Somewhere between the time you had complete faith in mom, and now, you appear to have lost your faith in man, in God, and in truth. To get back on point, your spirited debate proves you to be nearly as clueless about the truth as Kerry is - a common denominator I find among American liberals. Truth is not subjective. Kerry's version of his central campaign platform ("I was a hero in Vietnam, and that qualifies me to be your elected leader") varies from week to week, sometimes from day to day or discussion to discussion. Time may change memories, but it does not change facts. Kerry, though, changes the facts frequently, to suit his memory or his audience (which I don't know - possibly both). He is not to be trusted with the leadership of this country. That is what the Swift Boat Vets position is all about: Kerry is not to be trusted with the leadership of this country, based on his lack of honesty about his service to our country, and his lack of leadership in Vietnam. At least, that is how I read it. And no, I don't have the lock on the truth. Never claimed to have it, in fact. But I try, diligently, to recognize it (and lies) when seen. Kerry's full of lies and deceit, and switches or embellishes the facts to suit his purpose. America can do better, and is doing better right now. I'll vote to reelect Bush.
quote:Originally posted by Lewiston Liberal:
[b]TJC...That's a great website!... Carol Braun, John Edwards, and Paul Wellstone come up FAR more liberal...[/b]
Oooooh, I'm gonna' get slammed for this... but I didn't realize that Paul Wellstone was "coming up!"
:D :D :D
You are too funny!But seriously, didn't you know that the votes of dearly departed liberals STILL count? ;)
And some people post without an ulterior motive, you know, the ones who say what they mean, mean what they say, and are clear in their meanings. Others are simply trite...oh, yeah, and lacking in substantive thought...right thinking folks know them for what they are: liberals.
Bush never got any medals. Bush never pretended to get any medals. Bush served in the National Guard, and was honorably discharged. Bush, in other words, was honest about it. Can you say that about John Kerry (and look at your reflection in any given mirror)? Can you honestly say that there is no doubt about the circumstances that Kerry won some or all of his medals?
Hey John, thanks for listing Kerry's voting record. After looking it over, I see that I just want to vote for him more. There were only two items there I didn't personally agree with: Voted NO on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. (May 1996) Voted NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000) Everything else was the right way to vote. Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by Lewiston Liberal:
[b] And this little jem from None:
If it had been Bush in Vietnam and Kerry the stateside "dodger", you guys would be telling us what a "hero" Kerry is for having the courage to stay home or awol or whatever. Never heard similar vitriol for Clinton's dodge.
[i] Did you miss the last 10 years??? [/i] It was issue #3 (next to Monika)... non-stop "draft dodger Bill" vitriol...Unreal.Chris.[/b]
From DEMOCRATZ, you mental midget.
quote:Originally posted by Lewiston Liberal:
[b]"One other thing I must repeat for this forum that ive said in other forums. Real heroes do not brag. "And the reason Kerry has to brag is beacuse the Right Wing have for so many years lied about Dems, suggesting that Dems are too limp wristed to be in the military and they have no knowledge of real manly men activities like war and Dems are essentially a bunch of pansies.That perception has to change. Dems go to war too, despite the Right Wing Hate Propoganda Machine's successful message.Chris.[/b]
First, that's just not true. Republicans take people as individuals, and judge on merit. The Bush campaign has tried over and over again to steer debagte to Kerry's ultra Liberal record on defense issues as a SENATOR, not his Vietnam "service". Kerry's the one trying to use his stint in Vietnam to obfuscate a his lifework trying to undermine both America's military and national security.Secondly, if you Libs think Kerry's "record" is going to catapault the left-wing into "manly" status when it comes to defense, you may as well start talking about Al Franken's Vietnam service, since Kerry's "hero" status is rapidly being revealed to have been a construct of an individual pathologically obsessed with becoming Jack Kennedy.[ 08-21-2004: Message edited by: NoneDare ]
When it comes to the issue of the Democratic party and national defense, something that has to be made clear is that the Democratic Party is no longer the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and (I suppose) Johnson. As of the convention of 1972, the Democratic power structure has leaned heavily in the direction of people like McGovern
and (based on his voting record, which others here elsewhere have defined in far better detail thatn I could) Kerry, which has been opposed to new weapons systems and development, and in its more radical forms, seen American military power as a prime reason for conflict in the world. This
is why many of us on the Right see the modern Democratic party as being weak on defense-because it is, where it counts, in its most powerful leaders in Congress and in the most recent Democratic presidental administrations. Where would we be without the B-1 bomber, the Tomahawk missile, without carrier battle groups (that Hart wanted to decommision) or the M1 tank or the Bradley fighting vehicle?
This is not to say that every individual weapons system proposed should be deployed. It has been the Bush administration, for example, that decided against the Palidin heavy artillery system because it was too expensive and cumbersome. But there is a philosophy that conservatives have, that America can and should have a military second to none, that I for one am not convinced that modern Democrats share. When Madelin Albright can say that America should not be the lone superpower in the world, it makes me think that America is not safe to surrender into the hands of those who share her views.
quote:...Kerry, which has been opposed to new weapons systems and development,...
When those new weapon systems [i]work[/i] they should be supported. When they are just glorified pork for defense contractors they should be voted down. Makes logical (and financial) sense to me.
quote:Originally posted by NoneDare:
First, that's just not true. Republicans take [i]people as individuals,[/i] and judge on merit. Secondly, if [i]you Libs[/i] think Kerry's "record" is going to catapault the left-wing into "manly" status... [ 08-21-2004: Message edited by: NoneDare ][/b]
ND--Just pointing out a slight inconsistancy in your otherwise flawless argument. :D[ 08-22-2004: Message edited by: Tom O ]
quote:Originally posted by Hawanja:
[b]When those new weapon systems [i]work[/i] they should be supported. When they are just glorified pork for defense contractors they should be voted down. Makes logical (and financial) sense to me.[/b]
Well, when one considers that Kerry has opposed EVERY new weapons system in the last two decades and that the overwhelming majority work just fine, the strength of your argument sort of fades.
Saw Oneill hand Podesta his head on the Stephanopolis show today. Makes me proud to be giving these guys money. :D
"Well, when one considers that Kerry has opposed EVERY new weapons system in the last two decades"James:Can you back this bizzare claim up? You may be right, but I'm wondering what your source is?Chris.
quote:Originally posted by Lewiston Liberal:
[b]"Well, when one considers that Kerry has opposed EVERY new weapons system in the last two decades"James:Can you back this bizzare claim up? You may be right, but I'm wondering what your source is?Chris.[/b]
Chris, there are a host of sites out there that list the Kerry voting record on about anything. Though I know it is Partisan, the Bush site has the best listing on defense alone. If you desire I can do a data dump on th Kerry record or Kerry flip flops, but you would be better served checking for yourself as then you can check the voting record.Just do a Google on "Kerry on defesne" and you will be overwhelmed.
James:You said he voted against [b] every [/b] defense system, which is very serious charge, and I thought you would have a reference immediately at hand...Sorry.. I didn't mean to be snide, but if people make such absolute comments I hope there is something behind it..Chris.
quote:When those new weapon systems work they should be supported. When they are just glorified pork for defense contractors they should be voted down. Makes logical (and financial) sense to me.
We could also ask Hawanja what weapon systems didn't work that Kerry voted against. By God I think I will! What's your source Hawanja? What weapons system did Kerry vote against that ultimately didn't work and what weapons system did he vote for? Actually, can anybody tell me what weapons system Kerry voted for? Or for that matter, what bill supporting the military has he endorsed?[ 08-23-2004: Message edited by: CitizenDave ]
As I understand it, Kerry in the Mid 90's (and before) voted to cut defense spending- among them spending for popular weapon systems such as further development for staple weapons like the apache helicopter, abrams M1 tank, etc. The votes criticized are usually during the mid 1990s. Found an article about it rather quickly:[url=http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040223-115221-2572r.htm]http://www.w...Of course now that we are getting in the habit of invading Middle eastern countries just for the hell of it, all cuts in spending like this should be reversed. But at the time they were justified in my opinion. From the article:"Among the votes the group evaluated were nine Mr. Kerry cast against developing a missile-defense system envisioned to protect the United States from nuclear attack.Also noted are the six times in the past 10 years he voted to freeze or reduce defense spending. Mr. Kerry also cast two votes to loosen trade controls over "dual-use" technology such as U.S.-made high-speed computers that can also be used by enemies to build high-tech weaponry."
Well, if such a misslie defense system ever worked in the first place, then it might be worth investing money in. Still don't think they've been able to get a successful test of Star Wars without putting a tracking device on the target missile. So you have to ask yourself, was this a good idea at the time? I don't remember there being any major wars during this time. I would also say it's safe to assume that there was no reason to justify dropping more money on what was already the world's most advanced (and expensive) military. As for the "dual use" part, I'll never forget a New York Times article I read once that said Saddam was hording Playstation 2 game consoles with the idea of chopping the 32 bit RISC processors to build militray weapons systems. Now a game of Pac Man can be used to take over the world. Should have kept the article.
As usual, the resident conservatives like to tell little fibs when discussing Kerry's record on defense systems.
quote: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. â€¦ 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. â€¦ And now we're adding to that another $50 billion â€¦ 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. â€¦ You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16sâ€”all great systems â€¦ but we have enough of them.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 Soviet Union's dissolution and 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 cutâ€”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 moneyâ€”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 Iraqâ€”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-2sâ€”modified to carry conventional munitionsâ€”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 warsâ€”the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missionsâ€”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 for Slate.
[url=http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/]Source[/url][ 08-23-2004: Message edited by: laMaine ]
quote:Originally posted by Lewiston Liberal:
[b]James:You said he voted against [b] every [/b] defense system, which is very serious charge, and I thought you would have a reference immediately at hand...Sorry.. I didn't mean to be snide, but if people make such absolute comments I hope there is something behind it..Chris.[/b]
You are right. I should have said "about" every defense system. I am sure somewhere over 19 years, Kerry probably supported at least one system (probably for a company in his state).The entirety of his record IS one of votes against "about" every weapons system.If Kerry was in charge, we would have fought Gulf I on horseback wielding muskets and the Air Force would have been renamed the Balloon Corp.
quote:If Kerry was in charge, we would have fought Gulf I on horseback wielding muskets and the Air Force would have been renamed the Balloon Corp.
I think to be more accurate we would have fought it using Air Guard F-16's and B-52's refueled by KC-135's. OOOPSS, thats what happened! ;) How many B-1's, B-2's, Ospreys, THAAD missiles, Space Based Laser's, Ground Based FEL's, F-22's did we use in Gulf war 1 and 2? Maybe if we had saved a little money on these tactically useless programs we could have had some armored Humvees.[ 08-24-2004: Message edited by: Randy ]
Ah, but Randy, the one thing we can rest assured on. If we had tried to buy armoured HUMERS, Kerry would have voted against it.It is not that Kerry voted against SOME weapons systems. That might be considered prudent. No Kerry voted against nearly every system.
Sorry to see that James neglected to read my post. Then again, he just sees what he wants to see.
Yeah James, try reading the post which is directly above yours. Just proves to me that you people- oh, I was going to say something very rude, but I won't. I'll be a nice guy about it. But none of you ever get to accuse me of not paying attention ever again.