Because it's none of his business whom he spoke with.
No, he wanted to play pretend president.
Well, since that's what Bush does every day...
Bush is the pres., Kerry is self-important. Those who think this Admin. is arrogant just pay attention to this Kerry joker.
war stories Military analysis.
Bush Insults Kerry's Intelligence
The president's latest attack is even more dishonest than the last.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, March 9, 2004, at 2:18 PM PT
Intelligent decision-making
There he goes again.
Yesterday, President Bush told a crowd of supporters in Houston that, back in 1995, two years after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Sen. John Kerry introduced legislation to cut the intelligence budget by $1.5 billion. "Once again, Sen. Kerry is trying to have it both ways," the president said. "He's for good intelligence; yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war." Bush further charged that Kerry's bill was "so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single-co-sponsor in the United States Senate."
Bush and his operatives are making a practice of mischaracterizing the voting record of the presumptive Democratic nominee. Two weeks ago, the Republican National Committee put out a "Research Brief" that flagrantly distorted Kerry's votes on weapons systems. (Click here for the real facts.) Bush's remarks yesterday are more dishonest still.
Continue Article
One thing is true: Kerry did introduce a bill on Sept. 29, 1995—S. 1290—that, among many other things, would have cut the intelligence budget by $300 million per year over a five-year period, or $1.5 billion in all.
But let's look at that bill more closely.
First, would such a reduction have "gutted" the intelligence services? Intelligence budgets are classified, but private budget sleuths have estimated that the 1995 budget totaled about $28 billion. Thus, taking out $300 million would have meant a reduction of about 1 percent. This is not a gutting.
Second, and more to the point, Kerry's proposal would have not have cut a single intelligence program.
On the same day that Kerry's bill was read on the Senate floor, two of his colleagues—Democrat Bob Kerrey and Republican Arlen Specter—introduced a similar measure. Their bill would have cut the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office, the division of the U.S. intelligence community in charge of spy satellites.
According to that day's Congressional Record, Specter said he was offering an amendment "to address concerns about financial practices and management" at the NRO. Specifically, "the NRO has accumulated more than $1 billion in unspent funds without informing the Pentagon, CIA, or Congress." He called this accumulation "one more example of how intelligence agencies sometimes use their secret status to avoid accountability."
The Kerrey-Specter bill proposed to cut the NRO's budget "to reflect the availability of funds … that have accumulated in the carry-forward accounts" from previous years. Another co-sponsor of the bill, Sen. Richard Bryan, D–Nev., noted that these "carry-forward accounts" amounted to "more than $1.5 billion."
This was the same $1.5 billion that John Kerry was proposing to cut—over a five-year period—in his bill. It had nothing to do with intelligence, terrorism, or anything of substance. It was a motion to rescind money that had been handed out but never spent.
In other words, it's as if Kerry had once filed for a personal tax refund—and Bush accused him of raiding the Treasury.
By the way, the Kerrey-Specter bill—which called for the same intelligence cut that George W. Bush is attacking John Kerry for proposing—passed on the Senate floor by a voice vote. It was sheer common sense. It also led to major investigations into the NRO's finances, both by the White House and by the CIA's general counsel.
John Kerry's bill died—its title was read on the floor, then it was sent to the Senate Budget Committee—but, again, not because it was an abhorrence. It died for two reasons. First, some of its provisions, including the intelligence cut, were covered in other bills. Second, Kerry's bill was not just about the intelligence budget; it was a 16-page document, titled "The Responsible Deficit Reduction Act of 1995," that called for a scattershot of specific cuts across the entire federal budget. (The New York Times today, reporting on Bush's attack, states that Kerry's bill "also proposed cuts in military spending." The story neglects to mention that it proposed just as many cuts in non-military spending.)
Through the early-to-mid-'90s, Congress was rife with bills and amendments to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. Most of them were tabled to committees, then hung out to dry. Kerry's was one of them—not because it was unpatriotic but because it was redundant.
Kerry's campaign office has thus far been a bit off-the-mark in responding to Bush's outlandish charges. A Kerry spokesman, Chad Clanton, is quoted in today's Times as saying that the senator had "voted against a proposed billion-dollar bloat in the intelligence budget because it was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors." Not quite. The NRO had a slush fund, but not for "defense contractors." It's difficult to correct the distortions of a 10-second sound bite. Usually, it takes a minute or so to set the record straight, and that's too long for the networks. But this one should have been easy. How about something like: "Sen. Kerry was merely trying to return unspent money to the taxpayers. Shame on President Bush for twisting a simple bookkeeping adjustment to make it look like an act of treachery."
Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate.
John Kerry's Defense Defense
Setting his voting record straight.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004, at 3:41 PM PT
Against defense? Not Kerry
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.
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 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.
Thanks nimh and hobbitbob for the responses to my last question. And hi, also, to the rest of y'all.
I know who I'm going to vote for. No amount of ranting will change that.
My only interest in hanging out here is in what WILL happen. Not in what SHOULD happen.
As we get further along in the process ("out of the pre-convention doldrums," as one pundit put it) we may move on to other sites.
I started a topic where we could talk about the electoral votes of each state. I reckon I was early.
No responses. Too early, I guess.
I enjoy reading y'all's comments. Thanks! -rjb-
The french like their Ketchup. Of course they would back Mr. Heinz.
French? Ketchup?
<raises eyebrow>
McGentrix, have you ever even been to France? Ketchup???
I had no idea ketchup was such a controversial subject...
Makes perfect sense to me. (See, you people across the pond -- not you, bob -- gotta just dumb it down a few notches in order to think like an American Neoconservative. Put the logic button on mute.)
French, french fries, ketchup, Theresa Heinz Kerry the Ketchup Lady.
How else could he construct his little joke?
(Note to McGentrix: Bill Maher has already trumped anything you and the starboard-listing sites you visit could possibly come up with.
Since you missed it, let me repeat it: Theresa Heinz Kerry, just like a bottle of ketchup, needs a smack on the bottom every now and then to get her to come.)
bada-boom!
Good evening.
Walter, I hope you understand the "joke" by now.
Mr Kerry is married to the widow of a former senator named Heinz. She is an heir to the vast Heinz fortune, based on, amongst other products, one of our national delicacies: ketchup.
Some folks decry about how rich Kerry/Heinz are.
She does not appear to be too comfortable being put in this role.
Anyway, earlier on we talked about Mr Kerry's comment about support from overseas. That has turned out to be a much bigger issue than I thought it would be.
The Spanish election was, of course, influenced by the terrible tragedy in Madrid. The comments out of Poland today about the alleged WMD suggest some misgivings on their part.
How do y'all think it will play out?
for the record.............the Frend DO NOT like Ketchup! Giggle........neither do the Germans, or at least not the last time I checked.
But really, I cannot understand why.........
A misleading ad by the Bush/Cheney campaign. The are now showing their desperation.
******************************************
Bush Campaign Ad Hits Kerry with His Own Words
Thu Mar 18, 2004 07:32 PM ET
MORE
By Caren Bohan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush sought on Thursday to paint Democratic White House candidate John Kerry as indecisive, in a new television advertisement that features a clip of the Massachusetts senator talking about Iraq just two days earlier.
In a new example of the early rhetorical brawling that has marked this year's campaign, the Bush camp pounced on Kerry's explanation of a vote against Bush's request last year for $87 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The commercial is slated to run on cable stations across the country. It includes a clip of Kerry telling an audience on Tuesday, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."
The ad closes with the words: "John Kerry: Wrong on Defense."
The broader context of Kerry's remark -- made in response to an earlier Bush ad -- was his explanation that he supported a version of the $87 billion funding proposal for Iraq that would have paid for it by repealing of Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy. But when that amendment failed, Kerry voted against the bill.
The Republican president has been hammering Kerry for opposing that money, despite his 2002 vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq, in an effort to portray him as dangerously weak and inconsistent on security issues.
Both candidates are trying to tout their credentials on national security and defense, amid the continuing U.S. war on global terrorism and instability in post-war Iraq.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, campaigned this week among fellow veterans and Bush on Thursday visited troops at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
"John Kerry opposed a red-inked, blank check on Bush's failed Iraq policy," Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said in a statement responding to the ad, which he called "misleading."
Kerry has said that one of his concerns about the funding bill was that the Bush administration had not done enough to enlist international help with the Iraq operation.
The Kerry quotation is the same one ridiculed by Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday in aggressively attacking the four-term Massachusetts senator's voting record.
With the exception of the new quote, the rest of the nationwide advertisement is the similar to one released in West Virginia this week in which a narrator listed such things as body armor and health care for soldiers and suggested Kerry had voted against those when he opposed the $87 billion.
"The same misleading ads that the Bush/Cheney campaign dumped on the people of West Virginia, they are now dumping on the Nation," Meehan said. "The three weeks in a row of Bush misleading TV ads, and millions in cash, can't hide George Bush's record of broken promises and misleading America."
C.I.
Unfortunately to many people are taken in by the ads. They never read past a headline or the six o'clock news. If you remember the McCarthy era. Once branded a communist you were a communist. That is the tactic of these adds
Lola wrote:for the record.............the Frend DO NOT like Ketchup! Giggle........neither do the Germans, or at least not the last time I checked.
Vigorous protest from this German!
