Looks like Cheney was blasting Kerry and congress for not letting him cut more from our defense. This administration is lacking in integrity. It's funny after listening to Zell Miller's speech tonight to realize that he and Kerry have the same record for voting on defense and Intelligence. Oops! Somebody got busted. These guys are blasting Kerry for records that are the same as his on defense spending and intel spending. It's amazing what looking a little deeper at the issues will uncover.
Other thoughts on defense moving forward taken from a post I made in another thread and a post by blackfish. How people still think we are "safer" under GWB is confusing to me http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/ Worldwide terorrism-related deaths on the rise NBC News findings run counter to recent Bush administration claims By Robert Rivas and Robert Windrem NBC News Updated: 8:50 p.m. ET Sept. 1, 2004 NEW YORK - As speakers at the GOP convention trumpet Bush administration successes in the war on terrorism, an NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically. advertisement Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year. In the past 10 days, in fact, the number of dead has risen by 142 people in places as diverse as Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel. On Tuesday, the number of civilians killed by terrorists totaled 38 — 10 at a subway entrance bombing in Moscow, 16 in a bus bombing in Israel and 12 Nepalese executed in Iraq. Moreover, the level of sophistication is increasing. Terrorism experts point in particular to the attacks apparently carried out by Chechen rebels during that 10-day period. The rebels, whose top military commanders have been Arabs, are operating at a whole different level. ‘This is all coordinated’ “You have bombs on board planes, bombs at a train station and now a hostage taking,†said Roger Cressey, a former deputy Nantional Security Council director of counterterrorism. “This is all coordinated. These things do not happen by accident, and in fact, United States officials are frantically trying to determine if they are a forerunner of an attack aimed at the U.S.†Cressey, who is an NBC News analyst, was referring in particular to last week’s twin bombings of Russian airliners that left 90 dead in southern Russia, an attack Cressey says indicates a greater level of coordination and sophistication than thought possible just last year. While fewer than 60 of the deaths since Sept. 11 have been of American citizens — and all of which took place overseas — other countries continue to suffer at higher levels than ever before. Since Sept. 11, 2001, according to the analysis, around 1,500 have died in terrorist attacks in Iraq, nearly 700 in Russia, more than 350 have died in Israel, around 200 in Spain and more than 100 in the Philippines. The numbers sometimes are imprecise because of the nature of the attacks, which leave many missing. ‘Central al-Qaida’ Senior U.S. intelligence officials note that in fact, the frequency of terrorist attacks carried out by Muslim radicals is increasing, not decreasing. Moreover, they say the attacks carried out by what they now refer to as “central al-Qaida†are being dwarfed by those carried out by affiliates, such Ansar al Sunnah in Iraq, the Chechen rebels and even ad hoc groups like those who blew up the Madrid train stations. While there may be links to al-Qaida in terms of training and in some cases money, these groups operate independently of Osama bin Laden's command. The threat in fact is “morphing,†as one senior U.S. intelligence official put it. “You're talking about an al-Qaida that's trying to regenerate, and you're also talking about a movement that has looked to al-Qaida for inspiration but is not really al-Qaida central,†said another intelligence official. Concern: ‘Localization of threat’ “The thing we worry about a lot is what we call, in some ways, the localization of threat,†the official said. “Regional organizations that operate in different environments, that may have had some training from al-Qaida, that may have had some money, but that really see the world in al-Qaida terms and that's why we worry about them, and they are the wave of the future, and I believe that's the wave of the future for us operationally.†As more and more groups get into the mix, say officials, there are more and more attacks. In fact, the three worst months for Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11 were March (431 dead), February (393 dead) and June (245 dead) of this year. With the three terrorist attacks on Tuesday, the suicide bombing in Israel, the car bombing in Moscow and the execution of the Nepalese workers in Iraq, the August total will rise to 228 dead, the sixth worst month since Sept. 11. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by blackfish1 Amnesty International's 2002 annual report on global human rights abuses proclaimed the world to be a more dangerous place due to increasingly repressive governments, the curbing of human rights, and the undermining of international law in the wake of Bush's "war on terror." The annual report targeted the U.S. for criticism because of many actions it has taken in the name of state security. Specifically, Amnesty denounced the U.S. for detention of hundreds of prisoners in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba without charge or trial. As quoted by the New York Times, Irene Khan, Amnesty's secretary general, described these violations as "a human rights scandal." In addition, she charged that the U.S. "continues to pick and choose which bits of its obligations under international law it will use, and when it will use them." Sources: Reuters, "Amnesty International: 'War on Terror' has made World Worse," Gideon Long, May 28, 2003; New York Times, "Amnesty Calls World Less Safe," Sarah Lyall, May 28, 2003. Bush Drops Support for Strengthening Biological Weapons Convention The Bush administration recently announced that it will not support efforts to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention and that it wishes to postpone discussions of proposed treaty revisions until 2006. The Convention, which bans the "development, production and stockpiling of germ warfare agents," does not include measures to ensure compliance. Negotiations to build enforcement mechanisms into the treaty have been underway for nearly seven years. A conference on these proposals (which are supported by many of the United States' allies) had been scheduled for November, after the Bush administration abruptly walked out of last year's discussions. Source: Washington Post, "U.S. Drops Bid to Strengthen Germ Warfare Accord," Peter Slevin, Sept. 19, 2002 In contrast to the disapproving remarks by the U.S. Department of State and White House Spokesperson Ari Fleischer, Bush praised Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf when asked the about the latter's move to expand and entrench his powers. Musharraf, one of Bush's steadfast allies in the war against terrorism, amended Pakistan's constitution to extend his mandate by five years and grant himself the right to dissolve parliament. Despite these and other anti-democratic changes, Bush indicated that he appreciates Musharraf because "he's still tight with us on the war against terror" and "understands that we've got to keep al Qaeda on the run." Bush also thanked Musharraf for the "strong support" the Pakistani dictator has offered. After making these comments, Bush added, "We will continue to work with our friends and allies to promote democracy, give people a chance to express their opinions the proper way." Sources: The Washington Post, "Democracy as Afterthought," Aug. 25, 2002; Agence France Presse, "Bush Says U.S. 'Still Tight' with Musharraf," Olivier Knox, Aug. 23, 2002 Two new international polls, conducted one year after the invasion of Iraq, found slipping support for the U.S. war on terrorism in Europe and predominantly negative views of the U.S. in all foreign countries surveyed. In a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, views of Bush were strikingly low in Europe and the Muslim countries: Only 14 percent of Germans, 15 percent of the French, 28 percent of Russians and 7 percent of Pakistanis viewed Bush favorably. The opinions represented a dramatic reversal from 1991, when 75 percent of Germans and 72 percent of Russians had a favorable view of President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father. A similar poll conducted by AP-Ipsos on Feb. 12-21, 2004, indicated that a majority of the people living in Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Mexico and Spain have an unfavorable view of the role that Bush plays in world affairs, and that they think the war in Iraq increased the threat of terrorism in the world. Sources: The Pew Research Center, March 16, 2004; AP/Ipsos Poll, March 5, 2004. U.S. officials and foreign policy experts say the ability of the Bush administration to make serious headway on a range of foreign policy goals has been called into question as a result of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. "It's a blinding glimpse of the obvious to say we're in a hole," conceded Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, who added that the backlash in Europe is even greater than in the 22-nation Arab world. In public and private communications, European officials have reportedly become increasingly critical of the U.S., and experts say that the scandal will not only compromise the Bush administration's goal of promoting democracy in the Middle East, the humiliating photographs will incite terrorist groups to act against the U.S. Meanwhile, deep divisions are emerging among senior military officials over the course of the occupation. Some have reportedly said that the U.S. could face casualties for years without establishing a free and democratic Iraq. Some officers say the place to begin restructuring U.S. policy is by ousting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, whom they see as responsible for a series of strategic and tactical blunders over the past year. Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is building within the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him. A May 10 editorial in the Army Times, an influential private military paper, called the scandal "not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential�even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war." Sources: "U.S. Faces Lasting Damage Abroad," Robin Wright, The Washington Post, May 7, 2004; "Dissension Grows In Senior Ranks on War Strategy," Thomas E. Ricks, The Washington Post, May 9, 2004; "Rumsfeld Criticized by Influential Military Paper," Charles Aldinger, Reuters, May 10, 2004
All of this is just so surreal to me. Cheney and Miller trash Bush over their own voting records on defense, which Kerry shares. On top of that it's shown that terrorism has increased since Bush's War on Terror, and somehow this is a strong point for the Republicans. They have a good spin/campaign team.
And this has what to do with the 2004 election? Last time I checked no one named Clinton was running for president or VP this year.
Are we safer? How many of those dead since 9/11 were Americans and, in particular, were terrorized on American soil? Yet we know that the terrorists salivate about pulling something here; we are the number 1 target since before 9/11. They pick on Spain and Bali and Russia.
And it is still true. This administration's lies and distortions have been FAR worse than any that Clinton ever told. I agree that Clinton was a liar, I was as pi$$ed as anyone when he lied to my face (through the tube). However, this administration puts Clinton's to shame when it comes to lies, exaggerations, and distortions.
That reasoning is faulty. If we go by how many attacks on American soil we have, then every single person up until Bush was better on terror, because only under Bush did we have 9/11. I think we in order to analyze how safe we are we should look at the threat facing us, not on merely number of attacks on American soil. A person who blindfolds himself and runs across a busy intersection may make it to the other side unharmed ten times in a row. Can we say it's safe to blindfold ourselves and run across busy intersections? But that's a side track from the issue that started this thread. The issue here is GOP distortion for the purpose of trying to give Kerry a label that is unfair. Nobody has commented on Cheney's defense cuts, and desire to cut even more than congress would allow him. Nobody commented on Zell Miller having the exact same voting record as Kerry on defense and intel bills. Yet both of these guys speeches at the convention tried to paint Kerry as somebody who isn't serious about defense and would cut our defense spending in a time of terror. The Bush folks mention Kerry voting to cut 1.5 billion in intel funding after the first WTC bombing. They don't mention that money wasn't earmarked for intel gathering on terrorism. It was for a air force spy sattellite which the airforce never even launched. So Kerry's vote wasn't to cut an intel program but to get a refund on something that was cancelled by the air force. That is cutting wasteful spending and is a good thing. Yet the Bush/Cheney campaign and the GOP portray it as someone who doesn't want to support our defense. Doesn't that kind of dishonesty and distortion bother you?
If you stir up a hornets' nest is it ok if YOU don't get stung but all your neighbors do Rocket River
For a long time we heard about how much the left hates Bush, and how they aren't running on Kerry's record or supporting Kerry, they only are motivated out of hate. In some cases that's probably true. But if we want hate out of politics, then let's compare just this one aspect of the campaign. The way the GOP is portraying John Kerry's senate record has been shown to be dishonest. What's more hateful than that? The GOP aren't running on their candidates own record nor even on honest differences between their candidate and his Democratic opponent. Instead they are using a distorted and dishonest portrayal of Kerry's record as the basis to vote for Bush. The guy has been in office for four years and doesn't have a record worthy of them to hang their hat on? Why the need to be dishonest about Kerry's record? And if the Bush supporters really don't want hatred as part of the campaign why are they letting the party representing them get away with these kinds of distortions and dishonesty without saying a word about it?
Here is what JayZ750 wrote to which I responded accurately: "How people still think we are "safer" under GWB is confusing to me " I guess, if you want, you can say it is open to interpretation, but to me "we" means Americans.
It would be almost acceptable if they ran on his 4 years as CiC, but mostly they are being dishonest about Kerry's voting on defense in order to show that he would be a bad CiC. There is also the flaw in that logic that we should never vote against an incumbant because they've had 4 years as CiC. I think it would be fair to examine the incumants record as CiC and see what's been accomplished.
Funny how democrats get caught lying about sex, and Republicans get caught lying about wars and fixing elections. You're not the only one that can knock down a straw man.
Does that make it OK for administration to lie? How many people died because of Clinton's lies? Look at the dishonest way this campaign is portraying Kerry's voting record. Is it ok to be dishonest about somebody else? I'll tell you now it wasn't OK for Clinton to lie. I don't think it's OK for these guys to lie either.
Voting on someone for the sole reason that they are the incumbent isn't very smart. Did you vote for Clinton in '96?
