Isn't this the same President who decided to go after a dictator with no WMD and no 9/11 ties instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan (you know, the country that did have something to do with 9/11)? Or his this some other Bush who didn't leave Afghanistan that's now not ready to implode. 4chuckie, are you sure it said after 9/11? Here's an article discussing Bush's campaign's attempt to mislead the American public on Kerry voting for intelligence cuts.
Question the source. Did they say what bill exactly Kerry voted against? Was it a massive appropriations bill with the $7 billion as a component? Was it part of the PATRIOT Act? You should not believe a campaign ad from EITHER side without questioning the veracity of the information.
Chance, Obviously National Security is your key issue. I encourage you to try and find as much factual information as you can OUTSIDE of television news coverage to make your decision, unless it's really already been made. Regardless of your decision, I respect the fact that you are making a choice based on an issue and not rhetoric or party affiliation. Cheers.
I'll take a stab at this Bush/Rove has used this tatic repeatily this year. They take Kerry's vote against the $87 Billion Iraq war requested spending bill ( the reasons for Kerry voting against this bill are documented in many places ) and they take out individual elements of that spending bill and say , oh look, Kerry voted against giving our troops vests! he voted against intelligence! in other words, they ignore the larger issue that that vote signified As McCain said, "dishonest and dishonorable"
http://bbs.clutchfans.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82116 now please tell me again how this man you will vote for has put your family's safety as a top priority? I will accept that Bush thinks what he is doing what is best, but his decision is plain wrong
The reason I, against my better judgement, plan to vote for John Kerry is that Chance's BIG PICTURE is, as far as I can tell, a Big Lie.
All joking aside... anyone that is hoping that Bush will be a good choice for National Security might want to hear what these people have to say: Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change are an unprecedented bipartisan coalition of 27 career chiefs of mission and retired four-star military leaders who have launched a nationwide campaign to press the need for change in U.S. foreign and defense policy because they are deeply concerned by the damage the Bush Administration has caused to our national and international interests. DMCC is dedicated to ensuring an informed public during a critical election year. On the basis of foreign and defense policy experience spanning half a century, members desire, through their participation in public forums, to share their expertise and express their deep concern over the current state of this country's diplomatic and security challenges. Never in recent years, in the view of the group, have those challenges been as serious as they are today. Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change The undersigned have held positions of responsibility for the planning and execution of American foreign and defense policy. Collectively, we have served every president since Harry S. Truman. Some of us are Democrats, some are Republicans or Independents, many voted for George W. Bush. But we all believe that current Administration policies have failed in the primary responsibilities of preserving national security and providing world leadership. Serious issues are at stake. We need a change. From the outset, President George W. Bush adopted an overbearing approach to America’s role in the world, relying upon military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations. Instead of building upon America’s great economic and moral strength to lead other nations in a coordinated campaign to address the causes of terrorism and to stifle its resources, the Administration, motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, struck out on its own. It led the United States into an ill-planned and costly war from which exit is uncertain. It justified the invasion of Iraq by manipulation of uncertain intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, and by a cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda and the attacks of September 11. The evidence did not support this argument. Our security has been weakened. While American airmen and women, marines, soldiers and sailors have performed gallantly, our armed forces were not prepared for military occupation and nation building. Public opinion polls throughout the world report hostility toward us. Muslim youth are turning to anti-American terrorism. Never in the two and a quarter centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted. No loyal American would question our ultimate right to act alone in our national interest; but responsible leadership would not turn to unilateral military action before diplomacy had been thoroughly explored. The United States suffers from close identification with autocratic regimes in the Muslim world, and from the perception of unquestioning support for the policies and actions of the present Israeli Government. To enhance credibility with Islamic peoples we must pursue courageous, energetic and balanced efforts to establish peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and policies that encourage responsible democratic reforms. We face profound challenges in the 21st Century: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, unequal distribution of wealth and the fruits of globalization, terrorism, environmental degradation, population growth in the developing world, HIV/AIDS, ethnic and religious confrontations. Such problems can not be resolved by military force, nor by the sole remaining superpower alone; they demand patient, coordinated global effort under the leadership of the United States. The Bush Administration has shown that it does not grasp these circumstances of the new era, and is not able to rise to the responsibilities of world leadership in either style or substance. It is time for a change. The Honorable Avis T. Bohlen Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, 1999 Ambassador to Bulgaria, 1996 District of Columbia Admiral William J. Crowe, USN, Ret. Chairman, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Committee, 1993 Ambassador to the Court of Saint James, 1993 Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985 Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Command Oklahoma The Honorable Jeffrey S. Davidow Ambassador to Mexico, 1998 Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, 1996 Ambassador to Venezuela, 1993 Ambassador to Zambia, 1988 Virginia The Honorable William A. DePree Ambassador to Bangladesh, 1987 Director of State Department Management Operations, 1983 Ambassador to Mozambique, 1976 Michigan The Honorable Donald B. Easum Ambassador to Nigeria, 1975 Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, 1974 Ambassador to Upper Volta, 1971 Virginia The Honorable Charles W. Freeman, Jr. Assistant Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs, 1993 Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 1989 Rhode Island The Honorable William C. Harrop Ambassador to Israel, 1991 Ambassador to Zaire, 1987 Inspector General of the State Department and Foreign Service, 1983 Ambassador to Kenya and Seychelles, 1980 Ambassador to Guinea, 1975 New Jersey The Honorable Arthur A. Hartman Ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1981 Ambassador to France, 1977 Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, 1973 New Jersey General Joseph P. Hoar, USMC, Ret. Commander in Chief, United States Central Command, 1991 Deputy Chief of Staff, Marine Corps, 1990 Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, 1987 Massachusetts The Honorable H. Allen Holmes Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations, 1993 Ambassador at Large for Burdensharing, 1989 Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, 1986 Ambassador to Portugal, 1982 Kansas The Honorable Robert V. Keeley Ambassador to Greece, 1985 Ambassador to Zimbabwe, 1980 Ambassador to Mauritius, 1976 Florida The Honorable Samuel W. Lewis Director of State Department Policy and Planning, 1993 Ambassador to Israel, 1977 Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, 1975 Texas The Honorable Princeton N. Lyman Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, 1997 Ambassador to South Africa, 1992 Director, Bureau of Refugee Programs, 1989 Ambassador to Nigeria, 1986 Maryland The Honorable Jack F. Matlock, Jr. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1987 Director for European and Soviet Affairs, National Security Council, 1983 Ambassador to Czechoslovakia, 1981 Florida The Honorable Donald F. McHenry Ambassador and U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 1979 Illinois General Merrill A. (Tony) McPeak, USAF, Ret. Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, 1990 Commander in Chief, Pacific Air Forces, 1988 Commander, 12th Air Force and U.S. Southern Command Air Forces, 1987 Oregon The Honorable George E. Moose Representative, United Nations European Office, 1997 Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, 1993 Ambassador to Senegal, 1988 Director, State Department Bureau of Management Operations, 1987 Ambassador to Benin, 1983 Colorado The Honorable David D. Newsom Secretary of State ad interim, 1981 Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, 1978 Ambassador to the Philippines, 1977 Ambassador to Indonesia, 1973 Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, 1969 Ambassador to Libya, 1965 California The Honorable Phyllis E. Oakley Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, 1997 Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration, 1994 Nebraska The Honorable Robert Oakley Special Envoy for Somalia, 1992 Ambassador to Pakistan, 1988 Ambassador to Somalia.1982 Ambassador to Zaire, 1979 Louisiana The Honorable James D. Phillips Diplomat-in-Residence, the Carter Center of Emory University, 1994 Ambassador to the Republic of Congo, 1990 Ambassador to Burundi, 1986 Kansas The Honorable John E. Reinhardt Director of the United States Information Agency, 1977 Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, 1975 Ambassador to Nigeria, 1971 Maryland General William Y. Smith, USAF, Ret. Chief of Staff for Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, 1979 Assistant to the Chairman, Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1975 Director of National Security Affairs, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, 1974 Arkansas The Honorable Ronald I. Spiers Under Secretary General of the United Nations for Political Affairs, 1989 Under Secretary of State for Management, 1983 Ambassador to Pakistan, 1981 Director, State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, 1980 Ambassador to Turkey, 1977 Ambassador to The Bahamas, 1973 Director, State Department Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, 1969 Vermont The Honorable Michael E. Sterner Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, 1974 Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs (Israel/Palestine Negotiations) -- 1971 New York Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN, Ret. Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 1977 Commander in Chief, Allied Forces Southern Europe (NATO), 1975 Commander, U.S. Second Fleet, 1974 Illinois The Honorable Alexander F. Watson Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, 1993 Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 1989 Ambassador to Peru, 1986 Maryland
I thought freaking terrorists were attacking my building. For the quickest second that’s what I thought. I looked for an escape route. Before you label me an alarmist, my fear is not totally crazy as the Israeli consulate is in my office building and the security here is pretty crazy. You are the perfect Bush voter. He has geared his campaign and governance toward maniuplating people's fear. You can't just take a military approach to these issues as Bush has.
First, it was after the first WTC attack, not 9-11... Here's what the ad says... “And after the first attack on the World Trade Center Kerry proposed cutting intelligence by $7.5 billion and missed over ¾ of the Senate Intelligence Committee public hearings. Just like clockwork.” Here's a couple of article... confusing because they seem to think the amount in question is $1.5 billion... I can't find any number proposed by Kerry that is anywhetre around $7.5 billion. (If anyone knows where the Bush campaign got that number, please post.) My guess is they are including all the subcommittee hearings in the number cited for attendence. Kerry was a Subcommittee chair at the time and it is not usual for subcommittee chairs to attend other subcommittee meetings (and they are frequently scheduled at the same time). I don''t know how many subcommittees the Committee had at that time, but I bet it was several. Notice also the "public" qualifier. The Intelligence Committees often meet in private, due to the very nature of the work. I'd love to hear how many public meetings he missed vs. how many private ones he attended. Not just percentages, but actual numbers. ________________ 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 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. 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." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sidebar Return to article Jeffrey Smith, who as the CIA's general counsel in the mid-'90s led the agency's investigation into NRO finances (and is now a lawyer at the Washington firm of Arnold & Porter), has released the following statement: I am particularly upset by the Bush Campaign efforts to paint Senator Kerry as being out of the mainstream in the mid-90s with respect to efforts to ensure responsible spending by and for the intelligence community. If he was out of the mainstream, so were most other Senators—including many Republican Senators. In 1996, I was General Counsel of the CIA and was asked by then DCI John Deutch to co-chair an inquiry into the practice of the National Reconnaissance Office under which the NRO accumulated vast sums of money that were largely outside of any control by the Congress, the DCI or the Secretary of Defense. Our inquiry revealed that the NRO had for years accumulated very substantial amounts as a "rainy day fund." For a variety of reasons, very few people, including the Secretary of Defense, the DCI and key members of the Congressional oversight committees, knew about that practice. As a result there was inadequate management by the DCI and the Secretary of Defense and virtually no oversight by the Congress. When that practice and other concerns, such as the cost of the new NRO headquarters in Virginia, came to light many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle were outraged. The bill he sponsored in 1995, S. 1290, which is now being criticized by the Bush Campaign, is essentially similar to other measures sponsored by many other Senators in the mid-90s, including Republican Senators, that were attempts to ensure that money appropriated to the Intelligence Community was wisely spent and to re-assert adequate Congressional oversight of the intelligence budget. Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2096874/ --------------------------------- President Overstates Kerry's Record on Intelligence Budget Washington Post By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank President Bush, in his first major assault on Sen. John F. Kerry's legislative record, said this week that his Democratic opponent proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget, a proposal that would "gut the intelligence services," and one that had no co-sponsors because it was "deeply irresponsible." In terms of accuracy, the parry by the president is about half right. Bush is correct that Kerry on Sept. 29, 1995, proposed a five-year, $1.5 billion cut to the intelligence budget. But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut -- about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years -- would have "gutted" intelligence. In fact, the Republican-led Congress that year approved legislation that resulted in $3.8 billion being cut over five years from the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office -- the same program Kerry said he was targeting. The $1.5 billion cut Kerry proposed represented about the same amount Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), then chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told the Senate that same day he wanted cut from the intelligence spending bill based on unspent, secret funds that had been accumulated by one intelligence agency "without informing the Pentagon, CIA or Congress." The NRO, which designs, builds and operates spy satellites, had accumulated that amount of excess funds. Bush's charge that Kerry's broader defense spending reduction bill had no co-sponsors is true, but not because it was seen as irresponsible, as the president suggested. Although Kerry's measure was never taken up, Specter's plan to reduce the NRO's funds, which Kerry co-sponsored with Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), did become law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the GOP leadership. In his campaign speech Monday, Bush said that in 1995, "two years after the [first] attack on the World Trade Center, my opponent introduced a bill to cut the overall intelligence budget by one-and-a-half billion dollars. His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate. Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways. 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 repeated the charge in New York last night, saying, "Intelligence spending is necessary, not wasteful." White House spokesman Trent Duffy referred questions about Monday's speech to the Bush-Cheney campaign because "it was a campaign speech." Terry Holt, spokesman for the campaign, said he will look into the origins of the speech because he did not know about the situation in 1995. But, he said, "The president was using one very appropriate example of Kerry's lack of commitment to the intelligence community." On Sept. 29, 1995, Kerry introduced S. 1290, the "Responsible Deficit Reduction Act of 1995." On page 5 of the 16-page bill, Kerry proposed to "Reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000." The item was one of 17 cuts Kerry proposed from the Defense budget, including a phaseout of two Army light divisions and ending production of Trident D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The bill also proposed 17 non-defense cuts, including ending the international space station and reducing federal support for agriculture research and various changes to government purchasing. Five days before Kerry introduced his legislation, The Washington Post reported that the NRO had hoarded $1 billion to $1.7 billion of unspent funds without informing the CIA or the Pentagon. Months earlier, the CIA had launched an inquiry into the NRO's funding after complaints by lawmakers that the agency had used more than $300 million of unspent classified funds to build a Virginia headquarters for the organization a year earlier. Kerry campaign officials said yesterday that the $1.5 billion in cuts he proposed were meant to take back the $1 billion to $1.7 billion the NRO had salted away -- but the legislation and Kerry's floor statement, inserted in the Congressional Record that day, did not specify the reason for the proposed cuts. The campaign has no proof that the cuts were for this purpose, but officials point to his joining Specter and others in proposing legislation that resulted in reducing the NRO's fund reserves over the next five years. Four days before Kerry's legislation was introduced, House and Senate defense appropriations subcommittee chairmen, Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) announced they had "agreed upon additional reductions to NRO funding in order to ensure that only such amounts as are necessary." They did not at that time disclose amounts. Under the congressional plan approved in late 1995, about $1.9 billion was taken from NRO reserve funds through 1997, and another $1.9 billion over the following two years, according to a senior intelligence official familiar with the NRO's activities. ----------------------- Bush Strains Facts Re: Kerry's Plan To Cut Intelligence Funding in '90's President claims 1995 Kerry plan would "gut" the intelligence services. It was a 1% cut, and key Republicans approved something similar. March 15, 2004 Modified:March 15, 2004 Summary The Bush campaign accused Kerry of "a pattern" of trying to cut intelligence funding. Bush personally accused Kerry of attempting to "gut the intelligence services" with a "deeply irresponsible" 1995 proposal. It's true that Kerry proposed cuts in 1994 and 1995, and the his 1994 proposal was criticized on the Senate floor by some members of his own party. But the proposal Bush criticized would have amounted to a reduction of roughly 1%. And senior congressional Republicans supported a cut two-thirds as large at the time. Analysis President Bush said March 8 at a political fundraiser in Dallas that Kerry's 1995 proposal to cut $1.5 billion over five years was "deeply irresponsible." His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate. Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways. 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. "Gut" intelligence? It was 1% It's true that Kerry's 1995 proposal called for cutting intelligence funding by $1.5 billion over five years. The actual amount of intelligence spending is classified, but according to the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and others, the US was spending roughly $27 billion on intelligence at the time. So the $300-million cut would have amounted to a little over 1 percent. Hardly a "gutting." It's true Kerry's measure had no co-sponsors and died without a hearing. But that's hardly evidence it was "deeply irresponsible" as the President claimed. On the contrary, there was bipartisan support for cutting what was seen as wasteful spending of classified intelligence funds. In fact, Kerry's proposal came five days after the Washington Post had reported that one intelligence agency, the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office, had quietly hoarded between $1 billion and $1.7 billion in unspent funds without informing the Central Intelligence Agency or the Pentagon. The CIA was in the midst of an inquiry into the NRO's funding because of complaints that the agency had spent $300 million on unspent funds from its classified budget to build a new headquarters building in Virginia a year earlier. "Irresponsible?" But Republicans Approved. Also, the very same day Kerry proposed his $1.5 billion cut, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment proposed by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996. Specter made clear he was attempting to recoup $1 billion in unused intelligence funds from the NRO: It has alleged that the NRO has accumulated more than $1 billion in unspent funds without informing the Pentagon, CIA, or Congress. Kerry co-sponsored a companion measure to the Specter amendment, along with Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership. And in fact, the reports of an NRO slush fund turned out to be true. According to former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith, who led the investigation: Our inquiry revealed that the NRO had for years accumulated very substantial amount as a 'rainy day fund.' Smith, quoted by Slate Magazine, said Kerry's proposal was an attempt "to re-assert adequate Congressional oversight of the intelligence budget." A "pattern?" Well, not exactly The Bush campaign in a March 9 document accused Kerry of "a pattern of intelligence cuts." But aside from the 1995 proposal, the only evidence of a "pattern" offered was a 1994 deficit-reduction bill Kerry sponsored (S. 1826) that included a $1 billion a year in cuts to the intelligence budget for 1994-1998. It is true that some members of Kerry's own party criticized that proposal. Sen. Dennis DeConcini said intelligence funds already had been cut $3.5 billion: I continue to believe that last year's intelligence cut was as deep as the intelligence community can withstand during its post-cold-war transition. And Sen. Daniel Inouye echoed that: An additional $1 billion would severely hamper the intelligence community's ability to provide decisionmakers and policymakers with information on matters vital to this country. On Feb 10,1994, Kerry's amendment was defeated 75-20 with 38 Democratic Senators voting against it. But it is also true that even at that time there was growing concern about the how effectively the intelligence agencies were spending the money they had. Later in 1994 Congress formed the Aspin Commission to assess the state of the intelligence services. It was bipartisan. Following the death of former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, for whom the panel was named, it was headed by another former Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown, and by Republican former Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire. When the 17-member panel completed its report two years later, it said intelligence funding, despite recent cuts, was still 80% higher than it had been in 1980 even after adjustments for inflation. And while the commission did not recommend any more cuts, it acknowledged that balancing the federal budget would probably require that cuts be made. And the commission stopped well short of claiming further cuts would "gut" the intelligence services: Reductions to the existing and planned intelligence resources may be possible without damaging the nation's security. Indeed, finding such reductions is critical . . . (I)t is clear a more rigorous analysis of the resources budgeted for intelligence is required. Sources Wayne Washington, "Bush Hits Kerry Try in 1995 to Cut Intelligence; 'Misleading Attack,' Senator's Camp Says," The Boston Globe 9 March 2004. Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank “Bush Exaggerates Kerry’s Position on Intelligence Budget” Washington Post 12 March 2004: A4. Mike Allen, "Bush, Cheney Attack Kerry as Indecisive; President Focuses on Intelligence Issues," The Washington Post 9 March 2004: A6. Richard W. Stevenson and Jodi Wilgoren, "Bush Attacks Kerry on Bill to Trim Intelligence Budget," The New York Times 9 March 2004: A20. Jennifer Loven, "Bush accuses Kerry of trying to have it 'both ways,'" The Associated Press 9 March 2004. Fred Kaplan, "John Kerry's Defense Defense, " Slate Magazine Posted 25 Feb. 2004. Fred Kaplan, "Bush Insults Kerry's Intelligence, " Slate Magazine Posted 9 March 2004. "Chairman Ed Gillespie News Conference on Sen. Kerry's Voting Record, " 25 Feb. 2004, Gop.com. "The Kerry Line, Kerry: A Pattern of Intelligence Cuts ," 9 March 2004 Bush-Cheney '04, Inc. "Statement from Kerry Spokesman on Bush Attacks on Kerry Record on Intelligence," 8 March 2004 JohnKerry.com. "Preparing for the 21st Century: An Appraisal of U.S. Intelligence, " Aspin Commission 1 March 1996. "Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Chairman Governor Marc Racicot's Letter to Senator John Kerry, " 22 Feb. 2004 Georgebush.com. "Statement by Speaker Dennis Hastert: Kerry's Record of Cutting Intelligence," 9 March 2004 Georgebush.com. S. 1290 "Responsible Deficit Reduction Act of 1995 ," Introduced 29 Sept. 1995. S. Amdt 2881 to S. 922 Proposed 29 Sept. 1995. S. 1826 "Deficit Reduction Act of 1994, " Introduced 3 Feb. 1994. S. Amdt 1452 to H.R. 3759 Proposed 9 Feb. 1994. George W. Bush, "President Lays Out the Clear Choice: Steady Leadership vs. Uncertain & Unfair Policies, " 8 March 2004 Georgebush.com. U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 103rd Congrees - 2nd Session S.Amdt 1452 Vote #39 10 Feb. 1994. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=153#
I would be glad to address this. In fairness to the Senator I have been harsh towards him without knowing anything about him. I have basically regurgitated other crap I have seen written or heard on admittedly conservative/Republican Radio and TV shows. I have read most of you guys’ posts with no intention of learning anything, believing you, or basically feeling anything except disgust towards your opinion. I have thought that the liberals on this board were shallow, brainless p*****s whining and spitting out the same rhetoric that most of their parents did during the Vietnam War. I know there is a segment of society that doesn’t dig the culture. They are the counter-culture; the people that are there and protest the norm, whatever that is. They have always been there and they will always be there. I have essentially thrown all of the left into this bucket of stereotyping. Their woes fall on deaf ears with me because I invalidate them immediately based on the source. Well I am not doing that anymore. A lot of my best friends are liberals. I have more liberal buddies than I do conservative buddies. I always thought they were the normal dems and the rest of the dems were the nutjobs. I put all of you on this board into the nutjob tree hugger category instead of the normal guy category. My bad. I wish I hadn’t done that. All of that being said to answer your question; I think Kerry is too polished a politician. I do not think he would lead with his heart. This is an amazing country and there are enough people that nothing horrible is going to happen to us regardless of who wins. The presidency itself is so structured and compartmentalized that there is no way our country could be hijacked by a psycho. No individual man can push through a “personal” agenda, regardless of what some guys think. I think when you break it down, Bush has a better heart. For what it’s worth, I think Clinton had a better heart than Dole. I am willing to make any sacrifice in the world for my kids to have a better America. Bush’s camp will do more to make that America than Kerry’s will, IMHO. That being said the country is not going to turn into a commie wasteland if JFK wins. One more thing, about the heart issue. I wish GW would spend more time listening to his heart (and cabinet) and less time listening to his political (read reelection) advisors. I cannot stand the way he is running this campaign. I also cannot stand the way JFK is running his. It disgusts me. They both do.
Are you crazy? he did what? My fear of these psychopaths has nothing...not one thing...to do with his campaign.
One last thing...I asked for opinions not GIGANTIC cut and pastes. I do not want support for your opinions I want emotional opinions.
That what he says he's going to do. He can say anything he wants to now. What does his voting record in the senate show with regard to funding intelligence operations? Also, people have pointed out that Kerry says will keep the tax cuts for the middle class. What does his voting record show with regard to tax cuts?
He has an excellent record. Please, oh please, break out the latest bit of disinformation from a GOP attack ad so that I vaporize it for you It's fine. ANyway, please tell me by what constitutional mechanism Kerry will implement a middle class tax increase. Thanks.
Although I disagree with your beliefs, I respect your right to vote reasonably. As i have said in the past, there are some good reasons to vote for either candidate, depending on one's beliefs. Even though our beliefs are different as well as our opinions of the president, Im glad you have put good thought into making your decision based on a reasonable opinion. Thats what makes a good voter, as opposed to people who do it the other way around, or people who say "Kerry looks French", "Bush chokes on pretzels", "Kerry's wife told someone to shove it" or "Cheney is darth vader". Nothing makes me happier about our system than a voter who votes based on their priorities, regardless if I disagree with them or not.
WHY I MAY NOT VOTE AT ALL AND TAKE HEAT FOR IT FROM EVERYONE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE is the title of my next thread. thanks in advance for your patronage.
