Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room "...the threat is flying..."

A Kerry vote that may come back to haunt him:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/26/154053.shtml

Given the hundreds of votes a Senator makes on thousands of small and large issues over the years and the myriad of reasons why a senator may vote one way or another, I have no doubts there will be many of Mr. Kerry's votes that will come back to haunt him -- especially when individual budget line items are isolated and analyzed.

Aye, but Kerry has never met a weapons system he liked.

What has propelled America to the forefront of military power, are force multipliers, intense training, and high technology.

When the Chinese have a better fighter, than anything we can put in the air, that is a major problem, especially if it happen to be in the Formosa Straits.

In troubling times (and there will always be troubling times), how can the American people elect a man who would have our finest bring a knife to a gunfight?

Hmmm...

Voted 5 times against the F-22. Seems like something more than just some details in these bills. Seems more like a determined stand against the F-22. Now, how many times was it he voted against the F-15?

This from a man who makes great theater out of promising to send our troops into battle equipped only with the best and latest equipment.

Hmmm....

Before you condemn him for having voted fives times against it, maybe you could answer a few questions...

Was this the only thing those votes dealt with, or were the votes on more than just the F-22?

How many of these votes were relatively meaningless procedural and/or preliminary votes?

What was the reason he gave for voting the way he voted on whatever bill he was voting on? Did it have anything directly to do with the F-22?

How many of these votes dealt with the fact the some in Congress were urging for full funding before complete testing was done and many opposed full appropriation of such a costly weapons system untl it was fully tested and we knew it would work? (This WAS the real issue when it was being argued in the Congress in the late 90's, BTW)

Let's not assume that this whole thing was black and white, pro-defense or anti-defense. The F-22 has been controversial for some time.

Jolly may have posted an article that makes it look like it was an up or down vote in favor of this country's defense. It wasn't.

Indeed, more often than not on the F-22, the votes cames down more as a political payoff by the GOP in Congress for its defense industry contributors than it came down in favor of defending this country.

Come on John. Five times for crying out loud. Give me a break. At some point a man has to be held accoutable for his voting record. Kerry's has been consistently anti-defense.

JBryan---

How many votes do you think the Congress took over the last 10-15 years on the F-22 in various forms and at various times in various bills and various budgets? I can assure you it was a LOT more than five.

I'll bet the F-22 was mentioned in hundres of different types of bills, legislation, budget resolutions, allocations, approproiations and all of the other things the Congress votes on a lot more than five times just in one year. And that does not even count all the Committee votes on all of these things.

If with all of that, they can only find five votes by Mr. Kerry against the F-22, they really are barking up the wrong tree.

BTW, do you approve of the Congress committing this country to long term weapons programs costing hundreds of billions of dollars before we know they will work? (Just wondering).

Smoke, John, pure smoke.

OK, JBryan. If you really think any conclusions can be drawn about Mr. Kerry's position on the defense of this country from these five votes and that they were simple up and down votes on a needed weapons system, then let's do this.

I will be happy to reconsider my position when you:

Tell me exactly which five votes they were.

Show me that the only thing being voted on in each vote was the funding or authorization for the F-22.

Tell me who supported a yes vote and a no vote and tell me what their arguments were in favor or against.

Show me that all of our top military officers, the top miliary advisors and the top Congressinal experts supported it and said it was necessary for the nation's defense. Then, tell me which of these, if any, did not support it and said it was not necessary.

Give me Mr. Kerry's stated reasons for voting as he did.

Tell me the final vote on each one and who voted as Mr. Kerry did and those who voted the opposite that he did -- by party if you will, please.

You see, JBryan, nothing can be drawn simply by showing he voted a certain way on five different votes that included the F-22. There is much more to these votes than just yes or no. There always is.

One last thing....please answer my question about whether you support the Congress approving a multi-hundred billion dollar weapon system before it has been proven to work.

Why should he go to all that trouble John, when you won't even take the time to read one speech and answer one question with a yes or no answer about it?

I seem to recall you accusing the Conservatives here of doing what you've just done as a ploy to sidestep an issue, by the way.

I do not draw my conclusions on the basis of five votes. As I have said before, it is his voting record that he has to defend. A record that is repleat with examples just like these five votes. Taken together they put him far outside of the mainstream in terms of defense policy which is, by coincidence, far removed from the campaign rhetoric he delivers today.

In answer to your question I would have to say that five votes against the same weapons system may not be dispositive in terms of his position with regard to that particular weapons system. However, they should at least raise an eyebrow or two. Any politician with a voting record understands that all to well.


No weapons system has ever been proven to work without first spending multi-hundred million dollars. At that point the multi-billion dollar question really comes down to how many of them do you want. Apparently, John Kerry didn't want any even though they had been proven to work. At least to the satisfaction of the majority that voted for them.

Read this JA..

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtml

Thanks, apple. I think I may have read it before, or something like it.

I suspect you wanted me to read it because it would raise questions in my mind about John Kerry. Quite the opposite. What I read was about a young man who was willing to risk a lot to do what he did. Opportunistic? Sure. Not 100% pure? Sure.

But a young man who was willing to take on some pretty powerful and important people to achieve something.

As I have said before, I am impressed by both Mr. Kerry's willingness to go to Vietnam at a time when I and everyone else I knew were trying to stay away and then his willingess to speak eloquently and forcefully against the war.

Your article just reinforced my opinion.

JBryan

If this is how you reach your conclusion to criticize Mr. Kerry, then I have no quarrel with you doing so. I may disagree with you, but his voting record is his voting record and you, along with everyone else, must decide for themselves if they agree or disagree with him and can support him or not.

I really did not expect you to provide the information I asked for. I would not have done so and I expect you knew I was not really expecting it. My only purpose in raising the issues I did was to point out that a slanted article which uses five votes to condemn someone, without any explanation of the context of those votes, is little more than an attack piece.

The problem I have with the article is the implication that Mr. Kerry would not protect this country to the best of his ability either as a Senator or as President. People may disagree with his position on how best to do this; but it is patently unfair and untrue to even hint that he would not do whatever he felt was necessary to protect us.

Disagree with his positions. Disagree with his proposed programs. But do not question his commitment to this country or its security. To do so is to denigrate the debate this country needs to have.

I disagree with him profoundly with respect to his proposals. That is, those proposals that I can specifically identify. I am still unclear as to what, specifically, he would do differently from the present administration (whose policies I support) with respect to the war on terror in general and Iraq in particular.

I do not, however, believe that he does not have the best interests of this country at heart and truly believes that whatever policy he has in mind is the right course of action. In other words, I think we can agree that John Kerry is not a traitor or even purely a political opportunist. I just think he would make a lousy President. Especially in light of the current situation and his past record.

I am not comforted by pronouncements of "involving the international community". It would seem that such action involves enticing the residue of those who opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein and had definite financial reasons to do so to sign on to a commitment to rebuild Iraq. A commitment which should be immensely lucrative to them, upbraids us and does nothing more than add the panache of having France, Germany and Russia on board.

No, I prefer the carrot and stick that is being used now. Or, maybe more precisely, the "good cop, bad cop" routine with Colin Powell holding the carrot and Rumsfeld swinging the stick. That is where I am, anyway.

John, I merely mean to illustrate that Kerry leans toward "anti-war". I have no hopes to convince you of anything, altho I do wish that you and your 'ilk' as Ariel would say, would realize the horrendous disservice your party is performing.

In the world today we have fundamentalist extremists poised to bully a vast religious body with their extremist view of a wonderful peaceful religion, and using religious force to gain control of countries without firmly entrenched governments, attempting to gain control of a major world commodity that is a considerable factor in the financial interraction of legitimate governments, who have coupled religious beliefs with illegality, who trick their youths into becoming bombs, and who execute and torture people who disagree with them.

Your party scoffs at the ideology which defines the free world, posturing as pacifist, ignoring the greater evil that will result from inaction..

And you want us to believe Kerry is pro-defense for some reason.

I am not articulate like some of our smarter members, but firmly believe you are wrong, totally wrong in your pacifist stance at this time.

Sometimes it is important to take a stand against what is wrong. You know as well as I do that 'turn the other cheek' is not the appropriate response in all situations.

Mr. Kerry does have a trend.

From an article from the same site:


Sitting on the board of the Jobs With Peace Campaign, Kerry worked to bring into fruition the credo of that organization, which existed solely to drum up public support for cutting the defense budget.

There was no stopping Kerry's assault on the Pentagon. When first running for his Senate seat in 1984, Kerry explained carefully that he was firmly against such mainstays of the defense establishment as the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system.

He also ran on a platform of cutting back on the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16. The average newspaper-reading American, of course, recognizes these systems as the veritable tip of the spear that not only crushed Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War but also smashed the Taliban in Afghanistan and punched through to Baghdad in the second Gulf War.

Once in the Senate, where he has been entrenched for the last 19 years, Kerry amassed an impressive record of defense bashing.

Recently, GOP chairman Ed Gillespie in an address to the Republican National Committee ticked off vote after vote in which Kerry sought to cut the nation's defense budget:


In 1991 Kerry voted to cut defense spending by 2 percent. Only 21 other senators voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated.

In 1991, Kerry voted to cut over $3 billion from defense and shift the funds to social programs. Only 27 senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut.

In 1992, Kerry voted to cut $6 billion from defense. Republicans and Democrats alike successfully blocked this attempt to cut defense spending.

In 1993, Kerry voted against increased defense spending for a military pay raise.

In 1993, Kerry introduced a plan to cut the number Of Navy submarines and their crews; reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force; terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program; force the retirement of 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year; and reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one. The plan was DOA.

In 1995, Kerry voted to freeze defense spending for seven years, cutting over $34 billion from defense. Only 27 other senators voted with Kerry.

In 1996, Kerry introduced a bill to cut Defense Department funding by $6.5 billion. Kerry's bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote.

In 1996, Kerry voted yes on a fiscal 1996 budget resolution – a defense freeze that would have frozen defense spending for the next seven years and transferred the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training. The resolution was rejected 28-71.
Such votes add up to “a 20-year record of being weak on the military,” says former Republican National Chairman Richard Bond. “To this day, the defining issue of this election is that America is under attack. I do not believe in the end Americans will vote for someone with a soft worldview.”

I'll try to find a few more Bill numbers for you John, but until then, you can masticate upon these:

Sen. Kerry Voted Against B-1 Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against B-2 Stealth Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against F-14. (H. R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against F-15. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against F-16. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against AV-8B Harrier Vertical Takeoff And Landing Jet Fighters. (H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against AH-64 Apache Helicopters. (H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against Patriot Missiles. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against Aegis Air Defense Cruiser. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against Trident Missile System For U.S. Submarines. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against M-1 Abrams Tanks. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against Bradley Fighting Vehicle. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against Tomahawk Cruise Missile. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

There are many of us who feel the Pentagon Budget is far too bloated, that the way in which we develop and finance weapons systems is far too corrupt and expensive and that this country would be better served spoending that money elsewhere.

There are also many of us who feel the real strength of the United States internationally is not based on who we can militarily overwhelm. If nothing else, Iraq should show us that even with the best weapons systems in the world, we still lose wars because we place all of our hope in such weapons systems.

I have no real trouble with what you call Mr. Kerry's trend. I am far more concerned with a President who sends our men and women into combat based on a fantasy outcome with no plans for what to do after we have overwhelmed the adversary militarily.

If some of you would get your nose out of the "right rags" and look elsewhere, you might get a different story.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/