Kerry..Today Far from..1985(long NYT /Seelye on military votes)

[DeepModem Mom]

After 19 Years in Senate, Kerry of Today Is Far From Kerry of 1985
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

Published: March 20, 2004

....Now, with the presidential campaign being waged on new terrain brought about by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush is making his leadership in fighting terrorism the centerpiece of his re-election effort. And his campaign is pointing to Mr. Kerry's long voting record on military matters to portray him as "wrong on defense"and unfit to be commander in chief....

***

Mr. Kerry's advisers said that the Bush campaign was distorting the senator's votes and taking them out of context. But even Mr. Kerry has disavowed some of his earlier stances and has moved to embrace a more vigorous intelligence operation.

He told The Boston Globe last year that some of his earlier positions were "ill advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then."

In the 1990's Mr. Kerry voted against three defense authorization bills — in 1991, 1996 and 1997. He opposed the bill in 1991, he said, because it did not reflect changes in the post-cold-war world. He said the other bills were loaded with pork-barrel spending, and he favored transferring the money to domestic programs.

Since the late 1990's Mr. Kerry's votes on the military and intelligence have fallen more in the mainstream. He has voted to increase intelligence funding by 50 percent since 1996 and he has supported every defense authorization bill under President Bush, for a total of $1.1 trillion in spending, with the exception of the $87 billion supplemental appropriation for rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2002, he voted for the largest increase in military spending since the 1980's. Of the 19 defense authorization bills he has voted on during his Senate career, he supported 16....


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/20/politics/campaign/20KERR.html?pagewanted=1

[ConcernedCanuk]

1. I can't believe people buy this "Defense" arguement

.
.
.

The USA INVADED Iraq, they didn't "defend" anything . .

and

They haven't caught the ONE MAN they blamed (Osama) for 9/11.

Canadians don't buy Georgis fantasy, neither does Germany, France(they have nukes) Russia(them too) China(LOTS of nukes), Spain didn't, and finally got rid of their leader that went against the people's will.

. . heck, almmost NONE of Iraq's neighbours supported the war, they weren't scared of Iraq,so what was the hoopla about a wee country two Oceans away ?

There was no danger to the US from Iraq, it was just Papa and Junior getting the American taxpayers and bribed/threatened countries to pay for their personal vendetta.

Attacking Kerry is just a diversion from the real issues - diverting taxpayers' money from education, health care, and job-creation to fuel the BFEE's WarMachine.

That's how I see it.

[jpgray]

2. Seelye is an expert whore. Search the Howler for her

She was on the front lines of the Gore-ing in 2000. Her mission is not to inform readers of the facts, but cherry-pick facts and construct interpretations to carry out her own agenda. In this piece, she is more or less even handed, though crediting Reagan for the Soviet Union's downfall is more than a little extreme.

[DemNoir]

3. Democrats better wake up and get to work

Local radio began their newscast with this "story" this morning and are repeating it in detail every hour.

I am getting this sinking feeling that they are just going to sit around and do nothing while this happens.

[The Zanti Regent]

4. Seelye lies. Period.

Hmm the Screw York Times fires Jayson but keeps this liar. Wonder why?