Kerry Dossier--picked up by CNN et al --

[Gloria]

This is on the site, don't know if they're talking about it on TV...
This article outlines exactly how the Republicans are going to take down Kerry if he is the nominee. They will say, it doesn't matter if Bush lied, it doesn't matter how you feel about ANY domestic issues, all that matters is that Kerry is soft on national security. And they can point to his record to prove it.

A more detailed rundown of Kerry positions/votes is in the Kondracke article from today (below this CNN article).

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/30/elec04.prez.bush.kerry/

Bush campaign manager criticizes Kerry's votes
Senator is weak on security issues, Mehlman tells RNC meeting

Friday, January 30, 2004 Posted: 6:22 PM EST (2322 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With Sen. John Kerry surging to the front of the Democratic pack, the head of President Bush's re-election effort took aim at him Friday, charging that the Massachusetts senator's voting record shows a weakness on national security issues.

(snip)

Mehlman charged that Kerry tried to cut $8 billion from intelligence budgets during the 1990s, and that his proposals "were so reckless" that he couldn't find any co-sponsors in the Senate.

Mehlman also said that when Kerry first entered the Senate in the mid-1980s, "he sought to cancel the very weapons systems that are winning the war on terror and maintaining our military strength. He opposed Ronald Reagan's efforts to fight communism in our hemisphere and opposed the first Gulf War."

The head of the Bush campaign also brought up a comment Kerry made last April, days before U.S. and coalition forces entered Baghdad, that regime change was needed not only in Iraq but also in Washington.

"While our troops were at risk in Iraq, John Kerry compared the commander in chief to Saddam Hussein, calling for regime change in the United States," Mehlman said.

Mehlman's comments Friday echoed similar criticism leveled at Kerry on Thursday by RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie, as the president's campaign team rachets up its rhetoric toward the winner of the first two Democratic nominating contests.

MORE

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_30_04_MK.html

January 30, 2004
'Comeback Kerry' Now Faces Intense Scrutiny of Record
By Mort Kondracke

(snip)

... Although in speeches he claims to have "fought for" various causes in Congress, it's hard to name a major piece of legislation that bears his name. Chief Democratic rival Howard Dean has pointedly observed, for instance, that Kerry voted not to fight the 1991 Persian Gulf War after Iraq had invaded Kuwait, but then voted to give President Bush power to fight the 2003 war, which a huge majority of Democrats oppose.

The dossier on Kerry also includes a 1995 proposal to cut intelligence funding by $300 million for the next five years and a 1994 proposal to cut $1 billion from the program that coordinates counterterrorism activities.

The Boston Globe observed last year that in 1984, Kerry said he would cancel the B-1 bomber and the B-2 stealth bomber; the Apache helicopter; the Patriot missile; F-15, F-14 and Harrier jets; and the Aegis air-defense cruiser.

The Globe also reported that he advocated cuts in other systems, including the Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle and Tomahawk missile, all critical to U.S. military success in Afghanistan and Iraq.


MORE

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. gee I'm scared now

If this is the best they got, they better hire some Dean staffers to help them out.

[xultar]

3. You're missing it, Mr and Mrs Socker Mom and Dad

Mr NASCAR don't want to have their lil behbees blown to bits @ the mall.

That is what Clark has been talking about when he says that National Security will be the main issue for the GE.

Clark isn't saying OBL, Uncle Saddy, or IRAQ in particular he's saying that if Americans don't feel they have a candiate choice other than GWB that will make the country more secure against terrorists they will go with the status quo.

That spells DEFEAT to Democrats in the fall. Use the head in the sand technique if you want. But using Kerry's voting record as proof will sandbag him. HE chose not to stay in the military and then subsequently fought against war as it were for the remainder of his career. That aint gonna play well to get enough transfer votes to win.

That's all. There is sound logic. So don't play that if that is all they have routine. Soft on National security is BIG. Big BIGEE BIG BIG! Huge, giagantic 3 or 4 queen mary 2 big

titanic big, CANDY CROWLY big...

Big.

[blm]

4. He's not. He handles rebuttal on this just fine.

Kerry didn't want more money going into the technology for spying. He felt the money should go towards human intelligence efforts which were not only less expensive but now acknowledged as the weakest point for the CIA pre 9-11.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeatleBoot]

10. Mr and Mrs Soccer Mom and Dad and Mr Nascar

want a job.

A hungry man is an angry man.

[sandnsea]

12. $700 hammers, Nat. Debt Ticker

I remember. A whole lot of other people will remember too. Especially when they connect it to the wasteful military spending today and the debt today. He wanted responsible military spending and we didn't have it then and we don't have it now.

[Delarage]

7. It worked with Max Cleland, though.

These repukes are completely pathetic. Do they really want to target Kerry with "soft on national security" bullshit? Kerry says he was disgusted with what they did to Cleland and would not stand for it. He put his life on the line in the most dangerous sections of Viet Nam while G.I. Georgie was doing lines of coke in Texas.

Kerry IS a living example of national security.

[blm]

21. BushInc had the sniper story covering up their dirty tricks then.

Cleland's story is being told in every vet group they can reach.

Don't worry. Max campaigning for Kerry is turning into the Max Cleland Revenge Tour 2004.

[Democrats unite]

24. Now who is calling who sarcastic?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. RE: cancelling weapons systems

Kerry himself admits that he made some mistakes in EARLY positions on some issues, but if you chalk it up to "Youthful Indescretions" then I think it is only fair to give him a pass.
But I should not speak for Kerry himself, since he does so well himself.

[BeatleBoot]

5. Oh, no!

We're doomed! :scared:

Draw the drapes. :scared:

Lock the doors. :scared:

Where's the duct tape? :scared:

[lovedems]

6. It has already starting with the mouthpieces for the right.

I was listening to talk radio today and on the Hannity show he was talking about Kerry so I remained tuned in to listen. While he is pissed about the reckless spending coming from the WH he said it all has to be put aside "because our safety is more important". He attacked him for saying the war on terror is over-rated (or whatever he said in the debate last night) and just kept saying "he doesn't get it".

So they will criticize bu$h on his failures but in the context that it doesn't matter because the democrats can't keep us safe. I turned it off after that. He might have kept going but I wasn't listening.

Thank God idiots like that preach to the choir.

[incapsulated]

9. Notice the Dean reference in the article

"Dean, it seems, won't quit - ever. He thinks he can collect the money to carry on through the 10-state "national primary" on March 2 and possibly beyond."

"Dean obviously is hoping that the "scrutiny machine" that has drilled so many holes in his candidacy will now cause Kerry's ship to develop fatal leaks. You can expect Dean to help the process along."

Now he's the boogieman, the Kerry stalker. :eyes:

A lot of the anti-Kerry stuff is BS, but that proposal to cut intelligence is bad, especially since he seems to be propping up the Bush position that it was "bad intel" that is to blame for the lack of WMD.

Clark made me proud in the debate when he slapped down that bullshit and said they were planning to go into Iraq all along, and it's not the intel, it's the the President that's to blame.

[seaglass]

13. Did you read the Trippi piece in GQ? They had their sights

set on Kerry since day one, so I don't doubt that Dean will continue to help the process of destruction along.

[incapsulated]

20. Because he was the number one choice..

of, *gasp* ,the insiders.

Of course they had to eliminate him to succeed. They failed miserably, though, didn't they?

Painting Dean's attempt to get back in the race after his campaign nearly imploded as some sort of Kill Kerry Mission is spin. Kerry is the frontrunner, period. Dean is back where he started in the beginning. Nobody else has a chance unless Kerry is brought down a peg or two, that's just reality.

[sandnsea]

14. He wanted to change intel

Cut the high tech crap and put in people on the ground. What he wanted to do was right, he just needs to keep saying so.

[incapsulated]

15. The problem with it is..

People don't listen to details. They listen to spin. This is very spinnable for Rove and company. All they have to do is repeat it enough "Kerry wanted to cut intelligence, Kerry wanted to cut intelligence, Kerry cut wanted to intelligence..."

It worked very well with the WMD spin. People still believe it's there..somewhere...

[sandnsea]

16. They'll spin on Clark too

Clark start WWIII, Clark start WWIII.

I think people are smarter than this, I really do.

[incapsulated]

18. I never said they wouldn't

Although claiming Clark would start WWIII would be the most absurd spin in the world, since that is what they are actively persuing, lol.

"A person is smart, people are stupid".

[sandnsea]

19. lol,

But America doesn't believe that, now do they? Did you see the article in a SC newspaper where they were actually upset because the candidates were calling Bush a liar??? That's where most of America still is. About Bush anyway.

[incapsulated]

23. Well, you made my point, didn't you?

But accusing Clark of being a warmonger, after they started the war(s), is never going to happen, period.

They'll find other shit on him, just like Kerry.

[BeyondGeography]

11. If Kerry's the nom, I hope he gives Clark a good look

The Pubs are going to come after him on national security, we know that. Going with Edwards, a self-acknowledged lightweight on national security, will basically force Kerry to fight his own battles every time the Pubs raise the specter of Kerry being soft on terror, indecisive on Iraq, voting against strategically vital weapons systems, etc. The mere presence of Clark on the ticket will help neutralize those arguments from the get-go.

There are arguments for Edwards and against Clark, but "who will make you safer?" will be a defining issue in this campaign. That's why so many Democrats have concluded that Kerry is more electable than Dean. Dick Cheney doesn't see national security as a "background issue," I don't see why our VP should either.

[incapsulated]

17. I don't know

Clark isn't good VP material, he's too accustomed to a command position.

Edwards is still better for Kerry, imho.

If Kerry wins, I would prefer that Clark stump for him and get a cabinet position.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. I think it's great that they are giving him advance notice