John Kerry fans, help me answer question about his record. Please.

[TrueAmerican]

Trying to answer these accusations on another board. Does anyone have any good info I could use to fire back?



"John Kerry, intelligence community stalwart? I think not. And take note, these are pieces of legislation he PROPOSED, much less voted on. And they are in the prime of the formative years of Islamic terrorist groups. Sen Kerry will have a very difficult time running on his legislative record re: defense. That is why I think you will see very little in regards to actual issues discussion from the left, and we'll simply be told that John Kerry, war hero, is tough on defense because he was tough on the VC in the Mekong Delta. Pity.

1995: Proposed Bill Cutting $1.5 Billion From Intelligence Budget. Kerry introduced a bill that would “reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.”There were no cosponsors of Kerry’s bill, which never made it to the floor for a vote. (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95)

1995: Voted To Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Yea)

1994: Proposed Bill To Gut $1 Billion From Intelligence And Freeze Spending For Two Major Intelligence Programs. Kerry proposed a bill cutting $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign

Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. The bill did not make it to a vote, but the language was later submitted (and defeated – see below) as S. Amdt. 1452 to H.R. 3759. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/94)

1997: Kerry Questioned Growth Of Intelligence Community After Cold War. “Now that that struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as Government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary? …” (Senator John Kerry Agreeing That Critic's Concerns Be Addressed, Congressional Record, 5/1/97, p. S3891)

When His Bill Stalled In Committee, Kerry Proposed $1 Billion Cut As Amendment Instead. Kerry proposed cutting $1 billion from the National Foreign Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence budgets, and freezing their budgets. The amendment was defeated, with even Sens. Graham, Lieberman and Braun voting against Kerry. (Amdt.. To H.R. 3759, CQ Vote #39: Rejected 20-75: R 3-37; D 17-38, 2/10/94)"


Help

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. That bloated intelligence budget perpetuated

our misguided reliance on high-technology spy satellites and other non-human intelligence. And that's why we didn't do the less expensive, more effective, but more difficult human intelligence that's really needed to, for instance, tell us in advance whether a country really has WMDs or not, or whether a terrosist group like Al-Qaeda is planning an attack on the US.


And you didn't bring it up, but another RW attack against Kerry is that he voted against various weapons systems at different times -- weapons systems that the RW will tell us 'won the Gulf war' etc. -- but the fact is, weapons systems don't win wars, soldiers do, and Bush has not been supporting our troops in the way they need -- he even tried to cut combat pay for our troops in Iraq!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. This is what they are coming after him on.

On its face it looks bad, but the theme of Kerry's criticism of defense/intell. spending is that he has always been for effective and responsible spending.
IOW no pork- just spend on what we need. No money for wasteful programs like star wars.

As an example, Kerry has long felt that we need better human intelligence- on the ground and all over the world to better fight terrorists.

[TrueAmerican]

3. Thanks guys/gals. Keep it coming.

thanks

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. These were protest type legislation

You see, most of the intelligence budget is hidden for "security reasons". Kerry wants more accountability, transparency, and oversight brought to the intelligence agencies.

[capriccio]

5. So, what's the point?

Is the point they're trying to make is that if John Kerry had gotten his way and slashed all those budgets for the CIA and the FBI, then the US would have been vulnerable to attack on 9/11 and wouldn't have known about the WMD in Iraq? Hmm, that works.

I think JK answers this ridiculous attack by saying it's a matter of competence, not money. And if you know what the hell you're doing---like actually reading the intelligence you're getting, you can probably still cut the bloated budgets and still protect the national interests.

[sadiesworld]

6. He also supported measures to disrupt terrorist funding which were

largely defeated by repugs who didn't want to disrupt their buddies' money laundering.

[TrueAmerican]

7. Can you cite the specifics.

These right wingers want to be walk thru it with the exact reference. Not just take my word for it.

thanks

[sandnsea]

11. June 2001

Here's one article, before 9/11. There is STILL money laundering legislation that we need that the Bushies are fighting.

http://russianlaw.org/ap060701.htm

We will get all of this together, but first we have to win the primary. I just cannot goddamn believe that the person who has fought for EXACTLY what Democrats wanted on military and foreign policy for 20 years now has to defend that record TO DEMOCRATS. WE are the ones with no balls. Every time we have a chance to have a real Democrat, WE are the ones that bail and go for the centrist OURSELVES.

[Old and In the Way]

8. It matters not a whit what is spent if you can't or won't react to intel

that you get. How would spending several billion more have made a difference to this administration? Answer: Not a damn thing. They refused to act on the intel they had....a few billion more spent would not have made a difference.

[bigtree]

9. Kerry Campaign Fires Back at Gillespie’s Misleading Attacks

Kerry Campaign Fires Back at Gillespie’s Misleading Attacks on “Meet the Press”
February 16, 2004
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0216a.html

The following statement was issued by Chad Clanton, spokesperson for the Kerry campaign, in response to Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie’s misleading attacks against John Kerry this morning on NBC’s “Meet the Press:”

“Ed Gillespie’s performance on ‘Meet the Press’ was a reminder that the Republican smear machine is already in full force this election season. He made President Bush’s reelection strategy crystal clear: attack to distract. Attack to distract from Bush’s failed record of job losses, from Bush’s failure to cut health care costs, from Bush’s go-it-alone foreign policy that’s driving away our friends and allies around the world. But they underestimate the wisdom of the American people, who now increasingly question the credibility of President Bush.”

Rhetoric vs. Reality on Gillespie’s Comments:

Rhetoric: This morning Gillespie questioned John Kerry’s commitment to national security.

Reality: Kerry Strongly Supports Increased Intelligence Funding – Including $200 Billion in the Previous 7 Years – A 50% Increase Since 1996 – John Kerry, a former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has strongly supported recent increases in Intelligence funding, and, in the wake of 9/11, has supported the bipartisan call for an even larger increase in intelligence funding. According to a report issued by the Center for Defense Information entitled “Intelligence Funding and the War on Terror” John Kerry has supported approximately $200 billion in Intelligence funding over the past seven years alone. The report concludes that Kerry has supported a 50% increase in intelligence funding since 1996

In 2002, John Kerry voted for what John Warner described as the largest increase in the defense budget since the early 1980s.

This increase provided more than $355 billion for the Defense Department for 2003, an increase of $21 billion over 2002. <2002, Senate Roll Call Vote # 239; Websites of U.S. Senators Warner, Daschle, Dodd accessed 7/25/03>

Kerry Strongly Supports Increased Intelligence Funding – Including $200 Billion in the Previous 7 Years – A 50% Increase Since 1996 – John Kerry, a former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has strongly supported recent increases in Intelligence funding, and, in the wake of 9/11, has supported the bipartisan call for an even larger increase in intelligence funding.

According to a report issued by the Center for Defense Information entitled “Intelligence Funding and the War on Terror” John Kerry has supported approximately $200 billion in Intelligence funding over the past seven years alone. The report concludes that Kerry has supported a 50% increase in intelligence funding since 1996
___________________________________________________________________

Fact Check on the RNC & Ed Gillespie’s Rhetoric
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0129f.html

This afternoon, Republican National Committee Chairman, Ed Gillespie, in a blatant attempt to involve himself in the Democratic Primary unleashed a false negative attack on John Kerry’s record on National Security. Below is a summary of Gillespie’s rhetoric along with the real record that the Republican lobbyist-turned-attack-dog, Gillespie selfishly left out:

Republican Rhetoric: In 1984 he called for a freeze on testing, production and deployment of nuclear warheads, missiles, and other delivery systems.

Reality: John Kerry campaigned on a strong support for a nuclear freeze, knowing that the Reagan-era Star Wars, Mutually Assured Destruction policies were not the right course for the country and which violated international agreements such as Nixon’s ABMK Treaty. Kerry believed there were better uses for Defense funds than the ridiculous build up of nuclear arms under the Reagan Administration. Kerry also voted for the international ban on the testing on nuclear weapons. The treaty was supported by former chairs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff including now-Secretary of State Colin Powell and has repeatedly called for an end to the Bush Administration’s desire to build new bunker busting nuclear weapons.

Republican Rhetoric: In 1985, he introduced a Comprehensive Nuclear Freeze Bill, and sponsored two amendments to freeze SDI-related nuclear development until the Soviet Union tested a nuclear weapon.

Reality: John Kerry has, was, in fact, a strong opponent of Reagan’s ill-advised, risky Star Wars defense scheme. Kerry rightly questioned the lack of science behind the laser-shooting satellites Reagan proposed and, instead, favored shifting those funds to the War on Drugs and care for our nation’s Veterans—two areas which were repeatedly overlooked in the Reagan Administration budgets.

Kerry Sought to Shift Funds from Star Wars to Drug War and Care for Vets – “…the Senate, amid dire warnings about turmoil in the Middle East, defeated efforts to make much deeper defense cutbacks and rejected an amendment by Sen. John Kerry to transfer $ 400 million from the Strategic Defense Initiative to the war on drugs and medical care for veterans.

Kerry: Star Wars Lacking in Hard Science and Sound Defense – “Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. and another SDI opponent, said the report marks "further evidence that the Reagan administration's more interested in rushing ahead with some kind of SDI deployments than it is in hard science or sound defenses. I suspect the report will be a significant factor in raising skepticism as Congress considers the SDI budget.”

Republican Rhetoric: In 1991, he acknowledged Saddam Hussein's possession of WMD, but voted against military action.

Reality: “I did indeed vote the way I voted in 1991. I thought we ought to kick Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. I said so on the floor of the Senate. But with the memories of Vietnam, I also thought we ought to take a couple of months more to build the support in the country.”

Kerry, Grassley, Nunn, Others Oppose 1991 Gulf War Resolution – Urge More Time for Sanctions – John Kerry joined Republican Senator Charles Grassley (IA), then Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (GA), Medal of Honor winners Bob Kerry (NE) and Daniel Inouye (HI), and Marine test pilot John Glenn in opposing the Senate’s Authorization of Use of Force against Iraq in 1991. <102nd Congress, Senate Roll Call Vote #2>

Kerry Says Bush in “Rush to War” – “Bush's Democratic opponents insisted they are not opposed to using force against Iraq but feel that Bush is too eager to abandon the sanctions policy. ‘There is a rush to war here,’ complained Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). ‘There is a rush to get this thing over.’ ”

Republican Rhetoric: “In 1993, Sen. Kerry introduced a plan to: cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews; reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one; reduce Air Force tactical fighter wings; terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program; and force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year”

Reality: Kerry Strongly Supported the Military, Introduced a Plan to Reduce the Deficit Without Sacrificing Military - John Kerry has always supported the US. Military—apart from his two tours in U.S. Navy in Vietnam, Kerry has repeatedly supported military budgets and military construction. In contrast to an Administration that has turned the largest surplus in history into a $455 billion deficit, John Kerry was also willing to take the tough steps to reduce budget deficits. Kerry’s legislation, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, sought to cut wasteful spending including “wasteful defense programs” as Kerry stated in the Congressional Record. Like many other broad-based deficit reduction packages, Kerry’s bill took funding away from wasteful spending on pork barrel items and expensive space programs which have little benefit to the nation and transfers those saving to the general treasury to produce a balanced budget and a better economy for the country. <103rd Congress S.1163>


Vision for Making America Secure Again and Setting the Right Course for Foreign Policy:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/fp_facts.html

At the Council on Foreign Relations, Senator John Kerry outlined the steps he would take to reverse the damage to U.S. security and leadership caused by President Bush’s flawed policies of unilateralism and preemptive war. Kerry recognizes that a global security effort and the war against terrorism require active participation of the international community. As President, John Kerry will move quickly to rebuild American alliances and define a global security strategy that is collective, not imperial, inclusive not exclusive, and cooperative not unilateralist.
In his speech, Kerry outlined the failures of the Bush Administration’s unilateralist foreign policy and described a detailed strategy for building alliances within the international community to win the war on global terrorism.

Video: http://www.johnkerry.com/video/120303_cfr_real_modem.ram

[katieforeman]

10. The best answer is to support Edwards.

Kerry has even more porblems than you know.

John Kerry, "he's been wrong for 32 years. He's wrong now."
(from Washington Post Friday on plans by Bush's advertising team.)

-1970 Kerry said that US troops should be deployed, "only at the directive of the United Nations." (Washington Post 2-20-04)

-1997 on the Senate floor, Kerry asked why the nation's "vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as government resources for essential priorities fall short."(NYTimes 1-28-04)

-After Sept. 11th on Face the Nation, "The tragedy is, at the moment, that the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence, and we are weakest, frankly, in that particular area." (NYTimes 1-28-04)

-1980's Kerry was against death penalty for terrorists. Now he's for it. (NYtimes 1-28-04)

-1991 Kerry voted against first Gulf War.
-2003 Kerry voted for second Iraq war.
John Kerry's on the record justifications for these votes are contradictory.

Zell Miller, "Kerry's voting record is terrible on defense."
(Newsweek about a week ago in Jonathon Alter column.)

"John Kerry is a hypocrite" (from same Washington Post article cited above)
This line will be followed by examples of Kerry's 19 years in the Senate taking special interest money. Republicans will use this to nuetralize one of Bush's main liabilities. Voters will think both Kerry and Bush are the same when it comes to special interests, only Kerry is a hypocrit about it.

Everything they did to Dukakis, they will do to Kerry. Remember Kerry was Lt. Governor during Dukakis infamous parole program.

Watch also for commercials highlighting all of the tax increases and defense spending cuts Kerry voted for.

Bottom line: Kerry's record is a huge liability. Republicans will paint him as a career politician who changes positions to go with the political tide.

What do they have on Edwards?

-He was a trial lawyer? But that didn't work in NC and it is impossible to attack him on that without attacking his very sympathetic clients.

-He is inexperienced? He has more foreign policy experience than Clinton, Reagan, or George W. Bush when they were elected. Edwards has travelled to Pakistan and met Musharif. Bush couldn't name the leader of Pakistan in the 2000 campaign. It's very difficult to write adds attacking the lack of something.

Bush 1 found that the "Clinton is too inexperienced" argument was a looser.

Finally, I don't think experience alone means as much as many Democrats think. Has George W. Bush gotten better with experience? Bush has more experience as commander and cheif than Edwards or Kerry. Does this mean we should re-elect Bush?

Bush's problem was not lack of experience. Bush's problem is lack of integrity and judgement, as well as his arrogance and intellectual laziness.

Either John Kerry or John Edwards would make fine presidents. However, to do that we need to win in Novemeber and Edwards is the one best able to do that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. YOu have done a good job of repeating the Republican attacks

against Kerry. However, echoing the Republicans didn't help Dean, and it won't help your candidate, Edwards.


For disinterested readers who'd prefer to find out what the Republicans have to say first-hand: http://www.rnc.org/

[katieforeman]

13. Most of Kerry's support is based on the idea that he is the most electable

candidate. I'm just questioning that premise. I've talked to a lot of Democrats who didn't know these things about Kerry. If Kerry becomes the nominee, Republicans will make sure that all Democrats, Independents, and disaffected republicans know these aspects of Kerry's record.

Also, I think Dean was attacking Kerry for not standing up to Bush and the Republicans. This is an entirely different line of attack.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. Wrong, the voters believe Kerry is the most electable because he's

the most qualified, with the best record and character.


Dean and Bush both leveled the same phony 'special interest' charge on the same day prior to the Wisconsin primary. That's what I was refering to.

[katieforeman]

15. Well we can agree to disagree.

I really do have a lot of respect for Kerry personally. I just worry about his appeal once the Bush people start their attacks.

Edwards is my first choice. However, we are definitley on the same side and I will work hard for Kerry and the Democrats in congressional races if Kerry is the nominee.