Kerry and Cheney Trade Swipes in Iraq Anniversary Speeches

New York Times:

Kerry and Cheney Trade Swipes in Speeches on Iraq Anniversary
By DAVID STOUT

Published: March 17, 2004


WASHINGTON, March 17 — Senator John Kerry attacked President Bush's policy on Iraq today, asserting that the president's decisions had left the United States less secure and more isolated. But Vice President Dick Cheney said Mr. Kerry was ill-suited to lead, and that Mr. Bush had proved himself to be a clear-eyed and consistent commander in chief.

"We're still bogged down in Iraq, and the administration stubbornly holds to failed, unilateral policies that drive potential, significant, important, long-standing allies away from us," Mr. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said in a speech at George Washington University here. "What we have seen is a steady loss of lives and mounting cost in dollars to the American taxpayer, with no end in sight."

Almost simultaneously, Vice President Cheney was defending Mr. Bush and, by implication, criticizing Mr. Kerry in a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif....

***

Today's cross-country exchange of charges took place as rescue crews in Baghdad were looking for people wounded in a thunderous explosion that wrecked a hotel in the central city. The blast came in the evening, or early afternoon in Washington, where it is eight hours earlier. Some television broadcasts featured split screens pairing images of the unfolding devastation in Baghdad with the vice president's speech and with Mr. Kerry's remarks....


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/politics/campaign/17CND-KERRY.html?hp

Just assuring us its OK to be caviler and macho with other peoples lives as long as its not your own-BTW this Iraq thing is really working out

They are hammering him on this and it doesn't look good. We all know about wastefull pork laden pet military projects, but some of the things he has voted no on are on the surface, devestating in their initial effect. If they are true, I should add. My cousin has a son in Afghanistan and he voted for * in 2000 based on the NRA's gun hysterics. He has decided to back Kerry this time based on the lies to get us into this debacle in Iraq, but he has concerns over these anti-military votes in Kerry's Senate record. Hello! Anyone listening in the Kerry campaign? They will eat you alive on this issue and you had better get a grip on it soon and do some explaining.

Enlighten me please.

President Bush recently 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," said the president "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.

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.



< http://www.demsonline.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=2960&highlight=setting+another+record+straight>

Great article in Sundays' Phila Inquirer that should be standard reading for anyone interested in debunking the rove/gop lie machine regarding Kerry and his votes re the military.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/8179394.htm

We're waiting for an answer.... *crickets*

Meanwhile, back at FR, an enemy scout returns ...

Defense votes your problem? We already have a grip on it. Direct your cousin's son, and any other bush* backers within earshot to the following website:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2096127&

There you will find a completely satisfying explanation of Senator Kerry's defense votes. May I quote?

"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."

Now...which Democrat crowed like that about defense cuts?
BZZZZZZZZZZ!
Sorry...that is incorrect! The speaker was George H. W. (Here's Waldo) Bush, proud papa of Bush* The Least, in his State of the Union address on 1/28/92!

You still have a chance to walk away a winner though, by guessing correctly which Democrat said the following...

"Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend."

<snip>

"Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them."

Which Democrat?
BZZZZZZZ!
I'm sorry...once again it wasn't a Democrat at all! That was former Secretary of Defense, present Kerry-slanderer and VP "Tricky Dick" Cheney, actually scolding the Democratically-controlled Congress for impeding his defense budget cuts!

I know...ain't that a kick in the pants? Where do they get these guys, anyway? :D

Are you familiar with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)? It's one of those far too numerous right-wing stink tanks...I'm sorry...:) think tanks...seriously, there's not enough right-wing thinkers to fill one tank.
Well, back in '97 AEI published an article in their magazine. The article was Who Really Balanced the Budget?, by Stephen Moore.
The article may be found here:
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.16134/article_detail.asp

This article claims basically that Bill Clinton had diddly to do with balancing the federal budget...he just got the credit for the defense cuts republicans were able to make thanks to Ronnie "Gipper" Reagan single-handedly tearing down the Iron Curtain.

Please indulge me by reading just one more quote...

"Which brings us to the point where Ronald Reagan's Cold War victory connects with Bill Clinton's vanishing deficit. For just as the Reagan defense build-up caused the deficit to soar in the 1980s, it is primarily the Reagan peace dividend that has caused the deficit to plummet in the late 1990s. The end of the Cold War has generated a half-trillion-dollar budget dividend in just the last eight years, and that gift escalates with every passing season. And this was all dropped like manna from heaven into President Bill Clinton's lap. The fact is, the budget deficit is falling today not primarily because Clinton or Bush raised taxes, not primarily because the congressional Republicans committed themselves to a balanced budget, but rather because the defense budget is now more than $100 billion a year lower than when the Berlin Wall was still standing.
In fact, the post-Cold War peace dividend has been so large it has simultaneously financed a reduction in the budget deficit and a sustained buildup of domestic programs. Contrary to constant interest-group whining about a "neglect of social programs" in Washington, nondefense outlays catapulted in 1997 to their highest levels ever in American history--both in real dollars and as a share of national output. Over the period 1988-97, federal domestic expenditures rose from $622 billion to $1,113 billion. After adjusting for inflation, that's a stark 34 percent rise."

So you see, Cando, the situation is under control after all. Dick Cheney actually wanted Senator Kerry to make more defense cuts, not fewer...and the AEI demanded that the right-wing got proper credit for making them. Strange times, ain't they?
If Dick wants to debate about Senator Kerry's record on defense, we've got three words we know he understands...
Kiss My...whoa! Wrong script!

Bring It On!

Very well done! :D

I had read the Slate article before, but the AEI thing was a surprise. I'm glad you liked it!
Heh! Who am I kidding? I'm glad somebody read it! :D

Lassie! Go find Cando, girl!
woof!

Cando kick...
:kick:

Motto for the Bush* misadministration!

I say vote $0 towards defense until all the money is accounted for, and taxpayers get their refund from greedy, traitoruous scum-sucking war proiteers! Re-open the Truman Commission!

I don't go out on St. Patty's...I slave over a hot keyboard baking a nice reply for Cando...and this is the thanks I get! :mad:

not Cheney. Fighting with the number 2 is a recipe for failure. It makes Kerry look weak and Bush gets to stay above the fray looking "presidential."

But if Kerry doesn't answer Cheney, he looks bad too.

This is what the bottom of the ticket is for--the dirty work. He can try to recruit some surrogates but it's not the same.

Not good.

Cheney and Bush are both cowardly dogs and Kerry can thrash them both.

Cheney on NBC's Meet The Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you regret not taking Saddam out nine years ago?

MR. CHENEY: I don't, Tim. It was--and it's been talked about since then. But the fact of the matter is, the only way you could have done that would be to go to Baghdad and occupy Iraq. If we'd done that, the U.S. would have been all alone. We would not have had the support of the coalition, especially of the Arab nations that fought alongside us in Kuwait. None of them ever set foot inside Iraq. Conversations I had with leaders in the region afterwards--they all supported the decision that was made not to go to Baghdad. They were concerned that we not get into a position where we shifted instead of being the leader of an international coalition to roll back Iraqi aggression to one in which we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world taking down governments.

< http://blog.johnkerry.com/dbunker/ >

Listen, it will take a lot more than naive bravado and invective to win this election.

Meanwhile, Kerry goes to his own private Idaho. If he's smart, he'll come back with a VP candidate so he can blunt Cheney's attacks and resume hammering on Bush. If not, the opposition will define him and he'll lose.

Kerry also needs to find a match-up for Colin Powell. If Kerry attacks Powell himself he plays into the "flip-flop" accusation because he's on record praising Powell.

This was not a good week for Kerry.