Kerry’s hypocrisy

[Ned]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

Ned, having problems getting over the Cold War?

I have not gotten over Vietnam. I don't expect many Americans who experienced what happened then ever will.

Kerry is still coddling the communist regime there. They are involved in genocide today, but Kerry has a hold on a bill that would impose sanctions on the regime.

[mrmitchell]

but Kerry has a hold on a bill that would impose sanctions on the regime.

We had that thread before, and the last I remember our resident legal experts decided he couldn't be the one with the hold because he wasn't on any related committee (or something like that).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Called For Cancellation Of At Least 27 Weapons Systems And Reductions In 18 Other Systems. “[Kerry] recommended cancellation of 27 weapons systems including the B1 bomber, the cruise missile, MX missile, Trident submarine, Patriot air defense missile, F15 fighter plane, Sparrow missile, stealth bomber and Pershing II missile. He recommended reductions in 18 other systems including the joint tactical air system, the Bradley fighting vehicle, the M1 Abrams tank and the F16 fighter plane.”

This is 'almost every significant weapons system' in the last 30 years? 27 systems? That's it? Obviously not because 18 others he's called for reductions in (ie, I don't think that's voting against the program, just voting against the current funding of the program).

Hell, some way or another we have to reduce the defense budget. We have to balance the budget and military will not be spared.

[dojoboy]

Here are a couple cited quotes by Kerry:

John Kerry: “When I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security….” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10174)

John Kerry: “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think it is Kerry's fault that he believed what the President of the United States was telling him about current intelligence.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't think it is Kerry's fault that he believed what the President of the United States was telling him about current intelligence.

It's his fault when he's serving on the intelligence committee. I also love the line about how his vote on the resolution authorising the President to go to war was really a vote for war but to only threaten it.

This is 'almost every significant weapons system' in the last 30 years?

Agreed. Hence my suggestion on how he could have made the troll more effective.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I also love the line about how his vote on the resolution authorising the President to go to war was really a vote for war but to only threaten it.

Well, it makes a good deterrance. In order to deter the threat must be seen as possible. If Congress give the President the power for war, sometime in the future, it's nice a vague and serves as a big stick.

Still, probably should have seen that Bush would have used that stick and not tried to bring many other countries aboard.

[Admiral]

It is true that Kerry opposed the financing of a couple of very versatile weapons systems, a good majority of them were outmoded at the time of development, or designed for a role that no longer exists.
Let's face it, the cold war is over. No matter how much certain people would like to see a threat in China, China has become economically dependent upon us, and would not risk open war. The only real combat situations the military will face are Iraq-y situations, situations where advanced air-defense avoidance systems are irrelevent, and the ability of our next-generation fighters to match the theoretical capability of the russian fighters is irrelevent, as their fighters will never be able to be built. In Iraq, the problem is not the equipment, the problem is the deployment and protocol. Given this, Kerry's anti-weapons-funding record should not be significant, and could even be a plus for him.

[mrmitchell]

what Admiral said

Indeed.

The cold war is over. The military-industrial complex has no more use in its current form. Making machines that will defeat the Soviets does not matter any more. Making strategies that will bust up the terrorists, now that matters.

[Fake Boris]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kerry’s hypocrisy

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Voting against funding the very thing you are complaining about not being funded is an intellectually consistent position to you?

Well, the armours themselves don't cost 87 billions, I suppose. There were some other things in the bill.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker
Stealth planes were a critical component of the first Iraq war. They are not "insignificant".

No. Stealth planes are costly, and require compromises or performance. Of course- there is always a level of stealth.

A huge bunch of traditional planes, faster and more maneuvrable, equipped with reasonable stealth features, will do more for your war $ than the overpriced suckers.

[Ned]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

We had that thread before, and the last I remember our resident legal experts decided he couldn't be the one with the hold because he wasn't on any related committee (or something like that).

I am sorry, Mr. Mitchell, I am the resident legal expert on this issue because I have direct lobbying experience on the hill.

Kerry has the bill on hold.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't think it is Kerry's fault that he believed what the President of the United States was telling him about current intelligence.

Imran, you are both a liar and a fool. Kerry had access to the same intelligence as did Bush.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I also love the line about how his vote on the resolution authorising the President to go to war was really a vote for war but to only threaten it.

Well, it makes a good deterrance. In order to deter the threat must be seen as possible. If Congress give the President the power for war, sometime in the future, it's nice a vague and serves as a big stick.

Still, probably should have seen that Bush would have used that stick and not tried to bring many other countries aboard.

Imran, your defense of this liar is impressive.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Admiral
It is true that Kerry opposed the financing of a couple of very versatile weapons systems, a good majority of them were outmoded at the time of development, or designed for a role that no longer exists.
Let's face it, the cold war is over. No matter how much certain people would like to see a threat in China, China has become economically dependent upon us, and would not risk open war. The only real combat situations the military will face are Iraq-y situations, situations where advanced air-defense avoidance systems are irrelevent, and the ability of our next-generation fighters to match the theoretical capability of the russian fighters is irrelevent, as their fighters will never be able to be built. In Iraq, the problem is not the equipment, the problem is the deployment and protocol. Given this, Kerry's anti-weapons-funding record should not be significant, and could even be a plus for him.

His record of standing up for America and for Americans actually engaged in combat is 100% -- lacking.