My Photo
Name:
Location: Phoenix, AZ, United States

Christian, wife, mother, writer, artist, teacher, published author. I love to write Christian fiction and non-fiction.

Thursday, August 19, 2004

Kerry Supports the Troops??

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
-Senator John Kerry, March 16, 2004.



In his speech to the VFW in Ohio yesterday, John Kerry spoke about how he supports the US military and admires them for their service.

But his record says something completely different:

In 1991: Kerry voted to cut the defense budget by 2 percent and to shift these funds to social programs. [Charles R. Smith, "Kerry's Real Defense Record", Newsmax.com, March 4, 2004]

In 1992: Kerry voted to cut $6 billion from defense.

In 1993: Kerry voted against a militry pay raise. He voted to reduced overall defense spending by $8.8 billion. [Senatorial Congressional Resolution 106]
He also wanted to force early retirement of 60,000 active duty service members. This is the year that the World Trade Center was bombed and terrorists declared war on America.

In 1994: Kerry proposed cutting $43 billion from defense spending (remember, the terrorists delcared war on us...) Kerry said: "What we have offered to the Senate is an opportunity to register our votes for real choices for a set of choices that reflect what the American people would really like to be spending their money on as opposed to being forced to spend it by continuation of programs that the President [Clinton] has asked to have cut."[John Solomon, "Kerry's 1994 Effort to Cut Defense Eyed" Assoc. Press, March 19, 2004]

Not even Robert Byrd supported this bill: "We have already cut defense spending drastically.....Cutting another $4billion (for fiscal year 1995) is simply unwise and insupportable." [Ibid.]

In 1995: Kerry voted to freeze defense spending.

In 1996: Kerry proposed $6.5 billion Dept. of Defense budget cut. He also proposed a spending freeze. Not one single senator supported his proposal. Remember, by this time, embassies had been attacked by Al Queda and Americans were killed....the war was still on.
Kerry also stated that the missile defense system was not needed because "the supporters of this bill will say that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or Lybia now have or will have shortly, the ability to launch a missile that can reach our shores. That is simply not the case."

From his Ohio speech yesterday: "For example, why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea – a country that really has nuclear weapons?"

An obvious example of Kerry's shortsightedness. Now he thinks North Korea is a threat, but back in 1996, they weren't a threat. Hmmm......read on:

In 1998, North Korea fired its Taepo Dong missile over Japan, on its way to dropping a simulated nuclear warhead off the west coast of the US. China has a ballistic missile tracking system, obtained from the Clinton administration, that can reach the US mainland.

6 of the last 10 years, Senator Kerry has voted to freeze or greatly reduce the defense budget even though Al Queda had delcared war on the United States.

He also voted against the $87 billion increase in the Iraq war funding...

This bill went towards supplying our troops with body armor, hazardous duty pay increases, humvees, and a $1.3 billion increase in medical care to military families. Bush also gave the military pay raises this year as well.

From his speech yesterday: "Military families are going through difficult times these days. Many of their loved ones are in faraway places, leaving them to care for their families alone. The last thing our servicemen and women need on their minds is the stress of wondering if their loved ones back home will be okay.... That means making sure families have competitive pay, good housing, decent health care and quality education for their children. "

Yep, and this bill will help these families.

Kerry did not vote for this bill and neither did other liberals like Kennedy, Harkin, Kucinich, and Pelosi. They claim that it was an "inappropriate" use of taxpayers dollars. [ Chad Allen, "The Only Spending Liberals Hate" Washington Dispatch, September 12, 2003]

So, John Kerry's idea of "supporting the troops" isn't what we Americans call support.

His record stands on its own.....and it stands on sand.

From his speech yesterday:

"What they need is a president who protects their families while they are putting their lives on the line protecting the American family."


Thank God they have one in office now.



2 Comments:

Blogger this we'll defend said...

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
-Senator John Kerry, March 16, 2004.
AND REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST THE SAME FUNDING (WITH A PROVISION THAT RESTORED TAXES ON THE RICH TO PAY FOR IT) BEFORE THEY VOTED FOR IT. FORGIVE ME, I'M NOT SHOUTING I JUST WANT TO SHOW MY TEXT FROM YOURS.

In 1991: Kerry voted to cut the defense budget by 2 percent and to shift these funds to social programs. [Charles R. Smith, "Kerry's Real Defense Record", Newsmax.com, March 4, 2004] THAT IS WHAT YOU DO WHEN THE COLD WAR ENDS - BUSH SR ENDED UP CUTTING MORE. FROM FACTCHECK.ORG:

In 1991 Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time.

In 1992: Kerry voted to cut $6 billion from defense. - SAME THING - BUSH SR CUT MORE - THE END OF THE COLD WAR LED TO A DOWNSIZING THAT BOTH PARTIES AGREED ON: FROM FACTCHECK.ORG:

President Bush's own father announced in his 1992 State of the Union address that he would be ceasing further production of B-2 bombers and MX missiles, and would cut military spending by 30 percent over several years.

In 1993: Kerry voted against a militry pay raise. He voted to reduced overall defense spending by $8.8 billion. [Senatorial Congressional Resolution 106]
He also wanted to force early retirement of 60,000 active duty service members. This is the year that the World Trade Center was bombed and terrorists declared war on America. SAME THING - BIPARTISAN. WHY SINGLE OUT KERRY? BECAUSE YOU WANT TO PORTRAY HIM AS WEAK ON DEFENSE, BUT EVERYBODY AGREED (AND THEY WERE RIGHT) THAT POST-COLD WAR WE COULD AND SHOULD DOWNSIZE. I'LL STOP POSTING MORE FACTS - LOOK IT UP ON FACTCHECK.ORG, A NON-PARTISAN SITE.

In 1994: Kerry proposed cutting $43 billion from defense spending (remember, the terrorists delcared war on us...) Kerry said: "What we have offered to the Senate is an opportunity to register our votes for real choices for a set of choices that reflect what the American people would really like to be spending their money on as opposed to being forced to spend it by continuation of programs that the President [Clinton] has asked to have cut."[John Solomon, "Kerry's 1994 Effort to Cut Defense Eyed" Assoc. Press, March 19, 2004]

Not even Robert Byrd supported this bill: "We have already cut defense spending drastically.....Cutting another $4billion (for fiscal year 1995) is simply unwise and insupportable." [Ibid.]

In 1995: Kerry voted to freeze defense spending.

In 1996: Kerry proposed $6.5 billion Dept. of Defense budget cut. He also proposed a spending freeze. Not one single senator supported his proposal. Remember, by this time, embassies had been attacked by Al Queda and Americans were killed....the war was still on.
Kerry also stated that the missile defense system was not needed because "the supporters of this bill will say that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or Lybia now have or will have shortly, the ability to launch a missile that can reach our shores. That is simply not the case." AND THEY ARE STILL RIGHT, OF COURSE. NO MISSILE CAN REACH OUR SHORES FROM IRAN, IRAQ, LIBYA, OR NORTH KOREA. BUT NORTH KOREA SCARES THE HELL OUT OF ME, AND I'M GLAD MR. BUSH IS MAKING IT SUCH A PRIORITY... OH, WAIT, NO HE'S NOT!

From his Ohio speech yesterday: "For example, why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea – a country that really has nuclear weapons?"

An obvious example of Kerry's shortsightedness. Now he thinks North Korea is a threat, but back in 1996, they weren't a threat. Hmmm......read on:

In 1998, North Korea fired its Taepo Dong missile over Japan, on its way to dropping a simulated nuclear warhead off the west coast of the US. China has a ballistic missile tracking system, obtained from the Clinton administration, that can reach the US mainland. TRACKING SYSTEMS DON'T "REACH THE MAINLAND" - THEY TRACK OTHER MISSILES. THIS "FACT" IS WILDLY DISTORTED TO SUGGEST THAT CHINA CAN REACH THE US WITH MISSILES. MOST CIVILIANS DON'T CATCH THE "TRACKING SYSTEM" PROVISO.

6 of the last 10 years, Senator Kerry has voted to freeze or greatly reduce the defense budget even though Al Queda had delcared war on the United States. TRUE - ALSO TRUE WHEN BUSH TOOK OFFICE AND SIMILARLY IGNORED AL QUEDA. BUT, THEN AGAIN, HE STILL DOES! IRAQ IS NOT AL QUEDA.

He also voted against the $87 billion increase in the Iraq war funding...

This bill went towards supplying our troops with body armor, hazardous duty pay increases, humvees, and a $1.3 billion increase in medical care to military families. Bush also gave the military pay raises this year as well. AGAIN, HE VOTED FOR IT WITH A PROVISO THAT IT BE PAID FOR RATHER THAN BORROWING FROM OUR CHILDREN. AND THE REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST IT, ALTHOUGH KERRY'S BILL HAD THE SAME EXACT LANGUAGE FOR BODY ARMOR, HAZ DUTY PAY, ETC. ETC. SO REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST PROVIDING THE SAME THINGS.

From his speech yesterday: "Military families are going through difficult times these days. Many of their loved ones are in faraway places, leaving them to care for their families alone. The last thing our servicemen and women need on their minds is the stress of wondering if their loved ones back home will be okay.... That means making sure families have competitive pay, good housing, decent health care and quality education for their children. "

Yep, and this bill will help these families. WHAT WILL HELP THEM MORE IS NOT TO PAY FOR IT WITH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH AND SENDING THE BILL TO OUR CHILDREN.

Kerry did not vote for this bill and neither did other liberals like Kennedy, Harkin, Kucinich, and Pelosi. They claim that it was an "inappropriate" use of taxpayers dollars. [ Chad Allen, "The Only Spending Liberals Hate" Washington Dispatch, September 12, 2003] WHICH IT WAS - WE BORROWED WHEN WE COULD HAVE PAID AS WE GO. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PARTY OF FISCAL RESPONSBILITY? THEY HAVE BECOME THE REPUBLICAN PARTY (AGAIN, I'M NOT SHOUTING.

So, John Kerry's idea of "supporting the troops" isn't what we Americans call support. IT IS TO ME, AN INFANTRY VET, THANK YOU.

His record stands on its own.....and it stands on sand. IT STANDS ON SOLID ROCK.

From his speech yesterday:

"What they need is a president who protects their families while they are putting their lives on the line protecting the American family."


Thank God they have one in office now. BUSH PUT HIS LIFE ON THE LINE WHEN? IN ALABAMA? C'MON NOW.

August 19, 2004 at 7:38 PM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

Well said TWD.
One thing I'd like the neocons to do is to take the time to cite the specific SR when they make a claim.
Of course they don't because doing so puts it in context, and context provides meaning and that usually isn't the meaning they want to convey.

I voted for Carter. Why?
The acting President wasn't elected.

I'm voting for Kerry. Why?
Same reason.

August 19, 2004 at 10:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home