By Warren Buffet own estimate, 1 percent of the entire Bush’s tax cut, about $300 million, went to–him.
By Warren Buffet own estimate, 1 percent of the entire Bush’s tax cut, about $300 million, went to–him.
And he is using some of that tax cut to fund Kerry’s campaign.
Talking about blowback!
Wrong! I consider myself an independent and try to vote for whomever I think is the best person capable of doing the best job for the country. While I voted for Clinton in both elections, I also voted for Bush last time around. Bush has turned out to be a liar, a schemer, a person who is difficult to trust and a whole slew of other negative things which has been covered here and in other threads ad infinitum.
While I don’t much believe that what either Bush or Kerry did 30 years ago is germane to what they do or could do today, if the comparison issue keeps getting raised by the Republicans, then on that issue alone, I would choose Kerry. Bush weaseled out of getting drafted and has been unable to prove his whereabouts for much of his time in the guard. While he has an “Honorable discharge” on paper, the paper is not worth a dime to anyone other than his supporters. It would do the Republicans well to forget Vietnam and what Kerry did with medals/ribbons because there is no way that Bush can come out ahead on this issue.
Mr. Moto, surely then you will not be voting for Bush/Cheney!
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177
Or are you a hypocrite?
I swear, it has honestly gotten to the point that every time a Republican makes a claim, I anticipate that it is an exaggeration, a half-truth, a misstatement or a lie.
I’d quote Crash Davis from Bull Durham to you, in reference to the quality of the pitches you are throwing, but this is not the pit.
Sorry - the latter quote above is from here:
I’m not saying some cuts weren’t warranted. I’m not making wild charges here.
What I’m saying is that the cuts John Kerry wanted in 1984 were irresponsible to the point of being reckless. And I notice none of you are rushing to defend them.
That’s because it’s stupid to focus on what he was or might have been thinking 20 odd years ago. I’ve changed my views radically over the last 20 years (oh, and I also did some pretty reckless things back then <shrug>). I’m sure many people, including Kerry have also. Bush was drunken bum 20 years ago. Do you want to drege that up also?
It’s hardly trivial to focus on it, iamme99, for two reasons.
First of all, the lifecycle for research, development, building, and follow-on of weapons systems isn’t measured in months or years, like with consumer products. It’s measured in decades.
The Tomahawk was first proposed in a white paper in 1972, when I was a toddler. It became operational in the mid-1980’s, when I was in junior high. I worked on the system as a sailor in the mid-90’s. Today, as a systems engineer, I work on a team helping to develop new capabilities for the missile. All this from a program started decades ago.
It’s clear that John Kerry’s cuts, had they been made in 1984, would have had large impacts today, even decades later. And that is why they are a proper focus of debate.
Second, to my knowlege, John Kerry has not disavowed this earlier position of his. I’m willing to concede that his views on defense may have changed in the last twenty years. But I’d like to see some proof that they have, in fact, done so.
A Republican and a Democrat are chatting in a bar.
The Republican says, “Man, John Kerry’s views on education and welfare just make me cringe.”
The Democrat shouts, “Stop attacking his Vietnam record!”
The Republican angrily replied:
"Well ‘Dubya’ Bush never threw his medals away !! "
Big ha, ha! That made my day. Thanks!
Glad we all got a nice laugh.
I still see nobody rushing to defend the proposed crippling John Kerry 1984 defense cuts.
Can’t say as I’m surprised. No point defending the indefensible. 
Assuming that his way in 1984 would permanently cripple our military, and if the facts later on showed that we actually needed that stuff Kerry would have still voted against it? Do you honestly believe that?
Well, perhaps if you gave something more of a detailed or thought out analysis of the memo, rather than simply posting it and essentially saying, “Huh, huh? See?” Perhaps there would be an argument.
I have already pointed out that Dick Cheney actually called for and made some of the same cuts and terminations of programs that Kerry called for, but your argument in response was to suggest that when Cheney does it, those are warranted. Why are Kerry’s not warranted?
For example, you have several times pointed to the Tomahawk missiles on the memo, suggesting that Kerry wanted to eliminate or severely curtail a weapons program that has been used effectively in several situations since then. But have they really? Please note that the header for the category you are so het up about is "Major Nuclear Programs.” Please tell me when we ever used our nuclear Tomahawk missiles, because I sure didn’t hear about it. In fact, it appears that Bush I is the same weakling on defense that you would have us believe Kerry is, because the nuclear Tomahawk arsenal was in fact shelved by Bush I in 1991, seven years after Kerry called for its reduction.
Now, please explain why you are talking about the conventional Tomahawk missile program when Kerry was clearly describing a “Major Nuclear Program?” Please explain why it was such a bad idea for Kerry to call for it, when GHW Bush actually shelved them less than a decade later? Please provide some more specific analysis that illustrates which elements of Kerry’s calls for reductions or eliminations weren’t actually endorsed or even carried out by Cheney or Bush I later, and why these were markedly bad ideas.
Otherwise, I might be prone to imagine that you simply saw this memo on a right wing site, described as evidence that Kerry would cripple the military, and posted it here without giving it any moment of thought at all. Surely you wouldn’t do that!
Every god damned single thing they say…
What I believe, Blalron, is what’s down here in black and white. John Kerry wanted to get rid of Tomahawk cruise missiles, Aegis cruisers, Harrier jets, nearly all fighter jets, and badly needed Phoenix missiles.
You can believe that he didn’t, if you want too, but that’s in contravention of the evidence I’ve helpfully provided. If you’d like to demonstrate that John Kerry wouldn’t cripple defense if given half a chance, pony up some evidence of your own.
I would love to believe that John Kerry wouldn’t strip the military down to the point where the air force really is holding bake sales to buy bombers. But reading excrement like this doesn’t fill me with confidence.
And, Hentor, two points.
The nuclear Tomahawk and the conventional Tomahawk were part of the same weapons program. The missiles didn’t differ by much except the explosive warhead. John Kerry’s calls for massive cuts in the Tomahawk program would have cut both the conventional and nuclear variants.
Unless, of course, there was a distinction made in legislation. But there was no distinction made in the program then or now, and the document in question doesn’t seem to separate the two variants.
Secondly, I did not write this campaign flyer in 1984. John Kerry and his campaign did. Blaming me for its existence is a bit much. Like I said before, I was in junior high at the time, and I really had other priorities.
If Kerry hates the military so much, why has he supported 16 out of the 19 Defense Authorization bills since elected to the Senate?
Why not demonize Dick Cheney for the defense cuts that he supported?
Mr_moto, I am not American and I don’t give a damn about American military spending. However, your repeated claim that Kerry wanted to destroy all these weapons programs, and that noone has ponied up evidence to the contrary, is being obtuse to the point of dishonesty.
Various posters in this thread have pointed out that:
- He voted against a couple of general Pentagon appropriations bills, not against specific weapons systems
- His rhetoric was more focussed on excessive spending in general, rather than specific systems. When he did focus on specific systems, as in the 1984 campaign material you cited, he referred to nuclear-fitted Tomohawks, not Tomahawks in general.
- Various Republicans voted against the appropriations bills and spoke out about specific weapons systems, amongst them Dick Cheney.
Keep beating this dead horse if you want to, but other posters HAVE made a reasonable effort to debunk you. Address their specific criticisms, rather than posting general statements that noone’s rushing to defend Kerry’s policies, if you want to win over uninterested / disinterested watchers like myself.
lambchops, the Tomahawks aside, nobody is addressing the fighter cuts advocated, or the Aegis cruisers, or the Harrier planes.
I have never said that defense cuts weren’t necessary after the Cold War was over. However, Kerry’s advocated cuts were in 1984, at a time of great tension in the world. And it is a good thing they weren’t enacted - that responsible politicians of both parties saw to it that these programs continued.
John Kerry’s plan was an embarassment to a lot of Democrats at the time, I’d bet. Pro-defense Dems like Tip O’Neill, John Murtha, John Stennis, Lee Hamilton and Sam Nunn must have been appalled.
This is getting really redundant. I say let Mr. Moto wallow in 1984 all alone. I’d rather focus on today’s important issues.