Typical. Walk away from an argument you can’t win on its merits.
Mr_moto, what’s your response to the charge that many of Kerry’s “votes against weapons systems” would be better interpreted as “votes against general Pentagon procurement bills”? Would that cover the Aegis and fighters issues?
The fact that Republicans have to dredge up stuff from 20 or 30 years ago shows just how weak their case against Kerry is. And the saddest part about that is, the muck they’re digging up isn’t even all that terrible.
**“OH MY GOD, HE THREW HIS RIBBONS OVER A FENCE IN 1971! He’s not fit to be Commander in Chief!”
“He voted no on some Omnibus Appropriations bills, but thank God, because if those bills failed and no other bills replaced them we’d be in deep shit!”**
This sort of things makes me laugh, then I realize that there’s a strong chance that slightly more than half of this country will buy into this shit, then I begin to cry.
**lambchops, the issues from 1984 isn’t a John Kerry vote. It’s a John Kerry proposal, taken directly from his campaign materials of that era. I’ve posted the links above.
Like I said, I don’t make wild charges. But nobody’s answering directly the charges I do make.
And I’ve explained why those actions in the context of military spending are important today. But here’s another example.
John Kerry wanted to end the Aegis cruiser program in 1984. The Aegis cruiser I served on, the Monterey, was commissioned in 1987. I served in her in the mid 90’s. Aegis cruisers defend the carrier in the carrier battle group, in addition to being a potent warship herself
The Monterey will probably serve in the U.S. Navy until 2020 or 2030 before she is scrapped. So this proposal from 1984, had it been implemented, would have had an impact on the Navy for forty years or more.
But no, Mr. Moto is just living in the past.
This is your claim, but you provide nothing to support it. He’s clearly headed the category “Major Nuclear Programs.” Clearly he was talking about doing what Bush I ended up doing shortly thereafter. Your effort to link it to the entire Tomahawk program is only in your head.
What legislation? There was a distinction made in the weapons designation that I linked you to.
How did I ever blame you for its existence? Here again you treat this as if it were a dead body in the trunk of Kerry’s car. I blame you for mindlessly vomiting it here and then jumping up and down about how damning it is. I blame you for distorting and misleading about what it says.
If you want to be convincing, construct an argument that says, for example, what the nature of the Aegis Air Defense Cruiser was at the time, what other systems were present (or how there would have been a void without this specific one), how a proposal to scrap it was consistent or differed from the views of other leaders at the time, and how that specific system or weapon has come to be used since.
You’ve claimed that this position “was an embarrassment to a lot of Democrats at the time.” Back this up. Surely you wouldn’t just say this without knowing whether it were true or not. I mean, you go on to cite specific people. You must have quotes. Histories. Something.
Otherwise, this will evolve into a huge number of pages, with you beign completely unable to explain why something is bad while simultaneously rejecting all other posters explanations for the thing you are simply failing to grasp. Like the ribbons thread.
That’s quite a joke, Blalron, considering John Kerry is running on his years and years of experience. Guess all that should be off limits too, huh? We only can focus on stuff from the last, oh, what? Decade? Year? Five minutes?
If John Kerry wants to run on a thirty year record, and he obviously does, than that thirty year record is properly open to debate. And you claiming that it should be off limits and evidence of a “weak case” is laughable in the extreme.
This is what the Aegis System entails.
It incorporates several major components:
-
A phased array, 4-megawatt air search radar that can detect and track threats at a far greater range than previous radars.
-
Advanced data processing that allows for the distinguishing and tracking of multiple air contacts, and the ability to differentiate friend from foe.
-
Vertical launched Standard missiles, that allow the ship to intersect and destroy air threats before they can threaten either the cruiser or the aircraft carrier that the cruiser is protecting.
It 's important to understand, in all of this, that World War II is long past us. In battle, if the carrier is threatened by other ships or be aircraft, it is not protected by sailors running across its decks and manning antiaircraft guns. In the days of jet aviation, those guns are a hazard. They spray debris across the decks that are sucked into jet intakes, causing engine failure. They also interfere with launches and landings. They also can’t protect as well as missiles can, but you can’t launch missiles while planes are simultaneously launching.
The upshot of this is that, while aircraft carriers are actually operating, they are essentially defenseless.
The defense of the carrier is left to the carrier battle group. Prior to the Aegis system, this was done with ships with conventional, rotating air search radars. The most advanced of these radars, generally on older cruisers, would feed the data into a data processing system of early-70’s vintage. The missiles would be fired from a much slower launcher, not a vertical launcher.
The Aegis system was a quantum leap forward in battle group defense. This was needed in the mid-1980’s, when the Navy faced serious threats from several new Soviet naval antiship cruise missile designs. It was passed in an era when Congress was controlled, continuously in the House and mostly in the Senate, by Democrats. So it’s a safe bet that many Democrats saw the need for the system. The Democrats I mentioned were consistently pro-defense, and pro-Navy.
Today, when a carrier deploys, nearly all of it’s armed escorts (except for the submarines, which have different systems) are Aegis-equipped ships. The older, ships, without the system, are being phased out. Some are going to the reserve, some frigates are being sold. The Spruance-class destroyers, which served as carrier escorts until recently, are rapidly being decommissioned. One was sunk in a torpedo exercise recently, and will be an artificial reef now.
No new destroyers are currently being built without Aegis. That is how important the Navy considers the program.
John Kerry called for the elimination of this important program in 1984. Far from it being a “dead issue”, ships are being built right now with Aegis on board. The latest one being built is the USS Farragut (DDG-99). She will be commissioned in 2006, and is projected to serve until 2041.
John Kerry will likely be dead and in the ground in 2041. I’ll be an old man then. This ship will still be a fighter.
Well, heck, Mr.Moto, if you ignore their strawmen, tu quoques, misrepresentations, and attempts to hijack the thread back to the only topic they are prepared to discuss - Bush-bashing - what other choice do you leave them?
Regards,
Shodan
Well, we still have the opportunity to gasp in wonder and awe at the fact-filled insights of your most recent post, so chock-a-block with cites and information, and so wholly free of partisan sarcasm.
An example to us all, to be sure.
Are you certain that Kerry would have replaced these things with nothing? How can you be sure that he didn’t want another program to be implemented instead?
Let’s presume you’re right Mr. Moto. Kerry wanted to slash our military budget to the bone and force them to have bakesales to buy aircraft carriers back in 1984.
How would that make Kerry a bad Commander In Chief in 2005?
Geez some people want to turn America’s military might into an anemic 97-pound weakling:
"…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 [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. "
George Bush (#41) - State of the Union Address - January 28, 1992
That of course is from a pro-Kerry article which goes on to describe Kerry’s voting record, etc. Here’s the page.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/
As far as why Kerry voted against the Aegis system, it mmight first appear that he was “weak” on defense. Sometimes a person’s vote might misrepresent a person’s true political positions. An environmental politician might vote against a clean-air act or a pro-life politician might vote “no” on a pro-life bill. Maybe their reasons were that the bills weren’t strong enough, or maybe they wanted more added to the bill, etc,
I’m sure we could keep playing these “Google Search” games until the election is over. I’m sure either Bush Jr or Kerry could be portaryed as the Devil on one site and yet the new Savior of America on another.
There’s all kinds of “spin”. Let’s suppose Bush Jr and Kerry run a marathon and they are the only two running. Let’s suppose Kerry loses - he could say - “hey I just ran a marathon and came in second !!! and you know Dubya Bush? He finished next to last !!!” Well… yeah it is all true but it sure doesn’t tell the real picture does it?
Anyway, this is a good discussion, I’m sure it will continue. I like the fact that this discussion has remained civil and hey - it’s better than watching a “Cheers” rerun for the umpteenth time. Just one thing Mr Moto - will you please stop attacking John Kerry’s war record. LOL
The Bush supporters vs. the facts, Part MMDCLXXIII:
Aw, hell, **Shodan ** and Mr. Moto, just read the whole thing . Then tell us why Bush and Cheney have such a strong record of wanting to gut our national defenses even more than Kerry and the Democrats. Sheesh, guys.
Sheesh, your own self. That was 14 years ago. Times change. Things are needed now that weren’t needed then.
It’s easy to put his record under a microscope and focus on a couple of questionable things, but his overall record is exemplary. Look at the forrest instead of the trees.
And the implications of that observation in re Kerry’s votes of that period would be …?
Come on, you’re getting warmer.
Be mindful that we aren’t really even talking about votes. All of this is based on a memo purported to be from Kerry in 1984, talking about how much we would save if we would cancel these systems.
Mr. Moto, as a navy veteran, perhaps you can help me understand something. First, there is a difference between a cruiser and a destroyer, right? Your link says that the Aegis system, since 1991,
The Arleigh Burke is a destroyer, right?
Kerry, a navy vet himself, probably knows the difference between a cruiser and a destroyer, right? So, when he uses the term cruiser, he probably means cruiser, right?
So how do you conclude that, when he says he wants to cancel the Aegis air defense cruiser, that he wants to get rid of the entire Aegis system? Couldn’t he mean instead that he wants only to continue using the Aegis destroyer, but not the cruiser? Isn’t this essentially what we have done?
Further, the Kerry memo you cite indicates a savings of $800 million from the cancellation of the Aegis Air Defense Cruiser. Does $800 million sound like the cost of the total Aegis program?
To me, it sounds like he was suggesting a specific cut to a specific type of ship, saving costs that would not come near the total cost of the Aegis program. Can you provide any compelling corrective clarification?
nicely played…
Nicely played? That wasn’t nicely played at all. That was utter speculation.
This is supposed to be a debate. If you want to debate me, you should be able to counter my assertions with something other than a “what if”.
In any case, that “what if” wasn’t the case at all.
Bath Iron Works wasn’t granted the contract for detailed design and construction of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer (aka Aegis destroyer) until 1985. The destroyer existed only on paper when John Kerry made his proposal.
Source: http://www.gdbiw.com Click the link for History.
If we charitably assume that John Kerry would have cut cruisers but allowed destroyers to proceed, it still would have meant that Aegis would have been greatly delayed. It would have been deployed in the mid-90’s rather than the mid-80’s. It terms of the naval threats faced at the time, I believe that to be an irresponsible position.
Perhaps the fact that one was in 1992, and the other in 1984 has something to do with the distinction you are so eager to ignore.
Hint: What are some of the significant events of world history occurring between those two dates?
[spoiler]Another hint: Bush Sr. was talking about ICBMs, not theater weapons. What major superpower disappeared in the interim that we might want to have aimed ICBMs at?
And another: Notice how Cheney said, " 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."[/spoiler]
Mr. Moto - now yours was nicely played.
Regards,
Shodan