HELP WANTED:Therapist, witch doctor, or hypnotist. Light John Kerry's Fire.

Great Debates
121

I’m not playing. I’m not the one who used the term. I am, however, observing inconsistencies in your speculation regarding the one bit of reference material you have provided to support your position.

Yes, it is supposed to be a debate, not a “what if.” But speculating and saying “what if” is all you have been doing. You found a memo that the right has been circulating and making all kinds of claims about, and have yourself posted all manner of speculative and specious arguments from it. You have interpreted some of the same cuts proposed in the memo, when proposed by Republicans, as timely and necessary. You have misinterpreted or misrepresented others.

You have argued that Kerry wanted to do away with all Tomahawk missiles from an item regarding “Major Nuclear Programs.” You would have us believe that Kerry simply wanted to do away with the Aegis system altogether, somehow saving us only $800 million, when he states “Aegis Air Defense Cruiser.” You have speculated that he didn’t just mean cruisers, but can provide no evidence to back this up. You have acknowledged that it had already been planned to build the Aegis destroyer at the time this item was written, purportedly by Kerry, about the Aegis cruiser. You can only speculate that this memo meant that Kerry truly wanted to leave a gap in the defense of Navy ships. You haven’t explained what the $800 million figure would apply to. I suggest that if you want to advance this entirely tenuous position in a real debate, you bring something other than the weak-ass support you have so far.

Rather than just speculate, convince us that Kerry really would want to weaken our defenses. Tell us how there are no other explanations. Show us his actual votes that would conform with your interpretation of this memo. Tell us how there were no other systems in place to cover the gaps you propose. Provide us factual information, such as: If we stopped outfitting cruisers with the Aegis system between 1985 and 1991, how many fewer such ships would there have been? How, specifically, would this have weakened our defenses?

You wanted to assert, through the worst kind of speculation, that Kerry would have us fighting modern engagements with Viet Nam era equipment. This simply isn’t the case. At least, not based on the information you have provided so far.

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.
[/QUOTE]
But your own link suggests that it was already being deployed in the early 80’s. Your link is also contractor specific, giving us a history of the Bath Iron Works, but not of the Navy, national defense planning and spending, and the Aegis. Got any more?

122

For additional context, here are what Kerry’s website states as the amounts he has supported for the various weapons systems in question.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0426b.html

It seems to me that Kerry has supported prudent spending to support the needs of our national defense and the men and women who serve that purpose.

123

Naval threats from the Russkies! Good Lord, sir, what of our trade routes to Cathay? Strategicly vital supplies of copra and jute! Might we lose control of the Sandwhich Islands? Jizzen the mainmast, Mr. Christian, belay the poop deck and keel haul the bosn’s mate! Avast!

Your argument seems to boil down to: the Aegis system was entirely crucial to the defense of America, no other interpretation is possible. Mr. Kerry, from either ignorance or a deliberate effort to leave America defenseless before her enemies, opposed the Aegis system. (Thankfully, you have not suggested that this was under orders from the KGB, by way of Commissar Fonda)

This is it? This is what you got? The words “slam dunk”, as immortalized by Mr. Tenet, leap to mind.

If it had come to all-out nuclear conflict, “toe to toe with the Russkies”, the US Navy would have been about as relevent as the Coast Guard (save, of course, for nuclear missile submarines, which would have been effective in reducing the remaining pockets of existence).

Of course, the Navy was crucial to President Reagans glorioius military assault on Fortress Grenada, Operation Urgent Fury! Heaven only knows what would have befallen us had that strategically vital island remained under the ruthless grip of crack commando Cuban bulldozer drivers!

Further, I note that Mr. Kerry is held accountable for his opposition to the Patriot missile. You are aware, I am sure, that the Patriot’s vaunted capabilities are moonshine? If this is the best you guys can do, you are best advised to return to pouring over his wife’s tax returns. She’s rich, and not a Republican. Something fishy there, for sure!

124

Since “nicely played” apparently evokes irritation, let me just say

AArrgh!

125

So, Shodan, why *do * you support candidates who have been so eager to destroy our capability to project our power worldwide? So you retort that Kerry’s record looks marginally worse when held up to the light at exactly the right angle? Who do you hope to convince with that?

126

I don’t; I’m a Bush supporter.

No, I retort that the historical context of positions has a major impact on whether weapons systems and spending cuts are a good idea, or suicidal. Just out of curiousity, did you read my post at all?

Not to mention that, for instance, ICBMs and Aegis might be considered different weapons systems, with different functions, and therefore it might be a good idea to develop the one for current and future needs (as Mr. Moto points out - you could try reading his posts too) but cut back on spending on the other. This would be especially true if your major reason for one system or the other has disappeared onto “the ash heap of history”, to quote a great American.

Well, I guess my target audience was those who want to actually read and substantially respond to what I have written (and to Mr. Moto’s excellent and well-thought out posts), so you may miss out.

On the other hand, you admit above that Kerry’s record looks worse than Bush’s, which I certainly agree is true, so it might even be that the point is being carried even against your will. Mirabile dictu, wouldn’t you agree?

Regards,
Shodan

127

Sigh … you’re insisting on applying the fineness of contextual detail when assessing your guys’ records, but denying its appropriateness when assessing the other guys. That’s what is making your attempt at a “case” backfire - its simple, blatant intellectual dishonesty. Sure, this is a campaign season, but you can’t expect to get away with simple bashes here without their getting exposed, as you should know.

And, FTR, IMHO neither Kerry nor Cheney went far enough in their views of how the military should be reconfigured for the post-Cold-War world. Rumsfeld, to his credit, actually has a handle on it. You’re making a moral condemnation of one, and a praise of the other, on the basis of which functionally-obsolete programs they thought should be closed down first - well, if you find a comfortable position there, you’re welcome to. Since this also is not clear, I said “worse” just to help hold up the your own rants to the mirror for you in hopes that you’d see their insubstantiality as well as the rest of us do.

128

Forgive me for being so dismissive, wolf_meister, ElvisL1ves and Hentor the Barbarian, but I don’t know how you can credibly argue here when your citations are from opinion pieces in Slate and from John Kerry’s website.

These, needless to say, aren’t impartial sources.

I wouldn’t dream of coming in here and citing articles in National Review or Vets4Bush.com in my rebuttals. I’d get shouted down in a second. And, in my opinion, rightly so.

Why don’t you grab some documentation from some reliable research or news sources. Link them if you can. Haul the data back here, so we all can see. With citation.

Like I have done, needless to say.

Then we can talk.

129

And, for the record, I believe some Cheney cuts were appropriate, and some weren’t. But on balance, Cheney has a far better record on defense than Kerry.

I’d be happy to discuss the appropriateness of the post-Cold War cuts, in detail. But right now, nobody’s willing to honestly debate Kerry’s reckless proposals while the Cold War was ongoing.

130

Oh no, don’t accuse me of that. My entire argument is that Kerry’s proposal was reckless in the context of the threats faced by the United States in 1984.

131

Nope, exactly the opposite. Take the historical context in both cases, Kerry’s in 1984 and Cheney in 1992. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the world was a different place.

It is highly appropriate to consider the context both times. If you do, you find that Kerry is trying to do something stupid, and Cheney is trying to keep the Democrats from doing something else stupid.

From your own cite:

Well, your opinion is noted, but FTR, Kerry’s statement was not made in the post-Cold War world - it was in 1984.

Now what was that you were saying about not applying historical context?

I am not accusing you of intellectual dishonesty, but I do think you ought to be consistent.

Regards,
Shodan

132

BTW, Shodan, thanks for the kind compliment. Sentiments warmly reciprocated.

133

Of the 26 total Aegis cruisers commissioned by the Navy, 11 were ordered after 1984. Given the Navy’s plan at the time to deploy two Aegis ships with each carrier, this would not have given us enough Aegis cruisers.

In the context of Navy radars and data systems, had Aegis been eliminated, sailors would have indeed been fighting with Vietnam-era equipment. The previous system, Navy Tactical Data System, had been designed and deployed in the mid to late 1960’s.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cg-47-list.htm

134

Citation for NTDS, which went to sea in 1962!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0769500242/002-9088019-3671262?v=glance

135

You’re welcome. I will spare the hamsters, and say that what I posted applies to 90+% of what you have to add to the SDMB.

And thanks for your prayers for my son. He is doing quite well.

Regards,
Shodan

136

Hi Mr Moto
Well thanks for acknowledging my posting #111.
Even before you pointed it out, I quite plainly stated
“That of course is from a pro-Kerry article”
I was not trying to deceive anyone and I thought I was quite clear in stating that the source would be somewhat biased.
The 4 short paragraphs written after that are mine. Oh granted I don’t think I wrote some profound political treatise on the tendentious nature of news reporting. Just thought I’d insert a little personal opinion (FWIW).
Hey, as I said before, this is a good discussion. At least we are using our brains instead of watching “Who’s The Boss” reruns.
I know my postings are intermittent but I’m not avoiding the issue. However, I am involved with a couple of other threads (GD, Cafe and MSPIS), I have yet another calculator to write and add to my website, and (I’m sure this is also true of other posters), I have to work a full-time job.
I’d like to make this posting longer - but hey - “Bowling For Dollars” is on !!! See? There’s more to life than the SDMB !!

137

Ok, so the Tico class cruisers were already well on their way by 1984. In that year Kerry wanted to cut 800 Million from the defense budget for Aegis cruisers.

The USS Normandy which was deployed that year

came in at about 800 Million (give or take a Sea Hawk or two)

So it seems that Kerry wanted to cut a single ship from an already deployed and productive program. One that would be augemented the next year by the Burke class destroyers.

Saying Kerry would have ended the Aegis cruiser program through this one cut is disengenuous at best. The flyer says “Cancelled,” but the numbers say “cancelled this year.” I’m not going to go looking into the numbers for the other systems cut in that leaflet, but would we find a similiar pattern there?

138

appologies, the USS Normandy would have been the ship cut by the proposed “cancelling” of the program. Misread the cite, awarded in 1984, keel laid in 1987, etc, etc.

139

Perhaps that’s true, coffeecam, and I’m willing to concede that Kerry may have wanted to cut one one ship only. But even a one ship cut in the cruisers would have been a burden on the Navy, since the Burke class destroyers weren’t to come into the fleet until the early 1990’s.

The USS Arleigh Burke, lead ship of the class, was commissioned in 1991.

So no, the augmentation by the destroyers weren’t to come for a long while.

In the absence of any collaborating evidence either way, it’s anyone’s guess what John Kerry’s true aim was, regarding Aegis. Did he want to cancel, or merely cut? Or did he just want to appear to be soft on defense to be electable in hippy-dippy, left-leaning mid-80’s Taxachusetts? That’s a strong possibility, though it hardly makes Kerry look good.

In case anyone’s wondering why I’m harping on this document, it’s because John Kerry isn’t a real legislative heavy hitter on defense matters. He doesn’t sit on the Defense Committee, so he doesn’t have any input on the legislation except through floor amendments, which have been few.

He votes on budgets, but these are large items, as has been noted by many. Discerning his true views on defense matters by using this blunt instrument isn’t terribly precise.

It’s frustrating for the voter or commentator who wants to discern John Kerry’s true views on defense matters. Because, as President, he will have much more of a say in the decision making process, obviously.

So when a document like this turns up, spelling out John Kerry’s defense priorities in detail at a crucial juncture in history, it behooves us all to pay attention. And I believe that John Kerry’s positions at that time were almost criminally irresponsible. I haven’t even begun to address how he wanted to cancel all of our active fighter plane programs back then. :eek:

Has he grown? Has he changed? Is he going to do right by our military? Won’t someone show me some documentation (not from Slate, not from the Kerry campaign) saying that he has? Coffeecam won a concession on a point with reasoned argument and citations from military sources.

140

Thank you, coffeecam. I kept thinking about that $800 million, and trying to figure out what that would equal. Googling “Pentagon budget 1984” and such was not really getting me anywhere.

So it seems likely that Kerry quite literally meant an Aegis Air Defense Cruiser when he wrote “Aegis Air Defense Cruiser.”

Or maybe he hates the military, and meant “leave our carriers naked and vulnerable forever” when he wrote “Aegis Air Defense Cruiser - $800 million.”