# Kerry's record **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2004, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715 "2004-09-02T03:44:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2004, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/21 "2004-09-02T19:06:24Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’m glad that **XT** openned this thread. Would one of the Kerry supporters around here speak to his record instead of just posting snide remarks to **Sam** , who at least gave his impression of that record? > > I’m an undecided, but I’m not going to vote for Kerry simply because “he’s not Bush”. What does Kerry’s record in the Senate tell us about his principles and beliefs? If, as some seem to imply, that record is too complex to reduce to my simple question, then how should I decide if he deserves my vote other than “he’s not Bush”? > [@jshore](#): > > Most of the specific claims that the RNC attack dogs have made against Kerry’s votes have been debunked. [More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense Record – Latest barrage of ads repeats misleading claims that Kerry “repeatedly opposed” mainstream weapons.](http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177) > [@](#): > > On April 26 the Bush campaign released a total of 10 ads, all repeating claims that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream military hardware “vital to winning the war on terror.” > > **Misleading Claims** > > The claims are misleading, as we’ve pointed out before in articles we posted on Feb. 26 and March 16. The Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry’s votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he’s been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign’s twisted logic, Kerry should – on balance – be called a supporter of the “vital” weapons, more so than an opponent. > > The claim that Kerry voted against body armor is based similarly on Kerry’s vote last year against an $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriation bill to finance military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It included $300 million for the latest, ceramic-plate type of body armor for troops who had been sent to war without it. The body-armor funds amounted to about 1/3 of one percent of the total. > > \ > > Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989: > > **Cheney** : The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, “You can’t have all three. We don’t have the money for all three.” So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years. > > Two years later 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. [Bush Strains Facts Re: Kerry’s Plan To Cut Intelligence Funding in '90’s – President claims 1995 Kerry plan would “gut” the intelligence services. It was a 1% cut, and key Republicans approved something similar.](http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=153) > [@](#): > > (Italics mine) > > President Bush said March 8 at a political fundraiser in Dallas that Kerry’s 1995 proposal to cut $1.5 billion over five years was “deeply irresponsible.” > > His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn’t have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate. Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways. He’s for good intelligence, yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war. > > **"Gut" intelligence? It was 1%** > > It’s true that Kerry’s 1995 proposal called for cutting intelligence funding by $1.5 billion over five years. The actual amount of intelligence spending is classified, but according to the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and others, the US was spending roughly $27 billion on intelligence at the time. So the $300-million cut would have amounted to a little over 1 percent. Hardly a “gutting.” > > It’s true Kerry’s measure had no co-sponsors and died without a hearing. But that’s hardly evidence it was “deeply irresponsible” as the President claimed. On the contrary, there was bipartisan support for cutting what was seen as wasteful spending of classified intelligence funds. > > In fact, Kerry’s proposal came five days after the Washington Post had reported that one intelligence agency, the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office, had quietly hoarded between $1 billion and $1.7 billion in unspent funds without informing the Central Intelligence Agency or the Pentagon. The CIA was in the midst of an inquiry into the NRO’s funding because of complaints that the agency had spent $300 million on unspent funds from its classified budget to build a new headquarters building in Virginia a year earlier. > > **"Irresponsible?" But Republicans Approved.** > > Also, the very same day Kerry proposed his $1.5 billion cut, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment proposed by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996. Specter made clear he was attempting to recoup $1 billion in unused intelligence funds from the NRO: > > It has alleged that the NRO has accumulated more than $1 billion in unspent funds without informing the Pentagon, CIA, or Congress. > > _Kerry co-sponsored a companion measure to the Specter amendment, along with Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama_. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package _endorsed by the Republican leadership_. I’m so fed up with all the distortions, blatant lies and slander I could scream. George W. Bush and his team have no ethics and it makes me sick. Ok, so what’s John Kerry for, and how _has_ he voted? For a brief encapsulation: > [@](#): > > [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/10/kerry\_record/index4.html](http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/10/kerry_record/index4.html) > > Kerry has voted for abortion rights and, by and large, against the death penalty. He has a solid if not spectacular record on labor, and a near-perfect record with the NAACP. In 1996, he was one of only 14 senators who opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, the constitutionally questionable measure that says no state can be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state. > > On Supreme Court nominees, Kerry has been reliably liberal. Although he voted to confirm Antonin Scalia, who sailed through the Senate on a unanimous vote in 1986, Kerry voted against the confirmations of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and David Souter, and he voted against William Rehnquist’s elevation to chief justice. Like most Democrats, Kerry voted against John Ashcroft’s confirmation as attorney general. > > Kerry’s environmental record is also strongly liberal. He has been a leader in the fight against pollution and global warming, and he has helped prevent oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Now, if you really, truly want to take the time to find out exactly how he voted on various issues during his Senate career, you can find that information [here, at vote-smart.org](http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103). You could also visit his website at [http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/](http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/) if you want to know about his “principles and beliefs.” Basically, he’s a liberal Democrat who wants to re-establish cooperative relationships with other nations so that we don’t have to fight all our battles virtually alone; who wants to fund research into renewable energy sources and alternatives to oil in order to reduce our foreign dependency on it, not drill into the Arcitic Refuge for what would amount to 6 month’s worth of fuel; who is angry that so many millions of Americans have no health insurance coverage, and wants to create a system whereby everyone who wants to participate in the same plan that Congress gives themselves, can; who is concerned that rising healthcare costs are a big part of what’s driving so many American jobs overseas and who wants to create tax incentives for businesses to keep those jobs here; who wants to expand after-school programs, as he said in a speech I heard him give in Los Angeles last week, [paraphrased] so that our schools don’t become farm systems for our prisons; who is appalled that 45% of our nation’s rivers, lakes and streams don’t meet standards that would make them fishable, swimmable & drinkable and wants to implement a “Restore America’s Waters” campaign to repair some of the damage. We’ve had 3½ years to see exactly how abysmally George W. Bush has performed on these issues and how he’s bulldozed over our allies and enemies alike in international affairs. If you aren’t afraid of another 4 years of a President who has driven our economy into the ground, destroyed or damaged our reputation throughout the world community, lied to us repeatedly and shamelessly on everything from WMD in Iraq to the true extent of his Medicare bill’s costs, believes (and tries to legislate) in theology over science, and wants to be the first President to put hate language into our Constitution, then I don’t know what else can be said to possibly convince you that voting for John Kerry is critically important. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2004, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/22 "2004-09-02T19:19:47Z")
Thanks Shayna, thats the kind of stuff I was looking for, something that lays out a position that can be debated from, and at least attempts to debate the points brought up by the Republicans. I’m away on travel today so I can’t sift through it all, but when I get back in town I will take a hard look at it all. Appreciate it. Thanks also to RedFury, RTFirefly, Sam Stone and Hentor the Barbarian for bringing data to the debate. -XT ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2004, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/23 "2004-09-02T20:03:01Z")
**Shayna** : wow. That was one ass-kicking post. My hat’s off to you. One other thing Kerry did that was politically risky (together with John McCain, before he was a superstar) was to investigate the whole Vietnam POW-MIA business in the early 1990s, and finally (finally!) put it to rest. This was politically risky, because the POW-MIA fanatics, though numerically small, were well-organized, adept at publicity, and refused to give up. Kerry and McCain verified one more time that it was quite unlikely that any of the MIAs survived long enough to be captured by the enemy, and we wound up recognizing the Vietnamese government. (IIRC, various branches of the US government had thoroughly investigated the “MIAs: only Hanoi knows” claims on three different occasions in the decade after we pulled our troops out of Vietnam, and came up with the same answer every time: no reason to think a single one of them either was alive, or died in captivity. Vietnam had jungles and stuff; it’s no surprise we had a couple thousand MIAs. We had literally tens of thousands of MIAs in just the European theatre of WWII, and we had the run of the battlefields afterwards. Nobody was saying, “MIAs: only Germany knows.” Yet the Vietnam MIA issue refused to die a natural death.) ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2004, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/24 "2004-09-02T20:52:51Z")
Before BCCI there was **Iran-Contra**. Kerry was the [original whistle blower](http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml): > [@](#): > > He had spent the spring conducting an unauthorized investigation into reports that the Reagan administration was illegally providing aid to the rebel Nicaraguan Contra armies, which were attempting to overthrow the left-wing government of that Central American nation. At this closed session, he planned to urge the committee to launch an official probe. > > …But behind the scenes, Kerry had forged an unlikely alliance with Senator Jesse Helms, the hidebound conservative from North Carolina. As the senior Republican on the committee, Helms was the key to Kerry’s hopes. And the key to Helms was the drug war. > > In the course of their investigation, Kerry and his staff had found evidence that some contras had ties to drug smuggling. If there was one class of villain that Helms deplored as much as the communists, it was drug traffickers. > > On matters of political philosophy, Kerry and Helms were polar opposites. Yet each was something of a maverick, contemptuous of the capital’s courtiers and willing to rock the clubby Senate. “I spent time with Jesse,” Kerry recalls. “I talked to him. Talked his language. Jesse didn’t believe the same things I did in many cases, but he was a gentleman. He was a man of his word.” > > As Kerry finished his presentation, the senior members turned to Helms, taking his temperature on the issue. “Jesse? What do you think about this?” asked Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the panel, according to a transcript of the then-secret session. “I know you are a contra supporter.” > > “I will tell you what I do not support, and John Kerry and I have talked about this: anybody sending drugs into this country,” Helms told his colleagues. “I do not care whose side they are on.” > > Helms was on board. The committee reached a consensus: It would investigate the contras and the contra-drug connection. From a [WaPo piece](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22260-2004Feb7?language=printer) on his senate record: “…In perhaps his biggest break with liberal orthodoxy, Kerry was one of relatively few Democrats to vote for the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill in the 1980s to force spending cuts to meet binding budget targets. Later he voted to give presidents “line-item veto” authority over individual items in appropriations bills…” …As Dean pointed out in a debate in South Carolina, Kerry has few if any laws that bear his name. But neither do many other influential senators, because most bills are folded into other legislation and put in final form by committees, whose senior members are usually identified as sponsors. Kerry is a senior member of the foreign relations, finance and commerce committees but has chaired only the small-business committee – a far less prestigious panel than the others – for a brief period… …“He’s intelligent, he’s serious, a real hard worker . . . but he’s not in the cloakroom telling dirty jokes . . . like some of 'em,” said Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), who has endorsed Kerry’s presidential bid. Hollings and Kerry disagree on many issues, including trade, but Hollings remembers how Kerry helped him with legislation to protect the textile industry during the 1980s… (Kerry and Hollings worked together to pass three different bills to help the textile workers of South Carolina. They were vetoed by Republican presidents) ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2004, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/25 "2004-09-02T21:24:40Z")
Tsk, tsk. . .don’t you guys understand? Kerry’s record is **bad**. He didn’t do a single thing while he was in the Senate. You there, piping up about Bush _fils_ and his lack of a record. Put a sock in it. He voted against keeping our troops safe. He flip flopped. He brought on a trial lawyer as a running mate. I would even imagine that he doesn’t care for barbecue. And you want to throw out such crap as BCCI and Iran/Contra. Old news! What’s he gonna do about winning the war on terror? Which is really not that much of an issue this week, but it’s liable to flare up at any time. Especially in a month or so. Or whenever. But don’t let that keep you from shopping! Gotta do your part to keep our economy chugging. I hear that either of the Dakotas are nice this time of year. Or Wyoming. You should go. But we were talking about terror. Did you hear? I said **terror**! And You don’t wanna switch horses in mid-stream. Zell Miller wouldn’t want that, and doesn’t Zell look like your great-grandfather? Crazy as a shithouse rat, snuff dribbles running down his chin, a Confederate pistol near to hand. Remember? Great-grandpappy? * * * Oh, yeah, **Shayna** : everything **RTFirefly** said. Wow. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2004, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/26 "2004-09-02T22:10:54Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Before BCCI there was **Iran-Contra**. Kerry was the [original whistle blower](http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml) Oh-HO! Now we are GETTING somewhere! So Dubya’s hatred of Kerry goes back even farther than when Saddam tried to whack his daddy to when KERRY TRIED PUTTING DADDY IN JAIL, eh? 'Splains a lot, don’t it? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/27 "2004-09-02T22:18:38Z")
Hmmm, interesting side note. Bush has been keeping the Reagan Papers out of the public eye, based on an Executive Order and a rather flimsy legal artifice. The papers that have the real skinny on the whole Iran-Contra _mishigoss_. If Kerry gets into office, we can probably assume those papers will be released, and we will get the real skinny. Not implying anything. Just sayin’, is all. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2004, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/28 "2004-09-02T23:13:43Z")
From the Void of the Pundits… Kaplan at Slate [http://slate.msn.com/id/2106119/](http://slate.msn.com/id/2106119/) > [@](#): > > …Kerry voted against both bills, as did 15 other senators, including five Republicans. The RNC took those bills, cherry-picked some of the weapons systems contained therein, and implied that Kerry voted against those weapons. By the same logic, they could have claimed that Kerry voted to disband the entire U.S. armed forces; but that would have raised suspicions and thus compelled more reporters to read the document more closely… ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2004, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/29 "2004-09-02T23:30:53Z")
Just for future reference, FactCheck prefers that their articles be reproduced in full, without edit or emphasis of any kind that deviates from the original. It is one of the reasons that I so respect them. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2004, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/30 "2004-09-02T23:32:05Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > [More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense Record – Latest barrage of ads repeats misleading claims that Kerry “repeatedly opposed” mainstream weapons.](http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177) > > … > > [Bush Strains Facts Re: Kerry’s Plan To Cut Intelligence Funding in '90’s – President claims 1995 Kerry plan would “gut” the intelligence services. It was a 1% cut, and key Republicans approved something similar.](http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=153) Great post, **Shayna**. Just to point out for those who don’t click on the links, these are links to [www.factcheck.org](http://www.factcheck.org) which, like spinsanity, is committed to correcting errors in fact whoever makes them. They are not partisan defenses of Kerry’s record. ---
**Author:** ![Airblairxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Airblairxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airblairxxx)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2004, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/31 "2004-09-02T23:49:21Z")
Like the others, I salute **Shayna** for her research on Senator Kerry. Damn, I’m finding stuff in here about the guy that even I didn’t know about. So why the hell doesn’t his campaign start broadcasting this stuff? Gramm-Rudman-Hollings? BCCI? Iran-Contra? HELLO? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/32 "2004-09-03T01:13:04Z")
Well, if we’d like facts on Kerry’s record… At [This url](http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/004440.html) you can see actual photocopies of a handbill directly from John Kerry in 1984. This directly contradicts those of you claiming that Kerry’s anti-defense votes were really just votes against omnibus bills or other senatorial compromises. Here’s John Kerry’s ‘Defense Plan’ quoted directly from that material: > [@](#): > > NUCLEAR FORCES > > - MX Missile — Cancel — $5.0 billion > - B-1 Bomber — Cancel — $8.0 billion > - Anti-satellite system — Cancel — $ 99 million > - Star Wars [sic] — Cancel — $1.3 billion > - Tomahawk Missile — Reduce by 50 per cent — $294 million > > LAND FORCES > > - AH-64 Helicopters — Cancel — $1.4 billion > - Division Air Defense Gun (DIVAD) — Cancel — $638 million > - Patriot Air Defense Missile — Cancel — $1.3 billion > > NAVAL FORCES > > - Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser — Cancel — $800 million > - Battleship Reactivation — Cancel — $453 million > > AIRCRAFT > > - AV-8B Vertical Takeoff and Landing Aircraft — Cancel — $1.0 billion > - F-15 Fighter Aircraft — Cancel — $2.3 billion > - F-14A Fighter Aircraft — Cancel — $1.0 billion > - F-14D Fighter Aircraft — Cancel — $286 million > - Phoenix Air-to-Air Missile — Cancel — $432 million > - Sparrow Air-to-Air Missile That backs up EXACTLY what Zell Miller said. in fact, I’ll bet you he took he speech material from this. John Kerry was, in 1984, in favor of CANCELLING the Harrier jet, the F-15, F-14A and D, the Phoenix and sparrow air to air missiles, the Aegis cruiser, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot missile, the B-1 bomber. He wanted to reduce funding for the Tomahawk cruise missile by 50%. ALL of these weapons systems have turned out to be highly successful, critical tools in the U.S. inventory. And bear in mind that Kerry wanted to cancel all these in the height of the cold war. As I said, he was bitterly opposed to Reagan’s defense buildup. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/33 "2004-09-03T01:33:10Z")
> [@Airblairxxx](#): > > So why the hell doesn’t his campaign start broadcasting this stuff? Gramm-Rudman-Hollings? BCCI? Iran-Contra? > > HELLO? Still two months ago. Maybe Kerry will find an excuse to bring up this stuff during the debates, when the whole world is watching. Assuming there will be debates – and since the Commission on Presidential Debates ([http://www.debates.org/](http://www.debates.org/)) has already scheduled three of them, in swing states where the voters might get pissed if W disappoints them by not showing up (September 30 at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida; October 8 at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri; October 13 at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona; vice-presidential debate October 5 at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio), I rather expect there will be debates. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/34 "2004-09-03T01:38:31Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Well, if we’d like facts on Kerry’s record… > > At [This url](http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/004440.html) you can see actual photocopies of a handbill directly from John Kerry in 1984. This directly contradicts those of you claiming that Kerry’s anti-defense votes were really just votes against omnibus bills or other senatorial compromises. Here’s John Kerry’s ‘Defense Plan’ quoted directly from that material: > > That backs up EXACTLY what Zell Miller said. in fact, I’ll bet you he took he speech material from this. > > John Kerry was, in 1984, in favor of CANCELLING the Harrier jet, the F-15, F-14A and D, the Phoenix and sparrow air to air missiles, the Aegis cruiser, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot missile, the B-1 bomber. He wanted to reduce funding for the Tomahawk cruise missile by 50%. > > ALL of these weapons systems have turned out to be highly successful, critical tools in the U.S. inventory. > > And bear in mind that Kerry wanted to cancel all these in the height of the cold war. As I said, he was bitterly opposed to Reagan’s defense buildup. We already ripped the crap out of this lame claim [here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=254047&highlight=Aegis). Use your brain for a second and ask yourself, for example, if CANCELLING the Aegis system would yeild only $800 million, or if that is more in line with eliminating ONE Aegis Cruiser, which were replaced by Aegis Destroyers anyway. And the Tomahawk nuclear missle was ELIMINATED by GHW Bush 7 years after Kerry proposed cutting it. There are other misstatements here as well. Check the thread. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/35 "2004-09-03T01:49:23Z")
Thanks for the cite, **Sam**. I think it’s rather interesting, though, that this is being used against Kerry. From the paper: > [@](#): > > **John Kerry** said (in the paper): > _In addition, acquisition of equipment and supplies should depend on real defense needs, not inter-service rivalries. “National security” is no excuse for bad management practices._ Since, 5 years later, Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney actually wanted to cut the Apache program (and later, further production of Bradley fighting vehicles) due to budget constraints, I would think that Kerry actually knew what he was talking about. And, furthermore, tells me: Kerry actually has an idea of “how much military is ‘too much’”, and “how will we deal with our economic woes?” On preview… regarding **Hentor** ’s post: I also see that Kerry keeps up to date with what military programs can/should be canceled, in order to cut back on wasteful spending. LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/36 "2004-09-03T02:48:10Z")
Wow, indeed! Thank you guys very much for the kind praise. I’m feeling a bit embarrassed, but thrilled that I could provide information that might be helpful or enlightening. It’s _so_ important that we get the truth out there! And I’m really glad that others have elaborated with information about Kerry’s leadership role in the BCCI and Iran/Contra scandals and his joint effort with McCain to finally put the MIA issue to rest (he actually stood with McCain in McCain’s former “Hanoi Hilton” cell!). More on that… > [@](#): > > [Kerry Redefined by Post-Vietnam Efforts](http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-kerryprofile16jan16,1,6534260.story?coll=la-news-elect2004) > (L.A. Times story – may require free registration. Emphasis mine.) > > \ > > Kerry doggedly questioned onetime enemies, visited once supersecure prisons and fought for consensus on a deeply divided investigative committee. > > His willingness to take on that thankless task helped pave the way for the normalization of U.S. relations with Vietnam in 1995. > > His work also earned the junior senator from Massachusetts, whose obsession with television publicity once led critics to dub him “live shot,” **new respect in the Senate for his bipartisanship and his diplomacy**. > > **"This is when he becomes a peacemaker, not just an antiwar advocate** ," says Thomas Vallely, director of the Vietnam Program at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. "He switches gears and says, ‘I am not going to be just against something. I am going to deal with the people who are against me and I am going to work this out.’ " > > \ > > When Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Maine) offered Kerry the POW committee chairmanship in 1992, his staff urged him to say no. They believed the assignment was a “tar baby,” with no possibility of filling the aching emotional void felt by families of the missing men. > > “It was a loser politically from just about every kind of possible point of view,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a Kerry ally. > > But Kerry had been attending town hall meetings around Massachusetts, and had repeatedly heard from families wanting to know what had become of their sons and brothers. > > "I bumped into enough of that that I said to myself, ‘Somebody has got to find answers for these people,’ " Kerry recalled. “And that’s when I started to look at Vietnam.” > > \ > > Together, Kerry and McCain urged President George H.W. Bush to make the U.S. military the sole group responsible for investigating the hundreds of reports of “live sightings” of Westerners in Vietnam. Previously, family members had taken their appeals to other branches of government or to freelance POW hunters. > > The empowerment of military investigators proved crucial because it brought more rigor to the search and helped defuse some of the enormous emotion that swirled around the issue, said Vallely, the Kennedy School expert and a Vietnam veteran. > > \ > > [McCain] became a lightning rod for the anger of bereft relatives who would not give up hope. From the back of the committee room, one activist shouted at McCain that he was the “Manchurian Candidate” — a brainwashed war hero who was betraying his onetime comrades. > > \*\*Those barbs infuriated McCain. On such occasions, Kerry would lean over and lay a hand on his friend’s arm. > > "It was like, ‘Just stay calm,’ " McCain recalled. “He kept me from saying or doing something that probably would have been inappropriate. And I appreciated it, very much.”\*\* > > \ > > Kerry also agreed to question Robert Garwood, a former American Marine who had been court-martialed for collaborating with the Viet Cong. > > In McCain’s view, which he expressed privately, Garwood was lucky he hadn’t been shot for disloyalty, a committee source said. But Smith insisted that the committee talk to Garwood. > > So Garwood was allowed to testify that he saw what he believed were U.S. prisoners of war in northern Vietnam after the war ended in 1975. > > **"Kerry always made a point of bringing calm and order and civility to the room,"** said Virginia Foote, president of the U.S.-Vietnam Trade Council. > > Kerry’s chairmanship of the committee came to be characterized by a **willingness to take quick action**. > > \ > > \*\*The same sort of diplomacy was needed on a subsequent trip, when jailers weren’t going to let McCain down a hallway to see the cell where he had been held at Hao Lo, the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.” > > Again, Kerry talked his way past the guards. “He is just really a good diplomat,” said Mark Salter, McCain’s chief of staff, who was on the trip. > > In front of the bare cement enclosure where McCain had been held, the two former combatants shared a moment, as others on the trip hung back.\*\* There’s more – it’s definitely worth registering to read, if you don’t already have a login there. I think it exemplifies the spirit, fortitude and diplomacy that John Kerry possesses, and which he would bring with him to the Presidency. > [@Liberal](#): > > Just for future reference, FactCheck prefers that their articles be reproduced in full, without edit or emphasis of any kind that deviates from the original. It is one of the reasons that I so respect them. **Liberal** , while I do appreciate you trying to ensure that [FactCheck.org](http://FactCheck.org)’s copyright rules are followed, a careful reading of them will show that in fact, I was in compliance. While they _prefer_ articles reprinted in their entirety, they \* do allow\* for excerpts to be published, and make no mention of not using emphasis, so long as those excerpts maintain the original context and integrity of the piece, which I believe you will find mine did. I chose to use excerpts, in an effort to save bandwidth for the SDMB, to make my point as succinctly as possible (that post was long enough as it was!) and because I trust Dopers to actually click through to links when they’re provided. > [@](#): > > [http://factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docID=10](http://factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docID=10) > > 1. Copyright and Use of Our Articles: Original [FactCheck.org](http://FactCheck.org) articles and Special Reports may be reprinted or distributed, without charge, and in any media. We ask that the editorial integrity of the article be preserved. We prefer that you copy and distribute the entire, original work without editing, **but you may distribute an excerpt. If you distribute an excerpt, you should not edit the original in such a way as to alter the message or otherwise misrepresent the facts or opinions expressed**. > [@LilShieste](#): > > Since, 5 years later, Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney actually wanted to cut the Apache program (and later, further production of Bradley fighting vehicles) due to budget constraints, I would think that Kerry actually knew what he was talking about. And, furthermore, tells me: Kerry actually has an idea of “how much military is ‘too much’”, and “how will we deal with our economic woes?” Not to mention that **Sam** points us to **one bill from 20 years ago** , while completely ignoring the fact that “ **Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he’s been in the Senate**.” (quote repeated from above [FactCheck.org](http://FactCheck.org) cite.) ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/37 "2004-09-03T03:24:33Z")
Again, I must commend **Mr Stone** for his impeccable sources. For after perusing his latest link for a bit, I found the following, rather astonishing information on Senator Kerry. In fact, I am rather surprised **Mr Stone** didn’t bring it up in his very first post to this thread. Too modest I guess – for if the following bit of knowledge is not enough to dissuade you from even _thinking_ of voting for Mr. Kerry, well, I simply don’t know what will. Here, see for yourselves: [John Kerry’s speech tonight at the Democratic National Convention explains the critical, indeed, life-threatening difference between Kerry and President Bush](http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/004291.html) > [@](#): > > **John Kerry doesn’t want to fight the War on Terror to win. He wants to play defense. That approach got 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11. It will get more killed - it could get you killed - if John Kerry is elected president** and makes good on his promise to play defense in the war on terror. > > Vote accordingly.(bolding mine) Ok, ok, I give! Call me crazy, but I wanna live! Bush it is! Bush it _has_ to be! _::::shudder::::_ Thank you, **Mr. Stone** , for saving my life – I feel deeply indebted to you. May this post save many more. But please, don’t thank me; **Sam’s** the only hero here…for it was only through his amazing dilligence and objectivity that I happened upon said site. I’m just the messenger. In the nick of time one can only hope. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/38 "2004-09-03T03:52:18Z")
> [@](#): > > We already ripped the crap out of this lame claim here… You must have posted the wrong link. The thread you posted had **Mr. Moto** and **Shodan** opening up a pretty big can of whup-ass on you. > [@](#): > > Use your brain for a second and ask yourself, for example, if CANCELLING the Aegis system would yeild only $800 million, or if that is more in line with eliminating ONE Aegis Cruiser, which were replaced by Aegis Destroyers anyway. We are all speculating about just what John Kerry meant (what’s new?). Sure, it’s possible that he meant cutting just one cruiser. On the other hand, maybe he was talking about savings for the current fiscal year only. But I will concede that he was likely talking about just one Aegis cruiser. I know a lot more about aviation than Navy stuff, though, so let’s go down that path, shall we? First, the F-15. Given the date of the memo and the amount that Kerry wanted to cut, it looks to me like what he wanted to cut was the F-15E ‘Strike Eagle’, which became operational in 1987. Earlier variants of the F-15 were air-to-air fighters. The Strike Eagle was a radical new plane with all new avionics, radars, weapons delivery systems, and other advanced features. The Strike Eagle is superb aircraft that is still being produced 20 years after being developed, and it is planned to be in the inventory until 2030, which is an amazingly lifespan for a fighter jet. The proposed F-14 cancellations look to me like he wanted to completely scrap the development of the F-14D (which entered service in 1988), and cancel the last procurement of the F-14A. A $1B cut would be about 40 aircraft, or at little less than 10% of the F-14 fleet. His proposed cut to the Apache looks to me like a complete elimination of the program, or at least a drastic scaling back. In 1984 the Apache was in production, but wouldn’t be delivered for two more years. It was undergoing early production teething problems, and I remember a number of Democrats demanding that it be scrapped. Of course, the Apache went on to become one of the most useful weapons systems in the entire U.S. military, doing yeoman service in Panama, the first and second Gulf wars, and all over the world. It has been a real workhorse. Kerry wanted to cut the Apache by 1.4 billion in 1984. By 1984 only 65 Apaches had been built. Over the next five years, about 450 more Apaches were built - 1.4 billion dollars would have represented a significant fraction of those. I can’t remember how much the Apache cost in 1984 dollars - An Apache today costs about 18 million - in 1984 it was probably in the range of 3-4 million, as a guess. In essence, a 1.4 billion cut would have gutted the program. Likewise, the Patriot cut would have been a complete elimination of the program. And the Patriot HAS been an effective weapons system. Its mixed results in shooting down SCUDS in the Gulf war has caused critics to say it was a waste of money, but they forget that the Patriot is actually a ground to air missile designed to shoot down aircraft - the reason it was pressed into service against SCUDS was because it had exceeded its design parameters substantially and it was felt that it was good enough to shoot down missiles. And in any event, the Patriot was very valuable in the Gulf war as a psychological weapon. > [@](#): > > And the Tomahawk nuclear missle was ELIMINATED by GHW Bush 7 years after Kerry proposed cutting it. There are other misstatements here as well. Check the thread. Are you aware that the nuclear-tipped Tomahawk was only one minor variant? In fact, the Tomahawk has been one of the most successful weapons systems the U.S. has built. Seventy of them were fired at Taliban targets in Afghanistan. Four hundred Tomahawks were fired in Desert Storm, in Bosnia, and in Iraq in 1996. The Tomahawk was extensively used in the last war. It can be fired from ships, aircraft, and submarines. The existence of the Tomahawk gives the U.S. a stealthy, powerful, precision attack system that can sneak through enemy forces and deliver blows to command and control facilities, factories, etc. That list above only touches on the opposition to the military presented by John Kerry in the 1980’s. He opposed almost all of Reagan’s strategic military moves. He advocated a nuclear freeze. He opposed the MX missile. He opposed the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. He opposed the anti-communist insurgency funding wherever Reagan wanted to engage in it. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/39 "2004-09-03T03:55:43Z")
[Bush Still Fudging the Numbers on Kerry’s Tax Votes Ad claims Kerry cast “98 votes” to raise taxes, but the total is misleading.](http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=247) > [@](#): > > (All emphasis contained in original article.) > > August 30, 2004 > Modified: August 30, 2004 > > **Summary** > > The Bush-Cheney campaign released a television ad August 23 accusing Kerry of casting “98 votes for tax increases.” The number is an improvement on Bush’s earlier claim that Kerry cast 350 votes for “higher taxes,” which we described as inflated. But even the new, reduced total is padded. > > Of the 98 votes for “tax increases,” 43 were cast on budget measures that only set targets and don’t actually legislate tax increases. Often, several votes are counted regarding a single tax bill. > > The ad also strives to blame Kerry for raising taxes on the “middle class” and says “There’s what Kerry says and then there’s what Kerry does.” But a close look shows the votes cited in this ad are in fact fairly consistent with Kerry’s promise only to raise taxes on those making over $200,000 a year. > > **Analysis** > > The ad released August 23 is called “Taxing Our Economy,” accusing Kerry of voting repeatedly to raise taxes on the “middle class.” > > > [@](#): > > > > SIDEBAR > > > > Bush-Cheney '04 Ad > > > > “Taxing Our Economy” > > > > **Announcer** : Now Kerry promises… > > > > **John Kerry** : We won’t raise taxes on the middle class. > > > > **Announcer** : Really? John Kerry’s voted to raise gas taxes on the middle class …10 times… > > > > He supported a 50 cent a gallon gas tax increase. > > > > Higher taxes on middle class parents… 18 times. > > > > He voted to raise taxes on social security benefits. > > > > 98 votes for tax increases. > > > > There’s what Kerry says and then there’s what Kerry does. > > **Stretching for 98** > > Bush has scaled back an earlier claim that Kerry voted 350 times for “higher taxes,” a number we previously described as [. However, Bush is still using misleading numbers. > > **Of the 98 votes “for tax increases,” 43 would not actually have increased taxes**. They were for budget bills to set target levels for spending and taxes in the coming fiscal years. > > To be sure, such votes did express Kerry’s general approval for the higher tax levels they contained. But strictly speaking, separate legislation would be required to bring about an actual tax increase. In fact, budget resolutions are not even submitted to the President, much less made into law. > > The Bush campaign also exploits the complexity of the parliamentary voting system to pad the number. Most of the 98 votes were on procedural measures, such as votes to end debate or votes on amendments, and not on passage of the measure itself. **More than once, the 98-vote total counts half a dozen votes or more on on a single bill.** > > For example, the total includes: [ul][li]Sixteen votes – by the Bush campaign’s own count – on Clinton’s 1993 deficit-reduction package, which raised taxes (almost exclusively on the highest-earning one or two percent of households) and cut spending. Only one of the 16 was on final passage of that measure, and the rest on various amendments and parliamentary maneuverings.[/li][li]Six votes on Sen. John McCain’s 1998 proposal to raise taxes on cigarettes by $1.10 a pack to deter youthful smoking. Four were votes for cloture (to end debate). One was a procedural vote to waive budget restrictions requiring 60 votes to approve the McCain bill. The sixth vote was against stripping the tax-increase provisions from a broader measure McCain was using as a vehicle for his proposal.[/li][li]Seven votes that were cast on one budget resolution for the 1996 fiscal year, one of them a vote for a Democratic alternative to the Republican-proposed budget, increasing funding for Medicare, veterans’ benefits, and education, financed by higher taxes on corporations and persons making over $140,000 a year. The other five were votes to increase spending on such things as student loans and health research, funded by closing tax “loopholes” or raising the tobacco tax.[/li][li]Six votes on the 1997 budget resolution. Kerry voted variously for higher funding for education, Medicare, the National Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and veterans benefits, financed by “closing corporate tax loopholes” and extending expired tax provisions.[/ul] \*\* Kerry supported middle class tax increases?\*\*[/li] > **–Gasoline Tax:** The ad claims that Kerry voted to “raise gas taxes on the middle class 10 times,” which is false. As we’ve noted [url="[http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=165"]before](http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=159"bogus](http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=165%22%5Dbefore%5D(http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=159%22bogus)[/url), five of those votes were on the 1993 Clinton package, which resulted in a 4.3-cent per gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax. And five of the votes were not to raise the tax, as the ad falsely claims, but were against Republican attempts to cut the gasoline tax. Four were against repeal of Clinton’s 4.3-cent tax after it had gone into effect. The last vote was against temporarily suspending the 18.4-cent federal gasoline tax entirely for 150 days during a period of spiking gasoline prices in 2000. > > The Bush ad also recycles once again the statement that Kerry “supported a 50 cent a gallon gas tax increase,” which (as we’ve noted before) hasn’t been true for a decade. Kerry once told newspaper interviewers that he deserved credit as a deficit hawk for supporting such an increase, but the fact is he had passed up a chance to cosponsor a Senate bill that would have done that, never voted for such an increase, and says he opposes such an increase now. > > **–Child Tax Credit:** The ad further claims that Kerry voted 18 times for “higher taxes on middle class parents.” All these were votes against Republican proposals for granting tax credits for families with children, going back to 1994, and many were votes against broad Republican tax packages that included expanded child credits as one element. Strictly speaking, those weren’t votes to raise taxes as the ad implies, but votes to keep taxes unchanged. Now, Kerry says he’d preserve the child tax credits currently on the books. > > **–Social Security:** It’s true as the ad states that Kerry voted to increase taxes on Social Security benefits, an increase included in the 1993 deficit-cutting package. That increased tax goes to help pay for Medicare, and is paid only by those making $44,000 a year or more for a married couple, falling on roughly the highest-earning 18% of Social Security recipients. > > **–Middle Class:** Generally this ad attempts to discredit Kerry’s promise not to raise taxes on the “middle class,” but in fact many of the votes cited by the Bush campaign are votes to do pretty much what he promises to do if elected: raise taxes on upper-income taxpayers. The votes on the fiscal '96 budget are a good example, as the increases would have fallen on those making over $140,000 a year.Currently, Kerry promises to repeal the Bush cuts only for those making over $200,000 a year. > > **Picking Through 6,000 Votes** > > By our tally, Kerry has cast more than 6,000 recorded votes over his nearly 20-year Senate career. It’s fair game for the Bush campaign to pick through those looking for votes that are contrary to Kerry’s stated positions. But as this ad demonstrates, voters have reason to be skeptical of such exercises. Bush’s claim that 98 of those 6,000 votes were to “raise taxes” is still misleading. > > \ > > Copyright 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania > Judgments expressed are those of [FactCheck.org](http://FactCheck.org)’s staff, not the Annenberg Center ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/40 "2004-09-03T04:05:56Z")
1984, **Sam**? 20 years ago, **Sam**? Wow, guess we’re lucky he didn’t vote against the Gatling gun. But seriously, **Sam** …if a decidely right-wing non-partisan like yourself, who famously reserves judgement in these matters… if the best support for your charge of undue non-vigilence is twenty years old…doesn’t that seem to you, well, a bit weak? The Patriot missile, its fair to say, has been amply discussed in these pages. Mr. Miller’s legendary spitballs are equally effective, and don’t cost a gazillion bucks apiece. > [@](#): > > …that Patriots hit only 9 percent of the Scud warheads engaged, and there are serious questions about these few hits. It is possible that the Patriots hit more than 9 percent, however, the evidence supporting these claims is even weaker… Activities of the House Committee on Governmental Operations [http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/patriot.htm](http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/patriot.htm) And not to forget the B-1 bomber. A strategic weapon in a street-fight world, its capacity to evade camel-borne anti-aircraft radar is the stuff of legend. Had the Taliban an air force, or if Saddam had an air defense system that wouldn’t have been bitch-slapped by the Flying Tigers (in original equipment)…perhaps then the B1 might have proven its crucial importance to national security. (Did the B-1 see action against Grenada?..) Maybe we should look at them as part of the Republicans Raytheon/Boeing Full Employment Initiative (a good way to keep retired generals off the welfare rolls!) Or as ongoing support for small businessmen and entrepreneurs. Can’t really say they are small business. Damn sure _entrepreneurs._ Gotta give 'em that… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715.md?page=3)