In 1994, Kerry proposed an amendment to cut $6 Billion. The intelligence cut amendment came at a time when we needed more intelligence, not less - It was shortly after the First WTC bombing. According to the senators who voted against Kerry, (Democrats which I cited), what Kerry was cutting was vital to the national defense. His view at the time was the intelligence programs “were not in the national interest.”
WOW! Fortunately, this extreme position was not held by the majority, the 1994 amendment it lost 75-20. (Amdt. To H.R. 3759, CQ Vote #39: Rejected 20-75
Then in 1995, Kerry tried it again to cut 1.5 Billion . This time he could get no co-sponsors so the bill never came to a vote. S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95
The intelligence cuts were to cut out unneeded programs. Later in another bill these cuts were passed by congress.
False. Go read the bills.
Kerry’s cuts were across the board cuts. Not targeted at specific programs. Kerry now claims that his bill S. 1290 was to eliminate certain National Reconnaissance Office programs. Well that is what he says today, the problem is that the NRO is never mentioned in S. 1290.
Kerry claims that this bill is similar to Specter’s bill passed by congress
First, SPECTER IS NOT RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY. He will be lucky to survive this primary against Pat Toomey.
Second, Specter’s bill unlike Kerry’s is targeted at the NRO. Kerry mentions the NRO only now in a typically Kerry-esque maneuver to cover his tracks. Kerry’s bill and Specters bill have absolutely nothing in common. It is one thing to focus on a specific and perhaps obsolete program, it is quite another to cut across the board and impact strategic programs. The cuts, both military and defense, affected needed strategic programs, they were needed then and now, this was the position of 3/4 of the senate.
Many had foresight to vote for the B-2. You speak as if Kerry’s view was the mainstream. It was not. You need to understand the context – ¾ of the senate voted against Kerry. As to the cost, the capabilities of the plane mean fewer planes, fewer missions to accomplish an objective and thus in total it is less expensive - another context of the time. His view was that it was unnecessary and to expensive. His position as to need illustrates a lack of forethought, as to expense, it is unsupported by the facts.
And let me see if I got this right, It is ok to make false charges about GWB National Guard Service from 30 years ago, but not OK to quote Kerry from that period, which clearly show his intent? Please tell us if you have any more of these creative guidlines.
Kerry had the intent of reducing military spending so that we would not use it. Fine, that is a perfectly legitimate position on which reasonable people can disagree. But the problem is it is not politically convenient for Kerry right now, so it must me suppressed at all costs. Good luck. |
