Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (20350)	8/26/2004 11:42:38 PM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

The Bush campaign accused Kerry of "a pattern" of trying to cut intelligence funding. Bush personally accused Kerry of attempting to "gut the intelligence services" with a "deeply irresponsible" 1995 proposal. It's true that Kerry proposed cuts in 1994 and 1995, and the his 1994 proposal was criticized on the Senate floor by some members of his own party. But the proposal Bush criticized would have amounted to a reduction of roughly 1%. And senior congressional Republicans supported a cut two-thirds as large at the time. Analysis 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. And in fact, the reports of an NRO slush fund turned out to be true. According to former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith, who led the investigation: Our inquiry revealed that the NRO had for years accumulated very substantial amount as a 'rainy day fund.' Smith, quoted by Slate Magazine, said Kerry's proposal was an attempt "to re-assert adequate Congressional oversight of the intelligence budget." A "pattern?" Well, not exactly The Bush campaign in a March 9 document accused Kerry of "a pattern of intelligence cuts." But aside from the 1995 proposal, the only evidence of a "pattern" offered was a 1994 deficit-reduction bill Kerry sponsored (S. 1826) that included a $1 billion a year in cuts to the intelligence budget for 1994-1998. It is true that some members of Kerry's own party criticized that proposal. Sen. Dennis DeConcini said intelligence funds already had been cut $3.5 billion: I continue to believe that last year's intelligence cut was as deep as the intelligence community can withstand during its post-cold-war transition. And Sen. Daniel Inouye echoed that: An additional $1 billion would severely hamper the intelligence community's ability to provide decisionmakers and policymakers with information on matters vital to this country. On Feb 10,1994, Kerry's amendment was defeated 75-20 with 38 Democratic Senators voting against it. But it is also true that even at that time there was growing concern about the how effectively the intelligence agencies were spending the money they had. Later in 1994 Congress formed the Aspin Commission to assess the state of the intelligence services. It was bipartisan. Following the death of former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, for whom the panel was named, it was headed by another former Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown, and by Republican former Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire. When the 17-member panel completed its report two years later, it said intelligence funding, despite recent cuts, was still 80% higher than it had been in 1980 even after adjustments for inflation. And while the commission did not recommend any more cuts, it acknowledged that balancing the federal budget would probably require that cuts be made. And the commission stopped well short of claiming further cuts would "gut" the intelligence services: Reductions to the existing and planned intelligence resources may be possible without damaging the nation's security. Indeed, finding such reductions is critical . . . (I)t is clear a more rigorous analysis of the resources budgeted for intelligence is required. factcheck.org You have NO mastery of ANY facts.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (20350)	8/26/2004 11:44:31 PM
From: DayTraderKidd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

I'm not ready to provide the link. The main gist of the article is right there for you to read. I want your opinion on those defense cuts before you see the article. And I know you can offer up an opinion because the defense cuts are spelled out very clearly in my cut and paste.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (20350)	8/26/2004 11:45:57 PM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Bush CIA Pick Backed Deep Intelligence Cuts in '90s: Goss-Sponsored Legislation Went Far Beyond Cuts Bush Criticized Kerry for Supporting WASHINGTON - August 24 - President Bush has nominated to be CIA Director a man who has led the effort to cut the very intelligence priorities that are most critical to the fight against terrorism. According to a report in today’s Washington Post, Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL) actually “sponsored legislation that would have cut intelligence personnel by 20 percent in the late 1990s.” (as opposed to the 1% fund cut for Kerry's proposed cut.) President Bush has repeatedly criticized John Kerry for joining with Republicans to slightly reduce funding for intelligence after the end of the Cold War. But *the President’s nominee tried to make far deeper cuts in intelligence as terrorist attacks against the United States increased* in the mid-90s, following the 1993 World Trade Center attack.** Goss supported cuts that were far larger than those proposed by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Goss’ proposals were specifically targeted at “human intelligence,” the very capability which the 9/11 Commission and other independent experts say was lacking in the days and months leading up to the 9/11 attacks. “The hypocrisy of the Bush White House never ends,” said Peter Schurman, Executive Director of MoveOn.org. “With one side of their mouth, the Bush team attacks John Kerry for supposedly weakening our intelligence capabilities. With the other, they nominate to run our intelligence service a man who supported cutting deeply the same ‘human intelligence’ capacities the 9/11 Commission called critical to preventing past and future tragedies.” The revelations about Goss come only a few weeks after similar evidence came to light showing that Vice President Cheney has also repeatedly tried to stop intelligence reforms and cut critical defense programs. In 1992, Cheney led the effort to block the very same intelligence reforms the 9/11 Commission said would have made the United States better prepared to deal with the threat of al Qaeda. Similarly, while the Bush-Cheney campaign has attacked Kerry for supposedly reducing defense spending, it was Cheney himself in 2000 who admitted that as Defense Secretary, he “did in fact significantly reduce the overall size of the U.S. military.” And in 1990, it was Cheney who went to Capitol Hill to tout his effort to slash defense, bragging about “programs that I have recommended for termination.” commondreams.org I stand corrected. It wasn't cheney...it was shrub's CURRENT NOMINEE FOR DCI.