The real reason Kerry proposed to cut intelligence budget

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2004-03-14 07:01pm

Half of this is ripped off from DailyKos and the Washington Post, sorry if this is a repost but I checked and didn't see anything. I figured I'd post it up since the supposed cuts made Kerry look pretty bad.

Anyway, awhile back we read about John Kerry proposing a bill that would "gut" our intelligence by cutting $1.5 billion. I was a bit skeptical of this since each politicians like to skew facts about their opponents. There is almost always another side to the story. It appears my suspicions were correct:

President Bush, in his first major assault on Sen. John F. Kerry's legislative record, said this week that his Democratic opponent proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget, a proposal that would "gut the intelligence services," and one that had no co-sponsors because it was "deeply irresponsible."

In terms of accuracy, the parry by the president is about half right. Bush is correct that Kerry on Sept. 29, 1995, proposed a five-year, $1.5 billion cut to the intelligence budget. But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut -- about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years -- would have "gutted" intelligence. In fact, the Republican-led Congress that year approved legislation that resulted in $3.8 billion being cut over five years from the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office -- the same program Kerry said he was targeting.

The cuts were actually justified as well:

Five days before Kerry introduced his legislation, The Washington Post reported that the NRO had hoarded $1 billion to $1.7 billion of unspent funds without informing the CIA or the Pentagon. Months earlier, the CIA had launched an inquiry into the NRO's funding after complaints by lawmakers that the agency had used more than $300 million of unspent classified funds to build a Virginia headquarters for the organization a year earlier [...]

Four days before Kerry's legislation was introduced, the chairmen of the House and Senate defense appropriations subcommittees, Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) announced they had "agreed upon additional reductions to NRO funding in order to ensure that only such amounts as are necessary."

He wanted to cut funds that the intelligence agency was not using. That's a far cry from "gutting" our intelligence, wouldn't you think?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-14 11:45pm

Not surprising. Bush and his legion of dittoheads have been lying for years about a variety of subjects; why should the election be any different?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-03-14 11:52pm

Darth Wong wrote:Not surprising. Bush and his legion of dittoheads have been lying for years about a variety of subjects; why should the election be any different?

And the sad part is, they've gotten away with it quite well so far. Shrub and his attack dogs are going to rip Kerry apart piece by peice

.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-15 12:04am

Ma Deuce wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Not surprising. Bush and his legion of dittoheads have been lying for years about a variety of subjects; why should the election be any different?
And the sad part is, they've gotten away with it quite well so far. Shrub and his attack dogs are going to rip Kerry apart piece by peice .

Kerry is engaging in very poor strategy here. He wants to go blow-for-blow with the Bushies on attack ads, and that's just not going to work. Everyone already either knows about Bush's various policy gaffes and personal flaws or is sick of hearing about them (and may even subscribe to widespread misinformation that they're mostly invented by the Democrats), so it avails Kerry nothing to point them out in his ads. Now is the time to say what Kerry stands for, and whatever positive vision he has for the future (assuming he has one).

In advertising, there are two popular ways to sell something:

"Life sucks, but if you buy my product it will protect you from the consequences of this suckage."
"Your life is going to be grrrreat if you buy my product."

Also known as negative and positive advertising. The former is used heavily by people such as home security firms, insurance companies, and George W. Bush. Hit the consumer with fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and then promise that you can protect him from it. The latter is used by people such as beer companies, car companies, tourism companies, and Trojan Condoms.

Kerry's approach so far is neither: he's basically just trying to refute the Bush ad campaign by saying "no, he won't protect you from the horror; he'll just make it worse". What he should be selling is a positive message for the future.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-03-15 12:06am

Incidentally Mike how do you know so much about American election ads? I mean, being in Canada and all that? Do you guys pick it up as well, or something?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-15 12:24am

Stofsk wrote:Incidentally Mike how do you know so much about American election ads? I mean, being in Canada and all that? Do you guys pick it up as well, or something?

When you live in a country of 27 million people which is situated right next to a country of 270 million people, you are inundated with their media. American news, radio, magazines, TV, we get it all. In many parts of Canada you can easily pick up American radio and TV on an aerial antenna, and for four years, I actually lived within a few hundred metres of the border. So close, in fact, that I once got nailed with American roaming cell-phone charges for using my cell-phone on our side of the border.

Rakuseki · Post by **Rakuseki** » 2004-03-15 01:32am

Eh, what did you expect from a politician fo all people? What sounds better? "Kerry wanted to cut intelligence money that wasn't being used" or "Kerry wanted to cut intellgence money"? It's not so much a lie as it is a distortion of the facts, which some would argue is even worse than outright lying.

In order to get anywhere in this election, Kerry is going to have to do more than just project a positive image (Bush can go with a negative and positive ad blitz with his warchest).

Hell, the way things are going now, Bush is defining John Kerry more than Kerry is defining himself. Even with that 900 billion dollar tax ad and Kerry's rebuttal, Bush spent in effect 6 million in 17 states whereas Kerry only spent 1 million in like 10 on his rebuttal. The end result? Bush's attack reaches more people whereas the rebuttal is just a flash in the pan that people are likely not to remember at all.

Kerry has to do something to keep his head in the news, because Bush has the benefit of the media jumping on everything he says immediately. Otherwise Bush is going to inundate him with negative ad after negative ad before the conventions and turn him to scrap.

Welcome to presidential politics. I love it.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-03-15 01:39am

What a dumb attack; why don't they list all the major weapons systems Kerry wanted to slash which are now integral to our modern military. At least that's a legitimate issue.

Rakuseki · Post by **Rakuseki** » 2004-03-15 01:48am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:What a dumb attack; why don't they list all the major weapons systems Kerry wanted to slash which are now integral to our modern military. At least that's a legitimate issue.

It's a dumb attack to those who know the whole story, but not a dumb attack when it applies to the general population who will only pay attention to the line "John Kerry voted to slash the intelligence budget."