Republicans: We tend to forget 9/11

[Elfdart]

Perinquus, you are forgetting something: Military service is not like other jobs where you can decide "Fuck you, I'm staying home today.". By law, attendance is mandatory unless you have leave to be absent. If you don't, you're AWOL. If you are AWOL with no intention of returning, you are a deserter. From UCMJ Article 85:

(3) Desertion before notice of acceptance of resignation.

(a) That the accused was a commissioned officer of an armed force of the United States, and had tendered his or her resignation;
(b) That before he or she received notice of the acceptance of the resignation, the accused quit his or her post or proper duties;

(c) That the accused did so with the intent to remain away permanently from his or her post or proper duties; and

(d) That the accused remained absent until the date alleged. Note: If the absence was terminated by apprehension, add the following element

(e) That the accused’s absence was terminated by apprehension.

And Dubya didn't even show up to resign.

By the way, there's no excuse for being AWOL or desertion. Skipping out because you don't think you're needed is no better than skipping out because you'd rather spend your weekends in titty bars. For the record, I don't think Bush deserves the punishment meted out to Eddie Slovik in 1945. But he did punk out and the way he tries to pass himself off as the second coming of Audie Murphy is repulsive.

So many people simply walked away from their duties during the early and mid 1970s that it would be impossible to prosecute them all. That's why Carter pardoned the draft-dodgers and why so many people got honorable discharges they shouldn't have -the government washed its hands of them. But if Clinton ever tried to pass himself off as a vet or a war hero, he would have been crucified and deservedly so. Even Quayle had the good taste to not pull a stunt like Bush did on the carrier.

[Perinquus]

Perinquus, you are forgetting something: Military service is not like other jobs where you can decide "Fuck you, I'm staying home today.".

It isn't? Gee. I never woulda guessed that?

By law, attendance is mandatory unless you have leave to be absent. If you don't, you're AWOL. If you are AWOL with no intention of returning, you are a deserter. From UCMJ Article 85:

(3) Desertion before notice of acceptance of resignation.

(a) That the accused was a commissioned officer of an armed force of the United States, and had tendered his or her resignation;
(b) That before he or she received notice of the acceptance of the resignation, the accused quit his or her post or proper duties;

(c) That the accused did so with the intent to remain away permanently from his or her post or proper duties; and

(d) That the accused remained absent until the date alleged. Note: If the absence was terminated by apprehension, add the following element

(e) That the accused’s absence was terminated by apprehension.

And Dubya didn't even show up to resign.

By the way, there's no excuse for being AWOL or desertion. Skipping out because you don't think you're needed is no better than skipping out because you'd rather spend your weekends in titty bars. For the record, I don't think Bush deserves the punishment meted out to Eddie Slovik in 1945. But he did punk out and the way he tries to pass himself off as the second coming of Audie Murphy is repulsive.

Bush is not the one trying to run on his military service in this election, in case you hadn't noticed.

So many people simply walked away from their duties during the early and mid 1970s that it would be impossible to prosecute them all. That's why Carter pardoned the draft-dodgers and why so many people got honorable discharges they shouldn't have -the government washed its hands of them. But if Clinton ever tried to pass himself off as a vet or a war hero, he would have been crucified and deservedly so. Even Quayle had the good taste to not pull a stunt like Bush did on the carrier.

So you may consider his appearance in a flight suit in bad taste. Fine. But you are not accusing him of merely violating some standard of decently restrained conduct, you are throwing around accusations of cowardice that are not substantiated.

[Elfdart]

Perinquus, you are forgetting something: Military service is not like other jobs where you can decide "Fuck you, I'm staying home today.".

It isn't? Gee. I never woulda guessed that?

By law, attendance is mandatory unless you have leave to be absent. If you don't, you're AWOL. If you are AWOL with no intention of returning, you are a deserter. From UCMJ Article 85:

(3) Desertion before notice of acceptance of resignation.

(a) That the accused was a commissioned officer of an armed force of the United States, and had tendered his or her resignation;
(b) That before he or she received notice of the acceptance of the resignation, the accused quit his or her post or proper duties;

(c) That the accused did so with the intent to remain away permanently from his or her post or proper duties; and

(d) That the accused remained absent until the date alleged. Note: If the absence was terminated by apprehension, add the following element

(e) That the accused’s absence was terminated by apprehension.

And Dubya didn't even show up to resign.

By the way, there's no excuse for being AWOL or desertion. Skipping out because you don't think you're needed is no better than skipping out because you'd rather spend your weekends in titty bars. For the record, I don't think Bush deserves the punishment meted out to Eddie Slovik in 1945. But he did punk out and the way he tries to pass himself off as the second coming of Audie Murphy is repulsive.

Bush is not the one trying to run on his military service in this election, in case you hadn't noticed.

How could he? He doesn't have any!

So you may consider his appearance in a flight suit in bad taste. Fine. But you are not accusing him of merely violating some standard of decently restrained conduct, you are throwing around accusations of cowardice that are not substantiated.

They are proven beyond any and all reasonable doubt. Bush didn't have the balls to show up for a physical. If I wanted to start flinging around unsubstantiated charges, I'd bring up that Dubya skipped the physical just after the Pentagon announced that physicals would include drug testing. When Bush was asked about drug use he claimed he has been clean since 1974. Teenagers who work at Arby's have the mettle to piss in a cup, why didn't Dubya?

[Perinquus]

Bush is not the one trying to run on his military service in this election, in case you hadn't noticed.

How could he? He doesn't have any!

Untrue. He just doesn't have a very distinguished one. Playing to the gallery trying to score points for humor doesn't constitute a substantive argument.

So you may consider his appearance in a flight suit in bad taste. Fine. But you are not accusing him of merely violating some standard of decently restrained conduct, you are throwing around accusations of cowardice that are not substantiated.

They are proven beyond any and all reasonable doubt. Bush didn't have the balls to show up for a physical.

Will you, please, at least TRY not to be so fucking stupid?

He didn't show up for a physical out of laziness, or perhaps negligence, or perhaps any number of things, but whatever reason it was, cowardice is not a reasonable candidate. Do you even understand what cowardice is? I don't think you do. Cowardice is a lack of courage to face danger. What is the danger at a routine physical? Cowardice is shirking your duty out of fear - fear for your life, fear for your safety, fear of harm. What person fears this from a routine check-up?

I won't shrink from criticizing Bush for his actual misdeeds. But you are distorting or inventing shit here, which is a sign of personal or partisan animosity, not objective criticism.

If I wanted to start flinging around unsubstantiated charges, I'd bring up that Dubya skipped the physical just after the Pentagon announced that physicals would include drug testing. When Bush was asked about drug use he claimed he has been clean since 1974. Teenagers who work at Arby's have the mettle to piss in a cup, why didn't Dubya?

That's cute, how you use the conditional tense: "If I wanted to..." in order to slip in a tactic that even you know is basically dishonest - flinging a charge that you yourself admit is unsubstantiated. This is a clever tactic, but not clever enough. You stand revealed as a man so opposed to Bush, that you hold even unsubstantiated suspicion against him. Your opposition is so extreme, that the tale of his actual failings and transgressions is not enough; it is so important to you to validate your negative image of him that you will grasp at straws to do so. You will spin things into very different and very much worse offenses than they actually are, and will consider even unsubstantiated suspicion as evidence of wrongdoing. As I said, this is personal or partisan animosity, not objective criticism.

[Elfdart]

Bush is not the one trying to run on his military service in this election, in case you hadn't noticed.

How could he? He doesn't have any!

Untrue. He just doesn't have a very distinguished one. Playing to the gallery trying to score points for humor doesn't constitute a substantive argument.

Lighten up.

Will you, please, at least TRY not to be so fucking stupid?

He didn't show up for a physical out of laziness, or perhaps negligence, or perhaps any number of things, but whatever reason it was, cowardice is not a reasonable candidate. Do you even understand what cowardice is? I don't think you do. Cowardice is a lack of courage to face danger. What is the danger at a routine physical? Cowardice is shirking your duty out of fear - fear for your life, fear for your safety, fear of harm. What person fears this from a routine check-up?

Someone with drug and alcohol problems?

That's cute, how you use the conditional tense: "If I wanted to..." in order to slip in a tactic that even you know is basically dishonest - flinging a charge that you yourself admit is unsubstantiated. This is a clever tactic, but not clever enough. You stand revealed as a man so opposed to Bush, that you hold even unsubstantiated suspicion against him. Your opposition is so extreme, that the tale of his actual failings and transgressions is not enough; it is so important to you to validate your negative image of him that you will grasp at straws to do so. You will spin things into very different and very much worse offenses than they actually are, and will consider even unsubstantiated suspicion as evidence of wrongdoing. As I said, this is personal or partisan animosity, not objective criticism.

Does anyone think I'm objective? Look at my avatar! I'm just telling it like it is.

[Perinquus]

How could he? He doesn't have any!

Untrue. He just doesn't have a very distinguished one. Playing to the gallery trying to score points for humor doesn't constitute a substantive argument.

Lighten up.

Stick to reasonable arguments.

Will you, please, at least TRY not to be so fucking stupid?

He didn't show up for a physical out of laziness, or perhaps negligence, or perhaps any number of things, but whatever reason it was, cowardice is not a reasonable candidate. Do you even understand what cowardice is? I don't think you do. Cowardice is a lack of courage to face danger. What is the danger at a routine physical? Cowardice is shirking your duty out of fear - fear for your life, fear for your safety, fear of harm. What person fears this from a routine check-up?

Someone with drug and alcohol problems?

So he possibly (this is still unsubstantiated remember) fears damaging his career? And this proves he is afraid to face phyical danger how?

That's cute, how you use the conditional tense: "If I wanted to..." in order to slip in a tactic that even you know is basically dishonest - flinging a charge that you yourself admit is unsubstantiated. This is a clever tactic, but not clever enough. You stand revealed as a man so opposed to Bush, that you hold even unsubstantiated suspicion against him. Your opposition is so extreme, that the tale of his actual failings and transgressions is not enough; it is so important to you to validate your negative image of him that you will grasp at straws to do so. You will spin things into very different and very much worse offenses than they actually are, and will consider even unsubstantiated suspicion as evidence of wrongdoing. As I said, this is personal or partisan animosity, not objective criticism.

Does anyone think I'm objective? Look at my avatar! I'm just telling it like it is.

People who are not objective don't "tell it like it is", they slant it like they want it to be. But since you admit you are not objective, I will accept your concession.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The only time bush should be criticized for playing up the military is when he focuses on it or makes himself out to be some champion of the military. If he doesn't make that a big deal in the election, it does not belong as a target. Only the issues deserve attack.

I like Kerry better, but even I have to admit, much of his effort is placed upon his military achievment and background. That is where much scrutiny must lie untill he comes up with some other campaing ploy.


bush may be a retarded, irresponsible coward who is also a potential druggie, but that is relatively unimportant until he makes it important. Maybe that is what your opponent here is trying to convey, Elfdart. I am not taking sides. I am just telling it like it is..

Why harp on things that are not part of the election. bush were a GOOD leader, and if he didn't flaunt his military as a big part of his character, I wouldn't care what his military record was unless he tries to flaunt it.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: * If bush were a good leader.


*Campaign*

[Durandal]

Oh could we cut this "Kerry is running on his military record" bullshit? It's an obvious media distortion, just like the "Howard Dean is a fucking lunatic" line.

You people are acting like John Kerry has never offered any compelling reason aside from his military service to vote for him. This is patently untrue. He's put forward plans that, while you may not agree with, have nothing to do with his service in the military at all, like plans for creating new jobs, creating affordable healthcare, helping middle-class families, lessening dependence on Middle Eastern oil and regaining the respect of the rest of the world. Whether or not you agree with the details of these plans is irrelevant; they have fuck-all to do with his military record.

The only times I've ever heard Kerry mention his record were either times when he was talking about the Iraq War and how he's been to war, and we shouldn't send troops there unless it's a last resort or when he was responding to the slander coming his way from unofficial GOP stool pigeons like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It's the Right that has been harping about Kerry's military service, not the Left. And they're doing that because that's the only avenue which they can attack him through: small ambiguities in his military record.

Go to his website if you don't believe me. Look at the front page. See that? Look carefully. WOW! NO MENTION OF HIS MILITARY RECORD AT ALL!

[Elfdart]

Issues should be brought up where and when they are relevant, not when the candidates want them brought up.

Dubya keeps referring to himself as a "war president". Over the course of his adult life, he has shown time and again that he is not fit for such a job. If he were, if he had some real accomplishments to speak of, he wouldn't need to lap up the blood of those who were murdered on September 11. If he had some other credentials as a leader, he wouldn't need the American Freikorps to try to assassinate Kerry's character.

From Dubya's abandoning of the Guard, to his business ventures, to his governorship to his presidency, he has shown that he is too ignorant, cowardly, cruel, reckless, shameless, corrupt, incompetent and stupid to hold public office. The AWOL issue is part of a pattern with Bush, which is why it's relevant. Someone with his record who then pulls a stunt like the one on the Abraham Lincoln could be expected to politically molest the corpses of those who were killed in the WTC attacks. I don't remember Clinton running against Dole by smearing Dole's medals and wallowing in the wreckage of the Murrah Building. I don't remember hack Democrats in 1996 saying "When I heard about Oklahoma City, I was relieved to know that Clinton was President and not Bush or Dole.".

[Perinquus]

Oh could we cut this "Kerry is running on his military record" bullshit? It's an obvious media distortion, just like the "Howard Dean is a fucking lunatic" line.

You people are acting like John Kerry has never offered any compelling reason aside from his military service to vote for him. This is patently untrue. He's put forward plans that, while you may not agree with, have nothing to do with his service in the military at all, like plans for creating new jobs, creating affordable healthcare, helping middle-class families, lessening dependence on Middle Eastern oil and regaining the respect of the rest of the world. Whether or not you agree with the details of these plans is irrelevant; they have fuck-all to do with his military record.

The only times I've ever heard Kerry mention his record were either times when he was talking about the Iraq War and how he's been to war, and we shouldn't send troops there unless it's a last resort or when he was responding to the slander coming his way from unofficial GOP stool pigeons like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It's the Right that has been harping about Kerry's military service, not the Left. And they're doing that because that's the only avenue which they can attack him through: small ambiguities in his military record.

Go to his website if you don't believe me. Look at the front page. See that? Look carefully. WOW! NO MENTION OF HIS MILITARY RECORD AT ALL!

Kerry's hardly as innocent of this as you make out.


I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty.

And from that speech:

Our band of brothers doesn't march together because of who we are as veterans, but because of what we learned as soldiers. We fought for this nation because we loved it, and we came back with the deep belief that every day is extra. We may be a little older, we may be a little grayer, but we still know how to fight for our country.

And:

I know what kids go through when they're carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place, and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right, when you're not sure that that's true.

And:

You see that flag up there. We call her Old Glory, the Stars and Stripes forever. I fought under that flag, as did so many of those people who were here tonight and all across the country. That flag flew from the gun turret right behind my head and it was shot through and through and tattered, but it never ceased to wave in the wind. It draped the caskets of men that I served with and friends I grew up with.

And:

I don't wear my religion on my sleeve, but faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday.

And:

I learned a lot about these values on that gunboat patrolling the Mekong Delta with Americans -- you saw them -- who come from places as different as Iowa and Oregon, Arkansas, Florida, California.

And all this from a single speech, the full text of which you can read here:

John Kerry's reporting for duty

Don't tell me Kerry isn't making an issue of his service, because it's simply not a true statement.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Wow, out a 5300+ world speach he mentions vietnam 6 times. Thats hardly running on his war record as Republicans claim.

[Perinquus]

Wow, out a 5300+ world speach he mentions vietnam 6 times. Thats hardly running on his war record as Republicans claim.

That's a single speech. It's hardly the only time he's mentioned it. And he doesn't just mention it in that speech. He goes back to it over and over again.

Well, all due credit to Kerry for his military service. I salute him for that. But I'm more interested in what he's done since then, and especially since he went into politics. He's got a very liberal record, and a very consistent record of voting against funding for the military and intelligence services. For example, he voted for sending troops to Iraq, but against spending more money to supply them with needed equipment. So he'll send them into harm's way, but won't support them once their there. What makes this particulary revolting is that Kerry when addressing a Texas audience on March 6th of this year, said it was "shocking" that "tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that – with danger around every corner – there wasn't enough body armor." I wonder what he thought was so shocking about it when HE voted against the appropriations bill that would have provided the troops with it. The bill in question was the $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq war in 2003, and it also provided extra money for body armor for soldiers.

[Elfdart]

Wow, out a 5300+ world speach he mentions vietnam 6 times. Thats hardly running on his war record as Republicans claim.

That's a single speech. It's hardly the only time he's mentioned it. And he doesn't just mention it in that speech. He goes back to it over and over again.

Well, all due credit to Kerry for his military service. I salute him for that. But I'm more interested in what he's done since then, and especially since he went into politics. He's got a very liberal record, and a very consistent record of voting against funding for the military and intelligence services. For example, he voted for sending troops to Iraq, but against spending more money to supply them with needed equipment. So he'll send them into harm's way, but won't support them once their there. What makes this particulary revolting is that Kerry when addressing a Texas audience on March 6th of this year, said it was "shocking" that "tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that – with danger around every corner – there wasn't enough body armor." I wonder what he thought was so shocking about it when HE voted against the appropriations bill that would have provided the troops with it. The bill in question was the $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq war in 2003, and it also provided extra money for body armor for soldiers.

The same bill Bush threatened to veto. Kerry didn't vote against it because he didn't want them to have armor. He voted against it because (1) It wasn't paid for and (2) the bill was loaded with all kinds of pork and bullshit. That's the way Congress works. Every member has voted for and against bills because "poison pills" were added, or because they're holding out for a better deal. Sometimes they scuttle a bill because they know it won't pass now, only to bring it back when they think they can muster the votes. Only someone who doesn't know what he's talking about or someone being deliberately dishonest can't see that.

[Durandal]

Kerry's hardly as innocent of this as you make out.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/07/ ... 30x337.jpg
I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty.

How did I know you'd bring that up? The guy decides to go for a flashy opening, and he's "running on his record."

Our band of brothers doesn't march together because of who we are as veterans, but because of what we learned as soldiers. We fought for this nation because we loved it, and we came back with the deep belief that every day is extra. We may be a little older, we may be a little grayer, but we still know how to fight for our country.

Let's look at the preceding paragraph.

And in this journey, I am accompanied by an extraordinary band of brothers led by that American hero, a patriot called Max Cleland.

Oh wow! He was making acknowledgements! What the fuck do you expect him to do? Leave out the military references completely?

I know what kids go through when they're carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place, and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right, when you're not sure that that's true.

Let's look at that in context ...

And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honoured tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation.

I know what kids go through when they're carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place, and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right, when you're not sure that that's true.

Wow, you left out the entire preceding paragraph! And what a coincidence! It just happens to fall within the contexts I mentioned before. In other words, he brought up his service where it was relevant.

You see that flag up there. We call her Old Glory, the Stars and Stripes forever. I fought under that flag, as did so many of those people who were here tonight and all across the country. That flag flew from the gun turret right behind my head and it was shot through and through and tattered, but it never ceased to wave in the wind. It draped the caskets of men that I served with and friends I grew up with.

In the context of the paragraph immediately after ...

For us, that flag is the most powerful symbol of who we are and what we believe in: our strength, our diversity, our love of country, all that makes America both great and good. That flag doesn't belong to any president. It doesn't belong to any ideology. It doesn't belong to any party. It belongs to all the American people.

Again, mentioning his military service as a springboard into something else, in this case, diversity.

I don't wear my religion on my sleeve, but faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday.

Oh are you fucking joking?

I learned a lot about these values on that gunboat patrolling the Mekong Delta with Americans -- you saw them -- who come from places as different as Iowa and Oregon, Arkansas, Florida, California.

Again, let's look at the quote in context.

I learned a lot about these values on that gunboat patrolling the Mekong Delta with Americans - you saw them - who come from places as different as Iowa and Oregon, Arkansas, Florida, California.

No one cared where we went to school. No one cared about our race or our backgrounds. We were literally all in the same boat. We looked out, one for the other, and we still do. That is the kind of America that I will lead as president: an America where we are all in the same boat.

So the guy brought up his comrades in Vietnam as a symbol of America's tolerance. How does this constitute "running on his record"?

Don't tell me Kerry isn't making an issue of his service, because it's simply not a true statement.

He's using his experience in the service as a context through which to illustrate other points, you fucking idiot. That does not constitute this "running on his military record" bullshit that you and the rest of the Right keep peddling. If he was really doing this, he'd at least mention his service somewhere on his front page. He doesn't. His front page is devoted entirely to what he intends to do to fix America's problems. That's not running on his military record. Sure, he cites his military experience as a positive trait that he has, but you're making it seem like he's never talked about anything else, ever. And that's simply ridiculous.

[Darth Wong]

I love how all Bush-supporters say basically the same things, because they're all parroting the same talking points distributed from On High.

And what briliant talking points they are; the Republicans have managed to widely deploy the following logic:

Mission objective: marginalize Kerry's record of valour under fire

1. If Kerry ever mentions it at all, he must be accused of "running on his record".
2. If he "runs on his record", then all's fair and it's OK to slander the living fuck out of him and employ every dirty trick in the book
3. We don't play dirty; he brings it on himself by "running on his record"

[Stravo]

I love how all Bush-supporters say basically the same things, because they're all parroting the same talking points distributed from On High.

They really are like fucking robots. Even among the speakers they repeat the same words and phrases, the pundits regurgitate the loads put into their mouths from the Party line and they all sound teh fucking same. It's like:

"Oh look they're calling us out on Kerry bashing: quick execute maneuver 27-A."

[Durandal]

Mike, the Republican party considers running on any kind of positive record to be a bad thing simply because the Wonder Monkey they have for a candidate can't do it.

[Perinquus]

The same bill Bush threatened to veto. Kerry didn't vote against it because he didn't want them to have armor. He voted against it because (1) It wasn't paid for and (2) the bill was loaded with all kinds of pork and bullshit.

That "pork and bullshit" consisted of $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans' medical care. The bill provided $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq, including $5.1 billion for security and $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs. Such conservative hawks as Tom Daschle, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and even Hillary Clinton all voted for it. In the Senate, the vote was 87 to 12, Kerry being among the twelve. Even the Washington Post, hardly a bastion of conservatism or hawkishness, editorialized in favor of the bill.

That's the way Congress works. Every member has voted for and against bills because "poison pills" were added, or because they're holding out for a better deal. Sometimes they scuttle a bill because they know it won't pass now, only to bring it back when they think they can muster the votes. Only someone who doesn't know what he's talking about or someone being deliberately dishonest can't see that.

I do know what I'm talking about. A bill that passes by such an overwhelming majority is hardly your typical example of a pork-laden, or "poison pill" bearing legislation.

There's another explanation for Kerry's vote. In October 2003, when the vote to fund our troops came up in the Senate, John Kerry's prospects as a candidate were looking shaky. He started out as the Democratic frontrunner, but soon lost that position to Howard Dean. By Otober when the vote came up he was trailing behind Dean and John Edwards. Dean had raised $14 million, and Kerry only $4 million in the most recent quarter up to that time. Going into New Hampshire Dean had a double-digit lead over Kerry. Kerry's campaign staff was scrambling, and many would leave in an exodus of key top level staffers just a few weeks later, in early November. As the vote on the appropriations bill loomed, the antiwar Dean crowd were the most visible and vocal people in the Domocratic camp. They were bitterly opposed to the war, and Kerry had voted in support of it. This vote was extremely unpopular with the New Hampshire Democratic primary voters, who opposed it by a margin of 3 to 2. So Kerry had to give his image with these people a facelift if he was to win the support of this segment of the Democratic voters, and it was vital he do so if he were to get the nomination. Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt were also on the defensive for similarly supporting the decision to send in the troops.

So when the bill came up for vote in the senate, Kerry voted in the way he thought would best salvage his candidacy (and incidentally, this is why Kerry is accused of flip-flopping - not because he changes his mind after sober reflection on newly revealed evidence), and get him the Democratic presidential nomination. Senator Joseph Lieberman recognized this for the primary-poll-driven vote it was, and criticized Kerry for it, saying: "If everyone had voted the way [Massachusetts Sen.] John Kerry did, the money would not have been there to support our troops..." And that Washington post editorial to which I earlier referred (which is dated 15 October, 2003) termed Kerry's vote an "irresponsible course". John Kerry was trying to send out the message to the anti-war crowd that he was their man, and that's why he was one of only a tiny minority of senators who voted against this bill.

[Vympel]

For example, he voted for sending troops to Iraq, but against spending more money to supply them with needed equipment. So he'll send them into harm's way, but won't support them once their there. What makes this particulary revolting is that Kerry when addressing a Texas audience on March 6th of this year, said it was "shocking" that "tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that ? with danger around every corner ? there wasn't enough body armor." I wonder what he thought was so shocking about it when HE voted against the appropriations bill that would have provided the troops with it. The bill in question was the $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq war in 2003, and it also provided extra money for body armor for soldiers.

Do you just copy idiotic RNC talking points verbatim? By the same moronic logic, anyone who ever voted against a Defense Appropriations Bill must want the entire US armed forces disbanded, as if it's somehow fucking inconceivable that a better version of the funding bill more amenable to one's political appraisal of the situation could be obtained. Of course, that sounds fucking stupid, but it employs the same logic as "he voted against the funding! He must want them to have no money and no body armor!". Needless to say, this is the very same moron logic deployed by right-wingers to run off a litany of specific weapon-systems Kerry supposedly "voted against" ... based overwhelmingly on a vote against one single defense appropriations bill at the end of the Cold War ... for which Dick Cheney did the same.

Elfdart is right- all you said in response is a vague "well this is what was in the bill" (as if this means anything to the point) and theorizing about what his motives were for voting against it- even though Kerry sponsored a measure that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush's tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That was rejected 57-42. Frankly, how anyone can advocate continued massive tax cuts for the rich during wartime is beyond me- I doubt you could find any country that has done that, ever.

Kerry's amendment: Link

[Darth Wong]

Unfortunately, the Democrats have really dropped the ball by not disseminating "talking points" as rapidly and effectively as the Republicans have. So many of the Republican "talking points" are easily refuted, but it takes homework to dig up the details that are being deliberately left out by the Republicans, and the Democrats don't seem to have assigned the necessary "rapid response teams" to do this in a timely fashion.

They also tend to say things in an imbecilic fashion. Look at the bit about Kerry saying that he would have voted for "giving the president the authority to go to war" but not necessarily supporting the decision to go to war. Is he trying to lose? Sure, you can figure out what he means, but they could have phrased it a hell of a lot better.

[Perinquus]

Do you just copy idiotic RNC talking points verbatim? By the same moronic logic, anyone who ever voted against a Defense Appropriations Bill must want the entire US armed forces disbanded, as if it's somehow fucking inconceivable that a better version of the funding bill more amenable to one's political appraisal of the situation could be obtained.

That's hardly what happened in this case. A "better version of the funding bill more amenable to one's political appraisal of the situation" was not forthcoming when the one one the table already had such overwhelming support.

Of course, that sounds fucking stupid, but it employs the same logic as "he voted against the funding! He must want them to have no money and no body armor!".

What about the logic of expressing "shock" that the troops haven't got body armor, after voting against the only bill up for consideration that would have provided it?

Needless to say, this is the very same moron logic deployed by right-wingers to run off a litany of specific weapon-systems Kerry supposedly "voted against" ... based overwhelmingly on a vote against one single defense appropriations bill at the end of the Cold War ... for which Dick Cheney did the same.

Kerry's record of voting against military spending is hardly confined to a single bill. And its not at all surprising from a man who basically came home from Vietnam and stated that the U.S. military is composed overwhelmingly of war criminals.

Elfdart is right- all you said in response is a vague "well this is what was in the bill" (as if this means anything to the point) and theorizing about what his motives were for voting against it- even though Kerry sponsored a measure that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush's tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That was rejected 57-42. Frankly, how anyone can advocate continued massive tax cuts for the rich during wartime is beyond me- I doubt you could find any country that has done that, ever.

Kerry's amendment: Link

I am so fucking sick of hearing the phrase "tax cuts for the rich". Let's take a look at who the rich are, as the left views it. It's people in the top 20%. A household income of $83,500 will put you in the top 20%. A couple making a little more than 40 grand each will qualify. Are they rich? Hardly. Even to make it into the top 5% requires a household income of just over than $150,000. That's well off, to be sure, but this is hardly people sipping champagne and eating caviar on the decks of their yachts. This is also not a fixed class. People in the top 20% usually wound up there toward the end of a working lifetime, after starting at entry level wages. Taxes are already skewed so that a relatively small percentage of the population pays a large percentage of the taxes.

Bush's tax rate cuts were meant to do what past tax cuts have done before what they have been observed to do before Under JFK and under Reagan tax rate cuts caused an increase in real economic activity. In both cases, the government received more tax revenues, than it had received when tax rates were higher. It is misleading to express a tax cut in terms of X billions of dollars. All the government can do is change tax rates. The dollar amounts - how much revenue will increase or decrease is something they will only find out later.

I will grant you that you cannot increase spending at the same time you make a tax cut, though you may be able to make some smaller increases in spending after the revenues from an improved economy have come in. But there are other programs that you can cut, or at least put on the back burner in wartime.

[Vympel]

That's hardly what happened in this case. A "better version of the funding bill more amenable to one's political appraisal of the situation" was not forthcoming when the one one the table already had such overwhelming support.

The amendment he himself proposed! The amount of support the other one had is immaterial to the issue.

What about the logic of expressing "shock" that the troops haven't got body armor, after voting against the only bill up for consideration that would have provided it?

How about the fact that they didn't have it by then.

Kerry's record of voting against military spending is hardly confined to a single bill. And its not at all surprising from a man who basically came home from Vietnam and stated that the U.S. military is composed overwhelmingly of war criminals.

It's not much greater I'm afraid- hence why the RNC was forced to rely on his voting against one bill in the first place to generate the vast amount of their spurious, bullshit claims in the first place. If support for the military is counted in the amount of defense appropriations bills you vote for, he's done it far more often than not.

I am so fucking sick of hearing the phrase "tax cuts for the rich". Let's take a look at who the rich are, as the left views it. It's people in the top 20%. A household income of $83,500 will put you in the top 20%. A couple making a little more than 40 grand each will qualify. Are they rich? Hardly. Even to make it into the top 5% requires a household income of just over than $150,000. That's well off, to be sure, but this is hardly people sipping champagne and eating caviar on the decks of their yachts. This is also not a fixed class. People in the top 20% usually wound up there toward the end of a working lifetime, after starting at entry level wages. Taxes are already skewed so that a relatively small percentage of the population pays a large percentage of the taxes.

Kerry's amendment was for those making 400,000 or more.

Bush's tax rate cuts were meant to do what past tax cuts have done before what they have been observed to do before Under JFK and under Reagan tax rate cuts caused an increase in real economic activity. In both cases, the government received more tax revenues, than it had received when tax rates were higher. It is misleading to express a tax cut in terms of X billions of dollars. All the government can do is change tax rates. The dollar amounts - how much revenue will increase or decrease is something they will only find out later.

I will grant you that you cannot increase spending at the same time you make a tax cut, though you may be able to make some smaller increases in spending after the revenues from an improved economy have come in. But there are other programs that you can cut, or at least put on the back burner in wartime.

I'm not going to get into tax cuts when we're talking about Kerry's vote against the $87 billion. The very fact that he proposed an amendment to the bill to fund that amount puts paid to any bullshit that he didn't "support the troops" (a clear exercise in prejudicial language, of course).

[Elfdart]

Kerry's record of voting against military spending is hardly confined to a single bill. And its not at all surprising from a man who basically came home from Vietnam and stated that the U.S. military is composed overwhelmingly of war criminals.

Perinquus, show us the exact quote where Kerry said such a thing. I'll give you hint: You'll find it right next to members of the Alabama Guard who will vouch for Bush and say they saw him show up -only in your imagination.

[Perinquus]

That's hardly what happened in this case. A "better version of the funding bill more amenable to one's political appraisal of the situation" was not forthcoming when the one one the table already had such overwhelming support.

The amendment he himself proposed! The amount of support the other one had is immaterial to the issue.

Hardly. A politician with over 20 years experience certainly ought to be experienced enough to have some idea which bills have a serious chance of passing and which don't. This bill had overwhelming support from both parties in congress. Given that fact, it is highly unlikely that any alternate bill, or any amendment to that bill will pass.

What about the logic of expressing "shock" that the troops haven't got body armor, after voting against the only bill up for consideration that would have provided it?

How about the fact that they didn't have it by then.

Anyone with as long a career in the government as Kerry also certainly ought not be surprised at the glacial pace at which needed equipment if procured and disseminated to the troops.

Besides though, there's just something awfully two faced about expressing outrage that the troops don't have something they need, after voting to kill the only bill up for vote that would provide it for them.

Kerry's record of voting against military spending is hardly confined to a single bill. And its not at all surprising from a man who basically came home from Vietnam and stated that the U.S. military is composed overwhelmingly of war criminals.

It's not much greater I'm afraid- hence why the RNC was forced to rely on his voting against one bill in the first place to generate the vast amount of their spurious, bullshit claims in the first place. If support for the military is counted in the amount of defense appropriations bills you vote for, he's done it far more often than not.

How about a source for that statement?

I am so fucking sick of hearing the phrase "tax cuts for the rich". Let's take a look at who the rich are, as the left views it. It's people in the top 20%. A household income of $83,500 will put you in the top 20%. A couple making a little more than 40 grand each will qualify. Are they rich? Hardly. Even to make it into the top 5% requires a household income of just over than $150,000. That's well off, to be sure, but this is hardly people sipping champagne and eating caviar on the decks of their yachts. This is also not a fixed class. People in the top 20% usually wound up there toward the end of a working lifetime, after starting at entry level wages. Taxes are already skewed so that a relatively small percentage of the population pays a large percentage of the taxes.

Kerry's amendment was for those making 400,000 or more.

Bush's tax rate cuts were meant to do what past tax cuts have done before what they have been observed to do before Under JFK and under Reagan tax rate cuts caused an increase in real economic activity. In both cases, the government received more tax revenues, than it had received when tax rates were higher. It is misleading to express a tax cut in terms of X billions of dollars. All the government can do is change tax rates. The dollar amounts - how much revenue will increase or decrease is something they will only find out later.

I will grant you that you cannot increase spending at the same time you make a tax cut, though you may be able to make some smaller increases in spending after the revenues from an improved economy have come in. But there are other programs that you can cut, or at least put on the back burner in wartime.

I'm not going to get into tax cuts when we're talking about Kerry's vote against the $87 billion. The very fact that he proposed an amendment to the bill to fund that amount puts paid to any bullshit that he didn't "support the troops" (a clear exercise in prejudicial language, of course).

No it doesn't. When his amendment didn't pass, he then voted against the bill, which, had the vote gone his way, would have failed to support the troops.