Do You Want To Re- Elect Bush For Presendent!
- Thread starter zonecontroller
- Start date
sentrido
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/
• June 21, 2004 | 10:20 AM ET
advertisement
A Lie: From When Presidents Lie: “Even the very best newspapers have never learned how to handle public figures who lie with astraight face.â€
--Ben Bradlee
Transcript, CNBC’s “Capital Report,†June 17, 2004
Gloria Borger: “Well, let’s get to Mohammed Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was quote, “pretty well confirmed.â€
Vice President Cheney: No, I never said that.
BORGER: OK.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.
BORGER: I think that is...
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not.
Transcript, NBC’s “Meet the Press,†December 9, 2001.
Vice-President Cheney: “It’s been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April.â€
Well?
• June 21, 2004 | 10:20 AM ET
advertisement
A Lie: From When Presidents Lie: “Even the very best newspapers have never learned how to handle public figures who lie with astraight face.â€
--Ben Bradlee
Transcript, CNBC’s “Capital Report,†June 17, 2004
Gloria Borger: “Well, let’s get to Mohammed Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was quote, “pretty well confirmed.â€
Vice President Cheney: No, I never said that.
BORGER: OK.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.
BORGER: I think that is...
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not.
Transcript, NBC’s “Meet the Press,†December 9, 2001.
Vice-President Cheney: “It’s been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April.â€
Well?
sentrido
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 0
FLIP-FLOPPER IN CHIEF
Today's Times reports on a Supreme Court victory for massive HMOs: with the backing of the Bush administration, they've finally succeeded in overturning the pesky Texas Patients' Bill of Rights. At last, patients can't sue HMOs for refusing to cover treatment that a doctor has prescribed as medically necessary.
Here's the Times:
Supreme Court's ruling that The decision came in a pair of closely watched cases from Texas, where a strong patients' rights bill became law in 1997 without the signature of George W. Bush, who was then governor.
As Salon reported in 2001, the lack of a signature wasn't the half of it. Bush opposed the patients' bill of rights with everything he had.
Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He had his insurance commissioner draft into law some of the less controversial bits of the bill -- like letting women choose gynecologists as their primary-care doctors -- but constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects. Faced with a vetoproof majority in 1997, he had his legislative aide, Vance McMahan, do everything he could to sabotage the bill, to the point that Republican legislators complained on the floor of the Texas Senate. Then, faced with a vetoproof majority, Bush let the bill become law without his signature.
So, Texas passed a patients' bill of rights over his strenuous objections. Typically, W. "Flip-Flop" Bush turned around and took credit for it during his campaign:
If I'm the president, we're going to have emergency room care, we're going have gag orders, we're going to have direct access to OB/GYN. People will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court. That's what I've done in Texas and that's the kind of leadership style I'll bring to Washington... I do support a national patient's bill of rights. As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the State of Texas to get a patient's bill of rights through.
And, once in office, he vowed to protect the law:
"I just want the people in the House and the Senate to know that I'm coming with a plan," Bush said Tuesday afternoon. "You heard me in the campaign several times talk about the fact that our legislation in Texas, our patients bill of rights in Texas, was a pretty strong piece of legislation. And one of the things I am concerned about is to make sure that the federal government law doesn't override what we did in our state."
But, as the Times reported today, it wasn't so much that Bush passed a federal law overriding the Texas law. It was that he opposed it in court.
Before the Supreme Court, the Bush administration opposed the Texas law, instead joining two managed-care companies, Aetna Health Inc. and Cigna HealthCare of Texas Inc. in their appeal of a federal appeals court's ruling that the Texas Health Care Liability Act and the federal law could coexist.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Aetna and Cigna have given President Bush and the Republican Party more than $1.7 million since 2000. Now, when corporate bureaucrats at these companies or other HMOs decide not to cover necessary treatment, patients won't be able to sue in state courts.
Two threads runs through Bush's flip-flops: say whatever is necessary to obtain power, and then do whatever is necessary to serve your corporate backers. So, in that sense, we've got to give him credit for consistency.
Maybe "credit" isn't the right word there.
Something like that, anyway.
Ben Wikler
Today's Times reports on a Supreme Court victory for massive HMOs: with the backing of the Bush administration, they've finally succeeded in overturning the pesky Texas Patients' Bill of Rights. At last, patients can't sue HMOs for refusing to cover treatment that a doctor has prescribed as medically necessary.
Here's the Times:
Supreme Court's ruling that The decision came in a pair of closely watched cases from Texas, where a strong patients' rights bill became law in 1997 without the signature of George W. Bush, who was then governor.
As Salon reported in 2001, the lack of a signature wasn't the half of it. Bush opposed the patients' bill of rights with everything he had.
Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He had his insurance commissioner draft into law some of the less controversial bits of the bill -- like letting women choose gynecologists as their primary-care doctors -- but constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects. Faced with a vetoproof majority in 1997, he had his legislative aide, Vance McMahan, do everything he could to sabotage the bill, to the point that Republican legislators complained on the floor of the Texas Senate. Then, faced with a vetoproof majority, Bush let the bill become law without his signature.
So, Texas passed a patients' bill of rights over his strenuous objections. Typically, W. "Flip-Flop" Bush turned around and took credit for it during his campaign:
If I'm the president, we're going to have emergency room care, we're going have gag orders, we're going to have direct access to OB/GYN. People will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court. That's what I've done in Texas and that's the kind of leadership style I'll bring to Washington... I do support a national patient's bill of rights. As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the State of Texas to get a patient's bill of rights through.
And, once in office, he vowed to protect the law:
"I just want the people in the House and the Senate to know that I'm coming with a plan," Bush said Tuesday afternoon. "You heard me in the campaign several times talk about the fact that our legislation in Texas, our patients bill of rights in Texas, was a pretty strong piece of legislation. And one of the things I am concerned about is to make sure that the federal government law doesn't override what we did in our state."
But, as the Times reported today, it wasn't so much that Bush passed a federal law overriding the Texas law. It was that he opposed it in court.
Before the Supreme Court, the Bush administration opposed the Texas law, instead joining two managed-care companies, Aetna Health Inc. and Cigna HealthCare of Texas Inc. in their appeal of a federal appeals court's ruling that the Texas Health Care Liability Act and the federal law could coexist.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Aetna and Cigna have given President Bush and the Republican Party more than $1.7 million since 2000. Now, when corporate bureaucrats at these companies or other HMOs decide not to cover necessary treatment, patients won't be able to sue in state courts.
Two threads runs through Bush's flip-flops: say whatever is necessary to obtain power, and then do whatever is necessary to serve your corporate backers. So, in that sense, we've got to give him credit for consistency.
Maybe "credit" isn't the right word there.
Something like that, anyway.
Ben Wikler
this says oodles...from one of your boyz.......
AND THE GENTLEMAN SPEAKS:
AND THE GENTLEMAN SPEAKS:
James Frizzell
Newbie
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2004
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 0
Do you realize that all a Democrat like John Kerry would do is raise taxes raise the deficit and make America loose her freedoms!ojxux said:
VOTE BUSH - CHENEY IN 04'!
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
here's a clue einstien! DON'T READ THE POST, IF YOUR OFFENDED 😱 its called freedom of choice. obviously you have PLENTY of time if your reading.....NWA/AMT said:
hmmmmm .......open mouth, insert foot. 
don't listen to rush either, now your a mind reader as well as a control freak 😀
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
Monday, March 8, 2004
Kerry Praises Terrorist Leader Arafat as 'Role Model'
John Kerry called terrorist leader Yasser Arafat a "role model" and a "statesman" in a 1997 book "that Kerry cites as proof of his own foresight about foreign policy," the New York Post's Deborah Orin revealed today.
Kerry's latest flip-flop: He "expressed the opposite view eight days ago, when he told Jewish leaders in New York that he shares President Bush's belief that Arafat must be isolated because he's not a 'partner for peace' - much less a statesman."
In his book "The New War," which like his scandalous 1971 book, "The New Soldier," is out of print, Kerry claimed: "Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman."
He added that terrorists "whose only object is to disrupt society require no such 'role models'" as Arafat.
The Post noted, "Kerry's remarks came as he was dismissing noted historian Paul Johnson as out of date for saying the Palestinian Liberation Organization is 'the quintessential terrorist movement' but has achieved nothing for its people."
What a novel way to secure the Democrats' all-important Jewish bloc of voters and donors. Too bad he didn't learn from Hillary Clinton's disastrous embrace of Mrs. Arafat.
Yet another flip-flop: Kerry told Arab American Institute in July that Israel's security fence was "provocative" and a barrier to peace. But he told Jewish leaders last week that the fence was "necessary to the security of Israel."
And still another waffle to add to Kerry's supersized stack: Jim Zogby, a member of Democratic National Committee who backs Kerry, says Kerry's aides told him the Massachusetts Democrat objected to the location of the fence
😀
Kerry Praises Terrorist Leader Arafat as 'Role Model'
John Kerry called terrorist leader Yasser Arafat a "role model" and a "statesman" in a 1997 book "that Kerry cites as proof of his own foresight about foreign policy," the New York Post's Deborah Orin revealed today.
Kerry's latest flip-flop: He "expressed the opposite view eight days ago, when he told Jewish leaders in New York that he shares President Bush's belief that Arafat must be isolated because he's not a 'partner for peace' - much less a statesman."
In his book "The New War," which like his scandalous 1971 book, "The New Soldier," is out of print, Kerry claimed: "Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman."
He added that terrorists "whose only object is to disrupt society require no such 'role models'" as Arafat.
The Post noted, "Kerry's remarks came as he was dismissing noted historian Paul Johnson as out of date for saying the Palestinian Liberation Organization is 'the quintessential terrorist movement' but has achieved nothing for its people."
What a novel way to secure the Democrats' all-important Jewish bloc of voters and donors. Too bad he didn't learn from Hillary Clinton's disastrous embrace of Mrs. Arafat.
Yet another flip-flop: Kerry told Arab American Institute in July that Israel's security fence was "provocative" and a barrier to peace. But he told Jewish leaders last week that the fence was "necessary to the security of Israel."
And still another waffle to add to Kerry's supersized stack: Jim Zogby, a member of Democratic National Committee who backs Kerry, says Kerry's aides told him the Massachusetts Democrat objected to the location of the fence
😀
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
John Kerry Says Al Qaeda Not That Bad
February 11, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Bob Newman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an alarming assessment of the dangers America faces from al Qaeda, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry, upon being asked in a debate on January 29th if President Bush was overstating the terrorist threat, said, “"I think there has been an exaggeration. They are misleading all Americans in a profound way."
Kerry seems to have forgotten the horrific events of 9-11-2001, or perhaps in his staggering wealth he simply doesn’t give a damn. Kerry loved the disgusting insult the cover of his book, The New Soldier, delivered to the thousands of United States Marines and sailors who died on Iwo Jima (the cover has protestors mocking the raising of the flag on Mount Suribachi and holding the U.S. flag upside down). He marched with protestors carrying Viet Cong flags while the Viet Cong killed American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. He supported North Vietnam’s use of American POWs as bargaining chips in peace negotiations. He remains a vocal supporter of the traitorous “Hanoi Jane†Fonda, who encouraged the torture of American POWs. And with other radical leftists, John Kerry threw medals he implied belonged to him at a statue at the Capitol, when in reality they were not his at all (he later admitted he wasn’t sure whose medals those were). He even claimed to have personal knowledge of numerous American servicemen raping, pillaging, plundering and murdering across South Vietnam, which he later admitted to having heard as hearsay from fellow supporters of North Vietnam.
North Vietnamese war strategists have repeatedly stated that the communist insurgency was able to defeat the U.S. military in large part because of the motivation and hope the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong received from U.S. “war†protestors.
Kerry sees nothing wrong with any of this.
Now John Kerry, who according to the North Vietnamese gave them aid and comfort in time of war, says al Qaeda isn’t all that bad and that President Bush is exaggerating the danger we are in.
I wonder if he would feel that way had his family been killed in the attacks of September 11th, 2001.
Al Qaeda has butchered thousands of Americans and would kill every American man, woman and child on earth if they could. They destroyed the World Trade Center, attacked the Pentagon, nearly sank the USS Cole, destroyed our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, blew up the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, plotted to slaughter Americans around the world, and are desperately seeking nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to use against us.
And John Kerry says President Bush is exaggerating how dangerous al Qaeda is.
There is a long-running fallacy that someone who served in the military would no doubt make a good commander in chief in time of war. In reality, you must look at the entire candidate and get inside his head. You have to judge him by all his past actions, policies, beliefs and philosophies.
Do you want a president who believes al Qaeda isn’t all that bad?
Bob Newman
😀
February 11, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Bob Newman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an alarming assessment of the dangers America faces from al Qaeda, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry, upon being asked in a debate on January 29th if President Bush was overstating the terrorist threat, said, “"I think there has been an exaggeration. They are misleading all Americans in a profound way."
Kerry seems to have forgotten the horrific events of 9-11-2001, or perhaps in his staggering wealth he simply doesn’t give a damn. Kerry loved the disgusting insult the cover of his book, The New Soldier, delivered to the thousands of United States Marines and sailors who died on Iwo Jima (the cover has protestors mocking the raising of the flag on Mount Suribachi and holding the U.S. flag upside down). He marched with protestors carrying Viet Cong flags while the Viet Cong killed American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. He supported North Vietnam’s use of American POWs as bargaining chips in peace negotiations. He remains a vocal supporter of the traitorous “Hanoi Jane†Fonda, who encouraged the torture of American POWs. And with other radical leftists, John Kerry threw medals he implied belonged to him at a statue at the Capitol, when in reality they were not his at all (he later admitted he wasn’t sure whose medals those were). He even claimed to have personal knowledge of numerous American servicemen raping, pillaging, plundering and murdering across South Vietnam, which he later admitted to having heard as hearsay from fellow supporters of North Vietnam.
North Vietnamese war strategists have repeatedly stated that the communist insurgency was able to defeat the U.S. military in large part because of the motivation and hope the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong received from U.S. “war†protestors.
Kerry sees nothing wrong with any of this.
Now John Kerry, who according to the North Vietnamese gave them aid and comfort in time of war, says al Qaeda isn’t all that bad and that President Bush is exaggerating the danger we are in.
I wonder if he would feel that way had his family been killed in the attacks of September 11th, 2001.
Al Qaeda has butchered thousands of Americans and would kill every American man, woman and child on earth if they could. They destroyed the World Trade Center, attacked the Pentagon, nearly sank the USS Cole, destroyed our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, blew up the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, plotted to slaughter Americans around the world, and are desperately seeking nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to use against us.
And John Kerry says President Bush is exaggerating how dangerous al Qaeda is.
There is a long-running fallacy that someone who served in the military would no doubt make a good commander in chief in time of war. In reality, you must look at the entire candidate and get inside his head. You have to judge him by all his past actions, policies, beliefs and philosophies.
Do you want a president who believes al Qaeda isn’t all that bad?
Bob Newman
😀
sentrido
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 0
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../1/152007.shtml
WASHINGTON – President Bush on Monday said he would not label Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat a terrorist because the Arab leader remained engaged in peace talks despite a week of devastating suicide bombings within Israeli cities.
Looks like bush doesnt think he is a terrorist either.
Counter to the Bush Doctrine?
The administration's position appears to go against the grain of its own doctrine that Bush has consistently repeated since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks: If a country or individual supports or harbors a terrorist, it would be treated as such.
THATS A BIG A@# FLIP FLOP!
So who do you have left to vote for? Nader?
WASHINGTON – President Bush on Monday said he would not label Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat a terrorist because the Arab leader remained engaged in peace talks despite a week of devastating suicide bombings within Israeli cities.
Looks like bush doesnt think he is a terrorist either.
Counter to the Bush Doctrine?
The administration's position appears to go against the grain of its own doctrine that Bush has consistently repeated since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks: If a country or individual supports or harbors a terrorist, it would be treated as such.
THATS A BIG A@# FLIP FLOP!
So who do you have left to vote for? Nader?
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
Is Irish
''For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestry, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans …" (Congressional Record, March 18, 1986).
"As some of you may know, I am part-English and part-Irish. And when my Kerry ancestors first came over to Massachusetts from the old country to find work in the New World, it was my English ancestors who refused to hire them."
Ain't Irish
Kerry was accused of using such comments to make his Irish-American constituents think he is one of them when, in fact, he isn't. His grandparents were Jewish who changed their names.
Kerry now claims he never said it.
flip-flop man
''For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestry, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans …" (Congressional Record, March 18, 1986).
"As some of you may know, I am part-English and part-Irish. And when my Kerry ancestors first came over to Massachusetts from the old country to find work in the New World, it was my English ancestors who refused to hire them."
Ain't Irish
Kerry was accused of using such comments to make his Irish-American constituents think he is one of them when, in fact, he isn't. His grandparents were Jewish who changed their names.
Kerry now claims he never said it.
flip-flop man
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
Intelligence - Against
1994: Proposed Bill To Gut $1 Billion From Intelligence And Freeze Spending For Two Major Intelligence Programs. Kerry proposed a bill cutting $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. The bill did not make it to a vote, but the language was later submitted (and defeated – see below) as S. Amdt. 1452 to H.R. 3759. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/94)
1995: Proposed Bill Cutting $1.5 Billion From Intelligence Budget. Kerry introduced a bill that would “reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.â€
No cosponsors of Kerry’s bill, Never Made it to floor
S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95
1995: Voted To Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Yea)
1997: Kerry Questioned Growth Of Intelligence Community After Cold War. “Now that that [Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as Government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary? …†Congressional Record 5/1/97, p. S3891)
Kerry proposed cutting $1 billion from the National Foreign Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence budgets, and freezing their budgets. Defeated:
(Amdt.. To H.R. 3759, CQ Vote #39: Rejected 20-75: R 3-37; D 17-38, 2/10/94, Kerry Voted Yea; Graham, Lieberman And Braun Voted Nay)
Intelligence - For
"Kerry Strongly Supports Increased Intelligence Funding"
Campaign slogan from JohnKerry.com
😉
1994: Proposed Bill To Gut $1 Billion From Intelligence And Freeze Spending For Two Major Intelligence Programs. Kerry proposed a bill cutting $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. The bill did not make it to a vote, but the language was later submitted (and defeated – see below) as S. Amdt. 1452 to H.R. 3759. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/94)
1995: Proposed Bill Cutting $1.5 Billion From Intelligence Budget. Kerry introduced a bill that would “reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.â€
No cosponsors of Kerry’s bill, Never Made it to floor
S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95
1995: Voted To Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Yea)
1997: Kerry Questioned Growth Of Intelligence Community After Cold War. “Now that that [Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as Government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary? …†Congressional Record 5/1/97, p. S3891)
Kerry proposed cutting $1 billion from the National Foreign Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence budgets, and freezing their budgets. Defeated:
(Amdt.. To H.R. 3759, CQ Vote #39: Rejected 20-75: R 3-37; D 17-38, 2/10/94, Kerry Voted Yea; Graham, Lieberman And Braun Voted Nay)
Intelligence - For
"Kerry Strongly Supports Increased Intelligence Funding"
Campaign slogan from JohnKerry.com
😉
You're missing the point 'Einstein'; I'm not offended - I think you're hilarious! It's like having a mentally challenged parrot around! Non-thinking neo-cons like yourself help the Democrats by showing the true paranoid nature of the Bush Leaguers, why would we want to stop that?local 12 proud said:
Keep up the good work for Kerry!!!
sentrido
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 0
Also from Kerrys website:local 12 proud said:
Bush Misrepresents Kerry's Position on Intelligence Funding
BUSH FICTION: In 1995, John Kerry proposed "deeply irresponsible" cuts in intelligence spending that "gutted" intelligence funding.
FACT: The so-called "deeply irresponsible cuts" mentioned by Bush "represented about the same amount Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), then chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told the Senate that same day he wanted cut from the intelligence spending bill based on an unspent, secret fund that had been accumulated by one intelligence agency "without informing the Pentagon, CIA or Congress," according to The Washington Post.
The truth is, the cuts passed by voice vote with no opposition, including such radical "left-wingers" as Republicans Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum and Don Nickles. The so-called "cuts" then became law, without a single Republican complaining about the measure for the nine years prior to the 2004 Presidential campaign. Fred Kaplan, writing for Slate, makes this point: "Kerry's proposal would not have cut a single intelligence program." What the Republicans don't want you to know is that John Kerry has supported $200 billion in intelligence funding over the past seven years - a 50 percent increase since 1996.
On March 9th, in a Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, George Tenet said that the one percent reduction would not gut the intelligence capabilities:
DAYTON: I'd just like clarify one point that was made earlier by Senator Cornyn. You have a budget that's obviously classified, but the reference to the contemplated or conceptualized $1.5 billion, I think as then Senator Cornyn acknowledged, was a $300 million reduction in the budget or the proposed budget or the increases in the budget for each of five years. But 1 percent, if that's the approximate number, based on published reports, reduction in your budget overall for each of the five years, would that, quote,/unquote "gut your agency and your intelligence-gathering capabilities"? As far as I know, that wasn't specified, but would a 1 percent -- hypothetically, would a 1 percent, say, reduction in your budget for each of five years, quote/unquote, "gut your agency and its intelligence-gathering capabilities"?
TENET: Let me say that in the mid-'90s, it wouldn't have been helpful.
DAYTON: Would it have "gut" in that -- would it have "gut" in that vernacular?
TENET: Sir, obviously no $300 million cut is going to "gut" your intelligence capabilities.
DAYTON: Thank you.
_________________
Kerry votes supporting intelligence funding:
FY03 Intel Authorization $39.3-$41.3 Billion*
[2002, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 9/25/02]
FY02 Intel Authorization $33 Billion*
[2001, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 12/13/01]
FY01 Intel Authorization $29.5-$31.5 Billion*
[2000, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 12/6/00]
FY00 Intel Authorization $29-$30 Billion*
[1999, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 11/19/1999]
FY99 Intel Authorization $29.0 Billion*
[1998, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 10/8/98]
FY98 Intel Authorization $26.7 Billion*
[1997, Senate Roll Call Vote #109]
FY97 Intel Authorization $26.6 Billion*
[1996, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 9/25/96]
* [Authorization levels are classified. Levels are an estimate based upon the Center for Defense Information Terrorism Project, Intelligence Funding and the War on Terror, http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/intel-funding.cfm]
