• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Documenting Kerry's Reckless Disregard of National Security

Chris A

Golden Member
Oct 11, 1999
1,431
1
76
National Security & Defense

Documenting Kerry's Reckless Disregard of National Security
Kerry's Radical Anti-Defense Record
by Rowan Scarborough
Posted Jul 20, 2004


For 20 years, Sen. John Kerry's standard operating procedure was to propose amendments cutting defense and intelligence spending. Fortunately for the armed forces, most of them failed badly. During Ronald Reagan's $2-trillion military buildup, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts voted against nearly ever major weapons system. Never mind that it was this show of might that helped topple the Soviet empire.

"The Reagan Administration has no rational plan for our military," Mr. Kerry said in the 1980s. "Instead, it acts on misinformed assumptions about the strength of the Soviet military and a presumed 'window of vulnerability,' which we now know not to exist."

Not content with that sort of mis-forecasting, Mr. Kerry targeted the Pentagon again in the 1990s. President Clinton's budget cuts were not enough, even as the commander in chief slashed Army divisions, Navy ships and Air Force fighter wings. In one Senate debate, Kerry proposed slicing nearly $50 billion more. The bid was so over the top most of his liberal Democrat colleagues failed to join in, and the amendment failed miserably.

Undaunted, Mr. Kerry also went after the CIA's budget--after America was learning of a new deadly threat called al Qaeda. Kerry was becoming such a loner on national defense that one of his amendments to cut $300 million from the CIA did not attract one co-sponsor. Despite the track record, Mr. Kerry had the gumption to say this on CBS after the September 11 attacks: "And the tragedy is at the moment, the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence. It's the single most important
weapon in this particular war."

Kerry's history is, of course, mightily important today. He is campaigning to be the next commander in chief. All of those budget cuts he failed to achieve as a legislator may become a reality in a Kerry presidency. The historical record comes complements of retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert (Buzz) Patterson in his new book, Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security. It is not only an indictment of Kerry, but also of the liberal establishment's 30-year crusade against American's defenses.

There is Jane Fonda giving comfort to the enemy by visiting American prisoners of war in North Vietnam and forcing them to listen to her anti-U.S. tirade. "When I saw Fonda and heard her anti-war rhetoric, I was almost sick to my stomach," recalls former POW David Hoffman, who was tortured into leaving his cell and meeting Fonda. "She called us criminals and murderers. I detested Jane Fonda then and I detest her now."

There is Ted Kennedy joining Kerry in most anti-defense votes. And there is Bill Clinton, who sent the military on a record number of war and peacekeeping missions in the 1990s, while reducing their ranks and money. Former National Security Council staffer Richard Clarke, the darling of liberals for blaming Bush for September 11, is singled out by Patterson as particularly ineffective in combating terrorism.

Patterson had seats on the 50-yard line for that era. He served as the active duty officer who carried the president's "nuclear football"--the briefcase containing super-secret codes for launching an all-out attack. The officer remembered what he saw. Upon retiring, he wrote a New York Times bestseller, Dereliction of Duty, an "eyewitness account of how Bill Clinton compromised America's national security." Patterson charged that Clinton once "lost" the launch codes and watched a golf tournament on TV while pilots waited for his order to strike targets in Iraq. The mission was scratched.

In his new book, Patterson, an airline pilot living in Atlanta, does not let up. "President Bill Clinton was Jimmy Carter¹s natural successor and will be remembered as the most incompetent of all commanders in chief," he writes in Reckless Disregard. "He entered office an avowed draft dodger with a self-professed loathing for the military," Patterson argues. "He left eight years later having as his legacy the most extreme and ill-advised defense reductions in our nation's history."

Patterson examines the roots of Kerry's anti-defense votes, a search that takes the author to the Vietnam era. Kerry, a decorated Navy officer, left Vietnam, quit the Navy and became one of the nation's most publicized anti-war demonstrators.

But Patterson points out that many of the "veterans" with whom Kerry associated turned out to be frauds who spread blatant untruths. These friends, and Kerry himself, accused America's youth of a string of atrocities in Vietnam. Trouble is, virtually none of them were true. But by the time authors and military investigators took the time to follow-up the charges and deem them unfounded, the damage to that generation had been done.

In one instance, Kerry convened the 1971 Winter Soldier conference in Detroit. Veterans told their stories. A documentary of their stories was told at the Cannes film festival, where it promptly won an award. Yes, the French of 1971 were ever so much like the French of 2004. Only this time, Michael Moore got the honors for his semi-fiction attack on George Bush. Patterson points out B. G. Burkett, in his classic Stolen Valor discovered that many of Kerry's Winter Soldier conventioneers were frauds.

Writes Patterson in a no-holds-barred style, "One of Kerry's colleagues was Al Hubbard, the executive director of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Hubbard claimed to be an Air Force officer who had spent two years in Vietnam and was wounded in combat. In reality, Hubbard was a fake. While he had served in the military, he was never promoted beyond the rank of staff sergeant, had never served in Vietnam and was never wounded. Kerry and Hubbard, however, went on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' side by side, to denounce the war."

Most of Reckless Disregard deals with more recent history, such as the sudden fame of Richard Clarke and his best-selling book, Against All Enemies. Clarke mesmerized Democrats, if not the nation, by testifying before the September 11 commission the same week his book came out. The book party included commission members holding up the publication for a huge TV audience to see. Clarke, an eight-year Clinton employee, blamed Bush for not stopping al Qaeda's attack. Without modesty, he said that if only Bush's people had listened to him, he could have stopped the carnage.

Patterson's White House posting allowed him to observe Clarke firsthand. The author saw things differently. A reader immediately gets the flavor with this chapter title: "The Clinton Catastrophe II: Corruption, Cowardice, and the Fraud of Richard Clarke."

"His apology before the 9-11 commission was pure grandstanding before he tried to place the blame elsewhere," Patterson decides. "According to Clarke, Clinton 'identified terrorism as the major post-Cold War threat,' but 'could not get the CIA, Pentagon, and FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat.'"

"Who's the president here?" Patterson asks. "Clarkeism is Clintonism: It's somebody else's fault." http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4530
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Good. Under GW, our military is drastically over-funded. It is not "national security" to send our troops all of the globe stirring up trouble or to fund our military so outrageously that it becomes bad fiscal policy.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Bush was a drunk-driving coke-head.

Veterans against Kerry are paid thugs who used to work for Nixon. Key among them is Ted Sampley, who once had a restraining order against him following a complaint by Sen. McCain.





IOW, WTF is your point? More dredging up 30 year-old crap?
 

Chris A

Golden Member
Oct 11, 1999
1,431
1
76
Originally posted by: conjur
Bush was a drunk-driving coke-head.

More dredging up 30 year-old crap?


It seems as though 30 year old crap is fine as long as it bashes Bush...
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Chris A
Originally posted by: conjur
Bush was a drunk-driving coke-head.

More dredging up 30 year-old crap?


It seems as though 30 year old crap is fine as long as it bashes Bush...
Who's bringing up Bush's past? I only do it when people bring up crap on Kerry from 30 years ago.

I know they are both much different men from what they were then and I do not hold those actions against them.
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Dereliction of Duty, an "eyewitness account of how Bill Clinton compromised America's national security."

has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. This Is a Hack. Still Placing the Blame on Clinton.

Hey Conservatives, If you need to blame someone for all of lifes problems,


Blame that B!tch Eve.
 

wiin

Senior member
Oct 28, 1999
937
0
76
Conjur said:
Bush was a drunk-driving coke-head.Veterans against Kerry are paid thugs who used to work for Nixon. Key among them is Ted Sampley, who once had a restraining order against him following a complaint by Sen. McCain.



Ha ha ha ha ha.

There you go again.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: wiin
Conjur said:
Bush was a drunk-driving coke-head.Veterans against Kerry are paid thugs who used to work for Nixon. Key among them is Ted Sampley, who once had a restraining order against him following a complaint by Sen. McCain.



Ha ha ha ha ha.

There you go again.
There *you* go again.

Again, you fail to understand the point of my post.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
didn't Cheney also vote against a ton of defense spending propositions?

I'm guessing that with a very new and real threat to the nation's security that Kerry won't drop the ball on defending us - unlike the lack of any real danger in the 80's when many of these votes were taking place


Does this mean that any Senator or Congressman/woman who voted against any defense spending bill 'disregards' national security? Of course not.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,785
6,345
126
Originally posted by: NeoV
didn't Cheney also vote against a ton of defense spending propositions?

I'm guessing that with a very new and real threat to the nation's security that Kerry won't drop the ball on defending us - unlike the lack of any real danger in the 80's when many of these votes were taking place


Does this mean that any Senator or Congressman/woman who voted against any defense spending bill 'disregards' national security? Of course not.

Yes, Cheney did. They voted in such a similar fashion on this issue that a Kerry/Cheney ticket seems logical.
 

Dimkaumd

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
335
0
0
the kerry's investment in Haliburton a few years back and made a bunch of money. also can Guiliani replace Cheney please?!?!
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: wiin
Conjur said:
Bush was a drunk-driving coke-head.Veterans against Kerry are paid thugs who used to work for Nixon. Key among them is Ted Sampley, who once had a restraining order against him following a complaint by Sen. McCain.



Ha ha ha ha ha.

There you go again.
There *you* go again.

Again, you fail to understand the point of my post.

its because it makes no sense, one is a personal matter and the other is directly related to politics. Why dont we compare Bushs eye color with kerrys high schools cheerleading squads current alcohoism rate too.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
"Documenting Kerry's Reckless Disregard of National Security"

Oh really, I didn't get the Memo that Kerry has been President for the past 4 years :roll:

Yeah, but where has he been? He has missed more than 80 percent of Senate votes this year.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Do any of those weapon systems up for funding votes even help fight terrorism? And by extension, does a large military help fight terrorism? Frankly, I believe the answer to both questions is a resounding "no." Hello. We're fighting an asymetrical war with terrorists. We can have the hugest, best-equipped military on the planet and it wouldn't help us fight terrorists any better.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Well of couse a grossly overfunded military has little hope of aiding us against terrorism. If it did, we would have won in Vietnam and the Soviets would have won in Afghanistan. The entire principle behind terrorism is how it makes a tiny secret paramilitary force effective against the 800 lb gorilla.

The issue presented here merely represents the disparity (and similarilities) of the 2 parties. The Republicans frequently preach that the Dems are gloomy on the economy, and yet ignorant of National Security. The Dems complain that the Pubs are scaremongerers on National Security while overly bullish on the economy. The reality is that both sides simply represent the 2 different factions contained within our government, with the Republicans representing the various military and paramilitary constituencies, and the Dems those of the bureaucrats and our social worker "army". What we are told are "the issues" are in fact just squabbles among the 2 sides for pieces of government funding. Taken to the extreme as it is today, we have what is presented here, where a politician who votes against some of one side's less worthy proposals is somehow operating contrary to the interests of the state as a whole and is some kind of "enemy of the state".
 
Jul 26, 2004
70
0
0
Originally posted by: Chris A
Originally posted by: conjur
Bush was a drunk-driving coke-head.

More dredging up 30 year-old crap?


It seems as though 30 year old crap is fine as long as it bashes Bush...


There is no time limit when it comes to bashing Bush.

Which is why Kerry's anti-American / pro-Communist activities in the 70's is completely fair game.


Grossly "over-funded" military? I better figure out how ro add a "rolleyes" icon in here.
:rolleyes:
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: CADMaster
Originally posted by: Chris A
Originally posted by: conjur
Bush was a drunk-driving coke-head.

More dredging up 30 year-old crap?
It seems as though 30 year old crap is fine as long as it bashes Bush...
There is no time limit when it comes to bashing Bush.

Which is why Kerry's anti-American / pro-Communist activities in the 70's is completely fair game.
Who's bashing Bush for his actions of 30 years ago?

Not me.

To be honest, I don't care if he was AWOL or not from the National Guard. The fact is, he hid from service using his father's connections. He used his father's connections to get into Harvard Business School. He used his father's connections to get into business (even when he repeatedly failed.) He used his father's connections to get into the White House.

It's par for the course for this Bush. His character or, rather, the lack thereof, has been exposed.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADMaster
Originally posted by: Chris A
Originally posted by: conjur
Bush was a drunk-driving coke-head.

More dredging up 30 year-old crap?
It seems as though 30 year old crap is fine as long as it bashes Bush...
There is no time limit when it comes to bashing Bush.

Which is why Kerry's anti-American / pro-Communist activities in the 70's is completely fair game.
Who's bashing Bush for his actions of 30 years ago?

Not me.

To be honest, I don't care if he was AWOL or not from the National Guard. The fact is, he hid from service using his father's connections. He used his father's connections to get into Harvard Business School. He used his father's connections to get into business (even when he repeatedly failed.) He used his father's connections to get into the White House.

It's par for the course for this Bush. His character or, rather, the lack thereof, has been exposed.
Well what good is it to have a father in such a high posisition if you can't take advantage of it?

I don't blame him, many of those who had to serve in Viet Nam would have done the same thing as the Dub if they had those same connections. Hell that was probably one of the smarter thing the Dub has ever done in his life!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,750
6,764
126
Originally posted by: CADMaster
Originally posted by: Chris A
Originally posted by: conjur
Bush was a drunk-driving coke-head.

More dredging up 30 year-old crap?


It seems as though 30 year old crap is fine as long as it bashes Bush...


There is no time limit when it comes to bashing Bush.

Which is why Kerry's anti-American / pro-Communist activities in the 70's is completely fair game.


Grossly "over-funded" military? I better figure out how ro add a "rolleyes" icon in here.
:rolleyes:

You never went to kindergarten, I see. That's where you learn that the other child's wrong doesn't justify your own.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: CADMaster
Who's bashing Bush for his actions of 30 years ago?

The Kerry campaign is.


edit. wrong word used. :)

Where?

The only thing I've seen lately is the AP trying to access Bush's National Guard records via the FOIA.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADMaster
Who's bashing Bush for his actions of 30 years ago?

The Kerry campaign is.


edit. wrong word used. :)

Where?

The only thing I've seen lately is the AP trying to access Bush's National Guard records via the FOIA.
Terry Macaulife (sp) has slammed him about his National Guard Service or alleged lack of Service.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur

Key among them is Ted Sampley, who once had a restraining order against him following a complaint by Sen. McCain.

So? It's a pretty lame attempt to discredit him. Do you know why he was mad at McCain?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADMaster
Who's bashing Bush for his actions of 30 years ago?

The Kerry campaign is.


edit. wrong word used. :)
Where?

The only thing I've seen lately is the AP trying to access Bush's National Guard records via the FOIA.
Terry Macaulife (sp) has slammed him about his National Guard Service or alleged lack of Service.
Ah, yes, McAuliffe's comments that Bush's record are as randomly available as he was for service? :laugh:

I still see no effort by the Kerry campaign to make a public event of this nor any Kerry ads mentioning it.