John Kerry voted against most of the weapons programs

[Ulfwald]

John Kerry voted against most of the weapons programs that are being used by our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq today. Do you want a list? Of course you do. So ... here we go with a list of some of the weapons programs that John Kerry opposed while serving in the U.S. Senate: (Remember now ... John Kerry says that this review of his voting record in the Senate is "attacking his patriotism.")

The B-1 bomber.
The B-2 bomber.
The F-15 Eagle tactical fighter
The F-14D Tomcat fighter
The AH-64 Apache Helicopter
The AV-8B Harrier "jump" jet
The Patriot Missile
The Aegis air-defense system
The Trident missile

Kerry also sought to reduce the funding for procurement of the following:

The M1 Abrams tank
The Bradley Fighting Vehicle
The Tomahawk cruise missile
The F-16 Falcon fighter/attack jet


Now ... don't you wonder just how our military would have handled things in Kuwait, Bosnia, Afghanistan and now Iraq without these weapons programs? And you want this man to be our Commander in Chief? I sure hope not.

 

[Red Dawn]

So the choice is between someone who voted against these weapons programs (could be due to pork added on) and someone who is all for them and doesn't think twice about misleading the public so he can use them?

 

[nutxo]

Well, if we go to war he could always throw his medals at the enemy, or were those his friends medals? His ribbons?

 

[DanJ]

I myself would like to see what was added on to the bills that was voted or not voted for (or perhaps what the actual bills were for).

 

[CaptnKirk]

So what's your point ?

Many of those 'Bills' were attachments as riders to other bills that would not have passed anyway,
or were consistant with everyone elses vote on the actual subject at hand.

Now how does this play against a person (Bush) who DID NOT VOTE ON ANY OF THEM ?
It's a lame game isn't it ? But he did this, and they did that ! Bogus comparison.

 

[Red Dawn]

BTW, the Patriot Missle system seems to be better at targeting and shooting down friendly Aircraft than it does incoming missles. In the first Gulf War the Patriot Missle system was almost a complete failure and in Gulf War 2 it shot down 8 Scuds, 2 Allied Warplanes and targeted numerous other Allied planes with an instance of an Allied plane taking out a Patriot Battery after the pilot detected it "painting" his F15 with radar.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Iraq launched no Scuds in Gulf-2, they were only used in G-1.

They were designed to put up a debris field that aircraft were
flying into and for ingestion of that debris to FOD-Out an engine.

It was only through serendipity that they could be used against missles,
more of an afterthought - just to see if they could get close enough to alter
the flight course of the missle in the later stages of flight just before impact.
In G-1 nearly half of the Scuds 'Broke-up' just because they were junk.

 

[SuperTool]

How about you post the actual bills that he voted on, not what weapons systems you claim he voted against.
Maybe there are other things there to vote against when looking at it in context, considering the waste of money that is the B-2 bomber.

 

[Zephyr106]

Anyone with a shred of knowledge about US legislation knows how convoluted bills become with riders, amendments, etc. Hence, taken out of context, alot of "bad" things can be said about basically every politician voting for or against some particular bill.

Zephyr

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Anyone with a shred of knowledge about US legislation knows how convoluted bills become with riders, amendments, etc. Hence, taken out of context, alot of "bad" things can be said about basically every politician voting for or against some particular bill.

Zephyr

Stop making so much sense. You are making conservatives' ditto heads hurt. If you don't vote for every piece of defense industry corporate welfare that comes across your desk, you are a traitor. The republicans have it all figured out as far as military concerned, with minor exception of HOW THEY ARE GOING TO PAY FOR IT.

 

[maluckey]

Well here's some stuff Kerry voted for, then changed his mind about. I got this from a Charles Krauthammer article about changing opinions of Kerry:

What Kerry changed his mind about (after voting for it).

Votes for the Iraq war, which he now says he opposed.

Votes against the Persian Gulf War, which he now says he favored.

Votes against the $87 billion for troop support and Iraqi reconstruction, while saying that he favors troop support and Iraqi reconstruction.

Votes for the No Child Left Behind Act, which he now attacks incessantly.


Votes for NAFTA; he now rails against the unfairness of free trade.


Votes for the Patriot Act; he now decries the assault on civil liberties.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Well here's some stuff Kerry voted for, then changed his mind about. I got this from a Charles Krauthammer article about changing opinions of Kerry:

What Kerry changed his mind about (after voting for it).

Votes for the Iraq war, which he now says he opposed.

Votes against the Persian Gulf War, which he now says he favored.

Votes against the $87 billion for troop support and Iraqi reconstruction, while saying that he favors troop support and Iraqi reconstruction.

Votes for the No Child Left Behind Act, which he now attacks incessantly.


Votes for NAFTA; he now rails against the unfairness of free trade.


Votes for the Patriot Act; he now decries the assault on civil liberties.

The No Child Left Behind Program was based on the Houston Educational Program that has since been shown that the statistics it presented as proving that it was successful is actually fraudulent. Just yesterday the head of the Department of Education Paige called the National Teachers Union a Terrorist Organization

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Well here's some stuff Kerry voted for, then changed his mind about. I got this from a Charles Krauthammer article about changing opinions of Kerry:

What Kerry changed his mind about (after voting for it).

Votes for the Iraq war, which he now says he opposed.

Votes against the Persian Gulf War, which he now says he favored.

Votes against the $87 billion for troop support and Iraqi reconstruction, while saying that he favors troop support and Iraqi reconstruction.

Votes for the No Child Left Behind Act, which he now attacks incessantly.


Votes for NAFTA; he now rails against the unfairness of free trade.


Votes for the Patriot Act; he now decries the assault on civil liberties.

Better late than never

 

[chess9]

Kerry was just voting against Weapons of Mass Destruction. He didn't want the U.S. to become the, er, U.S.



-Robert

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well here's some stuff Kerry voted for, then changed his mind about. I got this from a Charles Krauthammer article about changing opinions of Kerry:

First off, Krauthammer is a tool. Medical education was wasted on him. What he really needed was conscience school b/c at the moment the man has no shame.

Votes for the Iraq war, which he now says he opposed.

The US Congress (which is the only authority that can declare war for the US) has not voted for a war since WWII. Bush couched the resolution in 2002 as a bargaining chip that was ABSOLUTELY necessary to support him at the UN as he planned to ASK for support. Instead Bush went to the UN and said you either with us or you can kiss my arse.

Votes against the Persian Gulf War, which he now says he favored.

See above, but maybe Krauthammer has a point on this one. Then again Kerry may claim hindsight is 20/20. Bush has neither hindsight nor foresight.

Votes against the $87 billion for troop support and Iraqi reconstruction, while saying that he favors troop support and Iraqi reconstruction.

Considering Afghanistan was CLEARLY part of the war on terror while Iraq was Neocon Empire Dreams . . . it makes sense to distinguish where money is going, why it's going there, and build in ALOT of accountability. It's reasonable to say that bill failed on all accounts. It makes sense to give Haiti money and loaning it to Iraq. If Bushies were worried about payback just make the loans zero interest and attach some strings to encourage vital reforms to insure it isn't wasted. You can ALWAYS forgive a loan . . . ask Tyco, Adelphia, Enron, GE . . .

Votes for the No Child Left Behind Act, which he now attacks incessantly.

Do you have any idea how big a cluster chuck that legislation turned out to be?! This one alone deserves its own thread.

Votes for NAFTA; he now rails against the unfairness of free trade.

Clinton at least pretended that human rights/worker rights should be considered when negotiating trade deals. Bush throws them out the window. Accordingly, it's virtually impossible for US companies (the ones that still park their money in America and pay taxes) to compete especially when China is now outsourcing their WalMart business to North Korea.

Votes for the Patriot Act; he now decries the assault on civil liberties.

Yeah Kerry gets a raspberry for this one . . . the Patriot Act was dumb at the inception and real dumb now.

 

[sMiLeYz]

This isn't changing anyone heres mind about Kerry, the guy is leaps and bounds better than Bush.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So the choice is between someone who voted against these weapons programs (could be due to pork added on) and someone who is all for them and doesn't think twice about misleading the public so he can use them?

how did we get ourselves into this giant clusterfvck?

 

[maluckey]

BaliBabyDoc,

Krauthammer is a tool, but a Nobel Laureate tool. That's got to count for something...right?

First, you are just quibbling about verbage when stating your stand on "The War in Iraq" as it's commonly referred to in popular Jargon. All quibbling aside, Kerry voted for the use of force, and in that document was a provision that Bush didn't have to even notify Congress when he acted. If he (Kerry) didn't read what he was voting on, then he shouldn't be considered as a candidate at all. Either he read it and understood it, or he voted on it without understanding it. Either way, it looks bad for Kerry. I would like to think that a U.S. Senator would know the issues before voting for, or against something.

Secondly, Kerry clearly stated on numerous occaissions that he supports or troops, and Iraqi reconstruction. He voted against the reconstruction bill. He has yet to make a statement as to why (that I have found). You may have something on this one, but Kerry should clear this one up.

As far as Clinton pretending to consider human rights and wages when considering business deals?? When was that? Clinton backed a bill before congress in 2000 for full trade normalization with China. This would pave the way for their entry into the WTO. That's concern for trade and human rights? I have to disagree with you on this one.

Mark

 

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: Ulfwald
John Kerry voted against most of the weapons programs that are being used by our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq today. Do you want a list? Of course you do. So ... here we go with a list of some of the weapons programs that John Kerry opposed while serving in the U.S. Senate: (Remember now ... John Kerry says that this review of his voting record in the Senate is "attacking his patriotism.")

The B-1 bomber.
The B-2 bomber.
The F-15 Eagle tactical fighter
The F-14D Tomcat fighter
The AH-64 Apache Helicopter
The AV-8B Harrier "jump" jet
The Patriot Missile
The Aegis air-defense system
The Trident missile

Kerry also sought to reduce the funding for procurement of the following:

The M1 Abrams tank
The Bradley Fighting Vehicle
The Tomahawk cruise missile
The F-16 Falcon fighter/attack jet


Now ... don't you wonder just how our military would have handled things in Kuwait, Bosnia, Afghanistan and now Iraq without these weapons programs? And you want this man to be our Commander in Chief? I sure hope not.

Thank god, its about time we started cutting some pork. Vote Kerry 2004.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Krauthammer is a tool, but a Nobel Laureate tool. That's got to count for something...right?

If Charles Krauthammer has a Nobel Prize I've got 10. He did get a Pulitzer in 1987 (nothing to sneeze at) but Woodward is proof positive that crack journalist can often reduce themselves to just being on crack.

All quibbling aside, Kerry voted for the use of force, and in that document was a provision that Bush didn't have to even notify Congress when he acted. If he (Kerry) didn't read what he was voting on, then he shouldn't be considered as a candidate at all. Either he read it and understood it, or he voted on it without understanding it. Either way, it looks bad for Kerry.

I agree Kerry's got a tough row to hoe. While I believed Bush AND the Congress in FOS . . . Kerry still voted for that BS. But if the standard for chief executive is reading AND understanding legislation or initiatives then Bush's tenure is more of a bad joke than I ever imagined.

Secondly, Kerry clearly stated on numerous occaissions that he supports or troops, and Iraqi reconstruction. He voted against the reconstruction bill. He has yet to make a statement as to why (that I have found). You may have something on this one, but Kerry should clear this one up.

I think that's a little bit of a Faustian bargain. Having to explain why you vote against bad legislation that allegedly supports our troops is like calling a press conference to say you are not 1) gay, 2) cheating on the wife, 3) beating the wife, 4) not a Commie. Most legislation from this Congress AND administration is bad legislation. The parade of budgets . . . and I use that term extremely loosely that include nary a whisper of clear funding requirements borders on Haiti-level mismanagement. Dean may have been a little undisciplined with his message but he had at least one salient point . . . these people (in DC) are wholly out of touch with reality. Keeping Bushies may be bad medicine but Kerry/Edwards may be nothing more than placebo.

As far as Clinton pretending to consider human rights and wages when considering business deals?? When was that? Clinton backed a bill before congress in 2000 for full trade normalization with China. This would pave the way for their entry into the WTO. That's concern for trade and human rights? I have to disagree with you on this one.

Dude, are you kidding. I said Clinton gave the pretense of consideration. Although in practical effect it may differ little from Bush's total disregard for humanity/environment but at least the issue is on the table. Clinton ain't no prize but Bush is punishment.

 

[EXman]

Well, if we go to war he could always throw his medals at the enemy, or were those his friends medals? His ribbons?

HAHHAHAHHA! no he lied to those VVAW members too. I think he thinks the UN is capable of handling any situation.

And that we will never need a new tank, airplane, or warship.

What are we gonna use Harsh language!

just please no UN resolutions! those are frightening! /sarcasm

Thank god, its about time we started cutting some pork. Vote Kerry 2004.

<---- Squirt guns from China are much cheaper! Oh is that Kerry/Fonda bumper sticker ready yet??

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Dman877

Originally posted by: Ulfwald
John Kerry voted against most of the weapons programs that are being used by our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq today. Do you want a list? Of course you do. So ... here we go with a list of some of the weapons programs that John Kerry opposed while serving in the U.S. Senate: (Remember now ... John Kerry says that this review of his voting record in the Senate is "attacking his patriotism.")

The B-1 bomber.
The B-2 bomber.
The F-15 Eagle tactical fighter
The F-14D Tomcat fighter
The AH-64 Apache Helicopter
The AV-8B Harrier "jump" jet
The Patriot Missile
The Aegis air-defense system
The Trident missile

Kerry also sought to reduce the funding for procurement of the following:

The M1 Abrams tank
The Bradley Fighting Vehicle
The Tomahawk cruise missile
The F-16 Falcon fighter/attack jet


Now ... don't you wonder just how our military would have handled things in Kuwait, Bosnia, Afghanistan and now Iraq without these weapons programs? And you want this man to be our Commander in Chief? I sure hope not.

Thank god, its about time we started cutting some pork. Vote Kerry 2004.

i doubt there was any overall intent to cut spending. just trading one pet project for another

 

[maluckey]

BaliBabyDoc,

OOOOPS!! I knew it was one of those damnable awards, that somehow meant something......I guess.....

I think that's a little bit of a Faustian bargain. Having to explain why you vote against bad legislation that allegedly supports our troops is like calling a press conference to say you are not 1) gay, 2) cheating on the wife, 3) beating the wife, 4) not a Commie. Most legislation from this Congress AND administration is bad legislation. The parade of budgets . . . and I use that term extremely loosely that include nary a whisper of clear funding requirements borders on Haiti-level mismanagement. Dean may have been a little undisciplined with his message but he had at least one salient point . . . these people (in DC) are wholly out of touch with reality. Keeping Bushies may be bad medicine but Kerry/Edwards may be nothing more than placebo.

I actually agree with most of this. Good point about not having much choice between Kerry and Bush. Neither would be my top choice. Then again one snake is likely good as another.

BTW, a press conference to announce that you aren't gay, beating your wife, or being a commie might actually help out many modern candidates. Think about it...... ANY unsolicited definitive statement, is better than one made under the gun, or under allegations, post facto.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Then again one snake is likely good as another.

Well maybe in your neck of the woods but in these parts you better for damn sure know the difference between this snake in the grass and this snake on your arse.. And for those that contend both Democrats and Republicans are no good poisonous snakes in the grass . . . at least the Democrats just take your money. The Republicans take your money, your privacy, freedom of movement, association . . .

 

[beyoku]

i agree with kerry. Plus i hear this was like 20 or 15 years ago but im not sure. Do you know how MUCH we spend on "defense" - TOO MUCH and what do we get for it? I think we need to cut defense spending. - In half. Why do we pay for missles when the people that attack us only have ak47's, RPG's and boxcutters?