John Kerry on National Defense - PbNation
Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

View Poll Results: <MARQUEE>Do you think Kerry can handle this nations defense?</MARQUEE>
Yes 7 21.21%
No 23 69.70%
Not sure 3 9.09%
don't care 0 0%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

 
Archived Thread - Cannot Edit  
Old 08-16-2004, 04:02 PM #1
insanity15
Now with Jihading action!
 
insanity15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a house?
 has been a member for 10 years
John Kerry on National Defense

Can you guess Which Country this Military force belongs too?





709,000 Regular active duty personel
293,000 reserve troops
Eight Standing Army Divisions
20 Air Force and Navy Air Wings with 2,000 combat aircraft and 232 strategic bombers
19 Strategic Missile Submarines with 3,114 nuclear warheads on over 220 missiles
500 ICBMS with 1,950 warheads
Four Aircraft carriers and 121 surface combat ships and submarines plus all the support bases, shipyards, and logistical assests neeeded to sustain those forces

If you guessed any country that this militarty force belongs to you would be wrong. This military power was all terminated, destroyed under the power of Bill Clintons presidency. And it was all supported by John Kerry. And on that note, here are some issues Kerry did vote on:
Voted to Kill the Bradley fighting vehicle
Voted to Kill the M-1 Abrams tank
Voted to Kill every aircraft carrier laid down after 1988
Voted to Kill the aegis anit aircraft system
Voted to Kill the F-15 strike eagle
Voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16
Voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
Voted to Kill the B-1
Voted to Kill the B-2
Voted to Kill the Patriot anti Missle System
Voted to Kill the FA-18
Voted to Kill the F117

John Kerry has voted against ever military appropriation for the development of every weapons system since 1988, including a bill for funding our troops, and a bill for battle armor for our troops. How can this man handle our nations defense when all he has done in the last 16 years is do his best to eliminate it? John Kerry Voted to cut FBI funding by 60%, voted to cut funding for CIA by 80%, voted to cut funding for the NSA by 80%, at a time when the US was in the midst of trying to capture Bin Laden for terrorist attacks, learn valuable information about Suddam, and North Korea. Then, and this is abhorrent to every American voter, be you Democrat, Republican, or Independent, John Kerry voted to increase our fudning for UN operations by 800%! So does it not strike anyone as odd when Kerry stands ups in front of live audiences, and criticizes Bush for over deploying our troops in Iraq? Maybe, its because nearly one million service memebers we're let go under the president of Bill Clinton!? If Americans can't find that as hypocritical than its understandable why people would think Kerry was a good choice for president. It seems Americans are so focused on the mistakes George W. Bush made, they have no time to focus on the person they're trying to get elected. The man voted for the war in Iraq, then voted against funding for our troops. Go Kerry. It's okay not to like George Bush, but people really need to take time to research what kind of president Kerry would make. And what he would do to this country.

This is from my webpage http://www.expage.com/saveamerica
__________________
"If you aren't getting older, you're dead. -Tom Petty

"Originally posted by slateman: Bottom line here: If France thinks its a good idea, then we shouldn't do it."

Last edited by insanity15 : 08-16-2004 at 04:41 PM.
insanity15 is offline  
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 08-16-2004, 05:10 PM #2
SlingerXL
Stands to reason
 
SlingerXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
SlingerXL is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
You're an idiot. Give me a second and I'll show how gullible you are.

"It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. And Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:

Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time."


"The body-armor money amounted to just over 1/3 of 1 percent of the $87 billion supplemental bill that Kerry opposed."


--FactCheck.org
I highly suggest everyone plop this page onto their favorites. Examines both campaigns and says what's missing in them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Claim: Senator John Kerry "voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988."

Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004]



Quote:
Sen. John Kerry

Democrat from Massachusetts
HE says he is strongest
Presidential Candidate on National Defense!

He said Check the Record..
We Did !

Here is what we learned.

He voted to kill the B-1 Bomber
He voted to kill the B-2 Stealth Bomber
He voted to kill the F-14
He voted to kill the F-15 Strike Eagle
He voted to kill the F-16
He voted to kill the AV-8B Harrier Vertical Takeoff and Landing Jet Fighter
He voted to kill the AH-64 Apache Helicopter
He voted to kill the Patriot Anti-Missile System
He voted to kill the Aegis Anti-Aircraft System
He voted to kill the Trident Missile System
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the Tomahawk Cruise Missile

In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle armor for our troops. With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs.

Origins: Numerous variants of this message claiming that Senator John Kerry of Masschusetts "voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988" have been circulating since at least February 2004. The message's implication ? that Senator Kerry distinctly and specifically voted to kill upwards of a dozen different weapons systems ? is inaccurate and grossly misleading, however.

A 22 February 2004 Republican National Committee (RNC) research briefing includes the list of weapons systems found in this message and citations that purportedly support the claim that Senator Kerry voted to kill each one. But all the citations stem from votes on three Congressional bills, none of which were about a specific weapons system or group of weapons systems.

The three votes cited ? regarding S. 3189 (1990), H.R. 5803 (1990), and H.R. 2126 (1995) ? were bills covering fiscal year Department of Defense appropriations, all of which Senator Kerry voted against. (Two of those three votes were not technically on defense appropriations per se, but on House-Senate conference committee reports for defense appropriations bills.) As the text of a typical defense appropriations bill shows, such bills cover the entire governmental expenditures for defense in a given fiscal year and encompass thousands of items totalling hundreds of billions of dollars ? including everything from the cost of developing, testing, purchasing, and maintaining weapons and other equipment to personnel expenses (salaries, medical benefits, tuition assistance, reenlistment bonuses), medical research, hazardous waste cleanup, facilities maintenance, and a whole host of other disbursements. Members of Congress ultimately vote "yea" or "nay" on an entire appropriations bill; they don't pick and choose to approve some items and reject others.

Senators and Representatives might vote against a defense appropriations bill for any numbers of reasons ? because they object to the presence or absence of a particular item, because they feel that the government is proposing to spend too much or too little money on defense, or anything in-between. Maintaining, as is the case here, that a Senator who voted "nay" on one year's defense appropriations bill therefore voted to "kill" a variety of specific weapons systems is like claiming that any Congressman who has ever voted against a defense appropriations bill has therefore also voted to abolish the U.S. military.

The inclusion of some of the items listed here is all the more ridiculous given that they were weapons systems that a previous Republican administration advocated eliminating. For example, it was Dick Cheney himself, in his capacity as Secretary of Defense under President George H.W. Bush, who testified before the House Armed Services Committee on 13 August 1989 that he had recommended cancelling the AH-64 Apache Helicopter program:

The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward. AH-64 . . . forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.
(Note that this testimony took place over six years before Senator Kerry supposedly voted to "kill" the AH-64.)

Likewise, on 1 February 1992, Secretary of Defense Cheney complained to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was being "forced" to spend money on unneeded weapons such as the M-1, the F-14, and the F-16:

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements . . . You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s ? all great systems . . . but we have enough of them.
And President Bush noted in his 1992 State of the Union address that he was phasing out several weapons systems, including the B-2, to "reflect the changes of the new era":

Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with imperial communism gone, that process can be accelerated. Tonight I can tell you of dramatic changes in our strategic nuclear force. These are actions we are taking on our own because they are the right thing to do. After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bombers. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles.
Last updated: 26 July 2004

The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

Urban Legends Reference Pages 1995-2004
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally posted by Vladmir
insanity you are an idiot, it is like rush limbaugh v. 2.0 this time more extreme and less logical!

Last edited by SlingerXL : 08-16-2004 at 10:27 PM.
SlingerXL is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 05:11 PM #3
JLothrop
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milwaukee
 has been a member for 10 years
one one thousand...
__________________
Shock Kidz
AFTERSHOCK

POWERED BY:
DYE PRECISION, Shocktech USA, BBT, the Badlandz, the Grindhouse, Krush Skate Park, KEE ACTION SPORTS, RPS, HALO, NXE, VIRTUE
JLothrop is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 05:28 PM #4
SlingerXL
Stands to reason
 
SlingerXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
SlingerXL is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Shut up I got it already!

I had a much more indepth source than FactCheck.org, but I can't find it.

Ah hell, I voted no by accident. I was just in such a negative mood after having an entire Bush ad quoted and posted onto my forum.

Last edited by SlingerXL : 08-16-2004 at 06:19 PM.
SlingerXL is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 05:53 PM #5
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Do I think he can do a good job on national defense? Maybe, we'll have to see.

What I do know is that doing NOTHING will be better than what Bush has done. Bush has no sense of how to fight a war. If we want to destroy our enemy we need to do more than grabbing our balls, screaming "Yeeeehaw" and bombing ****. This IS a war and Bush has no clue how to fight it. He lacks the imagination or the education to realize that some wars can be fought more effectively WITHOUT killing people. What better way to fight the enemy than to have them ostracized and destroyed by their own people? I am not a ***** Democrat who fears war. I want to crush those that would kill us just as much as any one of you, I just realize that there are far better ways to do it. If I thought killing was the most effective way to win, I'd support that. I do not believe it to be an effective solution in this war though. Again, this has nothing to do with being a coward, *****, bleeding heart liberal or any other insult you can come up with. We just arn't fighting this war how it SHOULD be fought.

Last edited by zack : 08-16-2004 at 05:56 PM.
zack is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 06:01 PM #6
SlingerXL
Stands to reason
 
SlingerXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
SlingerXL is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
I liked how, dammit I don't remeber who and I don't want to falsely accuse anyone... Anyway, I like how that one guy bashed CLINTON for bombing saddam "with only ICBMs and missiles"

As if not getting our soldiers killed while sending a strong message is a BAD thing.
SlingerXL is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 06:13 PM #7
gomer
The X-Factor
 
gomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: DayToWn, OH
 has been a member for 10 years
You know what the f22 joint strike fighter is? A REALLLY expensive stealth fighter specificy designed to fight migs and other HIGH-End fighters.

It has been in development since atleast the 80's and has never seen action since, we fight civilians and peasants with pitch forks.

We don't need any more weapons, ours are allready better than everyone elses.
gomer is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 06:17 PM #8
SlingerXL
Stands to reason
 
SlingerXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
SlingerXL is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
This thread sucks. All the starter did was post an amalgam of Bush Ads almost word for word and leave out the exact same relevant information that is as damning, if not moreso, to the Bush campaign. Kerry should hop on this and *****smack Bush with a nice ad about this.































...Or a witty bumper sticker.




Either/or.
SlingerXL is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 06:25 PM #9
elTwitcho
***** ***** *****
 
elTwitcho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Toronto Canada
 has been a member for 10 years
It's funny because with all the talk about national defence and how weak Kerry is, Bush has done more to incite terrorism than anyone before him. Look at Iraq, the US is literally blowing the **** out of the insurgents and they keep coming faster than anyone can kill em because there isn't a Muslim crazy *** left in the world who wouldn't love a chance to defend Islam from Bush's crusading.


But hey, America is killing some terrorists in the war on terror, therefore America MUST be safer
__________________
ST:Photo - Trust me, you made a wrong turn

A Haiku about Life - By Secret Asian Man
twitch slaps me around
he likes to make me his *****
Because of small cock
elTwitcho is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 06:40 PM #10
BCpro05
 
 
BCpro05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
 has been a member for 10 years
BCpro05 supports Team VICIOUS
how has Bush incited terrorists? they've been going after us (Americans) since good 'ole Jimmy Carter was in office, and thanks to the BHL's, we're having to deal with it on a grander scale now, see what worrying about petty things such as welfare reform, economy, and healthcare got us? lol
__________________
Free agent

Last edited by BCpro05 : 08-17-2004 at 10:42 AM.
BCpro05 is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 08:19 PM #11
insanity15
Now with Jihading action!
 
insanity15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a house?
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally posted by SlingerXL
You're an idiot. Give me a second and I'll show how gullible you are.

"It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. And Richard Cheney himself...."
no your an idiot, i didn't even list the Apache as something Kerry voted on....and how are you supposed to win a war without strategic weaponry? Idiot
__________________
"If you aren't getting older, you're dead. -Tom Petty

"Originally posted by slateman: Bottom line here: If France thinks its a good idea, then we shouldn't do it."

Last edited by insanity15 : 08-16-2004 at 08:24 PM.
insanity15 is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 08:22 PM #12
insanity15
Now with Jihading action!
 
insanity15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a house?
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally posted by SlingerXL
I liked how, dammit I don't remeber who and I don't want to falsely accuse anyone... Anyway, I like how that one guy bashed CLINTON for bombing saddam "with only ICBMs and missiles"

As if not getting our soldiers killed while sending a strong message is a BAD thing.
oh, wait, you must be referring to September 13th, when Clinton was watching the Presidential Golf Tour, and Buzz Patterson had to ask Clinton 3 times to get the go ahead to bomb Iraq, but all 3 times clinton was to busy and said he would deal with it later.... And the missiles he shot weren't even at veryified targets

if you really want to know why we are in all of this mess
http://www.expage.com/thetruthbehindthewar
__________________
"If you aren't getting older, you're dead. -Tom Petty

"Originally posted by slateman: Bottom line here: If France thinks its a good idea, then we shouldn't do it."

Last edited by insanity15 : 08-16-2004 at 08:31 PM.
insanity15 is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 08:26 PM #13
insanity15
Now with Jihading action!
 
insanity15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a house?
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally posted by SlingerXL
This thread sucks. All the starter did was post an amalgam of Bush Ads almost word for word and leave out the exact same relevant information that is as damning, if not moreso, to the Bush campaign. Kerry should hop on this and *****smack Bush with a nice ad about this.
...Or a witty bumper sticker.

Either/or.
are you going to narrate my whole thread or say at least 1 thing that is intelligent and worth debating?
__________________
"If you aren't getting older, you're dead. -Tom Petty

"Originally posted by slateman: Bottom line here: If France thinks its a good idea, then we shouldn't do it."
insanity15 is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 08:54 PM #14
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally posted by insanity15
if you really want to know why we are in all of this mess
What the HELL does Desert Fox have to do with what's happening now?
zack is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 09:03 PM #15
insanity15
Now with Jihading action!
 
insanity15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a house?
 has been a member for 10 years
if your referring to the semi attempt clinton made at solving a huge problem, it has all the difference in the world. clinton didn't attmept to stop 1 major conflict in his presidency. all clinton had to do was keep saddam under the continous inspection of UN inspectors, after saddam kicked them out it sent a message to terrorists everywhere. and the inspectors never did get full cooperation after that. thats what it has to do with it, god did you even read the whole thing?

http://www.expage.com/thetruthbehindthewar

read first ask later
__________________
"If you aren't getting older, you're dead. -Tom Petty

"Originally posted by slateman: Bottom line here: If France thinks its a good idea, then we shouldn't do it."
insanity15 is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 09:19 PM #16
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
What the hell? How does Hussein kicking inspectors out send a message to terrorists? Hussein is NOT a terrorist nor is he connected to any. I still don't see how it relates to the current war.
zack is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 10:24 PM #17
SlingerXL
Stands to reason
 
SlingerXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
SlingerXL is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally posted by insanity15
no your an idiot, i didn't even list the Apache as something Kerry voted on....and how are you supposed to win a war without strategic weaponry? Idiot
They were all part of the same bill doofus. Look at my next post.

Quote:
Originally posted by insanity15
oh, wait, you must be referring to September 13th, when Clinton was watching the Presidential Golf Tour, and Buzz Patterson had to ask Clinton 3 times to get the go ahead to bomb Iraq, but all 3 times clinton was to busy and said he would deal with it later.... And the missiles he shot weren't even at veryified targets

if you really want to know why we are in all of this mess
http://www.expage.com/thetruthbehindthewar
Why do you keep bringing up Clinton? Did HE invade Iraq? Is HE running for President?
SlingerXL is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 10:26 PM #18
SlingerXL
Stands to reason
 
SlingerXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
SlingerXL is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Claim: Senator John Kerry "voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988."

Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004]



Sen. John Kerry

Democrat from Massachusetts
HE says he is strongest
Presidential Candidate on National Defense!

He said Check the Record..
We Did !

Here is what we learned.

He voted to kill the B-1 Bomber
He voted to kill the B-2 Stealth Bomber
He voted to kill the F-14
He voted to kill the F-15 Strike Eagle
He voted to kill the F-16
He voted to kill the AV-8B Harrier Vertical Takeoff and Landing Jet Fighter
He voted to kill the AH-64 Apache Helicopter
He voted to kill the Patriot Anti-Missile System
He voted to kill the Aegis Anti-Aircraft System
He voted to kill the Trident Missile System
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the Tomahawk Cruise Missile

In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle armor for our troops. With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs.


Origins: Numerous variants of this message claiming that Senator John Kerry of Masschusetts "voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988" have been circulating since at least February 2004. The message's implication ? that Senator Kerry distinctly and specifically voted to kill upwards of a dozen different weapons systems ? is inaccurate and grossly misleading, however.

A 22 February 2004 Republican National Committee (RNC) research briefing includes the list of weapons systems found in this message and citations that purportedly support the claim that Senator Kerry voted to kill each one. But all the citations stem from votes on three Congressional bills, none of which were about a specific weapons system or group of weapons systems.

The three votes cited ? regarding S. 3189 (1990), H.R. 5803 (1990), and H.R. 2126 (1995) ? were bills covering fiscal year Department of Defense appropriations, all of which Senator Kerry voted against. (Two of those three votes were not technically on defense appropriations per se, but on House-Senate conference committee reports for defense appropriations bills.) As the text of a typical defense appropriations bill shows, such bills cover the entire governmental expenditures for defense in a given fiscal year and encompass thousands of items totalling hundreds of billions of dollars ? including everything from the cost of developing, testing, purchasing, and maintaining weapons and other equipment to personnel expenses (salaries, medical benefits, tuition assistance, reenlistment bonuses), medical research, hazardous waste cleanup, facilities maintenance, and a whole host of other disbursements. Members of Congress ultimately vote "yea" or "nay" on an entire appropriations bill; they don't pick and choose to approve some items and reject others.

Senators and Representatives might vote against a defense appropriations bill for any numbers of reasons ? because they object to the presence or absence of a particular item, because they feel that the government is proposing to spend too much or too little money on defense, or anything in-between. Maintaining, as is the case here, that a Senator who voted "nay" on one year's defense appropriations bill therefore voted to "kill" a variety of specific weapons systems is like claiming that any Congressman who has ever voted against a defense appropriations bill has therefore also voted to abolish the U.S. military.

The inclusion of some of the items listed here is all the more ridiculous given that they were weapons systems that a previous Republican administration advocated eliminating. For example, it was Dick Cheney himself, in his capacity as Secretary of Defense under President George H.W. Bush, who testified before the House Armed Services Committee on 13 August 1989 that he had recommended cancelling the AH-64 Apache Helicopter program:

The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward. AH-64 . . . forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.
(Note that this testimony took place over six years before Senator Kerry supposedly voted to "kill" the AH-64.)

Likewise, on 1 February 1992, Secretary of Defense Cheney complained to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was being "forced" to spend money on unneeded weapons such as the M-1, the F-14, and the F-16:

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements . . . You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s ? all great systems . . . but we have enough of them.
And President Bush noted in his 1992 State of the Union address that he was phasing out several weapons systems, including the B-2, to "reflect the changes of the new era":

Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with imperial communism gone, that process can be accelerated. Tonight I can tell you of dramatic changes in our strategic nuclear force. These are actions we are taking on our own because they are the right thing to do. After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bombers. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles.
Last updated: 26 July 2004

The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

Urban Legends Reference Pages 1995-2004
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
SlingerXL is offline  
Old 08-17-2004, 05:20 AM #19
Anarchy1124
Banned
 
Anarchy1124's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: behind the bunker
 has been a member for 10 years
the terror ist will keep on hitting us if kerry takes a millenium to go through the un. they are bribed crooks
Anarchy1124 is offline  
Old 08-17-2004, 08:11 AM #20
elTwitcho
***** ***** *****
 
elTwitcho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Toronto Canada
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally posted by BCpro05
how has Bush incited terrorists? they've been going after us (Americans) since good 'ole Jimmy Carter was in office
WHen anti american sentiment rises, the number of people willing to blow themselves up because they hate americans also rises. When the number of people willing to blow themselves up because they hate americans rises, the number of terrorists in the world actively trying to kill americans rises. Toppling a sovereign government and then saying "well we didn't really want to listen about your rational explanations of how there are no weapons, we really thought we were gonna find some. Oh well, Saddam was a prick anyway and we did the right thing because we're America. Freedom Freedom worlds greatest country democracy freedom raaaaaa" is a good way to piss Muslims off and hence, create more terrorists.
__________________
ST:Photo - Trust me, you made a wrong turn

A Haiku about Life - By Secret Asian Man
twitch slaps me around
he likes to make me his *****
Because of small cock
elTwitcho is offline  
Old 08-17-2004, 08:22 AM #21
Brewmaster
You guys suck.
 
Brewmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bullhead City, AZ
 has been a member for 10 years
Just to stir things up... Liberals piss me off. If I kill a few am I justified?
__________________
"tHIS "bREWMASTER" HAS NO IDEA HOW POLITICS REALLY WORK I bet this guy is unemployed,begs on street-corners and collects food stamps!" - XTRMelite

"Hello, 911? It's Quagmire. Yeah, it's caught in the window this time." - Quagmire

"I don't understand the point of this thread..." - zack

Back to school special! Your quote could be sigged here for as little as 25 cents per day! PM me for details.
Brewmaster is offline  
 




Posting Rules
Forum Jump