Is Kerry Strong on Defense?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

John Kerry is strong on defense?

He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988
He voted to kill the Ages anti aircraft system
He voted to Kill the F-15 strike eagle
He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16
He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
He voted to Kill the B-1
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the Patriot anti Missile system
He voted to Kill the FA-18
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the F117

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.

He also voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of
every agency of the U..S. Government and to cut the
funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut the funding for
the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by
80%.

But then he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N.
operations by 800%!!!

Is THIS a President YOU want?

Just a little clipping from a friend of mine who works for the NSA. I know most of you don't care about defense, but some here might like it.

[Pherr the Dorf]

Ummmm talk to people like John McKain, ask them, don't ask about bills with rediculous riders attached to them. Don't beleive every bit of propoganda you get shoved down your throat

Edit to add- Read this and you will at least have a clue http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Excellent article, thanks.

Definitely a lot better than that email sent to me which is very subjective.

[Spankes]

The NSA....yeah, I trust them....

[Brotha]

Kerry served in Vietnam. How can you question his committment to defense?!

Over the past couple of months it's been hilarious watching him. Things usually go like this:

Republican: Kerry is weak on defense.

Kerry: What?! It's just like a republican to question my patriotism.

Republican: Senator Kerry, no one is questioning your patriotism...

Kerry: What?! Now you're calling me a liar too? This is just like the evil right wing slime machine!

Kerry's votes for the nuclear freeze of the 80's, his vote against the First Gulf War and his current rhetoric of appeasement is all I personally need to show me how weak he is on defense.

Kerry's flip flops bother me more than anything else really. For No Child Left Behind, now against it. For the Patriot Act, now against it. Against the Israeli Securty Fence in front of a Palestinian audience in Michigan, then totally for it in the Jerusalem Post. Against the first Gulf War, now he says he supports it. For this war, then he not only flip flops, he votes AGAINST the funding for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. For NAFTA, now he's trying to act like a protectionist (he's still for NAFTA but from his rhetoric you'd think he was completely against it).

Kerry is a joke. There's a strong anti-Bush sentiment but hardly anyone truly supports Kerry- he has absolutely no chance of getting elected. Is he really the best democrats can do?

[Kluden]

Please. What a bunch of shit. As if anyone believes that Georgie boy never backed something that wasn't good for the country...say...like the hunt for WMD's. Let's get people killed for something that strangely does not exist...and make more of the world hate us in the progress, that way, we have more targets in case we miss.

I would like to see Kerry's activities as a Senator in the last 4 years only. What were his defense votes on items of pertinence to this century and current world climate?

[Sionistic]

What im wondering is, exactly when was he for and against the patriot act? Was he for it when it was being made, then against it when all the bullshit last minute add-on's were put in? Republicans are masters of manipulating words.

[kyoukan]

Kerry's flip flops bother me more than anything else really. For No Child Left Behind, now against it. For the Patriot Act, now against it.

Typically like every other bill the GOP sponsors, they snuck 300 or pages of amendments on at the end of both NCLB and Patriot to give their corporate buddies a bunch of new ways to steal money and basically ruining the entire spirit in which it was originally written. Of course he supported it and then voted against it, after the republicans used it to benefit themselves at the last minute before it went to vote, just like they always do.

Against the Israeli Securty Fence in front of a Palestinian audience in Michigan, then totally for it in the Jerusalem Post.

I highly doubt Kerry has ever mentioned the security fence in Israel, but even if he changed his mind about it every 45 seconds I fail to see the bearing it would have on anything remotely relevant.

Against the first Gulf War, now he says he's supports it.

Are you drunk? No one was against hte first gulf war. If you are talking about the stupid shit that went on during and after the gulf war that he may have voted against (such as Bush sr's desire to abandon Iraq as early as possible and leave the people who rose up against Saddam to be brutally slaughtered by him instead of giving them the support he promised) then I guess a fucking idiot like yourself could construe that as being "against the gulf war"

For this war, then he not only flip flops, he say votes AGAINST the funding for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

More republican lies. What he voted against was Bush's fucking ENORMOUS 90 billion dollar extra spending bill for his oil war. Most of the money was for pork barrel GOP bullshit that will not do very much for anyone who isn't a major shareholder in Halliburton or another one of the GOP's pet war profiteering corporations. One tiny part of that was for things like new body armor for troops. So Kerry (and any other senator with a fucking brain) votes against it, and the GOP starts to cry "omg john kerry refuses to give troops body armor they need he wants our troops do die he should support our troops 9/11 never forget "

For NAFTA, now he's trying to act like a protectionist (he's still for NAFTA but from his rhetoric you'd think he was completely against it).

...what?

[Brotha]

Typically like every other bill the GOP sponsors, they snuck 300 or pages of amendments on at the end of both NCLB and Patriot to give their corporate buddies a bunch of new ways to steal money and basically ruining the entire spirit in which it was originally written.

Those evil Republicans, it's all their fault! That answer may be enough for you, but it doesn't satisfy me.

I highly doubt Kerry has ever mentioned the security fence in Israel, but even if he changed his mind about it every 45 seconds I fail to see the bearing it would have on anything remotely relevant.

So Kerry's integrity isn't an issue for you?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp ... 0226a.html

Adopting a stance echoing that of the Bush administration, Kerry indicated in a statement issued this week that Israel had the right to erect the barrier, while its route should be carefully considered.

"Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense," he said. "Israel has a right and a duty to defend its citizens. The fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel."

Kerry also said that President Bush was "rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians."

The Jerusalem Post pointed out that the statement was issued a week ahead of the March 2 primaries, which include New York state, "with its high concentration of Democratic Jewish voters."

It also noted that last October, Kerry had referred to the fence as a "barrier to peace."

He did so during a speech at the Arab American Institute's national leadership conference in Michigan, which was also addressed by other Democratic contenders. A transcript is posted on the organization's website.

"I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build the barrier off of the Green Line -- cutting deep into Palestinian areas," Kerry told the AAI audience in a video link-up.

"We don't need another barrier to peace," he continued. "Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis' security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder."

Are you drunk? No one was against hte first gulf war. If you are talking about the stupid shit that went on during and after the gulf war that he may have voted against (such as Bush sr's desire to abandon Iraq as early as possible and leave the people who rose up against Saddam to be brutally slaughtered by him instead of giving them the support he promised) then I guess a fucking idiot like yourself could construe that as being "against the gulf war"

http://www.washtimes.com/functions/prin ... 4357-9446r

Then there is Mr. Kerry's record on war and peace. In the first Persian Gulf conflict, Mr. Kerry voted against going to war to drive occupying Iraqi forces from Kuwait. He complained then, as he does now, about "the rush to war" and argued we should give economic sanctions against Saddam a chance to work.

That was from a simple google search. Those are the facts though, look them up anywhere. At the time he voted AGAINST the war and had basically the same position he has now. Not surprisingly, given his record, he flip flopped on it shortly thereafter.

As Cheney said the other day, if John Kerry had his way Saddam would not only still be in power, he'd also probably still be in control of Kuwait.

More republican lies. What he voted against was Bush's fucking ENORMOUS 90 billion dollar extra spending bill for his oil war. Most of the money was for pork barrel GOP bullshit that will not do very much for anyone who isn't a major shareholder in Halliburton or another one of the GOP's pet war profiteering corporations. One tiny part of that was for things like new body armor for troops. So Kerry (and any other senator with a fucking brain) votes against it, and the GOP starts to cry "omg john kerry refuses to give troops body armor they need he wants our troops do die he should support our troops 9/11 never forget "

"I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it."- John Kerry

John Kerry brought up the issue of body armor first, so it would probably be more appropriate for you to make fun of his supporters on that issue.

And only 12 senators voted against the bill. It's nice to know only 12 have have "a fucking brain."

...what?

Given Kerry's votes for NAFTA and free trade I find it a bit of a flip flop to see him espousing protectionist ideologies and decrying "Benedict Arnold" CEOs.

Edit: I'm still waiting on a single racist quote from Midnyte. If he "spews racist garbage from every fucking post he makes" it really shouldn't be too hard.

[Vetiria]

"I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it."- John Kerry

Fox News: We report what makes Republicans look good, then you decide.

Kerry has explained time and again he voted for the amendment that gave the government an ability to actually pay for the war through taxes rather than raising the deficit another $80 billion. When that amendment failed, he voted against the overall bill because there was no way to pay for it.


Does anyone else think that Brotha is just copying and pasting notes from Sean Hannity?

[kyoukan]

I'll concede that he voted against invading Iraq right away in the 90s, but the rest is pure opinion. I don't believe that anyone intelligent enough to operate a web browser is capable of actually thinking that voting against a 90 billion dollar spending bill is voting against funding the troops. Especially if you look at how the money has been wasted already by letting Halliburton fleece the shit out of US taxpayers with aritifical price inflations and false reporting on how supplies are being used. I find it hard to believe that you are so partisan that you don't mind being ripped off in order to make people who'd sooner crush you under their boot than look at you even more wealthy at the expense of your hard earned money, but I guess that's another thread.

The security fence in Israel is both Israel's right as military rulers of the region and a barrier to the peace process. That's not a flip flop, that's just clever politics. Your president is also opposed to the fence as well, btw, but do you think he is going to stand up in front of a bunch of Arab voters and proclaim that it's Israel's god given right to defend themselves from the dirty islamic terrorists?

What protectionist ideologies is Kerry spouting? Do you mean because he is against outsourcing to India and you are somehow equating that with NAFTA?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

What protectionist ideologies is Kerry spouting? Do you mean because he is against outsourcing to India and you are somehow equating that with NAFTA?

Kerry is a hipocrit, just like most politicians. Heinz has like over 60% of it's staff outside of the U.S. He will run on this, but never do anything about it. He isn't going to tax his wife's company and cost himself to lose money.

[Voronwë]

if the troops are not properly equipped (body armor) they should not be deployed FIRST under the hopes that Congress will appropriate funding for the required equipment.

It is simple the Dept of Defense chose not to divert money from countless other programs (what portion of the budget does defense get, like 40%+?) to provide this basic necessity.

To put the blame on Congress and any Representative or Senator is a joke. If the troops are not properly equipped that is the responsiblity of the Dept of Defense, and if the troops aren't properly equipped then deployed by Executive Order, that is the responsibility of the President.

[Brotha]

Kerry has explained time and again he voted for the amendment that gave the government an ability to actually pay for the war through taxes rather than raising the deficit another $80 billion. When that amendment failed, he voted against the overall bill because there was no way to pay for it.

...so he voted against the bill that is funding the troops. Why do you feel the need to spin it for him?

Does anyone else think that Brotha is just copying and pasting notes from Sean Hannity?

I don't listen to Sean Hannity and I've watched the show maybe a handful of times, so this would be news to me.

I'll concede that he voted against invading Iraq right away in the 90s, but the rest is pure opinion.

Pure opinion? Look up what he said for yourself then.

The security fence in Israel is both Israel's right as military rulers of the region and a barrier to the peace process. That's not a flip flop, that's just clever politics. Your president is also opposed to the fence as well, btw, but do you think he is going to stand up in front of a bunch of Arab voters and proclaim that it's Israel's god given right to defend themselves from the dirty islamic terrorists?

That is a complete 180. It is clever politics, but anyone seeing this through non-Bush hating eyes will see it for what it is.

Yes, I'm aware that Bush is against the fence, and yes, I think he would stand up in front of Arab voters and say what he believes, if toned down a bit.

I don't believe that anyone intelligent enough to operate a web browser is capable of actually thinking that voting against a 90 billion dollar spending bill is voting against funding the troops. Especially if you look at how the money has been wasted already by letting Halliburton fleece the shit out of US taxpayers with aritifical price inflations and false reporting on how supplies are being used. I find it hard to believe that you are so partisan that you don't mind being ripped off in order to make people who'd sooner crush you under their boot than look at you even more wealthy at the expense of your hard earned money, but I guess that's another thread.

What does Halliburton have to do with why John Kerry voted against that bill? That's right...absolutely nothing.

What protectionist ideologies is Kerry spouting? Do you mean because he is against outsourcing to India and you are somehow equating that with NAFTA

Edwards started with protectionism and now Kerry is running with it. Kerry voted for NAFTA, trade with China, and just about every free trade agreement (do a google search, I've done enough for today). Also, as Mid points out, it's another "do as I say not as I do."

And I'm still waiting on a racist quote from Midnyte.

[Vetiria]

Kerry has explained time and again he voted for the amendment that gave the government an ability to actually pay for the war through taxes rather than raising the deficit another $80 billion. When that amendment failed, he voted against the overall bill because there was no way to pay for it.

...so he voted against the bill that is funding the troops. Why do you feel the need to spin it for him?

What spin? That's why he voted against the bill.

[Brotha]

Kerry has explained time and again he voted for the amendment that gave the government an ability to actually pay for the war through taxes rather than raising the deficit another $80 billion. When that amendment failed, he voted against the overall bill because there was no way to pay for it.

...so he voted against the bill that is funding the troops. Why do you feel the need to spin it for him?

What spin? That's why he voted against the bill.

I don't see how anyone could possibly buy the argument that this was the main reason Kerry voted against it- it was clearly a protest vote. Even this was a bit of a flip flop for Kerry.

March 19 — In an interview several weeks before he voted against $87 billion in funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., seemed to argue that such a vote would be reckless, irresponsible, and tantamount to abandoning U.S. troops.

On the Sept. 14, 2003, edition of CBS's Face the Nation, Kerry spoke at length about an amendment he and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., were offering which would have paid for the $87 billion by delaying some of the recent tax cuts.

Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said her boss' vote against the funding was a "protest vote."

At the time of the October 2003 vote, "The nation had four months before funds were needed but Republicans were hell-bent on moving this bill through as quickly as possible, before the tough questions could be asked and the president's failures would be discovered," Cutter said.

Cutter went on to say the Bush White House had threatened to veto the entire $87 billion supplemental bill if the Kerry-Biden amendment had passed.

Political observers wondered, however, how effective Kerry's explanation would be.

"John Kerry has years and years of public statements — including recent ones — that the Republicans seem to have more thoroughly catalogued and at-the-ready than the Kerry campaign does," observed ABC News political director Mark Halperin.

The $87 Billion Issue

At the time of the CBS interview, Kerry was facing a strong challenge in the Democratic presidential contest at the time from former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean — who rose in polls partly because of his strong stance against the Iraq war.

When the matter finally came up for a vote on October 17, it passed the House by a vote of 303-125, and the Senate by 87 to 12.

Kerry was one of the 12 who voted against the funding. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., also voted against the funding. Dean at the time seemed to support the Kerry approach, saying "if the president doesn't have a sufficient commitment to this operation to get rid of the $87 billion in tax cuts then we should vote no."

But Senate Democrats overwhelmingly took the other side of the issue. Biden, the co-sponsor of Kerry's amendment and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, voted for the funding, saying, "the cost of failure in Iraq would far exceed the price of peace." In a Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who also voted for the funding, said, "I don't know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say they supported the war but then opposed the funding for the troops who went to fight the war that the resolution that they supported authorized."

[Vetiria]

And I don't see how anyone could support the lying, corrupt administration currently in office. What's your point?

[Kaldaur]

Wait a minute Brotha. You've been presented with Kerry's reasoning for the quote that he himself even admitted was going to be used against him-

"I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it."- John Kerry

John Kerry voted for the war in Iraq with the information gathered by the administration and the intelligence community. The House and Senate were told Iraq represented a grave threat, specifics were given as to that threat, and so Congress supported it. John Kerry voted against the spending project by Bush (87 billion) because of the huge extra costs taped onto the bill 1 minute before its passage. If the Republicans had really wanted the body armor clause to pass Congress, would they not have attached it to another bill destined to pass? This was politics, plain and simple. By attaching this rider to a bill they know John Kerry will vote against, Republicans for the Idiot in Office now have a political weapon against him.

He didn't support our troops, he's a commie or a Nazi, or even worse, a liberal! -Redneck fool

He went after the spending in Iraq and saw it for what it was, pork barrel spending by the corporations. It's the same thing that happened to the Patriot Act, and it happened against with the Iraq war costs. Now he's catching shit for it by Rovites who knew this would happen. Who's supporting the troops, Brotha, and who is using them to attack the campaign of Kerry?
While we're on the subject, tell me how traveling from base to base, spouting shit about how awesome he looks in a flight suit and how cool his armed forces are, Bush still has time to cut veteran's benefits? So long, veterans guaranteed housing up to 60 days after returning from combat. Here's a box, thanks for giving Haliburton to overcharge the Iraqi people .70 cents a gallon of oil. So long, retirement benefits, you don't really need to retire, we'll send you off to another country to die. There, no more retirement costs!
Give me a break. Who's spinning who, Brotha? Bush has shown time and time again he's willing to say one thing, spout his right-wing rhetoric to pander to his Christian base, and then when political pressure gets too hot for him, he switches sides and says he supported the bill the entire way through. If Kerry is spinning an issue, he took all his lessons from the assjack in office.

[Brotha]

John Kerry voted for the war in Iraq with the information gathered by the administration and the intelligence community. The House and Senate were told Iraq represented a grave threat, specifics were given as to that threat, and so Congress supported it. John Kerry voted against the spending project by Bush (87 billion) because of the huge extra costs taped onto the bill 1 minute before its passage. If the Republicans had really wanted the body armor clause to pass Congress, would they not have attached it to another bill destined to pass? This was politics, plain and simple. By attaching this rider to a bill they know John Kerry will vote against, Republicans for the Idiot in Office now have a political weapon against him.

Yes, John Kerry had the same information that the administration had and he felt the need to vote for the war (much of which has turned out to be bad information). He voted againt the funding because of the extra costs added on? What extra costs? There was the part of the reconstruction that would be given to Iraq, not made a loan. There was the issue of rolling back tax cuts to help pay for it. Then there was the issue of him wanting to appeal to the anti war voters who were flocking to Dean. I happen to believe, given all the facts, that the last reason was his biggest concern. The co sponsor of the bill even ended up voting for the president's after their's failed. John Kerry had a chance to say "I clearly disagree but our troops being funded is more important than politics at this stage," but he didn't. As usual, he was one irresponsible voter in the extreme minority, a place where he's going to stay until he decides to retire and live in luxury milking off whatever rich woman he happens to be married to at the time.

While we're on the subject, tell me how traveling from base to base, spouting shit about how awesome he looks in a flight suit and how cool his armed forces are, Bush still has time to cut veteran's benefits? So long, veterans guaranteed housing up to 60 days after returning from combat. Here's a box, thanks for giving Haliburton to overcharge the Iraqi people .70 cents a gallon of oil. So long, retirement benefits, you don't really need to retire, we'll send you off to another country to die. There, no more retirement costs!

Time for a reality check.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=149

Summary

The Kerry campaign Feb. 27 e-mailed a new attack ad to supporters, asking them to pass it on to friends. The ad accuses Bush of breaking his word. But the Kerry ad itself falsely implies that Bush has cut off health benefits for 200,000 veterans, and overstates the number of jobs lost under Bush.

Analysis

In a news release about its new ad, the Kerry campaign said “George W. Bush has lost credibility” and “his rhetoric does not square with his record.” But the same can be said of some parts of the Kerry ad itself.

False Statement About Veterans

At one point the ad shows Bush saying “we must provide the best care” for veterans, then shows a graphic saying: “200,000 veterans cut off from health system.” It cites the Department of Veterans Affairs as the source. But the statement is false.

In fact, no veterans have had benefits cut off under Bush. Quite the contrary, as we’ve previously noted, spending for veterans benefits has grown 27% since Bush took office, and the ranks of veterans drawing benefits have increased by more than 1 million.

The Kerry campaign says the ad is referring to a proposal in Bush’s budget for fiscal year 2005, which begins Oct. 1. But that proposal has not been enacted and, in fact, a similar proposal was rejected last year. Congress is expected to reject it again this year.

Furthermore, the proposal would not “cut off” veterans as the ad says. It would instead raise the cost of the VA’s popular prescription–drug benefit. The VA estimates this would cause an estimated 200,000 veterans to leave the system -- voluntarily -- because they have better benefits from other sources. The drug benefit currently requires no payment to gain coverage, and a $7 co-payment for each one-month supply of prescription drugs. The Bush administration proposes to charge $21 per month for coverage, and to raise the co-payment to $15 per one-month supply of prescription medications.

More info here.

[Krurk]

Personally I don't like some of the things Kerry has in mind, but if you are gonna call him a protectionist then check this out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer

Aren't the republicans suppossed to be smart enough to know that you don't fuck with trade?

Apparently dubya wanted to score some votes so he decided to protect the american steel industry by imposing tarrifs which in addition to barring foreign producers from being competitive, forced other American industries who rely upon steel to pay a higher price. Guess who wins and who loses in this equation?

I believe we lost more jobs in production because of the tarrifs then were saved in the steel industry.

However, you gotta hand it to the EU for their targeting on retaliatory tarrifs. Bush saw the states they were gunning for and knew he lost that one.

As far as some of those weapon systems Kerry vetoed, half of them were never expected to live up to the hype and it took the Gulf War to validate most of them. Still some of them are a bit sub-par such as the Bradley which took several redesigns to correct weak spots in its armor.

[Chmee]

Anyone have any detail about what was added at the last minute to the PATRIOT act, or details of exactly what was spent in the Iraq appropriation bill?

In the case of the PATRIOT act at least, if someone adds a bunch of last minute changes to the bill it should be straightfoward enough to just vote no on it if it goes to a vote before people can evaluate the new text.

[Sionistic]

wasnt the addition like 300 pages? or am i thinking of something completly different?

[Forthe]

Why didn't troops have body armor to begin with? Why have many served for months without any still? Why are families still purchasing body armor privately and sending it to soldiers?

Sending troops into harms way with just the shirt on thier backs must mean "supporting the troops" I guess.

Kerry took a hard stance against the spending bill. And more should have. It would have forced them to cut the fat. Pulling a money grab on the backs of your soldiers is disgraceful and cowards let this happen.

And I would agree that it should have been paid for via taxes. It is pretty easy to support an invasion and "support the troops" when you are not paying for it. The only people paying for this war are the soldiers, the iraqis and your children\grandchildren.

[kyoukan]

I don't remember who posted all the amendments added to the patriot act the morning it was voted but, but someone did. I was mortified at what got added to it (more corporate welfare and farm subsidies mainly, and other things entirely unrelated to security), but americans didn't seem to mind.

[Chmee]

I don't remember who posted all the amendments added to the patriot act the morning it was voted but, but someone did. I was mortified at what got added to it (more corporate welfare and farm subsidies mainly, and other things entirely unrelated to security), but americans didn't seem to mind.

The text of the PATRIOT act is here.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

I only had time to skim it, but I didn't see anything in particular in the lines of corporate welfare or farm subsidies(there are some parts the cover things like additional money for the law enforcement and intellegence funds, and payments to survivors of terrorist attacks, etc.). If you can point the way to any, I would be interested to see them.

Even if they are there, the biggest complaint I have always heard regarding the PATRIOT act are the civil liberties issues. The addition of some additional pork onto the bill although wrong in its own right wouldn't change the other civil rights complaints.

Finally, as I said before, if a lot of last minute changes are made to a bill the responsible thing to do would be to say that more time is needed to evaluate the changes. If the time isn't granted, then the responsible thing to do would be to vote no.

Kerry voted for the PATRIOT act. He certainly isn't alone in that, but he does deserve his fair share of the blame.

[Voronwë]

it would be difficult for most members of Congress to vote no on a widely publicized and promoted bill marketed as the "Patriot Act" in the political environment which existed in the months following 9/11.

[masteen]

And I don't see how anyone could support the lying, corrupt administration currently in office. What's your point?

You're right! We need a NEW lying, corrupt administration! Hopefully one that will cripple our intelligence and defense apparatuses! Yay!

[Chmee]

it would be difficult for most members of Congress to vote no on a widely publicized and promoted bill marketed as the "Patriot Act" in the political environment which existed in the months following 9/11.

In my opinion, tough. Voting for a questionable piece of legislation just to avoid looking bad in my opinion is pretty contemptible. I still hold them fully responsible.

[Voronwë]

it would be difficult for most members of Congress to vote no on a widely publicized and promoted bill marketed as the "Patriot Act" in the political environment which existed in the months following 9/11.

In my opinion, tough. Voting for a questionable piece of legislation just to avoid looking bad in my opinion is pretty contemptible. I still hold them fully responsible.

i do too, but they are politicians. asking a politician not to consider the PR ramifications of their actions is like asking shit not to stink.

[Vetiria]

And I don't see how anyone could support the lying, corrupt administration currently in office. What's your point?

You're right! We need a NEW lying, corrupt administration! Hopefully one that will cripple our intelligence and defense apparatuses! Yay!

Looks to me like our intelligence is already crippled. Bush doesn't need help there.

[Chmee]

i do too, but they are politicians. asking a politician not to consider the PR ramifications of their actions is like asking shit not to stink.

I am certainly not suprised by their actions. I am just not willing to give them a pass on it.

[Markulas]

Does anyone have some numbers on how much money we actually spend on defense??

[Chmee]

Does anyone have some numbers on how much money we actually spend on defense??

(warning, pdf file)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy ... f/hist.pdf

2003 it was 404 billion. It has trended up sharply the last few years, it was 294 billion in 2000.

[Krurk]

To put it into perspective, it's 19.6% of our entire budget for 2004. Between Defense and Social securtiy (21.3%), they take up just under half of ALL federal spending.

One thing to keep in mind though regarding the increased defense spending is that funding for intelligence (CIA, NSA) is derived through defense spending.

[Voronwë]

the percentage is higher when you consider unbudgeted activities like the War in Iraq.