So....what you are saying is that you are denying that John Kerry EVER voted against cutting the Intelligence and/or Defense. Is that right?

Kerry never co-sponsored a bill to cut 7.5 billion dollars out of the CIA budget, (after the 1st World Trade Center attack). HE WAS THE ORIGINAL SPONSOR, that brought it to the floor of the senate for discussion. As my original post states.

It was so bad, that he did not even get a second motion on it. Therefore, having NO second, it was NOT debated, nor voted on. Senator Ted Kennedy would not even support the bill. Therefore it went into the trash can.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Kerry co sponsoring other bills. This is now the third time I have responded to this question.

Read, before you try & distort with other bills.

This is now the FIFTH time you have been asked to back it up.

Thank you.

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

Raytri.....House bills go to the Senate and get voted on there all the time. Check out the last week they were there in July....and take a look at the H.R. (House) bills that were voted on and agreed to in the Senate:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bssQ...tepD1=20040723

As far as the other things....we all know that Defense spending and other spending it tacked on to all kinds of other bills. Not just Defense, but other things. As far as the date descrepancy, that's niitpicking. You don't have to believe all those things I posted if you don't want to. It's not mandatory. And who knows, some of it could be wrong. However, I do know that in general Sen John Kerry has been FOR decreases in spending on Defense AND Intelligence. And I know of no time that he proposed increasing it. If you do, then please furnish the info.

BTW. the Thomas website I provided (if it works) is an official site for legislative bills in both the Senate and House and may be helpful to you. I use it a lot.

Why is it that I cannot find Kerry's record on his official campaign site OR his senate website? When I search "vietnam" at Johnkerry.com, I got 179 results. When I search "senate", I got 190 results. 19 years and all you see is vague references to his senate record like... "I have a record of supporting families." Doesn't he have pride in at least some of his votes? You have to go to the senate website and look up individual bills. Did he ever vote to lower ANY tax?

I need a memory check, please. Did Bob Dole decide not to accept his Senate pay during his campaign? Wouldn't that be a good idea for Kerry since he's been absent so long? Did he already do it?

__________________
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~Ronald Reagan

Here's the first part of my response to JP5's list of bills. I'm going to do it in pieces as I get time because it's so long.

BTW, JP5, thanks both for responding and pointing me to the Thomas site. I didn't know it existed. It is, indeed, fabulous.

Votes to Cut Defense Spending by 2% (S. Con. Res. 29, CQ Vote #49, Apr 25, 1991)

Democrats introduced a deficit-reduction amendment to cut defense spending by about $7 billion, or roughly 2 percent, by cutting specific amounts from specific line items (I don't know what those line items involved). It failed 22-73, Kerry voting yea.

After it failed, Democrats introduced an amendment to cut defense budget authority by 2 percent. That vote failed 25-70, with Kerry voting NAY.

Then Democrats introduced an amendment that would have both modified Social Security benefit rules and cut defense spending by about 1 percent through cuts to specific line items. It failed 30-64, Kerry voting NAY.

So: three proposals in one day to cut defense spending, and Kerry voted for just one. All failed.

Votes to Slash Over $3 Billion from Defense (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182, Sep 10, 1991)

A Democratic amendment to increase funding for disease control, biomedical research, mental health, low-income home energy assistance, legalization assistance grants Head Start, Chapter I basic grants, and Pell grants, and take the money from the defense budget. Amendment failed 28-69, Kerry voting yea.

When that failed, they tried to get the same funding but pay for it with "delayed obligations", which appears to mean approving the money in this fiscal year but paying for it in the next one. That amendment passed, 79-21, Kerry voting yea.

The whole bill was later vetoed by Bush the elder.

IN THE SAME SESSION, KERRY:
1. Co-sponsored a measure to provide the use of defense resources to destroy Soviet nuclear weaponry.
2. Voted AGAINST a McCain amendment to terminate the Seawolf submarine program. It failed, 10-90. Trent Lott, of all people, voted yes.
3. Voted FOR the final defense spending bill and the National Defense Authorization Act.
4. Voted FOR the bill that paid for Operation Desert Storm and provided benefits to military personnel.

OTHER CONTEXT:
It was a time when everyone was in broad agreement that it was time for a "peace dividend" following the fall of the Soviet Union. Dick Cheney himself, who was then Secretary of Defense, sought to cut defense spending by $50 billion over five years, in part by capping the B-2 program at 20 bombers, and buying fewer M-1 tanks, V-22 Ospreys and F-14 and F-16 fighters.

If $3 billion is "slashing", what is $50 billion? Gutting?

More to come.

Votes to Cut $6 Billion from Defense (S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #73, Apr 9, 1992)
An amendment to the five-year budget plan that would have taken money from defense and spent it on domestic programs. Kerry didn't actually vote to cut $6 billion; he voted against tabling the measure. It's reasonable to assume he supported it, though. The motion was tabled by a 53-40 vote.

IN THE SAME SESSION, KERRY:
1. Voted FOR final Dept. of Defense budget authorization bill.
2. Voted against SP3116, which would have reduced funding for intelligence programs by $1 billion.
3. Voted to exempt veteran benefits from required budget caps and cuts.
4. Voted against a measure to extend defense cuts to the Merchant Marine.

OTHER CONTEXT:
Again, deficit reduction was considered a priority on both sides of the aisle, with Cheney supporting deep cuts in defense.

Votes Against Military Pay Raise (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73, Mar 24, 1993)
Apparently, federal salaries, both military and civilian, had been frozen. McCain introduced an amendment to take money from other sources (I don't know which ones) and use it to undo the effects of the freeze. The amendment was tabled, 54-44, with Kerry voting to table.

Then Strom Thurmond introduced an amendment to ensure money for military pay raises alone, again by taking the money from other programs. The amendment was tabled 55-42, with Kerry voting to table.

My assumption would be that Kerry objected to cuts in whatever programs were being reduced to pay for the raises. Without access to a 1993 budget with line items, I can't tell what those programs were.

Kerry Introduces Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs (S.1163, Introduced Jun 24, 1993)
This bill never made it out of committee. It was a broad deficit-reduction bill that proposed cuts in things such as wool, rice and cotton subsidies, the International Space Station and raising grazing fees to fair market value, as well as defense items. The goal was massive deficit reduction: $85 billion over five years.

Here's a link to the details of the bill, preceded by what Kerry said upon introducing the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...6RhBp:e186639: Reasoning for each cut follows the text of the bill.

The defense details:

1. Limit funding so that only six ballistic missile submarines will be at sea at any one time. The Cold War was over; this makes sense.
2. Provide funding for only one crew per missile sub. Again, without the need to keep large numbers of missile subs at sea, this makes sense.
3. After 1997, provide funding for 40 total attack subs. There were about 90 such subs in 1993; the Pentagon itself suggested, in 1997, cutting that to 50. The Cato Institute suggests 30 would be plenty. http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-047.html
4. Cutting the number of P-3 (antisubmarine) aircraft squadrons from 37 to 19 over five years. Again, the sub threat had become nearly nonexistent.
5. Stop building new ASW frigates. Same reasoning.
6. Cut the number of light infantry divisions in the Army from 3 to 1. That's currently what we have. At the time there was little dispute about the need to keep heavier forces at the expense of light infantry. As a tanker, I fully support that. None of the light divisions, for example, participated in Operation Desert Storm, due to limited mobility and firepower.
7. Cut the number of fighter wings from 26 to 20. Again, end of Cold War savings, cutting an area of overwhelming U.S. superiority.
8. Cut funding for nuclear weapons testing.
9. Cut funding for SDI.
10. Eliminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting program. This wasn't actually what he proposed; he proposed eliminating a weapons program, the MHC(V), a replacement for the older MHC. The Navy had concluded that refitting the older ships was a better solution than buying the new ship.
11. Ensure early retirement of 60,000 soldiers. The military was shrinking with the end of the Cold War; this section would have helped bring actual force levels into line with approved force levels, and avoided the problem of having a top-heavy military: Lots of 20-year soldiers but a too-small number of new recruits. Since older soldiers cost more than new ones, this would have saved money up front and in long-term retirement benefits.

All of these sections contained a waiver authority, so that if the President deemed there was a security need, he could ignore these limits.

IN THE SAME SESSION, KERRY:
1. Voted to freeze non-defense discretionary spending across the board for five years.
2. Proposed exempting officials from liability if they share intelligence with foreign countries that results in the destruction of an aircraft suspected of drug-trafficking.
3. Was part of unanimous consent passing military budgets (S2208, S2209, S2210, S2211).
4. Voted in favor of the intelligence budget for FY 1995.

Introduced an amendment to SLASH defense spending by 4 billion dollars
and Intelligence spending by about 1 billion. (Amendment 1452, 1994)

Again, part of a broader deficit-reduction bill. The defense systems
affected were nuclear weapons research and deployment, a proposed
elimination of Selective Service, a trim in recruiting funds and
another attempt to cut the number of P-3 antisubmarine squadrons.
Again, what you have is not a series of cuts added together; you've got
Kerry repeatedly trying to make the same targeted cuts.

The intelligence "cut" wasn't a cut at all. It was a proposal to freeze
1995-98 spending for two specific offices (the National Foreign
Intelligence Program and the Tactical Intelligence and Related
Activities program) at 1994 levels, adjusted for inflation.

Senator Inouye, Very Liberal (D) from Hawaii

Inouye very liberal? Even the National Journal ranks him closer to the
middle: In 2003 it ranked him more conservative than 34 percent of
senators (and hence more liberal than 66 percent). With the Pacific
fleet and the headquarters of Army intelligence in his state, one can
expect him to be against such cuts.

Introduces a bill to SLASH Department of Defense Funding by 6.5 Billion
(S. 1580, Introduced Feb 29, 1996)

The bill would have taken $6.5 billion from the 1996 defense budget and used it for community policing. But the bill specifically required that the money come from "unobligated" funds -- that is, programs that Clinton did not request funding for. That would have limited the cuts to pork and whatever initiatives Clinton opposed -- such as, for instance, missile defense or nuclear weapon systems.

Voted YES to freeze defense spending for 7 Years, slashing over $34
Billion from defense. (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181, May 24, 1995)

The explanation from the amendment's sponsor, Harkin:
Further, he went on to describe billions of dollars in waste in Pentagon spending. Then he noted that the U.S. is spending $261 billion a year on defense, while NATO is spending $250 billion. He then notes that between 1994 and 1995, Russia cut its military spending from $79 billion to $12 billion a year.

He then notes that the U.S. and NATO, together, have a defense budget that is almost 10 times all their potential adversaries put together. His point: We can afford to spend $5 billion less per year, which is what his proposal would do.

So what you have is a budgetary maneuver to restore cuts in domestic programs by trimming the defense budget slightly more than the Republicans would. As a practical matter, I think a vote to freeze spending would have been meaningless beyond one year; the next Senate could reopen the funding question and change it completely.

In 1997, the conservative Center for Security Policy awarded Kerry a
score of 0 out of a possible 100 on 14 key defense votes – including
funding for space-based laser programs.

The Center defines its key issues a bit oddly. For instance, in 1998 its key issues for the House included "Resolution saying Clinton shouldn't be formally received in Tianamen Square until China acknowledges the massacre that occurred there." Fair enough, but that's a key vote? A lot of their other "key" issues relate to missile defense, the Cuban embargo and U.S. involvement in the U.N., not defense issues. In the Senate, one of its "key" votes would have required gender separation in basic training. That's "key?"

Nonetheless, for the period 1998-2002, Kerry received a 25 out of 100 score. Edwards received a 50.

For 1997, key House issues included "reverse anti-drug certification for Mexico", opposing MFN status for China, stop payment on the U.S. debt to the U.N., and more missile-defense legislation. In the Senate, key issues included multiple votes on banning chemical weapons (the center wanted a "no" vote on all of them), Cuba, China, and opposing a cloture vote that, if the bill had passed after the cloture, would have allowed the defense budget to be $2.6 billion over Clinton's request. However, the center does NOT count the subsequent vote to approve the final defense budget, which included the extra $2.6 billion. KERRY'S SCORE: 0.

For 1993-1996, Kerry received scores ranging from 5 to 15.

So you have a loony think tank to begin with, and then you cherry-pick the one year they gave Kerry a zero. Now, personally I think that might be something for Kerry to be proud of. But picking out a single year is dishonest and misleading. And describing the center's criteria as "key defense issues" is simply wrong.

In the "so what" category:
Voted against strengthening the trade embargo against Cuba
Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic
sanctions.

In the "good for him" category:
Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures.
Many votes against SDI, nuclear testing and nuclear weapons systems
Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion.
Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
Voted YES on banning chemical weapons.

My response to JP5's list was limited in several respects. I have nowhere near the time to dig through Kerry's record for every instance where he voted on defense or intelligence matters. That would take months. So I am unable, for example, to fight fire with fire and post instances where Kerry proposed budget increases to those sectors. That's because, even with the Thomas site, the information is not readily searchable that way. Give me a month and a team of interns and I could do it.

Therefore, my goal was not to show that Kerry is a defense and intelligence hawk. My goal was threefold. Working ONLY with the one-sided data JP5 gave me, I hoped to demonstrate:

1. that the list JP5 provided was selective and misleading;
2. that in context, Kerry's votes are reasonable, not reckless;
3. that Kerry is not the antimilitary, anti-intelligence loon that partisan Bush backers are trying to make him out to be.

I hope I've succeeded.

I was recently in the US (see www.true-americans.org for more background), where I was doing a smallish internet project about the election.
I can tell here now a lot more Republican voters had serious doubts about the current Federal administration than Democrat voters have about Kerry.
It seemed to me G.W. Bush has a lot more explaining to do about the how and why of his policies than his opponent. (in simple words: Kerry is going to do a home run, but even Republican voters seem to be divided and those not convinced will stay home on election day)