Here's some stuff from an e-mail exchange I've had with some friends of mine and an Army vet we know who is virulently anti-Kerry. He sent me this e-mail in response to my e-mail about the Kerry CIA vote.
I haven't had much time but I did check out a couple of your sources and heard confirmation from someone I trust about Kerry and the intelligence budget he voted against. All seem to confirm your sources so I'll concede the point. I did write the
RNC and chastised them for taking the low road that Kerry is walking (the AWOL issue etc) and told them they must do better.
I note that you didn't respond to the fact that Kerry has voted down on so many military combat equipment end items (Bradley, Abrams) many are central to the fighting capability of the Army and without which the military would be gutted. And what about the point in which Kerry voted against the funding of the war in Iraq, including the body armor which your "interviewee" said wasn't provided? I'll address the interviewee in a moment but let me explain that body armor is a relatively new piece of equipment. It takes a lot of time and money to procure and issue something like that throughout the entire military. And normally, the regular Army combat units get them first. Then the regular Army combat support units and then the combat service support. Then the same prioritization happens with the National Guard and Reserve units. Some units had not been issued the armor upon deployment. This is one of the reasons Bush wanted the $87B.he same bill that Kerry voted against. Perha!
ps you didn't know that when you read the article and sent it to everyone. And by the way, this is the same vote that Kerry said he voted for and then voted against. He said he voted for it initially but then finally voted against it because he didn't like how Bush was running the war. Do you suppose he wanted soldiers to die so he could make whatever protest point he wanted? And you want him to be the commander in chief? Show me your confidence and support that Kerry will do the right thing and support the military by enlisting in the Army. I wouldn't.
Back to that article you sent. I had a couple of things I wanted to check so I didn't mention them before. I am totally convinced that that article is bogus. That chiropractor (what is a chiropractor doing interviewing soldiers anyway? Most curious.) made it all up. That person doesn't exist or didn't spend much time in the military, much less in combat. I make my point that I thought he was either Marine or Navy, based on some of the lingo used. In addition to them, he used the term "dope and windage" when addressing sighting of the M16 rifle. In the Army, we use the terms "elevation and windage". Elevation is the vertical adjustments you make to the sight to account for the distance to the target and windage is for the obvious. In the Navy and Marines, they use the single word "dope" for both. To say dope and windage is redundant. And not used. That guy, if he isn't a figment of the chiropractor's imagination, didn't spend any or much time in the military. Additionally, h!
e says he is a medic. Medics are not issued M16s for two reasons. First, their size makes it difficult to do their job. Second, when a medic is armed, he loses his "noncombatant" status according to the Geneva and Hague conventions. That means that if armed, he can be shot at. Sometimes, when in a situation in which the bad guys are not signatories to the G&H conventions, then they are issued a 9mm pistol. Never an M16. Your interviewee is full of fecal material. Thirdly, I am not sure if I discussed this next point with you before.I had a computer malfunction and I can't pull up old documents. Anyway, just in case I didn't; I checked with my buddy (ex student of mine) who was at the Thanksgiving dinner mentioned. He categorically denies that a questionnaire was given. And he said that to the best of his knowledge, there were no Marines or Navy personnel there, particularly medics.
The rest of that "article" is so filled with lies, half truths and stupidity that I won't take the time to address them. It is a fictional political construct. I found it disgusting.
Jeremy, I truly find Kerry to be a danger to this country. It goes way beyond my feelings about him personally. that he waffles amazingly often, that I don't think he has a core, that he talks out of both sides of his mouth (condemns businesses that move out of the US while his wife's company has 57 out of 70-sometning of its factories in foreign countries), that he will do anything to get into the White House. It goes beyond that I am sickened by hearing that liar point he finger at Bush and call him a liar). It is that I think that his views and solutions will get Americans killed. He will abdicate the US's position of strength and give in to the bad guys.just like Spain did. Just like Clinton did. He will hurt my country and get my friends killed, and yours (and you if you enlist to show your support). He is a danger, not a solution to our troubles. You ask me/everyone if I think Bush is supporting the military. I tell you without equivication, yes. And I will tell you that the military loves him. You can always find some left wing reserve soldier from Massachusetts who will bitch, but
Bush is greatly respected in the Army and it fears Kerry. As I said before, you know me. You know my background. You know a bit about my integrity. You can believe me or not.
Here is my reply:
Here is my refutation of all this.
I'll assume that what you said about calling the RNC to complain about Kerry
was a typo and that you meant to say that you called the DNC. About Kerry
and the AWOL issue: you show me one time where Kerry has ever said that Bush
was AWOL. Here's how it all started... Michael Moore made an introduction at
at Wesley Clark campaign rally that he'd like to see a Presidential race
between "the General and the deserter". Obviously, FOX news had a hissy fit
over that, and during an interview with Clark that night they asked him to
repudiate what Moore said. General Clark said that he didn't really know
anything about Bush's record, and so he couldn't comment on that issue.
Furthermore, Clark said that he had not authorized Moore to make that
comment and that he couldn't be responsible for everything Moore said. This
caused the conservative media to run around like chickens without heads
trying to prove that Bush did serve. To everyone's surprise, there wasn't
much evidence at the time to prove he had. The story moves on from there. If
you want to blame someone for that, blame Michael Moore and the late-night
comics like Letterman, Stewart and Leno who had many laughs at Bush's
expense involving the AWOL issue. I suppose you could also blame FOX for
having their supposed trap against Clark backfire on them.
I did respond in past e-mails to Kerry's votes involving the M-1 Abrams etc.
I'll make my point again in brief. At the time Kerry cast that vote in 1991,
Sec. of Defense Cheney was actually calling for those cuts. He specifically
mentioned the M-1 by name saying it was a "fine system, but a system that we
already have enough of". How can you criticize Kerry for his vote when the
Senate was being asked to vote against further M-1 (and other systems)
production by the Sec. of Defense? I suppose he was supposed to know better
about this than the head of the Defense Dept. One could just as easliy
praise Kerry's vote as a fine example of bipartisanship. Furthermore, just
because he voted against them once doesn't mean that he didn't vote to
approve them at another time. The military must pass a budget every year,
and every year there are compromises and several attempts to come to an
agreement. Several drafts are usually defeated before a final agreement is
reached. Kerry cannot possibly have voted against every draft of every
defense budget since 1985, therefore every vote he has cast in favor of a
defense budget was a vote for lots of military programs.
On to the $87 billion for the Iraq war. Kerry voted for the $87 billion
originally when most of its funding was supposed to come from reducing tax
cuts for anyone making over $400k a year. Kerry said that the super-rich
should have to sacrifice something for the troops. The Republicans disagreed
and said that nobody should have to suffer through a tax cut reduction, and
that form of the 87 billion dollar plan was defeated. Then it reappeared,
but this time the $87 billion was to be paid for out of the existing federal
budget. Kerry still thought that some of these expenditures should be
recouped by making the super-rich pay for them (sounds good to me), so he
voted against it in the hopes of getting that part back on the bill. I'd
like to point out that even thought the $87 billion was approved, it still
hasn't helped in all the ways it was supposed to. Older Humvees still don't
have armor, troops still don't have bulletproof vests, etc.
What was that money for, anyway? Not surprisingly, there was a lot of odd
stuff in there. Perhaps one of the strangest was a $1 million bounty for the
head of Liberian Pres. Charles Taylor. The bill also included almost $1
billion for petrolium imports into Iraq. Remember the days when the Bush.
Administration told us that Iraq could pay us back for the whole war with
oil revenue? Apparently those days have been forgotten. The bill also
included $100 million for seven planned luxury communities for our political
allies in Iraq. Oh, what else? Business training programs ($20 million for a
mere 2000 students) and a 150 million dollar children's hospital. Let's put
this in context... all this money for social services in Iraq while 40
million Americans don't have health care, and millions of unemployed could
really benefit from job training? Remind me why we fought this war again?
Did we fight this war because of WMD and Al Queida? That was the original
logic, but now that neither WMD nor ties to Al-Queida have been found the
administration says we did it to liberate the Iraqi people. Are they happy
with this? Well, ABC news just did a poll of 2500 Iraqis and asked them if
they felt better about things now than they did 1 year ago. 53% said yes.
53%. That's it. Now, compare this to what was happening in Iraq a year ago.
They were busy digging bomb shelters, stockpiling food and preparing to be
attacked by the greatest war machine in world history. They were literally
staring down the gun-barrel of American power. With all that in mind, only
53% feel better off today than one year ago. Kinda disappointing. So, out of
a population of 25 million people, about half feel better off today. That's
about 13 million people. Now suppose all that money had been invested in
America instead. We could have probably helped a great portion of the 40
million Americans with no health care and part of the 12 million without
jobs (Elaine Chao is distorting the unemployment numbers, by the way). I
guess Bush thinks Iraqis are more important than Americans, in that case.
Oh, wait, I know... It was all in former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's
book "The Price of Loyalty". Mr. O'Neill said that invading Iraq was
priority number one the day Bush took office in Jan. 2001. How can O'Neill
prove this? Well, as the Sec. of Treasury, he was a part of the National
Security Council. According to O'Neill, invading Iraq was the only subject
of the first three NSC meetings (no, not Al Queida. No, Bush was not focused
on the terrorist threat...). Also according to O'Neill, one of the issues
addressed at the meetings was how to divide Iraqi oil. Interestingly, the
Cheney and the oil companies already had a detailed plan, according to the
Treasury Sec.
Let me tell you all something you may not know. Many top Administration
officals (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle) are members of a group called
Project for the New American Century. I encourage you to visit them online
at www.newamericancentury.org Interestingly, this group wrote a manifesto of
sorts way back in 1998 calling for the invasion of Iraq in order to "reshape
the mideast" and to get our hands on the oil. I guess it's better to fight
needless wars for oil than to invest in alternative fuels (of course that
has nothing to do with the fact that these guys, especially Cheney, make
loads of cash from oil companies. No, that has nothing to do with it,
nothing at all...). Strangely, that paper concludes by basicaly saying the
American people would never go along with their plans unless there was "a
catastrophic unifying event along the lines of Pearl Harbor". Hmmm... now
what "catastrophic unifying event" has occurred since 1998? I'll leave you
to ponder that one.
I'll concede the interview thing. You know more about that than I do so I'll
take your word for it that it's a hoax.
If you're interested in what Kerry will do for the armed forces, visit his
website at www.johnkerry.com and click on speeches. Watch the speech he gave
two days ago about the military. Also, look at his campaign platform and
click on the military tab.
Let's look at what Bush has done for the troops, shall we? Well, he tried to
cut "imminent danger pay" and "family separation allowances" for our troops
in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying that there isn't enough money in the budget
for that. Well, it seems there was enough money for rich people like Dick
Cheney to get an $87k tax cut, but not enough money to pay an extra $75 per
month to troops being shot at in Iraq. Yet more evidence that Bush doesn't
care about poor people or those in the army. Guess he's too busy counting
his own money. But don't take my word for it.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTLWhat else? Well, he cut federal funding to public schools near military
bases that serve mostly military children. He also tried to raise the copay
amounts for Veteran's Administration health services, effectively making
them too expensive for 1 million vets. Way to protect the troops and honor
those who served our country in the past, Bush.
If you want more info on this, visit
http://smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=15412&mode=nested&order=0 Yes, it's
an anti-Bush site, but all those quotes about Bush's poor treatment of the
military are from respected news sources.
To answer your question, I will not join the military while Bush* is
President. I would much rather serve under Pres. Kerry. I believe Bush is a
shorsighted man who is being influenced by many people with vested interest
in spawning wars in oil-rich regions. I'd prefer not to spill my blood for
them. Kerry, on the contrary, is much more intelligent than Bush, and isn't
driven by financial interests (I don't think he's going to make much money
selling ketchup to the Arabs). I could go on and on about that.
On to Kerry's supposed hypocracy. Kerry has nothing to do with the fact that
Heinz has factories overseas. His wife owns the company, not him.
Furthermore, his wife only inherited the company from her first husband when
he died in 1991. I don't know how much of this offshoring took place while
he was the owner, but that doesn't matter. Kerry really doesn't have any say
in how that company is run. Now, let's examine Bush's credibility on this
issue. It turns out that the man he was going to employ as the
"manufacturing Czar", if you will, actually planned on closing down his
company's plant in the US and building a new 3 million dollar facility in
China to replace it. After the Kerry campaign pointed this out, the man has
withdrawn his name from the list of applicants for that job.
Kerry is a flip-flopper. Ooohh, we wouldn't want one of those as President,
now would we? Let's examine Bush's history in this field...
Bush is against nation-building during the campaign, now he's for it.
Bush said gay marriage was a state's rights issue, now he wants a
Constitutional ammendment.
Bush didn't want a Dept. of Homeland Security, then he wanted one (James
Carville and Sen. Lieberman can back me up on that one).
Bush supports "No Child Left Behind", then he underfunds it.
For a complete list, visit
http://flipfloppingbush.com/"Clinton gave in to the bad guys". As Kerry pointed out, Bush can't decry
the military's lack of preparation in 2000 and then take credit for its
success in Afghanistan in 2001 (before he passed his first defense budget).
The military that is fighting and winning now is essentially the one Clinton
left us with. Terrorism is another issue. Go ahead and try to blame Clinton
for 9/11. It won't work. When the Clinton administration left office, the
NSA cheif left a document for Rice and the Def. Dept. about Al Queida,
saying that it was the biggest threat we faced, and outlining some ways to
help defeat it. As Sec. O'Neill pointed out, the NSC brushed Clinton's
warnings aside and focused on Iraq instead. What was done with the 17
warnings from 8 different countries in the 5 months prior to 9/11? Please
tell me, Mr. Bush, I'd like to know? Face it, Bush was President on 9/11,
not Clinton. Bush was supposed to protect our country that day, but he
didn't. He sat in a school reading to little kids for 20 minutes after the
second tower was attacked. Then he flew all around the country that day from
one place to another trying to hide, and passed off the lie that there was a
threat against Air Force One as an excuse. Give me a break.
Spain did not give in to terrorism. That's a right-wing media distortion.
The Spanish people were 90% against going to war in Iraq. Aznar ignored his
people. Now, if you're like me, you believe that the government is
responsible to the people. The people weren't happy with that decision, so
they voted Aznar out. Sounds like good ol' fashioned democracy to me. On the
other hand, if you're like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, you believe
that God appoints and protects governments. He probably has a different
view. The train station attack really had very little to do with the way the
election turned out. It was the government's reaction that angered people.
Aznar immediately started telling everyone that the Basque separist
organization, ETA, was responsible for the attack. Nevermind the fact that
ETA always gives warnings prior to an attack and also tries to minimize
civilian casualities. The Spanish people saw right through Aznar's facade.
They realized that he was trying to play up his fight against ETA, and
insinuating that people should vote for him because he would protect them
from ETA. Basically he was trying to capitalize on a nation's tragedy. The
people didn't like being taken for fools. That's why Aznar lost.
In closing, I would just like to ask any of you if you could point out one
good thing that Bush has done for America. I don't see how a Kerry
administration could possibly be any worse than Bush.
How'd I do?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
