Constructive gadfly
Published on October 11, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

According to Factcheck, A Progress for America Voter Fund ad claims Kerry has "a 30-year record of supporting cuts in defense and intelligence," misleading charges that we've de-bunked before. It also accuses Kerry of "endlessly changing positions on Iraq," a claim that is without factual basis.

Kerry responded with his own ad, quoting a New York Times editorial calling the Bush campaign's recent statements about Kerry and terrorism "despicable."

“The ad is more remarkable for its fearsome imagery, somber background music and the voice-of-doom manner of its announcer than for the words it presents. It suggests that voters can't trust Kerry to defend against terrorism and take their lives in their hands if they vote for him.

The “despicable ad begins by showing 9/11 plot leader Mohammed Atta, Osama bin Laden and other terrorists while the announcer slowly intones: "These people want to kill us."

It presents more images of the attack on Russian school children, the attack on a Spanish commuter train, and firemen in the smoking rubble of the World Trade Center after September 11, 2001.

The announcer claims that Kerry "has a 30-year record of supporting cuts in defense and intelligence."

Fact: “in his nearly 20 years in the Senate Kerry has voted for Pentagon budgets far more often than he's opposed them, and hasn't voted against one for the past eight years.”

As for intelligence cutting — “The 1995 cut was small and would have amounted to a reduction of roughly 1%. This time cuts had bipartisan support, after it was discovered that intelligence officials had secretly hoarded more than $1 billion in unspent funds. A Republican-sponsored cut of $1 billion eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership.

One fact is clear: politics in down and dirty.


Comments
on Oct 11, 2004
Sure I will play the fact check game:

Subject: Gen. Shinseki
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Lies:
Kerry: General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told him he was going to need several hundred thousand. And guess what? They retired General Shinseki for telling him that.

-0-

Kerry: General Shinseki had the wisdom to say, "You're going to need several hundred thousand troops to win the peace." The military's job is to win the war.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FACT:
Forced to Retire?

Kerry claimed, as he had in the first debate, that the Army's Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, was forced to retire for saying before the invasion of Iraq that many more troops were needed than the administration was planning to send.

It is true that Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 25, 2003 that "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would be required for an occupation of Iraq. It is also true that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called that estimate "wildly off the mark" in testimony to the House Budget Committee on Feb. 27, 2003. And it is true that the general retired several months later on June 11, 2003.

But the administration didn't force General Shinseki to retire. In fact, The Washington Times reported Shinseki's plans to retire nearly a year before his Feb. 25, 2003 testimony. The Times article was published April 19, 2002:

Washington Times: He (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) and Army Secretary Thomas White have settled on Gen. John M. Keane, Army deputy chief of staff, to succeed the current chief, Gen. Eric Shinseki. Gen. Shinseki does not retire for more than a year. Sources offer differing reasons for the early selection.

There was some truth to Kerry's comment, however. According to the Oct. 9 Washington Post , the story of Shinseki's replacement was leaked "in revenge" for Shinseki's position on troop requirements, which he was already expressing in private. By naming a replacement 14 months early, the Post said Pentagon leakers effectively undercut Shinseki's authority. And as it turned out, Keane never actually took the job, reportedly turning it down for family reasons to retire in Oct. 2003.

Link
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This sounds like it could be fun, who is next?

- GX

P.S. That whole Shinseki lie really got on my nerves because he said the man was well liked by the Army, all I have to say about that is two words: 'black beret'.

on Oct 11, 2004
Black Berets of Saddam's republican guard? It's true Kerry mispoke: Shinseki, because of his announced retirement, was booted out of the chief of staff role. 
on Oct 11, 2004
When Shinseki retired, he retired from Chief of Staff that is the only way a General can leave that position just ask Colin Powell, you and I know that.

Black beret is because he was the one who enforced that as a Garrison headgear that the Army is to wear is the black beret. Nobody really liked that idea at all, but the guy was the top brass so it was followed. General Schumaker may overturn it eventually when he can.

- GX
on Oct 11, 2004
There was some truth to Kerry's comment, however. According to the Oct. 9 Washington Post , the story of Shinseki's replacement was leaked "in revenge" for Shinseki's position on troop requirements, which he was already expressing in private. By naming a replacement 14 months early, the Post said Pentagon leakers effectively undercut Shinseki's authority. And as it turned out, Keane never actually took the job, reportedly turning it down for family reasons to retire in Oct. 2003.


so, to quote a line i read some other place, instead of being screwed over by the bush administstrationin the way kerry said, shinseki was screwed over in a totally different way.
on Oct 11, 2004
General Shinseki was not screwed over and his authority was never undercut it is only common procedure to find a replacement for the man ahead of time, unless you think the Army should be with a Chief of Staff?

I don't know what they mean by leaked while I was in the Army we knew the whole deal about it even before it was supposedly leaked, Keane turned it down, nobody else wanted the job, General Schumaker was offered it and pulled out of retirement for the job.

As soon as a General in that position gives advance notice of when he is retiring they start looking for the replacement so the replacement can be sworn in shortly after the other retires so the Army is not without for too long a Army Chief of Staff. While the Army C of S chair is going through that transition the Vice Chief of Staff takes the place of the other once he retires until the new Chief of Staff comes in.

You also have a position called Sergeant Major of the Army that is runned the same way.

- GX
on Oct 11, 2004
What exactly is Kerry's position on Iraq?
on Oct 11, 2004

Reply #6 By: Madine - 10/11/2004 3:09:15 PM
What exactly is Kerry's position on Iraq?


Good question!
on Oct 11, 2004
It's a long and proud tradition, Steve. I'm thinking back to the image of a beautiful little girl, sitting out in a field on a gorgeous day picking the petals off a daisy, dissolving into the image of a mushroom cloud. The tradition goes back a lot farther, to the founding, for that matter, but that one seems the finest example to date, at least during my lifetime. The Republicans are finally starting to get up to speed, though.

Cheers,
Daiwa