quote:

---

Oh, Kerry says he’ll continue it, but that’s such an obvious lie, given his track record on defense, his promises during the primaries and the statements of the “great Americans” who support him, that only the deliberately self-deceived could possibly believe him.

---

Focusing just on the defense bit--

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=252

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=147

and by way of example of possible spin

http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/108-2-072.html

which probably doesn't tell the whole story.

Isn't there such a thing as spending too much on defense? Isn't it right to not appropriate moneys for things that are, perhaps, 'unnecessary'?

So, Kerry weak on defense, strong on defense, or average--that is, no worse or better than anyone else on defense?
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
cato.org also has many articles on the glut of military spending during the 90s and why they think it was unnecessary.

A few are:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/1-06-98.html

http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-07-97.html

http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-17-98.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-317.pdf
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
In this day and age, weak on defense IS strong on defense.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
also

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=D
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
and

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pentagon_military/TenMyths_DefenseBudjet.html

Looks like those who think we need more defense spending are wrong.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
My favorite "Track Record" laugh.

Presiden Bush has been saying, "Look at Kerry's recond on budgets. He always raises taxes." He then spouts off a figure of how much Kerry's proposals will cost.

While Kerry was voting on those "Tax Raises" what was President Bush doing? Running several companies into bankruptcy. What is his record on the budget? Spending far more money than he takes in and not raising taxes, so whoever follows him in the future will have to.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Also, please see

http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%20Notes/Rumsfeld%20Aides%20Seek%20Cuts%20in%20Armed%20Forces.html

And, more recently,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021129-sbct.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/09/1055010934863.html?oneclick=true

This is pretty interesting, too!

really long link
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Bumped in light of Orson's continued unfounded allegations, and to see if Chad or Abe or anyone else wants to defend Orson's stance.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
The fact check articles aren't coming up right. Let me see if I can find the articles I was referencing.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
http://www.factcheck.org/article177.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article209.html

I think those are them. Or these are them. Or them are those. Or something.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Why any reasonably intelligent person believes anything OSC says about american politics is totally beyond me.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Yes. Those are they.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Is that really how you say it, Icarus? Thanks.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
It's "thems is those"
 

---