From Kerry's Nomination Speech

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
"As president," Kerry declared, "I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation."

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really a time honored tradition of the Unitied States? Is this really the standard of our nation throughout it's history? I don't think so. I think it's John Kerry's view of what the tradition should be.

[sameoldsht]

[ QUOTE ]
we only go to war because we have to

[/ QUOTE ]

We never "had to" go to war. We could have simply tried to appease our enemies, rolled over and been defeated by the British, Germans, Japanese, Russians, et al. We could all be speaking Japanese right now, but we WANTED our freedom, so we went to war and defeated their ass.

[andyfox]

It's the time-honored BS we've always been given. War is forced upon us, we never choose to go to war.

[andyfox]

Yup, if we hadn't gone to war we'd all be speaking Navajo or Vietnamese or Korean or Spanish or Arabic or . . .

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the time-honored BS we've always been given. War is forced upon us, we never choose to go to war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't Kerry vote for the war? Then didn't he vote against funding the troops as well?

"We should increase funding [for the war in Iraq] by whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. "
John F. Kerry, August 31, 2003

"$200 billion [for Iraq] that we're not investing in education and health care, and job creation here at home. . . . That's the wrong choice. "
September 8, 2004


Flip flop, flippity flop

Taking the flip flops seriously (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/607wudfl.asp)

[andyfox]

I'm no fan of John Kerry. But as for Kerry's poorly worded statement that he voted for the $87 million before he voted against it: Imagine you're a Senator during wartime. The military has requested $87 billion of further funding for their missions overseas. Strangely, your president hasn't asked financial sacrifice of his citizens to fund the wars -- he's continuously pushed for almost a trillion dollars in tax cuts, despite growing national deficits and debts.

This is the dilemma that faced Kerry. He made the choice to fully fund the military's request, but in a fiscally responsible way. He co-sponsored an amendment to the $87 billion bill, which funded the military by rolling back an equal amount from Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Kerry voted for the responsible version of the bill. But his amendment was defeated by a vote of 57 - 42, because a majority of lawmakers thought taking on more debt was a better choice for the nation than rolling back tax cuts for the well-off.

Kerry protested this fiscal irresponsibility by voting no on the other version of the bill, which is now law and is being funded by the federal government borrowing more money. This is the source of Kerry's quote that "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Bush himself threatened to veto the $87 billion Kerry voted for because it limited the most well-off Americans' tax cuts. What Kerry voted against was financing the war with borrowed money.

As I say, I'm no John Kerry fan. But the fact that somebody flip-flops or doesn't is of less interest to me than getting it right. The fact that Bush had been steadfast is of no concern to me because he's steadfastly wrong.

[wacki]

Do you have any information/links about that bill/veto? I'm not doubting you, just want to learn more.

[andyfox]

I can't remember where I read the summary, perhaps a google serach will yield some results.

Kerry will no doubt have to explain, in the debates, why, if this is now the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, he voted to give the president the authority to make this war.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no fan of John Kerry. But as for Kerry's poorly worded statement that he voted for the $87 million before he voted against it: Imagine you're a Senator during wartime. The military has requested $87 billion of further funding for their missions overseas. Strangely, your president hasn't asked financial sacrifice of his citizens to fund the wars -- he's continuously pushed for almost a trillion dollars in tax cuts, despite growing national deficits and debts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually that's not Kerry's position at all. He's more or less stated he'd rather spend the money on entitlements and domestic initiatives. If his goal is to balance the budget as well, he's basically got to raise taxes across the board taking the risk that increased taxes may kill economic growth thus decreasing government revenues. If he doesn't care about the deficit at current levels (if memory serves the deficit as a percentage of GDP is the 17th largest in history) then he simply wants to run a bigger deficit to fund increased/more entitlements and domestic programs.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the dilemma that faced Kerry. He made the choice to fully fund the military's request, but in a fiscally responsible way.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's a fiscally responsible way? Shall we compare deficits and taxes to other periods when the U.S was involved in a war?

[ QUOTE ]
He co-sponsored an amendment to the $87 billion bill, which funded the military by rolling back an equal amount from Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is a fiscally responsible way (a big if in my mind) the presumption is that government spending can't be trimmed in any way whatsoever and that is simply baloney.

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry voted for the responsible version of the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

By your definition.

[ QUOTE ]
But his amendment was defeated by a vote of 57 - 42, because a majority of lawmakers thought taking on more debt was a better choice for the nation than rolling back tax cuts for the well-off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite, because rolling back spending in other government programs would have never seen the light of day due to the basically 50-50 split in the Senate. The Republicans weren't about to go through a protacted battle over funding the troops and they knew this bill would pass. Furthermore Kerry knew this bill would make it. So in a sense the Democrats removed spending cuts in other government programs from the get-go as an option.

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry protested this fiscal irresponsibility by voting no on the other version of the bill, which is now law and is being funded by the federal government borrowing more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irresponsibility? The programs that Kerry has supported will increase the budget deficit by $200 billion after increasing the marginal tax rate of the individuals you cite. The Washington Post and the National Taxpayers Union have both stated this. I've posted links in the past to the Washington Post article and the National Taxpayers Union article. Either Kerry is really concerned about the deficit which I doubt and will seek to raise taxes across the board eventually if he can get his programs through Congress or he really doesn't care about the deficit. Your premise is that increasing the budget deficit is fiscally irresponsible and my take is that your stating that this is Kerry's position as well. If Kerry doesn't care about increasing the budget deficit, Kerry only wants to spend the money in a different way then by your definition, Kerry is being fiscally irresponsible as well. In fact it's even more fiscally irresponsible than Bush by your definition. Government handouts last a lot longer than a war lasts. If Kerry does care about increasing the budget deficit and believes that's irresponsible, then by default he's supporting massive tax increases on a permanent basis I might add.

[ QUOTE ]
As I say, I'm no John Kerry fan. But the fact that somebody flip-flops or doesn't is of less interest to me than getting it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the flip-flops aren't necessarily a negative but in Kerry's case IMO he straddles the fence and is politically very weak.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that Bush had been steadfast is of no concern to me because he's steadfastly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again that's your opinion.

[wacki]

very well said adios.

[sameoldsht]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the time-honored BS we've always been given

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is time honored BS...spewed forth by John Kerry.

[sameoldsht]

[ QUOTE ]
Navajo

[/ QUOTE ]
We ever officially declare war on the Navajo's? Sure we don't exactly have a glowing history as far as dealing with the Native Americans. Can't be proud of that.

[ QUOTE ]
Vietnamese or Korean

[/ QUOTE ]
If the Soviets had their way and Communism became globally dominant we'd all be speaking Russian, Comrade andyfox.

[ QUOTE ]
Spanish

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess supporting the independence of Cuba from Spain was a questionable call.

[ QUOTE ]
Arabic

[/ QUOTE ]
If the radical Muslims have their way we will all be speaking Arabic and praising Allah. Thank God we have a President who believes in defending ourselves instead of appeasing our enemies like so many lefties want to do.

[andyfox]

During the Cold War, ignorance of politics and history, as well as out-and-out lying, led us to claim that all trouble in the world was the result of a worldwide Communist conspiracy. In fact, many times when somebody disagreed with government policy, they were accused of being Communist sympathizers. People would do things like address them as comrade.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]

Didn't Kerry vote for the war? Then didn't he vote against funding the troops as well?

Flip flop, flippity flop

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just retarded. It's amazing to me how often I hear this crap - policy isn't black and white, there really are nuance and details to it. Maybe Kerry has been inconsistent but to prove that you really have to give a lot more analysis than what you've said so far.

[MMMMMM]

Andy, you erred by implicitly suggesting the Soviet threat was no more real than the Navajo or other threats. Sameoldsht might not have called you Comrade, agreed; but you kind of asked for it by implying that the Soviet or radical Muslim threat/design was/is not real or expansionist/totalitarian in nature (as compared to other nonexistent threats).

Also, clearly all of the world's problems did not result from the Soviet system...but a large portion of them did.

[andyfox]

I implied no such thing. My point was that we have often gone to war under false pretenses. Most of our hot battles during the Cold War, for example. We were told that if we didn't defeat Communism in Cuba or in Nicaragua or in Chile pretty soon they'd be in Mexico and then they'd be in the U.S. Hogwash.

I've never implied nor denied the nature of the Soviet state.