Kerry Caught In Lie About V.P. Cheney

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Kerry Caught In Lie About V.P. Cheney
99
Fri, 09-03-2004 - 9:53pm
I have been watching the talk shows today and I noticed that John Forbes Kerry, and all of the Democrat spokespersons have said that V.P. Cheney said in his speech to the RNC that Kerry was "unfit for command", then they go off into a tirade "This from a man.. yada yada who never went to Vietnam"... Have you guys heard this?

Well I watched V. P. Cheney's speech and I did not recall him saying that John Forbes Kerry was "unfit for command". So I went to a transcript of the speech and found that he didn't say anything of the sort! They just made it up so they could lead into the slam they had planned for Cheney, lol.

Here is everything that Cheney said about Kerry:

"And so it is time to set the alternatives squarely before the American people.

The President's opponent is an experienced senator. He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it. But there is also a record of more than three decades since. And on the question of America's role in the world, the differences between Senator Kerry and President Bush are the sharpest, and the stakes for the country are the highest. History has shown that a strong and purposeful America is vital to preserving freedom and keeping us safe — yet time and again Senator Kerry has made the wrong call on national security. Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed "only at the directive of the United Nations." During the 1980s, Senator Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiatives that brought victory in the Cold War. In 1991, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf, Senator Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm.

Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror," as though Al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side. He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America — after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked, and faced with an enemy who seeks the deadliest of weapons to use against us, we cannot wait for the next attack. We must do everything we can to prevent it — and that includes the use of military force.

Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve — as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people.

Senator Kerry also takes a different view when it comes to supporting our military. Although he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, he then decided he was opposed to the war, and voted against funding for our men and women in the field. He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty, and support for military families. Senator Kerry is campaigning for the position of commander in chief. Yet he does not seem to understand the first obligation of a commander in chief — and that is to support American troops in combat.

In his years in Washington, John Kerry has been one of a hundred votes in the United States Senate — and very fortunately on matters of national security, his views rarely prevailed. But the presidency is an entirely different proposition. A senator can be wrong for 20 years, without consequence to the nation. But a president — a president — always casts the deciding vote. And in this time of challenge, America needs — and America has — a president we can count on to get it right.

On Iraq, Senator Kerry has disagreed with many of his fellow Democrats. But Senator Kerry's liveliest disagreement is with himself. His back-and- forth reflects a habit of indecision, and sends a message of confusion. And it is all part of a pattern. He has, in the last several years, been for the No Child Left Behind Act — and against it. He has spoken in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement — and against it. He is for the Patriot Act — and against it. Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual — America sees two John Kerrys."



So, they just made this up that Cheney had said something that he didn't say so that they could lead into the "All this from a man who didn't go to Vietnam, yadda, yadda, yadda as if anybody cared if Cheney ever went to Vietnam. These guys are completely clueless. If they would lie about something so stupid they would lie about anything.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Sat, 09-04-2004 - 6:07pm
deleted. posted in wrong place.


Edited 9/4/2004 6:16 pm ET ET by iminnie833
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Sat, 09-04-2004 - 6:17pm
You don't understand the point. This liberal jounalist said this: Cheney tried but failed to kill the F14D jet — (here comes the distortion:) *the one that Miller proudly proclaims "delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora"*. But that is not right. It was the *modernized* F14D that delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora - the one that *Kerry* voted against. The one that Cheney 'tried to kill' wasn't the same weapon, (as if it mattered what Cheney tried to kill anyway - smoke and mirrors).


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-06-2004
Sat, 09-04-2004 - 6:29pm
It's not factual to say that Bush and Cheney have always been loyal to our military:

As Congressman, Cheney Consistently Voted Against Veterans Administration Funding. In 1980, 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988, Cheney was one of a small number of House members to block passage of bills that provided funding for the Veterans Administration. In 1983, Cheney voted against bringing a bill to the House floor and paired against House passage of a bill that provided funding for the Veterans Administration. In 1981, Cheney was one of only 41 House members to vote against House passage of a bill that provided business loans and additional educational benefits to Vietnam veterans. In 1983, Cheney was one of only 30 House members to vote against House passage of a bill that would have provided $54 million for Agent Orange studies and $75 million for the Emergency Veterans Jobs Training Act.

Bush fighting to keep money from injured Gulf War vets

Former POWs from the 1991 Gulf War sued Iraq for damages, and won. Now the US government is fighting their monetary award, saying the money is needed to rebuild Iraq. Washington Post Wednesday July 30, 2003

GOP Joins Dems, Vets Against Benefit Cuts

Senior Republicans on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee have joined Democrats and veterans groups in a chorus of protest against proposals being considered by the Bush administration to shrink the number of military personnel who qualify for disability benefits. AP Friday September 12, 2003

Republicans cut veterans benefits day after Iraq war begins

"It is shameful that less than 24 hours after the first shots were fired in Iraq, House Republicans were trying to cut $28 billion in health care and disability benefits for military veterans to pay for another huge tax cut for our wealthiest citizens," said Edwards, a member of the Budget Committee. Congressman Chet Edwards Friday March 21, 2003

WAR AND REMEMBRANCE: A President MIA from Public Grief Over Casualties

American soldiers are coming home each day, DOA at Dover, Del. More than 200 of them have been smuggled back into the country in this fashion since the mission in Iraq was declared accomplished. Stealth patriots. Their homecomings are off-limits to reporters, and they come home on the Q.T. without so much as a greeting by the politicians who sent them to Iraq to meet their untimely deaths. SF Chronicle Sunday November 09, 2003

Cheney Admits One Year After Iraq War Began That Troops Lacked Body Armor. The war on Iraq commenced in March 2003. In an interview with Brit Hume of Fox News on March 17, 2004, one year later, Cheney said, "I believe the chief of staff of the Army and the vice chief -- vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs have testified recently that all of our troops in Iraq are now properly equipped with the newest body armor. So there were -- the main problem had been just the sheer capacity to produce these items early on."

Cheney: hypocrite on defense

Give Republican Vice President Dick Cheney the nod for political hypocrite of the month and hope that the American people see through his game. On Monday, Cheney attacked Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' all-but-certain nominee for president, for his votes against numerous defense programs over the years. Cheney went so far as to say that Kerry is a political opportunist who is unfit to lead the nation. The thing is, as secretary of defense in the first Bush administration,Cheney stood out against the same programs. April 29, 2004

In 1981, Cheney Voted Against Raising Military Pay for Senior and Junior Enlisted Personnel. In 1981, Cheney voted against an amendment to increase the pay of senior enlisted personnel by 18-22 percent and the basic pay of junior enlisted personnel by 7-9 percent. The amendment was rejected 170-232.

In 1982, Cheney Voted Against Authorizing Military Pay Raise.

In 1982, Cheney voted against the "Uniformed Services Pay Act" which would have authorized a pay raise in FY 1983 for uniformed members of the armed services. The bill would have also restricted the hiring of private contractors to perform Department of Defense services. The vote was a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The motion was rejected 214-186.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Sat, 09-04-2004 - 6:47pm

That's patently false. Many people got in completely on their own. It depended on the branch of the reserves, the location of the unit, & the position desired as to whether or not their was a waiting list.


In the Texas ANG, there was a waiting list for the ground crew, but there were slots open for pilots.

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Sat, 09-04-2004 - 6:52pm
Yes it is. Why didn't you post a link? Why do you hide where you get this stuff?

Your scurrilous charges against V.P. Cheney will take some research to determine where the distortions lie. I have only researched one of your talking points. Cheney and Kerry did not vote to kill the same weapons programs. Since the one charge that I have experience with turns out to be that the talking point turns out to be untruthful, I must take the rest of them with a grain of salt, too. I have heard military men praise his leadership and strong support over the years.

I am really having a hard time understanding the left-wing's obscession with him. He's not the one running for president. People do not vote for the V.P.

As far as the president goes, I feel the same way. I will have to research each charge. In the meantime, here are some things that the president has done for the military:


http://vets4bush.com/BushToVets.shtml

President Bush has fulfilled, and in many cases surpassed, commitments to veterans on four key issues:

Allowing Veteran Medicare Recipients to Continue Receiving TRICARE Benefits - The President signed the FY 2001 Defense Authorization Bill which allows veterans to continue to receive their TriCare health benefits even when they become Medicare eligible.

Timely Access to Quality Healthcare - The average time that a veteran has to wait to see a primary care physician has dropped 90% since 2001. The waiting list was 300,000 in 2001 and is now below 30,000. With the funding in the FY 2005 request, the VA will meet its goal scheduling non-urgent primary care for 93% of veterans within 30 days and 99% within 90 days.

Reduce the Backlog of Disability Claims - When President Bush took office, the number of claims waiting to be processed had soared to over 600,000 and as a result, many veterans were waiting an average of over 230 days for a claim to be processed. The VA has slashed its inventory of pending disability claims by 58% to 253,000 and reduced the average length of time it takes to process a claim by 30% to about 160 days. In 2005, 2.7 million veterans will receive $24.9 billion of these tax-free benefits from the VA.

Classify Diabetes as a Disability - The President proudly signed the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, which allowed diabetes to be considered a service-connected disability for veterans.


Supporting Concurrent Receipts

Concurrent Receipt - On November 24, 2003, President Bush signed legislation providing concurrent receipt of both military retired pay and VA disability compensation for those military retirees most deserving, the combat-disabled, reversing a century of law preventing concurrent receipt.


A Significant Increase in Resources

Making up for the 1990s - President Bush has provided more new funding for veterans in four years than President Clinton did in eight years. President Clinton averaged a 3 percent increase per year in the VA budget while President Bush has averaged an 8 percent increase per year. Since President Bush came into office in 2001 the VA budget has increased from $48 billion to $65 billion.

A Dramatic Increase in Funding - The President is proposing to increase funding for the VA by $5 billion next year - from $60.3 billion last year to $65.3 billion for the next fiscal year. This represents an 8% percent jump and more than 38% increase since 2001.

40% More for Medical Care - The President's $30 billion request for medical care in his FY 2005 budget represents more than a 40% increase from when he took office. As a result, 1.4 million more veterans will receive care in 2004 than in 2000 and 194 new community-based clinics will open to be more responsive to veterans' needs.


Improving Access to Health Care

Creating a Modern, Effeciant, World-Class Helath Care System - Through the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES), President Bush is working to restructure VA hospitals around the country to provide veterans with efficient access to quality health care. The FY 2005 budget more than doubles the amount previously request for construction of new and improved facilities. The President has proposed a 20% increase in outpatient health care services, create 48 new outpatient clinics, and construct two new VA hospitals.

Emergency Care - The President's budget allows the VA to pay for emergency room care for veterans in non-VA hospitals. Veterans with life-threatening illnesses should seek and receive care at the closest possible facility.

Prescription Drugs - The President took the unprecedented step of allowing veterans with a prescription from their private physician to have those prescriptions filled by the VA - saving veterans hundreds of dollars in prescription drug costs. This will benefit approximately 200,000 veterans.

Eliminating Copayments - The President has eliminated copays for veterans receiving hospice care. In addition, the Budget will eliminate all forms of copays for prisoners of war who have provided unique service to our Nation.


Caring for Families

Veterans Benefits Act of 2003. On December 16th, 2003, President Bush signed a bill authorizing $1 billion over the next ten years for new and expanded benefits for disabled veterans, surviving spouses, and children.

Restores Spousal Benefits. The spouses and children of veterans who are killed in action, or die of service related causes will receive Dependents Indemnity Compensation which allows the surviving spouse or dependent children to receive the full amount of accrued benefits if the veteran dies while their claim is still pending. Home loan guarantees are available to surviving spouses.

Education & Health Benefits for Children. Pensions are available to surviving spouses and unmarried children of deceased veterans with wartime experience. Dependents education assistance is available to spouses who have not remarried and the children of veterans who are killed in action, or die of service related disabilities.


Support Today for Tomorrow's Veterans

Better Pay and Housing - President Bush has increased basic salary and payments for food and housing almost 29 percent since taking office. President Bush has provided historic increases in military compensation. Under former President Clinton, military pay decreased an average of almost 2% per year relative to consumer price index. Since President Bush took office, military pay increased an average of 5.2% per year relative to consumer price index. The average compensation is now more than $40,000 for enlisted members and more than $79,000 for officers.

Better Benefits - Service members also receive retirement benefits and health care for themselves and their families at little or no charge.

Tax Relief - On December 16, 2003, the President signed the Military Family Tax Relief Act of 2003 to provide tax relief and other benefits to members of the armed services and their families.

Prevents Double Taxation. This law prevents states from using the income earned by a service member in determining the spouse's tax rate when the spouse works and taxed in a state other than the state in which they maintain their permanent legal residence. Protection from Eviction. Service members and their families are protected from eviction from housing while on active duty due to nonpayment of rents and housing leases up to $2,400 per month - up from $1,200 per month.

Life Insurance. Updates life insurance protections provided to activated Guard and reserve members by increasing from $10,000 to $250,000 the maximum policy coverage that the federal government will protect from default for nonpayment while on active duty.






Edited 9/4/2004 7:02 pm ET ET by iminnie833

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Sat, 09-04-2004 - 7:22pm
Yeah, I got that you say this. I've never heard or seen this anywhere but from you. It's useless to ask you for links to prove your allegations, cuz you just insult me instead.

BTW, I conside "Got that?" RUDE, but that's apparently how you debate, you repeat the same thing over & over & then are rude to people who disagree with you.


< In the Texas ANG, there was a waiting list for the ground crew, but there were slots open for pilots. Got that? >

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sat, 09-04-2004 - 8:32pm
Okay...I get that the "journalist" (he's actually a professor of linguistics) made an error, which he shouldn't have. But I don't see how that changes the larger point. If you don't criticize someone for voting against the F14D jet version 1.0, how can you aggressively criticize someone for voting agaisnt the F14D jet version 1.5? In fact, the person who voted against version 1.0 gets your complete support as strong on defense, while the person who voted against version 1.5 is weak on defense???? What's different aside from the fact that one's a Republican and one's a Democrat?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sat, 09-04-2004 - 8:40pm
In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.

Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.

John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its "Digital Dozen."

John was re-elected in 1990 and again in 1996 – when he defeated popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most closely watched Senate race in the country.

John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in Vietnam. He later co-founded the Vietnam Veterans of America.

-- Senator Zell Miller, March 1, 2001

Actually, I think the most important thing Kerry did in the Senate is to unravel the BCCI scandal:

"Well it appears that one thing he did was to go after anti-American terrorist financing:

""

As the presidential campaign enters its final stretch, Kerry's BCCI experience is important for two reasons. First, it reveals Kerry's foresight in fighting terrorism that is critical for any president in this age of asymmetrical threats. As The Washington Post noted, "years before money laundering became a centerpiece of antiterrorist efforts...Kerry crusaded for controls on global money laundering in the name of national security."

Make no mistake about it, BCCI would have been a player. A decade after Kerry helped shut the bank down, the CIA discovered Osama bin Laden was among those with accounts at the bank. A French intelligence report obtained by The Washington Post in 2002 identified dozens of companies and individuals who were involved with BCCI and were found to be dealing with bin Laden after the bank collapsed, and that the financial network operated by bin Laden today "is similar to the network put in place in the 1980s by BCCI." As one senior U.S. investigator said in 2002, "BCCI was the mother and father of terrorist financing operations."

Second, the BCCI affair showed Kerry to be a politician driven by a sense of mission, rather than expediency--even when it meant ruffling feathers. Perhaps Sen. Hank Brown, the ranking Republican on Kerry's subcommittee, put it best. "John Kerry was willing to spearhead this difficult investigation," Brown said. "Because many important members of his own party were involved in this scandal, it was a distasteful subject for other committee and subcommittee chairmen to investigate. They did not. John Kerry did."

""

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-06-2004
Sat, 09-04-2004 - 8:46pm
I may be reading it wrong, but the tone of your note is a bit over the top. First, I'm not obsessed with Cheney - read the subject line. Kerry and Cheney are the topic of this string. I understand that Bush is Kerry's opponent, but it's naive to say that the VP doesn't matter - especially a VP as powerful as Cheney is. It matters that Bush chose Cheney, it matters that Kerry chose Edwards - it says something about the candidate. Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm left-wing. Unlike most of the people whose messages I've read on this board, I'm not buying either side wholesale. I think there are many problems with government in general, with this administration in particular, with the Republican side of things and the Democrat side of things, not to mention (do we have to?) the Nader side of things. As for my sources, I'm certainly not hiding them - they're right there at the end of the paragraphs - I don't think you can accuse me of hiding something just because I didn't spoonfeed links to you.

Overall, I think this is a problem with political discourse, I post in response to a comment you made and because of what I post, you choose to make a lot of assumptions about me and my beliefs - when, in fact, you know absolutely nothing about either. It's generally wrong to make blanket statements -- Cheney is always supportive of our military, Bush is always steadfast, Kerry always flip flops, Edwards is always an example of everything that's wrong with our legal system. Anyone who's paying attention can find examples of where Cheney (or Bush) hasn't been loyal to our military, Bush has "flip flopped" (or, as rational adults say, changed his mind), Kerry has been consistent and Edwards has been very helpful to someone who's been badly hurt. Both sides demonizing the other side and glorying in pointing fingers and trouncing on people is repellent, and does nothing except cause bad feelings. I didn't realize I'd wandered into a place where everyone is supposed to tow a particular party's line.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sat, 09-04-2004 - 8:58pm
Although I enjoy the image you paint of you and me as some sort of bi-partisan Wonder Twin team, exposing BS whereever we may find it, I still think the Republicans are really stepping over the line, and have been ever since they succeeded in convincing 70% of America that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Maybe that made them bold.

And it's not just me who thinks that Zell's speech was almost completely dishonest. Conservative Andrew Sullivan recently lambasted Zell Miller's speech, saying in general "What's remarkable about the Republicans is their utter indifference to fairness in their own attacks."

Here's the post:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_08_29_dish_archive.html#109409893313020605

THE MILLER MOMENT: Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift. Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude.


THE "OCCUPATION" CANARD: Miller first framed his support for Bush as a defense of his own family. The notion that individuals deserve respect regardless of their family is not Miller's core value. And the implication was that if the Democrats win in November, his own family would not be physically safe. How's that for subtlety? Miller's subsequent assertion was that any dissent from aspects of the war on terror is equivalent to treason. He accused all war critics of essentially attacking the very troops of the United States. He conflated the ranting of Michael Moore with the leaders of the Democrats. He said the following:

"Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."

That macho invocation of the Marines was a classic: the kind of militarist swagger that this convention endorses and uses as a bludgeon against its opponents. But the term "occupation," of course, need not mean the opposite of liberation. I have used the term myself and I deeply believe that coalition troops have indeed liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. By claiming that the Democrats were the enemies of the troops, traitors, quislings and wimps, Miller did exactly what he had the audacity to claim the Democrats were doing: making national security a partisan matter. I'm not easy to offend, but this speech was gob-smackingly vile.

OPPONENTS OR ENEMIES?: Here's another slur:

"No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy."

Yes, that describes some on the left, but it is a calumny against Democrats who voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq and whose sincerity, as John McCain urged, should not be in question. I have never heard Kerry say that 9/11 was America's fault; if I had, it would be inconceivable to consider supporting him. And so this was, in truth, another lie, another cheap, faux-patriotic smear. Miller has absolutely every right to lambaste John Kerry's record on defense in the Senate. It's ripe for criticism, and, for my part, I disagree with almost all of it (and as a pro-Reagan, pro-Contra, pro-SDI, pro-Gulf War conservative, I find Kerry's record deeply troubling). But that doesn't mean he's a traitor or hates America's troops or believes that the U.S. is responsible for global terror. And the attempt to say so is a despicable attempt to smear someone's very patriotism.

THE FOREIGN AGENT: Another lie:

"Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide."

Miller might have found some shred of ancient rhetoric that will give him cover on this, but in Kerry's very acceptance speech, he declared the opposite conviction - that he would never seek permission to defend this country. Another lie: "John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war." Kerry didn't want to do that. Yes, he used his military service in the campaign - but it was his opponents who decided to dredge up the divisions of the Vietnam war in order to describe Kerry as a Commie-loving traitor who faked his own medals. What's remarkable about the Republicans is their utter indifference to fairness in their own attacks. Smearing opponents as traitors to their country, as unfit to be commander-in-chief, as agents of foreign powers (France) is now fair game. Appealing to the crudest form of patriotism and the easiest smears is wrong when it is performed by the lying Michael Moore and it is wrong when it is spat out by Zell Miller. Last night was therefore a revealing night for me. I watched a Democrat at a GOP Convention convince me that I could never be a Republican. If they wheel out lying, angry old men like this as their keynote, I'll take Obama. Any day.


Pages