Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kerry's Position on Intelligence Budget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kerry's Position on Intelligence Budget

    Let the games begin:

    Bush Exaggerates Kerry's Position on Intelligence Budget

    By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Friday, March 12, 2004; Page A04

    President Bush, in his first major assault on Sen. John F. Kerry's legislative record, said this week that his Democratic opponent proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget, a proposal that would "gut the intelligence services," and one that had no co-sponsors because it was "deeply irresponsible."

    In terms of accuracy, the parry by the president is about half right. Bush is correct that Kerry on Sept. 29, 1995, proposed a five-year, $1.5 billion cut to the intelligence budget. But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut -- about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years -- would have "gutted" intelligence. In fact, the Republican-led Congress that year approved legislation that resulted in $3.8 billion being cut over five years from the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office -- the same program Kerry said he was targeting.

    SOURCE

    The $1.5 billion cut Kerry proposed represented about the same amount Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), then chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told the Senate that same day he wanted cut from the intelligence spending bill based on unspent, secret funds that had been accumulated by one intelligence agency "without informing the Pentagon, CIA or Congress." The NRO, which designs, builds and operates spy satellites, had accumulated that amount of excess funds.

    On Sept. 29, 1995, Kerry introduced S. 1290, the "Responsible Deficit Reduction Act of 1995." On page 5 of the 16-page bill, Kerry proposed to "Reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000." The item was one of 17 cuts Kerry proposed from the defense budget, including a phaseout of two Army light divisions and ending production of Trident D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The bill also proposed 17 nondefense cuts, including ending the international space station and reducing federal support for agriculture research and various changes to government purchasing.

    Four days before Kerry's legislation was introduced, the chairmen of the House and Senate defense appropriations subcommittees, Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) announced they had "agreed upon additional reductions to NRO funding in order to ensure that only such amounts as are necessary." They did not at that time disclose amounts.

    Under the congressional plan approved in late 1995, about $1.9 billion was taken from NRO reserve funds through 1997, and another $1.9 billion over the following two years, according to a senior intelligence official familiar with the NRO's activities.

    Five days before Kerry introduced his legislation, The Washington Post reported that the NRO had hoarded $1 billion to $1.7 billion of unspent funds without informing the CIA or the Pentagon. Months earlier, the CIA had launched an inquiry into the NRO's funding after complaints by lawmakers that the agency had used more than $300 million of unspent classified funds to build a Virginia headquarters for the organization a year earlier.


    My humble advice Mr. President: Run on your accomplishments.
    Norman Chad, syndicated columnist: “Sports radio, reflecting our sinking culture, spends entire days advising managers and coaches, berating managers and coaches, firing managers and coaches and searching the countryside for better middle relievers. If they just redirected their energy toward, say, crosswalk-signal maintenance, America would be 2 percent more livable.”

    "The best argument against democracy," someone (Churchill?) said, "is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

  • #2
    Lets play a game....


    which of those people is running for president?
    Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

    Comment


    • #3
      But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut -- about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years -- would have "gutted" intelligence.

      Kind of like the DNC decrying proposed "cuts" in Medicaire.............What were the proposed cuts............Slightly less of an increase..........
      AKA reddevil
      AKA davel a devil

      [COLOR=red'][/COLOR]

      Comment


      • #4
        Intelligence is so, you know, exaggerated.

        Especially by the left.

        And heck, what is $ 1.9 billion? Clinton spends that over a weekend on limos and beatches for goodness sakes!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Arch Card@Mar 12 2004, 09:35 AM
          Intelligence is so, you know, exaggerated.

          Especially by the left.

          And heck, what is $ 1.9 billion? Clinton spends that over a weekend on limos and beatches for goodness sakes!
          ... and runway haircuts?

          Come on arch, you're slipping.
          Dude. Can. Fly.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lazydaze@Mar 12 2004, 09:16 AM
            Lets play a game....


            which of those people is running for president?
            You beat me to that comment!

            It doesn't matter if some Republican agreed with Kerry at the time. That's irrelevant.

            No one can deny that wanting to reduce intelligence funding was a bad idea. That's a strike against Kerry. All candidates have strikes against them (including Bush). This is one of Kerry's strikes.
            "Need some wood?" -- George W. Bush, October 8, 2004

            "Historians will judge if this war is just, not your punk ass." -- Dave Glover, December 8, 2004

            Comment


            • #7
              No one can deny that wanting to reduce intelligence funding was a bad idea
              The only reduction was in what the NRO had in surplus that they were not accurately reporting about.

              Tell me, how is that reducing funding when the evidence supports over-funding?

              Comment


              • #8
                Especially not some squish Republican like Sphincter.
                And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

                -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Iowa_Card@Mar 12 2004, 10:40 AM
                  No one can deny that wanting to reduce intelligence funding was a bad idea
                  The only reduction was in what the NRO had in surplus that they were not accurately reporting about.

                  Tell me, how is that reducing funding when the evidence supports over-funding?
                  I went back and read the article more carefully. If Kerry truly wasn't trying to reduce any intelligence funding except for the surplus, then I'm OK with it. The Dems should clear it up. But he did suggest:

                  17 cuts Kerry proposed from the defense budget, including a phaseout of two Army light divisions and ending production of Trident D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles
                  I don't like how much he tried to slash military programs.
                  "Need some wood?" -- George W. Bush, October 8, 2004

                  "Historians will judge if this war is just, not your punk ass." -- Dave Glover, December 8, 2004

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by phantom+Mar 12 2004, 11:13 AM-->
                    QUOTE (phantom @ Mar 12 2004, 11:13 AM)

                  • #11
                    The CIA budget (in constant dollars) through the years:



                    Who cut what, when?
                    Norman Chad, syndicated columnist: “Sports radio, reflecting our sinking culture, spends entire days advising managers and coaches, berating managers and coaches, firing managers and coaches and searching the countryside for better middle relievers. If they just redirected their energy toward, say, crosswalk-signal maintenance, America would be 2 percent more livable.”

                    "The best argument against democracy," someone (Churchill?) said, "is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      Wow - another example of the Republicans trying to attack Kerry for doing what they themselves did. Just like when they attacked Paul Wellstone for voting for a bill that they had supported.

                      Unreal.

                      I can only hope that the media in this country continues to expose the Bush team's blatant deceptions.
                      2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Indeed - just like they're wondering how they're going to explain away his "award" as the most liberal Senator in the Congress.

                        He's really "middle of the road", you see.
                        And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

                        -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by Damtoft@Mar 12 2004, 11:49 AM
                          Indeed - just like they're wondering how they're going to explain away his "award" as the most liberal Senator in the Congress.

                          He's really "middle of the road", you see.
                          That one's easy - the National Journal used a very limited set of criteria to determine that "award". By other measures, looking at all of Kerry's votes and not just a selected few, he's nowhere near the most liberal.

                          After all, how could he be so liberal if he voted for NAFTA, for the Iraq War Resolution, and for the defense cuts that the Republicans proposed?

                          You guys want it both ways. He's so liberal, but he supports everything Bush wants.
                          2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            He's liberal because he's a "Democrat".

                            Comment

                            • Working...
                              X