Kerry Voted Against Body Armor for U.S. Troops

[Sixgun Symphony]

Kerry Voted Against Body Armor for U.S. Troops
NewsMax.com (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/8/124337.shtml)

Likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry slammed President Bush over the weekend for not supplying U.S. troops in Iraq with enough body armor to protect them from attacks.

But, it turns out, Sen. Kerry actually voted against supplying the troops with more body armor in 2002.

Addressing a Texas audience on Saturday, the Massachusetts Democrat said it was "shocking" that "tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that – with danger around every corner – there wasn't enough body armor."

But Bush campaign press secretary Scott Stanzel told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg on Sunday that Kerry "voted against supplying body armor to our troops when it mattered most" – when President Bush included the request as part of the $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq war in 2002.

RNC Chairman Marc Racicot confirmed the Kerry vote against body armor, telling ABC's "This Week" that the funding bill "did everything from provide hazard pay for our troops in Iraq to body armor for our troops in Iraq."

"And yet he has the audacity yesterday to continue to complain about the fact that there was no body armor," Racicot complained.

Asked about his vote not to protect the troops with new body armor, Sen. Kerry insisted he did no such thing.

"That $87 billion has nothing to do with the preparatory money" for protective gear, he told the Fox News Channel.

He then blamed President Bush for not supplying the body armor sooner, saying: "The president made the decision of when to go to war. If you make that decision, you have to make sure your troops are properly equipped."

[obd]

Oh please Sixgun. When somebody tacks on something to a bill that nobody likes and then accusses you of not supporting the addition because you didnt support the bill thats just stupid.

For example, I could tack on the request for body armor onto a pro abortion bill and when Bush vetos it then I could accuse him of not supporting body armor for our troops. In case you didnt notice it happens ALL THE TIME in Congress. Why dont you grow some IQ points and try to realize that and stop posting one stupid lie after another about Kerry!!!

Whats funny is that some Republicans think Americans are stupid enough to fall for that and dont understand the political process enough to know that this kind of manuevering happens all the time..

Whats not funny is that I agree with them: Most Americans will immediately think Kerry voted against body armor, which is the dumbest thing I ever heard. What he voted against was the bill itself, not the provision for body armor tacked on for troops. There are often so many provisions for bills that no one Senator is actualy aware of them all.....and it is common practice for politicians to put provisions onto otherwwise unpopular bills so that when people vote agaisnt the Bill itself they can be blamed for not supporting the provision on the bill!!!!!!!!!!!! Wake up Sixgun and stop posting crap!!!

[budanski]

This from a guy who just learned the art of paragraphs. ;)

[Midav]

I agree that the bill encompassed a lot of things, which was mainly aimed at the Iraqi conflict.

However, since the US was in conflict and these things were needed, it's odd that Kerry does not bring that up. Also, I understand kerry's voting habits against the military in general, at least what was posted before.

There were links posted on here, yeah, wish I could find them, that kerry voted against most any military weapon or item fielded today.

If it's true that he voted such, then kerry has no place to be talking.

[fred_engles]

A series of Slate articles on the dishonesty of Bush's attacks on Kerry's record, on intelligence spending (http://slate.msn.com/id/2096874/) and defense spending (http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/), respectively.

[Sixgun Symphony]

A series of Slate articles on the dishonesty of Bush's attacks on Kerry's record, on intelligence spending (http://slate.msn.com/id/2096874/) and defense spending (http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/), respectively.


NBC has been known to fabricate news. They are also very partisan for the LibDems.



On February 8, 1993, Americans were treated to an unusually candid look at the realities of contemporary journalism. The occasion was a two-hour press conference called by General Motors to announce that it had filed suit for defamation against NBC.

At issue was a one-minute segment of a story titled "Waiting to Explode?" aired on the network's Dateline NBC video newsmagazine during "sweeps week" in November 1992. The central claim of the story was that GM pickup trucks made between 1973 and 1987 are unsafe because their "sidesaddle" fuel tanks have a tendency to rupture and burn in side-impact collisions. The contested segment seemed to offer dramatic proof of the claim: It showed the results of a test crash commissioned by NBC in which a GM pickup burst into flames after being struck in the side by a car.

GM contended that the test was rigged. In a meticulously documented presentation, GM general counsel Harry Pearce argued that, contrary to NBC's claim that the pickup's fuel tank had been "punctured," X-ray photos showed it had remained intact. The fuel leak occurred because the tank had been deliberately overfilled and was fitted with a nonstandard replacement gas cap that flew off on impact. Worse, NBC had virtually guaranteed that any fuel leak would become a fire by attaching model-rocket engines to the underside of the truck and igniting them by remote control an instant before the crash. Finally, additional videotapes shot by onlookers at the scene showed that what appeared to be a blazing holocaust in the NBC footage was in fact only a fifteen-second flare-up that burned little more than grass.

The network, which had stonewalled GM at every step of its investigation, initially stood firm. While admitting that "sparking devices" had been used in the test, NBC News President Michael Gartner insisted that the story was "fair and accurate." But his defiance was short-lived. The following night, Dateline cohosts Jane Pauley and Stone Phillips ended their program by announcing that a settlement had been reached. They then read detailed statements in which the network conceded the validity of the GM complaints and apologized to both the company and its viewers.

All things considered, NBC had little choice but to capitulate. Aside from the strength of GM'S case, it was faced with widespread criticism from other journalists, who, intent on preserving their own credibility condemned NBC's reporting as an egregious but isolated violation of professional norms.



MORE (http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1993/december/Sa10322.htm)[/url]

[Midav]

Oh, ok thank you!

Interesting. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:SN03189:

Don't see the vote against in here. Looks like I was led...

[budanski]

Ha! even the Democrat's own think tanks said Kerry went too far in cutting military and intelligence budgets. (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040307-120636-3469r.htm)


http://rmeek141.home.comcast.net/BushIn2004.JPG

[fred_engles]

NBC has been known to fabricate news. They are also very partisan for the LibDems.Huh? What do accusations of NBC defamation against General Motors in 1992 have to do with this thread?

[James]

...President Bush included the request as part of the $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq war in 2002.


Eh, the war was in 2003, no? $87 Billion was requested in 2003, too.

Just a thought...

[Sixgun Symphony]

NBC has been known to fabricate news. They are also very partisan for the LibDems.Huh? What do accusations of NBC defamation against General Motors in 1992 have to do with this thread?

This is far more than mere accusations, this is documented history.

You brought in a Slate editorial to the discussion and Slate is part of MSNBC. People here should be told that this liberal network has a history of fabricating news and thus not a credible source.

[Haiw]

And we all know your republican propaganda sites are sooooooo much more reliable... :roll:

Kerry signed against the big 87 billion bill. Not against body armour. Not against kevlar plates. Against the whole 87 billion bill. The body armour was propably just 1 % or so of that whole bill.

[joe mama]

(Assumption of this reply: the bill included the body armor, and it appears we agree that it was included)
The point is this: Kerry is criticizing Bush for not supplying enough body armor, yet Kerry voted against Bush's attempt to provide the armor. If one of the things the bill was trying to do was to provide enough body armor, then Bush was trying to provide the armor, period (yes, it was included with other things, but if Kerry is focusing on the body armor then Bush's attempt to provide it should be the focus). By voting against the bill, Kerry is voting against the attempt to provide the armor (yes, among other things).

If Kerry was/is so concerned about providing body armor, why hasn't he sponsored a bill that would provide the body armor? Or is he just better at criticizing?

This is like the gay marriage issue - Kerry criticizes Bush for favoring an amendment to the US constitution against gay marriage, yet Kerry supports a state amendment against it.
So Kerry is against gay marriage, yet he criticizes Bush for being against gay marriage?

In case you're curious, I think civil marriage should be a union between any two consenting adults (perhaps with restrictions on if they're related too closely) - I don't give a damn if they're straight, gay, bi, or tri****** (they'll try anything, men, women, chickens, mud...). If your church (or whatever) has a different definition, that's your business.

[Seoulstriker]

i didn't know that the executive branch is responsible for apporopriating money for military hardware. that sounds like a job for the legislative body, right Kerry?
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/images/smilies/wowie.gif

if you didn't vote FOR body armor in the senate, then WTF were you doing??? :cantbeli:

[Gringo]

I hate american politics. Too f***ing confusing, but is it anything else?
I don't mean to be anti-american in saying that.

George Dubya Bush is clearly too incompetent to be President.

And John Kerry is just too untrustworthy, considering his history.

[fred_engles]

This is far more than mere accusations, this is documented history.

You brought in a Slate editorial to the discussion and Slate is part of MSNBC. People here should be told that this liberal network has a history of fabricating news and thus not a credible source.Sixgun, that's just stupid. Slate is currently owned by Microsoft (from which it has complete editorial independence). Slate is not, nor has it ever been, part of NBC. MSNBC is a joint venture that was launched by Microsoft and NBC in 1996. There is no relation whatsoever between Slate and NBC, except that they share financial ties to a massive corporation (Microsoft) that allows each of them complete editorial independence.

The article you linked to, Sixgun, was from 1992, and documents a specific accusation of defemation against GM by NBC (NOT MSNBC). At that time, neither the MSNBC partnership nor Slate even existed. Further, the example you cite is a case of crappy journalism, but not of liberal bias - how is GM a political ideology? If anything, anti-GM articles would tend to hurt unionized GM workers, who tend to vote democratic.

If you have any specific examples of inaccuracies in the articles I linked to, I encourage you to share them with us (Slate, I'm sure, would also be interested in publishing any corrections). Until then, leave your shrill accusations of liberal media bias out of this discussion.

I'll also note that Slate publishes a column by Christopher Hitchens, so I don't think you can claim that Slate refuses to publish authors from all parts of the political spectrum.

[Sixgun Symphony]

MicroSoft is a software company. They are programmers, not journalists. That they sign on with NBC to form MSNBC means that NBC does the journalism for MSNBC and the its MicroSoft that puts them online.

Now we know that NBC has a history of liberal bias, we also know that they have been caught fabricating stories.

2 + 2 = 4

[usa320]

Im not shocked. This is comming from a douche who voted AGAINST liberating kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Voted AGAINST programs like the F-16, F-15, F/A-18, B-2 and the M-1A2.

I think this gay wants the US military to be smaller than the Canadian military.

**** i meant guy, not gay, oh well...hes gay, so im not editing it.

[HooyahCQB]

A lot of people are going to vote for Kerry just because they don't want Bush in office...

One time Kerry attended some kind of Arab American meeting saying The Israeli wall is a threat, basically, and then a couple months ago went to an Israeli function to conclude that the wall is necessary for the safety of Israelis...

[Geezah]

Kerry sees Arafat as a legitimate politician rofl he also has a bad habit of being schizophrenic!
The guy is inconsistent in his voting record! it will be a sad day in my household if he gets in :(

[Geezah]

I hate american politics. Too f***ing confusing, but is it anything else?
I don't mean to be anti-american in saying that.

George Dubya Bush is clearly too incompetent to be President.

And John Kerry is just too untrustworthy, considering his history.

Allot of Americans look at British politics the same way, me I won't comment on something until I have somewhat of an understanding and it's only since I've become an armed civilian have I become more political.

Now back home I wish they could clone Baroness Thatcher and put her back in power, I'd probably move back for that :D