John Kerry- among worst in national security and defense

http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/33670/view?viewtype=best

The Center for Security Policy, a conservative, Washington-based think tank committed to "promoting international peace through American strength," has rated Kerry among the worst on Capitol Hill when it comes to national security and defense. In 1995, the Center gave Kerry a score of five out of a possible 100 points. Two years later, in 1997, Kerry earned a mind-blowing score of exactly zero.

It goes without saying that Kerry has voted against the strategic missile defense shield, as well as U.S. withdrawal from the antiquated Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But while Kerry has gone to every length to inhibit U.S. security, by contrast he has cast two votes in the past ten years to loosen restrictions on the export of dual-use technology -- the sort of technology that enemies of the United States can convert into weapons and turn against us.

So much for Kerry's commitment to the war on terrorism.

[Rot 911]

Yeah, but he's not Bush!

[juanbenae]

im with kurt,,,, again.

[Neilk]

The Center for Security Policy, a conservative, Washington-based think tank committed to "promoting international peace through American strength,

I am really go to listen to that think tank. It sounds like there's no such thing as a bad war to them, as long as America is involved somehow.

No offense Mark, but are you leaving Washington state because you are sick of the liberals there and want to be with fellow Bush supporters here or are the libs kicking you out?

[Drago]

Originally posted by Neilk
No offense Mark, but are you leaving Washington state because you are sick of the liberals there and want to be with fellow Bush supporters here or are the libs kicking you out?

We're kicking him out, but not because he's a Repulican!

[djmcmath]

Wait for it -- the libs just need to post that there was a bunch of other junk on those bills that had nothing to do with the title, and he was really voting against that other stuff, rather than voting against making the US a country capable of defending democracy.

[CamB]

rather than voting against making the US a country capable of defending democracy

Actually, I suspect you will find at the heart of the matter that he has a different view on what is required to "defend democracy".

Other countries defend their democracy quite adequately with far less weaponry.

Originally posted by Neilk
No offense Mark, but are you leaving Washington state because you are sick of the liberals there and want to be with fellow Bush supporters here or are the libs kicking you out?

Nope, Just leaving cuz I can't get Blue Bell ice cream in WA.

[hardflex]

to help make your point, cam

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/...a conservative, Washington-based think tank...

Imagine that!

I think we need to ask Karl Rove's opinion, too, just to make sure.

[djmcmath]

Japan, Israel, et al have saved a fortune in defense spending by riding under the US umbrella. Citing countries that do not routinely send forces abroad to protect other people's rights is a comparing apples to oranges.

You could argue that it is unnecessary to protect other countries' democracies -- and you might be right. You could also argue that it's more important to spend that money in our own country, fixing our own democracy, rather than elsewhere -- and again, you might be right.

(shrug) Whatever.

Dan

[island911]

Originally posted by CamB
rather than voting against making the US a country capable of defending democracy

Actually, I suspect you will find at the heart of the matter that he has a different view on what is required to "defend democracy".

Other countries defend their democracy quite adequately with far less weaponry.

Yeah. . .and a Yugo in east LA, can be defended, quite adequately with far less alarming, than a 911 in east LA.

So what's your point?

[ubiquity0]

Who is the Yugo? Canada?

[nostatic]

I would have voted against the missle shield bs too. Bad science, bad execution, wasted money.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by djmcmath
You could argue that it is unnecessary to protect other countries' democracies -- and you might be right. You could also argue that it's more important to spend that money in our own country, fixing our own democracy, rather than elsewhere -- and again, you might be right.

Well, gee, Dan. If we're gonna do all that, maybe we should just close our borders and stop supporting the U.N. too. We could be an island amongst ourselves. (No offense, island911 )

To hell with the rest of the world! Who needs a bunch of money grubbing panhandlers pulling on our pockets? We have more than enough of them here at home we should be supporting?

Wonder how THAT would go over with these liberal guys?

Randy

[djmcmath]

Stop defending our allies... Yes I suppose you're right. I suppose that's the thing to do. Wait. Wait. I've got a better idea. Let's transfer the whole squad off the base. Let's-on second thought-Windward. The whole Windward division, let's transfer 'em off the base. Jon, go on out there and get those boys down off the fence, they're packing their bags. In fact, get me the President on the phone, we're surrendering our position in Cuba.


Actually, Randy, that's exactly what many liberals want to do.


Dan

[rcecale]

Pretty sad, isn't it Dan?

Talk about wanting their cake and to be able to eat it too!

Randy

[mattdavis11]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
Nope, Just leaving cuz I can't get Blue Bell ice cream in WA.

Enjoy your stay in Odessa Mark.

Originally posted by djmcmath
Wait for it -- the libs just need to post that there was a bunch of other junk on those bills that had nothing to do with the title, and he was really voting against that other stuff, rather than voting against making the US a country capable of defending democracy.

The U.S. Congress really needs to uphold the rules on germaneness.

[350HP930]

Originally posted by djmcmath
In fact, get me the President on the phone, we're surrendering our position in Cuba.

I guess that begs the question, why should we occupy territory in a nation that does not want us there?

[mattdavis11]

Which also begs another question. Why should they be able to take occupancy in a nation that does not want them here? Think sand/water.