Cheney's 11 Year Congressional Record

[Northgate]

Cheney, 11 years in the House:

96th Congress: 4 Sponsored; 0 became Law

97th Congress: 4 Sponsored: 0 became Law

98th Congress: 8 Sponsored: 0 became Law

99th Congress: 7 Sponsored: 1 became Law
(H.R.1246 : A bill to establish a federally declared floodway for the Colorado River below Davis Dam.)

100th Congress: 7 Sponsored: 1 became Law
(H.R.712 : A bill for the relief of Lawrence K. Lunt.)

101st Congress: 1 Sponsored: 0 became Law

Taken from a Kerry press release, which included this quote from Congressman Spratt (D-SC):

Dick Cheney served in the Congress for 11 years. I served with him for most of these years. In that time, he only passed two bills. One was to build a flood plain on the Colorado River and the other was a bill to help a constituent. What’s even more telling about Dick Cheney’s record in the House is not what he supported but what he opposed – things like Headstart and funding for seniors. It seems pretty dishonest for Bush and Cheney to be attacking John Kerry - who passed 57 bills in the Senate – for his legislative accomplishments.

I say good for them. This is the kind of spine I like to see.

The other thing is, everytime they talk about those 20 years, I hope they talk about what the president was up to during those "lost" years.

Does BushCo really want to go there? I know I do!!!

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
Cheney, 11 years in the House:

96th Congress: 4 Sponsored; 0 became Law

97th Congress: 4 Sponsored: 0 became Law

98th Congress: 8 Sponsored: 0 became Law

99th Congress: 7 Sponsored: 1 became Law
(H.R.1246 : A bill to establish a federally declared floodway for the Colorado River below Davis Dam.)

100th Congress: 7 Sponsored: 1 became Law
(H.R.712 : A bill for the relief of Lawrence K. Lunt.)

101st Congress: 1 Sponsored: 0 became Law

Taken from a Kerry press release, which included this quote from Congressman Spratt (D-SC):



I say good for them. This is the kind of spine I like to see.

The other thing is, everytime they talk about those 20 years, I hope they talk about what the president was up to during those "lost" years.

Does BushCo really want to go there? I know I do!!!

Except that Cheney has had many other accomplishments. He served as Secretary of Defense, for example. He was Deputy Assistant to President Ford. He was the Assistant to the White House COS. He was also the House Minority whip for a year before taking the SOD job.

Kerry is no Cheney. Kerry has turned his four months in Vietnam and a few superficial and questionale "wounds" into the record of a war hero. He was a lawyer for a few years, and Lt. Governor under the fabulous Dukakis. After that he was elected to the US Senate, where's he been on the wrong side of nearly every issue and had almost no major accomplishments. For example, as Reagan pushed for a military build-up that helped end the cold war, Kerry was calling for a nuclear freeze. Oh, good idea. Why do you think we don't hear him talk about his record?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Except that Cheney has had many other accomplishments. He served as Secretary of Defense, for example. He was Deputy Assistant to President Ford. He was the Assistant to the White House COS. He was also the House Minority whip for a year before taking the SOD job.

And you forgot about that meteoric rise in Halliburton's profits in 1998.

The thing is, Bush has made a specific allegation about Kerry:

Twelve hours after Sen. John Kerry accepted the Democratic presidential nod, President Bush took his campaign to the Midwest, where he asserted Friday that his opponent has "few signature achievements" as a senator and cannot be trusted to reorganize government intelligence services, one of the most urgent tasks facing the executive branch.

And now it turns out that Cheney has much fewer signature achievements.

Kerry is no Cheney. Kerry has turned his four months in Vietnam and a few superficial and questionale "wounds" into the record of a war hero. He was a lawyer for a few years, and Lt. Governor under the fabulous Dukakis. After that he was elected to the US Senate, where's he been on the wrong side of nearly every issue and had almost no major accomplishments. For example, as Reagan pushed for a military build-up that helped end the cold war, Kerry was calling for a nuclear freeze. Oh, good idea. Why do you think we don't hear him talk about his record?

Cheney does have an impressive resume, probably more impressive than Kerry's. But let's compare what Kerry did during that period, say, 1968-1992, to what Bush did. Ouch.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by BRussell
And you forgot about that meteoric rise in Halliburton's profits in 1998.

The thing is, Bush has made a specific allegation about Kerry:

And now it turns out that Cheney has much fewer signature achievements.

Cheney does have an impressive resume, probably more impressive than Kerry's. But let's compare what Kerry did during that period, say, 1968-1992, to what Bush did. Ouch.

Thanks BRussell. This is exactly my point.

I realize politics is an intricate game of subtle hypocrisies but come on! To be critical of Kerry's war record while simultaneously defending/dismissing Bush's is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. To claim Kerry is unaccomplished is beyond absurd. And these guys know it. They're just playing the game. Only this time the deck isn't stacked in their favor.

The bottom line is that the American people want a new president. They just want to be assured that the "other guy" is qualified for the job (something they weren't so concerned about four years ago).

[groverat]

Kerry has turned his four months in Vietnam and a few superficial and questionale "wounds" into the record of a war hero.

This is why I want to vomit when Republicans start moralizing about the soldiers; they will happily knife one in the back as soon as it is politically expedient.

[Aurora]

all i can say is Haliburton

[Northgate]

Originally posted by groverat
This is why I want to vomit when Republicans start moralizing about the soldiers; they will happily knife one in the back as soon as it is politically expedient.

BINGO!

[Northgate]

Some of the most important intelligence reforms proposed by the 9-11 Commission, including the creation of a Director of National Intelligence (DNI), might have been adopted over a decade ago if not for the opposition of the Secretary of Defense at the time, Dick Cheney.

In a March 1992 letter to Congress, Secretary Cheney defended the status quo and objected to proposed intelligence reform legislation, particularly the DNI position.

"The roles of the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence have evolved in a fashion that meets national, departmental and tactical intelligence needs," Cheney wrote.

The intelligence reform proposals "would seriously impair the effectiveness of this arrangement by assigning inappropriate authority to the proposed Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who would become the director and manager of internal DoD activities that in the interest of efficiency and effectiveness must remain under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense," he wrote.

A companion letter from the DoD General Counsel elaborated on Secretary Cheney's objections, complaining that the intelligence reform proposal would "give the DNI far more extensive authority and responsibility for program and budget matters than is now exercised by the DCI," which is indeed the whole point.

Secretary Cheney successfully torpedoed the initiative with his warning that "I would recommend that the President veto [the measure] if [it] were presented to him in its current form."

From PAS

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BRussell
And you forgot about that meteoric rise in Halliburton's profits in 1998.

The thing is, Bush has made a specific allegation about Kerry:
And now it turns out that Cheney has much fewer signature achievements. Cheney does have an impressive resume, probably more impressive than Kerry's. But let's compare what Kerry did during that period, say, 1968-1992, to what Bush did. Ouch.

The point is cheney is experienced. Kerry doesn't have the same experience or record of accomplishment.

Northgate:

Thanks BRussell. This is exactly my point.

No it's not. It's his point. Your ignoring Cheney's other accomplishments.

I love this one:

The bottom line is that the American people want a new president. They just want to be assured that the "other guy" is qualified for the job (something they weren't so concerned about four years ago).

With all due respect, that's just stupid. We don't KNOW what people want. We won't know until the election. That's when we'll find out. But according to you, it's all just a formality. The people really, really, want Bush out of there...but hey, we just need to sign some papers first.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
Some of the most important intelligence reforms proposed by the 9-11 Commission, including the creation of a Director of National Intelligence (DNI), might have been adopted over a decade ago if not for the opposition of the Secretary of Defense at the time, Dick Cheney.

In a March 1992 letter to Congress, Secretary Cheney defended the status quo and objected to proposed intelligence reform legislation, particularly the DNI position.

"The roles of the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence have evolved in a fashion that meets national, departmental and tactical intelligence needs," Cheney wrote.

The intelligence reform proposals "would seriously impair the effectiveness of this arrangement by assigning inappropriate authority to the proposed Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who would become the director and manager of internal DoD activities that in the interest of efficiency and effectiveness must remain under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense," he wrote.

A companion letter from the DoD General Counsel elaborated on Secretary Cheney's objections, complaining that the intelligence reform proposal would "give the DNI far more extensive authority and responsibility for program and budget matters than is now exercised by the DCI," which is indeed the whole point.

Secretary Cheney successfully torpedoed the initiative with his warning that "I would recommend that the President veto [the measure] if [it] were presented to him in its current form."

From PAS

So wait...NINE YEARS before 9/11....during the first Bush Administration, Cheney was supposed to predict that we'd need a reorganization? Has it even occured to you that the our intel needs were...I don't know...DIFFERENT then?
You put none of the blame on the 8 year Clinton administration, who sold out US national security and intelligence capabilities to North Korea, Russia, and China? None of the blame? Not even when Clinton and KERRY gutted our intelligence budgets and personnel themselves...while simulaneously reducing military spending by almost 30%? Wow.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by SDW2001
So wait...NINE YEARS before 9/11....during the first Bush Administration, Cheney was supposed to predict that we'd need a reorganization? Has it even occured to you that the our intel needs were...I don't know...DIFFERENT then?
You put none of the blame on the 8 year Clinton administration, who sold out US national security and intelligence capabilities to North Korea, Russia, and China? None of the blame? Not even when Clinton and KERRY gutted our intelligence budgets and personnel themselves...while simulaneously reducing military spending by almost 30%? Wow.

Come on SDW. You know damn good and well that EVERY vote Kerry and Edwards have made will somehow be used/twisted/distorted against them. All's fair my friend.

This thread was setup to talk about Cheney's RECORD. I find it funny that you refuse to allow this type of gross indifference to the voting records of Democrats. You're lambating Kerry's Vietnam purple hearts that happened THIRTY YEARS ago. But, hey, that's cool.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
Come on SDW. You know damn good and well that EVERY vote Kerry and Edwards have made will somehow be used/twisted/distorted against them. All's fair my friend.

This thread was setup to talk about Cheney's RECORD. I find it funny that you refuse to allow this type of gross indifference to the voting records of Democrats. You're lambating Kerry's Vietnam purple hearts that happened THIRTY YEARS ago. But, hey, that's cool.

Excuse me. If you want to look at Cheney's record, then look at ALL of it. You can't just single out his Congressional record and pass judgment on his entire career. He's held many important posts and has been very successful in both private industry and public service. Kerry has a questionable record. He has limited military experience. His purple hearts are questionable. He threw his medals "over the fence", or so we thought. He committed war crimes. He may have been in on the meeting of an anti-war group when they discussed assasinating US Senators to end the Vietnam War. John Kerry was and is the MOST liberal of US Senate. Within this distinction, he has voted inconsistently, particularly in matters of war. He voted against the widely supported Gulf War. He voted for the 2003 Iraq war. He voted against the $87 Billion supplemental. He served as Lt. Governor to Michael "Tank" Dukasis. Kerry even rennacted war footage at the end of his 4 months in Vietnam.

Of course the Republicans will try to turn his record against him. Of course they're portray him as a flopping liberal. Problem is, truth is stranger than fiction.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
So wait...NINE YEARS before 9/11....during the first Bush Administration, Cheney was supposed to predict that we'd need a reorganization? Has it even occured to you that the our intel needs were...I don't know...DIFFERENT then?
You put none of the blame on the 8 year Clinton administration, who sold out US national security and intelligence capabilities to North Korea, Russia, and China? None of the blame? Not even when Clinton and KERRY gutted our intelligence budgets and personnel themselves...while simulaneously reducing military spending by almost 30%? Wow.

You're the one that's always harping on the idea that our problems started long before 911 in the Clinton era ( Not Bush ). What difference does one more year make?

Oh! I forgot there was another Bush in office then.......

So which way is it?

How were our intel needs so different then? We were playing with a lot of the same players.


You're not making sense again SDW.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by SDW2001
He may have been in on the meeting of an anti-war group when they discussed assasinating US Senators to end the Vietnam War.

WTF?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Northgate
WTF?

Now who's wearing the tin foil hat?

[jimmac]

By SDW : "John Kerry was and is the MOST liberal of US Senate. "

Yeah, sounds like a breath of fresh air doesn't it?


-----------------------------------------------------------

" His purple hearts are questionable. He threw his medals "over the fence", or so we thought. He committed war crimes. He may have been in on the meeting of an anti-war group when they discussed assasinating US Senators to end the Vietnam War. John Kerry was and is the MOST liberal of US Senate. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like a rush of hot air doesn't it ?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
You're the one that's always harping on the idea that our problems started long before 911 in the Clinton era ( Not Bush ). What difference does one more year make?

Oh! I forgot there was another Bush in office then.......

So which way is it?

How were our intel needs so different then? We were playing with a lot of the same players.


You're not making sense again SDW.

I'm not sure of your point here. Of course the the intel problems started before Bush 43 and in the Clinton era. How does anything I said contradict that?

What I'm saying is that intelligence needs were different when Cheney was around. These were the waning days of the Cold War. I suppose the parellel you're attemting to draw is that Clinton couldn't have predicted our needs either. I agree with this to an extent and don't blame Clinton for 9/11. That being said, he (with Kerry's help generally hurt the intelligence community and military, without regard to the specific needs of preventing a 9/11. We can't fault them for not creating a more integrated intelligence, just as we can't blame Cheney who served even earlier chronologiclly. What we can say is that Clinton, Kerry et al, hurt our human intel and field operative capabilities by reducing personnel, resources and even tactics used to gather intelligence.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm not sure of your point here. Of course the the intel problems started before Bush 43 and in the Clinton era. How does anything I said contradict that?

What I'm saying is that intelligence needs were different when Cheney was around. These were the waning days of the Cold War. I suppose the parellel you're attemting to draw is that Clinton couldn't have predicted our needs either. I agree with this to an extent and don't blame Clinton for 9/11. That being said, he (with Kerry's help generally hurt the intelligence community and military, without regard to the specific needs of preventing a 9/11. We can't fault them for not creating a more integrated intelligence, just as we can't blame Cheney who served even earlier chronologiclly. What we can say is that Clinton, Kerry et al, hurt our human intel and field operative capabilities by reducing personnel, resources and even tactics used to gather intelligence.

Another typical " I don't understand ".

Translation :" I don't want to hear ".

Geez.

[sammi jo]

How the hell does Cheney have the gall to even venture into the 'military service' debate? Cheney is one of the archetypal CHICKENHAWKS, meaning individuals who favor military solutions to political problems but who themselves avoided military service during wartime.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace126.html

Here are a few more chickenhawks:

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHG...20Chickenhawks