SDW, when was the last time you actually debated an issue on its merits rather than on its political implications? Perhaps the latter matters when comparing Kucinich to Kerry, where he has no chance at the nomination regardless of his policies. But with Democrats and Republicans on the national election level, I think the issues are pretty much up for grabs. That said, I think Kerry can run on *anything* he wants, not some narrowly defined agenda. Perhaps some things may be more worthwhile to run on electorally, but there's no reason Kerry or any other candidate can't grab any issue, articulate a position on it in a forceful and effective way, and subsequently make it his own. This is a rather shady example, but Republicans stole national security from Max Cleland after all.
man, i really hope the repubs go after kerry's war record...that would be insane...there is no no no doubt that kerry was a war hero in vietnam, and he has the three purple hearts to prove it...they can try to question his actions after the war, but even that would be dangerous ground...after all a man who has fought and killed and been wounded in war is allowed to question that war....somebody who, during those vietnam years, never faced anything harder than a double gin and toxic and a few lines of coke probably shouldn't even bring those years up...
but the repubs are likely smarter than that...they have other ways to attack kerry...what he did in vietnam is not one of them
but i do see the repubs being afraid of kerry and clark... exposes the chicken hawk syndrome of the current admin just a little too much... two men who have fought in war, who would use war only as a last resort instead of a first thought, who (together) would have domestic and foreign policy nailed and would actually work with countries from around the world instead of alienating them...
I agree completely with that last sentiment. If Bush goes after Kerry's war record, he will prove all over again what a complete fool he is. Someone with no ability to analyze the context of a given issue. While he ended up protesting that war, he was one of the few people that had an unquestionable right to do so, because *he actually fought in it*. Imagine that.
As for Kerry the man, I am starting to warm up to him a bit. I listened to a brief interview he had on the Chicago NPR affiliate yesterday and he had some level-headed answers to obvious questions any of the candidates would be asked. Some of his platform does smack of cliche "Republicans give tax cuts to the rich, etc etc", though they are accurate enough regardless of how often we've heard them.
I like the fact that he comes right out and says he will work to curb the work of the Ashcroft justice regime, putting Civil Rights ahead of "fighting terrorism at any cost". But at the same time continuing the work that makes sense (more seemless communications between local and federal law enforcement).
I also like some of his economic solutions (service projects for college tuition and the like), as they seem simple and pragmatic, rather than boastful without anything to back them up as we usually hear this time before an election.
One thing I don't like is the way his web site sort of has "fake links" that lead you to believe there is detailed information [a click away] about how he intends to battle certain issues, but there is only a line or two rephrasing the same.
In short, it's kind of obvious he's got career politician syndrome in the way he talks about certain issues, in another way he seems unlike a lot of other career politicians in his general approach to problem-solving. I will have to hear more from him certainly, before I decide to vote for him though. Edwards also has my interest.
Here is some good linkage. Some areas are more fully fleshed out than others as I say, but in general he seems to have his head on straight in a number of important areas that Bush's Administration has fouled up.
man, i really hope the repubs go after kerry's war record...that would be insane...
Of course they wouldn't. It's a third rail that Kerry uses at will and Bush cannot touch it.
Kerry is already setting a trap for them. Kerry is trying to equate any criticism of his voting record on the military to questioning the patriotism of a war hero.
And in an e-mail to supporters yesterday, Mary Beth Cahill, the campaign manager for Senator John Kerry, D-MA, a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, denounced a recent speech by Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, saying he "made another desperate attack on the patriotism of John Kerry. _The Republicans have used the same Lee Atwater/Karl Rove attack plan book for decades, and today marks just the beginning of their plan to smear John Kerry."
This is an extension of Kerry?s strategy of anticipating and denouncing imagined attacks on his patriotism before they happen. As Fred Barnespointed out in the Weekly Standard, Kerry said in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations criticizing Bush's foreign policy that "I know what the Bush apologists will say to this ? that it is unpatriotic to question, to criticize, and to call for change._ They are already broadcasting television ads which say just that._ But I believe that flag does not belong to any President or any political party."
Cahill's accusation goes even further, construing legitimate criticism of Kerry?s positions on national defense as an attack on his patriotism. In fact, Gillespie's speech does not impugn Kerry?s patriotism in any way. Introducing a list of positions in Kerry?s record that he disagrees with, Gillespie simply said, "John Kerry?s record of service in our military is honorable. But his long record in the Senate is one of advocating policies that would weaken our national security."
Most cries of "He's questioning my patriotism" are lame attempts to deflect litigate criticism.
When it comes to the presidential race the democrats have flat out said, been quoted, questioning Bush's patriotism. Whereas Bush has said almost nothing about any democrat candidate.
Most cries of "He's questioning my patriotism" are lame attempts to deflect litigate criticism.
When it comes to the presidential race the democrats have flat out said, been quoted, questioning Bush's patriotism. Whereas Bush has said almost nothing about any democrat candidate.
I question the patriotism of a man who would tell inadequate tales to put his country in a war . . . to kill young men and women of his own country without deeply examining, beyond the political positioning the reasons for the war . . .
We, collectively, are this country and we were lied to, and if not lied to then inadequately represented via inadequate research .. . that amounts to virtual treason and if ypu wouldn't go that far then it IS definitely, at least, unpatriotic
but it is sort of like being a CEO of a company...you put forth a plan and if all goes well you get a nice raise, keep you job and get the lion's share of the credit...
if things go badly, you get the lion's share of the blame and likely are fired...
BUSH put forth a plan and if it went well he would ride high and pretty
if it went south, well so would he
that is the nature of the game
but saying Kerry has as much to blame for Iraq as Bush is nonsense...would Kerry get just as much credit as Bush if the war wasn't proving to be such a lie??
just the nature of the beast...if the economy and foreign and domestic policy goes well, president gets re elected....ecomony and foreign and domestic policy suck, president doesn't....
president asks for a war and all goes well, president gets re-elected (usually)
president asks for a war and all the reasons go out the window later, president is screwed (usually)
Ummm...I think you left out the phrase "IN MY OPINION".
I agree there is a large amount of waste by the Pentagon. That needs to be addressed. But, at some point effectiveness IS reduced. It was certainly reduced under Bill Clinton, who cut spending dramtatically. Pilots' hours were cut back, there were practice ammo shortages and equipment was in disrepair. It absolutely affects effectiveness.
Except that the crippled military Clinton bequeathed Bush was the very one that proved so successful in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Except that the crippled military Clinton bequeathed Bush was the very one that proved so successful in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That's dubious at best. In fact, there are many stories of Bush being VERY upset with the Pentagon for taking three and a half weeks to get ready to invade/bomb. I'm not saying it was "crippled" either. We were still the most powerful force on the planet by far, but effectiveness WAS reduced under Clinton. There is no question.
Frankly, you response dodges the issue. The point is effectiveness was reduced, not that we had ZERO effectiveness or readiness.
SDW, when was the last time you actually debated an issue on its merits rather than on its political implications? Perhaps the latter matters when comparing Kucinich to Kerry, where he has no chance at the nomination regardless of his policies. But with Democrats and Republicans on the national election level, I think the issues are pretty much up for grabs. That said, I think Kerry can run on *anything* he wants, not some narrowly defined agenda. Perhaps some things may be more worthwhile to run on electorally, but there's no reason Kerry or any other candidate can't grab any issue, articulate a position on it in a forceful and effective way, and subsequently make it his own. This is a rather shady example, but Republicans stole national security from Max Cleland after all.
I'll be happy to debate any issue. You can even choose which one. I'll be happy to defend my position and listen to yours.
The reason I speak of political implications is that many here, based on their opposition to the President's policies, turn around and draw conclusions about his reelection chances. They do this based on nothing more than their personal political beliefs. Put simply, I don't do that. There are certain issues that get votes, and certain ones that don't. Kerry can campaign on whatever he wants...but the point is, what can he campaign on that he can WIN on?
All I'm saying is that the major, traditional, election-driving issues are going to be hard to run on for Bush's opponents. These generally include National Security and Terrorism (especially today), The Economy, Healthcare, Education, Taxes, etc. Issues like the environment and "special interests" are important, but they really don't drive elections. So I'm just asking...what, beyond "Bush has screwed up X, Y and Z" will he run on? Read his website and every third sentence begins with "The Bush administration". That's not going to do it.
That's dubious at best. In fact, there are many stories of Bush being VERY upset with the Pentagon for taking three and a half weeks to get ready to invade/bomb. I'm not saying it was "crippled" either. We were still the most powerful force on the planet by far, but effectiveness WAS reduced under Clinton. There is no question.
Frankly, you response dodges the issue. The point is effectiveness was reduced, not that we had ZERO effectiveness or readiness.
So what are you saying? That if not for Clinton we could have rolled over Iraq faster?
Seems to me this makes my point exactly-- that military spending does not equal effectiveness. That it possible to reduce spending and still get the job done.
For instance, reducing spending on cold war weapons systems might be said to "reduce the effectiveness" of our capacity to fight the Soviet Union, but have no bearing our actual security. In fact, there is no need to speculate, we have the evidence at hand.
The fact that you bring up Clinton's military budgets further speaks to my point-- that any effort to be rational about the Pentagon's budget will be attacked as "weakening America" and being "soft on defense". That charge was leveled at Clinton (and Clinton was hardly a Pentagon starving peace-nik) repeatedly and yet here we are, with nary a whisper that we are somehow unable to prosecute "the war on terrorism" because Clinton didn't press for more battleships.
So what are you saying? That if not for Clinton we could have rolled over Iraq faster?
Seems to me this makes my point exactly-- that military spending does not equal effectiveness. That it possible to reduce spending and still get the job done.
For instance, reducing spending on cold war weapons systems might be said to "reduce the effectiveness" of our capacity to fight the Soviet Union, but have no bearing our actual security. In fact, there is no need to speculate, we have the evidence at hand.
The fact that you bring up Clinton's military budgets further speaks to my point-- that any effort to be rational about the Pentagon's budget will be attacked as "weakening America" and being "soft on defense". That charge was leveled at Clinton (and Clinton was hardly a Pentagon starving peace-nik) repeatedly and yet here we are, with nary a whisper that we are somehow unable to prosecute "the war on terrorism" because Clinton didn't press for more battleships.
Wow. Clinton was no supporter of the armed forces. He was deathly afraid of comitting ground troops and taking any real action that would risk lives. He completely WAS a peace-nik. Are you kidding?
Don't delude youself into thinking that all that was cut was obsolete technology and weapons that were no longer needed. The armed forces were not at a high level of readiness. The military was neglected badly in the 1990's, and overall morale was low. People tend to think that after the Gulf War, the military remained as it was. Though technology improved, our readiness in terms of being able to fight and win war did not. As far as Iraq, the invasion happened a full 2 years after Bush took office.
[i]Don't delude youself into thinking that all that was cut was obsolete technology and weapons that were no longer needed. The armed forces were not at a high level of readiness. The military was neglected badly in the 1990's, and overall morale was low. People tend to think that after the Gulf War, the military remained as it was. Though technology improved, our readiness in terms of being able to fight and win war did not. As far as Iraq, the invasion happened a full 2 years after Bush took office. [/B]
If you think Bush rebuilt the armed services from it's state of shameful neglect in 2 years you are mistaken. The fighting force that rolled over Iraq was for all intents and purposes the fighting force that Bush inhereted. That simple fact contradicts your contention.
The idea that the military was neglected by Clinton is just plain old knee-jerk reaction.
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow. Clinton was no supporter of the armed forces. He was deathly afraid of comitting ground troops and taking any real action that would risk lives. He completely WAS a peace-nik. Are you kidding?
Oh, forget it, if you think of Clinton as being a "deathly afraid" "peace-nik" I don't see any point in this.
Hehe... can't have it both ways... it takes years and years fot the military to make changes... the changes that Clinton made were for a faster reacting, more mobile force... which is what we have today... huge bases all over the world is not cost effective nor very responsive... they were established in the cold war as roadblocks to the Soviet Union and China.
Now that it's more likely that we'll be fighting smaller and shorter wars...
all of his changes have paid off... To somehow claim that the military made sweeping changes as soon as Bush came to office is flat out wrong. The only thing Bush and Rumsfeld wanted to do was start up Star Wars and missle defense all over again. The biggest black holes of military defense spending ever.
Without the Cold War the military no longer has the virtual blank checks it used to have... they know they have to do more with less.
Kerry voted against BIG military spending projects... yeah so?
Has our military been harmed in some way because of it?
Kerry came back from a war he fought in and protested and testified infront of congress to have it stopped. Why was that so radical? Fellow soldiers dying every day... no end in sight...
Meanwhile since Saddam's capture the number of deaths a month in Iraq have gone UP not down. There goes the whole "Saddam's capture will take the fight out of the insurgent's" theory. If the current rate keeps up the death toll will be at over 800... with many thousands wounded.
Comments
Or do we define "war hero" as someone who supports going to war but doesn't fight in them?
but the repubs are likely smarter than that...they have other ways to attack kerry...what he did in vietnam is not one of them
but i do see the repubs being afraid of kerry and clark... exposes the chicken hawk syndrome of the current admin just a little too much... two men who have fought in war, who would use war only as a last resort instead of a first thought, who (together) would have domestic and foreign policy nailed and would actually work with countries from around the world instead of alienating them...
and the fun begins
g
As for Kerry the man, I am starting to warm up to him a bit. I listened to a brief interview he had on the Chicago NPR affiliate yesterday and he had some level-headed answers to obvious questions any of the candidates would be asked. Some of his platform does smack of cliche "Republicans give tax cuts to the rich, etc etc", though they are accurate enough regardless of how often we've heard them.
I like the fact that he comes right out and says he will work to curb the work of the Ashcroft justice regime, putting Civil Rights ahead of "fighting terrorism at any cost". But at the same time continuing the work that makes sense (more seemless communications between local and federal law enforcement).
I also like some of his economic solutions (service projects for college tuition and the like), as they seem simple and pragmatic, rather than boastful without anything to back them up as we usually hear this time before an election.
One thing I don't like is the way his web site sort of has "fake links" that lead you to believe there is detailed information [a click away] about how he intends to battle certain issues, but there is only a line or two rephrasing the same.
In short, it's kind of obvious he's got career politician syndrome in the way he talks about certain issues, in another way he seems unlike a lot of other career politicians in his general approach to problem-solving. I will have to hear more from him certainly, before I decide to vote for him though. Edwards also has my interest.
Here is some good linkage. Some areas are more fully fleshed out than others as I say, but in general he seems to have his head on straight in a number of important areas that Bush's Administration has fouled up.
Originally posted by thegelding
man, i really hope the repubs go after kerry's war record...that would be insane...
Of course they wouldn't. It's a third rail that Kerry uses at will and Bush cannot touch it.
Kerry is already setting a trap for them. Kerry is trying to equate any criticism of his voting record on the military to questioning the patriotism of a war hero.
Context is everything
...
And in an e-mail to supporters yesterday, Mary Beth Cahill, the campaign manager for Senator John Kerry, D-MA, a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, denounced a recent speech by Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, saying he "made another desperate attack on the patriotism of John Kerry. _The Republicans have used the same Lee Atwater/Karl Rove attack plan book for decades, and today marks just the beginning of their plan to smear John Kerry."
This is an extension of Kerry?s strategy of anticipating and denouncing imagined attacks on his patriotism before they happen. As Fred Barnespointed out in the Weekly Standard, Kerry said in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations criticizing Bush's foreign policy that "I know what the Bush apologists will say to this ? that it is unpatriotic to question, to criticize, and to call for change._ They are already broadcasting television ads which say just that._ But I believe that flag does not belong to any President or any political party."
Cahill's accusation goes even further, construing legitimate criticism of Kerry?s positions on national defense as an attack on his patriotism. In fact, Gillespie's speech does not impugn Kerry?s patriotism in any way. Introducing a list of positions in Kerry?s record that he disagrees with, Gillespie simply said, "John Kerry?s record of service in our military is honorable. But his long record in the Senate is one of advocating policies that would weaken our national security."
...
questioning the president = questioning patriotism
questioning kerry = questioning patriotism
now the footing is fair and they can run on issues instead of attempts at smear campaigning...
g
Most cries of "He's questioning my patriotism" are lame attempts to deflect litigate criticism.
When it comes to the presidential race the democrats have flat out said, been quoted, questioning Bush's patriotism. Whereas Bush has said almost nothing about any democrat candidate.
Originally posted by Scott
Yea right
Most cries of "He's questioning my patriotism" are lame attempts to deflect litigate criticism.
When it comes to the presidential race the democrats have flat out said, been quoted, questioning Bush's patriotism. Whereas Bush has said almost nothing about any democrat candidate.
I question the patriotism of a man who would tell inadequate tales to put his country in a war . . . to kill young men and women of his own country without deeply examining, beyond the political positioning the reasons for the war . . .
We, collectively, are this country and we were lied to, and if not lied to then inadequately represented via inadequate research .. . that amounts to virtual treason and if ypu wouldn't go that far then it IS definitely, at least, unpatriotic
Originally posted by Scott
Kerry voted for it too.
yes he did vote to support BUSH'S plan
but it is sort of like being a CEO of a company...you put forth a plan and if all goes well you get a nice raise, keep you job and get the lion's share of the credit...
if things go badly, you get the lion's share of the blame and likely are fired...
BUSH put forth a plan and if it went well he would ride high and pretty
if it went south, well so would he
that is the nature of the game
but saying Kerry has as much to blame for Iraq as Bush is nonsense...would Kerry get just as much credit as Bush if the war wasn't proving to be such a lie??
just the nature of the beast...if the economy and foreign and domestic policy goes well, president gets re elected....ecomony and foreign and domestic policy suck, president doesn't....
president asks for a war and all goes well, president gets re-elected (usually)
president asks for a war and all the reasons go out the window later, president is screwed (usually)
g
Originally posted by SDW2001
Ummm...I think you left out the phrase "IN MY OPINION".
I agree there is a large amount of waste by the Pentagon. That needs to be addressed. But, at some point effectiveness IS reduced. It was certainly reduced under Bill Clinton, who cut spending dramtatically. Pilots' hours were cut back, there were practice ammo shortages and equipment was in disrepair. It absolutely affects effectiveness.
Except that the crippled military Clinton bequeathed Bush was the very one that proved so successful in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Originally posted by addabox
Except that the crippled military Clinton bequeathed Bush was the very one that proved so successful in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That's dubious at best. In fact, there are many stories of Bush being VERY upset with the Pentagon for taking three and a half weeks to get ready to invade/bomb. I'm not saying it was "crippled" either. We were still the most powerful force on the planet by far, but effectiveness WAS reduced under Clinton. There is no question.
Frankly, you response dodges the issue. The point is effectiveness was reduced, not that we had ZERO effectiveness or readiness.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
SDW, when was the last time you actually debated an issue on its merits rather than on its political implications? Perhaps the latter matters when comparing Kucinich to Kerry, where he has no chance at the nomination regardless of his policies. But with Democrats and Republicans on the national election level, I think the issues are pretty much up for grabs. That said, I think Kerry can run on *anything* he wants, not some narrowly defined agenda. Perhaps some things may be more worthwhile to run on electorally, but there's no reason Kerry or any other candidate can't grab any issue, articulate a position on it in a forceful and effective way, and subsequently make it his own. This is a rather shady example, but Republicans stole national security from Max Cleland after all.
I'll be happy to debate any issue. You can even choose which one. I'll be happy to defend my position and listen to yours.
The reason I speak of political implications is that many here, based on their opposition to the President's policies, turn around and draw conclusions about his reelection chances. They do this based on nothing more than their personal political beliefs. Put simply, I don't do that. There are certain issues that get votes, and certain ones that don't. Kerry can campaign on whatever he wants...but the point is, what can he campaign on that he can WIN on?
All I'm saying is that the major, traditional, election-driving issues are going to be hard to run on for Bush's opponents. These generally include National Security and Terrorism (especially today), The Economy, Healthcare, Education, Taxes, etc. Issues like the environment and "special interests" are important, but they really don't drive elections. So I'm just asking...what, beyond "Bush has screwed up X, Y and Z" will he run on? Read his website and every third sentence begins with "The Bush administration". That's not going to do it.
Do we really disagree here?
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's dubious at best. In fact, there are many stories of Bush being VERY upset with the Pentagon for taking three and a half weeks to get ready to invade/bomb. I'm not saying it was "crippled" either. We were still the most powerful force on the planet by far, but effectiveness WAS reduced under Clinton. There is no question.
Frankly, you response dodges the issue. The point is effectiveness was reduced, not that we had ZERO effectiveness or readiness.
So what are you saying? That if not for Clinton we could have rolled over Iraq faster?
Seems to me this makes my point exactly-- that military spending does not equal effectiveness. That it possible to reduce spending and still get the job done.
For instance, reducing spending on cold war weapons systems might be said to "reduce the effectiveness" of our capacity to fight the Soviet Union, but have no bearing our actual security. In fact, there is no need to speculate, we have the evidence at hand.
The fact that you bring up Clinton's military budgets further speaks to my point-- that any effort to be rational about the Pentagon's budget will be attacked as "weakening America" and being "soft on defense". That charge was leveled at Clinton (and Clinton was hardly a Pentagon starving peace-nik) repeatedly and yet here we are, with nary a whisper that we are somehow unable to prosecute "the war on terrorism" because Clinton didn't press for more battleships.
Originally posted by addabox
So what are you saying? That if not for Clinton we could have rolled over Iraq faster?
Seems to me this makes my point exactly-- that military spending does not equal effectiveness. That it possible to reduce spending and still get the job done.
For instance, reducing spending on cold war weapons systems might be said to "reduce the effectiveness" of our capacity to fight the Soviet Union, but have no bearing our actual security. In fact, there is no need to speculate, we have the evidence at hand.
The fact that you bring up Clinton's military budgets further speaks to my point-- that any effort to be rational about the Pentagon's budget will be attacked as "weakening America" and being "soft on defense". That charge was leveled at Clinton (and Clinton was hardly a Pentagon starving peace-nik) repeatedly and yet here we are, with nary a whisper that we are somehow unable to prosecute "the war on terrorism" because Clinton didn't press for more battleships.
Wow. Clinton was no supporter of the armed forces. He was deathly afraid of comitting ground troops and taking any real action that would risk lives. He completely WAS a peace-nik. Are you kidding?
Don't delude youself into thinking that all that was cut was obsolete technology and weapons that were no longer needed. The armed forces were not at a high level of readiness. The military was neglected badly in the 1990's, and overall morale was low. People tend to think that after the Gulf War, the military remained as it was. Though technology improved, our readiness in terms of being able to fight and win war did not. As far as Iraq, the invasion happened a full 2 years after Bush took office.
[i]Don't delude youself into thinking that all that was cut was obsolete technology and weapons that were no longer needed. The armed forces were not at a high level of readiness. The military was neglected badly in the 1990's, and overall morale was low. People tend to think that after the Gulf War, the military remained as it was. Though technology improved, our readiness in terms of being able to fight and win war did not. As far as Iraq, the invasion happened a full 2 years after Bush took office. [/B]
If you think Bush rebuilt the armed services from it's state of shameful neglect in 2 years you are mistaken. The fighting force that rolled over Iraq was for all intents and purposes the fighting force that Bush inhereted. That simple fact contradicts your contention.
The idea that the military was neglected by Clinton is just plain old knee-jerk reaction.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow. Clinton was no supporter of the armed forces. He was deathly afraid of comitting ground troops and taking any real action that would risk lives. He completely WAS a peace-nik. Are you kidding?
Oh, forget it, if you think of Clinton as being a "deathly afraid" "peace-nik" I don't see any point in this.
Now that it's more likely that we'll be fighting smaller and shorter wars...
all of his changes have paid off... To somehow claim that the military made sweeping changes as soon as Bush came to office is flat out wrong. The only thing Bush and Rumsfeld wanted to do was start up Star Wars and missle defense all over again. The biggest black holes of military defense spending ever.
Without the Cold War the military no longer has the virtual blank checks it used to have... they know they have to do more with less.
Kerry voted against BIG military spending projects... yeah so?
Has our military been harmed in some way because of it?
Kerry came back from a war he fought in and protested and testified infront of congress to have it stopped. Why was that so radical? Fellow soldiers dying every day... no end in sight...
Meanwhile since Saddam's capture the number of deaths a month in Iraq have gone UP not down. There goes the whole "Saddam's capture will take the fight out of the insurgent's" theory. If the current rate keeps up the death toll will be at over 800... with many thousands wounded.
Criticize Kerry for the way he voted for military spending and your going
to come up against how Bush has cut veteran's benefits and injured soldiers since he's been in office.
Originally posted by thegelding
yes he did vote to support BUSH'S plan
...
He didn't vote for a plan. He voted to authorize use of force.