The Command Post - Op-Ed - John Kerry: The Raw Deal

February 18, 2004

John Kerry: The Raw Deal

This is a duplicate of the original post from the nikita demosthenes website.

Today, John Kerry attacked President Bush for “walking away” from promises to our troops, and not “keeping faith with America’s veterans.”

Kerry accused the President of a series of false charges, including cutting troops’ pay, not providing adequate equipment, and “walking away” from Veteran’s health care.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: John Kerry’s attacks on the President are not supported by the facts or his own record.

The truth is that President Bush has delivered support for our troops fighting in the War on Terror. The Congress passed and President Bush signed an $87 billion supplemental that gave our troops the tools that need to get the job done. President Bush has delivered for America’s troops and veterans:

• The Administration has increased military pay by more than 21 percent over three years, expanded use of targeted pay and bonuses, and improved housing for men and women in uniform.

• The Administration has implemented changes to ensure that veterans receive timely, quality medical care; more than cut in half processing time for claims; and in 2004 will eliminate waiting lists for medical care.

• The President’s FY 2005 budget for VA medical care is more than 40 percent larger than when he took office – enabling a million more patients to receive treatment.

• The President took action to make concurrent receipt benefits law for our veterans.

Senator Kerry voted against the Iraq supplemental that contains the support on which he bases his attack. John Kerry has voted against body armor for troops in combat and health care benefits for active duty Reservists and their families. Additionally, he has a long history of voting against pay increases.

Senator Kerry’s position on the War in Iraq and claims of support for the troops contradict his own voting record. Kerry voted to go to war with Iraq, and then voted against providing the troops with the tools they need to get the job done. The fact is that Sen. Kerry’s position on disarming Saddam was the same as the President’s.

On NPR in March 2003, the OLD Kerry explained his vote this way:

“I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him.” (NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)

According to the House Appropriations Committee, the funds in the November 2003 supplemental that Kerry voted against included:

Force Protection—The conference report increases funds to purchase body armor Special Armor Plate Insert, to clear unexploded ordnance and to increase production of other force protection measures such as armored HMMVV’s and electronic jammers.

Tricare and Reservist Health Care Benefits—The conference report allows inactive reservist and their family members to become eligible for TRICARE health care coverage if they are receiving unemployment compensation or not eligible for any other health coverage. It also includes provisions that expands eligibility time periods for reservists and provides Medical and Dental Screening and Care coverage where appropriate.

Meal Allowances—Prohibits service members injured in combat or training from being billed for meals during their hospitalization. Makes this benefit retroactive to 9/11/2001 and provides reimbursement for those who have already paid meal charges.

Hazard Pay and Family Support—The mark includes a proposed provision which authorizes continued payment of per diem for travel of family members of military personnel who are ill or injured as result of active duty service and includes a provision to continue the increased monthly rate of Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowances through September 30, 2004.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Kerry has voted against support for our troops. During his time in the Senate, Kerry has voted at least 12 times against pay increases for service members.

• Kerry Voted Against FY 1991 Defense Authorization, Which Included 4.1R0pay raise. (H. R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; "Congress Cuts Bush Defense Request, " CQ Almanac, 1990, p. 671-687)

• Kerry Voted Against Allowing Defense Pay Increases If President Clinton’s Federal Pay Freeze Proposal Was Not Enacted. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #46: Adopted 69-30: R 31-12; D 38-18, 3/23/93)

• In 1993, Kerry Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

• Kerry Voted Against Allowing Military Employees To Receive Cost-Of-Living Adjustment In FY 1993. (H.R. 1335, CQ Vote #98: Motion Agreed To 51-49: R 0-43; D 51-6, 4/1/93)

• Kerry Voted To Freeze Military Pay Freeze In FY 1994. (S. Con. Res.18, CQ Vote #72: Motion Agreed To 54-44: R 2-40; D 52-4, 3/24/93)

• Kerry Twice Voted Against FY 1996 Defense Appropriations Bill, Which Provided Increase Of At Least 2.4R0In Military Pay. (S. 1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31, 9/5/95; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95; “Defense Bill Enacted Despite Objections,” CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 11-25)

• Kerry Voted Three Times Against FY 1996 Defense Authorization Bill. The pay increase of at least 2.4R0was also included in this measure. (H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95; S. 1124, CQ Vote #5: Adopted 56-34: R 42-3; D 14-31, 1/26/96; “Goal Of Boosting Defense Budget Eludes GOP Lawmakers,” CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 9-12)

• Kerry Voted Twice Against FY 1997 Defense Authorization Bill, Which Provided 3R0Military Pay Increase. (S. 1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29, 7/10/96; H.R. 3230, CQ Vote #279: Adopted 73-26: R 50-3; D 23-23, 9/10/96; “Clinton Signs GOP’s Fortified Bill,” CQ Almanac, 1996, pp. 10-33 - 10-38)

Posted By nikita demosthenes at February 18, 2004 12:34 PM | TrackBack

Comments

meanwhile,

the president backs away from his economic predictions.

what an a-hole. when will he learn to take responsibility for his words and for his staff?

Posted by: x at February 18, 2004 01:19 PM

Hmm, what does that have to do with whether John Kerry is representing Bush's record correctly?

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 18, 2004 01:41 PM

x You lose in straight sets 0-4, 0-4. Bye-bye.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 18, 2004 02:17 PM

Kerry is a Creep. The intern might be out but the sword of Hanoi Jane is getting bigger and bigger over Kerry's head. Read this blog and newspaper articles about veterans callling Kerry a traitor.
http://hughhewitt.com/

It also has a link to transcripts of what Kerry told the senate commission about "raping, murdering" American soldiers in Vietnam in the early 70's.

Posted by: Ricky Vandal at February 18, 2004 07:45 PM

Can someone explain to me exacty what "x" is complaining about?

Posted by: eric at February 18, 2004 09:21 PM

A point of comparison for blogoholics: x= a terse Tony Foresta

Posted by: billhedrick at February 18, 2004 11:44 PM

Wow theres a mouthful here which Im really not ready to address- but as for the point of "Kerry accused the President of ... not providing adequate equipment" Well that part is clearly true.

Bush decided on invading Iraq in 2001. Despite that didnt only 2/3 have full body armor? Wouldnt a competent administration have redirected it from non combat units in the buildup? And then congress had to pass motions to get all the units equiped in October? Nice leadership Bush, how many Americans did that get killed?
Oh and of course theres the armored humvee's which again thanks to the administrations incompetance they decided not to order before hand. State department warned Bush and DOD that occupying Iraq would be mega dangerous, but Bush and company had the scenario all worked out: they will all live happily ever after. Here's an article which talks about the administrations not budgeting any money to add armor to humvee's in Iraq. Sitting Ducks is the term the soldiers who are driving them use... Thanks George Bush.
I may get back to your other points, I may not, Im certainly not motivated to argue with a bunch of dimwits who think getting over 500 Americans killed, thousands maimed, and turned Iraq into the future home of Al-queida was a good idea.

And Ricky- learn to read. Kerry held hearings after his experience in Vietnam, where by the way he was considered a great officer. The Vietnam Veterens against the war heard testimony from returning vets told their stories of the attrocities they had witnessed and experienced. Kerry later reported this to congress. These stories of attrocites were true and proved to be true. Dont like it? Well neither did the 58,000 American dead either.
And Vietnam Vets who served with Kerry are with him on his campaign ya scum. How many of Bush's flying buddies have you ever seen with Mr. Awol?

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at February 19, 2004 02:53 AM

oh heres the hummer link:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095705/

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at February 19, 2004 02:53 AM

abb2004 Trollery gets you nothing. Lies about atrocities (which were committed by made-up soldiers) were used by Kerry to 'sex-up' his testimony. HOW DO I KNOW THAT? Experience, and the word of close associates of Kerry's. No atrocities. I saw a single prisoner 'abused', and I called a halt to it. How did I do that? I got in an officer's face and told him what he had to do about it. Kerry took no testimony from any real soldiers, and left a dark stain on the men and women who serve in our military that they carry to this day. You do nothing but repeat the very same lies and don't bother to determine what the real facts are in this case. His Congressional testimony has been debunked numerous times, and is available in seconds using YOUR good friend, Google.

You disgust me. I may not agree with President Bush on many issues, but when November rolls around if the Democrats go with this Hypocrite, President Bush is in for another four years.

At least my veteran brothers and sisters are real, and not some figment of Kerry's imagination.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 19, 2004 07:45 AM

Cap'N,

I dont know how you can be so confident when Kerry is around 9 pts ahead of your boy already. Unless you have a "faith-based" plan for making things considerably better and bringing back those jobs I dont know how you could support Bush...

What hasn't he screwed up? Why vote for him? Do you LIKE punishment?

We are poorer, no more secure, and headed into the red for years to come? Is this what you want another four years of?

BTW what happened to those jobs? 360,000 created 2.6 million promised. We are not even keeping up with what we need due to population influx... Pathetic really.

Posted by: what2 at February 19, 2004 09:41 AM

Oh geez...

So what2, are you saying that 2.6 million jobs should have been created instantaneously??? Who's the one being unrealistic now...?
Poorer, no more secure?? Um, have you taken a look at the stock markets lately? Have you taken a look at the unemployment rate? Have you looked at the jobs that are being created??
Headed into red for years to come? Yes, the government is, and that is no wonder due to fighting terrorism and a war, something that should have been done a while ago...

Oh, and btw, serving in the military is a job. So Kerry cutting back on military means more people out of work, not to mention all the American companies working on rebuilding Iraq... a noble cause, with American jobs to boot.

Oh, and not only that, he is going to roll back the tax cuts Bush has given, which would mean rolling back the tax cuts that the lower income brackets also received...

Tax cuts for the rich? Well yeah, since the rich have paid a way higher percentage tax from day one, and they still pay a way higher percentage than the "poor"...

Nevermind helping small business owners... that would just be dumb.

Kerry is King Waffle.
Does Kerry think that he is less "rich" than Bush or something?? Come on...

If anything, I'm hoping for Edwards...
Even though he too has been bitten by the "I hate Bush and will say anything, including lie and come with conspiracy theories, to bash him!" bug...

Posted by: g at February 19, 2004 11:46 AM

what2 Not only are the Veterans going to have a thing or three to say to Mr. Kerry, I think that those men and women who are 'in the boots' are going to have something to say as well.

Have you gandered at the spending proposals from your FairWeatherFriend Kerry?

Not on my watch, Bud.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 19, 2004 01:11 PM

"Oh and of course theres the armored humvee�s which again thanks to the administrations incompetance they decided not to order before hand. State department warned Bush and DOD that occupying Iraq would be mega dangerous,..."

Troll humor. This is hysterical!!! ROFLMAO

Uhhh, dude, a Humvee is a combat vehicle. It has been designed to live its life in "mega dangerous" situations.

The Humvee was designed to be highly mobile. This retro-fitting of armor comes at a price in performance. I'll lay even money there are those whose lives have been saved in Iraq because their Humvee was able to move out of harms way fast enough.

But I guess facts and physics don't matter when you can get off a cheap shot at the CIC. Here, let me help:

HALIBURTON!!!!OIL!!!AWOL!!!LIAR!!!...feel better?

Get a clue.

Posted by: Dark Jethro at February 19, 2004 07:58 PM

If only Hillary would run. It'd be so easy for us then.

Oh, yeah.... I'm baaaaa-aaaaack! hehehehehe (well, kinda back, posting from work here)

Posted by: gus3 at February 19, 2004 09:03 PM

"I dont know how you can be so confident when Kerry is around 9 pts ahead of your boy already"

I have strong reason to believe that those polls are doctored up in Kerry's favor.

I can't wait to see liberals faces when SHOCK all the polls are proven false and way off target. Just like in California!

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 20, 2004 12:25 AM

Very simple equation.

If Kerry is elected, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons by 2010.

Iran, harborer of Imad Mugniyah, health care provider to Ayman Zawahri, home base and sanctuary to Hizbollah, would be purveyor of 25,000 tons of arms to the PLA, (no typo, I hit "A" and meant to), will acquire nuclear weapons under John Kerry's hypothetical watch by the year 2010.

Just say no.

Posted by: jeffers at February 20, 2004 11:54 AM

Under George W. Bush's watch North Korea has acquired nuclear weapons by 2004. Who exactly are the real terror states? Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but our "allies" in the war on terror. If we turn this thing into a clash of civilizations, we WILL loose, and turn earth into a global Vietnam.

Posted by: Len at February 20, 2004 04:13 PM

Len: As I parse your last sentence, I realize that you're saying "...we WILL... turn earth into a global Vietnam." So you're saying we're the ones practicing the scorched-earth policy?

Let me re-iterate: We are NOT the ones turning this into a clash of civilizations. We are the ones DEFENDING civilization itself against Islamo-Fascism. Why are they pissed at us? Because we've shown that social pluralism and tolerance can work. The radicalizing mullahs can't stand that thought.

Posted by: gus3 at February 20, 2004 04:23 PM

///Under George W. Bush�s watch North Korea has acquired nuclear weapons by 2004.///

Yes, except for ten years of useless diplomacy by the Clinton administartion, during which NK developed the technoilogy to produce them, its all Bush's fault.

Get a clue.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 20, 2004 05:21 PM

, ///we WILL loose, ///

Only the dogs of war, Lenny-boy

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 20, 2004 05:22 PM

Yeah....the look on liberal faces will be priceless when the Bush victory shocks the shit out of them!! ha ha Kerry is an anti-American loser, and the Dems believe he is electable...what a laugh!
Oh yeah, and was Ted Kennedy truthful when he said he was 'drafted' by the Green Bay Packers...what a dumb fuck...the libs live in a never never land....they should visit Michael and get a hard one up their whoops e daisy!

Posted by: DickD at February 21, 2004 01:35 PM

I'm gonna be blunt here, because sometimes it takes a clue-by-four to get the point across. Len, what2, and AnyoneButBush2004, this one's for you:

What our troops are defending is the very right you have to post here. Look at what the Islamo-Fascists did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Look at what they're trying to do in Iran. They are squelching the free flow of information. They are eliminating dissent. Anyone who disagrees with Islam "disappears".

Your right to post here is the same as mine. I'm defending the troops who defend that right. You're attacking them. You're using your right to dissent, to defend those who murder dissenters. You're being nothing less than hypocrites of the highest order.

Paul Wolfowitz said it well here.

Posted by: gus3 at February 21, 2004 04:50 PM

I'm extremly well-informed about proliferation issues/the war on terror. All I'm saying is that North Korea is an untenable situation. It's lose/lose. Just wait. If the talks fail now, they'll test soon and we're all in a world of shit.

A second Korean war would kill probably 2 million in a month or so, including 30,000 Americans, and probably start World War III. SHock and awe works both ways, and Korea would be a World War II style bloodbath packed into 6 or so weeks.

Bush's short-sighted oil grab has left us uniquely vulnerable.

As for "global Vietnam" all I'm saying is that asymetrical warfare favors low-intensity insurgents who have NOTHING to lose. Look at our lifestyles in America; fat and comfortable. Some illiterate brain-damaged thug with an AK had nothing to lose. Remember, NO SUPERIOR FIGHTING FORCE has ever prevailed in a low-intensity conflict. Is this what you want for your children and grandchildren?

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the ultimate goal of these fanatics is to cause the nuclear-armed Northern hemisphere to blow each other to shit so they can crawl out of their caves in 50 years and proclaim global Islam. Remember, WE HAVE FURTHER TO FALL THAN THEY DO.

Posted by: Len at February 25, 2004 04:11 PM

Len: Point taken. However...

These fanatics don't realize that we also have lots more people hanging on than they do. And we're dangling ropes to help them climb up to where we are. Some are even climbing down to where they are, in order to lend a literal helping hand. A lot of their subjects (can't think of a better word) are perfectly willing to let go from where they are, in exchange for the prospect of lifting their situation. So, your image is correct, but incomplete.

Posted by: gus3 at February 25, 2004 04:47 PM