Bush Blasts 1995 Kerry Intelligence Bill

DALLAS (AP) -- President Bush on Monday accused John Kerry of having proposed "deeply irresponsible" cuts in intelligence spending just two years after the first attack on the World Trade Center, part of a re-election effort to depict his Democratic rival as weak on national security and the war against terrorism.

Bush, during a fund-raiser in Dallas, called attention to a 1995 bill that Kerry sponsored to trim intelligence spending by $1.5 billion over five years. The cut was part of what Kerry called a "budget-buster bill" to strip $90 billion from the budget and end 40 programs that he said were "pointless, wasteful, antiquated or just plain silly."

Kerry's proposal, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and calls for a peace dividend after decades of spending to thwart the Cold War opponent, never came up for a vote.

"This bill was so deeply irresponsible that it didn't have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate," Bush said.

Bush blasts Kerry over intelligence bill News From the Bush Administration Bush Blasts 1995 Kerry Intelligence Bill

"He's for good intelligence, and yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services," Bush said, shaking his head. "And that is no way to lead in a time of war."

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton said the senator's bill was about opposing "business as usual in our intelligence community" and that he has supported $200 billion in intelligence funding over the past seven years - a 50 percent increase since 1996.

"He voted against a proposed billion-dollar bloat in the intelligence budget because it was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors," Clanton said. "Unlike George Bush, John Kerry does not and will not support every special spending project supported by Halliburton and other defense contractors."

Republicans hope to raise doubts about Kerry's ability to fight and win the war against terror, suggesting that his rhetoric does not match his 19-year record in the Senate. Bush also criticized Kerry for indicating he was uncomfortable "using the word 'war' to describe the struggle we're in."

To fend off such criticism, Kerry has relied in large part on his decorated Navy service in Vietnam.

Later Monday, the president was headlining another fund-raiser in Houston, with the two events pouring $3 million into his campaign account the day before Texas holds its presidential primary.

In between the money events, Bush stopped by the popular Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo to meet with cowboy champions and peruse the cattle on display. The White House called the livestock show an "official" event, and taxpayers paid for most of Bush's travels Monday.

Kerry, who has accused Bush of impeding a federal commission investigating the terrorist attacks, said Monday while campaigning in Florida, "If the president of the United States can find time to go to a rodeo, he can spend more than one hour before the commission."

Monday's cash swing opens a week that will also take Bush to Long Island, N.Y., for fund raising. He has collected more than $160 million for his re-election, closing in on his goal of $170 million.

Bush's home state of Texas, of which he was governor before winning the presidency, remains a bedrock of his political support. Before Monday, Texans had sent his re-election campaign more than $13.2 million, more than any other state, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign watchdog group. Dallas is among the top five metropolitan areas by volume of donations to his campaign.

The Dallas donors, who gave $2,000 each to Bush's campaign, were served lunches in plastic containers. The meals included what one contributor termed room-temperature "chicken somethings," along with mini-sandwiches.

Rep. Ralph Hall, a Democrat who switched to the Republican Party last year, got VIP treatment when Bush landed in Dallas. An aide hustled him up the rear stairs of Air Force One, so Hall could step out atop the main stairs and wave to cameras at Bush's side.

Can we at least go back as far a 1997 for some of Kerry's comments?

Flashback! Excerpt from Kerry on CrossFire in 1997 (Kerry RIPS into France, et al)
SHOW: CNN CROSSFIRE 19:30 pm ET
November 12, 1997; Wednesday 7:30 pm Eastern Time
Transcript # 97111200V20
JOHN SUNUNU, CROSSFIRE: Senator Kerry, in fact, in spite of the administration claiming it has restored unanimity, that has not occurred. All the strength of this resolution had to be pulled out of it get any votes at all other than our own. Isn't this exercise actually counterproductive in sending a signal to Iraq that the coalition still remains frayed?
SEN. JOHN KERRY, (D), MASSACHUSETTS, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, John, you're correct that this resolution is less than we would have liked. I don't think anybody can deny that we would have liked it to have threatened force and we would have liked it to carry the term serious consequences will flow. On the other hand, the coalition is together. I mean the fact is there is a unanimous statement by the security council and the United Nations that there has to be immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access to the sites. That's very strong language. And it also references the underlying resolution on which the use of force is based. So clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that's our great concern -- where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq.
...
KERRY: Well, John, there's absolutely no statement that they have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country. And obviously it's disappointing. It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge.
...
SUNUNU: But isn't what he has seen is a loss of U.S. leadership and an erosion under an administration that has failed to lead?
KERRY: On the contrary. The administration is leading. The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war.
...
KERRY: Correct, absolutely correct, and I believe, and they stood with us today and I am saying to you that it is my judgment that by standing with us today and calling for the unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, you know, access, they have now taken a stand that they are duty bound to enforce and if Saddam Hussein doesn't do that, the president, I think, has begun a process which you remember very well, John, was not done in one week, in one day, in one month. It took months to weave together the fabric to lead up to an understanding of what was at stake. I am convinced that many people have not yet even focused in full measure on what is at stake.
...
PRESS: Are you suggesting, are you calling for a military, U.S. military strike against Iran now before...
SUNUNU: Iraq.
PRESS: Iraq, I'm sorry, before any other United Nations action is taken?
KING: No, I'm saying is that very soon, though, we would have to use the threat of military force because as Bill Richardson said that this, these are delaying tactics brought about by the Iraqis and this is very serious. When you're talking about biological warfare and when you're talking about the fact that they've already adjusted the cameras, they've already fooled around with the equipment which gauges the air, they've already moved some of the devices away from the U.N. inspectors. This is a very, very serious situation and I'm saying that we would have to, I think, threaten very severe military action at an early date. Now exactly what that would be is obviously, we have to get more information on it, but based on I think what all of us know, it is very, very critical and not too much time more can be wasted.

Kerry did a better job of succicently arguing the case for war in Iraq without UN approval than I've heard from Republican leadership.

Kerry has been distancing himself from such strong speech though. He wants to sit at the negotiating table with terrorists. Appeasement in our lifetime.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.