The Military Vote
An acquaintance of mine insists that there's a groundswell of support for John Kerry - in the military.
As Hugh notes, this is probably largely balderdash.
But Brendan Miniter notes that there may be something to this; parents of soldiers may be thinking it's time to get their children out of danger; reservists, especially in high-demand specialties that are rotating frequently to Iraq, may be chafing under the stress; officers disaffected by Donald Rumsfeld's fairly radical re-organization effort; people shocked that civilians are having to take up collections to buy things like body armor for the troops; these, say Miniter, are potential Kerry supporters among the military and their families.
If the news got out, says Miniter, it shouldn't happen:
But what it comes down to is credibility. And it's more than voting for and then against the $87 billion to fund troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. While Mr. Kerry was off campaigning and his Senate colleagues were busy grandstanding about the Abu Ghraib scandal, the House Armed Services Committee drafted legislation to increase the size of the military. Congress has already set aside $1.3 billion for higher troop levels and will decide how many more to add sometime in September. The House is pushing for almost 40,000 new troops over the next three years, while the Senate wants 20,000 added next year. Mr. Kerry doesn't need to run for president to get his 40,000 new soldiers, only a little more time on Capitol Hill.
Then there's the small matter of getting soldiers the body armor they need in Iraq. No one can seriously suggest that the military isn't spending enough money. The problem lies in the supply chain, which somehow isn't getting all the necessary gear to frontline troops. But once again, legislation has passed the House to help address the problem and now is in need of a champion in the Senate. And in this case it even has a snappy name, "Rapid Acquisition Authority"--snappy by Capitol Hill standards.
This legislation is very simple. It would allowed the secretary of defense to bypass Pentagon bureaucracy when it comes to equipping soldiers in the field during war. This power would only kick in when a combat casualty has occurred and wouldn't authorize any additional money to be spent. We know it works, because the bill was modeled on an Army test program that successful equipped troops shortly before they invaded Afghanistan.
Put quite simply, there is
no part of either the Democrat
or Kerry's military platform that passes the stink test.
I've been promising for two weeks to fisk Kerry's proposals as re the military and the War On Terror. I'm going to have to try this tonight.
Posted by Mitch at
August 3, 2004 06:35 AM
| TrackBack
Most of the delays in the supply chain are caused by two things. Making sure "disadvantaged companies" are not passed over in procurement. and double and triple checking for fraud. Two areas that concern Democrats more than getting material for the troops. Question for democrats: Are willing to take a chance that you didn't get the best possible price for body armor, or that the contract doesn't go to a minority business, in order to get body armor to Iraq now, rather than later?
Posted by: rick at August 3, 2004 09:41 AMIt is my understanding that the "voting against the $87 billion to fund troops" claim is pretty misleading.
Kerry did vote against the form of the bill that was passed. He wanted to pass a different bill that would have provided the funding for the troops, but had some details different - a form that the President had threatened to veto.
If the other form had passed and Bush had vetoed it, would we be accusing Bush of not supporting the troops? No, because some form of the bill would have been passed.
It wasn't a question of whether or not the troops were going to be funded, it was a question of the details.
Posted by: Jason at August 3, 2004 12:59 PMIn the end the only detail that matters is whether a Senator voted for it or not or whether a President vetoed it or not.
Kerry voted Nay - Bush Signed it
Posted by: ordi at August 3, 2004 04:06 PMRight. And since the tax cut package Bush received was not identical to what he wanted....he passed it anyway. You can spin it anyway you want, but the simple explanation is that Howard Dean was killing Kerry and Edwards in the polls with his anti war stance and they needed to go that direction to take away some of his momentum.
So Kerry opposed the war but pretended to "support" it while and ended up voting for it for political reasons. He then "opposed" the war and voted against the funding because we were doing things in a manner in which he disagreed and did so again, for political reasons. So now, he again "supported" the war because he really voted for the 82 billion before he voted against it. Got that? A growing number of people see this for what it is...politics. And while politics are fine and dandy for most people on highway bills and art buildings, it has no place on issues of national security. Fortunately, Kerry cleared much of this up on where he stands on Iraq and his plans for the future....oh wait...
Posted by: Dave V at August 3, 2004 05:32 PMOk, I don't particularly like Kerry (and I didn't particularly like Gore), but this feels more like the spun points of campaign 2000 to me. These sorts of politics really turns me off of both the Democratic and Republican parties.
An analogy to attempt to clarify my point:
Three friends and I are at a pub. We are talking about getting a pitcher of beer. The bar has Sam Adams and Guinness on tap.
The three friends all vote for Sam Adams. I vote against it because I'd rather have Guinness.
Is it accurate to say that I voted against having a beer?
No. The vote ended up going for a beer that wasn't my first choice.
It isn't wishy washy to have a preference for something other than what gets chosen but accept what is chosen.
The "voted against funding the troops" is only a point if you have any indication that Kerry intended to vote against any bill which included funding.
If you're going to claim that a vote against any form of bill which wants to fund the troops is "voting against funding the troops", then it follows that Bush's intent to veto some forms of that bill was as much of an intent to veto funding the troops as Kerry's vote against this bill was a vote against funding the troops.
Either we must say that Bush had an intent to veto funding the troops or we can't claim that Kerry's vote on this form of the bill equaled an intent to leave the troops high and dry.
If there is any additional evidence that implies that he was going to go against all varients of funding the troops, this point will gain some validity,
At this point, it just feels like badly spun politics.
Posted by: Jason Goray at August 4, 2004 11:48 AM