PDA

View Full Version : Text of Rudolph Giuliani's RNC Speech



Tommy Duncan
08-31-2004, 02:41 AM
www.guardian.co.uk/uslate...55,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4462755,00.html)

Text of Rudolph Giuliani's RNC Speech

Tuesday August 31, 2004 3:46 AM
The Associated Press

The text of former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's speech as prepared for delivery Monday at the Republican National Convention:
---

Welcome to the capital of the World.

New York was the first capital of our great nation. It was here in 1789 in lower Manhattan that George Washington took the oath of office as the first President of the United States.

It was here in 2001 in lower Manhattan that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center and said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, ``They will hear from us.''

They have heard from us! They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban. They heard from us in Iraq and we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.

They heard from us in Libya and without firing a shot Gadhafi abandoned weapons of mass destruction.

They are hearing from us in nations that are now more reluctant to sponsor terrorists.

So long as George Bush is President, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us until we defeat global terrorism.

We owe that much and more to those loved ones and heroes we lost on September 11th.

The families of some of those we lost on September 11th are here with us. To them, and all those families affected by September 11th, we recognize the sacrifices your loved ones and you have made. You are in our prayers and we are in your debt.

This is the first Republican Convention ever held in New York City. It makes a statement that New York City and America are open for business and stronger than ever.

We're not going to let the threat of terrorism stop us from leading our lives.

From the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, to President George W. Bush our party's great contribution is to expand freedom in our own land and all over the world.

And our party is at its best when it makes certain that we have a powerful national defense in a still very dangerous world.

I don't believe we're right about everything and Democrats are wrong about everything.

Neither party has a monopoly on virtue.

But I do believe that there are times in our history when our ideas are more necessary and important for what we are facing.

There are times when leadership is the most important.

On September 11, this city and our nation faced the worst attack in our history.

On that day, we had to confront reality. For me, standing below the north tower and looking up and seeing the flames of hell and then realizing that I was actually seeing a man - a human being - jumping from the 101st or 102nd floor drove home to me that we were facing something beyond anything we had ever faced before.

We had to concentrate all of our energy, faith and hope to get through those first hours and days. And I will always remember that moment as we escaped the building we were trapped in at 75 Barclay Street and realized that things outside might be even worse than they were inside the building.

We did the best we could to communicate a message of calm and hope, as we stood on the pavement seeing a massive cloud rushing through the cavernous streets of lower Manhattan.

Our people were so brave in their response.

At the time, we believed we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, ``Thank God George Bush is our President.''

And I say it again tonight, ``Thank God George Bush is our President.''

On September 11, George W. Bush had been President less than eight months. This new president, vice president, and new administration were faced with the worst crisis in our history.

President Bush's response in keeping us unified and in turning the ship of state around from being solely on defense against terrorism to being on offense as well and for his holding us together.

For that and then his determined effort to defeat global terrorism, no matter what happens in this election, President George W. Bush already has earned a place in our history as a great American president.

But let's not wait for history to present the correct view of our president. Let us write our own history. We need George Bush now more than ever.

The horror, the shock and the devastation of those attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and over the skies of Pennsylvania lifted a cloud from our eyes.

We stood face to face with those people and forces who hijacked not just airplanes but a religion and turned it into a creed of terrorism dedicated to eradicating us and our way of life.

Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It had been festering for many years.

And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun.

The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government.

Action like this became the rule, not the exception. Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.

In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro and murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer.

They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish.

Some of those terrorists were released and some of the remaining terrorists allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals.

So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response, particularly in Europe, was ``accommodation, appeasement and compromise.''

And worse the terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.

Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table.

How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?

Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of the world much like our observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate ourselves to peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union through mutually assured destruction.

President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism but we must also be on offense.

On September 20, 2001, President Bush stood before a joint session of Congress, a still grieving and shocked nation and a confused world and he did change the direction of our ship of state.

He dedicated America under his leadership to destroying global terrorism.

The president announced the Bush Doctrine when he said: ``Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there.

It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

``Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.''

And since September 11th President Bush has remained rock solid.

It doesn't matter how he is demonized. It doesn't matter what the media does to ridicule him or misinterpret him or defeat him.

They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan.

But like President Bush, they were optimists; leaders must be optimists. Their vision was beyond the present and set on a future of real peace and true freedom.

Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership. President Bush has the courage of his convictions.

In choosing a president, we really don't choose a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or liberal.

We choose a leader.

And in times of danger, as we are now in, Americans should put leadership at the core of their decision.

There are many qualities that make a great leader but having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader.

Winston Churchill saw the dangers of Hitler while his opponents characterized him as a warmongering gadfly.

Ronald Reagan saw and described the Soviet Union as ``the evil empire'' while world opinion accepted it as inevitable and belittled Ronald Reagan's intelligence.

President Bush sees world terrorism for the evil that it is. John Kerry has no such clear, precise and consistent vision. This is not a personal criticism of John Kerry. I respect him for his service to our nation.

But it is important to see the contrast in approach between the two men; President Bush, a leader who is willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion shifts, and John Kerry, whose record in elected office suggests a man who changes his position often even on important issues.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, John Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War. Later he said he actually supported the war.

Then in 2002, as he was calculating his run for president, he voted for the war in Iraq.

And then just 9 months later, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental budget to fund the war and support our troops.

He even, at one point, declared himself an anti-war candidate. Now, he says he's pro-war. At this rate, with 64 days left, he still has time to change his position at least three or four more times.

My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words when he said, ``I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.''

Maybe this explains John Edwards' need for two Americas - one where John Kerry can vote for something and another where he can vote against the same thing.

Yes, people in public office at times do change their minds, I've done that, or they realize they are wrong or circumstances change.

But John Kerry has made it the rule to change his position, rather than the exception. In October, 2003, he told an Arab-American Institute in Detroit that a security barrier separating Israel from the Palestinian Territories was a ``barrier to peace.''

A few months later, he took exactly the opposite position. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post he said, ``Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense.''

The contrasts are dramatic. They involve very different views of how to deal with terrorism. President Bush will make certain that we are combatting terrorism at the source, beyond our shores, so we can reduce the risk of having to confront it in the streets of New York.

John Kerry's record of inconsistent positions on combatting terrorism gives us no confidence he'll pursue such a determined course.

President Bush will not allow countries that appear to have ignored the lessons of history and failed for over thirty years to stand up to terrorists, to dissuade us from what is necessary for our defense.

He will not let them set our agenda. Under President Bush, America will lead rather than follow.

John Kerry's claim that certain foreign leaders who opposed our removal of Saddam Hussein prefer him, raises the risk that he would accommodate his position to their viewpoint.

It would hardly be the first time he changed his position on matters of war and peace.

I remember the days following September 11th when we were no longer Democrats or Republicans, but Americans determined to do all we could to help the victims, to rebuild our city and nation and to disable our enemies.

I remember President Bush coming here on September 14, 2001 and lifting the morale of our rescue workers by talking with them and embracing them and staying with them much longer than originally planned.

In fact, if you promise to keep it just between us so I don't get in trouble it was my opinion that the Secret Service was concerned about the president remaining so long in that area.

With buildings still unstable, with fires raging below ground of 2000 degrees or more, there was good reason for concern.

Well the president remained there and talked to everyone, the firefighters, the police officers, the healthcare workers, the clergy, but the people who spent the most time with him were our construction workers.

Now New York construction workers are very special people. I'm sure this is true all over but I know the ones here the best. They were real heroes along with many others that day, volunteering immediately. And they're big, real big. Their arms are bigger than my legs and their opinions are even bigger than their arms. Now each one of them would engage the president and I imagine like his cabinet give him advice. They were advising him in their own words on exactly what he should do with the terrorists. Of course I can't repeat their exact language.

But one of them really went into great detail and upon conclusion of his remarks President Bush said in a rather loud voice, ``I agree.''

At this point the guy just beamed and all his buddies turned toward him in amazement.

The guy just lost it.

So he reached over, embraced the president and began hugging him enthusiastically.

A Secret Service agent standing next to me looked at the president and the guy and instead of extracting the president from this bear hug, he turned toward me and put his finger in my face and said, ``If this guy hurts the president, Giuliani you're finished.''

Meekly, and this is the moral of the story, I responded, ``but it would be out of love.''

I also remember the heart wrenching visit President Bush made to the families of our firefighters and police officers at the Javits Center.

I remember receiving all the help, assistance and support from the president and even more than we asked.

For that I will be eternally grateful to President Bush.

And I remember the support being bipartisan and actually standing hand in hand Republicans and Democrats, here in New York and all over the nation.

During a Boston Red Sox game there was a sign held up saying Boston loves New York.

I saw a Chicago police officer sent here by Mayor Daley directing traffic in Manhattan.

I'm not sure where he sent the cars, they are probably still riding around the Bronx, but it was very reassuring to know how much support we had.

And as we look beyond this election - and elections do accentuate differences - let's make sure we rekindle that spirit that we are one - one America - united to end the threat of global terrorism.

Certainly President Bush will keep us focused on that goal. When President Bush announced his commitment to ending global terrorism, he understood - I understood, we all understood - it was critical to remove the pillars of support for the global terrorist movement.

In any plan to destroy global terrorism, removing Saddam Hussein needed to be accomplished.

Frankly, I believed then and I believe now that Saddam Hussein, who supported global terrorism, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people, permitted horrific atrocities against women, and used weapons of mass destruction, was himself a weapon of mass destruction.

But the reasons for removing Saddam Hussein were based on issues even broader than just the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

To liberate people, give them a chance for accountable, decent government and rid the world of a pillar of support for global terrorism is something for which all those involved from President Bush to the brave men and women of our armed forces should be proud.

President Bush has also focused on the correct long-term answer for the violence and hatred emerging from the Middle East. The hatred and anger in the Middle East arises from the lack of accountable governments.

Rather than trying to grant more freedom, create more income, improve education and basic health care, these governments deflect their own failures by pointing to America and Israel and other external scapegoats.

But blaming these scapegoats does not improve the life of a single person in the Arab world. It does not relieve the plight of even one woman in Iran.

It does not give a decent living to a single soul in Syria. It certainly does not stop the slaughter of African Christians in the Sudan.

The changes necessary in the Middle East involve encouraging accountable, lawful governments that can be role models.

This has also been an important part of the Bush Doctrine and the president's vision for the future.

Have faith in the power of freedom.

People who live in freedom always prevail over people who live in oppression. That's the story of the Old Testament. That's the story of World War II and the Cold War.

That's the story of the firefighters and police officers and rescue workers who courageously saved thousands of lives on September 11, 2001.

President Bush is the leader we need for the next four years because he sees beyond today and tomorrow. He has a vision of a peaceful Middle East and, therefore, a safer world. We will see an end to global terrorism. I can see it. I believe it. I know it will happen.

It may seem a long way off. It may even seem idealistic. But it may not be as far away and idealistic as it seems.

Look how quickly the Berlin Wall was torn down, the Iron Curtain ripped open and the Soviet Union disintegrated because of the power of the pent-up demand for freedom.

When it catches hold there is nothing more powerful than freedom. Give it some hope, and it will overwhelm dictators, and even defeat terrorists. That is what we have done and must continue to do in Iraq.

That is what the Republican Party does best - when we are at our best, we extend freedom.

It's our mission. And it's the long-term answer to ending global terrorism. Governments that are free and accountable.

We have won many battles - at home and abroad - but as President Bush told us on September 20, 2001 it will take a long-term determined effort to prevail.

The war on terrorism will not be won in a single battle. There will be no dramatic surrender. There will be no crumbling of a massive wall.

But we will know it. We'll know it as accountable governments continue to develop in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

We'll know it as terrorist attacks throughout the world decrease and then end.

And then, God willing, we'll all be able on a future anniversary of September 11th to say to our fallen brothers and sisters, to our heroes of the worst attack in our history and to our heroes who have sacrificed their lives in the war on terror.

We will say to them we have done all that we could with our lives that were spared to make your sacrifices build a world of real peace and true freedom.

We will make certain in the words of President Bush that they have heard from us.

That they have heard from us a message of peace through free, accountable, lawful and decent governments giving people hope for a future for themselves and their children.

God bless each one we have lost, here and abroad, and their families. God bless all those defending our freedom. God bless America.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

Joe Chalupa
08-31-2004, 02:49 AM
Heard it all before and Giuliani's delivery was not that great.

He sure ain't no Bill Clinton.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

It didn't move me.

Yeah, I have a biased view point but what did you expect?

But John and Rudy set the stage for next 3 days.

When is Rnold going to speak?

Aggie Hoopsfan
08-31-2004, 02:51 AM
Giuliani is going to wax the floor with whoever runs in '08.

Anyone catch MSNBC tonight? They had one of his former press secretaries on there, Kim Serafin or something like that, talk about a babe!

Aggie Hoopsfan
08-31-2004, 02:53 AM
Damn google didn't take long for me on that one...

www.kimserafin.com/home.html (http://www.kimserafin.com/home.html)

http://www.kimserafin.com/photos/pics/kim_dogs.jpg

Joe Chalupa
08-31-2004, 02:55 AM
Giuliani has too many skeletons in his closet and I don't think conservatives will approve of his sexual exploits.

But could it be McCain and ....?

T Park Num 9
08-31-2004, 04:18 AM
He aint got half the skeltons ole Clintonion had.


I wouldnt vote for him myself, he is pretty much a John McCain, a moderate independant.


I wish JC Watts or John Kasich would get the nodd, sadly they are both retired.

Aggie Hoopsfan
08-31-2004, 04:43 AM
Rudy would be one hell of a leader and if anyone fvcked with this country he'd be kicking their ass 24 hours later. We could be so lucky.

MadeFromDust
08-31-2004, 05:11 AM
Man, I'm watching the replay right now and he really ripped into Hanoi John's duplicity and hypocrisy. And the neat thing is he didn't have to say anything new. He just used Ketchup boy's own words.

JohnnyMarzetti
08-31-2004, 04:25 PM
Rudy, that was shameful.

9/11, 9/11,
terror terror terror,
Bush is our savior,
Bush is Churchill,
Bush is God.

This was his speech.
I lost all the respect I had for Guiliani during this one speech.
How can republicans so openly exploit a national tragedy like this?

Tommy Duncan
08-31-2004, 04:32 PM
I seem to recall Clinton blaming the OKC bombing on talk radio.

But you're right, we should just pretend that 9/11 never happened. After all, Clinton pretended throughout the 1990's that Islamist terrorism was not a threat to these United States.

So let's forget about 9/11 again. After all that would make it more likely Kerry would get elected so we can forget about Islamist terrorism all over again.

Yonivore
08-31-2004, 04:35 PM
Why is it exploitation?

Should the administration just ignore the single most defining moment of Bush's presidency? I think it would be a farce to have left it out.

President Bush's response to the 9/11 attacks, in many people's minds (yeah, yeah, I know -- not your's), define his character, leadership, and integrity.

Plus, I believe the nation is in danger of becoming complacent again...to the point that another September 11th would be possible. This is an appropriate reminder at a time when the nation is deciding between a President who has demonstrated how he will respond to terrorists and a Senator would has flip flopped over the issue since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait over a decade ago.

Face it. This election is about our national security and who best to protect the homeland from a future 9/11. As, Senator McCain said last night...all the domestic issues, while important, are irrelevant when viewed alongside the threat of terrorism.

I know liberals would like for the terrorism issue (especially President Bush's response to 9/11) to be off limits; after all, their record is abysmal on the subject. But, I believe a majority of Americans see it as the #1 issue and, so, the Republicans are going to address it and show how this President is the right man for the job.

Go suck your thumb for 40 minutes while you wait for the evacuation order.

Spurminator
08-31-2004, 04:43 PM
Rudy Giuliani was the face of NYC after 9/11. He was the most admired leader in the world at that time, even moreso than Bush.

If you don't think he has license to discuss 9/11, you're a desperately hopeless partisan parrot.

Aggie Hoopsfan
08-31-2004, 04:43 PM
Johnny,

All the DNC consisted of was:

"Kerry isn't Bush. mumble mumble. Kerry served four months in 'Nam, he's a war hero. mumble mumble"

For three straight nights.

Gimme a break.

T Park Num 9
08-31-2004, 04:47 PM
But Aggie,

hes not a president of War.

But then he is.

Then he isnt.



AGGGGGGGGGGG

Nbadan
08-31-2004, 08:05 PM
Giuliani Charges Lack Context

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 31, 2004; 6:44 PM

Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani made a number of specific attacks based on statements allegedly made by Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry in his speech to the Republican National Convention Monday night. But Giuliani's description of those comments often lacked context.

For example, Giuliani said: "In October of 2003, he told an Arab American institute in Detroit that a security barrier separating Israel from the Palestinian territories was a barrier to peace. Okay. Then a few months later, he took exactly the opposite position."

The context: When Kerry made his statement about a "barrier to peace," he was referring to, as he put it, the "Israeli government's decision to build the barrier off of the Green Line [the de facto boundary between Israel and the West Bank] -- cutting deep into Palestinian areas."

Kerry's stance was similar to the position taken by President Bush a few months earlier, in July 2003, when he said in the Rose Garden: "I think the wall is a problem, and I discussed this with [Israeli Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon. It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and Israel with a wall snaking through the West Bank."

The Bush administration has spent months negotiating with the Israelis the precise route of the fence. Both Kerry and Bush opposed involvement of the International Court of Justice in the matter.

Giuliani: "I quote John Kerry: 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.' "

The context: The administration's request for the funding was controversial, even among Republicans, and various attempts were made to split off $67 billion for the troops from the $20 billion for reconstruction, or to turn the $20 billion grant into a loan, or to fund some of the spending by raising taxes on incomes greater than $312,000. Kerry voted for a different version of the bill, just as Bush had vowed to veto a version that originally passed in the Senate that would have converted half of the Iraq rebuilding plan into a loan.

Giuliani: "Just a few months ago, John Kerry kind of leaked out that claim that certain foreign leaders who opposed our removal of Saddam Hussein prefer him."

The context: The reporter who provided a pool report on Kerry's comments at a fundraiser in March later said she had mistranscribed the comments, and Kerry actually did not use the word "foreign." He also did not refer to Saddam Hussein. Speaking to supporters who noted the opposition to Bush overseas, Kerry said: "I've been hearing it, I'll tell you. The news, the coverage in other countries, the news in other places. I've met more leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy they look at you and say, you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that."

From the full conversation, it appears clear Kerry is speaking about dislike of Bush and his policies by leaders overseas, but not necessarily the invasion of Iraq.

Giuliani: "He even, at one point, declared himself an antiwar candidate, and now he says he's a pro-war candidate."

The context: Giuliani's statement appears derived from an appearance by Kerry in January in which he was asked on MSNBC's "Hardball" if he was one of the candidates "unhappy with the war has been fought, the way it's been fought . . . are you one of the antiwar candidates?" He answered: "I am. Yes. In the sense that I don't believe the president took to us war as he should have, yes. Absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris. Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was and we should have done it right."

Chris Mathews, host of "Hardball," has protested to the Bush campaign the use of the statement that Kerry called himself an antiwar candidate, saying the remarks were taken out of context.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50256-2004Aug31.html)

Tommy Duncan
08-31-2004, 08:18 PM
Splitting hairs. Too bad Kessler can't write an article putting 9-11 in context, eh?

Aggie Hoopsfan
08-31-2004, 08:55 PM
You want to talk context?

Howabout Kerry saying we need better intelligence yet voting immediately after 9/11 to cut intelligence funding by 6 billion?

Stuff that context in your pipe and smoke it Dan.

Nbadan
08-31-2004, 09:04 PM
Howabout Kerry saying we need better intelligence yet voting immediately after 9/11 to cut intelligence funding by 6 billion?

W. did the same thing.

Next.

Aggie Hoopsfan
08-31-2004, 09:23 PM
W. did the same thing.

Um, excuse me?

Bush asked for and got over 3 billion in funds for the DoD and intelligence services in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, try again.

It's increased every year since then as well.

Just because you pulled it out of your ass doesn't mean it's fact.

Nbadan
08-31-2004, 09:42 PM
Bush asked for and got over 3 billion in funds for the DoD and intelligence services in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, try again

That's right. W. proposed a cut in intelligence spending immediately before 911. Doesn't that make it all the more better?

SpursWoman
08-31-2004, 09:49 PM
Link (http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=3284)

Thursday, August 12, 2004


Setting the Record Straight: Intelligence Funding

Kerry Claim: In a "Reality Check" release, the Kerry campaign is once again trying to mislead on the facts of his intelligence cuts, contending they only had to do with cutting funding for the National Reconnaissance Office.

The Truth: Kerry's bill, S. 1290, called for across the board intelligence cuts and does not mention the National Reconnaissance Office at all. The entire text relevant to intelligence funding in the bill reads: "Reduce the intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000." Kerry's proposal did not target "pet projects and pork" as his campaign now claims, but simply cut the top line of the intelligence budget. Not even the Washington Post could find evidence that Kerry's proposal was specifically targeted at the NRO.

Kerry's other intelligence cut was introduced in 1994 and would have reduced the intelligence budget across the board by $6 billion over five years. Kerry's 1994 proposal also had nothing to do with the National Reconnaissance Office, which is not even mentioned in the bill. The bill text says the intelligence cut is from the "national foreign intelligence program" and "tactical intelligence and related activities"--the two areas that make up the entire intelligence budget.

Then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) said previous intelligence cuts were "as deep as the intelligence community can withstand" and argued that Kerry's reductions ignored terrorism and imperiled national security. DeConcini claimed Kerry's bill would cut the intelligence budget by $5 billion over five years. Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) warned that Kerry's cut "would severely hamper" intelligence efforts.

SpursWoman
08-31-2004, 09:54 PM
Link (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/09/bush_hits_kerry_try_in_1995_to_cut_intelligence/)

Bush hits Kerry try in 1995 to cut intelligence

'Misleading attack,' senators camp says

By Wayne Washington, Globe Staff, 3/9/2004

WASHINGTON -- President Bush yesterday blasted John F. Kerry for proposing to cut intelligence funding two years after the first attack on the World Trade Center, calling the budget-reduction legislation the Massachusetts senator filed in 1995 "deeply irresponsible," given the threat of terrorism.

Bush's comments, made during a campaign fund-raiser in Dallas, represented one of the few times the president has criticized the presumptive Democratic nominee by name. The criticism focused on a Kerry proposal to cut $1.5 billion from intelligence funding over five years as part of proposed legislation to eliminate a total of $90 billion from 40 programs that the senator called "pointless, wasteful, antiquated, or just plain silly" in September 1995.

"His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single cosponsor in the United States Senate," Bush said. "Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways. He's for good intelligence, yet he was willing to gut the intelligence service. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war."

The Kerry campaign, which obtained Bush's remarks before they were actually made, characterized them as a "misleading attack" on an attempt to curb wasteful spending. The cut in funding for defense intelligence that Kerry proposed amounted to slightly more than 1 percent of the overall budget for intelligence gathering at a time when the federal government was running a deficit.

"You bet John Kerry voted against business as usual in our intelligence community. He voted against a proposed billion-dollar bloat in the intelligence budget, because it was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors," said one of Kerry's spokesmen, Chad Clanton. "Unlike George Bush, John Kerry does not and will not support every special spending project supported by Halliburton and other defense contractors."

Campaigning in Florida, Kerry fired back at Bush, criticizing him for taking time to watch a rodeo in Texas yesterday while limiting his scheduled appearance before leaders of an independent commission investigating what intelligence the United States had before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"If the president of the United States can find the time to go to a rodeo, he can find the time to do more than one hour in front of a commission that is investigating what happened to America's intelligence and why we are not stronger today," Kerry told a crowd of 600 gathered outside the West Palm Beach Public Library yesterday. "The president's been stonewalling the effort of our own country to know what happened."

The exact amount of intelligence spending is classified, but estimates compiled by the Center for Defense Information, a private monitoring group, indicate that the United States spent about $26.6 billion in fiscal year 1996 on intelligence. The center estimates that the United States spent between $33 billion on intelligence in fiscal year 2002.

In a statement responding to Bush's remarks, the Kerry campaign sought to explain the senator's proposed cut in 1995. "It was widely known that the intelligence budget was overridden with pet projects and pork and was no longer appropriate to the intelligence tasks at hand," the statement read.

Bush's criticism of Kerry, and the senator's response, illustrate the arguments they plan to use against each other as the campaign unfolds.

The president plans to portray Kerry as a weak-on-defense, flip-flopping liberal, and Kerry plans to paint the Bush administration as out of touch, bull-headed, and wrong.

Even before Kerry all but sealed the Democratic presidential nomination with his near sweep of the March 2 primaries, the Bush campaign had begun to focus on the Massachusetts senator. Before the field winnowed, Bush had mocked the Democratic contenders as being in favor of the war in Iraq and against it, in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement and against it, and in favor of tax cuts and against them. "And that's just one senator from Massachusetts," Bush has said to laughs from partisan audiences.

Bush continued on that theme again yesterday. He prefaced his criticism by saying "one very important part of this war is intelligence-gathering" and contrasted Kerry's 1995 legislation with his statements during the campaign about the need for good intelligence in the war on terror.

"My opponent clearly has strong beliefs," he said. "They just don't last very long." ( :lol )

Patrick Healy of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

SpursWoman
08-31-2004, 10:05 PM
Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/28/MNG1Q5ALU51.DTL)


"He talks about the need to strengthen homeland security despite voting against homeland security legislation six times. He talks about unilateral pre- emption and the need to strengthen alliances and then insults our allies by ignoring the more than 30-member coalition standing by America's side,'' Schmitt said. "He calls for more intelligence funding, but he proposed to cut intelligence funding by $300 million the year after the first World Trade Center bombing.''

Ruby Ridge
08-31-2004, 11:00 PM
Democratic idea: Department of Homeland Security

Bush response: Opposition, sticks finger in the air and sees it's a political winner and decides to support it.

Democratic idea: 9/11 commission

Bush response: Opposition, delays, lack of cooperation, sticks finger in air sees it's a polictical plus and embraces the commission.

Democratic idea: President testify before 9/11 commission.

Bush response: Stonewall, resist, have lawyers respond for him, get's wind of political opinion, consents to meet as long as Dick Cheny comes along, swaggers out like he did something heroic.

Democratic idea: Let's fund the troops in Iraq with 67 billion and add 20 billion in loans to be repaid by the Iraqis.

Bush response: Threatens veto despite crucial funding for troops in field. When congress agrees to change the loans to grants, signs bill and accuses Kerry of flip flopping.

Spurminator
08-31-2004, 11:13 PM
Seems you've effectively illustrated his willingness to make bipartisan compromises.

Ruby Ridge
08-31-2004, 11:46 PM
He ain't always wrong but I think it demonstrates some flipflopping of his own.

Joe Chalupa
08-31-2004, 11:57 PM
Bush has flip-flopped on some of his policies as do many politicians