The Bush ad : "Kerry voted against weapons to fight war on terrorism..."

[kentuck]

Paraphrasing, the ad says that Kerry voted against B2 bombers and other assorted weapon systems that are needed to fight terrorism. My thought, why do we need all those weapons to fight "terrorism"? The WTC was brought down with terrorists with boxcutters?? So we need all these billion dollar weapon systems to fight terrorists that hide in caves? I could think of better weapons for these types of enemies...

[ComerPerro]

1. Its better than deciding not to do anything about terrorism

Which was the Bush Administrations stance on things for the first nine months.

[coltman]

2. why do we need more

stealth and star wars tech for donkey cart bombs and box cutters.

[ozymandius]

3. Please try to understand.

We need a $2billion airplane to counteract those donkey carts bristling with missiles. It's simply the only way! While were at this juncture in fighting terrorism, we should require manufacturers to make box cutters from foam rubber. That'll fix everything.

EDIT: Or... make every box cutter at least six feet long and weighing at least seventy five pounds. That'll put an end to box cutter terrorism forever.

[JM]

4. From FactCheck

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177

<SNIP>
Misleading Claims

The claims are misleading, as we've pointed out before in articles we posted on Feb. 26 and March 16. The Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should -- on balance -- be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.

The claim that Kerry voted against body armor is based similarly on Kerry's vote last year against an $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriation bill to finance military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It included $300 million for the latest, ceramic-plate type of body armor for troops who had been sent to war without it. The body-armor funds amounted to about 1/3 of one percent of the total.

</snip>

<SNIP>
Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.
</snip>

Tough to argue a battle of wits with those who have none.

JM

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. Thank You.

They are liars. Kerry can be trusted on these matters. Bush is a liar.

[Snellius]

5. Osama doesn't fit the neo-Cold Warriors agenda perfectly

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union the old Cold Warriors, castrated by cuts in the military budget, were desperately looking around for a new bogeyman to take its place. There was a brief showdown with Russia over spies, then China over a downed plane, with the Axis of Evil over -- over what? -- over evil?, always eager to provoke a confrontation, itching to pull the trigger. Then 9/11, Osama. The war found its cause. But the trouble with Al Qaeda is that all the kings horses and all the kings men are useless against it. They could drop every nuclear weapon in the whole American arsenal and they would still probably walk away laughly. Our very size and power work against us. Like trying to kill cockroaches with a cannon. An aim without a target, an enemy without a state. What's odd is that the only way to defeat them is to do just what Bush said he was so tired of doing -- swatting flies.

[bryant69]

6. Which is one possible reason for Iraq

Iraq is a nation; so our bombers and all are useful against it. Tat also makes the logic work. If we are fighting Al-qaeda is the enemy, well, than our weapons don't work. If Iraq is the enemy; Kerry is a jerk for not having approved the weapons systems.

Bryant
Check it --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[kcwayne]

7. Bush should be taken to task for championing these weapon systems

The B2 bomber and F18 were designed to thwart nuclear and massive conventional strike forces, such as the Soviet Union.

Each program was plagued by massive cost overruns and the programs were highly scrutinized regarding cost, especially since they were systems looking for a foe that no longer exists.

The Bradley fighting vehicle cost 14 BILLION dollars to design, and 3.1 million per copy to produce. It has never been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding fire from artillery, morters, or RPGs.

Each of these programs are pork barrel spending examples of the worst kind, and have more to do with enriching defense contractors and congressional representatives than with providing defense for the US.

And as you say, they are meaningless tools to fighting terrorism, unless the strategy for fighting terrorism is to kill everyone in every country that asserts its independence from US military occupation and corporate takeover.