Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Excuse me, but are you referring to this Biosheild vote? Because if you are, your entire post is a scurrilous. Kerry did not vote against the bill! True, he didn’t vote for it, but would you really expect a candidate for President to come all the way back to Washington in order to vote for a bill he knew would pass overwhelmingly? Please.

If we’re talking about the same vote, your post is childish and misleading at best.

Good call Gaelen. Getting a bit desparate aren’t we, Dan? I give you the credit for at least posting the vote. Weak.

Gaelen, I think you’re responding to the first sentence of Dan’s post and not the main point.

It’s not that Kerry didn’t vote for Bioshield, it’s that he’s attacking the administration for an issue that the administration has already addressed more substantively than he is. He is either totally unaware of the provisions of Bioshield, in which case he should educate himself before launching cheap political attacks, or IS aware and is just cynically hunting for soundbytes.

This is actually symptomatic of a larger Democratic strategy. The Patriot Act is another good example. They say that Bush is doing nothing to protect us from terrorism—and when he does initiate common sense measures to do just that, they keep saying he’s doing nothing even while saying out of the other side of their mouths that these measures shouldn’t be taken. “Do something to protect us” they shout, followed by “Do nothing—you’re just fear-mongering and violating our standards!”

This kind of posturing and second-guessing is easy to do by those who are out of power. But transparent cynicism and actual disregard for genuinely solving problems is the reason the Democrats don’t deserve to be in power and for the good of the nation need to be kept out of office.

Actually, Kerry put his finger on the big problem with BioShield. Don’t get me (us?) wrong, it’s a good program, but it relies on cooperation between the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Health, the FDA, and the private sector. There’s no one person coordinating the effort. “Beyond here be delays and turf battles.”

Also, the gist of what Kerry was saying… Well, I’ll let Kerry say it, “You need to prepare your public health facilities. You need to prepare your hospitals and all the immediate first responders. Many of them will tell you right now that despite the talk over the course of the last years, there has not been that kind of preparation,”

And that’s true.

BTW, your link to that story moved. Here it is.

Martin, you yourself have held the opinion many times that because of misleading (or even simply mistaken) facets of an argument, the entire argument is spurious, and doesn’t deserve response. I disagree with the rest of the honorable poster’s point as well, but the fact that he set it up in a thoroughy dishonest way deserves to be pointed out immediately. We don’t need that kind of discourse here. “99 to 1,” indeed.

Once again, I’ll use a Hannity favorite: I call intellectual dishonesty on you! Beyond the pale, beyond the pale!

Gaelen, there’s absolutely nothing dishonest about how David sets out—there’s just a problem with basic reading comprehension on the part of those who would prefer to shout “Liar, Liar” (as they always do) instead of actually listen and think about any criticism of a Democrat.

What’s beyond the pale is to twist somebody elses words into what you want them to say so you can then strike postures of righteous indignation.

David’s point is that Kerry, the only Senator not to vote for the Act, is running around grand-standing and fear-mongering about a problem that’s already been addressed. He’s howling for implementation of actions already taken by the administration and by congress (which he’s suppsosedly part of) although he himself had nothing to do with passing this bill and was in fact the only senator not to vote for it.

What appears to be going on is that he’s delibearately refusing to be part of the solution so he can can keep lying about the president’s record.

Martin,

Dan said the vote was 99-1, which would mean that someone voted against it. Then he says that Kerry didn’t vote for it. The logical conclusion from these statements is the implication that Kerry voted against it.

The actual vote was “99 to 0 (with one abstaining)”, not “99 to 1”, so the original post is dishonest.

Dan is dishonest in his presentation, and your denial seems to be nothing but a partisan refusal to accept that some criticisms of Kerry are unfair.

LawnBoy, However you charaterize Kerry’s “Not Voting,” he is still the only Senator who failed to vote for the Project Bioshield Act.

And by describing the vote as 99-1, you said that Kerry voted against it. That’s a lie.

I admit he didn’t vote for it, but you shouldn’t say or imply he voted against it.

“99 to 1” and “99-1” are misleading.

This is not twisting words for righteous indignation - this is intellectual dishonesty, and it makes the entire post pointless.

Martin, we will only know whether the problem’s being address when we (or somebody else, if we’re unlucky) tests that system. So far, we don’t have much in the way of information to see whether the program’s actually working. So don’t use that argument.

But let say the bioshield act is effective. Even then, you have no proof that Kerry would not vot for it, and therefore no proof that Kerry is not as good as his word. Kerry has the legitimate excuse of being a presidential candidate. A missed vote here implies nothing about his character.

Let me say this though: the Republicans have wasted no time in trying to paint Kerry the same way they’ve painted Gore and Clinton, which is as wafflers. It’s hypocritical considering how many promises they’ve gone back on themselves, and how many times they’ve reconsidered policy decision. You ask, when’s this occurred. Well I can cite multiple examples, but let me cite the biggie: The Department of Homeland Security. Even in the wake of 9/11, it took Joe Lieberman proposing it for the Bush administration to put forward a bill creating it.

In this case, a very similar bill. So please, don’t charge Kerry with an imaginary flip-flop when there’s an entire department that Bush praises himself for that he had be pressured into creating.

It is sad for this country that Bush cannot possibly run on his record. Bush fought homeland security and every other domestic issue, then claims credit for it. Now we have to listen to a barrage of lies and half truths on complex decisions born from an endless stream of pork barrel ridden bills. Dan will do well to copy professional liars, like Hannity & Limbaugh. Repetition is the key to succesful lying and Reagan is the grand puppetmaster. How about blame Clinton for the unintended consequences of Shrubs inept policies. One thing is certain, a vote for Bush will be a vote for dismantling domestic budgets, (including bioterrorism), because our President launched an unnecessary war which if we “stay the course” will cost ~$200 billion per year for six years or more. We can only hope that we will not be forced to “save” the Saudi oil fields next. The average poor terrorist with a $200 grenade launcher is in it for the long haul. It remains to be seen whether we can fight Cheney’s “Perpetual War” with $200 million hi-tech weapons, part time guard units, mercenaries and profit centered contractors. These crooks don’t want our soldiers taking seconds at the chow line while they overcharge us for everything from Kuwaiti gas to private body guards. Ten times more Americans murdered and dead in traffic accidents every year than al Qaeda ever killed. Only the military can deal with bin Laden. But we also need sound cost-benefit analysis (instead of political fear mongering) and plans rooted in International understandings to quell hatred of America. Right now, the terrorists can just hide and laugh their asses off while we destroy ourselves reacting to fake orange alerts and other nonsense.

Kerry’s comments about our nation’s lack of preparedness for bioterrorism take into full account President Bush’s Project Bioshield. He has acknowledged that the legislation is a step in the right direction, but argues that much more needs to be done.

Trust for America’s Health (TFAH), “a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority,” thinks Kerry is right.

“The U.S. Senate approval of $5.6 billion for Project Bioshield represents one leap forward toward better bioterrorism preparedness in America,” TFAH said. “However, many more big strides must still be made to protect Americans from the threats posed by bioterrorism, chemical terrorism, and radiological terrorism.

“Without similar investments in crucial areas— ranging from ensuring our public health labs could adequately identify germs or chemicals used in attacks to bolstering the expert workforce that would be needed to distribute and administer vaccinations— we are still a nation at great risk.

“A recent anaylsis by Trust for America’s Health of the President’s proposed budget for FY 2005 found a $105 million decrease in federal funding for state and local bioterrorism preparedness. The proposed FY05 budget also includes a nearly 3% cut to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

As for missing the vote, I suppose it would be best if Kerry resigned his Senate seat to focus on his run for President. But I believe his party prefers that the seat not go to a Republican, even temporarily, since Mass. Gov. Romney would certainly appoint a Republican to fill the seat.

Don’t get me wrong, Martin, I’ve disagree with a lot more in the original post. I just had to get that out at the beginning of the discussion, just to set it straight. Others have dealt with the other “substance” perfectly. I’ll leave it to them.

American Pundit: “It’s a good program, but it relies on cooperation between the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Health, the FDA, and the private sector. There’s no one person coordinating the effort. “Beyond here be delays and turf battles.”

This position (which is a good description of Kerry’s) simply doesn’t make sense. Any defense against Bioterrorism will necessarily involve coordination between different agencies. And the Secretary of Homeland Security is exactly the position that was created, as a cabinet officer, to coordinate and oversee anti-terrorism efforts between all the other agencies. That’s its entire purpose. What Kerry’s calling for already exists!

Yet another official and further division and departmentalization—adding an entire new beaurocracy on top of the ones already created— will only add to redundancy and create MORE, not fewer turf battles. It’s actually a return to the old fragemented structure of government that prevented effective coordination before 9-11.

Do we really need a separate Bio-weapons Czar, a Nuclear Weapons Czar, a Chemical Weapons Czar? How about a Box-Cutters Czar and a Truck-bomb Czar? Kerry is just grandstanding, chattering about problems the administration has already addressed in order to play politics with security. He’s taking himself further and further out of serious debate.

Martin, you are focusing on terrorism. Yes, Homeland Security dept. can and will handle pursuing terrorists in our borders. What others here and Kerry are talking about is a coordinator of medical services - an area of expertise which Ridge or any other member of Homeland Security is not going to have. A coordinator who can work with the Homeland Security dept. in mobilizing national guard and reserves in a manner that will not impede efforts to successfully and efficiently administer medical services to Americans in need of them resulting from the attack.

Without dual coordination in each of these areas by knowledgeable folks in both areas, we could easily foul up the whole operation of taking care of wounded, diseased, and contagious populations by putting pursuit of terrorists ahead of quarantines, for example, in which case, contagion could cause far more damage than a couple of terrorists after a biological attack. It is recommended that one person have the final decision making authority, but, it is unrealistic to expect Ridge to educate himself as a FEMA director, or doctor specializing in public health, in the next year or two. A biological attack will establish conditions that will need to be addressed having nothing to do with pursuing terrorists after the fact.

Also, take note of Jerome Guerras comments. Ridge will need to rely on a coordinator who is versed and experienced in the areas of both FEMA and Public Health, as Ridge will have enough on his plate trying to secure against further attacks should one take place, without having to seek information about the dangers infected and untreated Americans will pose. I think a good argument is being made here that the job of responding to a biological attack is far too big for one person whose preparation for responding is primarily in the area of security from hostile acts.

When the bio agent hits the fan so to speak, the bulk of the prioritization planning, coordination of resources, and disbursement of resources had best be detailed in a host of contingency plans, and plans had best be laid for contingencies not anticipated in terms of who will be best qualified to be called upon in various areas of expertise.

And the Secretary of Homeland Security is exactly the position that was created, as a cabinet officer, to coordinate and oversee anti-terrorism efforts between all the other agencies. That’s its entire purpose. What Kerry’s calling for already exists!

That might work… if it was spelled out that way in the legislation. It’s not. Also, the DHS is supposed to coordinate intelligence. We just got a big wake up call on how effective it is last week when Ashcroft raised the alert level without letting Ridge know about it.

Right now, the DHS is a joke. It’s woefully underfunded and Bush isn’t backing up Ridge’s authority in the intelligence turf wars. The fact is, Bush didn’t want a DHS. Ridge is on the record as being against the creation of his own Department, and he definitely didn’t want to run it.

Really, all Kerry is doing is calling for responsibility. Who is responsible for taking the lead in a bio attack? If you asked that question right now, either four or more hands would go up, or none would.

Again, Martin, you confuse the presence of an agency with it’s functionality. From what I hear, the the Department of Homeland Security is a joke. Not even a few days ago, Tom Ridge failed to get invited or even get informed about what John Ashcroft and Robert Mueller were announcing about suspicions of Terrorism. That is intolerable. This administration seems more interested in getting us into wars of political transformation overseas than protecting our shores here.

The unfortunate fact is that Bush created a Frankenstein monster with the DHS, taking pieces of other departments and dropping them into the new department, and then failing to fund or support it sufficiently.

“…and then failing to fund or support it sufficiently.”

Indeed. That’s almost a common mantra for this Administration, since they absolutely have to give those huge tax cuts to the wealthy during wartime. Boy howdy, that’s some sound fiscal policy.

Just so some of you know, Kerry HAS come back from quite a distance to cast votes for and aginst different things that will help his election campaign.

I find it difficult to believe that a person would attack this posting and say that its “Childish and misleading” or a “bit desperate” … Have any opf you read the news coming from the other camps that attack the right? At least this posting was created with logic and reasoning and not childish emotions.

Stephen, if the Dept of HS is a joke, then do you really think the answer is creating more agencies? If those new agencies then have problems, should we create even more agencies to oversee and direct them? No, the solution should be to correct any inefficiences in the Dept of Homeland Security instead of just letting departments multiply like viruses.

The Dept of Homeland Security may very well require a bioweapons director/expert, but that person should be directly answerable to the Secretary of HS, who is directly answerable to the President. A separate department for every problem, with turf wars and no single line of authority to the president, is exactly the problem we had before 9-11.

E. Burt-
That post lacks in those very qualities. It was based on two counterfactual premises: that Kerry did not support the Bioshield Act, and that Kerry’s absence at the vote implied his opposition. It is misleading, and one can interpret it as desperate, if one is so inclined. Mr. Spencer, at the very least, seems to have been at a loss for a serious, substantially backed up charge to level at Kerry.

Martin-
I think you misread me. I never mentioned any new departments. I was simply commenting upon the DHS. The question is, why is Bush neglecting the homefront by not fully supporting, and fully enabling this department. Ironically enough, Bush’s half-heartedness may end up fostering an even more wasteful and corrupt bureacracy than he imagined would come of his full support. To have an efficient and lean government is an admirable goal, but it is not one achieved by being a cheap bastard about funding necessary programs.

Bush is supposed to be the guy who is tough on terrorism, big on homeland security, the one who has so far prevented another terrorist attack from reaching our shores. If his response to the dire threat facing our country is to basically go overseas and fight agressive wars against anybody who looks at us funny, then we are going to get hit again, and get hit hard.

I shouldn’t need to say that the whole point of the DHS was to consolidate the information that other departments had about such concerns. If that isn’t happening, if the DHS is out of the loop, could it not be said that something is seriously wrong?

Anyone know why MSNBC says…

Kerry’s presence wasn’t vital to the outcome: The measure passed, 95 to zero.

The Dept of Homeland Security may very well require a bioweapons director/expert, but that person should be directly answerable to the Secretary of HS, who is directly answerable to the President.

Martin, you’re totally right about that. I hope you write your representatives and tell them you’re concerned about the lack of control the DHS has over the agencies that are supposed to report to it, and that you want a bioweapons director/expert appointed within the DHS who will be responsible for coordinating responses to a bio attack.

BTW, I just got my very first non-form letter back from an elected representative. Ironically, it was from a Republican. And he still dissed me (apparently campaign finance reform is unnecessary), but he did it in such a personal, caring manner, that it gave me a warm fuzzy. :)