speech bit

[Chaerophon]

My point:

Simply repeating the mantra "he doesn't support the troops, he doesn't support the troops" is not 'dealing with the issues'. It's character assassination. If they wanted to get into the why of his actions, that would be dialogue. Simply dragging out base line rhetoric like that is setting the bar quite low.

1.) Supports my statement...

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an
auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in
Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?
U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

2.) Supports my point...

The President's opponent is an experienced senator.  He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it.  (Applause.)  But there is also a record of more than three decades since.  And on the question of America's role in the world, the differences between Senator Kerry and President Bush are the sharpest, and the stakes for the country are the highest.  (Applause.)  History has shown that a strong and purposeful America is vital to preserving freedom and keeping us safe -- yet time and again, Senator Kerry has made the wrong call on national security.  Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed "only at the directive of the United Nations."

AUDIENCE:  Booo!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  During the 1980s, Senator Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiatives that brought victory in the Cold War.

AUDIENCE:  Booo!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And in 1991, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf, Senator Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm.

AUDIENCE:  Booo!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed.  He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror" -- (Laughter.) -- as though al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side.  (Laughter and applause.)

3.) Doesn't have much to do with my point, but is a moronic oversimplification... Granted, Kerry should be more clear on what he does, in fact, propose. However, it's clear that not supporting a particular incarnation of such reforms is not necessarily indicative of his own vision.

These changing times can be exciting times of expanded opportunity. And here, you face a choice. My opponent's policies are dramatically different from ours. Senator Kerry opposed Medicare reform and health savings accounts. After supporting my education reforms, he now wants to dilute them. He opposes legal and medical liability reform. He opposed reducing the marriage penalty, opposed doubling the child credit, and opposed lowering income taxes for all who pay them. To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for -- he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes -- and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.

The fact of the matter is not that Kerry doesn't support the troops or the military - he merely believes that the money could be better used than to pump it into a machine that already spends more than nearly all of the world's militaries combined. Theirs is a misdirected rhetoric. If they wanted to deal with the issues, then they would talk about why his more liberal vision for the country is wrong and why their own perspectives are right, not veil the issues with this one-dimensional rhetoric of military patriotism.