October 19, 200421 yr Seeing The Republicans spin machine labels Kerry as weak on defense I want to see a republican defend each of Bush's and The Republican Senate's action's. I ask for a defense of his actions not a diversion to another. I keep hearing Bush is this master on Defense and instead of defending that position The Rep's will call Kerry the one who's weak. So I figured I give you a chance now to defend these actions. Nov 14, 2001: Senate Democrats propose 15 billion for Homeland Security in an economic stimulus package., The White house opposes it calling it a measure to increase the size of gov't. Dec 4, 2001: The Senate Appropriations Committee votes 29 - 0 for a bill that includes 13.1 billion for Homeland Security which The White House threatens to veto. 2 days later: Senate Republicans reduce HS funding in the Defense Appropriations Bill by 4.6 billion December 19th 2001: Under further pressure from The White House conferees reduce funds by an additional 200 million from Airport Security, Port, and Nuclear Security. June 7th 2002: The Senate, by a bipartisan vote of 71 - 22, passes a spending bill that includes 8.3 billion for HLS, The Presidents senior advisors want a veto for "excessive homeland security spending" June 19th 2002: Under pressure from The White House, homeland defense funding is reduced again. This time the money comes out of Food, Port, Water Nuclear, Airport and Cyber Security. August 13th 2002: President Bush decides not to spend 2.5 billion in Emergency Funding for Homeland Security January 16th 2003: The Whitehouse reactsd to Democratic efforts to increase homeland security funding by issuing a statement saying "The Adminstration strongle opposes amendments to add new extraneous spending to the package" January 23, 2003: The Republican Senate cuts security programs in FEMA, The FBI, INS, NNSA(National Nuclear Security Administration), TSA, and Coast Guard. Febuary 3 2003: President Bush's 2004 Budger cuts Homeland Security programs by 1.9 % Febuary 14th 2003: Senate Democrats introuce an act which includes money to fund the smallpox vaccine program, to get police and fire communications to work together and protect Public Transportation. No Republicans support it. March 21st: Republicans defeat a series of four amendements aimed at increasing security March 25th: Three more Security amendements defeated by The Republican Majority April 2, 2003: Senator Fritz Hollings offers an amendemnt to provide 1 billion for port security programs. Republicans reject it by 47 - 52 The Next Day: Republicans reject five more pro - homeland security amendements including one to protect commercial aircrafts from the threat of shoulder fired missiles. June 2003: The House Appropriations Committee and later on The House Floor. Republicans reject A Democratic Amendement to add 1 billion for homeland defense. And the list can go on and one. Now I ask for the republicans to defend that without diverting blame to The Democratic Party, strictly defend that from The Republican Viewpoint as good homeland security practice.
October 19, 200421 yr September 12th, 2001 - Present: No successful attacks on US Soil. 595864[/snapback] Ooooh..nice comeback. Not. Another reason I would never vote for a president that would continue to decrease homeland defense funding, while publicly claiming that he has increased it.
October 19, 200421 yr September 12th, 2001 - Present: No successful attacks on US Soil. 595864[/snapback] Ooooh..nice comeback. Not. Another reason I would never vote for a president that would continue to decrease homeland defense funding, while publicly claiming that he has increased it. 595910[/snapback] Decreased funding for the department? He created it. Proof's is in the pudding, so to speak. There are alot of things you can snipe at Bush about, but you can't refute that he has been successful thus far in preventing domestic terror attacks.
October 19, 200421 yr September 12th, 2001 - Present: No successful attacks on US Soil. 595864[/snapback] Ooooh..nice comeback. Not. 595910[/snapback] Does it matter if Bush vetoed certain funding bills are different times? We haven't been attack, and we don't leave in constant fear of being attacked. Of course, Michael Moore thinks there is NO threat from terrorism. :mischief
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.