Why Koch is on Bush’s bandwagon

[Tigermike 3,053]

An interesting read.

Why Koch is on Bush’s bandwagon

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Staff  |  August 29, 2004

ED KOCH identifies himself with pride as a lifelong Democrat. The former New York City councilman, congressman, and three-term mayor says his values have always been those of the broad Democratic center -- the values of FDR and Harry Truman, of Hubert Humphrey and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He disdains the Republican worldview as cold and unfeeling -- "I made it on my own, and you should, too." The Democratic philosophy, by contrast, he sums up as: "If you need a helping hand, we'll provide it." No surprise, then, that Koch disagrees with George W. Bush on just about every domestic issue, from taxes to marriage to prescription drugs.

But he's voting for him in November.

"I've never before supported a Republican for president," Koch told me last week. "But I'm doing so this time because of the one issue that trumps everything else: international terrorism. In my judgment, the Democratic Party just doesn't have the stomach to stand up to the terrorists. But Bush is a fighter."

Koch was surprised and impressed by Bush's resolve after Sept. 11. "He announced the Bush Doctrine -- he said we would go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. And he's kept his word." Koch doubts that the leadership of his own party could have mustered the grit to topple the Taliban or drive Saddam Hussein from power, let alone to press on in what is going to be a long and grinding conflict.

"Already, most of the world is caving. If you didn't have Bush standing there, you'd have everybody following Spain and the Philippines" in retreat, he says, trying to appease the terrorists instead of fighting them.

How much of his party does Koch speak for? We won't know for sure until Election Day, when exit polls help gauge how many Democrats crossed party lines to support Bush. But Koch knows he's not the only Democrat to regard the war against militant Islam as the most critical issue of the campaign. And he doesn't think he was the only one dismayed by what he saw at the Democratic convention in July.

From Michael Moore's seat of honor next to Jimmy Carter, to the thunderous applause that greeted Howard Dean, to the 9 out of 10 delegates who want to pull the plug on Iraq, the convention exposed the radical antiwar mindset that dominates the Democratic Party leadership.

But hasn't Kerry pledged to stay in Iraq and to go after the terrorists? "That's what he says to appeal to moderates and conservatives during the campaign," Koch replies. But the party activists who nominated him would compel him to back down once he was in office. The people now running the Democratic Party want no part of the war, and "when the chips are down, Kerry will do what they want."

It bears repeating: This is a faithful Democrat talking. And it is as a faithful Democrat that Koch so sharply resists his party's left wing. ("The radicals don't like me," he once wrote. "And they have good reason, because I despise them.") Though he calls himself a "liberal with sanity," he governed the largest city in America as a decided centrist. Twice he was reelected in massive landslides. New Yorkers came to trust Koch's instincts and judgment because they resonated so closely with their own.

And what those instincts and common sense tell Koch today is that nothing matters more than beating back the threat from Islamic terrorists. "I want a president who is willing to go after them before they have a chance to kill us," he says. "Party affiliation is an important consideration," but it's not more important than winning the war.

In his 1984 autobiography, "Mayor," Koch tells of his appearance before the Republican Party's platform committee in 1980.

"I was the first Democratic mayor to do so in anyone's memory. And it caused a stir." For the better part of an hour, Koch gave the Republicans his views on some of the era's most intractable municipal issues, including unfunded federal mandates, block grants, and the heavy burden of Medicaid.

"They were with me on all of these items," Koch recalled -- so much so that when the session ended, GOP Chairman Bill Brock half-jokingly invited him to join the Republican Party. "I respectfully decline," Koch answered.

"Then we all went outside for pictures. There I was asked by a reporter, `Mr. Mayor, isn't this political treason?'

"I said, `If this be treason, make the most of it. But it ain't.' "

It ain't treason this time either. In 1980, Koch's top priority was the fiscal security of New York City. In 2004, it is the national security of the United States. Americans are at war with fanatical enemies, and above all else, they need a commander-in-chief who can face those enemies without flinching.

Koch's political home remains where it has always been -- in the party of FDR and Truman, Humphrey and Moynihan. He is a loyal Democrat. But as JFK once said, sometimes party loyalty asks too much.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

BOSTON GLOBE

[TexasTiger 13,006]

An interesting read.

Why Koch is on Bush’s bandwagon

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Staff  |  August 29, 2004

ED KOCH identifies himself with pride as a lifelong Democrat. The former New York City councilman, congressman, and three-term mayor says his values have always been those of the broad Democratic center -- the values of FDR and Harry Truman, of Hubert Humphrey and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He disdains the Republican worldview as cold and unfeeling -- "I made it on my own, and you should, too." The Democratic philosophy, by contrast, he sums up as: "If you need a helping hand, we'll provide it." No surprise, then, that Koch disagrees with George W. Bush on just about every domestic issue, from taxes to marriage to prescription drugs.

But he's voting for him in November.

"I've never before supported a Republican for president," Koch told me last week. "But I'm doing so this time because of the one issue that trumps everything else: international terrorism. In my judgment, the Democratic Party just doesn't have the stomach to stand up to the terrorists. But Bush is a fighter."

Koch was surprised and impressed by Bush's resolve after Sept. 11. "He announced the Bush Doctrine -- he said we would go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. And he's kept his word." Koch doubts that the leadership of his own party could have mustered the grit to topple the Taliban or drive Saddam Hussein from power, let alone to press on in what is going to be a long and grinding conflict.

"Already, most of the world is caving. If you didn't have Bush standing there, you'd have everybody following Spain and the Philippines" in retreat, he says, trying to appease the terrorists instead of fighting them.

How much of his party does Koch speak for? We won't know for sure until Election Day, when exit polls help gauge how many Democrats crossed party lines to support Bush. But Koch knows he's not the only Democrat to regard the war against militant Islam as the most critical issue of the campaign. And he doesn't think he was the only one dismayed by what he saw at the Democratic convention in July.

From Michael Moore's seat of honor next to Jimmy Carter, to the thunderous applause that greeted Howard Dean, to the 9 out of 10 delegates who want to pull the plug on Iraq, the convention exposed the radical antiwar mindset that dominates the Democratic Party leadership.

But hasn't Kerry pledged to stay in Iraq and to go after the terrorists? "That's what he says to appeal to moderates and conservatives during the campaign," Koch replies. But the party activists who nominated him would compel him to back down once he was in office. The people now running the Democratic Party want no part of the war, and "when the chips are down, Kerry will do what they want."

It bears repeating: This is a faithful Democrat talking. And it is as a faithful Democrat that Koch so sharply resists his party's left wing. ("The radicals don't like me," he once wrote. "And they have good reason, because I despise them.") Though he calls himself a "liberal with sanity," he governed the largest city in America as a decided centrist. Twice he was reelected in massive landslides. New Yorkers came to trust Koch's instincts and judgment because they resonated so closely with their own.

And what those instincts and common sense tell Koch today is that nothing matters more than beating back the threat from Islamic terrorists. "I want a president who is willing to go after them before they have a chance to kill us," he says. "Party affiliation is an important consideration," but it's not more important than winning the war.

In his 1984 autobiography, "Mayor," Koch tells of his appearance before the Republican Party's platform committee in 1980.

"I was the first Democratic mayor to do so in anyone's memory. And it caused a stir." For the better part of an hour, Koch gave the Republicans his views on some of the era's most intractable municipal issues, including unfunded federal mandates, block grants, and the heavy burden of Medicaid.

"They were with me on all of these items," Koch recalled -- so much so that when the session ended, GOP Chairman Bill Brock half-jokingly invited him to join the Republican Party. "I respectfully decline," Koch answered.

"Then we all went outside for pictures. There I was asked by a reporter, `Mr. Mayor, isn't this political treason?'

"I said, `If this be treason, make the most of it. But it ain't.' "

It ain't treason this time either. In 1980, Koch's top priority was the fiscal security of New York City. In 2004, it is the national security of the United States. Americans are at war with fanatical enemies, and above all else, they need a commander-in-chief who can face those enemies without flinching.

Koch's political home remains where it has always been -- in the party of FDR and Truman, Humphrey and Moynihan. He is a loyal Democrat. But as JFK once said, sometimes party loyalty asks too much.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

BOSTON GLOBE

How else does an incompetent ex-mayor who is starved for attention get it?

[Tiger Al 0]

I guess Koch didn't get the memo that Bush is appointing a guy to head the CIA who wanted to gut it a few years ago. Maybe the intelligence community is overrated now that Bush gets advice from God.

[Tigermike 3,053]

There is an old saying, if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the only one to squeal is the one to get hit. From the response from you two, it sounds as if Mr. Koch has hit the democrats squarely on the head!

[TexasTiger 13,006]

There is an old saying, if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the only one to squeal is the one to get hit. From the response from you two, it sounds as if Mr. Koch has hit the democrats squarely on the head!

Nah, you guys can have Koch and Zell and any other washed up, annoying nut. If you think this is partisan, I think it took Guiliani to clean up Koch's and Dinkin's mess.

[Tigermike 3,053]

Absolutely normal as well as expected response from democrats. When members of your own party don't follow the party line like puppets, make it personal and trash them. Actually Mr. Koch made some very good points, which you conveniently disregard and make disparaging remarks about his age and intelligence.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Absolutely normal as well as expected response from democrats. When members of your own party don't follow the party line like puppets, make it personal and trash them. Actually Mr. Koch made some very good points, which you conveniently disregard and make disparaging remarks about his age and intelligence.

You're free to think highly of him. I never have. I doubt you did before this.

[Tigermike 3,053]

Absolutely normal as well as expected response from democrats.  When members of your own party don't follow the party line like puppets, make it personal and trash them.  Actually Mr. Koch made some very good points, which you conveniently disregard and make disparaging remarks about his age and intelligence.

You're free to think highly of him. I never have. I doubt you did before this.

Trash the man and never bother to respond to what he said. Is that the high road Kerry was talking about?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Absolutely normal as well as expected response from democrats.  When members of your own party don't follow the party line like puppets, make it personal and trash them.  Actually Mr. Koch made some very good points, which you conveniently disregard and make disparaging remarks about his age and intelligence.

You're free to think highly of him. I never have. I doubt you did before this.

Trash the man and never bother to respond to what he said. Is that the high road Kerry was talking about?

What substantive comment did you make that you want me to respond to?

[Tigermike 3,053]

Absolutely normal as well as expected response from democrats.  When members of your own party don't follow the party line like puppets, make it personal and trash them.  Actually Mr. Koch made some very good points, which you conveniently disregard and make disparaging remarks about his age and intelligence.

You're free to think highly of him. I never have. I doubt you did before this.

Trash the man and never bother to respond to what he said. Is that the high road Kerry was talking about?

What substantive comment did you make that you want me to respond to?

Just respont to this.

"I've never before supported a Republican for president," Koch told me last week. "But I'm doing so this time because of the one issue that trumps everything else: international terrorism. In my judgment, the Democratic Party just doesn't have the stomach to stand up to the terrorists. But Bush is a fighter."

Koch was surprised and impressed by Bush's resolve after Sept. 11. "He announced the Bush Doctrine -- he said we would go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. And he's kept his word." Koch doubts that the leadership of his own party could have mustered the grit to topple the Taliban or drive Saddam Hussein from power, let alone to press on in what is going to be a long and grinding conflict.

"Already, most of the world is caving. If you didn't have Bush standing there, you'd have everybody following Spain and the Philippines" in retreat, he says, trying to appease the terrorists instead of fighting them.

How much of his party does Koch speak for? We won't know for sure until Election Day, when exit polls help gauge how many Democrats crossed party lines to support Bush. But Koch knows he's not the only Democrat to regard the war against militant Islam as the most critical issue of the campaign. And he doesn't think he was the only one dismayed by what he saw at the Democratic convention in July.

From Michael Moore's seat of honor next to Jimmy Carter, to the thunderous applause that greeted Howard Dean, to the 9 out of 10 delegates who want to pull the plug on Iraq, the convention exposed the radical antiwar mindset that dominates the Democratic Party leadership.

But hasn't Kerry pledged to stay in Iraq and to go after the terrorists? "That's what he says to appeal to moderates and conservatives during the campaign," Koch replies. But the party activists who nominated him would compel him to back down once he was in office. The people now running the Democratic Party want no part of the war, and "when the chips are down, Kerry will do what they want."

It bears repeating: This is a faithful Democrat talking. And it is as a faithful Democrat that Koch so sharply resists his party's left wing. ("The radicals don't like me," he once wrote. "And they have good reason, because I despise them.") Though he calls himself a "liberal with sanity," he governed the largest city in America as a decided centrist. Twice he was reelected in massive landslides. New Yorkers came to trust Koch's instincts and judgment because they resonated so closely with their own.

And what those instincts and common sense tell Koch today is that nothing matters more than beating back the threat from Islamic terrorists. "I want a president who is willing to go after them before they have a chance to kill us," he says. "Party affiliation is an important consideration," but it's not more important than winning the war.

In his 1984 autobiography, "Mayor," Koch tells of his appearance before the Republican Party's platform committee in 1980.

"I was the first Democratic mayor to do so in anyone's memory. And it caused a stir." For the better part of an hour, Koch gave the Republicans his views on some of the era's most intractable municipal issues, including unfunded federal mandates, block grants, and the heavy burden of Medicaid.

"They were with me on all of these items," Koch recalled -- so much so that when the session ended, GOP Chairman Bill Brock half-jokingly invited him to join the Republican Party. "I respectfully decline," Koch answered.

"Then we all went outside for pictures. There I was asked by a reporter, `Mr. Mayor, isn't this political treason?'

"I said, `If this be treason, make the most of it. But it ain't.' "

It ain't treason this time either. In 1980, Koch's top priority was the fiscal security of New York City. In 2004, it is the national security of the United States. Americans are at war with fanatical enemies, and above all else, they need a commander-in-chief who can face those enemies without flinching.

Koch's political home remains where it has always been -- in the party of FDR and Truman, Humphrey and Moynihan. He is a loyal Democrat. But as JFK once said, sometimes party loyalty asks too much.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Absolutely normal as well as expected response from democrats.  When members of your own party don't follow the party line like puppets, make it personal and trash them.  Actually Mr. Koch made some very good points, which you conveniently disregard and make disparaging remarks about his age and intelligence.

You're free to think highly of him. I never have. I doubt you did before this.

Trash the man and never bother to respond to what he said. Is that the high road Kerry was talking about?

What substantive comment did you make that you want me to respond to?

Just respont to this.

"I've never before supported a Republican for president," Koch told me last week. "But I'm doing so this time because of the one issue that trumps everything else: international terrorism. In my judgment, the Democratic Party just doesn't have the stomach to stand up to the terrorists. But Bush is a fighter."

Koch was surprised and impressed by Bush's resolve after Sept. 11. "He announced the Bush Doctrine -- he said we would go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. And he's kept his word." Koch doubts that the leadership of his own party could have mustered the grit to topple the Taliban or drive Saddam Hussein from power, let alone to press on in what is going to be a long and grinding conflict.

"Already, most of the world is caving. If you didn't have Bush standing there, you'd have everybody following Spain and the Philippines" in retreat, he says, trying to appease the terrorists instead of fighting them.

How much of his party does Koch speak for? We won't know for sure until Election Day, when exit polls help gauge how many Democrats crossed party lines to support Bush. But Koch knows he's not the only Democrat to regard the war against militant Islam as the most critical issue of the campaign. And he doesn't think he was the only one dismayed by what he saw at the Democratic convention in July.

From Michael Moore's seat of honor next to Jimmy Carter, to the thunderous applause that greeted Howard Dean, to the 9 out of 10 delegates who want to pull the plug on Iraq, the convention exposed the radical antiwar mindset that dominates the Democratic Party leadership.

But hasn't Kerry pledged to stay in Iraq and to go after the terrorists? "That's what he says to appeal to moderates and conservatives during the campaign," Koch replies. But the party activists who nominated him would compel him to back down once he was in office. The people now running the Democratic Party want no part of the war, and "when the chips are down, Kerry will do what they want."

It bears repeating: This is a faithful Democrat talking. And it is as a faithful Democrat that Koch so sharply resists his party's left wing. ("The radicals don't like me," he once wrote. "And they have good reason, because I despise them.") Though he calls himself a "liberal with sanity," he governed the largest city in America as a decided centrist. Twice he was reelected in massive landslides. New Yorkers came to trust Koch's instincts and judgment because they resonated so closely with their own.

And what those instincts and common sense tell Koch today is that nothing matters more than beating back the threat from Islamic terrorists. "I want a president who is willing to go after them before they have a chance to kill us," he says. "Party affiliation is an important consideration," but it's not more important than winning the war.

In his 1984 autobiography, "Mayor," Koch tells of his appearance before the Republican Party's platform committee in 1980.

"I was the first Democratic mayor to do so in anyone's memory. And it caused a stir." For the better part of an hour, Koch gave the Republicans his views on some of the era's most intractable municipal issues, including unfunded federal mandates, block grants, and the heavy burden of Medicaid.

"They were with me on all of these items," Koch recalled -- so much so that when the session ended, GOP Chairman Bill Brock half-jokingly invited him to join the Republican Party. "I respectfully decline," Koch answered.

"Then we all went outside for pictures. There I was asked by a reporter, `Mr. Mayor, isn't this political treason?'

"I said, `If this be treason, make the most of it. But it ain't.' "

It ain't treason this time either. In 1980, Koch's top priority was the fiscal security of New York City. In 2004, it is the national security of the United States. Americans are at war with fanatical enemies, and above all else, they need a commander-in-chief who can face those enemies without flinching.

Koch's political home remains where it has always been -- in the party of FDR and Truman, Humphrey and Moynihan. He is a loyal Democrat. But as JFK once said, sometimes party loyalty asks too much.

He's entitled to his opinion, view and vote. Afghanistan and Iraq are far from secure and we are fighting a war in Iraq that had precious little to do with fighting "terrorists"-- at leasts before we went in. It's a haven for them now. I supported going into Afghanistan after the Taliban as did the overwhelming number of Democrats. I wish we had put more troops there than NYC has cops. We didn't and we tried to secure it on the cheap by buying off, or "renting", warlords. We control Kabul. It's a mess. Iraq is one of the biggest strategic blunders in the history of mankind. The costs to this country our immeasurable and lasting. Iraq will never be the unified democracy Bush and the Neo-cons envisioned.

I've never been impressed with Koch. Answer my question-- how did you view him before he endorsed Bush?

[Tiger Al 0]

There is an old saying, if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the only one to squeal is the one to get hit.  From the response from you two, it sounds as if Mr. Koch has hit the democrats squarely on the head! 

Why? Koch said his primary reason for voting for Bush is this:

"I've never before supported a Republican for president," Koch told me last week. "But I'm doing so this time because of the one issue that trumps everything else: international terrorism. In my judgment, the Democratic Party just doesn't have the stomach to stand up to the terrorists. But Bush is a fighter."

The one issue that trumps everything else is international terrorism he says. I don't necessarily disagree. To fight international terrorism best you need what? Good intelligence first and foremost. But, you guys have said that because Kerry wanted to cut the CIA's funding by 1% stretched out over five years that that made him totally unacceptable. Bush has nominated Porter Goss to be CIA director. Goss was one of six original co-sponsors of legislation in 1995 that called for cuts of at least 4 percent per year between 1996 and 2000 in the total number of people employed throughout the intelligence community.

Let's recap: Kerry was criticized and called "bad for America" by Bush/Cheney because he wanted to cut 0.2% from CIA's budget every year for five years for a total of 1%. Bush/Cheney nominate Goss who wanted to cut CIA's budget 4% over that same period for a total of 20%!!!

"I'm not sure what to think of Mr. Tenet. I don't think his resignation alone will fix or repair all that need repairing for the CIA to be as effective as needed. But if John Kerry is elected, we may not have a CIA. I think he has consistently voted to reduce funds for the CIA, FBI, & DOD, hasn't he?"

"For those reasons, the coming presidential election may be the most important in the history of our nation. The war on terrorism MUST be won. President Bush will be committed to see it through. I am not convinced John Kerry will." and,

"I thought John Kerry was against the War on Terrorism? I thought he has been saying the US should not be in Iraq & should turn the War on Terrorism over the United Nations? Has John Kerry NOT voted to decrease funding for the military and the CIA? Mr. Kerry must have brown eyes, cause he is full of )*)&^^"

"Kind of like Kerry wanting to cut the Intelligence budget for years and then screaming to high heaven when the CIA & FBI were lacking before 9/11."

"Yes people this is the man the dems want to lead the United States in the War on Terrorists.  He may be from Mass, but he is NO John Kennedy!"

in response to this article...

"In 1995, Kerry Proposed Bill To Gut $1.5 Billion From Overall Intelligence Budget, Not Specific Programs. Kerry introduced a bill that would “reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.” There were no cosponsors of Kerry’s 1995 bill, which never made it to the floor for a vote. (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95)

In 1994, Kerry Proposed Bill To Gut $1 Billion From Intelligence And Freeze Intelligence Spending. Kerry proposed a bill cutting $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/1994)

In 1994, Kerry Proposed And Voted To Cut $1 Billion From Intelligence. Kerry proposed cutting $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. The amendment was soundly defeated."

For a man who said all of these things and more, Tigermike, you must be very concerned over Bush/Cheney's nomination of Porter Goss as head of the CIA.

[Tigermike 3,053]

There is an old saying, if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the only one to squeal is the one to get hit.  From the response from you two, it sounds as if Mr. Koch has hit the democrats squarely on the head! 

Why? Koch said his primary reason for voting for Bush is this:

"I've never before supported a Republican for president," Koch told me last week. "But I'm doing so this time because of the one issue that trumps everything else: international terrorism. In my judgment, the Democratic Party just doesn't have the stomach to stand up to the terrorists. But Bush is a fighter."

The one issue that trumps everything else is international terrorism he says. I don't necessarily disagree. To fight international terrorism best you need what? Good intelligence first and foremost. But, you guys have said that because Kerry wanted to cut the CIA's funding by 1% stretched out over five years that that made him totally unacceptable. Bush has nominated Porter Goss to be CIA director. Goss was one of six original co-sponsors of legislation in 1995 that called for cuts of at least 4 percent per year between 1996 and 2000 in the total number of people employed throughout the intelligence community.

Let's recap: Kerry was criticized and called "bad for America" by Bush/Cheney because he wanted to cut 0.2% from CIA's budget every year for five years for a total of 1%. Bush/Cheney nominate Goss who wanted to cut CIA's budget 4% over that same period for a total of 20%!!!

"I'm not sure what to think of Mr. Tenet. I don't think his resignation alone will fix or repair all that need repairing for the CIA to be as effective as needed. But if John Kerry is elected, we may not have a CIA. I think he has consistently voted to reduce funds for the CIA, FBI, & DOD, hasn't he?"

"For those reasons, the coming presidential election may be the most important in the history of our nation. The war on terrorism MUST be won. President Bush will be committed to see it through. I am not convinced John Kerry will." and,

"I thought John Kerry was against the War on Terrorism? I thought he has been saying the US should not be in Iraq & should turn the War on Terrorism over the United Nations? Has John Kerry NOT voted to decrease funding for the military and the CIA? Mr. Kerry must have brown eyes, cause he is full of )*)&^^"

"Kind of like Kerry wanting to cut the Intelligence budget for years and then screaming to high heaven when the CIA & FBI were lacking before 9/11."

"Yes people this is the man the dems want to lead the United States in the War on Terrorists.  He may be from Mass, but he is NO John Kennedy!"

in response to this article...

"In 1995, Kerry Proposed Bill To Gut $1.5 Billion From Overall Intelligence Budget, Not Specific Programs. Kerry introduced a bill that would “reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.” There were no cosponsors of Kerry’s 1995 bill, which never made it to the floor for a vote. (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95)

In 1994, Kerry Proposed Bill To Gut $1 Billion From Intelligence And Freeze Intelligence Spending. Kerry proposed a bill cutting $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/1994)

In 1994, Kerry Proposed And Voted To Cut $1 Billion From Intelligence. Kerry proposed cutting $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. The amendment was soundly defeated."

For a man who said all of these things and more, Tigermike, you must be very concerned over Bush/Cheney's nomination of Porter Goss as head of the CIA.

I am concerned with the nomination of anyone to that post. I am also concerned that Kerry might actually be elected and nominate someone even less qualified than himself.

But hasn't Kerry pledged to stay in Iraq and to go after the terrorists? "That's what he says to appeal to moderates and conservatives during the campaign," Koch replies. But the party activists who nominated him would compel him to back down once he was in office. The people now running the Democratic Party want no part of the war, and "when the chips are down, Kerry will do what they want."

Yes Al that does concern me.

[Tiger Al 0]

I am concerned with the nomination of anyone to that post. I am also concerned that Kerry might actually be elected and nominate someone even less qualified than himself.

Does Porter Goss fall into that category?

[Tigermike 3,053]

I am concerned with the nomination of anyone to that post. I am also concerned that Kerry might actually be elected and nominate someone even less qualified than himself.

Does Porter Goss fall into that category?

What did I say Al? Does Porter Goss fall into that category of anyone? Did I leave him out by saying anyone?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

TigerMike:

Still haven't answered my question. It's an easy one.

[Tiger Al 0]

I am concerned with the nomination of anyone to that post. I am also concerned that Kerry might actually be elected and nominate someone even less qualified than himself.

Does Porter Goss fall into that category?

What did I say Al? Does Porter Goss fall into that category of anyone? Did I leave him out by saying anyone?

Do you think Goss is qualified to be the director of the CIA?

[Tigermike 3,053]

I've never been impressed with Koch. Answer my question-- how did you view him before he endorsed Bush?

I viewed him as a retired Mayor of New York City. Other than that I had no opinion of him. Since I have not lived in NYC in over 30 years, I don't keep up with their politics. I remember him being Mayor, but never felt I needed to form an opinion of the Mayor of a city I did not live in. When I did live there I was a political agnostic. I could not tell you who the Mayor was then and I didn't really care. While he was Mayor of NYC, I was living in Mobile, Al. We had plenty of problems with our own elected officials and several went to prision. Why should I have been worried about the Mayor of NYC?