Mr. President, politics is politics. As we all know, it can be a contact sport. While many things can be considered fair or unfair, depending on your outlook, I think most would agree that the voting record and the printed and stated…
Mr. President, politics is politics. As we all know, it can be a contact sport. While many things can be considered fair or unfair, depending on your outlook, I think most would agree that the voting record and the printed and stated positions of a candidate or elected official are right and proper to discuss. But it is also important that those who report this discussion be correct in what they report.
I thought we were in morning business. If I may now continue.
It is also important that those who report the discussion be correct in what they report. From most of the national media, we have not had that correct reporting on John Kerry's national defense record.
From the media we have heard, from their review of national defense records, that the liberal Democrat John Kerry and the conservative Vice President Dick Cheney are, in fact, long lost ideological soul mates, separated only by birth and hair.
We hear from Wolf Blitzer and Judy Woodruff on CNN and Chris Matthews on MSNBC, Alan Colmes of Fox, and the fact finders at the Washington Post and the LA Times that if you took Dick Cheney and substituted him for John Kerry or if you took John Kerry and substituted him for Dick Cheney the defense votes that occurred in the House and Senate and the outcomes of defense spending bills and Pentagon operations would be virtually identical.
They would have you believe that when it comes to national defense records, votes and positions, they say the very DNA of Dick Cheney and John Kerry are practically indistinguishable, that they are doves from the same nest. Or maybe it is hawks now, with Kerry's latest change.
As silly as this assertion is, the Democrats are more than happy to make it because many in the media are only too happy to parrot it. There is no better proof of this than the media's response to the speech I made at the Republican National Convention in New York City.
Now, I was inclined to let the veracity of an old man soon to be retired just go unanswered, thinking that the juice wasn't worth the squeeze. And I would have, if it had been my reputation at stake instead of the safety of my family. Let me start with the LA Times which bought lock, stock, and barrel the Democrats' official line, and I quote:
The Kerry campaign responded by accusing Miller of
mischaracterizing the Senator's record, pointing out that
Cheney also voted to cut funding for some of those weapons
systems while serving in Congress. Others were targeted for
cutback by Cheney when he was Defense Secretary in the first
Bush Administration.
USA Today minimized the negative of Kerry's defense votes this way:
. . . Kerry voted against large Pentagon spending bills
that include many weapons three times in his 20-year career.
And Defense Secretary Cheney recommended ending some of the
same systems that Miller cited.
CNN's Judy Woodruff said this to me only a few minutes after my speech:
John Kerry voted for 16 of 19 defense budgets that came
through the Senate while he was in the Senate, and many of
those votes you cited, Dick Cheney also voted against.
Wolf Blitzer of CNN emphasized the similarity of Kerry and Cheney:
When the Vice President was the Secretary of Defense, he
proposed cutting back on the B-2 bomber, the F-14 Tomcat as
well. I covered him at the Pentagon during those years when
he was raising serious concerns about those two weapons
systems. . . .
And then, that citadel of sanctimony, the home of the whopper, the Washington Post, weighed in with this totally untrue statement:
Miller's list was mostly derived from a single Kerry vote
against a spending bill in 1991, rather than individual votes
against particular systems.
Later, a Washington Post analysis added:
Kerry did not cast a series of votes against individual
weapon systems, but instead Kerry voted against a Pentagon
spending package in 1990 as part of deliberations over
restructuring and downsizing the military in the post-Cold
War period.
Editorial pages began to chime in, such as the Philadelphia Daily News:
Miller charged that Kerry has voted to strip the Armed
Services of necessary weapons systems when Dick Cheney, as
Defense Secretary, proposed many of the cuts and voted for
others.
Mr. President, is this true? Are there just a handful of votes by Kerry against weapons systems? Are those votes identical to those by Dick Cheney? Did the media have their facts straight? And even more important, did they really want to have their facts straight? Or did they just simply adopt, without verification, the talking points from the Kerry campaign?
Let's start at the beginning. I said in my speech that Kerry ``opposed the very weapons systems that won the Cold War and that are now winning the war on terrorism.''
I then listed the systems that Kerry opposed, such as the B-1, the B- 2, F-14A, F-14D Tomcats, the Apache helicopter, the F-15 Eagle, the Patriot missile, Aegis cruiser, the SDI, and the Trident missile.
Did Kerry oppose the weapons systems that won the Cold War? The answer is yes.
In 1984, John Kerry ran for the Senate and built his campaign around the promise to reverse what he called ``the biggest defense buildup since World War II,'' a buildup he considered in his words, ``wasteful, useless, and dangerous.''
In a key 1984 campaign document, Kerry identified 16 weapons systems he wanted to ``cancel.''
All of those weapons systems that I stated that Kerry opposed are found in this 1984 document, except for two--the Trident missile and the B-2 bomber. But Senator Kerry's opposition to those was reported in other press interviews in 1984.
Mr. President, this 1984 campaign document is the first, but by no means the last, of Kerry's opposition to these weapons systems.
It is strange, but there has not been a single story that I can find in the media about this document. No one wants the American people to see what Kerry was wanting to cancel at the height of the Cold War.
This document doesn't exist as far as the national media is concerned. But it is vital to any debate about John Kerry's national defense record because it spells out in Kerry's own words his complete and total opposition to these weapons systems. This document begins and ends with the word ``cancel.''
In his own words, John Kerry says ``cancel'' the MX, the B-1, the ASAT, SDI, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot, the Aegis cruiser, the Harrier, the Tomcat, the Eagle, the Phoenix, the Sparrow, and all of the other weapons systems listed on this chart.
If you are like most people, you might read this document and say, if John Kerry wants to cancel these weapons systems, it certainly doesn't mean he is for them. So then he must oppose them. In the name of common sense, could you have any other meaning from this?
The media tells us that just because John Kerry wanted to cancel those systems, that doesn't mean he opposed those systems. Such is their strange and twisted logic.
Because the media is not convinced John Kerry meant ``cancel'' when he said ``cancel,'' they ignore this document and think the American people should, too.
Those who don't ignore this document dismiss it, basically because Kerry opposed these systems 20 years ago. So what is the big deal today?
Here is why it is a big deal. This document came out in 1984, when America was in a life-and-death struggle with the Soviet Union. At that time, the Cold War was anything but cold, and it was certainly not over.
The premier of the Soviet Union was not Gorbachev but Konstantin Chernenko, an old Brezhnev hard-liner.
This document that outlined John Kerry's vision for our national defense, which the media ignores and doesn't want you to know about, came out about 6 months after the Soviet Union shot down Korean Airlines 747 filled with 269 civilians.
This Kerry proposal came at a time when Soviet troops were at the halfway point of their armed invasion of Afghanistan.
This Kerry proposal came at a time when Cuban troops were in Angola and Kampuchea.
This Kerry proposal came at a time when Marxists insurgents had taken power in Nicaragua and were pushing northward into El Salvador.
This Kerry proposal came at a time when insurgents and terrorists were on the attack, and the way Kerry wanted to deal with them was by canceling crucial weapons systems.
Here, at the height of the Cold War, at a time when we were playing cards with the devil himself, when our own future, the world's freedom, and the fate of half a billion souls from Poland to Siberia, from the Baltic to Crimea, were all in the pot, John Kerry said ``fold them'' to what ultimately turned out to be one of the biggest winning hands ever played for freedom.
That is why this 1984 document is a big deal, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record.
This document is not the end of this sorry story, for with these weapons systems clearly in his crosshairs as candidate John Kerry, Senator John Kerry pulled the trigger on them his first year in the Senate in 1985, and then again at every other chance he got.
In 1985, the ``series of votes against individual weapons systems'' the Washington Post so snugly swore never took place began.
In all, 14 Senate votes took place in 1985 alone on 5 of the specific weapons systems Kerry pledged to cancel. Mr. President, 13 of his 14 votes in 1984 were to cut the defense systems he promised to cancel.
Four of those were to cut the MX peacemaker missile; two votes were to cut antisatellite weapons; two votes were to cut SDI; another vote was to restrict SDI's use; another vote was to cut battleship reactivation; and another vote was against binary weapons.
Kerry's only vote not to cut a defense program was on SDI. You know why? Because after voting three times to cut SDI by as much as $1.5 billion, Kerry voted against a cut of $160 million because he said it didn't cut SDI enough.
So when it comes to the weapons systems that won the Cold War, John Kerry said in 1985 he wanted to cancel them, and then in 1985 he voted against them 13 out of 14 times.
There were two other votes to cut back overall defense spending, for a total of 16 votes in 1985 on national defense alone; but the Mr. Magoos down at the pious Post somehow could not locate these facts.
In fact, the Washington Post could not only find ``a'' vote--one single solitary vote over 20 years--where John Kerry voted against defense. That single antidefense vote was after the Cold War in 1990 or 1991, depending upon which Washington Post report you read.
Judy Woodruff did some better. She found 19 total defense votes over Kerry's 20 years in the Senate. There were 16 votes in 1985 on defense systems and overall spending alone.
She also claimed that Cheney voted the same way as Kerry on ``many of those'' 19.
Yet how many can ``many'' be if Cheney and Kerry served simultaneously in Congress for only 4 of those 19 annual budget fights?
But Wolf Blitzer's defense of Kerry's national defense record was the most interesting. With the wave of a hand, Blitzer dismissed the numerous votes by Kerry against these weapon systems that occurred years before as well as the years after Cheney was Secretary of Defense.
Cheney's position in 1990 and Kerry's opposition in 1984 is the difference between opposing the Sherman tank and the B-29 in the year before D-day and then wanting to cut back on them the year after V-J day.
Mr. President, you could review the series of John Kerry votes on weapons systems in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989--all that occurred before the Berlin Wall fell.
The fact is you can look at Kerry's votes during the cold war, after the cold war, before Desert Storm, after Desert Storm, after the first World Trade Center attack, before the war on terrorism and now during the war on terrorism, and you will find John Kerry was one of the most reliable ``no'' votes against the weapons our soldiers needed to defend this country and keep the U.S. safe.
The point is if the media won't tell you what the impact of Kerry's position would have been on the cold war, they sure are not going to tell you what the impact would be today on the war on terrorism.
So let me sum up what we can learn from the media's response to my speech at the Republican National Convention on John Kerry's defense record.
The media can only find John Kerry opposing defense weapon systems that Secretary Cheney opposed also.
The media will only count overall spending bills as a vote against a weapon system, and will not count the numerous votes on the systems themselves nor the overall budget plans as votes on the systems or national defense.
And the media can simply find no votes by John Kerry against any weapon systems during the height of the cold war--not a one. Not a single one.
What they found, or what they want you to believe they found is that Cheney and Kerry had practically identical national defense voting records during the cold war. And that is flagrantly wrong.
Let me take another minute to look at this.
In 1985, the House in which Cheney was a Member had a series of votes on 17 specific weapon systems.
Seventeen of Dick Cheney's seventeen votes were to protect the defense systems.
Seven ayes on seven votes to protect the MX peacekeeper missile;
Six ayes on six votes to protect SDI;
Another vote to protect the Trident II missile;
Another vote to protect binary weapons;
Another vote to protect chemical weapons; and
Another vote to protect ASAT weapons.
During the height of the cold war, essentially every vote by Dick Cheney was the mirror opposite of John Kerry.
Where Cheney repeatedly voted for weapon systems, Kerry repeatedly voted against those weapon systems.
Where Cheney supported President Reagan's announced position on each vote on these weapon systems, Kerry opposed President Reagan's announced position on each vote.
The sole vote of John Kerry against a cut in defense was because he wanted
a bigger cut--a cut as much as ten times larger in SDI.
So there are differences between Dick Cheney and John Kerry on national defense. It's the difference between the world's biggest and greatest military superpower and, well, spitballs.
Mr. President, I probably have wasted my time and just spit in the ocean because we all have learned the hard way that the elite media can do anything it wants and sell anything it wants.
We saw earlier this year the New York Times and Washington Post repeat on their front pages false allegations by Ambassador Joe Wilson about Niger uranium and his wife's role in his own activities, but they then buried the correction somewhere in the back pages.
We saw Newsweek's Evan Thomas report that: ``The media want Kerry to win'' and that support, in Thomas's words, ``is going to be worth maybe 15 points.''
We see CBS News having to admit they were pushing forgeries about President Bush's National Guard service.
The national media's all-out defense of John Kerry's indefensible defense record falls into this same sorry and disgraceful pattern of selling an agenda rather than the facts.
What I said in New York was true. It was true then. It is still true now.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
