Misleading intelligence ad on Kerry.

[slugshooter]

Would Kerry Throw Us To The Wolves?

A misleading Bush ad criticizes Kerry for proposing to cut intelligence spending -- a decade ago, by 4%, when some Republicans also proposed cuts.

October 23, 2004

A new Bush ad claims Kerry supported cuts in intelligence “so deep they would have weakened America ’s defenses” against terrorists, and shows a pack of hungry-looking wolves preparing to attack. Actually, the cut Kerry proposed in 1994 amounted to less than 4 percent, as part of a proposal to cut many programs to reduce the deficit.

And in 1995 Porter Goss, who is now Bush’s CIA Director, co-sponsored an even stronger deficit-elimination measure that would have cut CIA personnel by 20 percent over five years. When asked about that at his confirmation hearings he didn't disavow it.

The Bush ad released Oct. 22 is called “wolves,” and is a direct appeal to fear.

Speak Softly But

Use Scary Words and Pictures

Using a soft-spoken female announcer to deliver the harsh message, the ad shows blurry images of a dark forest and a pack of hungry-looking wolves eying the camera and apparently contemplating an attack.

The announcer says that “after the first terrorist attack on America ” Kerry “voted to slash America ’s intelligence operations.” The ad is misleading in several ways, some of which we went over last March when President Bush first accused Kerry of trying to “gut” the intelligence budget.

Here are the ways this ad misleads voters:

•Old news: The “first terrorist attack” the ad refers to didn't happen September 11, 2001, as some listeners assume. It actually was more than a decade ago, in 1993, when a truck bomb went off in the parking garage under one of the World Trade Center towers. In fact, Kerry was supporting regular increases in intelligence spending for several years prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

•Exaggerated Wording: Kerry never proposed a single $6-billion cut in intelligence spending. He did propose S.1826 (see "supporting documents" at right) which included a $1-billion cut in 1994. That measure also would have frozen intelligence spending at that reduced level through 1998, allowing it to rise only by the rate of inflation. That could fairly be called a $5-billion cut spread over five years.

Total intelligence spending is a classified figure, but was estimated at the time to be $27 billion per year. So, the cut Kerry proposed amounted to an estimated 3.7 percent -- hardly a proposal to "slash" expenditures. That measure was debated on the Senate floor and on Feb 10,1994 it was defeated 75-20 with 38 Democratic Senators voting against it.

The following year Kerry introduced another deficit-reduction package, S.1290 (see "supporting documents" at right). This one would have lowered the ceiling for intelligence spending by $300 million for five years starting in 1996. That would have amounted to a reduction of just over 1 percent of estimated intelligence spending.

Not only was this proposed reduction a small one, it came at a time when it had just become known that one intelligence agency had been hoarding $1 billion in unspent funds from its secret appropriations. Kerry's proposal died without a hearing, but a similar Republican-sponsored measure eventually became law (see below).

Saying that either of these proposals would “slash” spending is an exaggeration. Saying that a 4 percent or 1 percent cut would have “weakened America ’s defenses” is an opinion which the Bush campaign has a perfect right to state, but it is not a fact.

•Missing Context: The ad doesn’t tell the whole story. Some Republicans also supported similar cuts in intelligence spending at the time, including Bush’s current CIA Director Porter Goss.

Goss co-sponsored a draconian, deficit-elimination bill in 1995 (see "supporting documents" at right) that would have cut the number of CIA employees by 20 percent or more over five years. Goss wasn't the main author -- he signed onto an 1,188-page bill authored by Gerald Solomon, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, of which Goss was a member. The measure died without a hearing and had no prospect of passage, as it called for elimination of the Departments of Education, Energy and Commerce among other things. When questioned about his co-sponsorship of the bill during his confirmation hearings in September Goss said only, "the record speaks for the record."

Another Republican-sponsored cut similar to Kerry's proposed 1995 measure actually became law. On the same day Kerry proposed his $1.5-billion cut spread over five years, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996. That measure was proposed by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and a companion measure was co-sponsored by Kerry and Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership. Specter explained at the time that the $1-billion cut was intended to recapture funds that had been appropriated for spy satellites, but which had gone unspent by the National Reconnaissance Office.

Sources

Dana Milbank, “Goss Backed '95 Bill to Slash Intelligence; Plan Would Have Cut Personnel 20%,” Washington Post, 24 Aug 2004 : A3.

"Hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee: Nomination of Rep. Porter J. Goss to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency," transcript, The Federal News Service, Inc., 14 Sep 2004.

103d Congress, 2d Session, S. 1826, "To reduce the deficit for fiscal years 1994 through 1998," 3 Feb. 1994.

104th Congress, 1st Session, S.1290, "To reduce the deficit," 25 Sep 1995.

104th Congress, 1st Session H.R. 1923, "To balance the budget of the United States Government by restructuring Government, reducing Federal spending, eliminating the deficit, limiting bureaucracy, and restoring federalism," 25 Jun 2004.

[Ravin R10 man]

Re: Misleading intelligence ad on Kerry.

Any add stating Kerry has intelligence is misleading

[buckee]

Re: Misleading intelligence ad on Kerry.

[ QUOTE ]

The Bush ad released Oct. 22 is called “wolves,” and is a direct appeal to fear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry has been trying to make Americans afraid of Bush from the very start of his campaign and now he's whining about a little wolf ad ...Geesh. ...Look whose calling the kettle black.

[slugshooter]

Re: Misleading intelligence ad on Kerry.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

The Bush ad released Oct. 22 is called “wolves,” and is a direct appeal to fear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry has been trying to make Americans afraid of Bush from the very start of his campaign and now he's whining about a little wolf ad ...Geesh. ...Look whose calling the kettle black.

[/ QUOTE ]

That statement isn't from Kerry, it's from factcheck.org

[markyj987]

Re: Misleading intelligence ad on Kerry.

slugshooter, you're a pretty smart guy. Like you, I've found factcheck.org to be a very helpful resource.

Since you've been to the site, you undoubtedly know that both Kerry and Bush have been pumping out bogus accusation after bogus accusation.

Kerry isn't as terrible as many think he is, and Bush isn't as fantastic as many of us here think he is.

This is, unfortunately, just the nature of presidential politics. In ad after ad and in debate after debate, they've both flung a lot of bull around.

My vote, as usual, won't be based on an issue ad. It will be based on whoever has a set of beliefs and values more consistent with my own.

I just believe that Kerry's wrong on almost all of the issues: The Iraq War, taxes, the economy, education, social security, health care, gun rights, and abortion.

Both candidates are wrong on immigration in my opinion, so that's a wash.

Part of the reason I always vote Republican is just based on core ideology. I DON'T believe in government entitlements. That's one of my core values, yet John Kerry wants to expand them. Don't get me wrong--Bush has pushed for more of these than I'd have liked, but not as much as John Kerry is proposing.

If it hadn't been for Howard Dean's scream and Kerry constantly in bed with organized labor, Dean would have been the nominee. Though it's a moot point to say this, he also would have been a sronger candidate and could've probably beat Bush.

Though very liberal on many things, Dean was definitely a fiscal conservative and is a strong supporter of gun rights.

Dean was painted as a far left liberal, but in reality Kerry was further to the left with him. Dean would've had more broad-based appeal among independants and GOP leaners.

Anyway, I've kind of gone off on a tangent here, but back to your question--the false ads both sides are putting out there won't have any impact on my vote.

By the way, slugshooter. If you don't mind me asking, have you decided whether you're going to vote and for whom?

[slugshooter]

Re: Misleading intelligence ad on Kerry.

[ QUOTE ]

I just believe that Kerry's wrong on almost all of the issues: The Iraq War, taxes, the economy, education, social security, health care, gun rights, and abortion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only difference between me and you marky is who we choose to best represent our values. You and I both have differing opinions on things and the way we feel about things, just as you disagree on those above issues as Kerry stands on them, I disagree with Bush's stance on things. This election to me is so much more than one single issue. I am a democrat, so people would say I should vote for Kerry, but, I am a hunter and gun owner so people say I should vote for Bush. This election is bigger than any one issue, Kerry may not be looked on as a "friend" to the gun or hunting industry, but I do not believe he is as anti-gun as the NRA or the RNC makes him out to be, there is a big difference between anti-gun and pro- gun control. I didn't post those 2 stories from factcheck.org to try and change anyone's mind on here, I realize that most minds are made up and have been for awhile, I posted them to show what either party will do to gain that edge and yes both sides are guilty of it. Like I said before, this election is bigger than any one issue to me.

[markyj987]

Re: Misleading intelligence ad on Kerry.

[ QUOTE ]

I didn't post those 2 stories from factcheck.org to try and change anyone's mind on here, I realize that most minds are made up and have been for awhile, I posted them to show what either party will do to gain that edge and yes both sides are guilty of it. Like I said before, this election is bigger than any one issue to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely didn't think that was your motive...and you made an excellent point. Like I said, they've both been putting ads out with bogus accusations. Thank God for the amount of FACTUAL information we have available to us these days.

[wtnhunt]

Re: Misleading intelligence ad on Kerry.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

The Bush ad released Oct. 22 is called “wolves,” and is a direct appeal to fear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry has been trying to make Americans afraid of Bush from the very start of his campaign and now he's whining about a little wolf ad ...Geesh. ...Look whose calling the kettle black.

[/ QUOTE ]

That statement isn't from Kerry, it's from factcheck.org

[/ QUOTE ]

Difference is Kerry cries with any attacks directed at him regardless of who it is attacking him while he is making attacks of his own directed towards the Bush administration. Shows his lack of character in my opinion. He can dish it out, but cannot take any criticisms of himself.