[lbo-talk] easy for you to say

R rhisiart at charter.net
Fri Jun 4 16:44:04 PDT 2004


washingtonpost.com

Kerry Says He Would Add 40,000 to Army Missile Defense Cut Could Defray Cost By Dan Balz Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, June 4, 2004; Page A01

INDEPENDENCE, Mo., June 3 -- In his most extensive remarks on the future of the American military, Sen. John F. Kerry said here Thursday that he would expand the active-duty Army by 40,000 soldiers, including a doubling of U.S. Special Forces; speed development of new technologies and equipment to meet threats posed by terrorist networks; and better integrate the National Guard into the nation's homeland security strategy.

The Democratic presidential candidate said that, to cover part of the cost of his proposals, he would cut back current funding for a national missile defense system, which he characterized as "the wrong priority" at a time when the nature of the threats has changed.

[...]

The Bush officials pointed to Kerry's past positions in opposition to some major weapons programs and upbraided him for campaigning in Florida on Wednesday rather than returning to the Senate to vote for a $25 billion appropriation for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which passed 95 to 0.

[...]

Kerry earlier had proposed expanding the active-duty Army by 40,000 troops, but went further Thursday in detailing that and other recommendations. He said the 40,000 additional troops eventually could help relieve the burden on current active-duty, reserve and National Guard forces.

[...]

The Democratic candidate offered few details to explain how he intends to speed the development and use of advanced technology, from communications gear to precision weapons.

-end-

also, kerry didn't say how he would raise 40,000 more troops. any guesses?

let's all thank the democrats in the Senate for courageously voting unanimously in favor of shrub's $25 billion election year war appropriation. that brings the total we know about to ... $200 billion? who needs domestic programs anyway? where is nathan when we need him to give us a pro Democrat, tidy rationale?

R



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list