Kerry Voted Against Pistol
Sidearms have been an integral weapons system for soldiers of the U.S. military for over a century. Pistols are not as lethal as the F-16 or Apache Attack Helicopter, but they are considered by most military experts to be major weapons systems and crucial to the defense of U.S. That all would have changed if Senator John Kerry’s vote against pistols had passed. The all but forgotten vote was discovered accidentally by congressional computer archivists while backing up the “no” column of the 2,000 gigabyte database containing Senator Kerry’s weapons systems votes.
When reporters asked Senator Kerry what weapons system would replace the one that he himself used in the Vietnam conflict, he replied that the pistol was “no longer needed and could be replaced by more effective weapons.” When questioned further, Senator Kerry said “recent improvements in martial arts forms such as Tai Chi could allow soldiers to do much more with less.” Kerry later clarified that by “effective,” he meant, “cost-effective.”
When asked about Kerry’s remarks at a press conference, President George Bush speculated that Senator Kerry had been “shooting from the hip” again. “Probably the left hip,” he added, “tomorrow he’ll take the other side.”
Other major weapons systems that Kerry has voted against include:
- Pellet guns
- Slingshots
- Wedgies
- Headlocks
- The words, “flip flop“
- Pork and Beans K-rations
Do you know of a weapons system that John Kerry has voted against?
zack Says: April 1st, 2004 at 2:32 pm
Wouldn’t it be easier and quicker to list the weapon systems that Kerry has voted FOR?
Emory Says: April 2nd, 2004 at 1:31 am
Yeah, the weapons systems Kerry voted FOR appear at the bottom (in the white space)
ddh Says: May 8th, 2004 at 6:03 am
I’d be glad to see an imbedded report and him dropped off in Iraq with nothing but his martial art skills to fight/find his way out.
Iggy G. Says: September 3rd, 2004 at 9:41 am
The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward. AH-64 . . . forced the Army to make choices. I said, “You can’t have all three. We don’t have the money for all three.” So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.
-Dick Cheney, Aug. 13, 1989
JD Says: September 3rd, 2004 at 1:40 pm
Zoots rational is a perfect example of how liberals get it wrong. They think economics is a zero sum game. That is if you have money you had to get it from someone else. Liberals don’t understand that wealth is created not confiscated. When people invest and build businesses and the like they create not only their own wealth but that of others who benefit from the growth. And this is sustainable, unlike government expenditures which IS zero sum. It makes virtually no difference whether people spend their money or invest it. Both benefit the economy. What does matter is that people have the choice to choose. Not the government.
Stephen Huck Says: September 23rd, 2004 at 3:48 am
I like the “…”‘s Iggy, I wonder what was in there (I’m sure it was nothing relevant). And what were the other two weapons systems? If there are 2 better weapons systems, what’s wrong with Dick recommending cancel on the apache?