posted October 18, 2004 11:31 AM              

#1. BUSH CLAIMS: “Gosh, I don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama Bin Laden. That’s kinda one of those exaggerations.”

REALITY:

Bush: “I Am Truly Not That Concerned About Him.” In 2002 Bush said: “Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I--I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

#2. BUSH CLAIMS: “three-quarters of Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice.” [Bush Remarks, Third Presidential Debate, 10/13/04]

REALITY:

Bush Claims To Have Wiped Out 3/4 Of Al Qaeda, Yet The Organization Is Resurging And Morphing. Despite Bush’s claims over the past several months that “much of Al Qaeda’s leadership has been killed or captured,” new evidence from Al Qaeda double-agent Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan’s computer, seized in Pakistan, shows that a “new generation of operatives…[appears] to be filling the vacuum created when leaders were killed or captured.” According to intelligence analysts, “Al Qaeda’s upper ranks are being filled by lower-ranking members and more recent recruits.” Al Qaeda is “more resilient than was previously understood and has sought to find replacements for operational commanders like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Walid Muhammad Salih bin Attash, known as Khallad, all of whom have been captured.” Although several major leaders have been captured, “the new operatives appear as committed to striking the U.S.” [Bush Remarks, 9/14/04; New York Times, 8/10/04; Wall Street Journal, 8/16/04]

#3. BUSH CLAIMS: “We have a problem with litigation in the United States of America. Vaccine manufacturers are worried about getting sued, and therefore they have backed off from providing this kind of vaccine.”

REALITY:

Mergers, Not Lawsuits, To Blame for Lack of Vaccine Producing Companies. “Also, Bush blamed lawsuits for the shortage, but that's not the cause of frequent vaccine shortages, according to the Institute of Medicine, a division of the National Academy of Sciences. The problem is that vaccines aren't profitable and drug companies keep merging. In 1967, nearly 30 drug companies made vaccines. That was down to five last year, and of those only two make flu vaccines.” [Pioneer Press, 10/14/04]

#4. BUSH CLAIMS: “Most of the tax cuts went to low and middle income Americans, and now the tax code is more fair, 20 percent of the upper income people pay about 80 percent of the taxes in America today because of how we structured the tax cuts.”

REALITY:

In 2004, Top One Percent Will Receive Average Tax Cut Of $35,000; Middle Class Will Receive Average Tax Cut Of $647. The benefits of Bush’s tax cuts primarily benefit the rich. The top one percent of households will receive tax cuts averaging almost $35,000--or 54 times more than middle-class families. Households with incomes above $1 million will receive tax cuts averaging about $123,600. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/14/04]

George Bush's Plan Shifts the Tax Burden to the Middle Class. In contrast, under the Bush plan the "Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle" according to a Washington Post headline, and "middle America - average annual income $75,600 - saw its share of the federal tax burden increase from 18.7 percent to 19.5 percent." In addition, George Bush has imposed a tax of thousands of dollars on families through higher costs for health care, gasoline, college tuition, and state and local taxes. [Washington Post, 8/13/04]

#5. BUSH CLAIMS: “I understand that they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust, and the compounding rate of interest effect will make it more likely that the social security system is solvent for our children and our grandchildren.”

REALITY:

CBO: Bush Plan Will Force Benefit Cuts. According to CBO, the President’s plan “would reduce expected retirement benefits relative to scheduled benefits, even when the benefits paid from IAs [individual accounts] under CSSS Plan 2 are included… For example, benefits for the 1980s birth cohort would be 30 percent lower, and benefits for the 2000s cohort would be 45 percent lower.” [CBO, “Long-term Analysis of Plan 2 of the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security,” 7/21/2004, page 15 and Table 2]

#6. BUSH CLAIMS: “He [Kerry] voted to increase taxes 98 times.”

REALITY:

Bush Exaggerates Kerry’s Tax Record. “Bush recycled his charge that Kerry voted 98 times to raise taxes. But FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan group, says nearly half were not for tax increases per se, and many others were on procedural motions. The Bush total also includes several votes on a single tax bill.” [Washington Post, 10/14/04]

Kerry has gone on the legislative record over 640 times for lower taxes. [Congressional Quarterly Votes; CQ's Congress And The Nation; CQ Almanacs; Senate Republican Policy Committee Vote Analysis; Congressional Research Service Bill Summaries (via thomas.loc.gov), bill texts (via thomas.loc.gov)]

#7. BUSH CLAIMS: “I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the constitution.”

REALITY:

Bush Previously Claimed Gay Marriage Was a State Issue. In a 2000 Republican primary debate, Bush responded to a question about same-sex marriage as follows: "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue." [2/15/00 Republican primary debate, ]http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/15/lkl.00.html;]

#8. BUSH CLAIMS: “He talks about PAYGO. I'll tell you what PAYGO means, when you're a senator from Massachusetts, when you're a colleague of Ted Kennedy, pay go means: You pay, and he goes ahead and spends.”

REALITY:

Bush Has Increased Non-Defense Discretionary Spending By 36 Percent During His First Term. In total, non-defense discretionary outlays increased approximately 36 percent during Bush’s first term in office. Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, estimates that government spending has climbed twice as fast under Bush as under Clinton. [Heritage study, 12/16/03; Cato Institute, 3/3/04; New York Times, 1/24/04]

Bush Has Not Vetoed A Single Spending Bill. During his first term in office, Bush has not vetoed any bills. [Heritage study, 12/16/03; Cato Institute, 3/3/04; New York Times, 1/24/04; Economist, 10/9/04; Denver Post, 8/29/04; Congressional Quarterly]

#9. BUSH CLAIMS: “It will be the largest increase in government health care ever.”

REALITY:

Bush’s Charges About Kerry’s Health Care Plan Have Been Roundly Discredited. ABC News said they were “not true.” “This is hardly a government takeover that would put bureaucrats in charge of your health care, as President Bush has shamelessly contended,” said the New York Times. The Washington Post said, “There is no evidence that the Kerry blueprint is a ‘government-run’ plan.” The Detroit News said they are “absurd accusations.” And the St. Louis Post-Dispatch said, “Mr. Bush's allegations are wildly inaccurate.” [ABC News World News Tonight, 9/13/04; New York Times Editorial, 10/3/04; Washington Post, 9/14/04; Detroit Free Press, 9/26/04; St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial, 9/27/04]

#10. BUSH CLAIMS: “That’s why I am such a strong believer in medical liability reform. The last debate my opponent said the lawsuits only cause it to go up by 1 percent. He didn't include the defensive practice of medicine that costs the Federal government some $28 billion a year and costs our society between 60 and 100 billion a year.”

REALITY:

GAO Found No Evidence that Tort Reform Would Reduce Medical Spending. Both the General Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support for that claim…When the CBO attempted to duplicate the Stanford economists’ methods for other types of ailments they found “no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending.” [FactCheck.org, 10/9/04]

#11. BUSH CLAIMS: “We ought…to make sure when they get out of high school there's Pell Grants available for them, which is what we've done.” [Bush, 10/13/04]

REALITY:

Bush Broke Campaign Promise to Increase Maximum Pell Grant Award Amount. Bush promised to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100 during the 2000 campaign. Bush’s FY 2005 budget is the third in a row that has refused to increase the value over the current $4,050. The maximum value of the Pell grant covers 68 percent of public two-year tuition, down from 94 percent three decades ago. [Bush Speech in Hampton, New Hampshire, 8/30/00; FY 2005 budget]

Bush Tried to Drop 84,000 Students From Pell Program By Changing Eligibility Formula. Department of Education proposed Pell Grant formula changes would have eliminated Pell Grants for 84,000 students and reduced the grants for 1.5 million additional students. Fortunately, implementation of the proposed changes was delayed by Congress. [American Council on Education, 12/8/03]

#12. BUSH CLAIMS: “Well, first of all, it is just not true that I haven't met with the Black Congressional Caucus. I met with the Black Congressional Caucus at the White House.”

REALITY:

Bush Has Purposely Ignored the Congressional Black Caucus. “Bush did meet with the Congressional Black Caucus during his first two weeks in office -- on Jan. 31, 2001 -- but Kerry's overall charge was correct: Bush has repeatedly turned down requests to meet with the group since then. Caucus members have complained that not only has Bush refused to meet with them on specific issues, including his plans to attack Iraq, but also the White House often has not even responded to their letters.” [Washington Post, 10/14/04]

#13. BUSH CLAIMS: “And now this economy is growing. We added 1.9 million new jobs over the last 13 months.”

REALITY:

Bush “Oversimplifies” The Employment Picture. Bush “oversimplified” the employment picture by saying that the number of jobs has increased by 1.9 million in the past 13 months…Bush was referring to only a brief window of time. The latest job figures released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics last week showed that 96,000 jobs were added in September, fewer than the 145,000 predicted by economists, for a net loss of 821,000 during Bush's tenure. Bush is on track to be the first president in 72 years to preside over a loss of jobs.” [Washington Post, 10/14/04]

#14. BUSH CLAIMS: “What he's asking me is, ‘Will I have a litmus test for my judges?’ And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test.”

REALITY:

Bush Has Promised to Pack the Courts with Right Wing Judges. Bush has pledged to continue to pack the courts with his right wing judicial nominees and has said that Antonin Scalia is his role model for Supreme Court judges. At a GOP fundraiser in March 2002, Bush said, “First, we’ve got to get good, conservative judges appointed to the bench and approved by the United States Senate.” Non-partisan studies have found that in civil rights and civil liberties cases, Bush’s judges made liberal decisions only 26.5% of the time. [Bush Remarks at a Fundraiser for Senatorial Candidate John Cornyn; 3/28/02; Detroit Free Press, 6/19/00; “Redefining Rights in America: The Civil Rights Record of the George W. Bush Administration”, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 9/04; Reuters, 9/9/04]

#15. BUSH CLAIMS: “He's proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending…”

REALITY:

Bush Plans Would Cost $3 Trillion “Bush, making his case that Kerry is a tax-and-spend liberal, charged that he has promised more than $2.2 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years. Kerry has disputed that estimate, and Bush's own tax-cut proposals and plan to create private Social Security accounts -- and his spending proposals -- would add more than $3 trillion to the deficit, according to administration figures.” [Washington Post, 10/14/04]

#16. BUSH CLAIMS: “My biggest disappointment in Washington is how partisan the town is.”

REALITY:

Bush a “Divider Not Uniter”: The Washington Post reported, “As Bush begins the final year of his term with Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, partisans on both sides say the tone of political discourse is as bad as ever -- if not worse.” One senior administration official said, Bush could have built “trust and goodwill” by pursuing more broadly appealing initiatives. One former Bush aide said the White House “relished the ‘us versus them’ thing.” The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has also found that Bush has failed “to build common ground” and “missed opportunities to build consensus on key civil rights issues.” Instead he has “adopted policies that divide Americans.” [“Redefining Rights in America: The Civil Rights Record of the George W. Bush Administration”, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 9/04;Washington Post, 1/18/04]

#17. BUSH CLAIMS: “Today in America more minorities own a home than ever before.”

REALITY:

Homeownership Gap Between African Americans And Whites Has Grown 6.4 Percent Under Bush. Despite Bush’s claims that he is focusing on narrowing disparities in minority home ownership, the gap between black and white homeowners has increased 6.4 percent since Bush took office, from 24.8 percentage pts in 2001 to 26.5 in the last period reported. What’s more, African Americans continue to be twice as likely as whites to be denied home loans. [U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, US Housing Market Conditions, www.hud.gov; Census Bureau Reports on Residential Vacancies and Homeownership, 7/29/04; Akron Beacon Journal, 10/16/03; Orlando Sentinel, 10/16/03; Columbus Dispatch, 10/16/03; CBS Market Watch, 10/16/03]

#18. BUSH CLAIMS: “In order to make sure people have jobs for the 21st century, we've got to get it right in the education system, and we're beginning to close a minority achievement gap now. “

REALITY:

Nationwide Achievement Gaps in Reading Have Not Closed Since NCLB. Although many groups began to close the achievement gap from 1998 to 2002, there is no nationwide evidence that the gaps in reading have closed after No Child Left Behind. In fact in 2003, the Nation’s Report Card shows that in grade 4, the gap between white and African American students grew slightly larger, while the achievement gap for Hispanics was unchanged. In grade 8, the gap between white and Hispanic students grew slightly larger while the achievement gap for African Americans was unchanged. [National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress]

Bush Exaggerates Evidence of Minority Gains. “There is fragmentary data to support Bush's claim that the additional federal dollars to schools and the new accountability standards have helped minority students improve their test scores relative to white students, but education specialists agree there is not yet enough evidence to declare the act a nationwide success. Besides, the ‘achievement gap’ has been getting narrower for roughly the past decade, said Paul Peterson, director of the Program in Education Policy and Governance at Harvard's Kennedy School.” [Boston Globe, 9/24/04]

#19. BUSH CLAIMS: “We are doing everything we can to protect our borders and ports. Absolutely we can be secure in the long run.”

REALITY:

American Borders Less Secure Since 9-11. “In a single day, more than 4,000 illegal aliens will walk across the busiest unlawful gateway into the U.S., the 375-mile border between Arizona and Mexico each day…The U.S.’s borders, rather than becoming more secure since 9/11 have grown more porous. And the trend has accelerated in the past year. The number of illegal aliens flooding into the U.S. this year will total 3 million…the largest wave since 2001.” [Time, 9/20/04]

#20. BUSH CLAIMS: “Why should they insure somebody when the government's going to insure it for them? It's estimated that 8 million people will go from private insurance to government insurance.”

REALITY:

97% of Americans Keep Existing Health Coverage Under Kerry Plan. “Lewin's vice president John Sheils told FactCheck.org that his computer model projects that only 8.2 million (of the 243 million who currently have private or government health insurance) would change their insurance plans under Kerry's plan.” [FactCheck.org, 10/4/04]

Bush Citing Study Produced By His Own Health Care Advisor From 2000 Campaign. John Goodman, the chief author of the study Bush cites, was a health care adviser to the Bush campaign in 2000. He still works informally for Bush and Congressional Republicans as an advocate for Bush’s health savings accounts. Goodman appeared as recently as July 30, 2004 on “Ludlow and Cramer” as a Bush adviser. [National Journal, 2/7/04; CNBC Transcript, “Ludlow & Cramer,” 7/30/04; Insight on the News, 1/5/04, New York Times, 4/24/00]

posted October 18, 2004 11:46 AM              

Recent polls show that 70% of Americans still believe George W. Bush when he said Saddam Hussein was involved with the attacks on 9/11. We need to make this perfectly clear; George W. Bush lied when he said Saddam Hussein was involved with the attacks against America on 9/11. If George W. Bush wanted America to know the truth he would have came out months ago and said Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. But because the lie is to his benefit in the upcoming presidential election, Bush continues to let 70% of Americans believe that to be true. George W. Bush is allowing this lie to live on because it benefits him.

How many times have you told your children that not telling the truth is the same as telling a lie? Should George W. Bush be held to a lower standard than your children when it comes to telling the Truth? Is it right for the President of the United States to let this lie live on simply because it will cause many voters to cast their ballots for George W. Bush in November based on this lie? Would you not punish your children for not coming out and telling the truth? Shouldn’t the voters punish George W. Bush as they would their own children by not voting for him because he is not telling the truth? These are some of the questions American voters should be asking themselves before casting their vote for President of the United States.

Current Number of Americans Killed or Wounded In Iraq.
Number of Dead is 1,043. Number of Wounded is 7,290.

Speaking of elections, how many of you would be rioting in the streets if George W. Bush and the Bush Administration announced tomorrow that some African, Mexican, Italian, Irish, and Middle Eastern neighborhoods were to dangerous too hold elections in. That those African, Mexican, Italian, Irish, and Middle Eastern neighborhoods amounted to approximately 10 states worth of voters in this country, 1/5 of the voters, and they weren’t going to be allowed to vote in the November elections. What would you be planning for the George W. Bush and the Bush Administration?

I don’t think you’d be planning a reelection party. But that’s exactly what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress on Thursday about the elections scheduled to take place in Iraq this coming January. Donald Rumsfeld first said this on Thursday, and then repeated it on Friday when he met with reporters. Rumsfeld believes the elections should go ahead as scheduled in January even if it means that only 3/4 to 4/5 of the Iraqi people are allowed to vote. But Rumsfeld also said that voting may be impossible in some areas where the potential for violence is too great. So that if 1/5 of the Iraq people were unable to vote because of that, it’s just the way it will have to be. This is George W. Bush’s Defense Secretary telling the world that the right to vote only applies to those who live in an area that he considers safe.

What should we expect next? George W. Bush, the Bush Administration, and the Republican Party holding elections only in communities within the United States where the top 2% of income earners live?

Then on Friday, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said that the elections planned for January in Iraq must be "open to all citizens." This was the opposite of what Donald Rumsfeld said on Thursday when he said voting might not be possible in the most violent areas of Iraq.

Richard Armitage said, "We're going to have an election that is free and open and that has to be open to all citizens. It's got to be our best effort to get it into troubled areas as well." Armitage made this statement to a House committee Friday, after being asked about Rumsfeld's comments.

Armitage came out after the hearing and said, "We absolutely want to hold them (elections) in all parts of Iraq." He was then asked if partial elections were under consideration and he said, "No. Not now. Not that I know of." Gee, this sounds like the very same flip flopping that George W. Bush, the Bush Administration, and the Republican Party are always accusing John Kerry of.

On Friday Rumsfeld said, "We recognize there is an increased level of violence as we move toward these elections." This was after he met with interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi at the Pentagon.

After that meeting Rumsfeld then said, "Every Iraqi deserves the right to vote. We and the government of Iraq intend to see that the elections are held, intend to see that they're held on time, and to do everything possible to see that that happens, and to see that every Iraqi has the right to vote." Gee, where are all the cries of flip flopping now?

But Rumsfeld then again came back and said that some areas may be inaccessible to voting. On Thursday Rumsfeld told a Senate committee that Iraqis may "have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet." Wow, that’s a record even John Kerry doesn’t hold. Four flip flops within two days on the same issue.

It should be noted that the newest pawn of George W. Bush and the Bush Administration, Allawi, has not commented on Rumsfeld's remarks. I guess he doesn’t want to upset his new buddies that are treating him like a king as George W. Bush attempts to manipulate the press to try and paint a positive picture as to how well things are going in Iraq. This as American solders are killed, and American citizens are beheaded in greater numbers over each of the last three months in Iraq.

While John Kerry’s speeches address bringing our troops home sooner than later. George W. Bush and the Bush Administration talk of sending more troops to Iraq to assist in elections process. Gen. John Abizaid has said he expects Iraqi and possible international troops to do the job. I have only one question. What international troops? No one from these other countries will lift a finger to help Bush. In fact it’s only the middle finger they’ve offered George W. Bush since he went into Iraq alone and said they didn’t matter.

On Thursday Allawi, during a speech to Congress and talks with President Bush, expressed annoyance with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan for suggesting last week that there could not be "credible elections" if violence doesn't abate by January. Allawi has become the latest puppet for George W. Bush and the Bush Administration hasn’t he. If it wasn’t for the broken English, every word you hear Allawi say sounds just like it was Bush speaking.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for John Kerry, said Rumsfeld's comments were completely the opposite of what George W. Bush's own upbeat remarks were earlier on Thursday regarding Iraq's future. Singer had said, "For a White House that likes to condemn mixed signals, it certainly is sending out a few of its own."

John Kerry says Bush has been dishonest about the war's rationale and cost and lacks an effective strategy to end the crisis. Kerry wants to begin withdrawal of our troops within six months and complete pullout in four years. While George W. Bush and Allawi, at a White House Rose Garden news conference on Thursday, said the United States must stand and fight. Got to love George W. Bush, he’s willing to fight until the last American life is lost in a war that he lied about to start.

Allawi said, "Security is going to get better. We have plans in place. We hope it will work." I have to give Allawi credit; it didn’t take him long to learn the art of lying from George W. Bush. Again, I swear if you turned your head and listened to Allawi and Bush talking, you wouldn’t know which one was talking based on the words they use. I’m guessing Bush had all of Allawi’s speeches prepared for him by the Bush Administration.

Iraq's interim constitution says elections for a national assembly must be held by Jan. 31. Wouldn’t it be a kick in the ass if the Iraqi people were so fed up with George W. Bush that they started a write in campaign and elected Saddam Hussein as their president in January? I can only imagine what the look would be on George W. Bush’s face if that were to happen.

Given the situation the Iraqi people have faced since Bush, I mean Allai, came to power in Iraq. Would it really surprise anyone if that were to happen?

Ask Huck

Ask Huck can be found on the s5000 home page next to the What The Huck article. If you have any questions or comments about s5000 just click on the Ask Huck link and fill out the form. Ask Huck questions and comments will be responded to in upcoming What The Huck articles. s5000 provides the What The Huck articles as part of its many features.

So if you have any Ask Huck questions or comments go to the s5000 homepage and click on the link next to What the Huck. s5000 will also publish photos of interest in the What The Huck article that you can upload through the Ask Huck link. By using the Ask Huck link on the s5000 home page you can have your responses featured in a future What The Huck article.

Iraq

Two additional American lives were reported lost as of Friday. The number of reported wounded soldier’s has also increased. We wish that every day in Iraq ended with no additional losses or wounded.

The current total dead Americans killed in Iraq increased to 1,043. The total number of wounded reported remained at 7,290. Why have so many died for the Bush lies?

Vote

Your vote will be the difference in this election. Your vote would have made a difference in the last election.

We need to change the direction this country is heading before it is too late. In the upcoming election you need you to get out and vote. It is the election that will affect the rest of your life.

posted October 18, 2004 12:36 PM            

Kerry's Form vs. Bush's Substance
Geoff Metcalf
Monday, Oct. 4, 2004

So much has been written and articulated in the wake of the first Presidential debate, it is frankly surprising so little has focused on the substance of what was said, rather than how it was said.

Notwithstanding the revisionist spin being applied by both partisan camps, Joe Lockhart was right when he told Mike McCurry initially, “The consensus is, it was a draw.” Kerry may have won on ‘Form’ but Bush won on ‘Substance’.

Presentation skills aside, the meat of what was said is hugely significant, and demonstrate (for those not too blind to see) the clear distinctions between the two opponents.

Most people will probably take away from the debate whatever they wanted to see and hear. The debate reaffirmed preconceived opinions and prejudices, and there seems a myopic obliviousness to rejecting anything that contradicted what was already assumed.

Hopefully someone smarter than me can put a finer point on this but the North Korean exchange spoke volumes.

Kerry says he can do a better job with North Korea with bilateral talks? THAT is the erotic dream of Kim Jong Il. Bush wants to maintain the six country multinational approach so as to include China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, North Korea and the U.S ... in other words, the “multilateral” approach.

HOLD ON! Kerry has been picking at the fictional scab of Bush’s refusal to engage ‘multinationally’? Bush wants multinational negotiations... Kerry wants (and so does North Korea) bi-lateral negotiations. It is an interesting distinction since Kerry routinely complains about Bush not reaching out multinationally...when the President DOES...Kerry opposes it?

The duplicity is sufficient to gag a maggot because what he really means is he would require a United Nations (a dysfunctional gaggle of incompetent, corrupt anti-U.S. spoiled brats) imprimatur.

So Kerry wants to abandon the Bush multinationalism and replace it with bilateral negotiations? Arrogance, myopia, and brain flatulence are the cornerstones (yes there are only three) to the Kerry foreign policy pyramid.

Shame on the President (and punditry class) for failing to focus on the most successful Bush brand of ‘new multilateralism’. Sure, Bush mentioned the Proliferation Security Initiative, but the Wall Street Journal detailed this better mousetrap back in January .

Unlike Kerry’s “nuanced” plans ... PSI really WORKS!

Despite my failed efforts not to taint my analysis with my own prejudices, here are some key points that the punditry universe isn’t focusing on enough.

Kerry said Bush took troops away from General Tommy Franks for Iraq. NOT TRUE! General Franks already has said and written THAT IS NOT TRUE. I recently spoke with Franks number two, Lt General Mike DeLong, and he reaffirmed, it was not true.
Troop levels in Afghanistan actually GREW during Operation Iraqi Freedom
and there are more troops there now that before the Iraq invasion.

Kerry said Gen Shinseki was fired/relieved for insisting we needed more troops in Iran. FALSE. Shinseki was relieved for ticking off Rumsfeld BEFORE he claimed troop levels needed to be more.

Kerry said he never used the "lie" word...? At least twice in December 2003, Kerry said, “This administration has lied to us.”
Kerry claimed bin Laden recruits by saying ‘The US declared war on Islam.’ BULLFEATHERS! Osama declared war ON US in 1993.

The ‘great debater’/’great trial lawyer’ said Bush imposed sanctions against Iran? Huh? Didn’t that happen about 20 years ago before Bush got clean and sober?
Kerry insists that ‘somehow’ he will convince allies to replace our troops with theirs for ‘the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place’? However, as the Wall Street Journal has noted, the French and the Germans have ALREADY put the kibosh to that brain flatulence. It ain’t gonna happen!
Kerry 'plans' for everything including cleaning up Russian nukes in 4 years is both unrealistic and unattainable…based on false confidence fueled by ego and unsupported by facts.

His absurd and dangerous suggestion we should have “offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel” to the Iranians exceeds the P.J. O’Rourke admonition about “giving whiskey and car keys to a teenage boy...”

Meanwhile, Gallup reports Kerry was the better debater by a whopping margin of 53 to 37 percent.

We are not electing a debater. We are electing a LEADER.

However, Gallup also reported Bush was ‘more believable’ - 50 to 45 percent.

On which candidate did better on the issues, again it was Bush over Kerry, 49 to 46 percent.

Notwithstanding the media spin about the President seeming annoyed, Gallup says Bush was more likeable 48 to 41 percent.

However, the biggie was on the “tough enough” question. Respondents to Gallup respondents gave that award to Bush…not by a little ... but a LOT: 54 to 37 percent.

Woodrow Wilson once noted, “Leadership does not always wear the harness of compromise.” John Kerry isn’t capable of comprehending that truth…the President is.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/4/91111.shtml

posted October 18, 2004 03:57 PM              

I watched all three debates (plus the Edwards/cheney one) and I'm not about to
buy into the spin that bush won, "just because somebody told me, he did!" Egads.....I CAN THINK FOR MYSELF!

Truth be told, I was very frightened, watching our "president's" facial expressions during the first debate...what they told me was that this was a man who did not like to be contradicted, or thwarted in any way.....Those were "How DARE you!" expressions.....I mean after all, since the supreme court appointed him, I guess (much to my chargin) he is our president (regardless of HOW he got there), and everybody KNOWS that it ain't cool to correct or challenge the prez and his policies in any way...you might be called a "traitor" or "unpatriotic." And now this man Kerry right on national television, was daring to question him...

I was also frightened during the second and third debates, because dubya was trying sooo hard to "stifle himself" after being criticized for those first debate facial expressions. But I'd swear he was going to explode as he wore that crazy "frozen smile" and blinked his eyes a hundred miles an hour trying so hard to control himself....TV cameras are very revealing...That is a man who is scary....

Love,
Rainbow

Oh yeah, and as Mirandee mentioned, he DID lose control during that second debate, when he was not polite enough to wait for the moderator to speak...he jumped right up and said, "I gotta answer that now" .....LIKE I CAN'T WAIT AND I'M NOT GONNA WAIT, AND I DON'T HAVE TO WAIT BECAUSE I AM THE PRESIDENT, AND DON'T ANYONE FORGET IT!

As I said....scary...

posted October 18, 2004 05:16 PM            

Hehehe, we had bin Laden trapped at Tora Bora. What crap, intelligence sources had him in 5 different places. Kerry must have a crystal ball or...a direct phone line to bin Laden.

Bush reduced troop strength to send troops to Iraq. What crap, troop strength actually increased in Afghanistan during the war in Iraq.

That General who was forced to resign..crap again. That general was already slated for retirement due in no part to anything Bush did.

Funny how Kerry, the great warrior with all of 4 months commanding an oversized dingy suddenly is the master war strategist.

If ever there was someone who would micro manage the military, it's Kerry...and through his ego and bloated self image as a warrior screw it up...as Lyndon Johnson did.

Kerry's very lucky Bush didn't really tee off on him. Look for that to happen as Bush lays out the real Kerry record over the next few weeks.

BTW, general Tommy Franks and his second in command refute virtually everything Kerry says about the war in Iraq and the statements about Afghanistan.

The proof is in the pudding. Afghanistan is free, has had free elections. 25 million people are free who were under a murderous regime. Now that's progress.

Kerry is also a liar about the unilateral action in Iraq, angers and ridicules our allies when he called them a coalition of the bribed...fighting the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

25 more million people are free in Iraq and looking forward to free elections there in spite of the terrorists friends of John Kerry who are attempting to get him elected by attempting to thwart freedom of Iraq and running up American causalities.

In fact, if there are any friends of the terrorists and terrorist regimes around the world, it's John Kerry and the leftist democrats who are always willing to cut a deal with America's enemies, mainly because they dislike America almost as much as the terrorists and other enemies do.

Another Kerry lie is that he would get help from other nations to reduce American troop strength in Iraq. That's crap again, France and Germany both have said they will send no troops to Iraq....no matter who the US President happens to be.

Lie after lie, after lie, after lie, after lie.

posted October 18, 2004 05:28 PM              

Yankees are blind to blundering Bush

By Eric Margolis -- Contributing Foreign Editor

Why do so many Americans still support George W. Bush after all those damning revelations about Iraq? That's the question I'm invariably asked when abroad.

Former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, in his superb, must-read new book, Where the Right Went Wrong, provides some answers.

"In 2003," he writes, "the U.S. invaded a country that did not threaten us, had not attacked us and did not want war with us, to disarm it of weapons we have since discovered it did not have."

White House assurances that U.S. troops would be greeted in Iraq with flowers were as laughable as its pledges Mideast peace and democracy would ensue.

Chief U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer's recent, 960-page report contradicted almost every Bush administration prewar claim about Iraq, which were used to justify an illegal war that has killed 20,000 Iraqis and more than 1,000 Americans, caused 14,000 U.S. casualties and will soon have cost $200 billion US -- when Washington can't even supply flu vaccine.

No administration official has accepted blame for this needless conflict, lying to Congress and the public, blundering into a no-win war, condoning torture, and provoking worldwide disgust at the once admired United States.

Either the self-proclaimed "war president" and his men committed the worst set of blunders overseas since Vietnam, or they lied the nation into an imperial war to grab oil and boost Israel's fortunes.

Republicans don't care. Amazingly, a recent CNN/USA Today poll showed 62% of Republicans still believe Iraq was behind 9/11. This is after a flood of contrary evidence and Duelfer's report.

How can Republicans remain so blinkered? Part of the fault lies with the sycophantic national media, which collaborated with the Bush administration in whipping up war fever. The media still are not telling people the truth about Iraq, Afghanistan, or the so-called war on terrorism.

The media utterly failed to remind Americans that Bush, who loves to play war leader, actually claimed Iraqi drone aircraft were poised to fly off ships in the North Atlantic and bombard America with germs. Bush should have been laughed out of office for believing and promoting this comic-book nonsense.

Many Republicans simply don't see what the rest of the world does. So what if Iraq was no threat? Don't bother these golf club Rambos with details. They're delighted to see the U.S. pounding Arabs in revenge for 9/11.

Bush's core Republican support lies in the suburbs and Bible-belt rural areas, where many people rely on TV sound bites for their world view, and have little understanding of history, geography or foreign affairs. This is the new "dumbed-down Republicans Party," fertile ground for nationalist hysteria, religious extremism, and anti-foreign xenophobia.

Surplus-turned-deficit

Buchanan identifies the real secret of the Republican Party's current success: "Cut taxes and don't let the Democrats outspend us."

No matter that Bush's policies have created millions of jobs in China instead of the U.S., or that he turned a $236-billion US surplus into a $521-billion deficit. His tax cuts and spending win elections.

As the real president, v-p Dick Cheney, observed to a horrified U.S. Treasurer Paul O'Neill, "deficits don't matter." This kind of liberal-left Democrat economic voodoo used to be anathema to Republicans.

Today, there's no real conservative party left in Washington, says Buchanan. Only in tax-cutting do Republicans still hew to their principles. Otherwise, they are just like the wildest-spending liberal Democrats.

"Historically, Republicans have been the party of conservative virtues -- balanced budgets, healthy skepticism towards foreign wars, fierce resistance to the growth of government power.

"No more," Buchanan says. "To win and hold office, many have sold their souls to the very devil they were baptized to do battle with."

As for Bush's vow to wage unceasing war on America's enemies around the globe, Buchanan quotes President James Madison: "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it compromises and develops the germ of every other. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

posted October 18, 2004 05:44 PM            

It isn't working, the press has no credibility, having destroyed it long ago. Only the leftists in America pay a word of attention to anything the NY Times, CBS, NBC and ABC have to say about the war.

The media is for Kerry and don't take any particular care to hide it....except to offer up empty words that they are not. Their actions speak volumes to anyone awake. Most Americans are contrary and have no intention of permitting the press or foreigners to have any influence on who we elect President.

They haven't gotten that message yet...but their views are rejected by the majority of Americans. The more they agitate for Kerry, the more obvious it becomes. Even independents are beginning to see that the press is not the fair and balanced source of news they thought they were or that they claim to be.

For instance...not one member of the press has asked Kerry why his discharge from the military is dated 1978 instead of the year he was separated from military service...1972.

Not one member of the press has asked John Kerry about sewing the Communist Viet Cong and Communist North Vietnamese insignia and military patches on American military uniforms.

posted October 18, 2004 07:26 PM              

Kerry: The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just not right.

Bush: I own a timber company?

That's news to me.

(LAUGHTER)

The jokes on you Dumbuhya! You do own a timber company. And, No thank you, Mr. Bush. I don't want any of your wood.. you should offer it to your wife. She looks as though she could really use some!

factcheck.org

quote:

---

Bush's Timber-Growing Company

Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

---

posted October 18, 2004 09:23 PM            

There are several things wrong with what you posted. Number one, Bush did not receive $84 from a timber company investment, it was from an oil and gas operation.

Bush did not receive that income last year, it was from 2001.

FactCheck.org screwed up and they admit they did.

Kerry was wrong on his supposed facts.

Further, just so you know because it's clear you do not know. The President has ALL his investments in a "blind trust" being managed by a totally independent investment party or group. Bush has absolutely nothing to do with directing any investments he owns either to what they buy on his behalf or what they sell. The Lone Star trust now owns 50% of a timber company but that doesn't mean Bush has any knowledge of what the trust bought because he also has no control over it whatsoever and neither did Bush receive $84 from any timber company investment.

FactCheck.org

quote:

---

Kerry got his information from an article we posted Sept. 23 stating that Bush on his 2001 federal income-tax returns "reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." We should clarify: the $84 in Schedule C income was from Bush's Lone Star Trust, which is actually described on the 2001 income-tax returns as an "oil and gas production" business. The Lone Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn't get into that business until two years after the $84 in question. So we should have described the $84 as coming from an "oil and gas" business in 2001, and will amend that in our earlier article.

---

Now LS, if we can get Teresa Heinz to release her full tax return so we can see what she owns, we will find John Kerry broke campaign finance law when he "borrowed" money against the home he said he is half owner in. The fact is that the house in question is not on any of Kerry's disclosure forms under property or investments he owns.

Tereas Heinz owns that house as her own property. As such, loaning money from a new mortgage on that property violates US campaign finance law for her too because she is only permitted to donate $2000 to any campaign. The amount loaned to John Kerry was hundreds of thousands to keep his campaign going.

It is a clear violation and it was deliberate, done with full knowledge it was illegal...full knowledge by both Teresa Heinz and John Kerry.

Harpyr, I don't have to respond to you at all but one thing is for sure and it's that I sure as hell don't have to respond to you or anyone else on your/their schedule.

Everlong, Bush bashing has been going on here for the better part of 4 years. Kerry has been bashing Bush on everything he can dredge up to lie about. He's failed to blame Bush for the Irish Potato Famine and the fall of the Great Wall of China but then, there's more than 2 weeks left until the election. I wouldn't bet that he won't get around to that too.

Now, the people who bash Bush are certainly thin skinned when their golden boy gets caught in the crosshairs and that's too damned bad because that will continue.

posted October 18, 2004 09:36 PM              

You just don't want to have to admit that BUSH DOES LIE, and lots of people here have proven it.

There are facts proven on the site that talk about both sides.

My point here was to show that Bush, yet again was full of crap. He looked into the eyes of America and LIED.... THEN LAUGHED ABOUT IT.

I assume, laughing at those of you that support is idiocy.

Never once have I taken the stance that Kerry is supremely honest. I have taken the stance that all polititians lie.

You take the stance that GWB is the Lord Almighty, and therefore perfect in every way.

Kerry is CLEARLY the lesser of the two evils.

FACT: GWB owns a timber company.

FACT: GWB stated on national TV he DOES NOT own a timber company.

posted October 18, 2004 09:47 PM              

The consensus is, it was a draw.” Kerry may have won on ‘Form’ but Bush won on ‘Substance’.

If you consider neuroticism substance.

In the first two debates Bush acted like a neurotic. In the last debate he just looked stupid with that phoney smile plastered on his face.

Good articles, Libra. I figured out years ago that Bush was a liar. His MO is "watch my right hand so you can't see what my left hand is doing."

posted October 18, 2004 09:56 PM            

Bush said, "I own a timber company? That's news to me".

Given his investments are in a blind trust LS, it's probably true it was news to him.

Your point is not well taken LS. I have asked those accusing Bush of lying to list the lies he told. Ozone is the only one who ever responded and he responded with the old canard that Bush said Saddam tried to buy uranium from Africa. Not true, Bush said the British have said Saddam has tried to buy Uranium from Africa.

Now, it you can find any lies the President told that don't come from a lying biased source, please post them and the source you're using, along with the date and event at which Bush is supposed to have lied.

A lie is a deliberate untruth, told with full knowledge what is said is NOT true.

posted October 18, 2004 09:58 PM              

If these people really valued what the founding fathers foresaw for our country, they would value a balance in the House and Senate.

posted October 18, 2004 10:04 PM            

The founding fathers never envisioned a House and Senate in full agreement with each other. Some of the most bitter fights in American history occurred in the early years of this country.

posted October 18, 2004 10:17 PM              

Ok how about the biggest ones?

quote:

---

The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.

---

quote:

---

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

---

quote:

---

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

---

quote:

---

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it.

---

quote:

---

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

---

Here's a big ol' whopper:

quote:

---

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

---

quote:

---

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

---

And then there are those who lie on his behalf:

quote:

---

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

---

quote:

---

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

---

quote:

---

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

---

quote:

---

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

---

quote:

---

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

---

posted October 18, 2004 11:31 PM              

Isn't Bush supposed to be some kind of devout Christian?

posted October 18, 2004 11:53 PM              

REALITY:

Bush Claims To Have Wiped Out 3/4 Of Al Qaeda, Yet The Organization Is Resurging And Morphing. Despite
Bush’s claims over the past several months that “much of Al Qaeda’s leadership has been killed or captured,”
new evidence from Al Qaeda double-agent Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan’s computer, seized in Pakistan,
shows that a “new generation of operatives…[appears] to be filling the vacuum created when leaders were killed
or captured.” According to intelligence analysts, “Al Qaeda’s upper ranks are being filled by lower-ranking
members and more recent recruits.” Al Qaeda is “more resilient than was previously understood and has sought
to find replacements for operational commanders like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Walid
Muhammad Salih bin Attash, known as Khallad, all of whom have been captured.” Although several major

leaders have been captured, “the new operatives appear as committed to striking the U.S.” [Bush Remarks,
9/14/04; New York Times, 8/10/04; Wall Street Journal, 8/16/04]

********************************************

posted October 18, 2004 11:59 PM            

I told you a lie is a deliberate untruth, uttered with the full knowledge it is untrue.

Yet you call statements lies that are based on intelligence, from both our own intelligence agencies and the intelligence agencies of virtually every nation on earth...including the United Nations who continued to apply sanctions on Saddam because he would not destroy the WMD they knew he had...or thought he had.

Now you recycle the lie that Bush lied. It seems to me you need to consult a dictionary. I would rather think your lapse is ignorance and not intellectual dishonesty.

I would like for you to prove the President ever said this and you can do so by supplying a link to the source of the quote...TVP Poland

quote:

---

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
George W. Bush, Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003

---

That the best you can do LS? Each and every statement you call a lie was a failure of intelligence. Further, it was a failure of the whole worlds intelligence services....if it was a failure at all.

Reports coming out of Libya indicate some of Saddam's WMD were found there. Apparently Libya is cooperating on more than their nuclear weapons programs. Now, I can't prove that because it came from a late night talk show interviewing sources close to Middle East affairs and governments but not connected to the United States government.

Nevertheless, calling statements in error, based on intelligence "lies" is way over the line.

Also saying Bush lied and then posting statements of Rumsfeld, Powell, Franks and Cheney as "Bush lies" is equally over the line, unless of course the truth doesn't mean much to you. You do treat it rather casually.

You got anything else?

posted October 19, 2004 12:30 AM              

You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.
-- (George W. Bush - spoken at a Washington Dinner, March 2001)