posted October 24, 2004 02:51 PM              

Actually The RNC and Bush would have had the ad out sooner but they had such a hard time finding a forest and wolves for the ad after four years of Bush's environmental policies.

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.

Summary

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 strong 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.

Analysis

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 Sessikon 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.

Related Articles

Bush Strains Facts Re: Kerry's Plan To Cut Intelligence Funding in '90's

posted October 24, 2004 03:21 PM            

Right now, it's time to focus and realize Kerry is running against George W. Bush, who isn't and hasn't recommended any military or intelligence cuts in the United States budgets.

In fact, it's been Bush who has had to built up both the military iinfrastructure, including weapons production and intelligence services after Kerry and Clinton's disastrous attacks on both.

You seem to forget Kerry voted to reduce army divisions from 18 to 12...at a time when we were under attack here and abroad.

posted October 24, 2004 10:00 PM              

quote:

---

Right now, it's time to focus and realize Kerry is running against George W. Bush, who isn't and hasn't recommended any military or intelligence cuts in the United States budgets.

---

Yes, and our national deficit which is heading up to the trillions is proof of that, jwhop. Also Bush was never in Congress. On the other hand his VP was and Cheney recommended the same cuts. Other Republicans did as well.

Military spending is normal for a "war President." But it shows lack of vision for the future. It shows lack of vision period. What this country needs is a visionary as it's leader. Not just another run of the mill war monger.

posted October 24, 2004 11:40 PM              

quote:

---

Kerry isn't running for President against Cheney either Mirandee. Kerry should stick to running against Bush and not against Cheney,

---

Who said he was? I didn't. But if he thinks he is maybe it is because he is by-passing the puppet and going to the puppeteer. Maybe he should even by-pass the puppeteer and go the Shadow Government.

quote:

---

Congressional Members or Mary Cheney, the Cheney's daughter Kerry and the Edwards sleaze team attempted to use for political purposes.

---

posted October 25, 2004 12:06 AM            

Finding out that Edwards wife is a vicious, trash talking idiot and that Kerry's wife Teresa puts down homemakers for "not having real jobs" is good information for voters to have as well.

posted October 25, 2004 02:21 AM              

quote:

---

the Kerry brain dead trust did was attempt to use Cheney's daughter to drive a wedge between Bush and voters who do not favor homosexual rights and gay marriage.

---

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me because you are only assuming and guessing that was Kerry's motive. In fact it sounds like a soap opera plot or Jerry Springer material.

I agree that if Teresa Kerry did say that -she should not have said that about Laura Bush. It's insulting to all women who have chosen to stay home and be homemakers.

Besides if most women had Laura Bush's money they wouldn't have to be out working either. Talk to Bush about giving women equal pay or better yet raises in pay for their husbands who haven't had a raise in pay in 4 years so more women can stay home and be homemakers. Better yet talk to him about bringing the jobs back to this country or creating jobs for all those men and women who lost theirs due to his policies. I'm sure more women in America would rather stay home and be homemakers.

posted October 25, 2004 02:39 AM              

Although, I don't like to spend much time in front of the boob-tube anyhow.

I suppose this garbage could be running here... I just wouldn't know it. I spend very little time watching local television... and NEVER watch the local news.

posted October 27, 2004 12:59 AM              

In your own post you said Kerry proposed cuts to intelligence spending, as the ad claims.

posted October 27, 2004 02:01 AM              

quote:

---

A new Bush ad claims Kerry supported cuts in intelligence “so deep they would have weakened America ’s defenses” against terrorists....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.

---

It then follows by giving you a whole list of the ways the ad is misleading to the public.

The post is from factcheck.org. They are non-partisan and they give you their sources at the bottom and also other articles to read regarding the subject.

I never said, nor did factcheck.org say that Kerry did not propose the cuts in intelligence spending, the same cuts Cheney voted against. What is not true and misleading is what I quoted above. The ad said he proposed "cuts so deep they would have weakened America against the terrorists" when in fact, it was less than a 4% cut.

Misleading the public by distorting the facts is as jwhop says, "intellectual dishonesty." Not that Kerry hasn't done that too in his campaign.

An Avalanche of Misinformation

Both sides run lots of new ads with plenty of distortions, new and recycled.

October 21, 2004
Modified: October 21, 2004

Summary

With election day approaching the tempo of ads is increasing, but not the level of factual accuracy. Both sides are making false or misleading claims in their ads.

A Republican party ad twists a Kerry quote about terrorism. A Kerry ad implies middle-income taxpayers are paying more taxes than "the wealthiest," which isn't true. A Bush ad repeats a baseless claim that Kerry's health plan will wrench medical decisions away from doctors and patients. Another Kerry ad again blames Bush for long-standing tax incentives for companies keeping capital overseas.

Analysis

Terrorism a Nuisance?

A Republican party ad appeared this week inviting viewers to think Kerry considers terrorism a "nuisance" and suggests he's too "weak."

The image on screen shows a picture of Kerry with the words: "Terrorists are a nuisance. . . like gambling and prostitution."

But Kerry never said he considered terrorism to be a nuisance, he said Americans would feel safe once terrorism was reduced to a nuisance. (The announcer correctly paraphrases Kerry as saying "we have to get back" to such a condition, but the visual images in the ad will overpower the announcer's spoken words for many, and the announcer goes on as though Kerry actually had said terrorism isn't much of a threat at present.)

Kerry's words are taken from a New York Times Magazine interview published Oct. 10. When asked what it would take to make Americans feel safe again, Kerry actually said this:

Kerry: We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. . . As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.

That's actually not much different from what Bush himself said Aug. 30 on the NBC Today Show:

Q: Do you really think we can win this war of terror--on terror, for example, in the next four years?

Bush: I have never said we can win it in four years.

Q: No, I'm just saying, can we win it? Do you see that?

Bush: I don't--I don't think you can win it, but I think you can create conditions so that the--those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world, let's put it that way.

Both men were attacked by partisan opponents for expressing these sentiments, and have since grown less candid about the prospects for eradicating terrorism entirely. Both have hardened their words. Bush says he will "win" the war on terror. Kerry says he "will kill the terrorists."

Kerry Edwards Ad

"The Truth About Taxes"

Kerry: Here's the truth about taxes. After nearly four years under George Bush, the middle class is paying the bigger share of America's tax burden and the wealthiest are paying less. It's wrong. We need to cut taxes on the middle class, not raise them. We also need to get healthcare costs under control and lower our nation's deficit. I don't believe the wealthy need another tax cut. I believe ordinary Americans need someone who will fight for them. I'm John Kerry and I approved this message.

The Bigger Share of Taxes?

Kerry claims in an ad that appeared this week that "the middle class is paying the bigger share of America's tax burden and the wealthiest are paying less." Actually, all income groups have seen their burden reduced . Kerry's wording could lead some to think middle-income taxpayers are paying more of the tax burden than upper-income taxpayers, which is false.

As we pointed out before in an article on another Kerry ad, figures from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center show that even after Bush's tax cuts, the most affluent 20 percent of taxpayers still pay 63 percent of all US taxes, including income, payroll and excise taxes. Those in the middle 20 percent pay 10.5 percent, a much smaller share. So, strictly speaking, the highest -income taxpayers still pay by far the larger share of taxes than the other 80 percent.

What Kerry has said previously is that middle-income taxpayers pay a larger share -- meaning a larger share than they did before and not a larger share than more affluent groups. And it's true that the middle 20 percent has seen their share of the tax burden go up -- by 2/10ths of one percent -- even as their taxes have come down. Those between the top and middle groups have seen their share of the burden go up 0.7 percent. On the other hand, those in the lowest two groups have seen very slight declines in the share of all taxes they pay as well as in the amount of taxes they pay, something Kerry doesn't mention when talking about the burden on the "middle."

Bush-Cheney '04 Ad

"Your Doctor"

Announcer: John Kerry and liberals in Congress have a health care plan. It includes the IRS, Treasury Department, and several massive, new government agencies. Your doctor? In there somewhere, but not in charge. This $1.5 trillion government program puts bureaucrats, not your doctor, in charge of your health care decisions. One more reason we can't risk the liberals in Congress and John Kerry.

Bush: I'm George W. Bush and I approved this message.

"Bureaucrats, not Doctors"

A Bush ad that started airing Oct. 13 repeats the claim that Kerry's health-care plan will create "massive new government agencies" and put "bureaucrats, not your doctor, in charge of your health-care decisions." We've examined this claim before and found no evidence to support it. Kerry's plan would expand existing programs such as Medicaid to millions who aren't currently covered by any insurance, and would create expensive federal subsidies to bring down the cost of private insurance by paying for 75 percent of "catastrophic" costs exceeding $30,000 per patient in any given year.

Republicans have argued that this would inevitably lead to increased federal oversight and even "rationing" of health care, but neutral experts we consulted don't agree. The Lewin Group, an independent firm that is often hired both by Republicans and Democrats to analyze health-care issues, estimates that under Kerry's plan 97 percent of all those who currently have insurance will simply keep the coverage they already have. For additional details, see our Oct. 4 article .

Kerry Edwards Ad "Incentives"

Kerry: The President has made a choice of a policy that actually uses your tax money to reward the company that goes overseas. You explain the common sense of that to me, ladies and gentlemen. You're giving an incentive to a company to go overseas. And when I'm President, my choice, we're closing those tax loopholes and we're using the money to invest in companies that make jobs here. I'm John Kerry and I approve this message.

A Choice of Policy

A Kerry ad running heavily last week after first airing Oct. 6 says "the president has made a choice that actually uses your tax money to reward the company that goes overseas." But in fact, Bush's "choice" has been to maintain the status quo, opposing a Kerry proposal to change the law.

As we explained earlier, Kerry is referring to a feature of the US tax code that has been there since the corporate income tax was first adopted, through both Democratic and Republican administrations. Economists say it is a relatively minor factor in the decisions companies make to locate jobs overseas. Even Kerry admits his own tax-change proposal won't end the "outsourcing" of jobs overseas. For more, see our July 29 article .

Sources

Matt Bai, "Kerry's Undeclared War," The New York Times Magazine, 10 Oct 2004: 38.
NBC News Transcripts, "President George W. Bush discusses the economy, the war on terror, and the war in Iraq," 30 Aug 2004.

Related Articles
Kerry's Tax Ad: Literally Accurate, But Misleading
His ad says "the middle class is paying a bigger share of America's tax burden." True. But it's a smaller burden all around. And the richest still pay the most.

Bush Mischaracterizes Kerry's Health Plan
Bush claims Kerry's plan puts "bureaucrats in control" of medical decisions, "not you, not your doctor." But experts don't agree with that.

Kerry Blames Corporate Tax Code for Shipping Jobs Overseas

But economists say "outsourcing" jobs overseas is a minor problem that Kerry's plan wouldn't do much to fix.

posted October 27, 2004 02:12 AM              

quote:

---

In fact, it's been Bush who has had to built up both the military infrastructure, including weapons production and intelligence services after Kerry and Clinton's disastrous attacks on both.

---

So I think the points brought up in the ad are valid. More importantly they are not false.

posted October 27, 2004 03:29 AM              

like i said, people are too tired and the end is too close for them to check out every little thing. ads are factual, but are highly misleading at this time, which would not have flown so well at the very beginning. right now it's all about running something that hits an emotional chord in you rather than using logic to inspire. emotion makes people get out and vote. so, i think the wolf ad is very effective. it gets into your subconsious. what protrays underhanded activity and evil more than a wolf? and what will get you off of your rear end - a list of what a person did or did not vote for or a pack of hungry wolves coming to get you? as humans we are wired to take notice.

posted October 27, 2004 09:44 AM            

Anyone who thinks al-Queda and other terrorist groups aren't stalking America and Americans has been asleep for a while.

posted October 27, 2004 10:02 AM              

Bush has on his staff people in the ad business who know that. They do it all the time in TV commercials. The little jingles and one liners. Bush uses those one liners all the time. Bush repeats the same one liners over and over in his speeches. The ones that jwhop and other Bush supporters repeat. Which means they are very subjective to subtle forms of brainwashing. Not all people are. If you are aware of the one liners and visual suggestions then it does not have an effect on you. The subjective ones are the ones that Bush was referring to when he said," You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you have to concentrate on."

posted October 27, 2004 10:26 AM            

Oh Kerry's stupidity is on display in that he fired a grenade at a rock and it blew up showering him with some shrapnel...I'll grant you that. What a moron.

And of course, Kerry is hiding his military records behind a privacy provision written into the military records act so people will not find out exactly what he did there and why his discharge required the services of the President and a special panel of officers to get it issued.

Now Kerry is compounding his lies by claiming the President failed to secure a weapons storage facility. Too bad his lie was exposed by 2 different imbedded reporting crews who were with the military units when they arrived at that facility and found the explosive materials ALREADY missing..first as the military swept into the complex on their way to Baghdad and again, one day after the fall of Baghdad.