ABC Declares War on Bush Campaign

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

To Kuci,

Technically yes however,

It neglects the most important ally of all , the provisional Iraqi government. In so neglecting them it implies no legitamacy to their existance. I would have thought that after the pasting on this particular point Edwards took from Cheney, Kerry would have learned his lesson.

But like UR, I guess it simply takes an inordinate amount of time.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Tora Bora - Knowing Bin Laden was there

Shinseki fired

$84 from a timber company

No Child Left behind underfunded by $28 billion

Job Loss Claims

90% of allies casualties are US (Neglecting Indigenous allies of Iraq)

etc. etc. etc.


Simply check factcheck.org

Did you even read factcheck.org before putting all those down? At best, most of those are exagerations, not outright lies. The $84 from a timber company is true according to factcheck.

Dude, you PWNed yerself.

edit: I PWNed myself by not reading the quote and realizing you were listing exagerations.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Tora Bora - Knowing Bin Laden was there

It isn't certain he was there, it is just highly likely that he was, according to our intelligence then and now.

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Shinseki fired

They really can't fire him, so this wasn't true technically.

However, they undermined his authority quite heavily by announcing his retirement and replacement many, many months in advance....in fact they did this right after he made his comment. So the spirit of what Kerry said is true.

Oh, and need I say that, no matter how you feel about Shinseki, his statement about more troops was right? Indeed, all data from previous peace-keeping situations backs him up.

He was right, he told them they needed to change their plan, so they undermind his authority....great.

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe $84 from a timber company

This part of what Kerry said is 100% true. Bush owns a very small stake in a lumber company, and according to how Republicans have defined "small business", Bush can file taxes as a small business based on this, and he has and does (unless it is more beneficial to file as something else).

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe No Child Left behind underfunded by $28 billion

This is opinion, but it is also true that schools have been complaining from day one that they simply don't have the resources and money to implement it properly.

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Job Loss Claims

They are true for jobs lost in the private sector, though they don't take into account job gains in the public sector (which cuts the figure in half or so).

However, it would probably take Kerry too long to explain all the job woes. For instance, most of the new jobs pay less and give less benefits than the jobs lost. Almost all the high paying ones are part-time or temporary positions. Many people are having to work two jobs now to make ends meet, and many of the new jobs in general are part time. Did you know that in June, when Bush was trumpeting job growth, total hours worked *decreased* but the number of jobs increased? That means full-time jobs are getting replaced by part-time. Not a good thing. (Kerry is perhaps afraid that people will get bored listening to all the details of this so he avoids it.)

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe 90% of allies casualties are US (Neglecting Indigenous allies of Iraq)

90% of *COALITION* force losses and expenses are ours. That's a fact. The coalition is composed of all the foreign countries in Iraq. That's the official definition. This is 100% true. Also, the point of this was to indicate the huge burden of foreign aid that the US is taking up, and we are taking up a huge burden relative to previous efforts with real coalitions.

Additionally, we simply don't have the Iraqi forces trained very well (almost all of the 100k have only had a 3 week course) and since they don't have great equipment that means their abilities stink compared to ours, so of course they are going to have higher death rates. The Iraqi number is a highly misleading figure.

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Simply check factcheck.org

You need to do that yourself.

There are mistakes and exaggerations, true, They don't compare to taking a statement by the opposition, ripping from it all context, adding your own highly biased and wrong context, and then blaring away with everyone you can how this new thing you've made which is nothing like the original sentiment is being advocated by your opponent. It is simply true that Kerry has distorted nothing the way Bush has.

Most of the errors Kerry has made capture the spirit of what is going on, if not the actual details. The same is not true of Bush's lies.

-Drachasor

[DinoDoc]

Che pwnz himself again!

[GePap]

Bush supporters should never ask anyone to go to factcheck.org, and specially factcheck.com

[Ramo]

The problem with most media is that they exchange objectivity for impartiality. Bush's performances, Cheney's performance were replete with lies. And the media ought to call them on it. It's absurd for them to treat Kerry's or Edwards' performaces as truthfully equivalent, when very clearly they're not. You get the same thing with the SBVT, with the he said, she said crap as if both sides are equally legitimate. It's lazy and it's dishonest.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Bingo Ramo, but I dont actualy think its lazyness. I am afraid its actualy percived to be good journalism in the mainstream media to simply give equal time for both sides to speak without calling them out on their lies and distortions. This is quite destrubing for our whole means of goverment when the news media abandons its job of seperating truth from lies, what ever happened to good old investigative journalism.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drachasor


It isn't certain he was there, it is just highly likely that he was, according to our intelligence then and now.

WHich is why the commander of that entire theatre was explicitly stating they had no idea if he was there. And we have now at lesat 5 separate incidents of Kerry/Edwards claiming with certitude that Bin Laden was in fact there and that the use of indigenous Afghani's was the wrong approach, in the process neglecting the substantial commitment of US special ops. But I suppose the fact that the US planned to be light on their own forces and use Afghanis to fight in order to prevent large scale backlash ala Soviet Union/Afghanistan wars doesn't fit the template Kerry wants to espouse.

In any event, when you have the commander saying that Bin Laden was equally likely to be in as many as 4 different locales at that time frame, I suggest Kerry is willingly distorting. 1 out of 5 location only allows him what a 20% chance of bieng truthful. Now I realize this is a better than normal average for Kerry but there you go.

They really can't fire him, so this wasn't true technically.

However, they undermined his authority quite heavily by announcing his retirement and replacement many, many months in advance....in fact they did this right after he made his comment. So the spirit of what Kerry said is true.

Oh, and need I say that, no matter how you feel about Shinseki, his statement about more troops was right? Indeed, all data from previous peace-keeping situations backs him up.

He was right, he told them they needed to change their plan, so they undermind his authority....great.

Ohhh Please. Come to the tabe with a little more meat than this. His retirement was announced well before his so called calls for several hundred thousand troops.
His successor was likewise announced pre-announcement.

Given the bolded passage below (my emphasis) he appears to say leave it to the commanders on the field. When pressed he hazarded a guess. Ooooo...... thats pretty damning an off hand guess but moreso leave it to the commanders running the ops.

THE FACTS

In Fact, Shinseki’s Retirement Was Announced In April 2002, Long Before He Testified About Potential Conduct Of Iraq War. “[Defense Sec. Rumsfeld] and Army Secretary Thomas White have settled on Gen. John M. Keane, Army deputy chief of staff, to succeed the current chief, Gen. Eric Shinseki. Gen. Shinseki does not retire for more than a year. Sources offer differing reasons for the early selection.” (Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, “Inside The Ring,” The Washington Times , 4/19/02)

It Was Not Until Late February 2003, More Than Ten Months Later, That Shinseki Said “Several Hundred Thousand” Troops Would Be Required For “Post-Hostilities Control” In Iraq. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): “General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?” ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF ERIC SHINSEKI: “ In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commander's exact requirements . But I think …” LEVIN: “How about a range?” SHINSEKI: “I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required.” (Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/25/03)

MEDIA CORRECTS THE RECORD

Shinseki “Completed His Full Term Of Chief Of Staff And Retired On Schedule.” BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: “John Kerry insisted today, as he has repeatedly over the past year, that the Army's former Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki was forced into early retirement for saying, in the run up to the war for Iraq, that not enough troops were set to be deployed to the region. Kerry said Shinseki is among the administration officials who, quote, ‘lost their jobs for telling the truth.’ But Shinseki was not forced out. He completed his full term of chief of staff and retired on schedule. However, his successor's name did come out a year ahead of the time, which his supporters say diminished Shinseki's influence in his final year.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 9/20/04)

Shinseki’s Retirement Was Announced Well Before He Criticized Iraq Troop Levels. WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: “Kerry also said General Shinseki was forced to retire as a result of his criticism of troop levels in Iraq, but his retirement was announced in April of 2002, and he made the statement, his criticism of troop levels, in 2003.” (CNN’s “NewsNight,” 10/1/04)

John Kerry’s Assertion That Shinseki Was Fired Is “Factual Mistake.” ED HENRY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: “Also, there was at least one factual mistake in the speech. John Kerry noted at one point that General Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, was fired for not providing the right answers that President Bush was looking for in terms of troop levels, but, in fact, Shinseki retired on his own.” (CNN’s “News From CNN,” 9/8/04)

This part of what Kerry said is 100% true. Bush owns a very small stake in a lumber company, and according to how Republicans have defined "small business", Bush can file taxes as a small business based on this, and he has and does (unless it is more beneficial to file as something else).

I suggest you actually read factcheck.org amazing what you learn.

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.

Guess what when he filed for 2001 Lone Star Trust wasn't a tree-growing company. It may have since become such an enitity but wasn't at the time of his earning $84.

This is opinion, but it is also true that schools have been complaining from day one that they simply don't have the resources and money to implement it properly.

Opinion represented as fact.

They are true for jobs lost in the private sector, though they don't take into account job gains in the public sector (which cuts the figure in half or so).

However, it would probably take Kerry too long to explain all the job woes. For instance, most of the new jobs pay less and give less benefits than the jobs lost. Almost all the high paying ones are part-time or temporary positions. Many people are having to work two jobs now to make ends meet, and many of the new jobs in general are part time. Did you know that in June, when Bush was trumpeting job growth, total hours worked *decreased* but the number of jobs increased? That means full-time jobs are getting replaced by part-time. Not a good thing. (Kerry is perhaps afraid that people will get bored listening to all the details of this so he avoids it.)

Ohhh again please. Kerry has continued to bandy figures of millions of jobs lost under this administration whilst neglecting job creations over the last 13 months. Blatant distoration. While his point may hold true (and likely will) net job loss according to establishment survey appears to be on the order of about 550,000 less than 1/3 his so called 'factual claims". Of course if you want to actually look at the household survey the job creation story is very impressive.

90% of *COALITION* force losses and expenses are ours. That's a fact. The coalition is composed of all the foreign countries in Iraq. That's the official definition. This is 100% true.

I call bull****. Please provide me with said definition. Regardless, my original point stands. To routinely dismiss the accomplishments and sacrifice of the Iraqi's is to my mind the bigger issue.

Course this is from the man who was more than willing to sell our South Vietnamese allies down the river as well.

There are mistakes and exaggerations, true, They don't compare to taking a statement by the opposition, ripping from it all context, adding your own highly biased and wrong context, and then blaring away with everyone you can how this new thing you've made which is nothing like the original sentiment is being advocated by your opponent. It is simply true that Kerry has distorted nothing the way Bush has.

Most of the errors Kerry has made capture the spirit of what is going on, if not the actual details. The same is not true of Bush's lies.

-Drachasor

I respectfully disagree completely and add

[OzzyKP]

I think Peter Jennings is the best of the big anchors.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Did you even read factcheck.org before putting all those down? At best, most of those are exagerations, not outright lies. The $84 from a timber company is true according to factcheck.

Dude, you PWNed yerself.

edit: I PWNed myself by not reading the quote and realizing you were listing exagerations.

Thats what I like about you Che, more than willing to say "whoops I screwed the pooch on this one."

It takes a confident man to admit he's wrong.

(Or in politics when running for office a complete dunderhead )

[Ramo]

Ohhh again please. Kerry has continued to bandy figures of millions of jobs lost under this administration whilst neglecting job creations over the last 13 months. Blatant distoration. While his point may hold true (and likely will) net job loss according to establishment survey appears to be on the order of about 550,000 less than 1/3 his so called 'factual claims". Of course if you want to actually look at the household survey the job creation story is very impressive.

Kerry's numbers are correct if you exclude public sector job creation. One'd expect massive public sector employment when one presides over one of most massive increases in government size in modern history.

Guess what when he filed for 2001 Lone Star Trust wasn't a tree-growing company. It may have since become such an enitity but wasn't at the time of his earning $84.

Which is completely irrelevent to the point that Kerry was making.

Opinion represented as fact.

On what basis do you say that?

His successor was likewise announced pre-announcement.

From factcheck.org:

"There was some truth to Kerry's comment, however. According to the Oct. 9 Washington Post , the story of Shinseki's replacement was leaked "in revenge" for Shinseki's position on troop requirements, which he was already expressing in private. By naming a replacement 14 months early, the Post said Pentagon leakers effectively undercut Shinseki's authority. And as it turned out, Keane never actually took the job, reportedly turning it down for family reasons to retire in Oct. 2003. "

I call bull****. Please provide me with said definition. Regardless, my original point stands. To routinely dismiss the accomplishments and sacrifice of the Iraqi's is to my mind the bigger issue.

Course this is from the man who was more than willing to sell our South Vietnamese allies down the river as well.

Yawn. The issue is diplomatic support for the enterprise, indigenous forces are irrelevent to the issue. Red card for playing the race card.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

Guess what when he filed for 2001 Lone Star Trust wasn't a tree-growing company. It may have since become such an enitity but wasn't at the time of his earning $84.

Which is completely irrelevent to the point that Kerry was making.

So what. It was in fact a distortion in an attempt to one prove a point regarding small business owners as well as attempt to paint Bush as a man who doesn't know his own portfolio.

Funny that whole disclosure of financial since in the Kerry household the majority of earnings for Mr. & Mrs. Kerry get a pass on scrutiny.

Opinion represented as fact.

On what basis do you say that?

On the basis of factcheck.org as well as the admission of Mr. Drachasor.

His successor was likewise announced pre-announcement.

From factcheck.org:

"There was some truth to Kerry's comment, however. According to the Oct. 9 Washington Post , the story of Shinseki's replacement was leaked "in revenge" for Shinseki's position on troop requirements, which he was already expressing in private. By naming a replacement 14 months early, the Post said Pentagon leakers effectively undercut Shinseki's authority. And as it turned out, Keane never actually took the job, reportedly turning it down for family reasons to retire in Oct. 2003. "

Reconcile these facts.

Shinseki announces/plans retirement
Admin announces replacement

10 months later Shinseki gives his 'offhand' assessment of needed troop strengths. The announcement predated his controversial statements by 10 months. I suppose the arguement is that the admin knew that Shinseki was going to go public 10 months in the future and decided to pre-emptively revenge him. Puhhhlease.

I call bull****. Please provide me with said definition. Regardless, my original point stands. To routinely dismiss the accomplishments and sacrifice of the Iraqi's is to my mind the bigger issue.

Course this is from the man who was more than willing to sell our South Vietnamese allies down the river as well.

Yawn. The issue is diplomatic support for the enterprise, indigenous forces are irrelevent to the issue. Red card for playing the race card.

Funny you mention diplomatic support as that was exactly my point.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

Kerry's numbers are correct if you exclude public sector job creation. One'd expect massive public sector employment when one presides over one of most massive increases in government size in modern history.

I suppose these are less worthy jobs not worthy of inclusion when it comes to counting employment.

I realize you favor elimination of the state but you don't simply cook the books in order to do so.

[Ramo]

So what. It was in fact a distortion in an attempt to one prove a point regarding small business owners as well as attempt to paint Bush as a man who doesn't know his own portfolio.

That's nonsense. His source data was slightly wrong, and he used it. His fundamental point was totally correct.

On the basis of factcheck.org as well as the admission of Mr. Drachasor.

In other words, you're making **** up?

Funny that whole disclosure of financial since in the Kerry household the majority of earnings for Mr. & Mrs. Kerry get a pass on scrutiny.

He's not demanding tax cuts on his wife's income.

Reconcile these facts.

Shinseki announces/plans retirement
Admin announces replacement

10 months later Shinseki gives his 'offhand' assessment of needed troop strengths. The announcement predated his controversial statements by 10 months. I suppose the arguement is that the admin knew that Shinseki was going to go public 10 months in the future and decided to pre-emptively revenge him. Puhhhlease.

You didn't read what I posted. Again:
"the story of Shinseki's replacement was leaked "in revenge" for Shinseki's position on troop requirements, which he was already expressing in private."

Note the "in private" part.

Shinseki was criticizing the admin's actions, so the admin. screwed him. It's that simple.

Funny you mention diplomatic support as that was exactly my point.

Dunno what diplomatic support has to do with playing the race card about an innocuous statement.

[Ramo]

I suppose these are less worthy jobs not worthy of inclusion when it comes to counting employment.

I realize you favor elimination of the state but you don't simply cook the books in order to do so.

Public sector employment isn't dictated by economic performance. Massively increase the state and (the budget deficit), and you get more people working.