I have just finished debunking the following:
http://www.mblog.com/emigre_with_digital_cluebat/091512.htmlhttp://thomasgalvin.blogspot.com/2004/10/al-gore-part-deux-john-kerry-and-21-of.html- # 1: "The president made the judgment to divert forces from under Gen. Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it, to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq."
TRUTH: Kerry has claimed that Gen. Tommy Franks complained about not having enough troops. That is not true. Franks has said he always had enough troops and the president never diverted troops from his forces.
Franks' words when told by Renuart to begin working up Iraq war plans while he was busy directing operations in Afghanistan:
"G*dd*mn. What the f*ck are they talking about?"
Franks was told, as the months went by, to keep the invasion force as small as possible so the lead time could be as short as possible. Franks eventually got it down to a minimum of 105,000 troops for the invasion. NOTE: this is just for the invasion, this planning did NOT cover securing the peace (borders, oil wells, refineries, nuclear plants, ammo dumps, etc. after the invasion.)
USA Today article (reprinted at Common Dreams):
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0329-06.htm In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.
The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered.
- # 2: "You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need."
TRUTH: Kerry says the troops needed armor but he voted against the $87 billion to fund those troops in Iraq. He said he voted against the bill as a "protest."
Kerry's vote was AFTER the war had begun. Because Bush rushed to war with the bare minimum needed for an invasion, the resulting mess required more troops than originally planned and, therefore, 40,000 troops were short of the body armor and armored vehicles they needed.
The $87 billion bill was for more than just body armor for those that now needed it. It was also to cover reconstruction costs. The original version of the bill had $20 billion as loans but Bush was going to VETO that version. The subsequent version changed that $20 billion to grants and had a $7.5 billion no-bid contract for Halliburton. Kerry did the smart thing by voting no. The deficit was already increasing and he was doing the fiscally responsible thing. If Bush was so concerned about the troops' body armor, why was he going to VETO the original version of the bill? Why didn't Bush drop the $7.5 billion no-bid contract for Halliburtion and submit a new bill to the Senate?
- # 3: "This president just, I don't know if he sees what's really happening there. But it's getting worse by the day."
TRUTH: Our brave soldiers are not losing. We are winning the war against a small but determined group of terrorists afraid of democracy flowering in Iraq.
Pure rhetoric for that "TRUTH". The truth is in the pudding and has been discussed up here many times. Even the GAO has reported that reconstruction has fallen woefully behind. Bush has gone back to Congress to divert reconstruction funds to security as he f*cked up the planning and now has to cover his ass.
- # 4: "What kind of message does it send to be sending money to open firehouses in Iraq but we're shutting firehouses, who are the first responders here in America? The president hasn't put one nickel - not one nickel - into the effort to fix some of our tunnels and bridges and most exposed subway systems. That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican convention was there."
TRUTH: The president has increased funding. Homeland Security Department has paid more attention to infrastructure than all agencies ever before it. As for the subway, I took the subway to the Republican Convention, it wasn't closed.
TALKING POINTS ON HOMELAND SECURITY/
THE FIRE ACT
http://www.iaff.org/politics/us/content/images/GovAffs%20Files/HLS_FIRE%20TalkPts.pdf • For the first time, President Bush has acknowledged the value and importance of the FIRE
Act grant program by earmarking $500 million for the program in his FY '04 Budget.
While $500 million is a good start, Congress needs to fully fund the FIRE Act at $900
million.
• The FIRE Act grant program has received $5 billion worth of requests over the past two
years. It has awarded grants totaling just 10% of that need.
• The President's proposal for a $3.5 billion program to assist first responders in preparing
for acts of terrorism is desperately needed. Fire fighters need adequate training, equipment
and personnel to protect American lives. Local governments cannot shoulder the
entire burden of providing terrorism emergency response and mitigation.
• While the $3.5 billion proposal is a major stride forward, it has two drawbacks. First, it
proposes to filter the money through the states, which can be inefficient and wasteful. The
most effective way for the federal government to enhance local emergency preparedness is
to provide direct grants to local fire departments. Second, the current definition of "first
responders" is too broad and should be tightened to focus on those local emergency responders
who are on the scene within minutes.
• The recently released FEMA survey, "A Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service," validates
what fire fighters have been saying for too long...that there is a tremendous need in the fire
service for basic firefighting training and equipment.
• America’s fire fighters place their lives on the line every day protecting the safety and
property of their fellow citizens. Yet, the federal government's level of support to fire
fighters is dwarfed by its support of other groups, such as police officers and teachers,
who also play important roles in enhancing Americans’ quality of life. Congress appropriates
billions annually for law enforcement and education, the FIRE Act is a fraction of that
DHS budget criticized for shortchanging first responders
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4224556/ The DHS budget includes “a stunning 30 percent cut, government-wide, for first responders that is the latest evidence of shortchanging the homeland side of the war against terrorism,” warned former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge defended the funding proposals, saying the administration took a hard look at the realities of the times and made tough choices “by the balancing of the fiscal and security environment,” Ridge said.
Funny...Bush wasn't worried about fiscal issues a few months prior when he gave $20 billion to Iraq and gave $7.5 billion to Halliburton..hmmm...
As for the subway:
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/politics/rnc/nyc-rnc-closings.story The following subway entrances will be CLOSED during the convention:
Eighth Ave./33 St: A, C and E trains
Seventh Ave./33 St (NW corner closed): 1, 2, 3, 9 trains
- # 5: "$200 billion, $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors."
TRUTH: But Kerry told Tim Russert that we should increase funding in Iraq. "We should increase it. By whatever number of millions of dollars it takes to win. It's critical that we are successful in Iraq."
Kerry was criticizing the rush to war, the lack of planning, etc. that cost $200 billion and will cost more in the future. It's possible the invasion never needed to occur had diplomacy and inspections been allowed to continue.
But, Kerry realizes the ol' Pottery Barn rule: Bush broke it, the U.S. owns it. We must now finish the job or else Iraq will turn into one big Al Qaeda playground.
- # 6: "You know the president's father did not go into Iraq into Baghdad beyond Basra... And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land. That's exactly where we find ourselves today."
TRUTH: At the time, no one wanted to send American ground troops into Iraq. It was hard enough for former President Bush to get approval to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. That's because people like John Kerry spoke out and voted against the Gulf War.
For good reason. It's been proven that the U.S. faked satellite photos to make it appear Iraqi troops and tanks were amassed long the Kuwaiti/Saudi border.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert.
"It was a pretty serious fib," says Jean Heller, the Times journalist who broke the story...
...Shortly before US strikes began in the Gulf War, for example, the St. Petersburg Times asked two experts to examine the satellite images of the Kuwait and Saudi Arabia border area taken in mid-September 1990, a month and a half after the Iraqi invasion. The experts, including a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who specialized in desert warfare, pointed out the US build-up – jet fighters standing wing-tip to wing-tip at Saudi bases – but were surprised to see almost no sign of the Iraqis.
"That
was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," Ms. Heller says. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis – offering to hold the story if proven wrong.
The official response: "Trust us." To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified.
Also, I find it rather convenient this completely ignores the fact that Bush, Sr. did NOT want to invade and occupy Iraq. We had much more capable people in the administration back then and even they knew it would be one helluva challenge to take over Iraq.
- # 7: "We didn't guard the nuclear facilities."
TRUTH: Nuclear facilities. Exactly. So, they were in Iraq, Senator Kerry.
Uh...yes. Sites such as Tuwaitha have been known about for years and were monitored by the IAEA and UNSCOM.
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/6068775.htm?1c
TUWAITHA, Iraq - On a dusty road, just outside of Baghdad, lies one of the great mysteries of the Iraq war.
Just off the road behind fences and berms sits the 23-acre complex of Tuwaitha, Iraq's main nuclear facility. It's now defunct, but it's still a storage area for 3,000 barrels of low-grade uranium and other more dangerous radioactive materials.
The Bush administration claimed, contrary to reports by U.N. weapons inspectors, that Saddam still had an active nuclear weapons program. The Bush administration claimed that the danger of Iraq's handing off nuclear materiel to terrorists was a key reason for regime change.
The administration knew full well what was stored at Tuwaitha. So how is it possible that the U.S. military failed to secure the nuclear facility until weeks after the war started? This left looters free to ransack the barrels, dump their contents, and sell them to villagers for storage.
How is it possible that, according to Iraqi nuclear scientists, looters are still stealing radioactive isotopes?
The Tuwaitha story makes a mockery of the administration's vaunted concern with weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. military hastened to secure the Ministry of Oil in Baghdad from looters. But Iraq's main nuclear facility was apparently not important enough to get similar protection.
- # 8: "And from the beginning I did vote to give the authority because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence."
TRUTH: Kerry said he thought Saddam was a threat but he also said, "And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking it off to Iraq where the 9/11 commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein."
Uh...yeah...and?
Kerry wanted to continue diplomatic talks, revised sanctions (per Colin Powell's recommendation), and continued weapons inspections. Bush wanted war. Guess who won? Ayup...Bush. Gee...go figure...we rushed to war.
- # 9: "They avoided even the advice of their own general, General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, said, you're going to need several hundred-thousand troops. Instead of listening to him, they retired him."
TRUTH: That is A LIE. According to Robert Novak, In March 2002 Donald Rumsfeld announced Shinseki's term would end in June 2003. Eleven months after that announcement, Shinseki told a committee that the U.S. would need "several hundred thousand soldiers."
Not true. Late March/early April 2002, Gen. Shinseki was already expressing concern about the size of the invasion force. It's all in Woodward's book. Hmm...rather curious timeframe as to when the source says Rumsfeld "announced Shinseki's term would end in June 2003"...hmmmm....
And this:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20020527.shtml
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has delivered a death sentence for the Crusader mobile artillery system, but a bitter debate rages backstage in the Pentagon over the future role of tube artillery to protect the American infantryman. This battle surfaced over the past two weeks when the Army's chief of staff disagreed fundamentally -- in public -- with the Army's Afghanistan theater commander. "This is monumental," one Pentagon source told me. "It has shaken the Army to its institutional roots."
The immediate question involves tactics by Operation Anaconda in March against al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Gen. Tommy Franks, commander in chief of the Afghan war, on May 21, expressed doubt that Crusader would have been of use in Anaconda. On May 16, Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army's chief of staff, testified that the proposed new system could have prevented American casualties. He was denying the claim by critics that Crusader is a relic of the Cold War.
These contradictory statements are not easily reconciled. Largely overlooked, they augment passionate resentments within the Pentagon. One official went so far to suggest that Shinseki might become the 21st century version of Gen. Billy Mitchell, convicted by court martial after contradicting the Army brass by insisting on the value of air power. Shinseki was given an open invitation to leave last month when, without precedent, Rumsfeld announced the new chief of staff 14 months in advance of Shinseki's departure.
Ayup...Shinseki appears to have been forced out...much like George Tenet was made a fall guy by the PNAC neocons in OSP.
- # 10: "The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."
TRUTH: He's referring to a discredited liar, Richard Clarke, who exploited the tragedy of 9/11 with a maudlin apology at the Commission hearings.
This "TRUTH" is a completely and utterly inflammatory remark with absolutely NO basis in fact. Richard Clarke has been discussed at great length several months ago and NO ONE was able to ever prove any contradiction of Clarke, much less any lies. In fact, some of Clarke's words have since rung truer in the post-invasion mess of Iraq and the fact that bin Laden still remains uncaptured.
- # 11: "When the secretary general, Kofi Annan, offered the United Nations, he said, "No, no, we'll go do this alone.'' To save for Halliburton the spoils of the war, they actually issued a memorandum from the Defense Department saying, if you weren't with us in the war, don't bother applying for any construction."
TRUTH: The United Nations pulled out after their offices were bombed and UN officials like Sergio Vieira de Mello were killed. Halliburton, and companies from other countries that contributed troops, were allowed to bid for contracts. I guess John Kerry wants France to grab the spoils of war even though it did not shed blood with our troops.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1854.cfm
Fully five months before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush began calling the United Nations abusive names that called in question its very existence. Bush was, in effect, "calling down the manhood" of the world body. Listen:
NEWS BRIEF: "Bush: U.N. Must Support New Policy on Inspections in Iraq, or Become Irrelevant", By Wendy Ross, Washington File White House Correspondent, U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs, 3 October 2002, http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/usandun/02100301.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/08/iraq-030821-rferl-170343.htm
After the UN attack, Bush vowed he would stay the course in Iraq. But whether Bush will drop his opposition to greater UN involvement -- or increase U.S. troop levels -- remains the subject of intense speculation.
http://www.laboreducator.org/rejectun.htm
August 15, 2003
The Bush administration has refused to allow the United Nations any role in peacekeeping and reconstruction in Iraq, despite evidence that the U.S. British coalition does not have enough troops to ensure stability and security in the country or provide electricity, fuel and other essential services to the population.
- # 12: "But what he has said is that even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection of Al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way."
TRUTH: While standing in front of the Grand Canyon, John Kerry said he would have gone to war with Iraq even though we haven't found WMD.
This "TRUTH" is actually a lie. Kerry NEVER said he would have gone to war. This is an oft-repeated lie from the right and has no basis in fact.
Kerry has said he would vote for the authorization to use force. That vote would only use force after all diplomatic measures were exhausted and weapons inspections failed.
Again, here are Kerry's words in the Congressional Record re:that vote:
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html
- # 13: "First of all, we all know that in his State of the Union message he told Congress about nuclear materials that didn't exist."
TRUTH: That is ANOTHER KERRY LIE. Bush said in his speech that British intelligence found out Iraq attempted to buy materials from Niger. Another discredited liar, Joe Wilson, was the centerpiece of how the truth eventually emerged.
Again, this "TRUTH" is a lie. Joe Wilson has NOT been discredited and it's been proven that the information not stricken from the SotU address was based on forged documents. Several members of the Bush administration turned somersaults to retract that statement, calling it a mistake to have included it.
- # 14: "The president said he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through that full process. He didn't. He cut it off, sort or arbitrarily."
TRUTH: President Bush, Colin Powell and Ambassador Negroponte went repeatedly to the U.N. Look up UN Resolution 1441 and you'll see how we had UN backing.
Ayup...we had UN backing. It's just that Bush was pushing an agenda that no one at the UN agreed with, for good reason:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1854.cfm
The United Nations, on the other hand, insisted that such claims were without merit for its arms inspectors had been searching Iraq periodically since 1991 and had found nothing that would support Bush's position. In the weeks prior to the Iraq invasion launch , U.S. intelligence officials even told U.N. arms inspectors exactly where in Iraq they should look for WMD; however, when inspectors went to that location, they still found nothing. Just as American and British forces were launching their attack, U.N. Chief Arms Inspector Blix announced that Iraq possessed no WMD and that invading forces would not find any.
- # 15: "We did not go as a last resort."
TRUTH: After 12 years of resolutions, expelled weapons inspectors and more resolutions, WE DID go to war as a last resort.
No, we didn't. Colin Powell wanted to alter the sanctions to allow humanitarian aid in while strengthening restrictions on arms and other military equipment.
Also, weapons inspections were underway and were successful. Bush cut the inspections short and rushed to war as he knew the jig was up. He knew his PNAC neocons had been using the trumped-up intelligence from the discredited Chalabi. If inspections had been allowed to continue, they'd have turned up nothing on WMDs and, therefore, Bush's justification for an invasion would have been completely removed.
- # 16: "Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq in order to go out to people and say America has declared war on Islam."
TRUTH: John Kerry quotes and agrees with Osama bin Laden. Well, what did Osama bin Laden use an excuse to kill us on 9/11? Was it our civilians fault?
Again, another "TRUTH" with no basis in it.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.egypt.mubarak.reut/
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak says the U.S.-led war on Iraq would produce "one hundred new bin Ladens," driving more Muslims to anti-Western militancy.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/08/05/061150.php
In an article called "The Terrorist Net" (Aug. 2 issue of The New Yorker Magazine), author Lawrence Wright writes:
"...the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade, a group claiming affiliation with Al Qaeda, sent a bombastic message to the London newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi, avowing responsibility for the train bombings.
"Who turn will it be next?" the authors taunt. "Is it Japan, America, Italy, Britain, Saudi Arabia, or Australia?"
The message also addressed the speculation that the terrorists would try to replicate their political success in Spain by disrupting the November U.S. elections.
"We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections," the authors write. Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" are useful, the authors contend, for they stir the Islamic world."
- # 17: "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us."
TRUTH: It's not a zero sum gain. We can fight both Al Qaeda and Iraq. Osama bin Laden isn't the only terrorist in the world. And we had to attack Hussein before he attacked us. According to Kerry, we can only fight once we've been attacked.
Iraq did NOT need to be attacked. Gen. Zinni himself said Saddam was contained. He was NOT an imminent threat and inspections should have been allowed to continue while we focused our military on capturing bin Laden - the ring leader of Al Qaeda, responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans on 9/11/2001.
- # 18: "He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening."
TRUTH: I thought Kerry said Saddam was a threat? Here he says Saddam was weakening. I don't know what Saddam could have possibly been weakening under when he was still killing people left and right while collaborating with terrorists like Zarqawi. Plus, Saddam kicked out UN inspectors repeatedly.
Yes, Saddam was a threat. He would someday have sought to reconstitute his WMD programs which is why he needed to be confronted.
You see, this is that black-and-white world of the Bushies rearing its head again. Saddam was a threat but NOT an imminent threat that needed to be removed by invading and occupying Iraq.
- # 19: "If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say, What do you need? What do you need now? How much more will it take to get you to join us? We'd be in a stronger place today."
TRUTH: What a pathetic negotiating tactic. Countries like France and Germany were intractable on this issue, and Kerry would have asked them what more they wanted of us? Unbelievable.
It's true France, Germany, and Russia had lucrative contracts with Iraq but, it's now known they ended up being right in not to invade. Also, I posted earlier that the UN had grave doubts as to the U.S.'s claims because their inspectors' work over the years contradicted the Bush admin's claims.
- # 20: "But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test. That passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing."
TRUTH: According to Kerry, we have to pass a global test in order to assert our right of protecting ourselves through pre-emption.
Need this even be addressed? <sigh> More obstinance from the Bushies. Kerry would NEVER CEDE the U.S.'s security to a foreign power. By "global test" Kerry meant that, AFTER we took ACTION, we would be able to prove that what we had done was justified. It's really very simple to understand.
- # 21: "And we've watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties there were on the table. You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treating, for instance."
TRUTH: John Kerry voted against the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.
And Kerry even said the other night that Kyoto had some flaws and needed some modifications. However, to fully disengage from the work of 160 nations was just completely irresponsible of Bush and was a complete flip-flop of his campaign promise to reduce CO2 emissions.
edit: fixed a typo ;)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
