Bush Campaign Lies
Monday, May 31, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #60: John Kerry has a 'Record of Contradiction' on the War in Iraq
This is the follow-up rebuttal to a Bush campaign smear which I started debunking in lie #58. This post pertains to the parts of the smear which call into question Kerry's support --- or lack thereof --- for the war in Iraq.
The Bush folks provide Kerry quotes which are more than 6 years old, which is to say, from 1997 and 1998, which state that Saddam Hussein should be removed. They only bring out these quotes because they want to convince you later that Kerry changed his position. But note that in neither case does Kerry make an absolute statement that the U.S. should invade Iraq militarily, and in fact the 1997 quote is from a Senate floor speech in which Kerry says:
While our actions should be thoughtfully and carefully determined and structured, while we should always seek to use peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve serious problems before resorting to force, and while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.Kerry, Bush, and pretty much everyone else agree on this part. Where they will disagree later lies in the parts I've marked in bold.
The Bushies next cite a speech Kerry made at Georgetown in January 2003, where he urged Bush not to rush to war. Hmm, sounds a great deal like his earlier statement, doesn't it?
The next Kerry statement the Bush camp cite does indeed reveal something new in Kerry's stance toward the war. Kerry calls for 'regime change in the United States.' But there's a perfectly good reason for Kerry to present a new view. If we read the full article, we learn:
Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that President Bush committed a "breach of trust" in the eyes of many United Nations members by going to war with Iraq, creating a diplomatic chasm that will not be bridged as long as Bush remains in office.This statement was not a criticism of the war, or even of Bush's decision to go to war, but of Bush's decision to go to war when the UN was still deeply divided on the issue. This objection is strikingly consistent with the 1997 Kerry speech the Bush folks cite.
Of the four remaining Kerry quotes, three are repeats from an earlier lie. See the discussion of items (2), (3) and (4) under lie #12. You'll see that Kerry's statements here are still consistent with his 1997 speech.
The final quote is one which the Republicans tout as proof that 'Kerry Admitted He Viewed His War Vote Politically'. Maybe so. Here's the quote:
I thought about that as if I were president, because I knew I was running for president. And I knew I had to be accountable to a standard.Notice that it's not clear whether Kerry really is discussing his vote authorizing use of force in Iraq, and notice further that he only says that he knew he had to be 'accountable to a standard'. Which standard? If Kerry really is discussing the war here, then most likely he means that he decided to support or oppose the resolution based on what action he would take if he were President. After all, he might actually be the President soon, and would have to live with the outcome of his vote. Is that bad somehow?
We could get a clearer picture about what Kerry meant when he said this by looking at the full context of the statement, but this proves to be difficult. The Bush folks say Kerry made this statement on January 26th, but they cite the February 23 airing of FOX News' 'Special Edition with Brit Hume'. This means that Kerry didn't actually make this statement on Hume's show, but rather that Hume or someone on the program referenced the Kerry statement. So FOX News pulled a Kerry quote out of some context (and FOX is a decidedly partisan news organization), and then the partisan Bush campaign pulled the quote out of that context and claimed it as proof that Kerry voted as he did for political reasons. Are you convinced yet?
Well, neither am I. But I have been unable to track down either a transcript for the 'Special Edition with Brit Hume' show which the Bush folks cite, or any mention of the original Kerry quote on January 26, which some news organization other than FOX supposedly recorded. In fact, you may be surprised to learn that FOX apparently does not maintain an archive of transcripts for its news programs (it's almost as if they don't want people to be able to check up on them). I was able to find a partial transcript from the February 23 show, but it doesn't contain the magical quote.
So the upshot is, the Bush folks conclusively prove that Kerry's view on war with Iraq has been consistent since at least 1997. He always favored the use of force in Iraq, with true multilateral support, once diplomacy had been exhausted. After Bush took the country to war in the face of significant division among our historical allies, Kerry sharply criticized Bush precisely because Bush's actions weren't consistent with Kerry's beliefs. Indeed, Kerry would have been inconsistent only if he had failed to criticize Bush in this manner.
Bush Campaign 'Is Making History With Often-Misleading Attacks'
I admit it: I'm an anti-Bush partisan. I want Bush to lose in November, because I think he's been an absolutely dreadful president. I'm not enough of a historian to know whether he really is the worst president ever, as some people allege, but I do think he's really, really bad. That's why I want him out of the White House.
Well, and because he's a liar, too.
I would imagine that my work here displays my partisan view of the world, but I also hope that most fair-minded people would agree that I've attempted to handle the issues fairly myself. My goal is to defeat Bush with the truth, not by countering his lies with more lies. My real purpose here is to build public support for the idea of ditching Bush, by documenting and prominently reporting as many of his lies as possible.
And to those who may still believe I'm just a Bush-hater off on a partisan witch-hunt: well, this probably won't change your opinion one bit, but it appears I'm not alone. Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei recently wrote in the Washington Post:
Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertisingThe article also references a number of Bush lies debunked here (and a few misleading statements by Kerry as well).
So, it's not just me.
Friday, May 28, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #59: In 72 Hours, Kerry Flip-Flopped on Whether Bush Misled the Public About WMD
As badly as the Bush campaign lies about Kerry, they're nothing compared to the GOP. As far back as last June, the GOP was spinning and distorting wildly in an effort to smear Kerry.
In particular, they cite two different Kerry interviews: one on June 15, 2003, in which the Republicans claim Kerry said it would be irresponsible to accuse Bush of misleading the public on WMD, and another on June 18, 2003, quoting Kerry as saying '[Bush] misled every one of us'.
As is often the case with the GOP, the actual references reveal that they're distorting things. Here is the relevant context for the June 15 quote (emphasis mine):
STEPHANOPOULOS: People are really upset that they feel misled by President Bush on this issue weapons of mass destruction. I know you said you're agnostic about whether or not he misled the public on weapons of mass destruction. But do you have a hunch on whether you think they hyped the intelligence?Stephanopoulos never asked Kerry whether Bush misled the public. He asked Kerry whether Bush had 'hyped the intelligence'. And Kerry responds that it would be irresponsible to draw a conclusion about that.
KERRY: George, again, I think it would be irresponsible of me at this point to draw conclusions prior to all the evidence being on the table. What I know is we have to get that evidence. We have to have an investigation to know to a certainty whether or not it was hype, whether we were misled, whether there was a concerted effort, a clientitis(PH) between, you know, that the CIA was serving the political purposes of the administration.
In the June 18 article, we have to rely on Ron Fournier's interpretation of Kerry's remarks, but he makes things pretty clear (emphasis mine again):
"He misled every one of us," Kerry said. "That's one reason why I'm running to be president of the United States."Here, Kerry says Bush misled the country because Bush's claims about Iraq's WMD were based on faulty evidence. And consistent with his earlier statement, Kerry doesn't not draw a conclusion about whether the intelligence was simply bad, or whether the Bush administration 'politicized' it.
Kerry said Bush made his case for war based on at least two pieces of U.S. intelligence that now appear to be wrong that Iraq sought nuclear material from Africa and that Saddam's regime had aerial weapons capable of attacking the United States with biological material.
(snip)
Addressing senior citizens in Hanover later in the evening, Kerry said he supported a congressional investigation because it was not clear whether Bush acted on poor, distorted or politicized intelligence.
"I don't have the answer," he said.
If I tell you that your spouse has been cheating on you when s/he really hasn't, and you believe me and get a divorce, then it doesn't matter whether I acted maliciously or made an honest mistake. I still misled you. Those who are actually interested in understanding Kerry's position can clearly see from these statements that Kerry was reserving judgement as to whether Bush acted maliciously, but that Bush misled us nevertheless. And those who would rather play partisan 'gotcha' games will pounce on the fact that Kerry used the word 'misled' in responding to Stephanopoulos.
This Republican distortion is just the first in a long list of spin and smear on this particular RNC web page. All of the remaining anti-Kerry allegations are debunked in the previous post, in which we point out that Kerry's seeming inconsistency concerning Iraq's WMD arises from the fact that the administration was wildly inconsistent --- to the point of lying --- in its claims about Iraq's WMD.
Given how badly the administration misled the country about this, you would think Republicans would be trying to sweep it under the rug, rather than using it to attack Kerry.
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #58: John Kerry has a 'Record of Contradiction' on Iraq's WMD
The Bush folks have a brand new smear online to convince you that Kerry has a 'record of contradictions' on Iraq.
Their presentation is confusing, but perhaps that's done intentionally. By presenting their evidence in a confusing way, the reader will come away thinking 'I'm confused. That must mean Kerry really does have a record of contradiction!' For one thing, they present their arguments in reverse chronological order. For another, they actually make five separate arguments against Kerry, and then throw in some random stuff about weapons inspectors and Bill Clinton just to make things extra confusing. Of the 19 items presented, they break down like this:
- Discussion of Kerry's vote against the $87 billion supplemental funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan (items 2, 5 and 6).
- Statements Kerry made to the effect that Saddam's removal would be a good thing (items 17, 19).
- Statements Kerry made suggesting that Iraq had WMD or something like it (items 8, 9, 13, 15 and 18).
- One statement Kerry made suggesting that Saddam had ties to terrorism (item 14).
- Kerry's support of the war and/or Bush's decision to go to war (3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12).
- Random stuff (items 1 and 16).
Anyway. We have already extensively discussed item (1). Kerry voted against the $87 billion to protest Bush's lack of a clear plan to bring democracy to Iraq, and he wouldn't have voted against it if there had been any doubt about the bill passing overwhelmingly. But it makes a good sound bite for the ill-informed, so you can expect the Republicans to keep repeating this from now 'til November. One bit we haven't addressed previously is Kerry's maladroit 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it' statement, which sounds pretty dopey, I'll admit. But when one reads the context of this statement, it's clear that Kerry is referring to the amendment he authored which would have taken the $87 billion out of Bush's tax cuts.
Bottom line: Kerry is always, consistently, supporting our troops. And he will apply political leverage whenever possible to make sure it's done right.
The rest of this post will be devoted to item (3), and items (2) and (5) will be handled in a future post. I don't have a response to item (4) right now.
For item (3), all inconsistency comes from the Bush administration, and they're bashing Kerry for responding to it appropriately. To begin with, no one has ever seriously doubted that Saddam Hussein wanted WMD. So it doesn't mean too much when the Bushies provide part of a Kerry floor speech from 1997, in which he says:
[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent . . . .Notice, Kerry does not say that Hussein has the weapons, merely that he wants them. Note also Kerry's consistent emphasis that the UN is the appropriate body to insure Hussein's desires are not fulfilled.
Similarly, a Kerry quote from a 2001 airing of "Face the Nation", only says (maybe) that Hussein wants WMD: 'Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them.' Actually, he was probably talking about al-Qaeda or other terrorists --- note that he says 'their efforts' instead of 'his efforts'. Read the whole transcript for yourself and see what you think (Kerry's quote is mistakenly attributed to Bob Graham).
The first time Kerry actually suggests that Hussein has WMD is in a floor speech on October 9, 2002 on the resolution authorizing use of force in Iraq. Why would Kerry suddenly believe that Iraq had the weapons, rather than merely wanting them? Well, probably because in October 2002, a classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared jointly by U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Iraq 'has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions'. Further, it stated that Iraq had:
- Largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
- Started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed--December 1998.
- Stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents--much of it added in the last year.
- Some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives
But, as we found out in June 2003, the report was full of misinformation. It turns out that a preliminary report in September 2002, which Kerry never saw, as well as a follow-up report in November 2002, found 'no reliable information' that Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons. This inconsistency in the administration's NIE leads directly to the very 'inconsistency' the Bush campaign is now trying to pin on Kerry. This is why George Stephanopoulos was asking Kerry, on June 15, whether Bush had hyped the intelligence, and this is why Kerry stated on June 18 that 'He misled every one of us.'
Again: In September 2002, a preliminary report states there is 'no reliable information' about Iraq's WMD capability. This report does not become public until 8 months later. In October 2002, U.S. intelligence releases to Congress a National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Saddam does have WMD. Then in November 2002, a follow-up to the September report, again private, confirms there is no reliable information about Iraq's WMD.
Is John Kerry the inconsistent one here?
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #57: John Kerry Politicizes the Patriot Act
This appears to be the Bush campaign's attack of the week, with a new ad.
According to FactCheck.org, about the only statements in the Bush ad which are correct are that John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, and Bush signed it into law. The ad makes two main charges against Kerry, both false.
- Pressured by fellow liberals, he's changed his position.
- Kerry would now repeal Patriot Act's use of wire taps, subpoenas and surveillance [against terrorists].
In support of the second claim, the Bushies provide . . . nothing. That's because there's no evidence, anywhere, that remotely suggests that Kerry wants to repeal the use of wire taps, subpoenas and surveillance against terrorists. What Kerry has advocated is stricter judicial oversight of such surveillance, which is a far cry from repeal of these provisions. FactCheck.org has the details, along with a discussion of the Republicans who agree with Kerry's point of view.
This is about the most bald-faced lie I've yet encountered out of the Bush campaign (but it's only May, I'm sure worse is yet to come).
Now, there's nothing better than following up a bald Bush lie with a hefty helping of Bush hypocrisy. In the supporting 'evidence' for the ad, the Bush folks try to convince us how great the Patriot Act is. The first statement comes from a Department of Justice web site which is dedicated to promoting the Patriot Act (could it be any more objective?), and claims among other things that '176 individuals have been convicted or pled guilty after being charged with terrorism-related crimes'.
That sounds really great. Except the Department of Justice has a track record of consistently inflating the numbers of folks arrested, charged and convicted under the Patriot Act by including crimes which had nothing to do with terrorism. In other words, the Bush campaign, via the DOJ, is lying about the efficacy of the Patriot Act in order to smear John Kerry. Does it seem to you that they're politicizing the Patriot Act a little bit?
Interestingly, although arrests and convictions which have nothing to do with terrorism still count under the Patriot Act, it would appear that civil rights abuses caused by the Patriot Act don't count. The final bit of evidence the Bushies give that the Patriot Act is so great is that although 'over 3,500' allegations of abuse have been reported to the DOJ, none of them 'had anything to do with a substantive provision of the Patriot Act.' Isn't that amazing? 3,500 people come forward to state that they had experienced civil rights violations related to the Patriot Act, and every single one of them was wrong.
But wrong they were. The Justice Department's Inspector General says so.
Bush Campaign Lie #56: Bush Fell Off His Bike Because 'It's Been Raining a Lot'
Apparently Bush was riding a mountain bike at his Crawford ranch Saturday, and fell off. Ordinarily, I wouldn't mention anything so mundane here, but the GOP are using it as an excuse to bash Kerry.
According to the Republicans, via the Washington Times, via Drudge (and if you can't trust Drudge, who can you trust?), when Kerry heard the news, he asked "Did the training wheels fall off?" So Kerry made an unnecessary and not-very-nice joke at the President's expense. And we know Republicans would never stoop to making jokes about their opponents.
At least Kerry's joke was intended to be off the record. The Bush team, on the other hand, told an unnecessary lie about Bush's mishap, on the record. Here's the official explanation as to why Bush fell:
"It's been raining a lot and the topsoil is loose," the spokesman said. "You know this president. He likes to go all out. Suffice it to say he wasn't whistling show tunes."Yeah, riding a mountain bike 'all out' on 'loose topsoil' could definitely result in an accident. But there had been essentially no rain in Crawford for an entire week. Hmm.
Now I wonder whether Bush really was whistling show tunes.
(Thanks to a Kos reader for picking up on this, and to Kos for putting in the hyperlinks.)
Sunday, May 23, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #55: Washington Post Slammed Kerry for Decision to Delay Nomination
I love the Bush campaign blog, because it reflects Bush the man, the Bush administration, and what the Republican party have become so completely. The posts make bold pronouncements, backed up by questionable evidence, and they brook no dissent: unlike most blogs, including this one and John Kerry's, it doesn't allow users to leave comments.
For example, consider this recent post in the Bush campaign blog. It republishes almost all of a Washington Post editorial from May 22nd, and triumphantly cries that 'The Washington Post editorial board today slams Kerry for his decision to try and delay accepting his party’s nomination'.
Now, it is true that the Post op-ed called the decision to postpone acceptance of the nomination a 'ploy' and seemed to chide Kerry by saying 'Mr. Kerry's choice to be seen manipulating the rules will have its own cost, of course -- but it won't be in cash. We do look forward to his non-acceptance speech.'
But if you read the part the Republicans leave out (always read the original!), you discover that the main point of the editorial wasn't criticism of Kerry, but the campaign finance system. Let's take a look:
This is a symptom of a presidential financing system that has degenerated into meaninglessness. Gushers of cash are flowing into both presidential campaigns for what are supposedly their "primary" contests. Boosted by the doubling of the contribution limit to $2,000, Mr. Bush has broken the $200 million barrier -- nearly twice his take four years ago, when he became the first eventual nominee to opt out of the matching fund system. Mr. Kerry announced yesterday that he has topped $117 million, most of it raised after he dispatched his primary opponents.Note how the Republicans snipped out the part reminding us that it was Bush who led the way in creating the situation we have now. In fact, a Democrat partisan might seize on this and argue that it is Bush who has 'undermine[d] campaign finance reform', and Bush who has chosen to 'manipulate the rules', two charges the Republicans claim the Post is making against Kerry.
If the system is to remain in place, it must be dramatically overhauled to take into account the reality of a front-loaded primary calendar and soaring campaign costs. The existing matching fund system for the primaries is all but dead: It's hard to imagine another successful party nominee who would participate in it. If it is to be continued, the amount that's matched needs to be increased. The primary spending ceiling must be raised.
A Democrat partisan might say that, but I wouldn't. I would only say that the Republicans are distorting the Post's editorial in a dishonest way.
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #54: Story that GOP Outsourced Fundraising to India is 'Untrue Urban Legend'
You may or may not be aware of the story that, between May 16, 2002 and July 22, 2003, the GOP outsourced part of its fundraising to India. This story was reported on the O'Franken Factor yesterday, as well as on MoveOn.org's 'Daily Mislead'.
Now, Al Franken is definitely a partisan, and MoveOn.org is certainly a partisan organization. So the Republicans are responding to the news by charging partisanship, saying
"This story is an untrue urban legend which has been traversing the nether regions of cyber space for the better part of a year. It’s unfortunate that John Kerry’s supporters have so little regard for the truth that they would spread Internet stories with no basis in fact," said RNC Communications Director Jim Dyke.Yeah, I hate it when a political campaign shows no regard for the truth. The thing is, I'm not so sure that the Hindustan Times is a partisan Kerry supporter. And Asia Times Online independently confirmed the story.
This isn't really news. Buzzflash mentioned this story in February 2003, citing an Indian business journal, the Business Standard, as their source (unfortunately, that link appears to be dead, but someone was nice enough to cut-and-paste it into freerepublic). And the RNC have repeatedly denied the reports for the past 15 months.
That's to be expected. But in every denial I've seen, the RNC only denies any association with HCL Technologies, the Indian firm which did the fundraising, which may be perfectly true. However, the Hindustan Times article makes it clear that the RNC originally contracted with Capital Communications Group in Washington, D.C., who then outsourced the contract. I haven't yet seen an RNC denial which addresses this specific point.
It boils down to this. You can believe the RNC denials, incomplete though they are, or you can believe the two non-partisan Indian news sources which came upon the story independently of one another, and the third impartial news source which independently confirmed it.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #53: Bush is 'Doing His Duty' Funding 'No Child Left Behind'
From a recent campaign speech at a Junior High School in Arkansas:
We're helping to pay for the tests. People say, well, it's an unfunded mandate to put accountability systems in place. No, the accountability systems are largely funded by the federal government.This statement follows a classic Republican formula; say something that's factually accurate, and misapply it to make it seem that Bush is doing a good job.
Second, if my 2005 budget is enacted, federal spending on elementary and high school education will have increased by 49 percent since 2001. In Arkansas, that's an extra $112 million federal dollars for your public schools compared to 2001.
Nationwide, since 2001, we've already increased funding for low-income schools, under Title I -- that's the money for the poorest of students -- by 41 percent. That will rise to 52 percent if Congress approves my budget, which would mean an additional $37 million to help people in this state.
In other words, we're doing our duty.
I don't know whether the exact numbers Bush mentions in his speech are correct, but it is true that federal spending on education has increased dramatically during Bush's term of office. Unfortunately, it has not increased dramatically enough to meet the obligations Bush agreed to in the No Child Left Behind legislation. And in that respect, NCLB is an underfunded mandate, and Bush and the Republican-led Congress are not doing their duty.
According to FactCheck.org, federal funding for education has increased by an estimated $26.5 billion between FY '01 (Clinton's last budget) and FY '05. Unfortunately, after searching through the text of NCLB, it seems the net increase for FY '05 should be at least $33.15 billion for NCLB funding alone. This is why FactCheck.org and others report that NCLB is underfunded by roughly $7 billion in FY '05. And FY '05 is not an aberration. As ACORN reports, Bush has been systematically underfunding NCLB ever since he signed it into law.
Bush Campaign Lie #52: As Governor, George Bush Enacted (Education) Reforms that Produced Dramatic Results
This is the opening boast in a recent Bush ad. It's a refrain carried over from his 2000 campaign. And in a strictly literal sense, it's true: the results of Bush's reforms were quite dramatic. But team Bush appears to be implying that the results of the Texas reform were actually good, when in fact they were anything but.
Among other things, one whistleblower reports that the city of Houston, where current Education Secretary Rod Paige was superintendent from 1994 to 2001, reported an official dropout rate of 1.5%, when the true rate was something between 25% and 50%. The official rates were obtained by cooking the books on a large scale, something Paige encouraged by firing principals who reported a high dropout rate, while awarding $5,000 bonuses to those reporting a low rate.
Then there's the testing which is the Bush administration's magic bullet for education. The Republicans heap scorn on Kerry for suggesting that other accountability measures should be used in addition to testing (see lie #18), but it turns out that their own devotion to testing didn't work out so well in Houston. By requiring a high pass rate on a statewide achievement test in 10th grade, many teachers saw to it that certain students were never allowed to make it to the 10th grade, and some would sit through the ninth grade two or more times before being promoted directly to the 11th grade. Needless to say, many of these kids choose to drop out rather than put up with such nonsense. These children are definitely getting left behind.
(Thanks to the O'Franken Factor for this story. The New York Times has more about the Texas Miracle which became the Texas Mirage. In a previous life, I discussed how dropout rates are criminally underreported --- and not just in Texas.)
Sunday, May 16, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #51: Kerry's Energy Policy Obstruction
Have you noticed gas prices lately? They're at record highs. And so what better way for the Bush administration to deflect some of the heat they're taking for this, than to insist that things would be even worse under President Kerry?
Their charges are kind of confused. First, they provide the misleading Kerry quote from 2000 in which he said that releasing some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is 'not relevant' (see lie #47). Then they point out that other Democrats are demanding a release from the SPR. If this is supposed to prove that Kerry's a fool for saying that a release from SPR is 'not relevant', it fails because in 2000, Kerry was concerned about heating oil, not gasoline --- and Kerry does believe that we should stop filling SPR since it's more than 90% full, which is slightly different than taking oil out of it. Pacific Business News reports that this is the approach oil industry analysts recommend. On the other hand, if it's supposed to show that Kerry is 'obstructing' good energy policy because he disagrees with other Democrats about releasing the oil, then Bush is even more of an obstructionist, since he adamantly insists on filling SPR.
So, I don't understand the point of that item.
The next charge is that although Kerry claims that he wants to 'aggressively develop oil and gas supplies' and 'develop renewable fuels', he opposes drilling in ANWR and missed the vote on Bush's energy bill. Funny thing about that, though. You only really need to show up to vote for bills you support, and even the Bush folks acknowledge that Kerry would have voted against it.
Again, this sounds like a good argument proving that Kerry is obstructionist. But the full context of the Kerry quote cited above is that Kerry wants to 'Continue to aggressively develop oil and gas supplies in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and other places "where it makes economic and environmental sense to do so."' So really, what we see is that Kerry gives a damn about the environment, while the Republicans see it as an 'obstruction'. For someone who does care about the environment, national security, public health and sounds energy policy, voting against the Energy Bill is a no-brainer. See lie #43.
Finally, they wrap up their presentation by asserting that Kerry 'Supported Higher Gas Taxes At Least 11 Times As Senator Including A 50 Cent Increase'. We've demonstrated on many occasions how Senate votes can be twisted into weapons against somebody, but in this case, the Republicans are extra cagey, in that they don't actually provide references to the votes they cite. We'll see why later.
Four of the votes they list concern the same piece of legislation, the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act. This is a huge piece of legislation (over 1600 pages as a PDF document), and ordinarily I'd argue that it's ridiculous to cherry-pick two items out of a bill that size and draw firm conclusions about it. Except that this was Bill Clinton's famous deficit-reduction bill, which contained a number of tax increases, which every single Republican voted against. Since deficit reduction was its main emphasis, it's fair to conclude that by voting for it, Kerry supported the deficit reduction measures in it. Unlike Bush, Kerry takes deficit reduction seriously.
Also, one of the best ways to 'develop renewable fuels' is to place a consumption tax on non-renewable energy sources --- like gasoline --- to give people an incentive to create and use renewable fuel technologies. So Kerry's support for these taxes further undermines the 'obstructionist' claim.
Anyway, Kerry voted for the initial Senate passage of the bill, and then again for the version reconciled with the House. The bill contained both a 4.3 cent per gallon deficit reduction tax, and a 5.267 cent per gallon BTU consumption tax (the Republicans report this as a 7.5 cent tax, but I don't know where they get that). So that's four of the votes. (He also voted against an amendment which would have raised gas taxes to pay for emergency relief. Why don't the Republicans mention this?) He also voted to kill an amendment which would have stripped out the 4.3 cent per gallon tax. So that's five.
Then the GOP claims that Kerry voted against repealing the 4.3 cent per gallon tax on at least four occasions. That appears to be true, although it's worth noting that Senate Republicans agreed with Kerry on one of those votes, by a margin of 37-16. That brings the total to nine.
They claim that in 2000, Kerry voted against a 150-day suspension of the gas tax. That's true, bringing the total to ten.
Where's the last one? Well, the GOP tell us that in 1994, Kerry supported a 50-cent per gallon gas tax. But where's the vote? Oh! There isn't one! That explains why the GOP don't reference Kerry's votes, like they usually do, because they don't want to reveal this fact. And that's why they only tell you that Kerry 'supported' higher gas taxes, not that he voted for them.
No, Kerry never voted for a 50-cent a gallon gas tax, and he never sponsored or otherwise supported legislation of that kind. And he hasn't expressed any kind of support for such a tax since 1994. The Republicans know it, too. They also know that he doesn't support such a tax now.
However, the Chair of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers wrote an article supporting a 50-cent per gallon gas tax in 1999.
Spring Cleaning
I know I haven't posted any new content in almost a week, but I've been busy housekeeping. Specifically, I've been working through the last 50 lies, trying to tighten up my exposition (without too much success) and sharpen my arguments (with only slightly more success). See if you can identify the posts which have changed.
Also, it occurred to me that I could provide a more useful resource if I actually linked to the various Senate votes which are cited. So I've put in the links for most of them. Sadly, it's going to take me a while to get lie #37 completely documented, because I lost track of which votes were which.
A real bummer, too. I spent hours looking those things up. Oh well.
In the meantime, the Bush campaign has had six entire days without me fact-checking it. I imagine I'll have a lot of new material to work with when I check up on them.
Monday, May 10, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #50: Kerry Flip Flopped On Internet Taxation
Once again, I feel compelled to point out that if this is the best the Bush campaign can do to try to prove that Kerry flip-flops, then they must really have nothing on him.
The support for this claim is two of Kerry's Senate votes, vote 306 in the 2nd session of the 105th Congress (10/7/98), and vote 341 in the 1st session of the 107th (11/15/01). In the first case, Kerry voted against tabling an amendment which imposed a moratorium on internet taxation, while 'grandfathering in' existing internet access taxes. In the second, Kerry voted against tabling an amendment to extend the moratorium, and to encourage states to adopt uniform practices on 'remote' transactions --- those accomplished via phone or mail order, as well as the internet.
So, it's not real clear how this amounts to a flip-flop. In both cases, Kerry supported the exact same moratorium. The only difference is that in the second case, he also supported tax fairness for all kinds of remote transactions.
For the sake of completeness, I should mention that the Bush folks also throw in part of Kerry's floor speech in support of the 2001 legislation. I think it's supposed to be misleading. For the sake of fairness, I'll include excerpts from Kerry's floor speeches on both the 1998 and 2001 legislation.
In 1998:
This bill was carefully negotiated to address competing equities. States and localities certainly have very real and legitimate needs to raise revenue to support vital state and community functions. By the same token, the Internet and the promise it holds for our economy, for schools, for children and families, and for our democracy is also very compelling. It is a wholly new medium whose mechanics, subtleties and nuances few of us really understand. I do not hear any Senator stating that electronic commerce should never be the basis of tax revenue, and I do not believe any Senator is trying to permanently deprive states of inherent privileges. Instead, the bill strives to create a brief period during which we in government and those in business can attempt to better understand this new medium and create a sensible policy that permits the medium to flourish as we all want.Kerry supports the 1998 legislation as an effort to balance the need for states to raise revenue via taxation, and the need to allow the internet to flourish. So the 1998 legislation is an attempt to 'create a brief period' (like, say, three years) to allow everyone to determine the correct policy.
And so, three years later, we get to the 2001 legislation. The Senate has had a 'brief period' to consider how to balance the competing interests, and Kerry and others decided that extending the moratorium and encouraging the states to treat all remote transactions equally was the correct policy. The Senate disagreed. After the legislation was defeated, Kerry said (as the Bush folks remind us):
This was a very difficult vote for many of us. We do not support any tax on the Internet itself. We don't support access taxes. We don't support content taxes. We don't support discriminatory taxes. Many of us would like to see a permanent moratorium on all of those kinds of taxes.The 2001 policy was not a reversal of the 1998 policy. Rather, it was a natural outcome of it.
At the same time, a lot of us were caught in a place where we thought it important to send the message that we have to get back to the table in order to come to a consensus as to how we equalize the economic playing field in the United States in a way that is fair.
I hope the Senator from Arizona will follow up with us, so we can come back to that table to do what is sensible and fair. I look forward to the chance to do that.
Saturday, May 08, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #49: Kerry Flip-Flopped on Trade With China
This is one of the 'new' flip-flops to show up on George Bush's campaign site. In fact, they repeat this charge in at least one other place.
And their argument is basically this. As far back as 1987, up through 2000, Kerry supported trade with China, and specifically, he favored granting permanent 'Most Favored Nation' (MFN) status to China. Then they cite Kerry quotes criticizing Bush's approach to trade with China:
From December 2003:
Kerry said, "We have to be tough on some things. China understands that. It's a way of life out there to get away with what you can until you are called on it. The violations of intellectual property are disgraceful and unacceptable. We need to be tough on currency manipulation."From April 2004:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with China and other countries. On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was manipulating its currency.These statements amount to a reversal if Bush is only according China the privileges it deserves under MFN. However, if it happened to be the case that China were violating the conditions of MFN, then Kerry's desire to get tough on China would be perfectly consistent.
To start with, let's take a look at what 'Most Favored Nation' status really means. As members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), U.S. and Chinese trade policies are nominally overseen by that body, which defines MFN as follows:
Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.So what MFN really means is, each country has to treat all other MFN countries equally. But what if someone doesn't play by the rules? For example, what if there were significant concerns about China's lax enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR)? From page 6 of the U.S. Trade Representative's annual report on China's WTO compliance:
IPR problems are pervasive, covering the widespread production, distribution and end-use of counterfeit and pirated products, brands and technologies. Violations include the rampant piracy of film, music, publishing and software products, infringement of pharmaceutical, chemical, information technology and other patents, and counterfeiting of consumer goods, electrical equipment, automotive parts and industrial products. IPR infringements not only have an economic toll, but also present a direct challenge to China's ability to regulate products that could have health and safety implications for China's population and international consumers.As another example, what if China engaged in unfair manipulation of its currency? Should other countries, like the United States, just sit idly by?
Well, of course not. And for situations precisely like this one, the WTO has a dispute resolution mechanism in place. And when Kerry says we need to 'get tough' with China, what he means is that we need to pursue remedies for these trade issues via the WTO. The Bush administration has only done this once in 3.5 years, and that case was narrowly focused on the semiconductor industry. In fact, you can read Kerry's foreign trade policies in great depth, and you won't find him advocating that the U.S. retaliate against China in a manner inconsistent with WTO policy regarding China's MNF status.
For the record, the Bush administration thinks that trade with China is overall very positive, and that in particular, China's monetary policy does not amount to currency manipulation. But this isn't about who's right and who's wrong on these issues.
The point is, MNF places certain requirements on the U.S. and China in how they conduct trade with one another. Kerry has good reason to believe that China isn't holding up its end of the bargain, and so he is intent on pursuing corrective action via the WTO. This is not contrary to the spirit of MNF, but rather is entirely consistent with it.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #48: Because We Acted in Iraq, Torture Chambers Are Closed
Bush continues to have the gall to make this claim in numerous campaign speeches in spite of recent reports of U.S. soldiers and U.S. based mercenaries torturing Iraqi prisoners.
In a campaign speech at Niles Senior High School in Niles, Michigan, Bush said:
Because we acted, torture rooms are closed, rape rooms no longer exist, mass graves are no longer a possibility in Iraq.While it's true that Saddam Hussein is no longer directing such activities, Major General Antonio Taguba has researched allegations of abuse at the Abu Ghraib military prison in Iraq, and discovered all of the following activities:
Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.The facts about this story are still emerging, but the Washington Post is now reporting that there have been a total of 35 cases of alleged abuse of prisoners probed since 2002. This news, together with the fact that the Abu Ghraib torture seems to have been directed from a fairly high level, suggests that while the Abu Ghraib incidents may be the most extreme cases of abuse, such atrocities are unlikely to be isolated to that one facility.
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #47: Kerry Flip-Flopped On The Strategic Petroleum Reserve
This is the final alleged Kerry flip-flop in the GOP list, and none too soon. Here we have another case where the GOP are quoting Kerry with perfect accuracy, but leaving out crucial context. So without further ado, here's the rundown of the GOP evidence:
- On February 17, 2000, Platts Oilgram News (registration required) reported: ". . . Kerry, a key member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggested the US could retaliate economically in other trade areas. He also said he does not want a release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. A release 'is not relevant. It would take months for the oil to get to the market,' he said."
- Then on March 30, 2004, Reuters reported: "'The Bush administration has put the SPR fill program on automatic pilot without regard to the short-term effect on the US market,' the Kerry campaign said. 'The program needs better management.'
Kerry would temporarily suspend filling SPR until oil prices return to normal levels."
The key ingredient here is timing. We are meant to assume that Kerry's main concern in both instances is the price of gas for automobiles. It isn't. While Kerry's current motivation is to drive down prices at the pump, that was not his main concern in February 2000. Then, he was worried about the cost of home heating fuel. In fact, the same Oilgram News article cited in item (1) also mentioned legislation Kerry authored which would require 'the Energy Information Administration to produce a yearly report outlining the nation's energy readiness ahead of the winter heating season.' So although one might question Kerry's assertion that any release from SPR would have taken 'months' to get to market, one can also understand why he thought such a release was 'not relevant'. His constituents were cold in February; he wasn't going to consider a solution which brought relief in June.
There are a few other factors to take into account, too. According to CNN, the price of crude oil at the time was 'over $30 a barrel' (so presumably less than $31 a barrel), the average price of a gallon of gas was $1.41, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve only contained 569 million barrels of crude.
Today, according to the Reuters article, the price of crude oil is 'over $38 a barrel', the average price of a gallon of gas is $1.758 a gallon, and this time Kerry's main focus is the price of gasoline, not heating oil. And there are now 656.6 million barrels of crude oil in the SPR. So the risk to the economy is greater, as is the amount of oil we have to 'play with' in the SPR.
There's one other key point to note: the statements Kerry made in 2000 and 2004, even devoid of context, aren't truly opposites of one another. In 2000, Kerry opposed draining the SPR. Today he's still not advocating that oil be removed from SPR, just that we temporarily suspend putting any more oil in. And this is not an uncommon practice. A document on the Department of Energy website tells us, first, that the maximum capacity of SPR is 700 million barrels (so we're already at more than 93% of capacity anyway), and second:
On several occasions, the Energy Department has rescheduled incoming oil shipments to the Reserve, deferring them for several months to a year or more. In these instances, companies under contract to deliver crude oil to the Federal Government agree to increase the volume of oil shipped to the Reserve at the later date at no additional cost to the taxpayer. This also permits more oil to remain on the market and available to consumers during times when supplies are tight (emphasis mine).What Kerry's proposing isn't even all that uncommon. In short, since the U.S. is experiencing record high gas prices, Kerry is suggesting that Bush should take the same steps to deal with it that the country has taken in the past.
The upshot is, March of 2004 is not February of 2000. The facts changed, and Kerry's position changed appropriately. That's not a 'flip-flop'.
---
Update: Atrios notes that Matt Drudge, that exemplar of objective, hard-hitting journalism, leads off today with the question 'Release the Emergency Reserves?' under John Kerry's picture, even though, consistent with our original post, Kerry is still not suggesting that.
Saturday, May 01, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #46: Kerry Flip-Flopped On 1991 Iraq War Coalition
This is 32nd item listed in the Republican pantheon of Kerry flip-flops. The Republicans provide two Kerry quotes as supporting evidence.
The first quote comes from the January 16, 1991 broadcast of 'CBS This Morning'. As usual, the Republicans have deleted parts they'd rather not have people see. Since the transcript isn't available anywhere on the web, I paid $16 and got a copy from Burelle's transcripts. Here's the full context of Kerry's quote, with the Republican bit in red:
I keep hearing from people, well, the coalition is fragile, it won't stay together and my--my response to that is, if the coalition is so fragile, then what are the vital interests and what is it that compels us to risk our young Americans lives if the others aren't willing to stay the core of peace--course of peace?The second Kerry quote comes from an interview on NBC's Meet The Press on January 11, 2004, and this time nothing significant is left out of the Republican quote:
But, having said that, it is vital and--and I know Chuck feels this adamantly and it's part of the Vietnam experience, that we come together as a country. I voted against the president, I'm convinced we're doing this the wrong way, but I'm going to back the president if a shot is fired and from the moment that begins, my interest is in those troops and bringing those troops back with missions accomplished and the minimum amount of casualties.
In my speech on the floor of the Senate I made it clear, you are strongest when you act with other nations. All presidents, historically, his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, did a brilliant job of building a legitimate coalition and even got other people to help pay for the war.What this boils down to is the distinction between a 'fragile' coalition and a 'legitimate' one. Note that those two concepts are not necessarily opposites of one another. It's possible for a 'legitimate' coalition to be fragile.
The other thing to note is that Kerry isn't expressing a personal opinion in these statements so much as he is simply laying out the facts. At least in 1991, before the war started, it was hardly controversial to say that the coalition was fragile. Indeed, it was widely believed that if the U.S. attacked Iraq, the Iraqis would immediately attack Israel, thus forcing some or all Arab and Muslim nations to drop out of the coalition or, worse, to take the Iraqi side. The Centre for Defense and International Security Studies provides a reminder:
Political considerations concerning the possible result of Iraqi Scud attacks on Israel were of grave concern to US Government leaders in Washington DC, especially if some of the missiles were fitted with chemical or biological weapons (CBW) warheads. Long-held Israeli threats to retaliate massively against an Iraqi attack were potentially very damaging to the solidarity of the anti-Iraqi Coalition.Fifteen of the 34 coalition nations were either Arab or Muslim. If they ended up having to choose between siding with Iraq or appearing to side with Israel, the coalition wouldn't have lasted very long at all. Indeed, on the very same 'CBS This Morning' program on which Kerry made his 'fragile' comment, CBS News' Bob Simon reported:
. . .the possibility of Saddam lancing some--launching some missiles towards Israel and getting Israel involved in this thing is considered a prime danger by all the American commanders and they will want to neutralize these missile bases in western Iraq before this can happen because it could--it could make the--the entire alliance that the Americans have spent so much time forming a non-entity.It's pretty clear that Kerry called the 1991 coalition fragile because it was fragile, and it's quite likely that the only reason it held together is that the war proved to be very successful and very brief, and because Hussein never launched a credible attack against Israel. But before the war, no one could have reasonably expected things to go that well.
Whether the 2003 'Coalition of the Willing' was any more or less legitimate than the 1991 coalition is almost surely a matter of opinion, and it's really not clear why Kerry thinks the '91 coalition had legitimacy the '03 coalition lacks. However, a little research shows:
- None of the '91 members were afraid to express their support publicly. 15 members of the '03 coalition wished to remain anonymous.
- Seven Arab states participated in the '91 coalition. None did in '03 (not publicly, anyway).
- Many of the members of the '03 coalition were clearly participating only to curry favor with the U.S., for financial purposes (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Ethiopia, Eritrea).
- Many of our traditional allies, who participated in the '91 coalition, sat out the '03 invasion (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Italy, Spain, Canada, Norway, France, Germany, and Argentina).
- In many countries who were involved in the '03 coalition, that involvement was opposed by a significant portion of the population, if not the majority.
