Bush Campaign Lies

Bush Wins - What Were You Thinking?

2004-11-06T14:14:00.000-06:00

For obvious reasons, this will be my last post. And I have only one thing to say to the millions of people who voted for Bush last Tuesday: What were you thinking?

This is only a guess, but I estimate that Bush received at least 20 million votes from people who might have been willing to vote the other way, but decided for one reason or another that Bush was the better candidate.

But how could ANYONE think Bush was the better candidate? What was the one accomplishment of the Bush administration that persuaded them to give Bush four more years? Was it the fact that the worst terrorist attack ever to take place on American soil happened on Bush's watch? The fact that Bush spent the first seven minutes after receiving word of the attacks staring blankly at a room full of elementary school children? The fact that the Bush administration willfully withheld an EPA evaluation on how dangerous the air was in downtown NY after the attacks, so that thousands of people, including unborn children, will have health problems for the rest of their lives?

Was it the fact that Bush resisted the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and the creation of the 9/11 commission? Or maybe it was the fact that Bush willfully withheld information from the 9/11 commission for months, and refused to testify before the commission in person, and then finally agreed to testify but only if Dick Cheney could come along and hold his hand?

Maybe it was the fact that Bush and friends relentlessly politicized the attacks, using them to cast their Democratic opponents as unpatriotic, using Osama bin Laden's picture in campaign ads in the 2002 midterm elections to smear an incumbent Democrat who had served heroically in Vietnam? Or the fact that they used the attacks to strongarm Democrats into voting for a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq less than a month before those midterm elections?

Or maybe the war against Iraq was enough all by itself? Was it the way that Cheney and Wolfowitz set up their own intelligence agency, the Office of Special Plans, to cherry pick intelligence reports about Iraq's WMD capability, so that exculpatory data never made it to Bush's desk, but inflammatory and often unreliable data did? Was it the way Colin Powell went before the UN and boldly lied about Iraq's weapons stockpiles? Or the comments Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and especially Cheney made giving detailed descriptions of Iraq's weapons capabilities, stating unambiguously types and quantities of weaponry when they knew their statements were based on questionable evidence at best and complete fabrications at worst?

Was it the fact that someone in the White House committed a felony by blowing the cover of a CIA operative working on WMD intelligence, and Bush didn't really seem to give a damn?

Maybe it was the fact that David Kay and Charles Duelfer both reported unambiguously that Iraq basically never had WMD (since 1998) and never would as long as the sanctions remained in place, yet until very recently, Bush and Cheney both insisted that the weapons really had been there? Maybe it was the way Bush joked around about our inability to find those weapons, even as our troops were getting killed by Iraqi insurgents at the rate of more than one a day?

Maybe it was the fact that we sent far too few troops to Iraq in the first place, and thus have had to withstand much higher mortality rates than if we had gone in with the recommended level of troops. Or the fact that the Pentagon made up a detailed post-invasion plan to secure the country, and Rumsfeld threw it in the trash, confident that U.S. troops would be greeted with open arms and flowers.

Maybe it was the way we invaded a country ruled by a ruthless dictator with no significant ties to terrorism and made it a terrorist haven. Maybe it was the way we shredded almost all of the international alliances we ever had in the process, thus making success in Iraq much more difficult for this president, and making diplomacy in general much more difficult for any American president for years to come.

Maybe it was the way the Bushies raided the U.S. treasury, slashing billions in tax revenues to lower taxes for everyone a little bit, but for the wealthiest a lot. After all, it is 'our money'. Maybe it's the way that Bush showed his deep concern for spending every tax dollar wisely by indiscriminately doling out multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts to Cheney's Halliburton cronies with no oversight.

Maybe it's the biggest national debt in U.S. history. Maybe it's the fact that Bush is the first president since Hoover to see a net decrease in the number of jobs during his term of office. Maybe it's the fact that Bush was so eager to pursue a meaningless and expensive war of choice in Iraq that he let Osama bin Laden get away. Maybe it's the fact that his administration has done more to damage the environment than any other administration in American history.

Maybe it's the fact that by invading Iraq, we allowed 377 tons of explosives to get into the hands of terrorists. Maybe it's the fact that every counterterrorism expert believes that the war in Iraq made the U.S. less safe instead of more safe. Maybe it's the fact that the administration lied about the cost of the Medicare bill because even congressional Republicans wouldn't have supported it if they had known the true cost, or the fact that they made it illegal for Medicare to use its buying power to negotiate lower drug costs with manufacturers.

Maybe it's the fact that a bunch of liars spent a month smearing Kerry's heroic record of service in Vietnam, and so people decided they'd rather vote for a deserter who to this day consistently lies about his military record.

If anyone is still reading this site, and if they're Bush supporters, they'll call me a sore loser. Damn right I'm sore. We could have gotten this country turned in the right direction with this election. But no. 48% of the people in this country had better sense than you, but because you prefer cheerleading for the Cult of Bush to thinking, we all have to suffer right along with you.

I'm talking to you, West Virginia, and you, Colorado, and you, Nevada. If Kerry had taken those three states, I wouldn't be writing this right now. But it doesn't stop there. Florida went for the incompetent buffoon, and apparently Ohio did, too.

This election shouldn't have been close. Yeah, I'm sore, because I'm trying to raise my kids, and you idiots are going to make this country a much more unpleasant place for them to grow up, just because you think it's more important to make 'flip-flopper' and botox jokes than it is to get a responsible leader in the White House.

And yes, I'm a loser, too. But unless you make over $200,000 a year or work for the Republican party, the oil industry or the defense industry, so are you. 98% of the people in this country are going to be losers, all because of you frat-boy Bush supporters.

Congratulations. I hope you're as happy with your 'victory' three years from now as you are today.

The Rude One Endorses Kerry

2004-10-29T20:31:00.000-05:00

A common knock against Kerry, from both the left and the right, is that although there may be many reasons to vote against Bush (you may even find one or two on this site, if you look closely), there really isn't any reason to vote for Kerry.

Which is nonsense. I've had at least one faithful reader inform me that this site 'changed her political life' by causing her to realize what a great choice Kerry is (I think it was most of the stuff I wrote debunking the 'Kerry Flip-Flops' canard).

For a more brief, direct, and I'm sorry to say, rude explanation as to why Kerry will be a great president, check out the Rude Pundit's endorsement.

Public Service Announcements

2004-10-24T17:14:00.000-05:00

Howdy.

Well, you've no doubt noticed an utter lack of posts over the past few days. Sorry about that. I thought I would be able to continue a hard push through the election, but it turns out I was wrong. Still, there's ample fodder here for you to pick through, argue about, and pass on to undecideds or Bush supporters of one stripe or another.

Two quick notes I want to make sure I get out there with as much time as possible left before the election. The first is a site which recently came to my attention which tries to provide nationwide one-stop shopping for finding your polling place. Pass it on:

http://www.mypollingsite.com/
The second is the Nation's 100 facts and one opinion against George W. Bush:

The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration
That may be all for this election cycle. Get out there, argue with people, GOTV, and vote yourself. It's unbelieveably important.

Bush Campaign Lie #75: Non-Defense, Non-Discretionary Spending is Less Than 1%

2004-10-10T13:10:00.000-05:00

So lied Bush in Friday night debate. Here's the actual quote:

"Non-homeland, non-defense discretionary spending was raising at 15 percent a year when I got into office. And today it's less than 1 percent, because we're working together to try to bring this deficit under control."

When I heard Bush say this, I didn't know right away that this is one of his biggest campaign lies yet. But according to the Congressional Budget Office (via Kevin Drum), the Bush administration and Republican Congress have overseen a larger rise in non-defense, non-discretionary spending than any of the previous five administrations, at about 8.2% per year.

If Bush tries to call Kerry a 'big government' liberal in the final debate, remember this fact and laugh hysterically.

Bush Campaign Lie #74: KerryOnIraq.com

2004-10-09T22:14:00.000-05:00

A commenter to the previous post brought this site to my attention (congratulations, Jacqueline, you're famous!). At first I was dismayed, because I've set myself the ground rule that only public statements by Bush administration or campaign officials, or material from the Bush campaign or RNC is fair game for this site.

But if you navigate away from the main page of kerryoniraq.com, to the 'Submit Your Review' page, there's a tiny notice at the bottom stating 'Paid for by the Republican National Committee'. It's almost like the RNC is trying to hide the fact that they produced the video. Wonder why that is?

The video is a masterful bit of propaganda. It only contains a few artfully edited video clips taking Kerry's statements out of context, while most of them are fairly edited clips, providing a full and complete account of Kerry's words. Such a mix of legitimate and out-of-context video is essential, because it gives the sense that all of the clips you're seeing fairly portray Kerry's point of view. You're so impressed with the faux-fairness of the video that you hardly notice the cutesy 'Flipper' music in the background.

But propaganda it is. For me to thoroughly debunk it would be redundant, since I've answered the video's most 'serious' charges --- especially the tiresome talk of Kerry's infamous vote against the $87 billion Iraq appropriations bill --- here, and here, and here.

But Kerry's position on Iraq is so straightforward, let's just do this. Watch the Kerry On Iraq video --- it runs 12:38, get good and comfy --- then read Kerry's statement from Friday's debate:

"He's trying to attack me. He wants you to believe that I can't be president. And he's trying to make you believe it because he wants you to think I change my mind.

Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary.

But I would have used that force wisely, I would have used that authority wisely, not rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.

I would have brought our allies to our side. I would have fought to make certain our troops had everybody possible to help them win the mission.

This president rushed to war, pushed our allies aside. And Iran now is more dangerous, and so is North Korea, with nuclear weapons. He took his eye off the ball, off of Osama bin Laden."

Now, I believe that the following is a fair summary of what Kerry said:

Kerry believed Saddam was a threat at least as far back as 1998.
Kerry wanted to give the President, whether that President was Clinton or Bush, the authority to use force since at least 1998. Please note that authorizing the use of force is not the same thing as saying 'invade immediately', especially not in the case of H.J. Res 114, which authorized the use of force in Iraq.
If military force was used, it should be done 'with a plan to win the peace'.
If military force was used, it should be done with 'our allies (by) our side'.
By focusing on Iraq, Bush has failed to address more serious threats in Korea and Iran, and fumbled our best chance to really squash Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Now, watch the video again, and try to find any instance of Kerry contradicting these points. While you're watching, note also how Kerry continually emphasizes the need to let inspections run their course, and the need to work with the international community.

Next, let's go back to Friday night's debate and review Kerry's criticisms of Bush after the invasion:

"The president stood right here in this hall four years ago, and he was asked a question by somebody just like you, 'Under what circumstances would you send people to war?'

And his answer was, 'With a viable exit strategy and only with enough forces to get the job done.'

He didn't do that. He broke that promise. We didn't have enough forces.

General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told him he was going to need several hundred thousand. And guess what? They retired General Shinseki for telling him that.

This president hasn't listened.

I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable.

I came away convinced that, if we worked at it, if we were ready to work and letting Hans Blix do his job and thoroughly go through the inspections, that if push came to shove, they'd be there with us.

But the president just arbitrarily brought the hammer down and said, 'Nope. Sorry, time for diplomacy is over. We're going.'

He rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.

Ladies and gentleman, he gave you a speech and told you he'd plan carefully, take every precaution, take our allies with us. He didn't. He broke his word."

And yes, you nitpicky trolls, Kerry was technically incorrect when he said that the Bush administration 'retired' Shinseki. In actuality, they merely made him a lame duck by announcing his retirement 18 months early, in the hopes that he would resign. This pretty much amounts to the same thing.

I don't remember who first gave this pithy summary of Kerry's position on Iraq, but it can be summed up like this:

'I gave Bush the authority to use force in Iraq, and Bush fucked it up.'
Is that simple enough to understand? Any video on the RNC site which shows Kerry criticizing the war either includes criticism of Bush's conduct of the war, or has been edited so you don't see it.

Consistently, throughout the whole RNC propaganda piece, Kerry emphasizes the need to allow inspections to run their course before considering military action. And since inspections need to be backed by the threat of force in order to be effective, Kerry authorized the use of force. Of course, we now know that had inspections run their course, we would have discovered that Iraq was less of a threat than it had been before the first Gulf War. And we could have kept our attention on rooting out al Qaeda, or turned our focus to Iran or North Korea. And more than 1,000 American soldiers wouldn't have died. Thousands more would not have been injured. $200 billion could have been spent to fight al Qaeda, or beef up DHS, or fund NCLB, or keep the deficit from growing quite so large.

And America and the world would be more secure.

If the electorate were to focus on these facts, there would be no way for Bush to defend himself, because his record is clearly indefensible. So the Bush campaign has manufactured the myth that Kerry is all wishy-washy and confused, so people will focus on that instead of Bush's incompetence. It's masterful, really.

Bush Campaign Lie #73: Most Anything Dick Cheney Says

2004-10-06T18:28:00.000-05:00

So, I just sat down to write up an extensive, well-documented post about the lies that were flying out of Dick Cheney's mouth a mile a minute at last night's debate, but it turns out I don't have to. The dean of liberal blogistry, Kevin Drum, has already done it much better than I ever could.

Actually, Kevin's not alone. Looks like folks all over the media noticed.

It seems that most folks (with the unsurprising exception of the So-Called Liberal Media) believe that Edwards won the debate by a small margin. Take into account the fact that most of Cheney's best attacks were lies, and it turns into a rout for Edwards.

Cheney's performance last night is the final, conclusive proof --- if any was still required --- that the Bush administration doesn't give a damn about the truth, and expects the American public to be sufficiently gullible to believe anything they happen to make up on the spur of the moment.

Clinton's critics were right. The American people should be able to trust their President and his administration. There should be no need for people like me to go around fact-checking everything the administration says. However, this administration has turned that standard on its head: they have lied so often and so shamelessly about so many things that there's no reason to trust a word they say.

Ironically, most of Clinton's critics (but not all) are now playing ostrich with their heads in the sand, pretending that they have a straight-talkin', principled cowboy running the show. I admit, it's a nice fantasy, folks.

But a fantasy is all it is. And if you don't snap out of it by November 2, you'll miss your chance to put a real adult in charge of things.

Bush Campaign Lie #72: Bush Does Not Condone Torture of Suspected Terrorists

2004-09-30T14:47:00.000-05:00

This one's pretty straightforward.

Every June 26 is the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. And every June 26, Bush makes a statement condemning torture and voicing his support for the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

This year, he concluded his statement by saying:

"The United States will continue to take seriously the need to question terrorists who have information that can save lives. But we will not compromise the rule of law or the values and principles that make us strong. Torture is wrong no matter where it occurs, and the United States will continue to lead the fight to eliminate it everywhere."

What a great rhetorical statement. Bush is determined to be tough on terrorists, but won't stoop to torture.

Except that he will. And I'm not talking about Abu Ghraib and the allegations that Bush tacitly approved the conduct there. I'm talking about pending legislation in Congress to allow 'extraordinary rendition' of terrorist suspects, legislation which the administration openly supports.

Current law forbids immigration officials from deporting someone to a country where they are likely to be tortured or abused. But Dennis Hastert has introduced a provision in a bill which would allow the U.S. to send 'suspected terrorists' anywhere we want --- even to a country different from their country of origin:

Under the Hastert bill, U.S. authorities could send an immigrant to any country, regardless of the likelihood of torture or abuse. The measure would shift to the deportee the burden of proving 'by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured' -- a burden that human rights activists say is impossible to satisfy. It would bar a U.S. court from reviewing the regulations, which would fall under the secretary of homeland security.

Legislation which specifically targets suspected terrorists and deports them without regard to the likelihood that they will be tortured sounds quite a bit like condoning the torture of suspected terrorists.

More cynically, Hastert has added this provision to the bill which would implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. So when you hear the Bush campaign and Republicans complaining about Democrats who 'oppose implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission', look closer. Those Democrats will really be opposing this torture provision.

And of course, only the most naive Bush supporter would believe that this legislation wouldn't be used explicitly for the purpose of outsourcing the torture of terrorist suspects. Obsidian Wings has a more in-depth explanation about what this bill actually does. It also includes an exhortation to contact your representative and oppose this provision, which I would also ask you to do. If you don't know how to contact your representative, you can find contact info at Project VoteSmart.

Bush Campaign Lie #71: Iraq is Now Becoming an Example of Reform to the Region

2004-09-29T14:07:00.000-05:00

See the previous post for the source and context of this Bush campaign lie.

To be honest, I don't even know what the Bush campaign means when they say Iraq is 'becoming an example of reform'. I'm not going to assume they mean absurd things, like we should topple all non-democratic regimes by force, using far fewer troops than our military experts recommend and without any kind of plan for dealing with the aftermath, and then disband the standing army so the country is full of lots of out-of-work guys with guns. It would be dishonest to assume they meant something like that just so I could make fun of them and poke holes in their claim. That's the kind of juvenile attack the Bush campaign does so well.

But what, exactly, do they mean?

I could also make a few cheap shots about the administration's choice of leaders for Iraq. Is it an 'example of reform' to try to install first an Iranian spy and embezzler as the leader of a free Iraq, and then install a former Ba'athist who summarily executed 6 suspected insurgents immediately prior to taking office? Sounds like the new boss may be a lot like the old boss. So it's almost certain that the Bush campaign doesn't mean that, either.

But what, exactly, do they mean?

Do they simply mean something like, 'Iraq was ruled by a ruthless dictator, but in January there will be free and democratic elections'? That seems a reasonable assumption. But given the current conditions in Iraq, I think the Bush campaign shouldn't be patting itself on the back for --- much less campaigning on --- an event which is still 4 months off and which at this point seems likely to fail.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, Iraq's most powerful Shi'ite leader, is concerned that the elections will be delayed and, when they come, they will be manipulated to favor Allawi and other Iraqi exiles cozy with the United States. If the elections are a sham, or even perceived to be a sham, nationalist unrest and violence will only increase in a country which may already be headed toward civil war. Even Donald Rumsfeld speculates that it may only be possible to hold elections in 3/4 to 4/5 of the country. And this doesn't even take into account the sheer logistical difficulties involved in holding an election. So it's probably a little optimistic, even naive, even dishonest to claim at this point that Iraq is 'becoming an example of reform' to the region.

And this isn't just some terrorist-loving liberal talking, here. Prominent Republicans are also critical of Bush's 'incompetence' in transforming Iraq into an 'example of reform'.

Bush Campaign Lie #70: The Invasion of Iraq Represents Progress in the War on Terror

2004-09-28T21:56:00.000-05:00

I'm doing the Bush campaign a favor here, because they actually tell at least 5 lies, and I'm addressing four of them in a single debunking. You're welcome.

These lies are yet another part of the absurdity which is Bush's claimed 'Three Years of Progress in the War on Terror'. For the sake of clarity, I'll simply copy the entire Bush explanation as to why invading Iraq was a Good and Helpful Thing, and highlight in red those parts which are obvious falsehoods. I apologize in advance for the extensive underlining, which appears in the original:

Iraq: Three years ago, the ruler of Iraq was a sworn enemy of America, who provided a safe haven for terrorists, had used weapons of mass destruction, and turned his nation into a prison. Saddam Hussein was a proven mass murderer who refused to account for his weapons of mass murder.
The Bush Administration, Members of Congress, and the United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence on Iraq and saw a threat. The previous Administration and the Congress looked at the intelligence - and made regime change in Iraq the policy of our country.
In 2002, the UN Security Council yet again demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. As he had for 12 years, Saddam Hussein refused to comply. So President Bush had a choice to make: either take the word of a ruthless dictator, or take action to defend America. Faced with that choice, President Bush will defend America every time.
The Bush Administration was right to go into Iraq. The U.S. removed a declared enemy of America, who had defied the international community for 12 years, and who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. Although the United States has not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, in the world after September 11th, that was a risk the U.S. could not afford to take.
Today, the dictator who caused decades of death and turmoil - who twice invaded his neighbors, who harbored terrorist leaders, and used chemical weapons, is finally before the bar of justice. Iraq is now becoming an example of reform to the region. Iraqi security forces are fighting beside coalition troops to defeat terrorists and foreign fighters. Today, because America and the coalition helped to end the violent regime of Saddam Hussein, and because they are helping to raise a peaceful democracy in its place, the American people are safer.

Okay, from the top.

It is simply false to say that 'Saddam Hussein refused to comply' with the UN. He allowed weapons inspectors to return, and although the Iraqi government was perhaps not as forthcoming as they could be, they gave the inspectors unprecedented access to do their job. From Hans Blix's testimony on February 14, 2003:

". . . we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences."

A total of more than 300 sites had been inspected at that time. And of course we know now that Saddam didn't actually possess any WMD when the war started, exactly like he told the UN, which means he actually did 'account for his weapons of mass murder'.

Even though it seems certain Bush knew that any evidence of Iraq's WMD was shaky at best, the weapons inspectors who entered Iraq thanks to Saddam's compliance didn't hesitate to offer their own opinions on U.S. intelligence:

"So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as 'garbage after garbage after garbage.' In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word."

Since no weapons have ever been found, the Bush campaign is careful to argue that Hussein had the 'capability of producing' WMD, rather than actual weapons. Which is true, in the sense that I have the capability to set up a meth lab in my garage, even though I don't have the necessary materials or knowledge to do such a thing. Similarly, in early 2003, Iraq was years away from having the 'capability of producing' any dangerous weapons:

Leading figures in Iraqi science and industry, supported by observations on the ground, described factories and institutes that were thoroughly beaten down by 12 years of conflict, arms embargo and strangling economic sanctions. The remnants of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile infrastructures were riven by internal strife, bled by schemes for personal gain and handicapped by deceit up and down lines of command. The broad picture emerging from the investigation to date suggests that, whatever its desire, Iraq did not possess the wherewithal to build a forbidden armory on anything like the scale it had before the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

The idea that 'Iraq is now becoming an example of reform to the region' is so ridiculous it deserves its own entry.

Now, there is no doubt that there are a number of 'terrorists and foreign fighters' in Iraq taking up arms against our troops and the fledgling Iraqi army. However, the Bush camp is intent on perpetuating the fiction that 'terrorists and foreign fighters' are the major groups responsible for the attacks. The folks we are fighting in Iraq are overwhelmingly Iraqis. In August 2003, GlobalSecurity.org estimated that less than 5% of the resistance was comprised of foreign nationals. In April 2004, the Christian Science Monitor reported:

Far from limited to a small group of "dead-enders" and Saddam "thugs" as Pentagon officials claim, the armed opposition to the US occupation in Iraq has reached the point where some experts say it threatens to become a full-fledged nationalist insurgency.

Bolstered by former Iraqi military and security personnel, today's insurgents are at the least conducting increasingly sophisticated coordinated attacks. In addition, they have built networks to recruit fighters, make weapons, and funnel funds from Iraqi businesses and charitable groups, military experts say.

Perhaps most important, insurgents are now motivated primarily by nationalism and Islam, rather than by loyalty to Saddam Hussein, they say.

Indeed, the Iraqi cleric Moktada al-Sadr has called for a popular uprising on more than one occasion, and commands the loyalty of thousands.

But what's most distressing is that, apparently, the foreign terrorists who are contributing to the violence are starting to gather increasing support from everyday Iraqis:

Worryingly the group, led by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, a Jordanian with links to al-Qa'eda, is no longer a fringe movement but is finding a receptive audience for its message. This month, when heavy fighting erupted on Haifa Street -- a main artery through central Baghdad where the old British embassy is located -- the group's distinctive black flag with a yellow circle suddenly sprang up on balconies and lampposts throughout the neighbourhood.

So stating that we are fighting 'terrorists and foreign fighters' is the truth, but it is far removed from the whole truth.

Finally, there's the Bush claim that as a result of everything we've done, 'the American people are safer'. Well, I'm no expert, but it seems to me that three years ago, Iraq had no serious weapons program, wasn't a breeding ground for anti-Western insurgents, and Saddam Hussein was kept in check by sanctions and two 'no-fly' zones. I'm not suggesting for an instant that this was a good thing for anyone; but in terms of the safety of the American people, there wasn't too much to be worried about. As for Iraq's ties to terrorism, I can't say for certain that they didn't exist, but I can say that the State Department didn't seem too worried about an Iraq/al-Qaeda link.

But let's hear what the experts have to say, shall we?

A number of independent analysts at the World Economic Forum: America is less safe.
The FPIF Task Force on Terrorism: America is less safe.
Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan and a 'friend of our country' according to the Bush campaign: The world is less safe.

And then there's always this, from prominent national security journalist James Fallows:

"It is hard to find a counter-terrorism specialist who thinks that the Iraq War has reduced rather than increased the threat to the United States."

Bush partisans can no doubt find their own analysts who insist that the country really is safer, but that conclusion is hardly beyond dispute.

Bush Campaign Lie #69: Bush Believes He Has a 'Solemn Duty' to Protect the Nation

2004-09-28T09:51:00.000-05:00

This is the claim of a Bush ad titled 'Solemn Duty'.

When I first saw this ad, I thought: 'Well, I can't argue with that. Bush doesn't really make any factual statements in the ad, so there's nothing for me to refute.'

But then I remembered a story back in March about the Radio and TV correspondents' dinner, where Bush was joking about the fact that no WMD had been found in Iraq. The supposed threat --- 'imminent' or not --- of Iraq's WMD was the reason why we sent troops into Iraq, and at the time Bush made his jokes, thousands of Iraqis and more than 600 Americans had died as a consequence of these missing WMD.

Is this really something to joke about? What does this say about the seriousness with which Bush is carrying out his 'Solemn Duty'?

But wait. Some may argue that Bush was supposed to be making jokes at the correspondents' dinner. It's traditional. And he wasn't really joking about the casualties --- either American OR Iraqi --- in the war. On the contrary, he was poking fun at himself for making a mistake about Iraq's WMD capabilities in the first place. And there may be some merit to that argument, although as David Corn points out, only the most credulous observer really believes that Bush's staggeringly incorrect assessment of Iraq's WMD stockpiles was an honest mistake.

But surely, under normal circumstances, Bush doesn't joke around like this, right? I mean, for example, he wouldn't play with the camera like a mischievous schoolboy literally seconds before going on the air to announce the invasion of Iraq in the first place, right?

Well, actually, he would.

Bush supporters may excuse this behavior if they wish, but it is inconsistent and downright dishonest for Bush to treat the war like a fun game, and then release an ad with mournful music in which Laura sits silently and proudly at his side and looks at him dewey-eyed as he talks about his 'Solemn Duty'.

(Democracy Now! has a longer discussion of the Radio and TV correspondents' dinner. A remixed video of Bush's comments at the dinner, with a decidedly anti-Bush bias, is also available [3.6M download].)

Bush Campaign Lie #68: Bush Policy in Afghanistan Has Made the American People Safer

2004-09-27T13:30:00.000-05:00

Yet another of the many lies showcased in the Bush campaign's 'Three Years of Progress in the War on Terror' document. This document outlines a brief history of the past three years in each of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Libya, and in each case draws a similar subtle conclusion. In the case of Afghanistan, the conclusion is "Today, because the United States acted to liberate Afghanistan, a threat has been removed, and the American people are safer" (underlining in the original).

Methinks they doth protest too much.

To begin with, I should point out that a recent report by 23 experts at Foreign Policy in Focus --- among them, Lawrence Korb, Ronald Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Defense --- has concluded that "The Bush administration’s 'war on terrorism' reflects a major failure of leadership and makes Americans more vulnerable rather than more secure".

Admittedly, Bush's approach to Afghanistan had a promising start. The U.S. worked with the Northern Alliance to win a quick victory over the Taliban in October 2001, putting us in a good position to make significant progress against al Qaeda and toward 'making the American people safer'. And had Bush kept his focus on Afghanistan, today he might honestly be able to say that his actions have made Americans safer. Unfortunately, Bush turned his attention to Iraq almost immediately, and has allowed Afghanistan to slip backward. And he successfully used smoke and mirrors to get the media and most everyone else to shift their focus from Afghanistan to Iraq as well.

The Bush campaign proudly claims that the threat from the Taliban and al Qaeda 'has been removed'. Well, not quite. Actually, U.S. troops are currently facing some of the strongest Taliban resistance of the war. And our problems in Afghanistan don't end with the Taliban. According to a recent report on the PBS NewsHour, this fall's scheduled elections have now been postponed twice because regional warlords, who control most of Afghanistan, have refused to disarm. Interim President Hamid Karzai has dropped his running mate from the ticket, which has caused the foreign minister and the education minister to resign. One could hardly call Afghanistan a model of Democracy.

This might not be so damaging to Bush's claim that the American people are safer, except for one thing: opium production in Afghanistan has skyrocketed: Afghanistan now grows 75% of the world's opium. And thanks to the White House Office of National Drug Policy's annoying commercials, we all know that part of the money obtained in the illegal drug trade goes into the pockets of terrorists.

As for al Qaeda, there are numerous analysts who insist that al Qaeda is as strong or stronger today than it was on September 11, 2001. The International Institute for Strategic Studies states that al Qaeda has "fully reconstituted, set its sights firmly on the USA and its closest Western allies in Europe and established a new and effective modus operandi that increasingly exploited local affiliates". A current CIA officer with nearly 20 years of counter-terrorism experience writes in the book Imperial Hubris that the American operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have failed to slow "the shift in strategic advantage toward al Qaeda", and that Afghanistan and Iraq are "half-finished or, more accurately, half-started wars that will be refought later".

The U.S. currently has 18,000 troops in Afghanistan, with another 1,100 scheduled to be deployed before the (Afghan) elections. Imagine how different the situation in Afghanistan might be if we hadn't invested 140,000 troops and $200 billion in Iraq.

Bush Campaign Lie #67: Bush is 'Bringing Terrorists to Justice'

2004-09-27T11:37:00.000-05:00

In a continuation of lies brandished in a piece titled 'Three Years of Progress in the War on Terror', the Bush campaign claims that the hard work of John Ashcroft and the Bush Justice Department has 'charged over 350 individuals uncovered in the course of terrorist investigations, and convicted or secured guilty pleas from over 185 individuals'. That may be so. But it is highly questionable whether any of the individuals charged or convicted had anything to do with terrorism.

The Bush Justice Department has a long and distinguished history of puffing up stats about the efficacy of its war on terrorism, to the point where no one should believe anything they say. Harper's points out that although the DoJ had made 1182 arrests within two months of the 9/11 attacks, as of August 2003 none of those arrested were shown to have any connection to terrorism. In June 2003, Washington Monthly's Alexander Gourevitch wrote how overreporting of terrorism-related arrests and convictions was not only widespread, but actually hindering progress in the war on terror.

And, of course, there was the recent case in Detroit, in which the Justice Department asked a judge to set aside guilty verdicts and dismiss without prejudice terrorism charges against two men, and 'excoriated' their own lawyers' prosecution of their case. The Nation's David Cole tells us that this reduces the number of terrorism convictions by jury trial which the Bush Justice Department has secured over the past three years to zero.

Bush Campaign Lie #66: Bush is 'Leading the Way' on Reforming and Strengthening Intelligence and Coordination

2004-09-26T20:34:00.000-05:00

So claims the Bush campaign. This is just part of a broader claim that Bush has made 'three years of progress in the war on terror'. First, here's an outline of how Bush is 'leading the way':

Acting on 36 of the 9/11 Commission's 41 recommendations.
Proposing the creation of a National Intelligence Director (NID).
Transforming the FBI.
Establishing the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC).
Creating the Terrorist Screening Center.
Creating U.S. Northern Command.
Proposing and signing into law the USA PATRIOT Act.
Creating a White House Homeland Security Council, led by a homeland security advisor who reports directly to President Bush.
Creating President Bush's Board on Safeguarding American's (sic) Civil Liberties.

Oy.

Let's start with item (1). How much leadership is evidenced by the fact that Bush has acted on --- or followed 36 of the 41 recommendations made by the 9/11 commission? This is not exactly 'leading the way', especially when, as with the Department of Homeland Security, Bush stubbornly resisted even convening the 9/11 commission in the first place.

Item (2) doesn't bolster the 'leadership' claim either, since the creation of the NID post was the chief recommendation of the 9/11 commission. And again, Bush changed his initial position on the NID; some might even say he 'flip-flopped'. Although he initially opposed giving the NID budgetary authority, he now supports it.

The TTIC (4) seems to actually be a worthwhile program, as does the TSC (5), although serious doubts have been raised about the TSC's effectiveness. Congressman Jim Turner, a Democrat from Texas, explicitly blamed a lack of leadership by the administration for the fact that, as of March 25, the TSC still didn't have a fully integrated terrorist watchlist database:

"Responsibility for this task shifted four times during the first 2 years after 9/11. And since the responsibility for the project has been given to the FBI, the deadline for completing it has been moved to December of 2003, to March, 2003, to mid-summer of 2003, and now through December of 2004.

(snip)

It is striking to me that the same week Secretary Ridge announced that this project was one of his top goals for 2004, a senior official in the Department of Homeland Security questioned whether watchlist consolidation was even necessary."

The U.S. Northern Command (6) seems like a good idea, too --- albeit one understaffed and underfunded, but does Bush really want to run on the effectiveness of the Patriot Act (7)? It's true that there have been no major terrorist incidents since the Patriot Act became law, but neither have there been any suspected terrorists convicted under the act, and it's a little-known fact that many of those arrested under the authority of the Patriot Act were arrested for crimes which had nothing to do with terrorism.

Of course, many of us among the Loyal Opposition have concerns about the potential for civil rights abuses inherent in the Patriot Act. It is likely in response to these concerns that Bush signed executive order 13353 on August 27, establishing the President's Board on Safeguarding Americans' Civil Liberties (9). But the thing is, the foxes are guarding the henhouse. The board is administratively part of the Justice Department, and is staffed almost exclusively by officers of the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the defense and intelligence communities.

John Ashcroft is looking out for my civil liberties. I feel better already! Great leadership, George!

Bush Campaign Lie #65: Kerry Has the Wrong Priorities on Funding Troops and Protecting Pregnant Women

2004-09-25T22:48:00.000-05:00

On July 8, the Bush campaign released an ad called 'Priorities', attacking Kerry's commitment to funding the troops in Iraq and protecting pregnant women. More low-hanging fruit.

The ad makes essentially four distinct claims:

Kerry has missed 70 percent of the votes in the 108th Congress.
Kerry missed both 2004 votes on medical liability reform.
Kerry missed the vote approving $25 billion in supplemental funding for the troops in Iraq.
Kerry voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as the Laci Peterson law.

All of these statements are true (okay, I'll admit it: I haven't bothered to fact-check item (1)). The lie comes in concluding that Kerry's votes or lack thereof mean anything about his priorities.

For example, consider the three votes referenced in items (2) and (3). The two votes Kerry missed on medical liability reform were cloture votes to end a filibuster Kerry supported. Cloture votes require 60 yea votes to pass, and these two cloture motions received 48 and 49 yea votes, respectively, so Kerry's absence made absolutely zero difference in the outcome.

Similarly, the supplemental funding bill for Iraq passed 95-0. Republicans Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois and Ben 'Nighthorse' Campbell of Colorado also missed this vote, which I guess means they're as unpatriotic as Kerry is.

Anyway, what these three non-votes tell me about Kerry's priorities is that beating George Bush is more important to him than casting meaningless votes. I'm sure Republicans don't like this, but they can't honestly conclude that Kerry is in favor of higher health care costs or opposed to equipping our soldiers in Iraq.

Finally, there's Kerry's vote against the Laci Peterson law. He did vote against this bill, but it is wrong to conclude that Kerry opposes stronger penalties for crimes against pregnant women. Kerry opposed this bill because it codifies into law the notion that life begins at conception, which starkly contradicts the position of the pro-choice movement. As a committed supporter of a woman's right to choose, Kerry voted against the bill. And the Bush camp clearly understands this, since they bother to charge that Kerry 'Placed Abortion Politics Over Unborn Victims Of Violence'.

Actually, the exact reverse is true. It is Senate Republicans who placed abortion politics over unborn victims of violence. The fact is that Republicans exploited the Laci Peterson tragedy in order to gain support for the bill --- and demonize its opponents --- precisely so that they could pass legislation which accords the same rights to a fetus as to anyone else.

How do I know this? Because Dianne Feinstein introduced a substitute amendment (S. Amdt 2858) which would have effectively replaced the Unborn Victims of Violence Act with legislation which, according to Feinstein

". . . include(s) the same structure, the same crimes, and the exact same penalties as the DeWine bill. The only real difference between our amendment and the DeWine bill is that we do not attempt to place into law language defining life as beginning at conception--beginning with an embryo."

Those who are truly concerned with 'protecting pregnant women from violence' would happily support the Feinstein amendment, which was defeated 50-49, with 47 Republicans voting against it (and yes, Kerry voted for it). Only those whose true intent is to 'place abortion politics above unborn victims of violence' would reject the Feinstein amendment in favor of a bill which sticks a thumb in the eye of Roe v. Wade.

Bush Campaign Lie #64: John Kerry 'Doesn't Know the Enemy' in the War on Terror

2004-09-25T19:40:00.000-05:00

Since I'm a bit rusty after my 4-month hiatus, I thought I'd go after the low-hanging fruit. The Bush campaign has broadcast almost two dozen ads in that time; they should provide fertile ground.

For example, consider the Bush ad 'Yakuza', released on July 1. It picks out a 3-second sound bite from the Kerry ad 'Pilot' and uses it to pad out a 30-second spot claiming --- surprise --- that Kerry will be ineffective in the War on Terror.

As it turns out, the Kerry camp is also guilty of a bit of distortion. In the Pilot ad, the voice over states that Kerry is the "author of a strategy to win the war on terror" while showing the cover of Kerry's 1997 book The New War: The Web of Crime That Threatens America's Security. This suggests that Kerry has written an entire book about how to win the war on terror, and that his 1997 publication is it. This is, of course, completely false, and the Bush folks are correct to call him on it. Kerry has not written a book explaining how he'll win the war on terror.

However, since Kerry's lie is a pretty tame one and not likely to get much traction, the Bush folks distort things beyond recognition in order to fit their prime campaign attack: Kerry is soft on terror.

Here's a summary of the Bush response:

Kerry's target in the war on terror is the Japanese Yakuza.
Kerry's book never mentions Osama bin Laden.
Kerry's book never mentions al Qaeda.
Kerry calls Yasser Arafat a 'statesman' in the book.
The New Republic says the book 'missed the mark'.
The focus of the book is global crime, not terrorism.

Let's start with the last statement first. The focus of the book is combating global crime, and not terrorism, a fact which should be obvious given the book's title. It is therefore clear that neither the Kerry campaign or the Bush campaign should use it to draw conclusions about Kerry's plan for fighting the war on terror, which pretty much moots the rest of the Bush camp's charges.

Anyone genuinely interested in studying the real Kerry strategy for fighting the war on terror should read the Kerry campaign's documentation for the Pilot ad. Those wishing to smear Kerry should do everything they can to avoid facts.

Which brings us back to the Bush campaign charges. Continuing in reverse order, it's true that Michael Crowley of The New Republic wrote a review of the book in which he says that Kerry 'missed the mark' on combating terrorism. Again, this is not really a surprise, since the focus of the book was global crime, of which Kerry considers terrorism a part. And even in this review, Crowley gives Kerry props for the one chapter in the book which does address terrorism, for:

. . . predicting that 'one mega-terrorist event in any of the great cities of the world [will] change the world in a single day.' Indeed, he did. Kerry also, to his credit, accurately identified the danger posed by 'loose nukes' in the former Soviet Union and all but predicted that 'the Big One' -- a terrorist nuke in a major city -- is inevitable.

So, 4 years before 9/11, in a book which only devoted a single chapter to terrorism, Kerry accurately predicted that a 9/11-style terrorist attack would occur. Bush, on the other hand, couldn't be bothered to take the threat from bin Laden seriously despite receiving a presidential briefing on it just 5 weeks before the attacks. So, who is it that 'doesn't know the enemy' in the war on terror?

The charges that Kerry's book doesn't mention bin Laden or al Qaeda are accurate, but again, the book isn't about terrorism. And Kerry did describe Yasser Arafat as a 'statesman':

Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman, while those whose only object is to disrupt society require no such 'role models.'

Kerry wrote this in 1997, just three years after Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize, and three years before Arafat cut off negotiations in a hoped-for breakthrough agreement with Israel. Kerry doesn't dispute Arafat's outlaw past, but no reasonable person can question that Arafat had achieved the level of statesman by 1997.

Which leaves only the first and most absurd charge, that Kerry's target in the war on terror is the Japanese Yakuza. According to FactCheck.org, the Yakuza doesn't get much play in Kerry's book. Of course, even if they did, one shouldn't conclude that they are Kerry's current target in the war on terror since Kerry wrote the book seven years ago. And we can't even conclude the Yakuza were Kerry's main target seven years ago because . . . .

(Wait for it . . . .)

THE BOOK ISN'T ABOUT TERRORISM!!!

Liberal partisans looking for a more 'red-meat' response to this ad can check out what the Kerry campaign had to say.

Mark Your Calendars - Grand Reopening September 27

2004-08-26T07:49:00.000-05:00

The short version: I have decided to begin actively maintaining this site again as of September 27.

The long version: Unlike the mighty Kevin Drum, no one pays me to maintain this site. I have a full-time day job. But beyond that, I'm also the father to a 3.5-year-old and an 18-month-old, both of whom tend to wake up a lot in the night. Those of you with children know what I'm saying. When I was previously writing this blog, I would get up before 6 AM, get the kids dressed and fed, drop them at day care, come in to work for a full day, go home, help clean up dinner, play with the kids, get them bathed and in bed, help with the household chores, then blog from 10:00 'til after midnight. And I rarely got to sleep straight through from midnight 'til 6:00.

And I never got to spend any quality time with my wife. In fact, at one point, I forgot her name. No, I didn't. But my life was becoming nasty, brutish, and endless. I needed a break.

However, thanks to reader Susan, I realize that the break has to end. The polls are still too close for comfort, and a startling number of people still seem to be unaware that the White House incumbent is perhaps the most atrocious president in our country's history. Seriously. The only people who should be supporting him are the folks who would vote for a canned ham as long as it was running as a Republican, and I can't believe those people make up more than 30% of the electorate.

Those of us who aren't afraid of facts and who understand what a disaster the Bush presidency has been have an obligation to insure that Bush doesn't get another term in office, even if he does cheat. So I'm coming back.

I'm taking a week hiatus from my day job, starting September 27, so that I can really go full-bore on the site for a week. After that, my hope is to debunk one lie a day through Halloween. November 1, I plan to help with Kerry's get out the vote efforts, and on Election Day, I'll be serving as an election judge.

I want to close by thanking a few people. First and foremost, I want to thank Amy of Blogamy fame for agreeing to guide this ship, if a bit hesitantly, during my hiatus. Second, I want to thank the startlingly large number of people who have continued to visit the site even though there's been precious little new content for the past three months. In particular, I want to thank those who wrote in, including Suzanne, Thomas, Silvia, David, Harry, Charlene, and Doug.

And especially Fanni and Susan. Fanni paid me a higher compliment than she could possibly imagine, and Susan is the one who made me realize it was time to dust off my keyboard and get the ball rolling again. Whatever impact this site has on the election between now and November, the credit goes to her.

So get ready folks. I know there are Bush supporters out there ready to challenge every statement I make, and I'm not going to have a lot of time to get into prolonged debates in the comment threads. So I'm going to be looking to Fanni, Amy, Lisa and all other reasonable people to help me out once things get started back up. I'm also going to ask for your help in publicizing the grand re-opening, since I'm too cheap to buy blogads. Let your friends, family and coworkers know where they can find the truth.

Let's go beat this guy.

The "Truth Squad"

2004-08-05T13:26:00.000-05:00

I had no idea there was a 'Bush Truth Squad: Keeping it real for the American people'. I guess this means that there isn't much use for the likes of me...if they do their job.

Obviously, I've been quite busy. I knew when I said I'd help over here, that I wouldn't have a whole lot of extra time...I just didn't realize how little I would actually be able to contribute.

I'm not doing a whole lot over at my other blog either. I've just been busy with the day to day business of life lately. Like everyone else, go figure. So see, even if you think we're complete opposites we have something in common after all!

Anyway, there's an online video/ad by the "Truth Squad" that I just looked at. You can go here to look at it.

I was just listening to AirAmerica, and happened to catch Al getting quite testy about a little matter of a new attack ad by Bush people/supporters. Not sure who has made it, and I'm trying to locate it. I listened to the clips that Al played and made some notes on his commentary, but I need to find this for myself and see/hear the whole thing.

Apparently, they are attacking Kerry's Vietnam record, his medals and well, trying to criticize his performance and question whether he deserved the medals that he received. There is a guy who claims to be a doctor, claiming that he was the one who treated Kerry for his wounds and saying that Kerry is lying about his injury(ies)...but then his name apparently isn't the same as the doctor who signed off on Kerry's treatment records, so there's a question of whether this is really the guy who initially treated him or not. This is but one of the claims and issues that Al was discussing and getting PO'd about.

Like I said, I need to find all of this for myself. When I do, I will share.

It would seem the assertions of the ad do not add up. That the people who claim to have "served" with Kerry, didn't actually serve under him? Or, in any close proximity that would support their claims of knowing him to be a poor leader or liar about his injuries or whatever. There's a great deal more who actually were there, that have in the past and continued to support him, so...I don't know why they keep trying this angle. I would think they could come up with more effective attack ad angles for Bush's money.

One thing is fairly certain, I don't know why Bush or any of his supporters would want to open that can of worms. If you're going to talk about military records, then it's only fair to compare, and I don't think they would want to focus on the comparison of Kerry vs. Bush military records. I would think they would be better off comparing something else that doesn't attempt to draw questions about Kerry that, at the same time, shines a glaring spotlight back at a question of Bush's service that they've been trying to avoid since before the last election. Not that anybody will ever know, since the records that would have proved Bush's questioned attendance/service, and shut up any claims about being AWOL, have mysteriously been burned. Maybe they're just convinced that since the issue has been so effectively swept under the rug in the past, that the media will only focus on any Kerry issues they raise -at least long enough to inject it into the meme cycle- while the questions around Bush and his service will continue to go on unanswered.

But that's just my opinion.

Update:
via dave at blogAmY, via Boston.com ... 'Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry'

The Easy Way Out

2004-07-08T13:25:00.000-05:00

That's what I'm taking today.

As usual, I've been very busy. I haven't even been doing much at my other blog abode.

A couple things that have been on my mind, are expressed quite aptly over at Rubber Hose in, 'edwards' experience' . So, I'm directing you there for the time being.

I've been keeping score and saving up some articles that I need to go back and look at. I'll post on all that when I'm satisfied with the end product.

Bush Campaign Lie #63: That Hitler Ad

2004-06-23T14:40:00.000-05:00

The ad 'The Coalition of the Wild-eyed' can be seen over at the Bush/Cheney website.

The ad begins with a black background and then white text fades into the foreground:

"The following video contains remarks made by and images from ads sponsored by Kerry Supporters."

This, is intentionally misleading and deceptive. In flowery words it's what you might call intellectual dishonesty. In more concise words, it's a lie.

The intent of the ad is to make you believe that Kerry himself, and anyone who is a "Kerry Supporter", sponsored and/or approved of the remarks and most importantly, the message and use of the Hitler "images from ads" that they are making reference to. The ads, which drew upon images and speeches of Hitler to make comparisons to Bush, came out of the MoveOn contest, 'Bush In 30 Seconds'. Neither went past the submission point, and were met with an overwhelming lack of support amongst voting members and the judges of the MoveOn contest who actually had the chance to view them.

There are a few key points to make here.

1. The two ads referenced to were created with no assistance (creative or monetary) from MoveOn.org or John Kerry, but rather paid for and created soley by private citizens. These citizens submitted them -as THEY created them- to the contest. Which brings me to,

2. The person(s) who created at least one of the ads, had put "Sponsored by MoveOn.org" on their video. This is a big point in the Bush/Cheney ad as they strive to link Kerry to any person(s) and group, including MoveOn.org, that has criticized the Bush administration in any way. MoveOn.org, however, did not in fact "sponsor" the ads.
At least, not in the most common, legally binding sense, that we mean here in America when we use the words "sponsored by". It does seem like a splitting of hairs argument, but not only am I sure the RNC/GOP and/or Bush camp would make the same argument, but it's an important distinction to make when taking on this matter.

MoveOn did sponsor the contest, but never gave any official sponsorship to the ad itself. Meaning, it never endorsed it. Some might argue that it was given their unofficial stamp of approval, because it found its way onto the site, and was viewable to the public. You can make that argument, but it's a real stretch. I don't think anyone would want to start applying this definition of "sponsored" across the board.

The official reason for these ads showing up on the site was that it was a mistake, an oversight.

I could not find any official criterion for rejection of ads prior to the voting process. I did find something in the rules about guidelines specifically for winning articles where they state,

[...]Sponsor reserves the right to disqualify and remove from the web site any entry which is, in the judging panel's discretion, inappropriate, offensive, defamatory, or demeaning to Sponsor's reputation or goodwill.

I found via Memory Hole, their apology in regards to the ads, as well as an interesting article Switching Power: Easier to Pull the Plug.

Thanks to Upyernoz, who sums up the situation in a more concise manner, who links us to the Memory Hole, where you can still go to view the ads.

UPDATE:

Also weighing in on this topic, from a Washington Monthly post by Kevin Drum (formerly Calpundit), HITLER vs. "A METER".....

Hello.

2004-06-18T23:50:00.000-05:00

Good morning friends and curious readers.

I just wanted to submit my first post and let you know that, yes, I am alive and will be contributing here in the very near future.

I'm working on a few things right now but not ready to jump in just yet. Personally, I prefer to cover my bases as much as possible before setting fingers to keyboard.

While there are many things that are coming out of the mouths and various webpages of the Bush Administration, RNC and devout supporters that I take exception to/question -and have something to say about- the trouble is narrowing it down to just one. Since I don't want to be all over the place and keep focus on one thing at a time (if possible, some things do tend to overlap though), I will continue to spend a little more time on the things that I am looking at right now.

Until then, in my various websearches I came upon another site about Bush lies. It's called Bushlies.com and it's by David Corn, author of 'The Lies of George Bush'. I stumbled upon it while looking into the matter of the 9/11 Commision findings, and the White House response. The specific article that I'm reading is, 'Bush Spin Continues on al Qaeda Link'.

That's it for now. I just wanted to say hello. Give you at least something to chew on, and let you know that I'll be 'On' shortly. There's just a little matter of organizing myself and setting up shop. It's like moving into a new house! So much to do and so little time.

A Brief Respite, and then, a New Voice

2004-06-14T20:56:00.000-05:00

Folks have no doubt noticed the lack of posts recently. There is a long, boring story behind all of this. It basically boils down to the fact that I have some other things I need to take care of right now, and I don't have time to maintain this site any longer.

Before the wingnut commentors start celebrating too much, I also want to say that I've found someone to agree to take on the responsibility for this site, namely Amy of blogAmY fame. By a stroke of good fortune, my need to take some time away from blogging coincided with her desire to shake up her own blogging style a bit.

So I hope all will welcome Amy, I know she'll do a great job in keeping up the 'truth swatting'. As for me, perhaps I'll be back before November, perhaps I won't. In any event, I want to thank Amy for her willingness to step in, and encourage all of my readers to spread the word about the mendacity of the current administration.

Bush Campaign Lie #62: John Kerry Suggested that All Soldiers in Iraq Were Responsible for Abu Ghraib Abuses

2004-06-02T22:18:00.000-05:00

According to the Washington Post, on May 12, Bush campaign chair Marc Racicot told reporters in a conference call that Kerry had suggested that all 150,000 soldiers in Iraq were 'somehow universally responsible' for the torture at Abu Ghraib. The Post follows up by noting that this charge simply isn't true:

Racicot, for instance, told reporters that Kerry suggested that 150,000 or so U.S. troops are "somehow universally responsible" for the misdeeds of a small number of American soldiers and contractors. Racicot made several variations of this charge. But Kerry never said this, or anything like it.

As evidence, Racicot pointed to the following quote Kerry made at a fundraiser on Tuesday: "What has happened is not just something that a few a privates or corporals or sergeants engaged in. This is something that comes out of an attitude about the rights of prisoners of war, it's an attitude that comes out of America's overall arrogance in its policy that is alienating countries all around the world."

What Racicot did not mention was that Kerry preceded this remark by saying, "I know that what happened over there is not the behavior of 99.9 percent of our troops."

The Post has been quite thorough. They report Racicot's original statement and his justification, and then they point out that Racicot was intentionally quoting Kerry out of context. It would seem our work here is done.

Only there's more. A more recent Post story ticks off a long litany of wrong or misleading statements by the Bush campaign; a litany which the Bush folks cannot afford to ignore. And the Post brings up Racicot's lie one more time:

Earlier this month, Bush-Cheney Chairman Marc Racicot told reporters in a conference call that Kerry suggested in a speech that 150,000 U.S. troops are "universally responsible" for the misdeeds of a few soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- a statement the candidate never made. In that one call, Racicot made at least three variations of this claim and the campaign cut off a reporter who challenged him on it.

The Bush folks presented a lengthy rebuttal to the Post's charges. When they attempted to rebut this particular charge, what did they resort to? For one thing, they never denied that Racicot made the statement, so we may conclude that he actually did. Instead, they charged that Kerry was politicizing the scandal and as proof they presented --- the same out-of-context Kerry quote which the Post debunked on May 13. So this should really polish off this lie.

But there's still more, because the Bush folks are using this distorted quote as proof that Kerry is politicizing Abu Ghraib. As further evidence, they cite the fact that the Kerry campaign sent out at least two emails asking supporters to sign a petition calling for Rumsfeld's resignation --- and asking for contributions to Kerry's campaign. The support for this charge comes from the notoriously partisan Washington Times. But even the Times article includes the DNC's response stating the obvious:

Mr. Cabrera and Mr. McAuliffe said the Kerry campaign's request for donations is "a standard contribution link" that appears throughout the RNC and DNC Web sites, even on Web pages dealing with the war on terror.

This is a point which should be obvious to anyone who gives it two seconds' thought: every mass email from the Kerry campaign or the DNC (and from the Bush campaign and the RNC too, I would guess) is written in a standard template which carries a 'Donate' link. The fact that such a thing appeared on emails dealing with Abu Ghraib is neither surprising nor indicative of any impropriety.

But let's be honest for a minute. It's an election year. The DNC and the Kerry campaign exist to make their guy look good, and to make Bush look bad, just like the RNC and Bush campaign exist to make Bush look good and Kerry look bad. Whenever something goes wrong for Bush, of course the DNC and Kerry campaign will emphasize it, and of course they're doing it to help their candidate. This is all just a game. The Kerry camp will deny that they are trying to gain politically by emphasizing the scandal, even though they really are. The Bush camp will act horrified that Kerry would do such a thing, even though they would behave exactly the same way --- if not worse --- if the tables were turned. No one is pure in this.

But consider this. The worst thing the Kerry folks did was to use their standard email template in sending out a plea to oust Rumsfeld. The worst thing the Bush folks did was to repeatedly distort one of Kerry's statements in order to support their lie that Kerry was politicizing Abu Ghraib and holding all of our troops responsible for it. That's a significant difference.

Bush Campaign Lie #61: The Washington Post Made 10 Misstatements in Criticizing Bush

2004-06-01T23:08:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I cited a Washington Post article which slammed the Bush campaign for 'making history with often-misleading attacks.' This article contained some criticisms of the Kerry campaign as well. Of course the Bush campaign has responded, insisting that the Post has it all wrong, and has listed in sickening detail what it says are 10 misstatements in the Post article.

Most of the Post statements have been corroborated here. So I'm going to list all of the passages from the Post article which the Bush folks say are wrong, and provide links to my own corroboration of those statements where appropriate. One of the rebuttals (number 5) will be addressed in a future post.

On March 11, the Bush team released a spot saying that in his first 100 days in office Kerry would 'raise taxes by at least $900 billion.' Kerry has said no such thing; the number was developed by the Bush campaign's calculations of Kerry's proposals.

The Post is dead right here. See lie #6.
On Tuesday, the Bush campaign held a conference call to discuss its new ad, which charged that Kerry was 'pressured by fellow liberals' to oppose wiretaps, subpoena powers and surveillance in the USA Patriot Act. 'Kerry would now repeal the Patriot Act's use of these tools against terrorists,' the ad said. Kerry has proposed modifying those provisions by mandating tougher judicial controls over wiretaps and subpoenas, but not repealing them. In the conference call, Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman was prodded to offer evidence that Kerry was pressured by liberals or that Kerry opposed wiretaps. He offered no direct evidence, saying only that Kerry objected to the Patriot Act after liberals did, and that 'a common-sense reading indicates he intends to repeal those important tools.'

Again, the Post is dead-on, and FactCheck.org agrees. See lie #57.
Kerry...has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years... On Tuesday and Wednesday, as Kerry talked about rising gasoline prices, the Bush campaign recycled its charge that Kerry supports raising the gasoline tax by 50 cents per gallon. This was done in a memo to reporters and through Bush surrogates such as Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-Wash.). The Bush-Cheney Web site also features a 'Kerry Gas Tax Calculator," allowing users to learn "How much more would he cost you?'

In their 'correction' to this statement, the Bush camp confirm that Kerry has not endorsed such a tax in 10 years. See lie #51.
On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.... Kerry...continues to support the education changes [NCLB], albeit with modifications.

See lies #18 and #52.
One constant theme of the Bush campaign is that Kerry is 'playing politics' with Iraq, terrorism and national security. Earlier this month, Bush-Cheney Chairman Marc Racicot told reporters in a conference call that Kerry suggested in a speech that 150,000 U.S. troops are 'universally responsible' for the misdeeds of a few soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- a statement the candidate never made. In that one call, Racicot made at least three variations of this claim and the campaign cut off a reporter who challenged him on it.

The Bush folks never deny that Racicot lied in this instance, so it's fair to conclude that he really did. More about this in a future post.
In early March, Bush charged that Kerry had proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget that would 'gut the intelligence services.' Kerry did propose such a cut in 1995, but it amounted to about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget and was smaller than the $3.8 billion cut the Republican-led Congress approved for the same program Kerry was targeting.

The Bush 'correction' does not dispute the key point here, that a Republican controlled Congress eventually cut more than Kerry had proposed, which makes their attack on Kerry moot. Those wishing to learn more about Kerry's proposal should read edwardpig.
Other Bush claims, though misleading, are rooted in facts. For example, Cheney's claim in almost every speech that Kerry 'has voted some 350 times for higher taxes' includes any vote in which Kerry voted to leave taxes unchanged or supported a smaller tax cut than some favored.

Again, the Bush 'correction' actually confirms what the Post has written. For additional info about why the number 350 is wrong or misleading, see lie #11.
The strategy was in full operation last week, beginning Monday in Arkansas. 'Senator Kerry,' Cheney said, 'has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. He said, quote, "I don't want to use that terminology." In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and more of a law enforcement operation.' But Kerry did not say what Cheney attributes to him. The quote Cheney used came from a March interview with the New York Times, in which Kerry used the phrase 'war on terror.' When he said 'I don't want to use that terminology,' he was discussing the 'economic transformation' of the Middle East -- not the war on terrorism.

Cheney did say this, he knowingly distorted what Kerry said, and the Bush rebuttal cites the very same New York Times article the Post did. Then they throw in some more attacks on Kerry. See lies #9 and #45.
On Wednesday, a Bush memo charged that Kerry 'led the fight against creating the Department of Homeland Security.' While Kerry did vote against the Bush version multiple times, it is not true that he led the fight, but rather was one of several Democrats who held out for different labor agreements as part of its creation. Left unsaid is that, in the final vote, Kerry supported the department -- which Bush initially opposed.

The Republicans do not deny that Bush originally opposed DHS, and their only rebuttal is to cite a list of Kerry's votes --- the same votes the Post mentions.
Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

See below.

Now, let's be clear about something. The Washington Post has clearly and prominently stated that the Bush campaign has made a number of 'wrong' or 'highly misleading' attacks on Kerry. So it's reasonable to assume that when the Bush folks roll out their rebuttal, they're going to come out with both guns blazing. In other words, these rebuttals are the strongest case the Bush campaign can make to dispute the charge that they've lied about these things. But for at least six of the ten items cited (items 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10), they either confirm the Post's charge or ignore it, instead offering additional attacks on Kerry.

What does that tell you?

Item (10) is a perfect example of this non-denial denial. Although the Bush site doesn't provide enough context to make this clear, the Post was restricting its discussion of negative campaign ads to 'this spring'. In the Bush rebuttal, they claim 'Since March 4th, Kerry has spent $61.1 million on media buys and during that time 26% ($15.9 million) of those ad dollars have attacked the President.' So they actually claim that the Post is overreporting the percentage of Kerry ads this spring which have attacked Bush. However, the Bush folks also claim that 80% of Kerry's ads during the primary season were attack ads, so that for the campaign overall, 41% of Kerry's ads have been negative.

Of course, the Post reported that 75% of the Bush ads this spring were negative. They further report that the Bush camp agreed that figure was accurate, and the Bush folks aren't disputing that statistic now --- so we may conclude that it's accurate (remember, the Bush camp is doing its best to exonerate itself here).

Bush is 75% negative, while Kerry --- even by the Bush campaign's calculations --- is only 41% negative. Does Bush expect to score any points with a rebuttal like this one?

Bush Campaign Lie #60: John Kerry has a 'Record of Contradiction' on the War in Iraq

2004-05-31T22:36:00.000-05:00

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'

2004-05-31T22:18:00.000-05:00

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 advertising

The 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.

Bush Campaign Lie #59: In 72 Hours, Kerry Flip-Flopped on Whether Bush Misled the Public About WMD

2004-05-28T08:49:00.000-05:00

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?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Bush Campaign Lie #58: John Kerry has a 'Record of Contradiction' on Iraq's WMD

2004-05-27T21:58:00.000-05:00

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).

Let's knock off item (6) first. It's true that Iraq ceased its cooperation with weapons inspectors on October 31, 1998, and it's also true that Kerry said 'When Bill Clinton left office, not one young American in uniform was dying in a war anywhere in this world.' The Bushies never explain how these facts are relevant to their claim.

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

Since there was no reason a priori for Kerry to doubt that report's conclusions, he included that 'fact' in his floor speech, and then went on to support the resolution. (By the way, in this same speech Kerry emphasized the need to work with the UN Security Council, and to 'do so with others in the international community unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent --- and I emphasize "imminent" --- threat to this country . . . .')

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?

Bush Campaign Lie #57: John Kerry Politicizes the Patriot Act

2004-05-25T22:36:00.000-05:00

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 first claim, the Bushies provide the same evidence they did months ago, when they claimed that Kerry 'flip-flopped' on the Patriot Act. But as we discussed when debunking that lie, Kerry explicitly expressed concerns about the surveillance powers granted in the Patriot Act on the very day he voted for it. So there is no reversal in stating now that changes must be made to the surveillance provisions.

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'

2004-05-25T13:16:00.000-05:00

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.)

Bush Campaign Lie #55: Washington Post Slammed Kerry for Decision to Delay Nomination

2004-05-23T13:48:00.000-05:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bush Campaign Lie #54: Story that GOP Outsourced Fundraising to India is 'Untrue Urban Legend'

2004-05-22T13:16:00.000-05:00

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.

Bush Campaign Lie #53: Bush is 'Doing His Duty' Funding 'No Child Left Behind'

2004-05-20T22:27:00.000-05:00

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.

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.

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.

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

2004-05-20T21:59:00.000-05:00

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.)

Bush Campaign Lie #51: Kerry's Energy Policy Obstruction

2004-05-16T23:29:00.000-05:00

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

2004-05-16T22:43:00.000-05:00

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.

Bush Campaign Lie #50: Kerry Flip Flopped On Internet Taxation

2004-05-10T22:02:00.000-05:00

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.

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.

The 2001 policy was not a reversal of the 1998 policy. Rather, it was a natural outcome of it.

Bush Campaign Lie #49: Kerry Flip-Flopped on Trade With China

2004-05-08T01:27:00.000-05:00

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.

Bush Campaign Lie #48: Because We Acted in Iraq, Torture Chambers Are Closed

2004-05-04T15:59:00.000-05:00

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.

Bush Campaign Lie #47: Kerry Flip-Flopped On The Strategic Petroleum Reserve

2004-05-02T22:51:00.000-05:00

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."

So the Republicans have their facts straight, and it does look like Kerry has reversed himself. As usual, what's missing is the context.

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.

Bush Campaign Lie #46: Kerry Flip-Flopped On 1991 Iraq War Coalition

2004-05-01T23:52:00.000-05:00

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?

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.

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:

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.

That might be why Kerry suggested that the '91 coalition was legitimate, while the '03 coalition was not. But that's just a guess.

Bush Campaign Lie #45: Kerry Flip-Flopped On View Of War On Terror

2004-04-29T23:04:00.000-05:00

This is the 33rd item which Republicans call a Kerry 'flip-flop'. Their justification is that in one speech, Kerry stated that the war on terror was 'basically a manhunt', and in another, that it 'isn't just a manhunt'.

No, really. That's the whole Republican case. You think I would make up something that weak?

For the sake of completeness, let's actually analyze what Kerry said in the two speeches the Republicans cite. First of all, is it possible for the war on terror to be 'basically a manhunt', but still not 'just a manhunt'? Of course it is. But even if it's not, this only proves that Kerry maybe isn't so great at analogies. In order to really discuss his 'view of the war on terror', it would probably make more sense to analyze his prescription for winning the war, don't you think?

So let's see. The first source says 'Kerry characterized the war on terror as predominantly an intelligence-gathering and law enforcement operation'. Okay. Intelligence and law enforcement. Let's compare that to the second source the Republicans cite, in which Kerry says

. . . the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military – but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds.

So this is completely different. Sure, he mentions intelligence and law enforcement, but he mentions other stuff too! A radical departure from his earlier position!

Kerry's been in the public eye for more than 30 years, and this is the best evidence his opponents can give of his proclivity to take every side on every issue? In which case, it seems likely that Kerry has been remarkably consistent in his views.

Bush Campaign Lie #44: The Bush Campaign Won't Shut Up About Kerry's Vote Against the $87 Billion Supplemental

2004-04-29T22:41:00.000-05:00

We've already discussed how the Republican criticism of Kerry for voting against the $87 billion supplemental funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan is misleading and hypocritical. Unfortunately, it is also a very effective means of attacking Kerry, so they keep repeating themselves. And of course they'll distort and elide Kerry quotes 'til the cows come home to make him look like a flip-flopper.

Case in point. In addition to the usual B.S., this article posted on Bush's campaign site on April 22 gives two Kerry quotes:

RUSSERT: 'If there's another bill to provide money for the troops, you'll vote against it again?' KERRY: 'It depends entirely on what the situation is, Tim. I'm not going to say that.' (NBC's "Meet the Press," 4/18/04)
QUINTANILLA: 'Kerry now says if troops need more money in Iraq, the answer is simple.' KERRY: 'Absolutely.' QUINTANILLA: 'No strings attached?' KERRY: 'You have to protect our troops and prevent Iraq from falling into absolute chaos.' (NBC's "Today," 4/22/04)

Pretty damning stuff. But if you haven't learned by now, with the Republicans, you always have to go and check the transcripts for yourself. Take a look at Kerry's full answer to Russert on that Meet the Press show:

It depends entirely on what the situation is, Tim. I'm not going to say that. What I'm saying is even the generals in Iraq said the money in that bill had no impact on their ability to continue to fight. We had money all the way through January, and if my vote had been the deciding vote, you know as well as the president knows, as well as every Republican knows, that if I'd been the deciding vote, we would have sat down at a table, we have worked out exactly how we were going to do this intelligently and we would have had a better bill. That's how you change policy. You stand up for principle. That was a vote for principle.

So when Kerry said 'it depends entirely on what the situation is', he meant that the troops would absolutely get the money if it was needed, but that he would negotiate for the best funding bill possible if there was time.

Gee, that sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? And not even a little flip-floppy.

Bush Campaign Lie #43: Kerry Fails to Support the Environment Because he Blocked the Bush Energy Bill

2004-04-29T21:28:00.000-05:00

Yet another in the compost of lies Christine Todd Whitman served up when she sold out any hope of ever being taken seriously again.

Actually, The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, Citizens for Tax Justice and Public Citizen opposed the Energy Bill, too, and those are just the ones the New York Times mentions. John Podesta, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, said this legislation would be 'a giant step backwards for energy policy' and would 'weaken national security in two major ways'.

Still not convinced that this is a bad bill? Then consider that 19 public interest groups wrote an open letter to Congress to express their concern that this bill would 'severely damage our health, our environment, and our pocketbooks'.

Far from proving that Kerry is unconcerned with the environment, his opposition to the Energy Bill is a resounding confirmation of the high value he places on protecting it.

Bush Campaign Lie #42: Bush's Leadership on Environmental Issues has Given Us Cleaner Air, Water and Land

2004-04-29T00:03:00.000-05:00

This is another whopper Christine Todd Whitman told in her April 22 lie-fest.

The air, water and land may be cleaner now than they were on January 20, 2001. Then again, they may not. But the real point is that any positive change in the environment in the past 3.5 years has come in spite of Bush and his policies, not because of them.

I'm going to provide evidence for my claim, of course, but I first feel compelled to provide fair advance warning. Bush has been such a terrible president when it comes to the environment, it's really difficult to believe he's done all the things the environmentalists claim. It might be best for you to read a few of the facts, go away for a little while and digest them, and come back for more later. Because truly, the depths of Bush's unconcern for the environment are really quite startling.

Okay, here goes. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Here's the Sierra Club's Book of Bush. And if you think that's overwhelming, check out the Natural Resources Defense Council's The Bush Record. The NRDC believes that 'This administration, in catering to industries that put America's health and natural heritage at risk, threatens to do more damage to our environmental protections than any other in U.S. history'. And if all of the evidence you see there doesn't convince you, then ask yourself why a large number of EPA officials have resigned in recent months, citing concerns about administration policies, and why a majority of EPA staff believe that 'promoting the President's energy plan and other administration initiatives has become more important' than environmental protection.

Is it possible that Christine Whitman, Bush's former EPA chief, lacks the objectivity to judge Bush's leadership on environmental issues?

---

Postscript: By way of completeness, Whitman specifically mentions a handful of Bush initiatives in her letter. There's Clear Skies and the Energy Bill, both of which are absolute disasters for the environment. She also mentions Bush's Healthy Forests initiative, which is nothing more than a giveaway to logging interests.

In contrast, the Beach Program she mentions appears to actually be a good program, but the credit for it rightly belongs to the Clinton administration (it was enacted October 10, 2000). She also trumpets a single instance in which the Bush administration has enforced the Clean Air Act. Wow, the government fulfilling its duty under the law. No wonder she's so proud.

And in fairness, it seems that Bush actually has signed a couple of good pieces of legislation, those being the non-road diesel regulations (which, it must be said, supercedes a decidedly more craven Bush approach to the issue), and brownfields legislation which, although of questionable value, isn't a blatant sellout of our environment to polluters.

Bush Campaign Lie #41: 'Clear Skies' is the Most Aggressive Presidential Initiative to Reduce Power Plant Emissions

2004-04-28T23:34:00.000-05:00

I am at a loss to describe Christine Todd Whitman's statement supporting Bush's environmental record and questioning Kerry's commitment to the environment. It is so chock full of lies I was tempted to just lump all of them into a single post, but our environment deserves better than that.

Whitman is pumping the Clear Skies Initiative because it targets reductions in three pollutants: nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury. And Whitman may indeed be correct that this legislation would introduce the first-ever cap on mercury emissions, but it's a cap which would likely allow more mercury emissions than rigorous enforcement of current laws. As the Washington Post opines:

Levels of mercury almost certainly will be higher, or at least will stay higher longer -- an ominous sign in a week in which the EPA, separately, announced that one in 12 American women have mercury levels in their blood high enough to harm an unborn fetus. Local and state pollution regulators also dislike the bill because, they say, it removes regulatory tools they've used in the past, making it more difficult for states to meet air quality standards in particular places.

But hey, you don't have to take the 'liberal' Post's word for it --- the nonpartisan group OMB watch reports that bipartisan legislation in the Senate would have been a better bill, but the administration tried to cover it up.

And to me, that really signifies that the administration is being honest with the public: when they try to quash legislation that benefits the public health and the environment.

And in case anyone's interested, the National Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club don't think the Clear Skies initiative is all that great, either. Then again, maybe I'm not being fair. Whitman only said that Bush's plan was 'aggressive'. Perhaps she really meant that it was the environment, and not the polluters, who would bear the brunt of Bush's aggression. In which case, she's absolutely correct.

Bush Campaign Lie #40: Kerry Claims He's Met with 'Foreign Leaders' Who Want Him to Win

2004-04-28T22:58:00.000-05:00

At a Florida fundraiser in March, Kerry was misquoted as saying 'I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy . . . .' The error was corrected very quickly; he actually said 'I've met more leaders who . . . .'

But that didn't stop Dick Cheney from telling an audience at Westminster College that Kerry had really made the claim about 'foreign leaders' on April 26.

That Dick Cheney is just a lying machine. He also trotted out lie #9 and lie #14, as well as lie #39, which is clearly the Bush campaign's showcase lie of the week.

Bush Campaign Lie #39: Kerry Has a Long Record of Opposing Programs Vital to National Security

2004-04-28T22:40:00.000-05:00

This is the gist of a memo Republican party chair Ed Gillespie sent out to all members on April 28. The memo lists four of Kerry's votes and/or policy proposals from his 19-year Senate career, as well as a 1984 memo Kerry put out when he was first running for the Senate.

In other words, Gillespie cites five instances over a 20-year period where Kerry has supported policies that might be construed as 'opposing defense programs', and calls it a 'pattern'. And one of those instances --- Kerry's vote against the $87 billion appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan --- was clearly an effort to call attention to Bush's mishandling of the war in Iraq, and had nothing to do with Kerry's stand on defense. See lie #8.

However, as FactCheck.org points out, if one considers Kerry's Senate record in its entirety, one concludes that Kerry is not weak on defense. He voted for the Pentagon authorization bill in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate: by that measure, he's an absolute hawk on defense. And Arizona Republican John McCain, who is heading up the Bush re-election efforts in Arizona, has defended Kerry.

And because they deserve it, the Center for American Progress lets us know, once again, what a shameless bunch of hypocrites the Republicans are --- or at least Dick Cheney.

Bush Campaign Lie #38: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Funding For Our Troops In Iraq

2004-04-28T22:17:00.000-05:00

Kerry has always supported giving our troops what they need to protect themselves and claim decisive victory. It is true that he voted against the $87 billion supplemental funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, but it wasn't because he flip-flopped. See lie #8.

Different Look, Same Great Debunking

2004-04-27T21:51:00.000-05:00

I've slapped a fresh coat of paint on the place. Actually, someone I know from the Liberal Coalition passed the new template and wallpaper image to me, and I tweaked it a bit.

If you like the new look, let me know. Better yet, let Scout know. And while you're at it, take a look at his blog.

We now return you to a long-overdue dose of more GOP myth debunking.

Bush Campaign Lie #37: Kerry Flip-Flop-Flipped On Ballistic Missile Defense

2004-04-23T22:09:00.000-05:00

Not only does this alleged Kerry flip-flop rely on a warped interpretation of Kerry's Senate voting record, as usual, but it is buttressed by the Republicans' conveniently presenting their 'evidence' out of chronological order, in order to make Kerry seem especially wishy-washy.

In sum, the Republican argument consists of three parts:

A listing of 53 of Kerry's Senate votes from 1985 to 2000, together with the claim that these votes prove Kerry has a long record of opposing missile defense.
A Kerry quote from 2004 stating that he supports 'the development of an effective defense against ballistic missiles that is deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and other major powers'.
Another Kerry quote from March 2003 which cites a Kerry advisor as saying that Kerry would defund Bush's National Missile Defense system because 'there is not proof of concept'.

Note that there really is no good reason to present (2) and (3) in that order, other than to embellish an already highly deceptive yarn.

But let's address the big money point: Kerry's Senate votes. To start with, ask yourself how much should be spent on missile defense? $1 billion? $10 billion? $100 billion? Should we spend all of our money on missile defense and nothing else? Or is there some reasonable upper limit?

Another question: What kind of missile defense should we build? Should it be Reagan's 'Star Wars' space-based system, or a ground-based system? Should it be focused on protecting us from all threats from all places at all times, or should it be focused on protecting fighting troops in a limited theater of conflict?

Reasonable people may answer these questions differently, and still be supporters of missile defense. Such is the case with Kerry. He opposes the weaponization of space, supports so-called 'theater' missile defense, supported the ABM treaty until Bush walked away from it, and places a more restrictive limit on defense spending than most Republicans. His Senate votes clearly support these conclusions. What they do not support is the idea that John Kerry has ever been an opponent of missile defense.

It is clear that the Republicans present 53 of Kerry's Senate votes in the hope that no one will bother to research them all. And in all fairness, I only researched 34 of them, since the online records only go back to 1989. However, it's safe to assume that all 19 of the votes I missed pertain to SDI (or are votes on large pieces of legislation, like Defense Authorization Acts), since they occurred during the Reagan administration. Kerry opposes weaponizing space, so these votes don't prove anything. Similarly, of the 34 remaining votes, 15 of them concern SDI in some manner, and of those:

At least 10 of them concerned legislation which merely reduced or limited funding for SDI --- and in one instance, Kerry voted against the limit.
One vote was on an amendment Kerry authored which would have shifted $400 million from SDI to programs to treat drug abuse, prevent breast cancer, and fund health care for veterans.
One was a general deficit-reduction bill which contained many other items besides SDI. Kerry supported this bill, as did Republicans by a margin of 34-9.
One other bill Kerry voted for was also overwhelmingly supported by Republicans (by a margin of 36-4).

Of the remaining 19 votes, one had nothing whatsoever to do with missile defense, and 5 were duplicates of other votes (an original Senate vote, and then a later vote on the conference report with the House). That leaves 13 votes to account for.

Of those, five were votes on large packages like the National Defense Authorization Act or the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, and not votes on missile defense per se. Four more were again limitations or reductions in funding. This leaves a total of four Senate votes which might reveal something meaningful about Kerry's stance on missile defense.

And they do --- but not that he's 'against' it, like the Republicans claim.

Senate vote #157, 2nd session of the 104th Congress: Kerry voted against the 'Defend America Act' of 1996. There is no indication why he voted this way, but it's reasonable to assume he opposed the act because it emphasized space-based weapons systems and allowed the possibility of U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty. When a similar resolution came along in 1999 without those provisions, Kerry supported it.
Senate vote #168, 1st session of the 102nd Congress: This was an amendment written by Al Gore, which would have shifted the focus of U.S. missile defense away from so-called 'brilliant pebbles' (space-based, SDI-type defense) to 'provide highly effective surface-based theater missile defenses (TMD) to United States forward-deployed and expeditionary armed forces and to our friends and allies' (emphasis mine). Gore also took care to require that the resulting system be 'ABM-treaty compliant'. Kerry voted for this amendment, yet the Republicans cite it as one of Kerry's votes against missile defense.
Senate vote #131, 2nd session of the 105th Congress: Kerry opposed ending a filibuster of the American Missile Protection Act of 1998, and in a floor speech, gave his reasons why. He pointed out that the government had already invested billions of dollars in theater missile defense systems, and that even those more limited efforts were far from successful. He therefore opposed spending even more money --- $30 to $60 billion --- on long-range missile defense systems. In essence, he argued that we must walk before we run, and that an attempt to do otherwise would be a waste of money:
"Let me reiterate, Mr. President, that the choice the Senate will make today is not about whether we should make a Herculean effort to develop anti-missile technology. We are doing that and spending multi-billions of dollars to do it as rapidly and well as our best minds can do so. The vote today will not alter that mission or our commitment to it.

The vote today is about whether--at a time before a real ballistic missile threat from sources other than Russia and China exists, at a time before we perfect the anti-missile technology on which we have been energetically working for years so that we know it is ready to be deployed--we will make a national commitment of scores of billions of dollars to field the nonexistent system against nonexistent threats.

That, Mr. President, would be an unwise decision of great magnitude, particularly at a time when we face very real threats to our national security and when we are struggling to provide the resources to ensure our military and intelligence capabilities are both appropriate and adequate to address those threats."
A vote against a missile defense bill, yes; a vote against missile defense, no.
Senate vote #178, 2nd session of the 106th Congress: This is really the clincher, as far as I'm concerned. In item (2) above and elsewhere, Kerry is quoted as saying he supports effective defense against ballistic missiles. This is a large part of the reason he opposed the legislation mentioned in the previous bullet: he thought our defense dollars were better spent elsewhere. Kerry is so concerned that our tax dollars are spent wisely, in fact, that in 2000 he supported an amendment which would 'provide for operationally realistic testing of National Missile Defense systems against countermeasures; and to establish an independent panel to review the testing'. There's not much point in paying for a missile defense system if it doesn't work, right? Well, the Republicans count this vote as the final evidence that Kerry has opposed missile defense --- and the Republicans in the Senate saw that this amendment was tabled (every single Democrat voted against tabling it).

So after all of that, these votes seem to indicate that Kerry has always supported theater missile defense, opposed the weaponization of space, and is willing to support more broadly-scoped missile defense efforts provided they have a prayer in hell of bearing fruit. He has also shown that he supports the ABM treaty --- which Bush has since withdrawn from.

Has he flip-flopped? Well, a floor speech he gave in May 2001 reiterates all of these themes (except for the weaponization of space part). Is he correct to want to de-fund Bush's National Missile Defense system because it's ineffective? Well, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the American Physical Society certainly think so.

It's easy to throw billions of dollars at speculative missile defense programs, but it requires more discipline to advocate for a system which is actually effective. We should be applauding John Kerry for his efforts to make the best use of our tax dollars to provide the most effective defense of our country, rather than twisting his voting record to make it look like he flip-flopped.

Bush Campaign Lie #36: Kerry Demonstrates a Flawed Understanding of the War on Terror

2004-04-17T20:39:00.000-05:00

This is the most egregious Bush campaign lie I've yet come across. There are so many things wrong with this one, it should count as more than just one lie. However, since I can't easily tease apart all of the wrongness encompassed in this charge, I'll only count it once.

The lie begins by distorting one of Kerry's charges as an accusation that Bush 'focuses too heavily on terrorism'. Kerry was only making an observation which is clear to all with eyes to see: '. . . everything [Bush] did in Iraq, he's going to try to persuade people it has to do with terror, even though everybody here knows that it has nothing whatsoever to do with al Qaeda and everything to do with an agenda that they had preset, determined. That's where they're going to go'. Kerry's charge wasn't that Bush is inappropriately focused on terror, but that he has opportunistically used 9/11 to justify his attack on Iraq.

The second part of the lie is to point out that a new bin Laden tape appeared on the same day Kerry made the above statement. If the Kerry had really said that Bush focuses too heavily on terrorism, this would be relevant. As it is, it's just pointless verbiage.

For the third part of the lie, the Republicans express mock astonishment at Kerry's statement that there never was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. In other words, they're trying to revive the idea that the two were in cahoots somehow, even though Colin Powell and David Kay have both publicly declared that there is no evidence of such a link. And that's not even including the opinion of Richard Clarke, who was Bush's head of counterterrorism at the time of the attacks.

The final two points of the Bush smear are exceptionally weak arguments trying to prove that there really is some kind of link between Hussein and al Qaeda, after all. In the fourth point, they note that in the just-released tape, bin Laden states 'Our actions are a reaction to yours, which are destruction and killing of our people as is happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine.' Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would realize that when bin Laden mentions Iraq, he's referring to the fact that U.S. and coalition forces have been responsible for the death of approximately 8875 Iraqi civilians since the start of the war.

Do you see how stupid the Bush campaign thinks you are? They expect you to swallow this argument: 'We invaded Iraq and killed a bunch of people, and Osama bin Laden mentioned it in his latest audio tape. This proves there's a link between Iraq and al Qaeda!'

Their final argument is just as ludicrous. They cite a statement Kerry made in December 2001 in which he used 'terrorism' and 'Saddam Hussein' in almost the same breath. So the patronizing Republican argument here is 'We insisted that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved with 9/11 and terrorism, and Kerry made the mistake of believing us. This proves that Kerry has a flawed understanding of the war on terror.'

Agreed. Anyone who still believes anything the Bush administration says about the war on terror has a flawed understanding of it.

Bush Campaign Lie #35: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Israel Security Fence

2004-04-17T13:35:00.000-05:00

This is the 30th alleged Kerry 'flip-flop'. As proof of a reversal, the Republicans cite a speech Kerry gave at the Arab American Institute's Nation Leadership Conference in which he said: "I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace" (emphasis mine). They then point to an article in The Jerusalem Post in which Kerry says "Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense".

It is true that before each audience, Kerry emphasized what that audience wanted to hear. But there is no reversal of opinion here. In the same article the Bush campaign cites for the 'legitimate act of self defense' quote, Kerry campaign staffers point out "While he has objected to the route of the fence – as has Bush – Kerry has never opposed Israel's right to build the barrier for security reasons."

Kerry agrees that Israel can build a fence to protect itself, he just believes that the fence shouldn't encroach into Palenstinian territory. The Bush camp knows this, since they've clearly read the Jerusalem Post article. But what's more hypocritical is that this is exactly the position Bush held. From an article titled 'Sharon rejects Bush's concerns on security fence':

[Bush] said he would continue to talk with Mr. Sharon 'on how best to make sure that the fence sends the right signal, that not only is security important, but the ability for the Palestinians to live a normal life is important as well'.

So is Bush a flip-flopper too? Well, perhaps not on the issue of the security fence per se, but as edwardpig tells us, Bush has made a rather startling reversal concerning Israel recently.

Kerry's 1996 Senate Re-Election Campaign

2004-04-17T07:19:00.000-05:00

The 1996 Senatorial campaign in Massachusetts was remarkable in recent American politics, due to the unusually high degree of civility between the two candidates, John Kerry and then-governor Bill Weld. As the Alliance for Better Campaigns reports, the candidates came to an agreement, in writing, limiting their campaign spending. Specifically:

$6.9 million candidate spending cap. Campaign spending was limited to $6.9 million per candidate, retroactive to July 1, 1996. Of the $6.9 million, media spending was limited to $5 million, while candidate loans/donations from personal fortunes were limited to $500,000.
Limits on party spending. In addition to the $6.9 million, each party's national senate campaign committee could spend up to $600,000 on behalf of the candidates - the federal maximum - and soft money spending by each national party was capped at $2 million.
No outside spending. Spending on behalf of a candidate by unions, businesses, and advocacy groups would count toward that candidate's voluntary cap.

This agreement was effective through much of the campaign, and on at least one occasion a union which had planned an ad blitz on Kerry's behalf backed down upon Kerry's request. However, the race was extremely close, and the Alliance reports that 'both candidates exceeded the cap by the time the race was over'. This is the basis for the Bush campaign's claim that Kerry flip-flopped on 'using personal funds in 1996 race'.

For the record, if Kerry did violate the agreement, then it certainly doesn't reflect well on him, but it isn't really what most folks would consider a flip-flop. I always think a flip-flop involves a policy position, not agreements you make with your electoral opponent. Maybe it's just me.

The real question, however, is which candidate, Kerry or Weld, breached the agreement first. There seems to be general agreement that Kerry went the farthest over the line, backing a $1.7 million loan to his campaign by taking out a mortgage on his home, thus going over the personal spending limit by $1.2 million. But if Weld broke the agreement first, one can hardly fault Kerry for responding in kind.

Kerry maintains that Weld went over his advertising budget; not surprisingly, the Weld folks insist that what they did was perfectly within the bounds of their agreement. And try as I might, I've been unable to discover definitive evidence which proves Weld or Kerry correct beyond dispute. Whatever the truth is, it seems that Weld and Kerry both feel that their spending agreement can serve as a model for other campaigns, as they describe in an article they co-wrote in 1998.

Even Bill Weld's campaign manager acknowledges that 'The finer points of the agreement are too complex to prove clearly that Kerry went back on his word'. So the Bush campaign shouldn't be saying that Kerry is guilty of breaking with the agreement as if it's an established fact. Since they do, I should really score this item as a lie, but I'll hold myself to a higher ethical standard than the Bush campaign. Since I can't prove definitively that Kerry didn't break the agreement first, I'm scoring this item as neutral --- no points deducted from either Kerry or Bush.

Bush Campaign Lie #34: Kerry Voted Against Tax Credits For Small Businesses To Purchase Health Insurance

2004-04-15T22:42:00.000-05:00

We've seen this type of sleazy legislation-warping before. The basis for the Bush campaign claim is that Kerry voted against Senate Amendment #349 in the first session of the 107th Congress. The stated purpose of the amendment was:

"To provide tax credits for small business to purchase health insurance for their employees and to provide for the deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed and those who don't receive health insurance from their employers and for long-term care."

So it would seem that Bush has Kerry dead to rights here.

Until you read the actual text of the amendment, which has nothing to do with tax credits, health insurance, baby puppies, or anything else warm, fuzzy and wholesome. The complete text of the amendment follows:

"At the appropriate place, insert:

SEC. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the revenue levels and other aggregates in this resolution shall be adjusted to reflect an additional $70 billion in revenue reductions for the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2011."

I'm not entirely certain what Susan Collins, and otherwise respectable Republican senator from Maine, was trying to do when she introduced this amendment, but it's pretty clear she wasn't trying to draft legislation which carried out its stated purpose. The fact that this amendment narrowly failed on a party-line vote is further evidence that it was introduced solely to provide the GOP with ammunition to smear Democrats like Bush is doing, and not out of a sincere desire to assist small businesses in providing health care

Bush Campaign Lie #33: Kerry Voted For Higher Taxes On Social Security Benefits At Least Eight Times

2004-04-15T22:25:00.000-05:00

From the Bush Campaign web site. This statement is factually accurate: Kerry did cast eight separate votes in support of a 4.3% increase on the taxation of Social Security benefits. However, it's a lie because it's deliberately misleading. There was only one tax increase, and Kerry cast votes supporting it on eight different occasions.

The tax increase was passed as part of the FY 1994 budget bill. During the drafting of that bill, there were three separate votes about adding the tax increase to the bill or leaving it in. Then there were two votes for the budget bill itself: first for the Senate version of the bill, and then again for the final version after reconciliation with the House. So five of the votes were cast just to get the original legislation passed.

On three occasions since then, in 1996, 2000 and 2003, there were attempts to roll back the increase, and Kerry voted against all of them.

So, contrary to what the Republican headline implies, there were eight votes, but there was only one tax increase which was even considered. In case it makes a difference, this tax applies to 85% of Social Security income received by individuals making over $34,000 a year, or married couples making over $44,000. Before this legislation passed, only the first 50% of Social Security income was taxed.

And all income from this tax increase --- the amount obtained by raising the threshold from 50% to 85% --- goes to the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.

Bush Campaign Lie #32: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Military Experience As Credential For Public Office

2004-04-12T22:12:00.000-05:00

This is ridiculous. The requirements for every public office --- in particular, the presidency --- have been spelled out long ago and anyone with even a rudimentary understanding about how our government works understands what those requirements are. No candidate for public office is going to campaign on the idea that 'litmus tests' for office should be introduced, and certainly Kerry has never done that.

This is what we call 'Republicans desperate to smear their opponent any way they can' --- even if it means making stupid accusations.

For the record, here is the Republican argument, in its entirety:

Kerry: Service Should Not Be 'Litmus Test' For Leadership. 'Mr. President, you and I know that if support or opposition to the war were to become a litmus test for leadership, America would never have leaders or recover from the divisions created by that war. You and I know that if service or nonservice in the war is to become a test of qualification for high office, you would not have a Vice President, nor would you have a Secretary of Defense and our Nation would never recover from the divisions created by that war.' (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/08/92, p. S17709)
But Now Kerry Constantly 'Challenges The Stature Of His Democratic Opponents' Over Their Lack Of Military Service. 'And more than ever, Mr. Kerry is invoking his stature as a Vietnam veteran as he challenges the stature of his Democratic opponents -- none of whom, he frequently points out, have ‘worn the uniform of our country’ -- to withstand a debate with Mr. Bush on national security. (Adam Nagourney, “As Campaign Tightens, Kerry Sharpens Message,” The New York Times, 8/10/03)

First, note that in item (1), Kerry is discussing the requirements for holding a 'high office', like the presidency. In item (2), Kerry is claiming that he is the candidate best suited to 'withstand a debate' with Bush. So these two statements aren't even discussing the same thing.

In (1), Kerry is saying that it's possible to be president without having served in the military. In (2), Kerry is pointing out that since the country is at war (which Bush feels compelled to mention every five minutes), the voters might prefer a war hero as president.

Kerry is a war hero. The other Democrats vying for the nomination weren't, except for possibly Wes Clark. A political campaign is mostly about distinguishing yourself from your opponents, so of couse Kerry is going to point this out. But he never says that his opponents aren't qualified to be president because they aren't veterans.

Bush Campaign Lie #31: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Medical Marijuana

2004-04-12T21:55:00.000-05:00

The GOP's whole justification for this claim arises from a single article which appeared in the Washington Times on August 8, 2003. Setting aside for a moment the fact that the Washington Times is widely acknowledged to be a de facto organ of the Republican party, the article begins with 'Medical marijuana fans are accusing presidential contender Sen. John Kerry of flip-flopping on the issue to the point where he now essentially embraces the Bush administration's position'. The article quotes a grand total of one 'medical marijuana fan' who seems to agree with this statement, Aaron Houston of Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana.

Mr. Houston is entitled to his opinion, of course, but he clearly does not speak for his organization as a whole, which gives John Kerry an overall A- rating for supporting their cause. Hardly the rating you would expect a flip-flopper to receive.

Kerry's Reversal On Stock Options Expensing

2004-04-11T15:45:00.000-05:00

This is the 23rd item in the GOP list of Kerry flip-flops. And it's true: Kerry's position in 1994 is the exact opposite of his position in 2003.

In 1994, the Financial Accounting Standards Board had put forth a suggestion that the SEC require all companies to amortize the cost of stock options. Kerry made a speech on the floor of the Senate in which he said:

"There is no more compelling testimony to the damage the FASB rule will do to these companies than the testimony of the venture capital community. After all, apart from company founders it is the venture capitalists who provide all or most of the ownership capital for emerging companies, so it is the venture capitalists who are giving away part of the store when they grant stock options. The venture capitalists tell me that the FASB rule will simply make stock options more expensive, which means they will be granted less often, which will make recruitment of talent more difficult, and which will make the cost of starting a company rise.

Now, this might be acceptable if some greater public purpose were served by the FASB rule, such as the provision of a clear benefit to the investing public. But as I noted previously, it is difficult to find such a benefit in the current FASB proposal." (emphasis mine)

The GOP then cite a 2003 Washington Post article which quotes Kerry as saying that 'all publicly traded companies should be required to expense [stock] options'.

The GOP is right; Kerry really did change his view on this subject. In 1994, Kerry didn't see a 'clear benefit to the investing public' in expensing stock options, and today he does. It's reasonable to conclude that Kerry legitimately changed his mind in the wake of the recent corporate scandals --- along with a great many other people.

What the Republicans don't want you to know is that Kerry's 1994 floor speech was made in support of Senate Amendment 1668, 'To express the sense of the Senate that the Financial Accounting Standards Board should maintain the current accounting treatment of employee stock options and employee stock purchase plans' --- that is, that stock options should not be expensed. This amendment eventually passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 88 to 9, with every single Republican senator voting for it.

So you decide. Did Kerry change his mind because he thought it would buy him more votes --- in which case, the same question must be asked of many Republican senators as well --- or because recent events made him realize that expensing stock options was a necessary reform? It's clear to me that the latter explanation is the correct one, so this reversal should not be held against Kerry as a 'flip-flop'.

Bush Campaign Lie #30: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Welfare Reform

2004-04-11T15:14:00.000-05:00

The GOP claim this is Kerry flip-flop number 22, and for supporting evidence, they point to two of Kerry's votes in the Senate. Need we say more?

In case we do, here are the specifics. In the first session of the 103rd Congress, Kerry voted to table Senate Amendment 489. This amendment was narrowly targeted toward compelling states to require a certain percentage of welfare recipients to work, increasing the percentage year over year, until the total percentage of working recipients was at or above 50%. Any state failing to meet the threshold in a given year would lose half of their funding for their Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) programs. Kerry opposed this amendment, but he was in the minority, and it passed.

In the second session of the 104th Congress, Kerry voted in favor of H.R. 3734, commonly referred to as the 'Welfare Reform Bill'. But it's not fair to compare the Welfare Reform Bill to S. Amdt 489 for at least two reasons. First, S. Amdt 489 was very narrow in scope, while the Welfare Reform Bill was quite far-reaching. Second and most important, the Welfare Reform Bill handled AFDC funding very differently than S. Amdt 489.

S. Amdt 489 established a level of workfare participation for each state, and any state which failed to meet that threshold in a given year would lose 50% of their federal AFDC funding. This system had the potential to negatively impact the able-bodied folks who chose not to work as well as the deserving poor. On the other hand, the Welfare Reform Bill set a fixed level of AFDC funding for each state which would rise gradually each year, regardless of the workfare participation of welfare recipients. Individuals who were able to work and chose not to would lose their benefits, rather than cutting funding for the entire state. This is a huge difference.

So while the GOP is reporting the facts accurately, this still doesn't add up to a flip-flop, since the bill Kerry voted for is very different from the one he opposed.

Bush Campaign Lie #29: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Health Coverage

2004-04-10T22:21:00.000-05:00

See 'Kerry flip-flops' item 21.

Here are the details:

'[Kerry] said Kennedy and Clinton’s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party’s problems at the polls.' (Joe Battenfeld, “Jenny Craig Hit With Sex Harassment Complaint - By Men,” Boston Herald, 11/30/94)
'Sen. John Kerry says expanding coverage is "my passion."'(Susan Page, “Health Specifics Could Backfire On Candidates,” USA Today, 6/2/03)

There are many things wrong with using these quotes to conclude that Kerry flip-flopped. First and foremost, in statement (1), he's giving his opinion about running on health care as a campaign strategy, in (2) he's stating a personal belief about the importance of expanding coverage. For another, the 1994 Congressional campaign is not the 2004 Presidential campaign. Quickly now, is this a fair statement: "Al Gore received more votes than George Bush in 2000 because Bush spent too much time emphasizing tax cuts and not terrorism." In different election years, different issues are a priority.

And finally, one should note that Kerry disagreed with Clinton's health care plan, and not the issue of affordable health care per se. In an interview on Meet the Press, Tim Russert confronts Kerry with quote (1), which draws this response:

"On health care, I did not sign on to President Clinton's plan. I had a different approach. I thought we should have done something less complicated. We had a compromise which Bill Bradley, Senator Chafee, Senator Dole, a group were working on."

Research confirms that this isn't just spin; in 1994 Kerry really did specifically express doubts about Clinton's plan in a speech on the floor of the Senate (it's not possible to link directly to entries in the Congressional Record, otherwise I would). If he didn't think the plan was that great, it's no wonder he thought that it caused Democrats problems at the polls.

Bush Campaign Lie #28: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Federal Health Benefits

2004-04-10T21:29:00.000-05:00

This is alleged Kerry flip-flop number 19. And I want to thank the GOP for making it so easy to debunk.

The evidence for the accusation this time comes from four Kerry quotes, two from 1993 which are critical of the health care plan then covering Kerry, and two from 2003 where Kerry touts his plan to give all Americans the same kind of health care coverage he (and all other elected representatives) receives.

Question: Is it possible that there were any changes in Kerry's health care plan during that 10 year period, which would have caused him to change his opinion about how great it is? Answer: Yes. According to one of the GOP's quotes, Kerry was covered by the "Beneficial Association of Capitol Employees", or BACE in 1993. Since that provider dropped out of the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Program in 1999, it's absolutely certain Kerry is covered under a different plan now.

Bush Campaign Lie #27: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Tax Credits For Small Business Health

2004-04-09T16:54:00.000-05:00

Once again the GOP use a straw-man Senate vote as proof of a Kerry flip-flop. The GOP cite Kerry's 'Nay' vote on Senate Amendment 349 in the first session of the 107th Congress as proof that Kerry opposed tax credits for small business health plans. But as with Phil Gramm's amendment purportedly giving tax relief to farms and small businesses, this amendment really had nothing to do with tax credits.

See lie 34 for details.

Bush Campaign Lie #26: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Leaving Abortion Up To States

2004-04-09T16:18:00.000-05:00

How absurd is this? Can you believe the GOP is trying to make an issue on 'evidence' this weak? This is number 17 on their 'Kerry flip-flops' hit parade.

Kerry Used To Say Abortion Should Be Left Up To States. 'I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide,' Kerry said during his failed 1972 Congressional bid. (“John Kerry On The Issues,” The [Lowell, MA] Sun, 10/11/72)
Now Kerry Says Abortion Is Law Of Entire Nation. 'The right to choose is the law of the United States. No person has the right to infringe on that freedom. Those of us who are in government have a special responsibility to see to it that the United States continues to protect this right, as it must protect all rights secured by the constitution.' (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 1/22/85)

Never mind that there's more than a 12-year gap between those statements, and never mind that Republicans are trying to make an issue out of statements Kerry made 31 and 19 years ago, respectively. Let's just take one moment to rack our brains and see if we can come up with any major change in the U.S. political landscape pertaining to abortion law between October 1972 and January 1985.

Can't think of anything? How about the fact that the Supreme Court declared abortion to be a constitutional right on January 22, 1973? Oh yeah. So when Kerry said, in 1985, that 'the right to choose is the law of the United States' and that the government has a responsibility to 'protect all rights secured by the constitution', he probably said it because the right to choose is the law of the United States and the government has a responsibility to protect all rights secured by the constitution. And probably the reason he didn't say that in 1972 is because the right to choose wasn't yet the law of the United States. But that's just a guess.

See, unlike Bush, Kerry seems to be able to perceive, accept, and even communicate factual information. This is why, when the facts change, the things Kerry says will change, too. This is a strength, not a weakness. The weak politician is the one who hides from inconvenient facts and hopes they'll go away.

Bush Campaign Lie #25: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Small Business Income Taxes

2004-04-08T23:15:00.000-05:00

This is the 15th example of the Bush campaign trying to prove that Kerry flip-flops. Of course, what proof there is here is predicated entirely on Kerry's Senate voting record, and we all know how easy it is to cherry-pick votes to give a distorted view about what a senator believes.

In this particular case, the Republicans only have one shred of evidence to prove that Kerry ever opposed tax relief for small businesses, his vote on Senate amendment 246 in the first session of the 103rd Congress. This amendment appears to have been written explicitly to provide fodder for smears such as this one. Get a load of the stated purpose of the amendment:

"TO SHIELD SMALL BUSINESSES AND FAMILY FARMS FROM PRESIDENT CLINTON'S PROPOSED TAX ON THE WEALTHY. UNDER THE AMENDMENT , PROPRIETORSHIPS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND SUBCHAPTER S CORPORATIONS WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM PRESIDENT CLINTON'S PROPOSED INCREASE IN THE MARGINAL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATES . . . ."

Actually, that's just an excerpt, but you get the idea. The thing is, nowhere in the amendment is there specific language pertaining to small businesses or farms. The amendment actually contains 54 lines stipulating spending reductions in the concurrent budget resolution for the years 1994-1998, and nothing else. The amendment was brought to the floor, a motion was immediately made to table it, and it was tabled on a party-line vote without further discussion.

It's obvious that no one took this amendment seriously; it was just a cynical attempt by a cynical Republican (Phil Gramm) to force Democrats, then in control of a Senate, to vote against a bill which ostensibly offered tax relief to farms and small businesses, but in reality would have just trimmed government spending a bit. And only a cynical, lying campaign would act as if this was a serious attempt at tax relief, and use it against their opponent now.

On the other hand, when a serious effort at small-business tax relief came along (like S. Amendment 525 in the same session), Kerry supported it.

Bush Campaign Lie #24: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn

2004-04-08T22:27:00.000-05:00

This is the 14th item which Republicans claim is a 'Kerry Flip-Flop'. It's also somewhat amusing, because they give a quote from December 2002 as proof that Kerry had switched position and now favors raising taxes 'During Economic Downturn'.

What economic downturn? It's true that the country is still suffering from a net loss of 2 million plus jobs since Bush took office, and the recovery is sluggish, but the recession ended in November 2001. And I seriously doubt there was a Republican in the White House who would have publicly expressed doubt in the economy's strength in December 2002. So even if Kerry really did change his mind at that point or later, this doesn't amount to a flip-flop.

Of course it doesn't matter anyway, because none of the 'evidence' the Republicans provide indicate that Kerry wanted to raise taxes. Here are the quotes:

NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: 'Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?'
KERRY: 'Well, I wouldn’t take away from people who’ve already been given their tax cut … What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts.'
RUSSERT: 'So the tax cut that’s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years …'
KERRY: 'No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn’t make economic sense.'
RUSSERT: 'Now, this is a change …'
"Kerry said Bush’s tax cuts have mainly benefited the rich while doing little for the economy. Kerry is proposing to halt Bush’s additional tax cuts and instead impose a yearlong suspension of payroll taxes on the first $10,000 of income to help the poor and middle class".

While the Republicans are constantly trying to sell the Orwellian logic that keeping tax rates constant is actually a tax increase, normal people understand that a tax increase is when taxes, well, increase. Nowhere in the massively elided exchange with Russert do you see any evidence of Kerry planning to raise taxes. Anyone who's still having difficulty understanding this concept should refer to Bob Somerby's incomparable dissection of this interview.

And of course, anyone who actually read the full text of the interview would discover Kerry's plan to provide a refundable credit for payroll taxes, presumably the same plan referenced in item (2).

So, to review. The Republicans give two Kerry statements from December 2002 --- when the economy was no longer in recession --- which prove irrefutably that Kerry wanted to maintain existing income tax provisions while providing payroll tax relief. What do you call people who give these statements as proof that Kerry wanted to 'raise taxes during an economic downturn'? ~~Republicans!~~LIARS!

Bush Campaign Lie #23: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Double Taxation Of Dividends

2004-04-08T21:48:00.000-05:00

Here's an example of how a little selective editing can yield what looks like a flip-flop. The Bush folks provide two Kerry quotes which, devoid of any other context, appear to be in stark contradiction to one another:

"[T]o encourage investments in the jobs of the future - I think we should eliminate the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it's held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should attempt to end the double taxation of dividends."
Kerry also reiterated his opposition to the Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends. "This is not the time for a dividends tax cut that goes to individuals," he said.

The thing is, item (2) is a bit misleading. Kerry did oppose a Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends, but the plan did much more than that. The plan in question was introduced in the first session of the 108th Congress as S. 1054, and it contained hundreds of changes to the tax code. It's likely that Kerry supported some and opposed others. Why the Associated Press focused on taxation of dividends is a bit puzzling.

If one reads the AP story in its entirety, one notices the following caveat given by Kerry's campaign spokesman, which the Republicans conveniently ignore: "He [Kerry] would like to see the double-taxation of dividends addressed as part of a larger tax reform that closed loopholes rather than, as George Bush proposes, in a way that would blow an even larger hole in the deficit." And in both the AP article and a less spin-driven article in the Des Moines Register, Kerry emphasizes that given the state of the economy and Bush's tax cut plans at the time, a cut in taxes on dividends was not appropriate.

Sure, it sounds like spin, I know. The thing is, if you read the entire speech from which item (1) is excerpted, you see that Kerry means what he says. He voiced his support for the elimination of taxes on dividends as part of an extensive tax-reform package, which includes things such as decreasing the payroll tax and raising the minimum wage, which will certainly never happen with a Republican in the White House.

What this all boils down to is, Kerry believes in tax fairness. Since Bush has already given disproportionate tax relief to the wealthy, Kerry sees no need to give them additional relief from taxation on dividends. But once tax reform is based on fairness, then Kerry is all for ending the dividend tax.

Bush Campaign Lie #22: The Bush Plan Will 'Double the Number of Workers Receiving Job Training'

2004-04-05T22:11:00.000-05:00

I noticed that I've fallen into a rut of debunking Bush lies about Kerry, specifically Kerry's alleged 'flip-flops'. So I was determined to find a lie about Bush's own plan. I have to admit, it wasn't easy. The Republicans are very cagey about phrasing their propaganda in a way which allows the greatest latitude for interpretation. However, we've got one here.

At the GOP website, there is a page titled "Better Training for Better Jobs". In typical Republican style, it contains a number of headings and subheadings, each followed by a collection of numbers and rhetoric which may or may not support the thesis of the heading. But at one point, in bold typeface and underlined, it says "President Bush proposed significant reforms to Federal worker training programs to double the number of workers receiving job training. . . .". The supporting prose claims he will accomplish this, in part, by training 200,000 people through programs run by 'community colleges, unions, and businesses.'

This is news to the AFL-CIO, the single largest organization in America representing unionized labor. Here's what they think of the Bush plan:

"Since taking office, the president has cut job training by almost $1 billion in real dollars. And under the proposed fiscal year (FY) 2005 budget, net funding for job training will fall in real terms from its FY 2004 level.

In addition to limiting resources, the Bush budget continues to propose drastic changes to job training and re-employment programs that will greatly diminish the federal role in this area of key national importance, reduce accountability and increase outsourcing of public employment service programs.

The cumulative effect of the Bush proposals is to dilute the resources and efficacy of job training and job search assistance programs."

I know that many folks will object to this quote, insisting that the AFL-CIO routinely backs Democrats, and they're right. However, if Bush really plans to use union programs to help double the number of workers receiving job training, don't you think he would have gotten the unions on board with the plan before announcing it publicly?

The community colleges are equally skeptical. From the Chronicle of Higher Education:

"At the same time that President Bush requested $250-million for a new job-training program, he proposed slashing funds for existing programs that benefit community colleges, including $300-million from the Carl D. Perkins program, which gives money to community colleges for training low-income students for jobs, and $64-million from the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), which funds training for displaced workers.

Along with cuts in other job-training programs, community colleges are likely to see a net loss in the federal funds they get for training workers. 'Essentially, the president is robbing Peter to pay Paul,' says Jason Walsh, director of field operations for the Workforce Alliance, a Washington-based advocacy group. 'It's a shell game. The money that goes into the new proposal gets shifted from other very necessary work-force-training programs.'"

Indeed, when pressed about cuts to the Workforce Investment Act, the Gannett News Service reports that "The Bush administration bills the cuts as minor and emphasizes that overall spending on job training is roughly flat" (emphasis mine).

So Bush is going to double the number of workers receiving job training while leaving overall spending on job training 'roughly flat' --- or, as the AFL-CIO points out, decreasing spending in real terms. Smells like a lie to me.

Bush Campaign Lie #21: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Cuba Sanctions

2004-04-04T23:06:00.000-05:00

Here's number 11 on the GOP 'Kerry Flip-Flop' hit parade. The GOP argument goes like this:

They pick out four of Kerry's Senate votes which, they say, are votes 'against stronger Cuba sanctions'.
They give a 2000 Kerry quote in which he says 'The only reason we don't reevaluate the [Cuba] policy is the politics of Florida.'
They then cite a 2003 Meet the Press interview. When Russert asks 'Would you consider lifting sanctions, lifting the embargo against Cuba?', Kerry responds 'Not unilaterally, not now, no.'
Finally, they cite a Miami Herald article from November 2003 in which Kerry talks about 'opening up the dialogue' with Cuba, which 'means travel and perhaps even remittances or cultural exchanges', but does not support 'opening up the embargo wily nilly' [sic].

I think we're supposed to conclude that Kerry is anti-embargo in (1) and (2), and pro-embargo in (3) and (4), thus a flip-flop. But even the GOP version of the facts doesn't really say this.

Starting with item (1). Of the four Senate votes the GOP list, only one of them concerns legislation which would strengthen the embargo on Cuba, and Kerry did in fact oppose it. The other three were on legislation which would: make it easier for family members to send money to Cuba or travel to Cuba for family emergencies, and to give humanitarian aid, which would lift all travel restrictions to Cuba, and which would establish a national bipartisan commission to evaluate U.S. policy. Kerry supported all of these. So the votes in item (1) really show three things: Kerry opposes strengthening the embargo, he supports travel to Cuba, and he thinks U.S. policy toward Cuba should be 'evaluated'.

Item (2) suggests that Kerry believes U.S. policy toward Cuba should be 'reevaluated', but that Florida politics prevent it. So here we're still consistent with item (1).

Item (3) starts to look like a flip, but of couse the Republicans have cherry-picked a quote from the interview. Kerry also said 'I'd like to get people traveling in there. I think that people traveling in there weakens Castro.' Asked about other ways in which he wanted to re-evalute Cuba policy, he answered 'Possibly flow of money, funding, I -- there are things to look at. I think we just have to reevaluate it.' So what Kerry's really saying here is that he supports travel to Cuba, and he thinks U.S. policy toward Cuba should be 'reevaluate'd. Hmmm.

Finally, in item (4), you see how Kerry's policy toward Cuba has made a 180 degree turnaround. He now supports 'travel' and possibly cultural exchanges, but he wouldn't open up the embargo 'wily nilly.

So in just nine years, Kerry shifted from a position which favored travel to Cuba, allowing Cuban nationals to travel to Cuba and send money home, and a commission to 'evalute' U.S. policy on Cuba, to a position in which he favored travel to Cuba and opposed lifting the embargo 'wily nilly.' The flip-flop is as clear as day, isn't it?

Bush Campaign Lie #20: Kerry Flip-Flopped on Ethanol

2004-04-03T23:26:00.000-06:00

The GOP claims this is 'Kerry Flip-Flop' number 10. I can't say I blame them too much in this instance; it took a fair amount of research to discover what was going on behind the scenes. But all of the GOP evidence that Kerry was ever opposed to ethanol is based on his Senate voting record, and we've already discussed how easy it is to distort a voting record.

The Bush campaign cites five Senate votes as evidence Kerry opposed ethanol. They can be grouped into three categories:

Kerry supported an amendment which denied funds to 'promulgate, implement, or enforce any requirement that a specified percentage of oxygen content of reformulated gasoline . . . come from renewable oxygenates'. It also reduced NASA's procurement budget by $39,300,000.
He opposed two amendments which either suggested or enforced the idea that ethanol/biodiesel fuels would be exempt from the Clinton administration's BTU tax.
He supported two amendments which both stated that renewable fuel 'shall be subject to liability standards no less protective of human health, welfare and the environment than any other motor vehicle fuel or fuel additive'.

Taken together, these votes seem to provide pretty persuasive evidence that Kerry hasn't done much to promote ethanol fuel. And he certainly is campaigning as an ethanol supporter now. So, why isn't this a flip-flop?

Let's take the Bush campaign points one at a time. For item (1), it turns out the amendment in question only prohibits foreign refineries to set their own rules about minimum renewable resource content in gasoline. Kerry specifically asked for this clarification on the floor of the Senate:

"Mr KERRY: It is my understanding that this proposal does not apply to any other proposal presented by U.S. independent importers and blenders, and being considered by EPA, to eliminate inequities in the final EPA reformulated gasoline rule issued last December. Is this correct?

Ms. MIKULSKI: That is correct. The committee's prohibition is limited to EPA's proposal to permit foreign refineries to establish individual baselines for reformulated gasoline . Thus, the provision does not prevent the EPA from making modifications to the reformulated gasoline program that will permit domestic independent importers and blenders to participate in the gasoline market on an equal basis with domestic refiners."

More important, this amendment trimmed funding for NASA, and Kerry thought NASA was spending irresponsibly on the space station. This is probably why he supported the amendment.

Items (2) and (3) both boil down to priorities. In each case, Kerry had to determine the primacy of ethanol versus some other issue. In item (2), it was ethanol versus Clinton's BTU tax. For item (3), it was ethanol versus public safety. So the correct conclusion isn't that Kerry necessarily opposed ethanol use, only that he valued the BTU tax over ethanol production, and that he values public safety over ethanol production.

Skeptical Republicans should note that Bush has made similar value judgements. This article doesn't prove that Bush was against women's rights and indifferent to al-Qaeda in May 2001; it only shows that he was more interested in the war on drugs than in women's rights or defeating al-Qaeda. Similarly, this article only proves that having Uzbekistan in the 'coalition of the willing' is more important to Bush than human rights in Uzbekistan.

The GOP merely found some instances where Kerry had to weigh his support for ethanol against something else, and ethanol lost. That's not the same as opposing ethanol use.

Bush Campaign Lie #19: Kerry Flip-Flopped on Affirmative Action

2004-04-01T23:00:00.000-06:00

The ninth of the alleged 'Kerry Flip-Flops', this lie teaches a very important lesson: Beware the ellipsis.

Kerry currently insists that he has a long, distinguished civil rights record, and in particular, he denies having ever opposed affirmative action. The Bush folks claim that Kerry once condemned affirmative action as 'inherently limited and divisive', and offer the following quote, from a 1992 speech Kerry gave, as proof:

"[W]hile praising affirmative action as ‘one kind of progress’ that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ‘inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but … toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.’ That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ‘perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.’"

Beware the ellipsis.

Unfortunately, I've been unable to find the complete text of this speech, so I don't know what's been elided. I doubt a complete transcript exists, since it appears that this was a speech he gave at Yale, rather than on the floor of the Senate or something. However, Kerry claims that the statement about a 'limited and divisive program' was in reference to a study by the People for the American Way. I tracked down the study ('Democracy's Next Generation II: A Study of American Youth on Race'), but it's not available online (contact PFAW for purchasing info). So it's hard to draw a firm conclusion about whether Kerry was really just discussing the PFAW study, or whether the Bush folks are right and Kerry really did flip-flop.

Or at least that's what I thought until I found this report by FAIR back in 1992, which dissects press coverage of Kerry's Yale speech and concludes

'In the case of Sen. Kerry's comments on affirmative action, however, the spin of some coverage approaches distortion. . . . He also said, "I want to be clear here. I do support affirmative action, not rhetorically but really." The "negative side" of the policy was, for Kerry, the "perception" it engendered in many whites: He cited a poll by People for the American Way that indicated white people believe they are more discriminated against than minorities. Congress, Kerry said, has an obligation "to correct whatever false data or preconceptions have fed the belief that is evidenced in this poll."

Affirmative action, Kerry said, has "made our country a better, fairer place to live," but public misunderstanding of the policy --which Kerry acknowledged has been "exaggerated and exploited by politicians eager to use it" --has created an "obstacle" to interracial communication.'

There you go. Kerry was really criticizing the 'exaggerated and exploited' public misunderstanding of affirmative action which caused some whites to believe that they are more discriminated against than minorities, a belief which in turn engenders racism. FAIR cites a number of publications (though not the same Washington Post article the Bush camp does) as misconstruing Kerry's message as an attack on affirmative action.

If the media can't be bothered to report the facts accurately, why should we expect the Bush folks to correct them?

Bush Campaign Lie #18: Kerry Flip-Flopped on No Child Left Behind

2004-04-01T16:46:00.000-06:00

This is item #8 in the 'Kerry Flip-Flops' collection, and it is a great example of the Bush campaign lying and being hypocrites in just one eight-word statement. Actually, it was Bush who turned his back on No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and now the Republicans are trashing Kerry for calling him on it.

Consider the evidence supplied by the Bush camp:

Kerry voted For No Child Left Behind Act
Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an 'unfunded mandate' with 'laudable' goals. 'Without the resources, education reform is a sham,' Kerry said. 'I can't wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words "no child left behind."'

Anyone who concludes from statement (2) that Kerry is criticizing NCLB and not George Bush has spent too much time watching FOX News and reading Ann Coulter.

Kerry has every reason to accuse Bush of making a mockery of NCLB. In every fiscal year since it became law, Bush's budget has fallen $6-7 billion short of the funding obligations set forth in the bill. See lie #53. Kerry has always supported NCLB, and as a consequence, he's attacking Bush for failing to adequately fund his own centerpiece legislation.

Got that, Republicans? Bush is the one flip-flopping here, not Kerry.

---

Update: The Republicans are levelling more attacks against Kerry because of his NCLB vote and current proposals. Apart from quoting statements made Howard Dean and Wesley Clark that Kerry flip-flopped (and what could be more convincing than to quote other people who were also campaigning against Kerry), they cite an editorial from the Manchester Union Leader opining that Kerry is only accusing Bush of underfunding NCLB in order to cover his flip-flop.

That's a possibility, except that Kerry emphasized the need to fully fund NCLB in his floor speech on the very day he voted for it:

The No Child Left Behind Act contains significant, meaningful reforms, but these reforms cannot succeed without sufficient resources. We expect about a 20 percent increase in education funding this year, which is a tremendous step forward. But we need to continue to make resources a priority--we need to fully fund IDEA--we must not thrust new requirements on schools without providing them with sufficient resources to implement reforms. . . . It is my sincere hope that Congress and the States will continue to recognize that reform and resources go hand-in-hand. Resources without accountability is a waste of money, and accountability without resources is a waste of time. The two together are key to successful reform.

It would seem that the real reason Kerry is attacking Bush for underfunding NCLB is because Kerry believed in 2001 --- and still believes today --- that fully funding NCLB is critical for the program's success.

But the major charge the Republicans make in their new ad is that Kerry wants to introduce other measures of accountability, and not rely solely on testing to determine which schools are successful. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that changing the method of accountability isn't the same as abandoning accountability altogether, we must try to determine if this represents a shift in Kerry's views. As you've probably guessed by now, it doesn't, and for the proof we return to --- you guessed it --- Kerry's floor speech:

I also have concerns about the mandatory testing provisions contained in the bill. This legislation requires the testing of all students in math and reading in grades 3-8. I am not opposed to testing, in fact, I think that tests are important so that we know year to year how well students are achieving. It is critically important to be able to identify where gaps exists so that efforts can be focused on closing them. When used correctly, good tests provide information that helps teachers understand the academic strengths and weaknesses of students and tailor instruction to respond to the needs of students with targeted teaching and appropriate materials. My concern is that once we know where the gaps exist, once we know how a child needs to be helped, we will not provide the resources necessary to ensure that all students are able to reach proficiency.

In 2001, Kerry wanted to use tests as tool to determine how to improve education, and not as the final measure of accountability. That sounds remarkably similar to a recent Kerry statement which the Republicans criticize: 'Tests should be used to diagnose problems so we can fix them. They should not be used to punish our schools, our teachers, or our students.'

The Republican argument can best be summed up as: 'Kerry voted for NCLB, but now he's proposing other plans for education. That's a flip-flop.' The thing is, Kerry didn't write NCLB, so it's wrong to assume that he agreed completely with every item in it when he voted for it. However, should he become president, he will have the opportunity to present his own plan for education to America, and it should come as no surprise that it differs from NCLB in a few ways.

One last point. The GOP also claim that Kerry is 'playing politics with education' because in 1999 and 2000, his votes consistently supported the positions of the teachers' unions. And while I can't prove definitively that he's not trying to curry favor with them, it's worth noting that teachers probably know a thing or two about what makes good education policy, and so you would kind of expect a candidate who's concerned about education to support the same policies that teachers do.

Bush Campaign Lie #17: John Kerry Wants to Impose a 50-Cent Per Gallon Gas Tax

2004-03-31T22:18:00.000-06:00

This is a beautiful, beautiful lie, because the Bush campaign frames it so well. They have recently released two TV ads which state that Kerry "supported a 50-cent a gallon gas tax". And they link to no fewer than 10 speeches by surrogates blasting Kerry for his "support of a 50-cent per gallon gas tax".

Gee. The way the Republicans are blathering on and on about Kerry's 50-cent per gallon gas tax, you'd think he was actually running on a gas-tax platform, or at least supported the idea. But no, there's no such tax mentioned in his platform, and no, Kerry doesn't support a 50-cent a gallon gas tax. What the Republicans have are a couple of Kerry's statements from March of 1994 supporting such a tax. That's it. And they know very well that Kerry no longer supports such a tax. How do we know they know? Because they list this issue as one of Kerry's flip-flops, along with a statement from 1996 stating that 'Kerry no longer supports the 50-cent [gas tax] hike'.

So, this is a particularly egregious example of bald-faced Bush campaign lying. FactCheck delves into the issue in greater detail, pointing out not only the lie, but some inevitable hypocrisy as well.

Bush Campaign Lie #16: Kerry Flip-Flopped on Gay Marriage Amendment

2004-03-31T21:53:00.000-06:00

This is item #5 in the 'Kerry Flip-Flops' gallery. Let's just look at the Bush argument without any of their supporting evidence:

In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter “Urging” MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage.
Now, In 2004, Kerry Won’t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment.

Man, does Bush have the goods on Kerry here or what?!? In 2002, Kerry opposed A, but now he might support something that's not A. Persuasive.

Anyone who reads the letter referenced in item (1) will immediately discover that the 'Constitutional Amendment' to which the GOP are referring would have done much more than simply ban same-sex marriage. Kerry --- and the entire Massachusettes congressional delegation --- were concerned that the amendment would prohibit any legal recognition of same-sex relationships. While Kerry opposes same-sex marriage in particular, he believes that "same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need". So it's no wonder he opposed the amendment cited in item (1).

And when one reviews the broader context of the quote cited in (2), Kerry proves to be a model of consistency. He doesn't rule out the possibility of supporting a ban on same-sex marriage, but he explicitly states that he is 'for civil union' and partnership rights, and so he would not support an amendment which prohibited those things.

Any reasonable person reading these two articles would see immediately what Kerry's position is, and how it remains consistent. The Republicans fail to see that, so that would make them . . . ?

Spinning His Constituents: Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War

2004-03-29T22:04:00.000-06:00

This is item #4 in the 'Kerry Flip-Flops' showcase. And it is a lie: Kerry very clearly opposed the first Gulf War. However, in this case, the misleading statements come not from the Bush campaign, but from Kerry himself.

In early 1991, Kerry's office apparently sent two letters to the same constituent. From The New Republic, here are relevant excerpts of each:

"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."

"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."

A casual reader might conclude that these two letters, dated nine days apart, exhibit a true flip-flop on the first Gulf War. Read them more closely. In the first letter, Kerry states that he wanted to give sanctions more time to work, and that he voted against giving Pappa Bush immediate authority to go to war. All perfectly true. The second letter doesn't contradict either of these facts. Instead, he says that he supports the goals of the invasion rather than the invasion itself, and that he supported Bush's response to the crisis 'from the outset of the invasion'. The day before the war started, Kerry pledged that he would back the president 'the moment [the war] begins', and this letter simply confirms his statement. See lie 46.

So, when he thought a constituent was anti-war, he emphasized his opposition to the war. And when he thought a constituent supported the war, he discussed how he supported the President when troops were on the ground, and the goals the invasion was meant to achieve. A flip-flop? No. But disingenuous? Yes. So much so that a reasonable person might truly believe that Kerry had flipped. So this one gets scored as a flip-flop for the Bush folks, and doesn't get counted as a lie against them, since it was Kerry, not Bush, doing the dissembling this time.

Matthew Yglesias points out that Kerry is not the only politician to try to be all things to all constituents.

Bush Campaign Lie #15: John Kerry is Proposing a Tax Holiday for 'Benedict Arnold' Corporations

2004-03-29T21:36:00.000-06:00

So lied Dick Cheney in a speech today at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Look for this lie to enter the 'Kerry Flip-Flops' showcase soon.

Here's what Cheney actually said:

"Now, just in time for the campaign, Senator Kerry is proposing what some are calling a tax reduction for businesses. Senator Kerry's proposal is inconsistent with even his own campaign positions. After attacking what he described as, quote, 'Benedict Arnold' companies on the campaign trail, Senator Kerry is now proposing to give them a tax holiday."

Kerry has used the term 'Benedict Arnold' corporation a number of times to refer to companies who set up shell operations in a tax haven --- usually a tiny island nation which charges little or no corporate income tax --- simply to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Or worse, they actually transfer significant numbers of jobs to offshore locations to get a two-fer: they avoid paying U.S. taxes, and they get a break on labor costs.

How do they avoid paying U.S. taxes? Current U.S. tax law allows companies earning income overseas to defer paying tax on that income until it is repatriated to the U.S. So by setting up overseas operations in a low- or no-tax country, a corporation can avoid paying almost all of its taxes. But if the shareholders of the company live in the U.S., then they are basically getting a free ride, and not paying their fair share of taxes: hence the term 'Benedict Arnold'.

The plan Dick Cheney is referring to would close this loophole:

John Kerry is proposing the most sweeping simplification of international taxes in over forty years: eliminating deferral so that companies pay taxes on their international income as they earn it rather than being allowed to defer taxes.

Kerry plans to use the extra income obtained from former 'Benedict Arnolds' --- an estimated $12 billion a year --- and use it to lower the overall corporate tax rate, from 35% to 33.25%. But if Kerry were to enact this legislation tomorrow, an estimated $639 billion in tax-deferred income already overseas would never come back into the country. Thus, as an incentive for companies to bring that money home, Kerry would provide a one-year window during which that money could be repatriated at a 10% tax rate. And this, no doubt, is the 'Tax Holiday' to which Cheney is referring. But it's a lie. Without the one-year window, that money would never be repatriated, meaning that the companies would pay zero tax on it. And moving forward, businesses who have played by the rules will get some tax relief, while the 'Benedict Arnolds' will see their taxes rise from something negligible to 33.25%. Some holiday.

A Word About Voting in the Senate

2004-03-28T22:55:00.000-06:00

John Kerry cast a lot of votes during 19 years in the Senate. I'm sure he's cast more than one vote he wishes he could take back. And his voting record gives the Bush camp a very long list of ammunition to use in the campaign, some of it legitimate, some achieved by distorting the truth.

One thing to keep in mind whenever you hear a Bush spokesman or a Bush campaign ad citing Kerry's voting record: in the U.S. Senate, you don't get to vote by line item. You only get to vote yea or nay on each amendment or bill or resolution as a whole. And only rarely will a bill come along such that you completely agree with every single provision, or completely disagree with every single provision.

In short, just because John Kerry voted 'yea' on a piece of legislation, it is wrong to conclude that he agrees wholeheartedly with every single provision of that legislation, or that he wholeheartedly disagrees with every provision in every bill on which he voted 'nay'. It just doesn't work that way. And this should be clear to anyone with more than a sixth-grade understanding of our government.

The Bush folks hope that you'll forget about that, as they tell you about tax hikes Kerry voted for, or weapons systems he voted against. Don't be taken in.

Bush Campaign Lie #14: Kerry Flip-Flopped on the Patriot Act

2004-03-27T11:06:00.000-06:00

The is the third lie in the 'Kerry's Flip-Flops' series. The Bush campaign evidence for this claim is that Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, but now wants to reform or replace it. Actually, everything the Bush camp says is true; the trouble is, it doesn't prove that Kerry changed his mind about the Patriot Act.

Kerry did vote for the Patriot Act (H.R. 3162 in the 107th Congress), indeed, he wrote part of it. And one little-mentioned part of the Patriot Act is the so-called 'sunset provision' (Title II, Section 224), which states that many of the provisions pertaining to surveillance of oral, wire and electronic communications, including voice mail and business records, would expire on December 31, 2005. What did Kerry think about the sunset provision? In a floor speech made on the same day he voted for the Patriot Act, he said:

"I am pleased at the compromise we have reached on the antiterrorism legislation, as a whole, which includes the sunset provision on the wiretapping and electronic surveillance component. It has been a source of considerable concern for people, and I think the sunset provision provides Congress a chance to come back and measure the record appropriately, and that is appropriate."

So, on the day he cast his vote for the Patriot Act, he specifically called out his 'concern' about the powers of surveillance granted in the act, and said it would be 'appropriate' for Congress to 'come back and measure the record.'

The Bush camp claims Kerry has flip-flopped because he gave a speech at Iowa State University on December 1, 2003, in which he decried John Ashcroft's abuses and said it was time to replace the Patriot Act with a new law that 'protects our people and our liberties at the same time'. Let's see what else he said in that speech:

"Much of what is in Patriot Act are good ideas. The Act increased penalties for terrorists, limited the statute of limitations for terrorist crimes, and allowed for greater prosecution of overseas acts against America. I fought to include important money laundering restrictions to clamp down on the cash flowing to terrorist enterprises. I had been pushing for these ideas since the late nineties – and after September 11th they were more important than ever.

I voted for the Patriot Act right after September 11th – convinced that – with a sunset clause – it was the right decision to make. It clearly wasn’t a perfect bill – and it had a number of flaws – but this wasn’t the time to haggle. It was the time to act.

(snip)

If I’m elected President, we will put an end to “sneak and peak” searches which permit law enforcement to conduct a secret search and seize evidence without notification. Agents can break into a home or business to take photos, seize property, copy computer files, or load a secret keystroke detector on a computer. These searches should be limited only to the most rare circumstances. And law enforcement should provide notice of the search within seven days, unless a court extends the period of notification.

We will eliminate the potential of fishing expeditions into people’s library and business records. If the FBI wants to make these kinds of investigations, they will need a warrant issued by a judge and evidence that they are looking into an agent of a foreign power.

We will provide Americans with protections from wiretaps, prevent local police officers from spying on innocent people, and that ensures our courts guarantee appropriate national security protections."

So, the parts of the Patriot Act which John Kerry specifically holds out as flawed are the ones pertaining to government surveillance of computer communication and wiretapping, and seizure of business records --- the same provisions which Kerry said in October 2001 were appropriately covered by the sunset provision, and for which Congress should come back and measure the record.

It sounds like Kerry has already made his measurement, and found these provisions flawed. And aside from the fact that he doesn't want to wait until the end of 2005 to undo these flawed provisions, his stance toward the Patriot Act is perfectly consistent.

Bush Campaign Lie #13: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class

2004-03-25T23:33:00.000-06:00

This is the second lie in the 'Kerry's Flip-Flops' series. And let's stipulate the evidence the GOP gives that Kerry supports elimination of the marriage penalty. That's certainly what his campaign literature says. So what about the GOP claim that Kerry voted against eliminating the marriage penalty?

Congressional votes: they're so easy to distort into political attacks in a campaign. The GOP reference S. 1415 in the 105th Congress, and it looks like they say that since Kerry voted for it, that proves he wanted to keep the marriage penalty around. But Kerry never voted for or against S. 1415, since it never came to a final vote. And if one looks up this bill on Thomas, one finds the following description:

"A bill to reform and restructure the processes by which tobacco products are manufactured, marketed, and distributed, to prevent the use of tobacco products by minors, to redress the adverse health effects of tobacco use, and for other purposes."

Hmm. So what does this have to do with the marriage penalty? Well, nothing, of course, which is why we know the GOP is lying about this particular flip-flop. This was a major piece of legislation, and as is often the case, this bill attracted a lot of amendments which were irrelevant (I believe the procedural term is 'non-germane') to the bill itself. Various senators came up with 269 amendments for this particular bill, including S. AMDT 2436, introduced by the lovable Phil Gramm of Texas, which would --- get this --- define terms and conditions under which states could participate in the State Litigation Settlement Account (whatever that means) and eliminate the marriage penalty.

But this amendment was dropped in committee, and never made it to the floor for a vote. So instead, Gramm decided to add his amendment --- this time called S. AMDT 2686 --- to S. AMDT 2437 to S. 1415 instead. Got that? There was S. 1415, a big bill dealing with tobacco, there was S. AMDT 2437 --- which had to do with providing 'a substitute for provisions relating to reductions in underage tobacco usage' --- and then Gramm's amendment to S. AMDT 2437, which would eliminate the marriage penalty and make up the resulting loss in revenue by raiding the National Tobacco Trust Fund. Kerry voted to table Gramm's amendment.

Did he vote this way because he wanted to keep the marriage penalty? That's not likely. Perhaps he wanted to keep the National Tobacco Trust Fund intact, perhaps he didn't want to make S. AMDT 2437 more appealing for whatever reason, or maybe he just objected (like I do) to Gramm's repeated attempts to introduce completely irrelevant amendments into a major piece of tobacco legislation. Whatever the reason, it is misleading at best to point to this vote as evidence that Kerry flip-flopped on eliminating the marriage penalty.

Bush Campaign Lie #12: Kerry Flip-Flopped on Iraq War

2004-03-25T22:40:00.000-06:00

This is the first lie in the 'Kerry's Flip-Flops' series. The GOP gives four pieces of evidence to back up their claim:

Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq
In a Democrats' debate on May 4, 2003, Kerry said "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."
On September 3, 2003, Kerry said "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations."
On MSNBC's 'Hardball' program, on January 6, 2004, the following exchange took place. MATTHEWS: "Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?" KERRY: "I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely."

Republicans like to call H.J. Res 114 in the 107th Congress the bill authorizing the use of force in Iraq, and it did that --- subject to certain caveats. Primarily, the bill empowered the president to 'defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq' and 'enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq'. However, it placed equal emphasis on a diplomatic solution achieved through the UN, and required the president to confirm that all diplomatic means for resolving the dispute had been exhausted.

In short, the spirit of the bill was that Iraq should be disarmed, by diplomatic means in concert with the UN if at all possible, and by force if necessary as a last resort. That Kerry voted for this bill is true, and consistent with item (1). That this bill threatened Hussein with the use of force unless he complied with UN resolutions is also true, and consistent with item (3). In item (2), Kerry says that disarming Hussein is good, but he would have preferred that it had been done through diplomatic means (consistent with the bill again). He also says that he supported the President when he made the decision, but considering that he states his preference for a diplomatic solution in the same breath, he surely means that he supported the President in a rally-around-the-leader in a time of war sort of way, not that he agreed that Bush had exhausted all diplomatic remedies. Finally, in item (4), Kerry says Bush didn't 'take us to war as he should have'. Here he's not disagreeing with the war or its goal, but rather the manner in which Bush handled it. While it's fairly clear what Kerry means here, it's absolutely clear that the GOP understands what he means. See Lie #10.

Kerry was disagreeing with Bush's conduct of the war (not giving inspections time to work, destroying alliances at the UN rather than building them up, etc.), and not the war itself. To claim that this represents a reversal on Kerry's part is a lie.

Kerry's Flip-Flops

2004-03-25T22:04:00.000-06:00

The GOP and the Bush campaign have made a big deal over the fact that Kerry is supposedly a 'flip-flopper'. They claim to have documented no fewer than 35 issues on which Kerry reversed himself.

What's wrong with a flip-flop? Well, the implication is that Kerry isn't committed to a core set of beliefs, and will say and do anything to get elected. And it is generally true that voters are more likely to support a candidate with strongly held beliefs, even if they disagree with some of them, than a candidate who doesn't seem to believe in anything. So it matters if the Bush campaign is correct about many of these issues.

But is every reversal of opinion a flip-flop? Kerry has been a senator for more than 19 years, and has been a public figure for more than 30. Far from being concerned about 'flip-flops', we should be more concerned about someone who doesn't re-evaluate or alter his view over a 30-year span. As John Maynard Keynes said 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?' Would you vote for a candidate who still makes fighting communism the centerpiece of his foreign policy agenda?

In the analysis that follows, if the facts fail to show that Kerry reversed himself, then we must conclude that the GOP is wrong, and likely just throwing out dirt to see what will stick. These items will be highlighted in red and called out as lies. Items where Kerry genuinely reversed himself will be highlighted in blue, and some additional info will be given, either inline or via a link, so the reader can determine whether the reversal was purely political (a flip-flop), or in reaction to some fundamental change in the political landscape.

A final disclaimer: Just because an item appears in red here, that doesn't mean Kerry is innocent of flip-flopping on that issue; it just means that the Bush campaign can't back up its accusations. In 30+ years, there's no doubt Kerry has flip-flopped a few times. But it's worth noting that, as Kos and the Center for American Progress remind us, Bush has done his share of flipping as well.

Flip-flopped on Iraq War
Kerry Flip-Flopped On Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class
Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act
Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War
Flip-Flopped On Gay Marriage Amendment
Flip-Flopped On Attacking President During Time Of War
Flip-Flopped On Death Penalty For Terrorists. Even though 9/11 changed everything, Republicans want to hold it against Kerry that he changed his mind on this issue after the attacks, stating 'I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on our country'.
Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind
Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action
Flip-Flopped On Ethanol
Flip-Flopped On Cuba Sanctions
Flip-Flopped On NAFTA
Flip-Flopped On Double Taxation Of Dividends
Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn
Flip-Flopped On Small Business Income Taxes
Kerry Flip-Flopped On 50-Cent Gas Tax Increase
Flip-Flopped On Leaving Abortion Up To States
Flip-Flopped On Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees. This appears to be valid, but some additional verbage is required here. First, Republicans should be commending Kerry for speaking out against litmus tests for judicial appointees in 1986, when their beloved Ronnie was president. Taking such a stand, which ran contrary to the best interests of his party, was a highly principled action. And how have the Republicans responded? When Clinton was president and Republicans controlled the Senate, there were never fewer than 50 judicial vacancies, thanks to their obstructionism. Now that Bush is president, 168 of his 172 appointees have been seated, a higher percentage than even Reagan achieved in his first two years, with a Republican Congress. Yet that's still not enough for Bush, ramming through his most conservative nominees as recess appointments. After a decade of Republicans handling judicial nominations in the most partisan manner possible, do you really blame Kerry for responding in kind?
Flip-Flopped On Federal Health Benefits
Flip-Flopped On Tax Credits For Small Business Health
Flip-Flopped On Health Coverage
Flip-Flopped On Welfare Reform
Flip-Flops On Stock Options Expensing
Flip-Flopped On Medical Marijuana
Flip-Flopped On Burma Sanctions
Flip-Flopped On Military Experience As Credential For Public Office
Flip-Flopped On PACs
Flip-Flopped On $10,000 Donation Limit To His PAC Yeah, this isn't Kerry's finest hour. If it makes any difference to anyone, it seems pretty clear that the creation of the 'Citizen Soldier Fund' PAC was a reaction to the tremendous pressure to raise money in modern political campaigns, combined with the deadline for end of soft money imposed by McCain/Feingold. The PAC was started in December 2001 and collected $1.35 million, all of which was disbursed to various Democratic candidates (very little went to Kerry's campaign) by the time the PAC closed down sometime in 2002.
Flip-Flopped On Using Personal Funds In 1996 Race It's probably impossible to prove conclusively whether the Republicans are right or wrong about this one. Follow the link for details.
Flip-Flopped On Israel Security Fence
Flip-Flop-Flipped On Ballistic Missile Defense
Flip-Flopped On 1991 Iraq War Coalition
Flip-Flopped On View Of War On Terror
Flip-Flopped On Funding For Our Troops In Iraq
Flip-Flopped On The Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Update: I just found another list of alleged flip-flops at the Bush campaign site! Actually, it's the same list with one new charge at the beginning and another at the end. And they are:

Bush Campaign Lie #11: Kerry Voted for Higher Taxes Over 350 Times

2004-03-24T23:42:00.000-06:00

Unfortunately, I came late to the party on this one. At first I thought that Michael Kinsley had it all covered, but when I went to GOP.com to check it out, they already had a rebuttal to Kinsley. So I had to roll up my sleeves and wade in to the 87 pages of documentation which the GOP provides to verify this claim.

There is one subtle point to make here. Kinsley claims in his article that certain votes are listed multiple times, suggesting shades of lie #3; the GOP says that is not so. The GOP is technically correct; each vote they reference is a unique vote in the Congressional Record. But Kinsley is right in spirit. For procedural reasons, the Senate sometimes takes multiple distinct votes on essentially the same legislation, and an honest accounting wouldn't list these as separate votes. But that's the whole point; the GOP is not providing an honest accounting of Kerry's record.

Another cool trick the GOP uses is to pile on Kerry for voting on legislation which redistributes the tax burden. This is great for the GOP and bad for Kerry, because no matter whether he voted for or against the legislation, he either supported a tax increase for one group or opposed a tax reduction for another.

I'll just tick some examples off the list, because I don't have time to analyze the whole steaming pile of --- votes --- the GOP has provided. When a link to the vote in question is available, I provide it. If not (record of Senate votes is only available online from 1989 forward), I provide legislation, vote date, and vote number.

(S. Con. Res. 32, CQ Vote #43, 5/7/85) The second vote referenced on the list supported a motion which, if passed, would not have altered the tax law one iota. Rather it was a touchy-feely resolution 'expressing the sense of the Senate' that Congress should enact a certain kind of tax legislation. Moreover, the tax legislation it supported would have decreased the amount of farm losses which could be deducted from non-farm income (ah-ha! A tax increase!), with the additional revenues used to 'reduce income tax rates for individuals'. Boy, they really nailed Kerry with that one. And at least 24 of the listed votes were on these 'express the sense of the Senate' resolutions, which have no direct effect on taxes.
(S. Con. Res. 32, CQ Vote #66, 5/9/85) The third item would have maintained cigarette taxes at 16 cents per pack, rather than allowing them to drop to 8 cents a pack, and used the extra revenue to 'offset Medicare premiums increases'. Of course, had Kerry voted the other way, the GOP would have nailed him for allowing those Medicare premiums to go up.
Similarly, Senate vote 54 in 1992 created the $300 per child tax credit, and the $2000 per year tax-free IRA contribution, and paid for it by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Kerry voted for it. Had he voted against it, the GOP would nail him for voting against the child tax credit.

By the way, every single Republican senator voted against it.
(S. Con. Res. 120, CQ Vote #78, 4/24/86) At least one item was a vote in support of increased funding 'provided that separate authorizing and revenue-raising legislation is passed'. So Kerry didn't vote for a tax increase, he voted in support of allocating tax revenue in a certain way if the taxes were increased.
(S. 1127, CQ Vote #352, 10/27/87) It's hard to believe, but according the GOP, Kerry voted to table a resolution which would 'express the sense of the Senate that federal taxes should not be increased either directly or indirectly.' Kerry didn't vote for a tax increase, he just refused to close the door on them altogether. Not the same as voting for higher taxes. Another time he voted against an amendment which would require a 60-vote majority in the Senate to increase taxes. So he didn't vote for a tax increase, he just thought tax legislation should be passed by a simple majority like everything else.
Three of the votes were allowing certain amendments into the Fiscal 1991 budget, even though they violated a 'non-germane' prohibition on amendments. Each of the amendments would have increased taxes in one way or another. However, Kerry merely voted to allow the amendments to be considered, which is not the same thing as voting for them.
Similarly, Kerry voted against the introduction of a tax-cutting amendment on procedural grounds, because it violated the Constitution, a view which the full Senate ultimately upheld.

All of this is in the first sixth of the GOP document. It's clear that they don't expect many people to give the document much scrutiny --- who's going to research every item in an 87-page document in excruciating detail? Kinsley is right; the main reason the GOP is making this charge is in the hopes of focusing attention on Kerry's voting record, rather than Bush's record in office.

There's no doubt that there are valid instances of Kerry voting for tax increases/against tax cuts/whatever in there, too. If you follow the GOP argument to its logical conclusion, the only way Kerry avoids criticism is if he values low taxes over everything else, including education, the COPS program, health care, counterterrorism, the military, etc. Not even the most anti-government Republican does this.

Bush Campaign Lie #10: Kerry Wanted to 'Delay Defending America Until the UN Approved'

2004-03-21T21:33:00.000-06:00

This lie rounds out the trifecta from Bush's '100 Days' ad. The Bush campaign gives eight Kerry quotes as 'proof' of this accusation.

The first thing to note is that all of Bush's evidence pertains to the U.S. war on Iraq. It takes a certain kind of chutzpah, knowing what we know now, to seriously argue that eliminating Iraq's 'weapons of mass destruction-related program activities' is the same as 'defending America'. But one might argue that in the fall of 2002 we seriously thought Iraq was a threat. It seems that Kerry did, since he voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. But that seems to undermine Bush's claim here.

Maybe we should consider the resolution more closely. H.J. Res 114 of the 107th Congress did authorize Bush to:

Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

However, it gave this authorization only in the event that Bush came to the determination that diplomatic means (i.e. the UN) were not sufficient to achieve the stated goals. In other words, the bill explicitly stated that Bush should try to 'gain sufficient votes' in the UN --- including the French and Russian votes --- to authorize force, and 'honor the inspections process'. When Kerry says that the bill 'empowered [Bush] with the relevant United Nations policies' 'to go to the United Nations and form a coalition', he's giving an accurate reporting of the contents of the bill. Perhaps one could claim that Kerry really did want to wait for UN approval before attacking, since he voted for the bill --- along with 76 other senators, 48 of them Republicans. But since Bush signed it, that means he must have wanted to 'delay defending America', too.

What this really boils down to is: Kerry doesn't believe that Bush made a good faith effort to reach a diplomatic solution, which is what the bill clearly called for. Whether Bush really did that is a matter of opinion. But nowhere does Kerry say that the U.S. should have waited for UN approval. Every statement either says, basically, that Bush didn't exhaust all options before using force, or that we need strong alliances to combat terrorism.

Bush Campaign Lie #9: John Kerry Doesn't Think the 'War on Terror' is Really a 'War'

2004-03-19T12:53:00.000-06:00

It's amazing how you can distort a quote out of context. Salon's Eric Boehlert has the complete run-down.

Bush Campaign Lie #8: John Kerry Cast Multiple Votes Against 'Funding Our Troops'

2004-03-17T23:12:00.000-06:00

As with lie #3, the Bush campaign has isolated a single one of John Kerry's votes and used it to argue that he is against 'Funding Our Soldiers', 'Body Armor For Troops in Combat', 'Higher Combat Pay' and 'Better Health Care for Reservists and Their Families'. This is the claim of an ad released on March 16.

On September 30, 2003, Congress introduced an $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Kerry did vote against it. However, his reasons had nothing to do with the fact that he is 'Wrong on Defense'. Instead, he explained that while he was 'prepared to spend whatever it takes to win the peace', he could not support the $87 billion spending bill:

"It is imperative that we succeed in Iraq. But to do so, we have to tackle the challenge of rebuilding Iraq an effective way, not the Bush Administration’s failed way. We need a detailed plan, including fixed timetables and costs, for establishing civil, economic and political security in Iraq."

Kerry took a principled stand on really supporting our troops, not to mention protecting taxpayer dollars, and the Bush campaign is using it to make him appear soft on defense. Kerry had good reason to take this stand; although those in the Pentagon with actual combat experience and knowledge about how to conduct a war draw up detailed plans for the aftermath, Don Rumsfeld intentionally ignored them. Our soldiers were basically sent in to Iraq and told to wing it. According to acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee, 'I also regret that we were not more farsighted here. We simply were not prepared for that kind of a counterinsurgency that attacked our convoys and our soldiers in the rear as it has proven to be.'

And of course, as a result of Bush's refusal to plan for the occupation of Iraq, the situation is still bad and deteriorating rapidly. Even senior military commanders are speaking out about how badly the war has been run, and some are calling for Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to be fired.

Had Bush taken his responsibility as commander in chief seriously, there would not have been a shortage of body armor 6 months after the start of the conflict. Had Bush been willing to change course and actually present a detailed plan for dealing with the insurgents, Kerry would have voted for the bill. But Bush wanted almost $7 billion of the money to be spent at the discretion of the Pentagon and the military.

It's possible Kerry would have supported the bill in any event if it contained the amendment he co-authored, which would obtain the $87 billion from a partial rollback of tax cuts for those in the highest bracket. But the amendment was tabled and, as the Bush camp is eager to point out, the bill passed by an 87-12 margin.

So our troops are still there, and the Bush team is still winging it. Some National Guard members are still shipping off to Iraq without body armor.

Once again, I can't help but point out some Bush hypocrisy. Bush's proposed FY 2005 budget contains zero funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pennsylvania Republican Curt Weldon has described this request as "outrageous" and "immoral", because an estimated $10 billion will be required to fund the occupation for the next five months. One item which will go unfunded, unless Bush 'flip-flops' and makes a supplemental funding request, is $40 million for body armor.

Another shameful hypocrisy involves combat pay for troops. But the worst hypocrisy is that Bush himself threatened to veto the $87 billion funding bill if it stipulated that Iraq would have to repay part of the money.

Gee, does that mean that Bush is also against 'Funding Our Troops'? Or maybe it simply means that Bush and Kerry disagree about the best way to do that?

Bush Campaign Lie #7: Kerry Will 'Weaken the Patriot Act Used to Arrest Terrorists and Protect America'

2004-03-15T21:50:00.000-06:00

The Bush campaign makes this claim in an ad released on March 11. It's reasonable to expect the Bush camp to substantiate their claim by citing at least one provision of the Patriot Act which Kerry plans to weaken or eliminate, but they don't. Instead, they cite three Kerry quotes in which he criticizes the Patriot Act, and one where he says '. . . it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.' Actually, in the broader context for every single one of those quotes, Kerry is targeting John Ashcroft's abuses of the Patriot Act as much as the Patriot Act itself.

When FactCheck.org asked exactly how Kerry would weaken the Patriot Act, Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt insisted that rolling back any provision would weaken it. In other words, the Bush team's major support for their claim is that Congress drafted, debated, and passed a comprehensive measure to fight terrorism and got it exactly right, all in 45 days.

Kerry has proposed changes to the Patriot Act, even though the Bush camp doesn't want to talk about them. In a speech he made at Iowa State University on December 1, he said:

If I’m elected President, we will put an end to 'sneak and peak' searches which permit law enforcement to conduct a secret search and seize evidence without notification. Agents can break into a home or business to take photos, seize property, copy computer files, or load a secret keystroke detector on a computer. These searches should be limited only to the most rare circumstances. And law enforcement should provide notice of the search within seven days, unless a court extends the period of notification.

We will eliminate the potential of fishing expeditions into people’s library and business records. If the FBI wants to make these kinds of investigations, they will need a warrant issued by a judge and evidence that they are looking into an agent of a foreign power.

We will provide Americans with protections from wiretaps, prevent local police officers from spying on innocent people, and that ensures our courts guarantee appropriate national security protections.

These are the changes Kerry wants to make; the Bush camp doesn't cite them as proof of their claim. One possible reason for the omission is that the changes Kerry proposes won't weaken the Patriot Act. Another is that most Americans would be likely to support them.

Bush Campaign Lie #6: Kerry Will Raise Taxes By 'At Least $900 Billion'

2004-03-14T23:47:00.000-06:00

In an ad released on March 11, a woman's voice states 'John Kerry's plan [for his first 100 days in office]: To pay for new government spending, raise taxes by at least $900 billion.' This is misleading in a number of ways. For one thing, it makes it sound as though the $900 billion figure is included in a write up of Kerry's plan for the first 100 days. It isn't.

Let's lay out how the Bush camp arrived on this figure. They seem to argue the following:

Kerry is proposing a new health care plan which will cost $900 billion.
Kerry is also proposing to cut the budget deficit in half in four years.
He can't do both without raising taxes.
Therefore, Kerry will raise taxes by $900 billion.

Does that logic seem airtight to you? If not, then read the Bush arguments for yourself, and you'll be even less convinced. They cite a study by Emory University health care economics professor Kenneth Thorpe which estimates that Kerry's plan would cost $895 billion over ten years. They also claim that Kerry accepts this figure, and it appears that he does, even though in his detailed description, he claims it will cost $360 billion over 5 years. Anyway, let's assume the $900 billion figure (item (1)) is accurate.

And item (2) is accurate: Kerry does hope to cut the deficit in half during his first term of office. So does it follow that he must raise taxes by at least $900 billion?

Of course not, and the Bush campaign can't offer convincing evidence that he must. To be clear, it is important to keep in mind that Kerry has specifically stated that he will roll back the Bush tax cuts for those with incomes over $200,000, reform the estate tax, and close some corporate tax loopholes (as well as cutting taxes for the middle class). So it's not enough to prove that Kerry must raise taxes, but that he will raise them by $900 billion. The data they give doesn't come close.

They quote Howard Dean and John Edwards stating that Kerry's plan will worsen the budget deficit. But that's a far cry from proving a $900 billion tax increase, and anyway the Bush camp should be able to reference more objective sources than Kerry's primary opponents. The best they can do is a statment by Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution that all of Kerry's tax reforms would save '$80 billion to $90 billion a year by 2013.' Orszag says this wouldn't pay for Kerry's health care plan, but $90 billion a year from now until 2013 is $900 billion, which does cover the cost of the health care plan, even using Bush's own numbers.

The most objective discussion I've been able to find so far is presented by Nancy Benac of the Associated Press. It cites the National Taxpayers Union, a group with a definite bias against both government programs and higher taxes, insisting that all of Kerry's initiatives will increase the deficit by $277 billion a year. It also cites Peter Orszag as saying that it's possible to get to $900 billion in tax increases --- not that Kerry definitely will raise taxes by 'at least $900 billion'. On the other side, it cites two other experts --- including Kenneth Thorpe, who came up with the $900 billion figure in the first place --- opining that Kerry can fulfill all of his promises without a huge tax increase.

Kerry's plan is to 'allow every American access to the same health care plan members of Congress get today'. Making accurate estimates about the impact of such an ambitious plan on the need to increase taxes is basically impossible. The plan is far-reaching, which indicates it will be quite expensive, but it also claims to cut waste and enact cost-saving measures, which will reduce the expense somewhat. Add to this the fact that Thorpe's prediction stretches out over a 10-year period, and it's very difficult to say with any certainty what the impact of this plan will be on taxes. Which is why it's a lie for the Bush camp to make it sound as though a tax increase of 'at least' $900 billion is definitely part of Kerry's plan.

Bush Campaign Lie #5: John Kerry 'has plans for those tax cuts. He wants to take them away.'

2004-03-08T21:55:00.000-06:00

This is what Bush told a crowd at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles on March 3, 2004. Bush has enacted a number of tax cuts, so there's some ambiguity about which tax cuts he means. However, since he mentioned 'the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan' in the same context, it's safe to assume he meant that Kerry would repeal most, if not all of the cuts passed, especially the huge income tax cuts.

However, whether you want to count the number of people affected by the cuts or the number of actual tax codes changed, Bush's statement is still a lie. Kerry has said he will eliminate income tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000. All other income tax cuts would remain in force, and in fact Kerry would push for additional tax credits for college, and tax cuts for veterans. He has also promised payroll tax relief (most conservatives act as though the payroll tax doesn't exist) , and specifically promised to leave Bush's increased child tax credit and child care credit in place.

Kerry has also said he will 'reform' the Estate Tax, but it's not clear what that means. To date, there are no specifics on his web site. Most likely, it means a partial rollback of the Bush cuts.

Kerry is much tougher on corporations. He would eliminate loopholes and provisions which provide incentives for 'offshoring' --- laying off workers at home and contracting their jobs out to overseas firms. He has also promised to renew the tax to underwrite the superfund program, so that corporate polluters would bear the cost of cleaning up their mess.

Of course, anyone who's really studied the numbers knows that the winner of this fall's election will almost certainly have to raise taxes no matter what he promises on the campaign trail --- but that's another issue.

Bush Campaign Lie #4: Bush Inherited a Recession

2004-03-03T14:28:00.000-06:00

In the barrage of campaign ads which launched immediately after John Kerry's Super Tuesday wins, the Bush campaign produced an ad called 'Safer, Stronger'. After the required 'I approve of this message' intro, the ad displays the following captions, in consecutive order:

'January 2001, The challenge:'
'An economy in recession.'

This ad mirrors comments by a number of Bush's surrogates who want to pin the 2001 recession on Clinton by claiming that it started in late 2000. But the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan group which has set beginning and end dates for U.S. recessions for almost 150 years, and has been the recognized authority on economic cycles for nearly 75 years, says that the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November 2001. When this ad went public, the NBER was thinking about revising the start date, but since they hadn't, the claim that Bush inherited a recession is a cynical campaign ploy and a lie.

There well may be legitimate arguments Bush supporters can make to assign some of the responsibility for the recession to Clinton; it certainly makes no sense to blame a president for a recession which began two months after he took office. On the other hand, Bush may bear some responsibility for the economic downturn by 'talking down' the economy in late 2000 in an effort to build support for his $1.3 trillion tax cut package.

The Bush campaign will be lying every day that they run this ad, until the NBER actually changes the date, if they do.

Bush Campaign Lie #3: John Kerry has a Record of Voting Against the Weapons Systems that are Winning the War on Terror

2004-02-27T13:48:00.000-06:00

In an open letter to John Kerry dated February 22, Bush campaign chair Marc Racicot reels off a list of specific weapons systems and intelligence spending which he says Kerry voted against. I've broken his statement down into numbered items to clarify the discussion below.

Your proposal to cut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion for the five years prior to 2001 (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95),
Your 1996 proposal to cut defense spending by $6.5 billion (S. 1580, Introduced 2/29/96), and your support for canceling or cutting funding for
The B-2 Stealth Bomber,
The B-1B,
The F-15,
The F-16,
The M1 Abrams,
The Patriot Missile,
The AH-64 Apache Helicopter,
The Tomahawk Cruise Missile,
And the Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser.

Although this seems like an extensive litany of Kerry obstructionism, the GOP got most of the items on that list from just three of Kerry's votes. In none of these instances did Kerry specifically vote against any weapons system. Rather, he voted against bills of which those weapons systems were a very small part. For example, all items marked in green were included in the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, which 5 Republicans and 10 other Democrats also voted against. It may be appropriate to ask why Kerry voted against the defense appropriations bill in 1991, but it's completely dishonest to cite that single vote in support of a claim that Kerry voted against eight different weapons systems. In fact, it's a lie.

In the case of the AH-64 Apache helicopter (item 9), what Kerry really voted against was a conference committee report, which apparently included funding for the helicopter.

As for Racicot's charge about Kerry's 1996 "proposal to cut defense spending by $6.5 billion" (item 2), that's true. Kerry introduced legislation which asked the Secretary of Defense to cut $6.5 billion from programs for which the president had not specifically requested funding, and use the money 'to provide funding for community-oriented policing', more commonly known as the COPS program. Kerry's bill died in committee.

Finally, there's Racicot's first charge, that Kerry proposed to cut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion for the five years prior to 2001. This charge is true, but misleading. In September 1995, the New York Times broke a story about massive fraud at the National Reconnaissance Office. Four days later, Kerry introduced a deficit-reduction bill, and it seems likely that the $1.5 billion cut was targeting the fraud in the intelligence agencies, not the agencies themselves. The whole story is a bit complicated; my brother-in-arms edwardpig examines it in sickening detail.

Fred Kaplan at Slate also debunks this lie, with a slightly different explanation of item (1).

Bush Campaign Lie #2: John Kerry has Accepted More Special Interest Money Than Any Other Senator

2004-02-24T16:50:00.000-06:00

In a video ad on the Bush campaign web site, a woman browsing the internet for information about John Kerry learns that Kerry has received 'more special interest money than any other senator'. This claim is based on an article from the January 31 edition of the Washington Post titled 'Kerry Leads in Lobby Money'.

First, lobbyists are only one kind of 'special interest'. For most politicians (though not Kerry), the vast bulk of 'special interest' money they receive comes from Political Action Committees (PACs), not lobbyists. When PACs are included, Kerry drops to 92nd place among all current senators in special interest money collected.

Second, the Post article itself is suspect. The first sentence of the article ends ". . . [Kerry has] raised more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years, federal records show." That may be true, but Kerry has been in the Senate for 19 years. By limiting the discussion to the past 15 years, it seems that the Post is cherry-picking its data in order to get a bigger headline. Also, the total amount of lobbyist money cited ($640,000) is a cumulative total for those 15 years. Most senators haven't collected that much because they haven't been in the senate that long.

Brooks Jackson gives an even more thorough refutation of this lie, as well as another link to the Bush ad in case his campaign takes it down from their site.

And I know the point of this blog is to document Bush campaign lies, not hypocrisy, but it's worth pointing out that if the woman in the Bush ad is really upset about a candidate who accepts money from 'special interests', then she certainly won't be voting for Bush.

Bush Campaign Lie #1: Bush Volunteered to go to Vietnam

2004-02-23T20:50:00.000-06:00

On the NPR program Morning Edition, on February 23, 2004, Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot said:

"John Kerry served his country very honorably, and we salute his service. We would never, for a moment, diminish his service to the country. At the same point in time, the President served his country very honorably too. He signed up for dangerous duty, he volunteered to go to Vietnam, uh, he wasn't selected to go, but nonetheless, served his country very well."

It is well known that there are some unanswered, and potentially embarrassing questions floating around George Bush's record of National Guard service. What is beyond dispute, however, is that George W. Bush never seriously attempted to fight in Vietnam.

Bush explicitly checked the box marked 'Do Not Volunteer For Overseas' on his 'Application for Extended Duty with the United States Air Force' (scroll to page 22 of the document). In his not-so-memorable interview on Meet The Press with Tim Russert on February 8, 2004, Russert stated the facts: ". . . you didn't volunteer or enlist to go [to Vietnam]", to which Bush replied "No, I didn't. You're right." In fact, The Nation reports that Bush's primary motivation for entering the Guard was to avoid a trip to Vietnam. The Nation quotes a 1994 Houston Chronicle article in which Bush allegedly said "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." This quote may apocryphal, as different sources cite it from the 1990 Houston Chronicle or the 1990 Dallas Morning News. On the other hand, when given the opportunity to do so, White House spokesman Scott McClellan didn't deny the accuracy of this quote.

But Bush's campaign chairman somehow forgot this critical element of Bush's controversial military record. He decided not only that Bush volunteered, but that his service "compares very favorably" to Kerry's.

Bush's defenders will likely argue that although Bush did not volunteer for active-duty military service, in 1970 he did volunteer for the "Palace Alert" program, which sent qualified F-102 fighter pilots from the National Guard to Vietnam. But it's quite unlikely that Bush really expected to get sent to southeast Asia. According to an extensive piece in the Washington Post published prior to the 2000 election, Bush volunteered for the program just weeks before it was closed down, and anyway hadn't logged enough flight time to qualify for it.

Josh Marshall is most likely right when he says: "if he did sign up, he did so to sign up, not to go." So Racicot's statement may have been technically accurate, but was meant to deceive or give the wrong impression. By our ground rules, that makes it a lie.

---

Update: Via Josh Marshall, we've learned that on February 27, NPR did a follow-up report on the original interview with Racicot, which confirms everything written here. Racicot refused to be interviewed for this story, but the Bush campaign explained Racicot's statement by referencing media accounts of the Palace Alert program.

Ground Rules

2004-02-23T19:00:00.000-06:00

The Second College Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary provides the following definitions of the noun lie:

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression

It would be an ambitious project to catalog and thoroughly debunk all the lies coming from America's conservatives these days --- Al Franken has provided merely a Whitman's sampler of them in his exquisite book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right --- and frankly, I don't have that kind of time (though if there are any liberals out there, like perhaps the nice folks at the Center for American Progress, who want to attempt to lure me away from my current job, I'm ready to listen). So I thought that instead, I would focus my efforts specifically on lies emanating from the Bush campaign in their effort to slime Bush into office in 2004.

Now, I don't mean to throw around the term 'lie' too lightly. It is my goal to make sure that every instance of Bush campaign 'lying' which I post here adheres to one or both of the aforementioned definitions. If I can't document that a given statement meets this standard, then I won't discuss it here.

I expect that even with my mission narrowed in this manner, I'll still find I have more than enough material to work with. After all, all of the Bush campaign literature, commercials, web site content and statements from campaign officials are fair game; not just statements from the Shrub himself. And to be honest, the impetus for this project came from the fact that I did a quick search through the blogosphere one day when I was staying home from work to look after my sick son, and there were already two such lies getting prominent coverage.

So, go ahead and give me a shout if you know of a story which should be included here, but don't get upset if your suggestions aren't published right away, or ever. A lot of submissions won't meet the high bar I've set.

And many more, I'm sure, will meet the standard described above; I'll just be too darn busy to include them.