o.k., I'll let it hang in the wind and give it a shot:
Quote:
1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.
Source: American Progress
|
Every war is a war of choice. Every war cost money. Vietnam: $597 Billion (adjusted) Korean War: $418 Billion (adjusted). Just keeping our military running costs billions every year. What is the point here?
Quote:
|
2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.
|
Incorrect wording. The body armor in question wasn’t top of the line. The statement is meant to elicit an emotional response that the troops were missing, not enough, etc. The body armor was there, it just wasn’t “the best available” for a small fraction of the troops. This is nothing new. I rarely, if ever, got the “best available” equipment when I was in the service. (Factcheck.org: Nevertheless, the bill Kerry opposed did contain $300 million requested by the Pentagon to buy best-grade body armor for all troops in Iraq, and also contained additional combat pay and health benefits for reservists called to active duty.)
Quote:
3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.
Source: PBS
|
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?"
ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF ERIC SHINSEKI: "In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commander's exact requirements. But I think ..."
LEVIN: "How about a range?"
SHINSEKI: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."
Quote:
4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.
Source: The Washington Post
|
Some did, some didn't.
I do not have the time to go through the entire list, but I imagine there is a rebuttal for every point here. Half will automatically discredit the rebuttal and the other half will accept it. Just like half accept these points to be undeniable truths while the other half don't. It's like physics, for ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For every point made here, there is an opposite point.
Just like this list, I have seen "lists" used against Kerry. Those who support Kerry scoff at the list while those that oppose Kerry accept the list.
Is there anybody here that would change sides based on anything written here? Answer: No.
The same people that are criticizing Bush would lambast any thread created here that would make similar points against Kerry.
It is senseless and a waste of time.