100 facts - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tecoyah · 10-28-2004, 05:45 AM

There comes a time...in some debates when progress is hampered by regurgitation of previous points....perhaps a "lets move this along" suggestion is in order.
There are enourmous amounts of material in the list of above, and this issue seems to be stagnating. My intent in here is to guide discussion, rather than wait for reasons to warn our members, I am hoping to make things more pleasant for us all by doing so....but I will need your help, all of you.

SirSeymour · 10-28-2004, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

I'm no fan of John Kerry, but at least his mistakes haven't brought a nation's economy to it's knees, killed over 1000 American soldiers and polluted our water supply. There are facts in there. I wish people didn't deny such blatant truths.

Hal, I can't argue with items 2 and 3 but I do take issue with item 1. George did not bring the economy to it's knees in this country, 9/11 did. I am fully aware that many will agree that the administration ignored warnings of major terrorist activity aimed at this country and I will even agree with that. However, I just don't believe it would have made a difference. Having read portions of the report of the 9/11 commission, I think the attacks would have been successful regardless, at least in part. The economy was fine on 9/10 and in real trouble on 9/12.

daswig · 10-28-2004, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

It's amazing that someone (me, in this case) can post two articles discussing how an Al Qaeda operative was in U.S. Military controlled Iraq, and you use that as a justification for war.

"US military controlled Iraq"? So everyplace that has US military planes overhead is "controlled" by the US? Well, OK, but in that case, the US controlled the Soviet Union during the U-2 flyovers, right?

Planes in the air does not equal boots on the ground.

Booboo · 10-28-2004, 07:05 AM

Can someone try to refute some of these claims besides stating that they come from left wing sources? Many of these points are very significant and I dont see how you can ignore them simply because of the source, which, regardles of political standing, more likely than not uses hard facts for most of these claims.

neutone · 10-28-2004, 07:39 AM

Speaking from a non-US standpoint.

After that list I have a question.

HOW IS IT THAT THE WORLD HATES BUSH
WHILE HALF OF AMERICA LOVES HIM?
and we are only affected by a few out of the hundred listed transgressions.

I just don't understand.

tecoyah · 10-28-2004, 08:02 AM

Fine....I will begin

1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

Source: American Progress

Source acceptable- Easily verified as dar as amount spent
"War of Choice" currently debated but Justification in question

2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.

Sources: Fox News, The Boston Globe

Source acceptable-Information verified, but exagerated
Debate as to responsibility of Administration

3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.

Source: PBS

Source acceptable- Verified infrormation, Ignore probably too strong a word
Government descision in time of war, judgement call

4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.

Source: The Washington Post

Source acceptable- Wording of quote in question, but generally accepted as real
Miscalculation by Administration, error in judgement

5. During the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured.

Source: globalsecurity.org

Source acceptable-verified and accurate
Warfare Statistics, Limited in usefullness

Coppertop · 10-28-2004, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

From the Cheney quote: "the geographic base of the terrorists". Hmmm. So you're saying that in 2002 through the start of OIF, there was no Al Queda presence within the borders of Iraq? Not ONE SINGLE Al Queda guy? Is that REALLY what you're saying?

How about you read what I post as opposed to making shit up.

Are YOU really saying there were no Al Qaida guys in the US prior to 9-11? Not ONE SINGLE guy? Is that REALLY what you're saying? Obviously there were. Does this mean we harbor terrorists?

Get real, terrorists are in many countries around the world. Guess we'll just have to invade them all. Is that REALLY what you're saying?

And a mural of Saddam and the WTC hardly equates with involvement.

Coppertop · 10-28-2004, 10:01 AM

Sorry tecoyah, I posted before reading through to the end. But yes, we're still waiting for refutations on the 100 points as opposed to Straw Men.

KMA-628 · 10-28-2004, 10:37 AM

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.

alto92 · 10-28-2004, 10:39 AM

i'd say daswig was trolling, but i'm afraid he's representative of a lot of bush voters. hanging on to shreds of whatever they can. there are plenty of reasons to vote for bush, but to say shit like "I'm wondering what, exactly, in your mind, WOULD have justified the war. Did the four planes on 9/11 have to be Iraqi Air, piloted by Saddam's family members?" for the purpose of defending him...eek.

please daswig and others....stop h h h hurting america...

Booboo · 10-28-2004, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

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.

I dont call 40,000 troops a small fraction. This is body armor your talking about, I would want the "top of the line" if I were there right now. And that quote you have from factcheck, you fail to mention that the bill was for $87billion dollors and that the amount that was to give them new equipment was only 1/3 of 1% of the entire bill. There was only ONE vote for that bill, which no doubt had numerous subsections for various spending, seeing as the amount for armor was such a small % of it. Do you really think that if they had tried to pass a bill for $300million for JUST new equipment Kerry would have voted no?

Quote:

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.

Everyone always says that similar lists are used against kerry. Personally I have not seen one, though thats not the point, I'm sure they can be and have been made. My point is that I cannot imagine any of the topics on those lists being on the same level as the topics brought up on this one. By "level" I mean that Kerry is a Senator, who may vote one way or another on a bill, and people might not agree with the way he voted. But half the time these bills contain multiple topics that are all lumped in to one (like the $87billion). How many people know every topic contained in these bills? I know I dont. They only point out the ones that make someone look bad. I'm not saying Kerry hasn't made any bad decisions, I'm sure he has. But the magnitude between his and Bush's are very large to me.

tecoyah · 10-28-2004, 10:57 AM

So very much better....thanx all

KMA-628 · 10-28-2004, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Booboo

Can someone try to refute some of these claims besides stating that they come from left wing sources?

I did what you asked. Anyway, you are making my point. This is senseless and a waste of time. Are you going to change your mind based on any type of rebuttal? Answer, again, is NO.

Guess what, you don't get top of the line in the military. Should I start criticizing Clinton because I wanted better stuff? At least they got armor.

I have no desire to continue here, it would prove absolutely nothing. There is nothing I can say, no source I can quote that will change anybody's mind.

My last point will be this. There are similar lists for Kerry. If I were to post them would your mind be changed? Answer: NO. Would you be able to find evidence to the contrary? Answer: YES.

Would we get anywhere with this? Answer: NO.

/at least I responded to the points instead of continuing the drama

KMA-628 · 10-28-2004, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Booboo

Do you really think that if they had tried to pass a bill for $300million for JUST new equipment Kerry would have voted no?

o.k., I take back what I said after reading this.

Kerry votes no on this bill because there "might" be parts in it that he didn't like.

Kerry votes for the Patriot Act and now says there are parts he didn't like.

So, it is o.k. to vote for a bill that you have some disagreements and it is also o.k. to vote against a bill you have some disagreements with.

???????????

I will continue to read becuase I find this amusing, but I will no longer respond.

Booboo · 10-28-2004, 11:08 AM

Sorry, I'm not criticizing you for trying to refute some of those topics, I'm glad you did. But if I feel the information you provided for some of the topics were not adequate I'm going to try to point out why. Thank you for contributing though, maybe we can move this along to some of the other topics.

Booboo · 10-28-2004, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

o.k., I take back what I said after reading this.

Kerry votes no on this bill because there "might" be parts in it that he didn't like.

Kerry votes for the Patriot Act and now says there are parts he didn't like.

So, it is o.k. to vote for a bill that you have some disagreements and it is also o.k. to vote against a bill you have some disagreements with.

???????????

I will continue to read becuase I find this amusing, but I will no longer respond.

It probably comes down to weighing the pros/cons... and why would you no longer respond? and whats amusing? The whole point of this thread is to debate the topics it brings up... is it not? I'm sorry you feel that way.

Edit. I would actually Like to see one of the kerry lists.. if you have a link to one please PM me or something. Im not as narrow-minded on these subjects as you may think. (which is partly why I think it is worth it to debate these topics, that someone else may not be completely narrow minded.) I actually really want to see the complete(or close to) pros/cons of each candidate. While it IS true that I cant imagine myself voting for bush at this point, I do like to know the downfalls of who I am voting for, and every candidate has them.

dksuddeth · 10-28-2004, 11:24 AM

It's not about WMD's nor is it about the world being better off with Hussein in a cell. Its about making a conscientious choice towards a nation under siege.

So many radicals cry about this latest report saying there were no stockpiles of weapons, therefore we had no right to invade and kill 10,000 plus Iraqi civilians. Others of the same radicalism, just on the other side say that Hussein harbored terrorists, had used WMD's in the past, violated 12 years of sanctions, and intended to pursue weapons programs again after sanctions were removed. Why can't both sides see that its all about making a choice, a very simple choice.

1) We could have not invaded, just kept fighting to keep sanctions on the Iraqi regime, and in the process let another million civilians die in agony due to starvation or dehydration because Hussein was making secret oil deals with France, Russia, and apparently China.

or 2) We could have let sanctions be lifted, let Hussein pursue weapons programs again this time with the help of the above mentioned countries, and Hussein would once again become a world menace and a very dangerous threat to many countries in the middle east. I can't even begin to count the number of dead that would start to occur.

So, we removed hussein from power. Yes, 10,000+ civilians dying, 1,000+ of our troops, and I'm sure that some more will occur but isn't THAT price far better than the two alternatives I described above?

Think about that next time one of you anti-war people cry about civilian deaths........I didn't see Clinton or Albright do anything except agree that half a million deaths was worth the price of regime change.

Coppertop · 10-28-2004, 11:29 AM

Were this war so justified then why the Bush administration's insistence on WMD and the non-existent connection to 9-11?

dksuddeth · 10-28-2004, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

Were this war so justified then why the Bush administration's insistence on WMD and the non-existent connection to 9-11?

because thats what THEY based their justification on. So, in typical partisan (and usually unintelligent) fashion, both sides butt heads on whether there were or not when what people SHOULD be looking at is why we should have done it whether there were weapons or not.

Just this independents point of view anyway.

10-28-2004, 12:07 PM

This list is insanely overpopulated by facts about underfunding - but this is the government you're talking about. They don't fully fund anything.

Many of these "facts" can be disputed. They have been tailored to create the worst impression of Bush possible. Some don't even make sense, like number 95. I can hardly believe that Halx would immediately condemnn anyone who points that out as "denying reality".

Booboo · 10-28-2004, 12:56 PM

Curious, are you saying 95 doesn't make sense as in it probably didn't happen? or just that it doesn't belong in the list?

Coppertop · 10-28-2004, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

because thats what THEY based their justification on. So, in typical partisan (and usually unintelligent) fashion, both sides butt heads on whether there were or not when what people SHOULD be looking at is why we should have done it whether there were weapons or not.

Sorry, but when the president deceives the American people about why he choose to go to war, that's wrong. The Republicans jumped all over Clinton for lying about a blowjob. They started impeachment proceedings for fuck's sake. A blowjob. Impeachment. A fucking blowjob. Bush deserves no less for his actions.

Had he given your reasons up front the American people would've told him to piss off. That's why he lied.

dksuddeth · 10-28-2004, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

Sorry, but when the president deceives the American people about why he choose to go to war, that's wrong. The Republicans jumped all over Clinton for lying about a blowjob. They started impeachment proceedings for fuck's sake. A blowjob. Impeachment. A fucking blowjob. Bush deserves no less for his actions.

Clinton was impeached about lying to a grand jury, not about a blowjob. Clinton lied and the only reason he wasn't convicted of that offense is why? because of a democrat majority senate. I hold the democrats at fault for this breach of trust to the american people. Now, does President Bush deserve an impeachment for lying to the american people? maybe, but you have to provide PROOF that he knowingly lied so the republican majority congress can't excuse it with the 'faulty intelligence' crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

Had he given your reasons up front the American people would've told him to piss off. That's why he lied.

Now, considering the humanitarian reasons I supplied, all perfectly honorable, just, and justifiable....what does this say about the american people?

Coppertop · 10-28-2004, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Now, considering the humanitarian reasons I supplied, all perfectly honorable, just, and justifiable....what does this say about the american people?

It says we're isolationist. Same as before both World Wars. Americans don't want their sons and daughters going off around the globe to die for other people. Sad but true. Bush knew this, hence his deception to the people he should be serving.

dksuddeth · 10-28-2004, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

It says we're isolationist. Same as before both World Wars. Americans don't want their sons and daughters going off around the globe to die for other people. Sad but true. Bush knew this, hence his deception to the people he should be serving.

and if the american people had stayed isolationists we'd no longer be america. It was only because of our involvement that the allies won/survived both world wars. Sooner or Later the american people had better realize that isolationism is the fast track to destruction.

Coppertop · 10-28-2004, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

and if the american people had stayed isolationists we'd no longer be america.

Perhaps. There's no real way to know this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

It was only because of our involvement that the allies won/survived both world wars.

Quite true. But please keep in mind we were directly attacked by Germany (the Lusitania) and Japan (Pearl Harbor) to bring us into these fights. Iraq certainly didn't attack us this time around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Sooner or Later the american people had better realize that isolationism is the fast track to destruction.

Perhaps. Curious though how no one is flying planes into government buildings in Ottawa though. Why is that do you think?

flstf · 10-28-2004, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

Perhaps. Curious though how no one is flying planes into government buildings in Ottawa though. Why is that do you think?

Not much publicity attacking a little fish when they can take a shot at the whale.

Coppertop · 10-28-2004, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Not much publicity attacking a little fish when they can take a shot at the whale.

Canada stands for many of the same things America stands for. You know, those things Bush pointed out as "why they hate us." What Canada doesn't do is use its military to bully other governments into doing what they want. Canada lets the world be and it returns the favor. You cannot say the same about the American government.

daswig · 10-29-2004, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alto92

i'd say daswig was trolling, but i'm afraid he's representative of a lot of bush voters. hanging on to shreds of whatever they can. there are plenty of reasons to vote for bush, but to say shit like "I'm wondering what, exactly, in your mind, WOULD have justified the war. Did the four planes on 9/11 have to be Iraqi Air, piloted by Saddam's family members?" for the purpose of defending him...eek.

please daswig and others....stop h h h hurting america...

Frankly, Clinton should have stomped Iraq much earlier. Why? For two reasons. First, since he was a Democrat, the Democrats wouldn't have blindly attacked him for it. Secondly, he actually COULD have formed a much larger coalition, given his "I'm just one of the boys when it comes to international corruption" position, which certainly would have brought the French and Chinese Communists on board. heck, he could have gotten the Chinese Communists on board simply by making it a condition for his transferring all that inappropriate military technology to them. Now, of course, even if Kerry wins, they aren't going to send troops.

daswig · 10-29-2004, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I hold the democrats at fault for this breach of trust to the american people.

Now, now. In defense of Clinton, he DID do some goos. What good did he do? Well, he convinced some women that fellatio isn't sex. Unfortunately, my wife isn't one of the women he convinced.

host · 10-29-2004, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Clinton was impeached about lying to a grand jury, not about a blowjob. Clinton lied and the only reason he wasn't convicted of that offense is why? because of a democrat majority senate. I hold the democrats at fault for this breach of trust to the american people. Now, does President Bush deserve an impeachment for lying to the american people? maybe, but you have to provide PROOF that he knowingly lied so the republican majority congress can't excuse it with the 'faulty intelligence' crap.

Now, considering the humanitarian reasons I supplied, all perfectly honorable, just, and justifiable....what does this say about the american people?

Sooooo tired of this bullshit......still seeing it after all these years. Do you
know the background on this?????? Guess where Kenneth Starr works now?

Quote:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm</a>
<h4>Scaife: Funding Father of the Right</h4>
By Robert G. Kaiser and Ira Chinoy
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, May 2, 1999; Page A1

First of two articles

One August day in 1994, while gossiping about politics over lunch on Nantucket, Richard Mellon Scaife, the Pittsburgh billionaire and patron of conservative causes, made a prediction. "We're going to get Clinton," Joan Bingham, a New York publisher present at the lunch, remembers him saying. "And you'll be much happier," he said to Bingham and another Democrat at the table, "because Al Gore will be president."

Bingham was startled at the time, but in the years since – as Clinton has struggled with an onslaught from political enemies – Scaife's assertion came to seem less and less far-fetched.

Scaife did get involved in numerous anti-Clinton activities. He gave $2.3 million to the American Spectator magazine to dig up dirt on Clinton and supported other conservative groups that harassed the president and his administration. The White House and its allies responded by fingering Scaife as the central figure in "a vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president," as Hillary Rodham Clinton described it. James Carville, Clinton's former campaign aide and rabid defender, called Scaife "the archconservative godfather in [a] heavily funded war against the president."

But people who know him well say that although Scaife is fond of conspiracy theories of many kinds, he is incapable of managing any sort of grand conspiracy himself. And months of reporting produced no evidence of his orchestrating any effort to "get" Clinton beyond his financial support. Indeed, focusing on his role in the crusade against Clinton can obscure the 66-year-old philanthropist's real importance, which is not based on his opposition or support for any individual politicians (though he once gave Richard M. Nixon $1 million). His biggest contribution has been to help fund the creation of the modern conservative movement in America.

By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions – about $620 million in current dollars, adjusted for inflation. The total of Scaife's giving – to conservatives as well as many other beneficiaries – exceeds $600 million, or $1.4 billion in current dollars, much more than any previous estimate. ..........

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299b.htm">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299b.htm</a>
It is tempting to speculate that the routinization of Scaife's role might have prompted him – or his key aide, Larry – to get involved in more adventuresome anti-Clinton activities. Their involvement in what became known as "the Arkansas Project" – an aggressive and ultimately fruitless attempt to discredit a sitting president – marked a clear departure from years of relatively anonymous philanthropy, and Scaife could not have foreseen the consequences: He became a celebrity.

The full realization of the trouble he had made for himself probably came one day last September when he appeared, under subpoena, before a federal grand jury in Fort Smith, Ark., that was investigating possible tampering with a federal witness. On that day, Scaife could have felt he was being treated like a suspect – not the status a Mellon from Pittsburgh worth perhaps a billion dollars expects. According to several associates, Scaife was furious.

The Arkansas Project was apparently cooked up largely by Larry, 63, who has worked for Scaife for 30 years. A former Marine with a deeply ideological view of the world, Larry had developed a powerful dislike for Clinton. "I noticed a change in Dick Larry – at the mention of Clinton he became almost hyperthyroid," said one prominent figure in the conservative world who knows Larry well. A second prominent conservative close to him said: "I never saw Dick Larry do anything like this before. The only thing I can figure is that Larry dislikes Clinton intensely."

As the chief administrative officer of Scaife's philanthropies for many years and the main contact for anyone seeking a grant, Larry has long been a controversial figure among conservatives. They discuss him with the same reluctance to go on the record that many demonstrate when Scaife is the subject. "Sometimes [Larry] makes you wonder if it is the Richard Scaife foundations, or the Richard Larry foundations," said one source who worked with both men.

In his written answers to questions from The Post, Scaife attributed his support for the project to his doubts that "The Washington Post and other major newspapers would fully investigate the disturbing scandals of the Clinton White House." He explained those doubts: "I am not alone in feeling that the press has a bias in favor of Democratic administrations." That is why, he continued, "I provided some money to independent journalists investigating these scandals."

The Arkansas Project itself relied on several private detectives, a former Arkansas state police officer and other unlikely schemers, including a bait shop owner in Hot Springs, Ark. The two men running the project were a lawyer and a public relations man. Scaife's role became the subject of a special federal investigation because of accusations that the money he donated ended up in the pocket of David Hale, a former Clinton associate and convicted defrauder of the Small Business Administration who had become a witness for Starr's investigation of the president.

Sources at the American Spectator say it was Larry who played an instrumental role in the project. But there is no doubt that Clinton had gotten under Scaife's skin.

Scaife's penchant for conspiracy theories – a bent of mind he has been drawn to for years, according to many associates – was stimulated by the death of Vincent W. Foster Jr., Hillary Clinton's former law partner and a deputy White House counsel. He has repeatedly called Foster's death "the Rosetta stone to the Clinton administration" (a reference to the stone found in Egypt that allowed scholars to decipher ancient hieroglyphics).

Last fall Scaife told John F. Kennedy Jr. of George magazine, "Once you solve that one mystery, you'll know everything that's going on or went on – I think there's been a massive coverup about what Bill Clinton's administration has been doing, and what he was doing when he was governor of Arkansas." And he had ominous specifics in mind: "Listen, [Clinton] can order people done away with at his will. He's got the entire federal government behind him." And: "God, there must be 60 people [associated with Bill Clinton] – who have died mysteriously."

Even before the Arkansas Project had gotten underway, Scaife personally hired a former New York Post reporter named Christopher Ruddy to write about Foster's death for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the daily newspaper Scaife has owned since 1969. Ruddy's stories about Foster's death – most of them challenging the suicide theory, without offering an alternative explanation – began to appear in January 1995.

Scaife has funded other Clinton efforts as well: Two zealous and resourceful (and rival) public interest law firms that have pursued Clinton and his administration relentlessly, the Landmark Legal Foundation and Judicial Watch, have received more than $4 million from Scaife. Judicial Watch, which is aggressively suing several branches of the government and has questioned numerous White House officials under oath, has received $1.35 million from Scaife sources in the last two years, a large fraction of its budget.
<b>
The Fund for Living American Government (FLAG), a one-man philanthropy run by William Lehrfeld, a Washington tax lawyer who has represented Scaife in the past, gave $59,000 to Paula Jones's sexual harassment suit against Clinton. FLAG has received at least $160,000 in Scaife donations. And lawyers who belong to the conservative Federalist Society, which has enjoyed Scaife support for 15 years (at least $1.5 million), were members of a secretive group who provided important legal advice to Paula Jones and who may have pulled off the key legal maneuver in the Clinton case by connecting the Jones suit and the Starr investigation.</b>

Officers of the Scaife-supported Independent Women's Forum have appeared on many television programs as Clinton critics. William J. Bennett, author of "Death of Outrage: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals," is on the board of the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and has received Scaife support as a fellow of the Heritage Foundation and other enterprises.
<b>
One of the most publicized allegations of a tie between Scaife and Clinton's enemies was the suggestion that Scaife was trying to set up independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr in a posh deanship at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. Starr briefly toyed with accepting the job early in 1997.

Scaife has been a generous supporter of Pepperdine, donating more than $13 million since 1962 (in personal gifts as well as foundation grants), according to the school. But Scaife and the current president of Pepperdine, David Davenport, both have said that Scaife played no role whatsoever in the offer to Starr. Scaife and Starr have said they don't know each other, and have never met.</b>

Only the Arkansas Project has caused Scaife serious trouble. The possibility that money from the project had tainted Hale, a federal witness, led to the appointment of Michael J. Shaheen, a former senior Justice Department official, as a special investigator. It was Shaheen who summoned Scaife to the Fort Smith grand jury.

Shaheen's investigation apparently is complete. Lawyers involved said they don't expect any indictments.

One result of the enterprise was to strain Scaife's relationship with Larry almost to the breaking point. "He almost fired Larry," said one friend.

The other result has been the emergence of Scaife as a public figure and punching bag for liberals.

"I'm a very private person – I think I'm essentially shy," Scaife told Kennedy last fall. But now, he acknowledged, he is recognized by passersby on the street – "thanks to CNN."

And......in April, 2004, guess who showed up in Malibu ???

Quote:

<a href="http://www.abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/040604ap_nw_starr_pepperdine.html">http://www.abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/040604ap_nw_starr_pepperdine.html</a>
Kenneth Starr Named Dean Of Pepperdine Law School
Apr. 6 (AP) — Kenneth W. Starr, who led the investigation into President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, has been named dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law, an official said Monday.

Starr first accepted the position seven years ago but changed his mind after he was criticized for abandoning the Whitewater investigation into the Clintons' real estate dealings.

..........Starr's appointment was embroiled in controversy because of financial assistance the school got from Richard Mellon Scaife, a persistent critic of Clinton. Democrats charged that Starr had a financial and political conflict with the dean's chair. The university said that Scaife had no part in the dean selection.

aliali · 10-29-2004, 08:10 AM

Once we finish debating Ken Starr and Willie Horton, and Iran Contra, I guess we will be done.

The list is of little use because it is not a list of facts, it is a political hit list, lacking in completeness and peppered with opinions. When you preface a fact that is incomplete and given no context with your opinion as to how the reader should think about it, you are not really furthering a useful debate. Hey, lets try some more.

101. Even though he promised to support life in all forms before becoming president, there have been more elderly deaths during this administration than the previous four years.

Source: Vital Statistics

102. All the while the President claimed he was a good steward of the land, several hurricanes (which are caused by global warning) have ravaged the State of Florida.

Source: US Weather tracking data.

103. The "compassionate conservative" president has presided over a divided and divisive Senate.

Source: U.S. Almanac.

Coppertop · 10-29-2004, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aliali

Once we finish debating Ken Starr and Willie Horton, and Iran Contra, I guess we will be done.

The list is of little use because it is not a list of facts, it is a political hit list, lacking in completeness and peppered with opinions. When you preface a fact that is incomplete and given no context with your opinion as to how the reader should think about it, you are not really furthering a useful debate. Hey, lets try some more.

101. Even though he promised to support life in all forms before becoming president, there have been more elderly deaths during this administration than the previous four years.

Source: Vital Statistics

102. All the while the President claimed he was a good steward of the land, several hurricanes (which are caused by global warning) have ravaged the State of Florida.

Source: US Weather tracking data.

103. The "compassionate conservative" president has presided over a divided and divisive Senate.

Source: U.S. Almanac.

Nice straw man. Care to address how using Bush's office as a source is a political attack?

flstf · 10-29-2004, 11:45 AM

So your sitting there at the bar and a Kerry suporter says:

You know, according to American Progress, the Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

You reply, Oh really I had no idea, Do you think it was too much or too little?

Kerry supporter: Well, it was way too much, if Kerry was president we wouldn't even be there.

You reply, but didn't Kerry vote to go to war? Wouldn't he have had to spend a lot too?

Kerry supporter: Yes he voted in favor of the war but later changed his mind.

And on and on....with each of the hundred facts.

Coppertop · 10-29-2004, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

So your sitting there at the bar and a Kerry suporter says:

You know, according to American Progress, the Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

You reply, Oh really I had no idea, Do you think it was too much or too little?

Kerry supporter: Well, it was way too much, if Kerry was president we wouldn't even be there.

You reply, but didn't Kerry vote to go to war? Wouldn't he have had to spend a lot too?

Kerry supporter: Yes he voted in favor of the war but later changed his mind.

And on and on....with each of the hundred facts.

Is this supposted to be an argument somehow?

flstf · 10-29-2004, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

Is this supposted to be an argument somehow?

Just trying to show how a list of statements of facts means little by themselves. Other people have said it much better than I. I just took fact one of the hundred and tried to imagine how a conversation between a Kerry supporter and someone who supports neither him or Bush might go.

The same thing happens with almost all the other 99. I'm sure the Kerry supporters or independants could do the same with a list made up by Bush's people.

Coppertop · 10-29-2004, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Just trying to show how a list of statements of facts means little by themselves.

Ah yes, the American voter. It is sad, but you're right.

Lebell · 10-29-2004, 12:38 PM

I would be willing to debate any one or two of these at a time, but thrown at us as a list invites arguments like, "53 is wrong!" "Oh yeah, but what about 41 and 82??".

Unrewarding and in my mind, not progressive.

aliali · 10-29-2004, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

Nice straw man. Care to address how using Bush's office as a source is a political attack?

By not giving full context. The man ain't perfect. Far from it. Made lots of mistakes. Many legit reasons to vote him out on Tues. But that list ain't fair to the man, man.

10-28-2004, 05:45 AM	#41 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	There comes a time...in some debates when progress is hampered by regurgitation of previous points....perhaps a "lets move this along" suggestion is in order. There are enourmous amounts of material in the list of above, and this issue seems to be stagnating. My intent in here is to guide discussion, rather than wait for reasons to warn our members, I am hoping to make things more pleasant for us all by doing so....but I will need your help, all of you. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-28-2004, 07:05 AM	#44 (permalink)
Booboo Insane	Can someone try to refute some of these claims besides stating that they come from left wing sources? Many of these points are very significant and I dont see how you can ignore them simply because of the source, which, regardles of political standing, more likely than not uses hard facts for most of these claims. __________________ "Your life is yours to live, go out and live it" - Richard Rahl

10-28-2004, 07:39 AM	#45 (permalink)
neutone Tilted	Speaking from a non-US standpoint. After that list I have a question. HOW IS IT THAT THE WORLD HATES BUSH WHILE HALF OF AMERICA LOVES HIM? and we are only affected by a few out of the hundred listed transgressions. I just don't understand. __________________ Protect the rights of tribes

10-28-2004, 08:02 AM	#46 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Fine....I will begin 1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq. Source: American Progress Source acceptable- Easily verified as dar as amount spent "War of Choice" currently debated but Justification in question 2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees. Sources: Fox News, The Boston Globe Source acceptable-Information verified, but exagerated Debate as to responsibility of Administration 3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq. Source: PBS Source acceptable- Verified infrormation, Ignore probably too strong a word Government descision in time of war, judgement call 4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq. Source: The Washington Post Source acceptable- Wording of quote in question, but generally accepted as real Miscalculation by Administration, error in judgement 5. During the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured. Source: globalsecurity.org Source acceptable-verified and accurate Warfare Statistics, Limited in usefullness __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-28-2004, 10:57 AM	#52 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	So very much better....thanx all __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-28-2004, 10:01 AM	#48 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	Sorry tecoyah, I posted before reading through to the end. But yes, we're still waiting for refutations on the 100 points as opposed to Straw Men.

10-28-2004, 10:39 AM	#50 (permalink)
alto92 Upright	i'd say daswig was trolling, but i'm afraid he's representative of a lot of bush voters. hanging on to shreds of whatever they can. there are plenty of reasons to vote for bush, but to say shit like "I'm wondering what, exactly, in your mind, WOULD have justified the war. Did the four planes on 9/11 have to be Iraqi Air, piloted by Saddam's family members?" for the purpose of defending him...eek. please daswig and others....stop h h h hurting america...

10-28-2004, 11:08 AM	#55 (permalink)
Booboo Insane	Sorry, I'm not criticizing you for trying to refute some of those topics, I'm glad you did. But if I feel the information you provided for some of the topics were not adequate I'm going to try to point out why. Thank you for contributing though, maybe we can move this along to some of the other topics. __________________ "Your life is yours to live, go out and live it" - Richard Rahl

10-28-2004, 11:24 AM	#57 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Why the Iraq invasion was justified It's not about WMD's nor is it about the world being better off with Hussein in a cell. Its about making a conscientious choice towards a nation under siege. So many radicals cry about this latest report saying there were no stockpiles of weapons, therefore we had no right to invade and kill 10,000 plus Iraqi civilians. Others of the same radicalism, just on the other side say that Hussein harbored terrorists, had used WMD's in the past, violated 12 years of sanctions, and intended to pursue weapons programs again after sanctions were removed. Why can't both sides see that its all about making a choice, a very simple choice. 1) We could have not invaded, just kept fighting to keep sanctions on the Iraqi regime, and in the process let another million civilians die in agony due to starvation or dehydration because Hussein was making secret oil deals with France, Russia, and apparently China. or 2) We could have let sanctions be lifted, let Hussein pursue weapons programs again this time with the help of the above mentioned countries, and Hussein would once again become a world menace and a very dangerous threat to many countries in the middle east. I can't even begin to count the number of dead that would start to occur. So, we removed hussein from power. Yes, 10,000+ civilians dying, 1,000+ of our troops, and I'm sure that some more will occur but isn't THAT price far better than the two alternatives I described above? Think about that next time one of you anti-war people cry about civilian deaths........I didn't see Clinton or Albright do anything except agree that half a million deaths was worth the price of regime change.

10-28-2004, 11:29 AM	#58 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	Were this war so justified then why the Bush administration's insistence on WMD and the non-existent connection to 9-11?

10-28-2004, 12:07 PM	#60 (permalink)
jconnolly Guest	This list is insanely overpopulated by facts about underfunding - but this is the government you're talking about. They don't fully fund anything. Many of these "facts" can be disputed. They have been tailored to create the worst impression of Bush possible. Some don't even make sense, like number 95. I can hardly believe that Halx would immediately condemnn anyone who points that out as "denying reality".

10-28-2004, 12:56 PM	#61 (permalink)
Booboo Insane	Curious, are you saying 95 doesn't make sense as in it probably didn't happen? or just that it doesn't belong in the list? __________________ "Your life is yours to live, go out and live it" - Richard Rahl

10-29-2004, 08:10 AM	#72 (permalink)
aliali Insane Location: Missouri	Once we finish debating Ken Starr and Willie Horton, and Iran Contra, I guess we will be done. The list is of little use because it is not a list of facts, it is a political hit list, lacking in completeness and peppered with opinions. When you preface a fact that is incomplete and given no context with your opinion as to how the reader should think about it, you are not really furthering a useful debate. Hey, lets try some more. 101. Even though he promised to support life in all forms before becoming president, there have been more elderly deaths during this administration than the previous four years. Source: Vital Statistics 102. All the while the President claimed he was a good steward of the land, several hurricanes (which are caused by global warning) have ravaged the State of Florida. Source: US Weather tracking data. 103. The "compassionate conservative" president has presided over a divided and divisive Senate. Source: U.S. Almanac.

10-29-2004, 11:45 AM	#74 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	So your sitting there at the bar and a Kerry suporter says: You know, according to American Progress, the Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq. You reply, Oh really I had no idea, Do you think it was too much or too little? Kerry supporter: Well, it was way too much, if Kerry was president we wouldn't even be there. You reply, but didn't Kerry vote to go to war? Wouldn't he have had to spend a lot too? Kerry supporter: Yes he voted in favor of the war but later changed his mind. And on and on....with each of the hundred facts.

10-29-2004, 12:38 PM	#78 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I would be willing to debate any one or two of these at a time, but thrown at us as a list invites arguments like, "53 is wrong!" "Oh yeah, but what about 41 and 82??". Unrewarding and in my mind, not progressive. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!