Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - 100 facts (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/74065-100-facts.html)

Quote:

IRAQ

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

Source: American Progress

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

Sources: Fox News, The Boston Globe

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

Source: PBS

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

Source: The Washington Post

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

6. In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.

Source: Yahoo News

7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.

Source: MSNBC , 9-11 Commission

8. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that high-strength aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," warning "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The government's top nuclear scientists had told the Administration the tubes were "too narrow, too heavy, too long" to be of use in developing nuclear weapons and could be used for other purposes.

Source: New York Times

9. The Bush Administration has spent just $1.1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction.

Source: USA Today

10. According to the Administration's handpicked weapon's inspector, Charles Duelfer, there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so." After the release of the report, Bush continued to insist, "There was a risk--a real risk--that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons, or materials, or information to terrorist networks."

Sources: New York Times, White House news release

11. According to Duelfer, the UN inspections regime put an "economic strangle hold" on Hussein that prevented him from developing a WMD program for more than twelve years.

Source: Los Angeles Times

TERRORISM

12. After receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America," President Bush continued his monthlong vacation.

Source: CNN.com

13. The Bush Administration failed to commit enough troops to capture Osama bin Laden when US forces had him cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in November 2001. Instead, they relied on local warlords.

Source: csmonitor.com

14. The Bush Administration secured less nuclear material from sites around the world vulnerable to terrorists in the two years after 9/11 than were secured in the two years before 9/11.

Source: nti.org

15. The Bush Administration underfunded Nunn-Lugar--the program intended to keep the former Soviet Union's nuclear legacy out of the hands of terrorists and rogue states--by $45.5 million.

Source: armscontrol.org

16. The Bush Administration has assigned five times as many agents to investigate Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden's and Saddam Hussein's money.

Source: Associated Press

17. According to Congressional Research Service data, the Bush Administration has underfunded security at the nation's ports by more than $1 billion for fiscal year 2005.

Source: American Progress

18. The Bush Administration did not devote the resources necessary to prevent a resurgence in the production of poppies, the raw material used to create heroin, in Afghanistan--creating a potent new source of financing for terrorists.

Source: Pakistan Tribune

19. Vice President Cheney told voters that unless they elect George Bush in November, "we'll get hit again" by terrorists.

Source: Washington Post

20. Even though an Al Qaeda training manual suggests terrorists come to the United States and buy assault weapons, the Bush Administration did nothing to prevent the expiration of the ban.

Source: sfgate.com

21. Despite repeated calls for reinforcements, there are fewer experienced CIA agents assigned to the unit dealing with Osama bin Laden now than there were before 9/11.

Source: New York Times

22. Before 9/11, John Ashcroft proposed slashing counterterrorism funding by 23 percent.

Source: americanprogress.org

23. Between January 20, 2001, and September 10, 2001, the Bush Administration publicly mentioned Al Qaeda one time.

Source: commondreams.org

24. The Bush Administration granted the 9/11 Commission $3 million to investigate the September 11 attacks and $50 million to the commission that investigated the Columbia space shuttle crash.

Source: commondreams.org

25. More than three years after 9/11, just 5 percent of all cargo--including cargo transported on passenger planes--is screened.

Source: commondreams.org

NATIONAL SECURITY

26. During the Bush Administration, North Korea quadrupled its suspected nuclear arsenal from two to eight weapons.

Source: New York Times

27. The Bush Administration has openly opposed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, undermining nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

Source: commondreams.org

28. The Bush Administration has spent $7 billion this year--and plans to spend $10 billion next year--for a missile defense system that has never worked in a test that wasn't rigged.

Sources: www.gao.gov/new.items/d04409.pdf, Los Angeles Times

29. The Bush Administration underfunded the needs of the nation's first responders by $98 billion, according to a Council on Foreign Relations study.

Source: nationaldefensemagazine.org

CRONYISM AND CORRUPTION

30. The Bush Administration awarded a multibillion-dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton--a company that still pays Vice President Cheney hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred compensation each year (Cheney also has Halliburton stock options). The company then repeatedly overcharged the military for services, accepted kickbacks from subcontractors and served troops dirty food.

Sources: The Washington Post, The Tapei Times, BBC News

31. The Bush Administration told Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go to war with Iraq before telling Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Source: detnews.com

32. The Bush Administration relentlessly pushed an energy bill containing $23.5 billion in corporate tax breaks, much of which would have benefited major campaign contributors.

taxpayer.net, Washington Post

33. The Bush Administration paid Iraqi-exile and neocon darling Ahmad Chalabi $400,000 a month for intelligence, including fabricated claims about Iraqi WMD. It continued to pay him for months after discovering that he was providing inaccurate information.

Source: MSNBC

34. The Bush Administration installed as top officials more than 100 former lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee.

Source: Source: commondreams.org

35. The Bush Administration let disgraced Enron CEO Ken Lay--a close friend of President Bush--help write its energy policy.

Source: MSNBC

36. Top Bush Administration officials accepted $127,600 in jewelry and other presents from the Saudi royal family in 2003, including diamond-and-sapphire jewelry valued at $95,500 for First Lady Laura Bush.

Source: Seattle Times

37. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge awarded lucrative contracts to several companies in which he is an investor, including Microsoft, GE, Sprint, Pfizer and Oracle.

Source: cq.com

38. President Bush used images of firefighters carrying flag-draped coffins through the rubble of the World Trade Center to score political points in a campaign advertisement.

Source: The Washington Post

THE ECONOMY

39. President Bush's top economic adviser, Greg Mankiw, said the outsourcing of American jobs abroad was "a plus for the economy in the long run."

Source: CBS News

40. The Bush Administration turned a $236 billion surplus into a $422 billion deficit.

Sources: Fortune, dfw.com

41. The Bush Administration implemented regulations that made millions of workers ineligible for overtime pay.

Source: epinet.org

42. The Bush Administration has crippled state budgets by underfunding federal mandates by $175 billion.

Source: cbpp.org

43. President Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs--around 800,000--over a four-year term.

Source: The Guardian

44. The Bush Administration gave Accenture a multibillion-dollar border control contract even though the company moved its operations to Bermuda to avoid paying taxes.

Sources: The New York Times, cantonrep.com

45. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush said "the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." He passed the tax cuts, but the top 20 percent of earners received 68 percent of the benefits.

Sources: cbpp.org, vote-smart.org

46. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush promised to pay down the national debt to a historically low level. As of September 30, the national debt stood at $7,379,052,696,330.32, a record high.

Sources: www.georgewbush.com , Bureau of the Public Debt

47. As major corporate scandals rocked the nation's economy, the Bush Administration reduced the enforcement of corporate tax law--conducting fewer audits, imposing fewer penalties, pursuing fewer prosecutions and making virtually no effort to prosecute corporate tax crimes.

Source: iht.com

48. The Bush Administration increased tax audits for the working poor.

Source: theolympian.com

49. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush promised to protect the Social Security surplus. As President, he spent all of it.

Sources: georgewbush.com, Congressional Budget Office

50. The Bush Administration proposed slashing funding for the largest federal public housing program, putting 2 million families in danger of losing their housing.

Source: San Francisco Examiner

51. The Bush Administration did nothing to prevent the minimum wage from falling to an inflation-adjusted fifty-year low.

Source: Los Angeles Times

EDUCATION

52. The Bush Administration underfunded the No Child Left Behind Act by $9.4 billion.

Source: nwitimes.com

53. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush promised to increase the maximum federal scholarship, or Pell Grant, by 50 percent. Instead, each year he has been in office he has frozen or cut the maximum scholarship amount.

Source: Source: edworkforce.house.gov x

54. The Bush Administration's Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, called the National Education Association--a union of teachers--a "terrorist organization."

Sources: CNN.com

HEALTHCARE

55. The Bush Administration, in violation of the law, refused to allow Medicare actuary Richard Foster to tell members of Congress the actual cost of their Medicare bill. Instead, they repeated a figure they knew was $100 billion too low.

Source: Washington Post, realcities.com

56. The nonpartisan GAO concluded the Bush Administration created illegal, covert propaganda--in the form of fake news reports--to promote its industry-backed Medicare bill.

Source: General Accounting Office

57. The Bush Administration stunted research that could lead to new treatments for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal injuries, heart disease and muscular dystrophy by placing severe restrictions on the use of federal dollars for embryonic stem-cell research.

Source: CBS News

58. The Bush Administration reinstated the "global gag rule," which requires foreign NGOs to withhold information about legal abortion services or lose US funds for family planning.

Source: healthsciences.columbia.edu

59. The Bush Administration authorized twenty companies that have been charged with fraud at the federal or state level to offer Medicare prescription drug cards to seniors.

Source: American Progress

60. The Bush Administration created a prescription drug card for Medicare that locks seniors into one card for up to a year but allows the corporations offering the cards to change their prices once a week.

Source: Washington Post

61. The Bush Administration blocked efforts to allow Medicare to negotiate cheaper prescription drug prices for seniors.

Source: American Progress

62. At the behest of the french fry industry, the Bush Administration USDA changed their definition of fresh vegetables to include frozen french fries.

Source: commondreams.org

63. In a case before the Supreme Court, the Bush Administrations sided with HMOs--arguing that patients shouldn't be allowed to sue HMOs when they are improperly denied treatment. With the Administration's help, the HMOs won.

Source: ABC News

64. The Bush Administration went to court to block lawsuits by patients who were injured by defective prescription drugs and medical devices.

Source: Washington Post

65. President Bush signed a Medicare law that allows companies that reduce healthcare benefits for retirees to receive substantial subsidies from the government.

Source: Bloomberg News

66. Since President Bush took office, more than 5 million people have lost their health insurance.

Source: CNN.com

67. The Bush Administration blocked a proposal to ban the use of arsenic-treated lumber in playground equipment, even though it conceded it posed a danger to children.

Source: Miami Herald

68. One day after President Bush bragged about his efforts to help seniors afford healthcare, the Administration announced the largest dollar increase of Medicare premiums in history.

Source: iht.com

69. The Bush Administration--at the behest of the tobacco industry--tried to water down a global treaty that aimed to help curb smoking.

Source: tobaccofreekids.org

70. The Bush Administration has spent $270 million on abstinence-only education programs even though there is no scientific evidence demonstrating that they are effective in dissuading teenagers from having sex or reducing the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.

Source: salon.com

71. The Bush Administration slashed funding for programs that suggested ways, other than abstinence, to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.

Source: LA Weekly

ENVIRONMENT

72. The Bush Administration gutted clean-air standards for aging power plants, resulting in at least 20,000 premature deaths each year.

Source: cta.policy.net

73. The Bush Administration eliminated protections on more than 200 million acres of public lands.

Source: calwild.org

74. President Bush broke his promise to place limits on carbon dioxide emissions, an essential step in combating global warming.

Source: Washington Post

75. Days after 9/11, the Bush Administration told people living near Ground Zero that the air was safe--even though they knew it wasn't--subjecting hundreds of people to unnecessary, debilitating ailments.

Sierra Club , EPA

76. The Bush Administration created a massive tax loophole for SUVs--allowing, for example, the write-off of the entire cost of a new Hummer.

Source: Washington Post

77. The Bush Administration put former coal-industry big shots in the government and let them roll back safety regulations, putting miners at greater risk of black lung disease.

Source: New York Times

78. The Bush Administration said that even though the weed killer atrazine was seeping into water supplies--creating, among other bizarre creatures, hermaphroditic frogs--there was no reason to regulate it.

Source: Washington Post

79. The Bush Administration has proposed cutting the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $600 million next year.

Source: ems.org

80. President Bush broke his campaign promise to end the maintenance backlog at national parks. He has provided just 7 percent of the funds needed, according to National Park Service estimates.

Source: bushgreenwatch.org

RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES

81. Since 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft has detained 5,000 foreign nationals in antiterrorism sweeps; none have been convicted of a terrorist crime.

Source: hrwatch.org

82. The Bush Administration ignored pleas from the International Committee of the Red Cross to stop the abuse of prisoners in US custody.

Source: Wall Street Journal

83. In violation of international law, the Bush Administration hid prisoners from the Red Cross so the organization couldn't monitor their treatment.

Source: hrwatch.org

84. The Bush Administration, without ever charging him with a crime, arrested US citizen José Padilla at an airport in Chicago, held him on a naval brig in South Carolina for two years, denied him access to a lawyer and prohibited any contact with his friends and family.

Source: news.findlaw.com

85. President Bush's top legal adviser wrote a memo to the President advising him that he can legally authorize torture.

Source: news.findlaw.com

86. At the direction of Bush Administration officials, the FBI went door to door questioning people planning on protesting at the 2004 political conventions.

Source: New York Times

87. The Bush Administration refuses to support the creation of an independent commission to investigate the abuse of foreign prisoners in American custody. Instead, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld selected the members of a commission to review the conduct of his own department.

Source: humanrightsfirst.org

FLIP FLOPS

88. President Bush opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission before he supported it, delaying an essential inquiry into one of the greatest intelligence failure in American history.

Source: americanprogressaction.org

89. President Bush said gay marriage was a state issue before he supported a constitutional amendment banning it.

Sources: CNN.com, White House

90. President Bush said he was committed to capturing Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" before he said, "I truly am not that concerned about him."

Source: americanprogressaction.org

91. President Bush said we had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, before he admitted we hadn't found them.

Sources: White House, americanprogress.org

92. President Bush said, "You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," before he admitted Saddam had no role in 9/11.

Sources: White House, Washington Post

BIOGRAPHY

93. George Bush didn't come close to meeting his commitments to the National Guard. Records show he performed no service in a six-month period in 1972 and a three-month period in 1973.

Source: boston.com

94. In June 1990 George Bush violated federal securities law when he failed to inform the SEC that he had sold 200,000 shares of his company, Harken Energy. Two months later the company reported significant losses and by the end of that year the stock had dropped from $3 to $1.

Source: The Guardian

95. When asked at an April 2004 press conference to name a mistake he made during his presidency, Bush couldn't think of one.

Source: White House

SECRECY

96. The Bush Administration refuses to release twenty-seven pages of a Congressional report that reportedly detail the Saudi Arabian government's connections to the 9/11 hijackers.

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer

97. Last year the Bush Administration spent $6.5 billion creating 14 million new classified documents and securing old secrets--the highest level of spending in ten years.

Source: openthegovernment.org

98. The Bush Administration spent $120 classifying documents for every $1 it spent declassifying documents.

Source: openthegovernment.org

99. The Bush Administration has spent millions of dollars and defied numerous court orders to conceal from the public who participated in Vice President Cheney's 2001 energy task force.

Source: Washington Post

100. The Bush Administration--reversing years of bipartisan tradition--refuses to answer requests from Democratic members of Congress about how the White House is spending taxpayer money.

Source: Washington Post

I ran a search for this, but didn't see anything. My apologies if it has been on here before.

...and your opinion on all of this is?

I am wondering how people who plan to vote for Bush (or have already) reconcile these points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

I am wondering how people who plan to vote for Bush (or have already) reconcile these points.

It's pretty simple. Most of them are distortions of the truth, and/or come from extremely partisan sources. BTW, who did the source magazine endorse? Could it be ....John Kerry?

You forgot that Bush is putting more arsenic in our drinking water. Thanks to the Kerry-backing Wash. Post for putting this list together, but many of the facts are reputed with other facts, such as 1.9 million jobs created in the last 13 months to counter the fact that over the last 4 years, net jobs have declined. Also, there is the fact that Bush was honorably discharged from the national guard, completely refuting the claim that he didn't perform his duties. There's 98 to go, but I really don't have the time or energy to go through each of them. Bush ain't perfect by a long shot, but he's the one I trust as my president.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

It's pretty simple. Most of them are distortions of the truth, and/or come from extremely partisan sources. BTW, who did the source magazine endorse? Could it be ....John Kerry?

Oh, I get it. "I'm right, everyone else has a distorted reality!"

The facts pile upon facts. The statistics create graphs. Even myself, in my infinite morbidity, rational logic and holy aura(tm) speak against the current administration.

...and people still fight. That's faith, people. That's real fuckin' strong faith. To be able to completely DENY reality and fight on... that's fuckin' admirable faith.

quicksteal, I made sure to create a little thread about what you just said. It's a good point to bring up because it has been ignored this election. I think it deserves some attention.

Pretty much all of these have been posted in this forum at one time or another....and the results are less than pretty. Still, this is showing some level of debate promise.....we shall see ........

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

It's pretty simple. Most of them are distortions of the truth, and/or come from extremely partisan sources. BTW, who did the source magazine endorse? Could it be ....John Kerry?

Sorry, I forgot. Since someone opposes those in power, what they say they must be inherently untrue.

Care to cite sources for your opinions? Or are they just that: opinions?

I'm sure it would be just as easy to come up with 100 things that John Kerry has done as a senator that Republicans can distort and get people just as mad. No matter what source you go to you are going to get a biased facts, its a matter if you want to clean it off and get the real facts or take it as it is. And remember: politics is all opinions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_Jay

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

It's pretty simple. Most of them are distortions of the truth, and/or come from extremely partisan sources. BTW, who did the source magazine endorse? Could it be ....John Kerry?

I would buy into your argument MAYBE but I see in the compilation the WSJ, White House, Gov't agencies, Fox News and some pretty right winged sources being quoted.

Anyone at any given time can dispute some facts and warp them to their agenda. But when you have at least 100 from different sources some from the opposing side that prove your point, then you can't argue and you can't warp. You maybe able to take a few but......

Aw well, noone believes facts and graphs and parallels in history until it bites them in the ass and they see it first hand.

thank you pan, for saying quite eloquently what I tried to say, but failed miserably.

The really sad thing is that this guy probably will win next Tuesday night.

He has to be, no, he is, the worst president ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

I wasn't denying anything, just saying that people should get the whole story before they make their decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

You're right.

He has simply slandered our soldiers, become a traitor by meeting with the enemy, voted in the Senate to gut our military and intelligence, and run on a platform of supporting our troops and being a war hero.

Both guys have major problems that are denied by those who support them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_Jay

As mentioned above, many of these sources are right wing and some are even from the office of Bush himself. The original question still stands: how do Bush supports reconcile these facts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

As mentioned above, many of these sources are right wing and some are even from the office of Bush himself. The original question still stands: how do Bush supports reconcile these facts?

Most of these "facts" are very opinionated, and not written very well at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_Jay

Most of these "facts" are very opinionated, and not written very well at all.

Yes, this one is certainly the opinion of MSNBC, not to mention the 9-11 Commission:

7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.

Source: MSNBC , 9-11 Commission

Quote:

Originally Posted by quicksteal

1.9 million jobs created in the last 13 months to counter the fact that over the last 4 years, net jobs have declined.

Yeah by changing full time job into 3 casual ones

Ok you found one sans an opinion, how many of the 100 actually have some substance to them.

By the way, I'm voting Kerry, I just want people to vote for who they actually think will do a better job, not the "anyone but Bush" mentality. I'm not trying to start something, just wanted ya to know.

I'm not voting for either of these two guys as I think they're pretty much 2 sides of the same coin. But I know just as many people who will vote for "anyone but Bush" as will vote for whomever the Republicans put up and it disturbs me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Oh, I get it. "I'm right, everyone else has a distorted reality!"

Well, considering that Bush and Kerry are neck and neck according to most polls, apparently a LOT of people agree with me. Now if Kerry was polling at 99.9999999% to Bush's 0.00000001%, then you'd be dead-on target.

Quote:

...and people still fight. That's faith, people. That's real fuckin' strong faith. To be able to completely DENY reality and fight on... that's fuckin' admirable faith.

I've said repeatedly here that Bush sucks. But the problem is that Kerry strikes me as being a complete and total disaster waiting to happen. Between his insistence that his past history of appeasement isn't REALLY appeasement, but instead is simply "nuance", and his long-term endorsement of Internationalism to the detriment of America's overall interests, it's not that I think he lacks the qualifications necessary for the office he aspires to, it's that I think he poses a very real, immediate danger to the US Constitution if he takes office. Bush's ability to damage the Constitution has been minimized at this point, since he's basically gotten what he wanted (Patriot), with KERRY'S SUPPORT. In other words, Bush has already "done his worst". His Gay Marriage Amendment was a political stunt, with ZERO chance of passage. Kerry, on the other hand, poses a very real threat of rendering the US Constitution a secondary legal authority by ceding the primary authority to International law and the UN. If that single issue doesn't worry the bejesus out of you, you NEED to read up on the implications. It makes Peak Oil look like a GOOD thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Anyone at any given time can dispute some facts and warp them to their agenda. But when you have at least 100 from different sources some from the opposing side that prove your point, then you can't argue and you can't warp. You maybe able to take a few but......

ALL of the "facts presented" did indeed go through a left-prism, namely, The Nation, the magazine who published the article, and the author who compiled and wrote it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quicksteal

You forgot that Bush is putting more arsenic in our drinking water.

Yup, I've got a picture of him doing it, dumping a 55 gallon drum of arsenic into an exposed water pipe. Sure, it's a poorly photoshopped picture, but hey, I bet I can get "60 Minutes" to run it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

So there were no terrorists that had been responsible for killing American citizens in Iraq? Are you REALLY saying that Saddam didn't shelter Palestinian terrorist leaders?

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

So there were no terrorists that had been responsible for killing American citizens in Iraq? Are you REALLY saying that Saddam didn't shelter Palestinian terrorist leaders?

Read #7 again:

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.

Cheney told the American people that Iraq was at least partly responsible for 9-11. This has been proved to be false. It is a known fact that Iraq in no way participatred in 9-11. Your refusal to see the truth in no way negates it. But nice straw man, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

Cheney told the American people that Iraq was at least partly responsible for 9-11. This has been proved to be false. It is a known fact that Iraq in no way participatred (sic) in 9-11.

I wonder what on earth could have given people the impression that Saddam was somehow involved with 9/11...

<img src="http://www.spiritoftruth.org/images/3rd-infantry-saddam-911.jpg" /img>

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

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?

This is another strawman argument. The issue is not whether one single Al Qaeda operative was within the borders of Iraq.

Besides which, you already know there was an Al Qaeda operative inside the borders of Iraq - directly inside the northeastern portion of the country, which happened to have been controlled by the United States.

As we had discussed yesterday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

Besides which, you already know there was an Al Qaeda operative inside the borders of Iraq - directly inside the northeastern portion of the country, which happened to have been controlled by the United States.

You have a cite showing that the US controlled the Northeastern part of Iraq? How large of an occupying army did we have there at that time? Would you care to list the divisional level armed forces that the US had deployed in Northeastern Iraq at the time? Thanks SO much.

There's a MAJOR difference between having a few handfuls of people in a large geographical area, and actually CONTROLLING that area. We've got troops in Cuba. Do we control Cuba? Of course not. Well, wait, I guess depending on your perspective, you could argue it, but still...

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Now you're arguing yesterday's discussion?

There were no troops on the ground. It was controlled via the no-fly zone. The no-fly zone prevented any of Saddam's forces to occupy the land. It was setup to protect the Kurds, as deemed necessary by the U.S., U.K. and France by virtue of U.N. Resolution #688.

We went through this yesterday.

None of it has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that Cheney falsely linked Saddam's Iraq with 9/11.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

There were no troops on the ground. It was controlled via the no-fly zone. The no-fly zone prevented any of Saddam's forces to occupy the land. It was setup to protect the Kurds, as deemed necessary by the U.S., U.K. and France by virtue of U.N. Resolution #688.

None of it has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that Cheney falsely linked Saddam's Iraq with 9/11.

So, because there was a no-fly zone, you're saying we controlled the area? Did the no-fly zone allow us to just run around randomly bombing the ground under it? Saddam couldn't occupy the land NOT because of the no-fly zone, but because there were a bunch of highly pissed-off Kurds with guns there.

There were members of Al Queda within the geographic borders of Iraq. I don't think you're disputing this. If you are disputing this, get a map, look at the borders, look at the camp, and see if it's within what the map calls "IRAQ". If that's the case, then Cheney's statement was indeed factually accurate.

OK. If he meant that the U.S. could have walked up to the Al Qaeda member and arrested him or killed him if he resisted, without having to deal with Saddam at all, then you are correct.

But it is clear that is not what Cheney meant.

As for the no-fly zone - if it were not in place, Saddam could have walked over the Kurds by FLYING there. So, the no-fly zone was absolutely controlling the area.

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?

Come on, the issue isn't whether there was ONE SINGLE Al Qaeda operative in Iraq but whether or not it was a significant source of support for Al Qaeda. All post invasion reports have concluded that it was not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Heheheheheheheheeee!!!

So, 53 WMDs weren't enough WMDs to justify the war. The sealed bunkers full of chemical weapons that we still haven't opened aren't enough WMDs to justify the war. And now a single high-profile Al Queda operative (and a training camp full of Al Queda recruits/refugees from Afghanistan) isn't enough to justify the war.

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?

Good thread. The facts are overwhelming when compiled like this. Lets just hope people wake up to themselves at polling time. Its truly astonishing that he gets any votes. In the presedential debate Kerry should have just said one word 'Iraq', then won the debate. The really sad thing is that most americans (and people generally) have historical amnesia and the attention span of a goldfish. Nobody gives a shit about WMDs or if Al Qaeda was in Iraq. The huge number of innocent Iraq/ Afgan lives lost dont count for shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

And now a single high-profile Al Queda operative (and a training camp full of Al Queda recruits/refugees from Afghanistan) isn't enough to justify the war.

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by almostaugust

In the presedential debate Kerry should have just said one word 'Iraq', then won the debate.

And Bush should have said "Vietnam" and won it right back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Jeez, how many times can we go over this? The "53 WMDs" were abandoned and derelict weapons...that bunker was known to and sealed by the UN. If they are such a strong argument, why isn't anyone outside of wacky message boards like this mentioning them? Is Karl Rove that dumb?

Quote:

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?

No hyperbole there. The Iraq/9-11 connection is yet another claim that has been soundly disproved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Heheheheheheheheeee!!!

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?

It would have helped if the hi-jackers had been from Iraq.

Of course, I can't speak for others.....

Instead of attacking each other, which is where most of these threads go anyway, why not attack and refute the 100 statements made in the original post.

If only somehow there were a way to interact with a huge database of information.....maybe a network of networks...yes, where you could find information to either validate or invalidate the original posters claim...maybe an intranet-web-thingie. Some day....

One day it will come, but until then let's just snipe at each other and use our quick wit to cut down other posters instead of using our amazing powers of sarcasm for good.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

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.

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.

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

http://www.bittybar.com/pics/iraq.jpg

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.

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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

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.

So very much better....thanx all

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

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

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.

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.

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

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.

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".

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

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? :|

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

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.

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alto92

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aliali

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Is this supposted to be an argument somehow?

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.

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.

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.

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.