Weak on ammo, Bush (ads) mislead public

[Tiger Al 0]

Bush ads released April 26 recycle some distortions of Kerry's voting record on military hardware. We've de-bunked these half-truths before but the Bush campaign persists.

The ads -- many targeted to specific states -- repeat the claim that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream weapons including Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Apache helicopters, and also repeat the claim that he voted against body armor for frontline troops in Iraq. In fact, Kerry voted against a few large Pentagon money bills, of which Bradleys, Apaches and body armor were small parts, but not against those items specifically.

On April 26 the Bush campaign released a total of 10 ads, all repeating claims that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream military hardware "vital to winning the war on terror."

Misleading Claims

The claims are misleading, as we've pointed out before in articles we posted on Feb. 26 and March 16. The Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should -- on balance -- be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.

The claim that Kerry voted against body armor is based similarly on Kerry's vote last year against an $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriation bill to finance military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It included $300 million for the latest, ceramic-plate type of body armor for troops who had been sent to war without it. The body-armor funds amounted to about 1/3 of one percent of the total.

Missing Context

It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter. What the ad lacks is the historic context: the Cold War was ending and the Apache was designed principally as a weapon to be used against Soviet tanks. And in fact, even Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:

Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time.

McCain Defends Kerry, Criticizes "Bitter" Rhetoric

Kerry's voting record on military spending was defended March 18 by Republican Sen. John McCain. He said on CBS's "The Early Show:"

McCain: No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense.

McCain also criticized "bitter and partisan" attacks by both sides, saying,  " This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice."

Targeting Arizona

The state ads made mention of specific weapons -- supposedly opposed by Kerry -- manufactured in those states. The Arizona version mentioned Apache helicopters, Tomahawk cruise missiles and F-18 aircraft "all built here in Arizona."

The other ads were aimed at Arkansas, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania. All added  a similar pork-barrel appeal to the basic attack on Kerry for  undermining the "war on terror." And all gave an equally false impression of Kerry's actual voting record.

From the non-partisan FactCheck.org

[CarolinaTiger 0]

speaking of bush ads, i finally saw one last night on TV.

hate to see NC get into the fray in many respects....but w/ an open senate seat & governor's race up for grabs, i guess it's inevitable that we'll get inundated w/ the ads pretty heavily.

i can only imagine what will happen if kerry chooses edwards as his running mate and NC continues to be an 'in-play' state.

[channonc 466]

Wow! The silence is deafening on this one.

[WarTim 3,463]

Deafening?...Not at all. The kerry/kennedy/hitlary pact is a bunch of east coast liberal liars.

Nothing more...nothing less....

[CCTAU 3,369]

Wow! The silence is deafing on this one.

Now that Bush does a little of what the dems have been doing, its now bad? HA HA HA. I laugh at you!

[TitanTiger 20,708]

The FactCheck article has a good point. I hate this kind of stuff. But I find it a tad disingenous, channoc, for you and Al to trumpet this one and for you to talk about the "silence" on it, when I've posted at least three of these Factcheck articles that hammered Kerry or the DNC with nary a peep from any of you guys.

In fact, here is a list of topics I either started with Factcheck articles or topics I added to with a Factcheck analysis. Not even one of them has one comment on the Factcheck article from any of the resident liberals. Even threads that were started by a liberal where I posted one of these suddenly had liberals either at a loss for words or suddenly disinterested because none of them commented on the article at all:

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?a...hlite=factcheck

So forgive me if your astonishment at the "deafening silence" comes off a tad hollow to me.

[Tiger Al 0]

The FactCheck article has a good point. I hate this kind of stuff. But I find it a tad disingenous, channoc, for you and Al to trumpet this one and for you to talk about the "silence" on it, when I've posted at least three of these Factcheck articles that hammered Kerry or the DNC with nary a peep from any of you guys.

In fact, here is a list of topics I either started with Factcheck articles or topics I added to with a Factcheck analysis. Not even one of them has one comment on the Factcheck article from any of the resident liberals. Even threads that were started by a liberal where I posted one of these suddenly had liberals either at a loss for words or suddenly disinterested because none of them commented on the article at all:

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?a...hlite=factcheck

So forgive me if your astonishment at the "deafening silence" comes off a tad hollow to me.

Sadly, that is the biggest problem here and I am as much to blame as anyone. No one really wants to discuss the issues or honest differences of opinion, but would rather score rhetorical points and show how liberals/republicans have caused the problem. I've noticed, however, that this doesn't occur very often when two posters of the same political stripes disagree, such as yours and rexbo's discussion on vehicles last week. Had a liberal been in that discussion instead of one of you, it would've simply been childish flamethrowing from both sides.

I hate that because I'd really like to see some honest discussion on the subjects as opposed to finding the "facts" that prove that liberals/republicans suck. I realize that this is just a pipedream but it would be nice if we could post toward that end. In the meantime, I'll gas up my flamethrower!

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Well, I'd like the same thing, Al. What has happened over the years (in general, not just the history of this board) is that people project their frustrations with the "other side" on to people they haven't spent that much time conversing with themselves. They attribute all that negative history with the other side onto the person in front of them at the moment.

The way this fleshes out is what has become the famous (or infamous, depending on where you're coming from) "Bush-haters" defense. Conservatives feel like President Bush has gotten an inordinate amount of unfair and over the top criticism from the liberal elite, anti war types, celebrities, and so on. After a while, it just becomes something like white noise...constant static that we just learn to tune out. I know this happens both ways, but I can only speak from my own feeling and experience. It's a shame that this happens because often we end up missing out on the good thinking that the other side comes up with. But when I see the stuff that gets thrown at President Bush, I get angry because I feel like for every one thing that has a point, there are 10 or more that are just mean-spirited and pointless and I think he's a good man. So then the claws come out because you feel like you've just got to counteract all the negativity and you don't have time for a more "nuanced" (Kerry word there for ya!) response. You have to cut through the crap first and it tires you out from getting into more important details.

It frustrates me especially because I'm more of an issue by issue type of person at heart. There are a few core issues that keep me in the Republican party for the most part, but others are more negotiable. Unfortunately, it seems to be an ideological package deal...you don't get to select an "ala-carte" candidate because the divisions are so deep and so hardened.

[channonc 466]

It frustrates me especially because I'm more of an issue by issue type of person at heart

Contrary to what you believe, I totally agree with you. I wish more politicians were up for talking about issues instead of mud slinging.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

It frustrates me especially because I'm more of an issue by issue type of person at heart

Contrary to what you believe, I totally agree with you. I wish more politicians were up for talking about issues instead of mud slinging.

Actually, channoc, I have a very good opinion of you. You're probably the least frustrating Democrat on this board followed by Al (when he's not in attack mode), to me. I have little to no patience or respect for Bottomfeeder, IB4AU, and a couple of others.

I just shot back at you this time because of the issue regarding past Factcheck articles I had posted with no response. I rarely find myself jousting with you otherwise.

[Tiger Al 0]

Attack mode???

[Tigermike 3,425]

Attack mode???

That would be the opposite of your innocent mode.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Attack mode???

It was just shorthand for what we've been talking about...the rhetorical shots back and forth that don't really engender discussion but just push a point of view. We're all guilty of it.

[Tiger Al 0]

Attack mode???

It was just shorthand for what we've been talking about...the rhetorical shots back and forth that don't really engender discussion but just push a point of view. We're all guilty of it.

You've got a lot of nerve calling me out for something that you guys do on an hourly basis!!! I don't know where you get the term 'attack mode' from but I'll have you know...

Would it have been more effective if I'd used ALL CAPS!

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Attack mode???

It was just shorthand for what we've been talking about...the rhetorical shots back and forth that don't really engender discussion but just push a point of view. We're all guilty of it.

You've got a lot of nerve calling me out for something that you guys do on an hourly basis!!! I don't know where you get the term 'attack mode' from but I'll have you know...

Would it have been more effective if I'd used ALL CAPS!

Dude, there was a time, not so many weeks ago, when Donutboy and Bottomfeeder alone were putting up more of these drive-by postings than all the conservatives on this board could respond to...but we did respond to many of them.

[DKW 86 7,726]

I dont like the politics of destruction here, but as Titan says, I am so upset with the unrelenting attack on Bush.

Is he perfect? No way.

Is he trying to right by us? Definitely.

I just wish there was an actual debate during this election cycle. There is not one, it is "ABB" and "I blindly follow Bush."

I would love to see a real election again, instead of the countless gotchas of the press.

I will also admit to being very hurt at Kerry's statements regarding the Vietnam Vets. I know many and I know they play fair. I am just very protective of folks that gave literally the rest of their lives to get over being called "baby-killer", etc.

If anyone committed any atrocities, may they all be put in Leavenworth.

[Tiger Al 0]

I will also admit to being very hurt at Kerry's statements regarding the Vietnam Vets. I know many and I know they play fair. I am just very protective of folks that gave literally the rest of their lives to get over being called "baby-killer", etc.

I think in all fairness to Kerry, you'd have to (or should) admit that he was speaking for the group, VVAW, as a whole and many if not most of the things he said were not recounts of his own experiences, nor did he claim them to be. He's also said that he made a mistake in the way he said some things he said.

[Tigermike 3,425]

I will also admit to being very hurt at Kerry's statements regarding the Vietnam Vets. I know many and I know they play fair. I am just very protective of folks that gave literally the rest of their lives to get over being called "baby-killer", etc.

I think in all fairness to Kerry, you'd have to (or should) admit that he was speaking for the group, VVAW, as a whole and many if not most of the things he said were not recounts of his own experiences, nor did he claim them to be. He's also said that he made a mistake in the way he said some things he said.

In all fairness to Kerry, you'd have to (or should) look at exactly what he said. If what he said is not a recount of his own experience, then he was a liar then and to attempt to explain it away by saying "He's also said that he made a mistake in the way he said some things he said." is BS! Yes he was speaking for the group, of which he was a member and most visible spoksman.

What did John Kerry say? What did he mean?

o In his April 1971 speech to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, John Kerry claimed that war crimes committed by the American military against Vietnamese civilians were "not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis..." War crimes in Vietnam were actually quite rare.

o Kerry claimed that war crimes were being committed "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." In fact, military personnel were warned that "if you disobey the rules of engagement, you can be tried and punished." War crimes were never a matter of policy, and were prosecuted when discovered.

o Kerry charged that the war in Vietnam was a racist war, that "blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties." Research published in B.G. Burkett's book "Stolen Valor" and other sources shows that casualty rates for black and white soldiers during Vietnam closely matched the proportion of America's overall population represented by each race.

o Kerry claimed that Vietnam was "ravaged equally by American bombs and search-and-destroy missions as well as by Viet Cong terrorism..." Later in his remarks, Kerry responded to a question about what might happen to the South Vietnamese after our withdrawal with "So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America..." Yet according to historian Guenter Lewy in "America in Vietnam," "...the number of civilians killed deliberately by the VC is appallingly high. No counterpart to this death toll caused by communist terror tactics exists on the allied side."

o Asked for a recommendation about possible courses of action for Congress to pursue, Kerry stated that he had talked with representatives from Hanoi and from the PRG (Viet Cong) at the Paris peace talks, and mentioned his support for "Madam Binh's points." Madam Win Thi Binh was at that time the Foreign Minister for the PRG. These meetings took place in the spring of 1970, before Kerry ever joined the VVAW.

o Kerry was a leader, fund-raiser, and spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), an organization that staged mock mass murders of civilians to dramatize American atrocities, and handed out flyers that read "if you had been Vietnamese" American infantrymen might have "burned your house" or "raped your wife and daughter" and "American soldiers do these things every day to the Vietnamese simply because they are 'Gooks.'"

o Kerry's used "testimony" from the VVAW's "Winter Soldier Investigation" as the basis for his war crimes charges, although none of the witnesses there were willing to sign depositions affirming their claims. Later investigators were unable to confirm any of the reported atrocities, and in fact discovered that a number of the witnesses had never been in Vietnam, had never been in combat, or were imposters who had assumed the identity of real veterans.

o The deception extended to the VVAW leadership. Executive secretary Al Hubbard claimed to have been an Air Force captain wounded piloting a transport over Da Nang in 1966. Hubbard was actually a staff sergeant who was never assigned to Vietnam.

o The Winter Soldier Investigation was financed by pro-Hanoi radicals such as Jane Fonda and Mark Lane, who hoped to undermine American support for the war by framing American soldiers as mass murderers. At the same time, the North Vietnamese military was torturing American prisoners of war to make them confess to identical crimes. At least one former POW has stated that Kerry's testimony was used by North Vietnam to demoralize American prisoners during interrogations.

o John Kerry has denied any association with Jane Fonda, but he attended the 1970 VVAW leadership meeting that chose Fonda and Executive Secretary Al Hubbard to do a national speaking tour to raise money for the VVAW and launch new chapters. Fonda was also the primary source of funds for the Winter Soldier Investigation, where Kerry was a moderator. In fact, Fonda had been a key supporter of the VVAW as early as 1969, when she did a fund-raising tour for AWOL GI's, the VVAW and the Black Panther Party.

o The VVAW signed the People's Peace Treaty during Kerry's tenure -- the VVAW even sent a delegation to Hanoi. The document was a laundry list of North Vietnamese bargaining points, including the key concession that the United States must agree to withdraw all troops before any negotiations could take place for the return of American prisoners.

o The VVAW was at the heart of the propaganda effort that so effectively smeared American servicemen in Vietnam as murderous, drug-addled psychotics that returning veterans were cursed and spat upon in the streets. In fact, as shown in B.G. Burkett's book "Stolen Valor," Vietnam veterans are more psychologically stable and successful than their civilian counterparts.

o The VVAW was a radical and potentially violent organization that formally considered assassinating prominent supporters of the war. As reported in the New York Sun by Thomas Lipscomb, during a November 1971 meeting in Kansas City the VVAW leadership and chapter coordinators voted down a plan to murder several U.S. Senators, including John Tower, John Stennis, and Strom Thurmond. Two VVAW members who were present, Randy Barnes and Terry Du-Bose, place John Kerry at that meeting, as do the meeting minutes and FBI records. Kerry claims to have resigned from the VVAW at the meeting or shortly thereafter, but there is no evidence that he ever informed authorities about the conspiracy. Kerry continued to publicly represent the VVAW until at least April of 1972.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Keys

If you want to read Kerry's entire testimony, here is a link.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony

[Tiger Al 0]

Tigermike, he didn't say it was a recount of his own experiences. He said "they". Well, in fact, this exactly what he said:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

He's there as a representative of 150 people who testified and he is recounting some of what that testimony said. He'd only be a liar if he had mens rea, or guilty mind, meaning that he knew that what he was saying was untrue. If you have proof that he was saying things that he knew to be untrue, then I'd be interested in seeing it.

[CCTAU 3,369]

He's there as a representative of 150 people who testified and he is recounting some of what that testimony said. He'd only be a liar if he had mens rea, or guilty mind, meaning that he knew that what he was saying was untrue. If you have proof that he was saying things that he knew to be untrue, then I'd be interested in seeing it.

So now it's only a lie if you know it to be a lie?

Kinda sounds like the argument for Bush's misinformation on Iraq. Damn you people waffle. Like master like dog!

[Tigermike 3,425]

Tigermike, he didn't say it was a recount of his own experiences. He said "they". Well, in fact, this exactly what he said:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

He's there as a representative of 150 people who testified and he is recounting some of what that testimony said. He'd only be a liar if he had mens rea, or guilty mind, meaning that he knew that what he was saying was untrue. If you have proof that he was saying things that he knew to be untrue, then I'd be interested in seeing it.

Spin it any way you wish Al, you have seen my post above of exactly what he said. What is the meaning of is? What is the meaning of saying:

1.) war crimes committed by the American military against Vietnamese civilians were "not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis..." War crimes in Vietnam were actually quite rare.

2.) war crimes were being committed "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." In fact, military personnel were warned that "if you disobey the rules of engagement, you can be tried and punished." War crimes were never a matter of policy, and were prosecuted when discovered

3.) Kerry charged that the war in Vietnam was a racist war, that "blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties." Research published in B.G. Burkett's book "Stolen Valor" and other sources shows that casualty rates for black and white soldiers during Vietnam closely matched the proportion of America's overall population represented by each race.

What is the definition of a liar?

One that tells lies.

lie2

n.

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies

v. intr.

To present false information with the intention of deceiving.

To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

v. tr.

To cause to be in a specific condition or affect in a specific way by telling falsehoods: You have lied yourself into trouble.

Idiom:

lie through one's teeth

To lie outrageously or brazenly.

Asked for a recommendation about possible courses of action for Congress to pursue, Kerry stated that he had talked with representatives from Hanoi and from the PRG (Viet Cong) at the Paris peace talks, and mentioned his support for "Madam Binh's points." Madam Win Thi Binh was at that time the Foreign Minister for the PRG. These meetings took place in the spring of 1970, before Kerry ever joined the VVAW.

Well Al, there are plenty of examples of them dem darling John F)(*(%##() Liar Kerry brazenly lieing. Some in the distant past, some within the past year. Some within the past two weeks.

"I don't own an SUV!" OK so it's in his wife's name.

"Foreign leaders want me to win". Sodom Hussein? Ossma bin Laden? Kim Jong?

Mens Rea -- What does it mean? Where does it fit?

Mens Rea

The state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a crime.

mens rea definition – in most cases, an act is a crime because the person committing it intended to do something wrong. This mental state is generally referred to as Mens rea, or guilty mind. Mens rea expresses a belief that people should be punished only when they have acted in a way that makes them morally blameworthy.

I don't think anyone has accused him of committing a crime, merely being duplicitous in everything he has ever said or done.

You attempt to pass his words and actions off as if all the others were lying and he was deceived. That would make him naive rather than a liar. If so one would think he would have grown up at some point in time. But he is still not lying, merely "mens rea" or merely naive.

[Tiger Al 0]

He's there as a representative of 150 people who testified and he is recounting some of what that testimony said. He'd only be a liar if he had mens rea, or guilty mind, meaning that he knew that what he was saying was untrue. If you have proof that he was saying things that he knew to be untrue, then I'd be interested in seeing it.

So now it's only a lie if you know it to be a lie?

Kinda sounds like the argument for Bush's misinformation on Iraq. Damn you people waffle. Like master like dog!

No...the administration has tried to portray itself as a victim in spite of plenty of people saying that their assertions vis a vis Iraq were innacurate. But, whatever you WANT to believe is what you'll believe. A Rush flavored cocktail is very powerful. When he wants you to think otherwise he'll notify you.