20 Lies of anti-terror and Iraq war by Bush in 90 mins!!! - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
October 2nd, 2004  
Delta210
 
That is not what I said. Reread it. What I said was if you refuse to accept the truth as can be found by comparing Kerry's voting record to his statements while campaigning, I have no intention on continuing to try and talk to you as you are closed minded and do not wish an open discussion.

If I'm wrong, show me the votes of Kerry's supporting the military and intelligence. If you can't then tell me how I am wrong.
October 3rd, 2004  
Airborne Eagle
 
 

Topic: Re: 20 Lies of anti-terror and Iraq war by Bush in 90 mins!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
1. "Bush hailed the coming presidential election in Afghanistan, saying that the fact that 10 million people had registered to vote was a "phenomenal statistic."
So, how many millions are registered for that nation's first nationwide election? Eight million of 25? Seven Million? How many million women are registered to vote? Are running for office?

I daresay more than when the Taliban was in charge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
2. "On North Korea, Bush charged that Kerry's proposal to have direct talks with that country would end the six-nation diplomacy that the administration has pursued over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. Kerry has said he would continue the six-party talks as well. Bush said direct talks with North Korea would drive away China, a key player in the negotiations.
This isn't a "lie," it's a difference of opinion. If you want to evaluate the value of bi-lateral talks with North Korea, research the Clionton Administration's record. It didn't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
3. "In a fierce debate over nuclear proliferation, Bush asserted: "Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice." He was referring to a nuclear smuggling ring based in Pakistan.
Again, not a "lie." Folks can claim the Clinton Administration played a role, but the timing is just a bit too curious. Did Clinton's crew work on this? I'm certain they did. It just took a more serious approach to close the deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
4. "Bush said he has increased spending on curbing nuclear proliferation by "about 35 percent" since he took office. But in his first budget, he proposed a 13 percent cut -- about $116 million -- and much of the increases since then have been added by Congress." (WP, 10/1/04)
And it subsequently increased each year after the first year. Again, not a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
5. "Bush said "Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming." Yet Iraq asserted in its filing with the United Nations in December 2002 that it had no such weapons, and none has been found.
Again, not a lie. If Saddam was interested in disarming, he would not have retained the WMD programs. Further, it is universally agreed that the 2002 declaration was a farce. Even Hans Blix stated it was a worthless document that fell far short of the needed documentation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
Poland later supplied troops and commanded a zone in Iraq. But, except for a few commandos, Polish troops were not part of the original ground invasion." (WP, 10/1/04)
Soooooo, Poland was involved. Again, not a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
In a floor statement explaining his vote, Kerry said he favored the $67 billion for the troops on the ground, but he faulted the administration's $20 billion request for reconstruction." (WP, 10/1/04)
Again, not a lie (noticing something of a pattern). If Kerry wanted to make a statement about spending, there were ample spending bills to vote against. When our troops are in harm's way, it's time to shelve partisan politics and get the troops what they need as soon as possible. There's no getting around that point.

One more thing, didn't Kerry say it would be reckless to vote against the bill? And then proceeded to vote against it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
8. "Bush cited as a sign of progress in Iraq that the US is "spending reconstruction money," when in fact the slow pace of spending has become a major problem for US officials.
Again, not a lie. It is curious, though. Didn't you complain about the cost of the war? Of course the war has cost far less than the $200 billion ("Kerry Exaggerates Cost of War in Iraq")? So, when money isn't being spent, you don't like that either?
Good news is nations are re-structuring Iraq's debt (agreed to cut Iraq's estimated 120 billion dollars (97.9 billion euros) of debt by at least 50 percent). This frees up Iraqi money to be used for Iraqi projects. All the better and a bit of good news that went unreported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
9. "Bush also said "100,000 troops" and other Iraqi security personnel have been trained to date. That's the official figure,
Again, not a lie. I'd rather they get the shake and bake and start on the job training, with follow up formal trining. The more Iraqis in uniform, securing Iraqi assets, the better. Wouldn't you agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
10. "The President misquoted Kerry's position on how quickly troops might be withdrawn from Iraq. Bush claimed Kerry once said "I'll have them out of there in six months," which is false.
Considering Kerry's "flexible" position on Iraq, I think some latitude could be given.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
11. "The President said twice that "75 percent" of al Qaeda leaders have been "brought to justice." But as The Associated Press reported Oct. 1, Bush was referring to the deaths or arrests of 75 percent of bin Laden's network at the time of the September 11 attacks -- not those who are running the terrorist organization today.....Furthermore, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members.
Again, not lies. First, it's natural that new leaders would be forced to fill vacant positions. The fact remains they are less experienced and it significantly degrades their capability. To give an example, it's as if we've knocked 75% of their officers out and the non-coms are forced to step in as "officers."
Next, pre-war numbers of al Qaeda also had the organization at 20,000. So, it appears al Qaeda was able to re-fill their ranks and possibly bolster. However, it's disingenuous to declare the Iraq War was a recruiting bonanza for al Qaeda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
12. "The president suggested that the war in Iraq was connected to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, saying, "The enemy attacked us." The federal Sept. 11 commission, however, said that so far, it found no evidence "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al-Qaida in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
Again not a lie. The same 9/11 report noted numerous high level meetings between Iraq and al Qaeda. Likely, they were exchanging cookie recipes. It is interesting to note Zarqawi's sudden appearance in Iraq with a good number of his al Qaeda henchmen as the war kicked off. What a coincidence, huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
13. "Kerry was correct that while Bush promised he'd plan carefully for a war in Iraq, his administration ignored a huge State Department "Future of Iraq" ...
Again, no lies. Further, American troops did secure many facilities. Considering a primary means of reconstruction is the Iraqi oil industry, why on earth would we give greater concern about museums when we need the ministry to rebuild.

Also, I thought Iraq had no nuclear program. Yet Kerry charged the troops failed to secure the nuclear assets?

Odd, huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
When he voted for the war resolution in October 2002, Kerry made it clear that he favored a "multilateral effort" if diplomacy failed..." (KR, 10/1/04)
Again, not a lie. Kerry has been all over the map. On "Meet the Press," he said he would not increase troops in Iraq and spend whatever it takes to win. Now, he's saying $200 billion (again, an inflated figure) is too much. Huh?

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that we should withdraw American troops from Iraq?

SEN. KERRY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe we should put more American troops in Iraq?

SEN. KERRY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?

SEN. KERRY: No. I think we should increase it.

MR. RUSSERT: Increase funding.

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: By how much?

SEN. KERRY: By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.

Also, the end result was a multilateral effort when diplomacy failed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
15. "The Claim: The difficulties facing the U.S. in Iraq are a product of foreign terrorists showing up to fight the America there.

Reality Check: The U.S. military on the ground says that the overwhelming majority of the insurgents fighting the U.S. in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreigners." (TIME, 10/1/04)
Again, not a lie. There are foreign terroists and Baathists. What's the issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
16. "The Claim: President Bush says he tried diplomacy in Iraq, and went to war only when it failed.
Again not a lie. "Numerous accounts," huh? Could you be a bit more specific?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
17. "The Claim: Saddam Hussein would have grown stronger had the invasion not occurred.
The sanctions were eroding and once gone, Saddam would be free to rebuild his arsenal. Though the stockpiles have not materialized, the programs have been found. He had no intention of complying and knew he could wait it out. France and Russia, with their lucrative oil contracts, would have broken the sanctions hold. Finally, Saddam had two sons more than willing to carry on his work, had he died in the interim.

This situation was not going to improve over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
18. " The Claim: A free Iraq will help secure Israel. Reality Check: The bulk of Iraq's Arab majority, both Sunni and Shiite, hold the same hostile view of Israel as their brethren throughout the Arab world.
Again, not a lie. I think the primary reason Israel would be more secure is because Saddam's money would no longer go to the families of suicide bombers. Since Saddam's money supply was stopped (and, more importantly the wall was built), suicide bombings have dropped dramatically. In short, Israel is more secure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
19. " The Claim: We have 30 nations in our coalition; our coalition is strong. Reality Check: There isn't a single Arab country in the coalition, in contrast to the wide Arab participation in the Gulf War. And the U.S. and Britain between them provided more than 90 percent of the troops.
Again, not a lie. Not all nations have the economy to support large forces or protracted deployment. I wouldn't expect smaller nations to send divisions when their home forces are a fraction of the US and UK's. All help is appreciated, though.
And there might be a reason why we're not asking certain nations for assistance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
20. "Striving for emotional effect rather than precision, he seemed at times to conflate Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the terrorists who attacked a Russian school into a single adversary." (BDC, 10/1/04)
Again, not a lie (per se). They are all part of the same threat, in varying degrees. Al Qaeda has murdered thousands of our citizens, Saddam harbored (Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi, etc), supported (suicide bombers) and negotiated (al Qaeda, among others) with terrorists, the savages at Beslan were radical Islamists.
Same threat, different degrees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosewar2000
JUST BRING THE FACTS, AND YOUR ARGUMENTS MAKE THEMSELVES
Indeed.
October 3rd, 2004  
C/2nd Lt Robot
 
 
so whosewar2000 where are YOUR facts?
--
Boots
October 3rd, 2004  
Shadowalker
 
 
If he couldnt lie he wouldnt be a politician.!!