|
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
Whatt??.. you talk as if Bush was Bin Laden.. you keep evading the fact that we let Bin Laden go FREE.. Have you not heard that Bush has tiest with the Saudi royal family's?!?.. Have you not figure out that the hi-jackers were Saudis?!?! ( and mastermind Bin Laden ) .. Have you not seen that thanks to upper commands in governemt, because of the Saudis, we let dozens of Saudis, among Bin laden's family members flee the US in a period where the Aerospace was close??.. come on man, come up with a better argument.. this is just old.. if anything, you might as well enjoy the political forum.. ;-)
There's also other issues, such as Economy, health-care, jobs that seem to be priority among americans, is just the fear tactis of Bush that keeps people in fear.. what a way ;-) |
1.
This anti-Bush radio ad is among the worst distortions we've seen in what has become a very ugly campaign. It states as fact some of the most sensational falsehoods that Michael Moore merely insinuated in his anti-Bush movie Farenheit 9/11 .
The ad was released Oct. 25 by The Media Fund, an independent Democratic group run by former Clinton deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes. It falsely claims that members of the bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the US "when most other air traffic was grounded," though in fact commercial air traffic had resumed a week earlier.
The ad also falsely claims that the bin Laden family members were not "detained," when in fact 22 of them were questioned by the FBI before being allowed to leave -- and their plane was searched as well.
And by the way, the man who gave approval for the flight wasn't Bush or even any of his close aides, it was former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, now one of Bush's strongest critics.
2.
Kerry said U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape in 2001 during the battle at Tora Bora in Afghanistan because the administration "outsourced" fighting to Afghan "warlords." Actually, it's never been clear whether bin Laden actually was at Tora Bora.
It is true that military leaders strongly suspected bin Laden was there, and it is also true that the Pentagon relied heavily on Afghan forces to take on much of the fighting at Tora Bora in an effort to reduce US casualties. But Kerry overstates the case by stating flatly that "we had him surrounded."
(Update: Oct. 28 -- Peter Bergen, a fellow at the non-partisan New America Foundation and one of the few journalists ever to interview bin Laden personally, reported on his website Oct. 21 that he has concluded "there is plenty of evidence that bin Laden was at Tora Bora, and no evidence indicating that he was anywhere else at the time." Bergen cites an audio tape released on Al Jazeera television last year in which bin Laden is heard relating his own memories of the battle there: "We were about three hundred holy warriors. We dug one hundred trenches over an area of one square mile, so as to avoid the huge human losses from the bombardment."
Earlier, Gen. Tommy Franks stated in a New York Times opinion article Oct. 19 that "we don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir." Franks was in command of US forces in the region at the time, and he is now endorsing Bush for re-election.)
3.
Challengers don't often win when the economy is good, and so Kerry has systematically distorted, exaggerated and misstated facts about the economy under Bush. For more than a year, as far back as his speech Sept. 2, 2003 formally announcing himself as a candidate for the nomination, Kerry has been making bogus comparisons to the Great Depression, overstating the number of payroll jobs lost during Bush's tenure, and (once jobs started growing again last August) falsely claiming that the new jobs pay $9,000 less than those that were lost, a claim unsupported even by the evidence he cites from a pro-labor think tank.
Actually, the economy in October 2004 is about average -- though certainly not as good as it was in the four years before Bush took office.
Unemployment: According to the most recent figures available, the US unemployment rate stood at 5.4 percent in September. That's was slightly better that the average rate of 5.63 percent for every month since 1948, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics started keeping records. But it's not quite as good as the 5.2 percent rate that prevailed at the same point in Clinton's first term, and it is significantly worse than the remarkably low 4.2 percent rate in place when Bush took office in January, 2001.
Job Growth: Kerry repeatedly claims that 1.6 million jobs have been lost under Bush, which is false. The BLS currently puts total payroll employment for September at just under 600,000 below where it was when Bush took office, taking into account an annual "benchmarking" adjustment that will be made next February. The economy has gained nearly 2 million jobs since the worst of the slump 13 months ago, but it now appears Bush will probably finish his term in January 2005 with a slight loss. Only in that sense could his tenure be compared to Hoover's.
Job Quality: Kerry's bases his claim that today's jobs pay $9,000 less that jobs that were lost on averages calculated by the liberal Economic Policy Institute, but even EPI's numbers don't back up what Kerry says. The EPI computes averages for a few broad industries, not a comparison of specific jobs lost compared to new jobs. No such figures exist. And as we showed in one of our articles, comparing a larger number of job categories -- accounting for 154 different types of work within industries -- produces a finding that contradicts Kerry's claim. Those figures show higher-paying occupations growing faster than lower-paying occupations. But these are also averages that don't compare specific jobs lost with specific new jobs. The fact is there's no agreement among economists as to whether new jobs are worse or better, let alone what the pay difference might be, despite what Kerry keeps saying.
4.
Im not a big fan of national health care - which is what Kerry is trying to get at. National healthcare will only kill the quality of the kind of care we get in the US. (Nothing big here, just my opinion)
5.
Kerry claimed Bush "has taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see." But the country never actually had a $5.6 trillion surplus. The projected surplus Kerry was referring to was a 10-year figure that was already made dubious by a weakening economy and a pent-up Congressional urge to spend. The largest annual surplus actually realized was $236 billion in fiscal year 2000, which ended a month before Bush was elected.
6.
The reason why the economy was so good before Bush was elected was because of the boom in the internet. All the .com's that were emerging and creating so many jobs. Anyone take history and remember the 1920's? When businesses were taking over the government and economy in such a short time frame that it boiled to a point and popped. The same goes for what happened under Clinton and his balloon which eventually bursted when Bush took office. Bush recovered very from this and the attacks and the recession didnt last long at all.
___________________
/SARCASM.
| quote: | Originally posted by Coup
Vlad wins.
Flawless victory. |
|
