Debate fabrications?

[fintstone]

Well, lets see how long it takes the national media to point out Kerry's lie about Gen. Eric Shinseki in the debate tonight.

Kerry's myth making
Robert Novak

September 30, 2004


WASHINGTON -- John Kerry in a press conference last week repeated his accusation that Gen. Eric Shinseki was "forced out" as U.S. Army chief of staff because he wanted more troops for Iraq. The trouble is that the Democratic presidential nominee was spreading an urban myth. The bigger trouble is that it was no isolated incident.

Sen. Kerry last week also said the Bush administration may push reinstatement of the military draft, when in fact that idea comes only from anti-war Democrats. At the same time, he said retired Gen. Tommy Franks complained that Iraq was draining troops from Afghanistan, when the truth is he never did. Over a week earlier, Kerry blamed Bush for higher Medicare premiums when in fact they are mandated by law (one that Kerry voted for).

Exaggeration is a familiar political staple, but presidential candidates usually are held to a higher standard. Kerry's recent descent into myth making may reflect the campaign's anxiety in the final weeks. The immediate questions are whether he will engage in misstatements during Thursday's first presidential debate, and whether he will be challenged if he does.

Kerry is voicing inaccurate statements that have been repeated so often on the Internet, on radio talk shows and by campaign surrogates that they have come to be regarded as the truth -- for example, the explanation for how Eric Shinseki's long and distinguished military career ended.

Kerry picked up the story April 13 during a campaign event in Providence, R.I., declaring: "Gen. Shinseki said very clearly: We need 200,000 troops. And what happened to him? He was forced into early retirement." Kerry reiterated this last week at a Columbus, Ohio, press conference: "Gen. Shinseki told this country how many troops we'd need. The president retired him early for telling the truth."

That is not true, and even Bush critics in the Pentagon know it. The truth is that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, demanding control of the Army, collided with Shinseki on issues unrelated to Iraq. In March 2002, Rumsfeld announced that Shinseki's term as chief of staff would end as scheduled in June 2003 without extension -- an unprecedented action that made the general a lame duck. It was after that, not before it, on Feb. 25, 2003, that Shinseki told a Senate committee the U.S. would need "several hundred thousand" soldiers (not precisely 200,000) for Iraq occupation duty.

In his Philadelphia speech Sept. 24, Kerry declared: "All you have to do is ask Gen. Tommy Franks how surprised he was that those troops moved out of there (Afghanistan) when he was trying to do the job he was doing." As a former trial lawyer, Kerry should have known the answer to the question he was asking. He could have known by reading Franks' best-selling memoir ("American Solider"), in which the general denies that Bush starved Afghanistan for the sake of Iraq.

"President Bush had stressed his concern that we maintain momentum in Afghanistan," wrote Franks (who supports the president's re-election). Indeed, when Kerry in a Sept. 21 press conference in Jacksonville, Fla., suggested that Bush had taken needed troops out of Afghanistan, Franks that very day said in an ABC radio interview with Sean Hannity: "That's absolutely incorrect."

One day after Kerry misrepresented the former Central Command commander in chief, the Associated Press reported that the candidate at West Palm Beach, Fla., "raised the possibility" of a reinstated draft. That is an old saw on the Internet even though there are no such plans at the Pentagon. The only advocates of renewed conscription are liberal Democrats, led by Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York, who believe it would discourage U.S. military intervention around the world.

Earlier, on Sept. 8 in Cincinnati, Kerry put the blame on Bush for higher Medicare premiums. In fact, health care experts told me, the premiums were mandated by a 1997 codification of the law on which Sen. Kerry cast a favorable vote.

On Jan. 8, 1976, I wrote a column detailing six major untruthful statements by Jimmy Carter -- about himself, not his opponents -- during two public appearances. He went on to the presidency without ever refuting what I wrote. It will be interesting to see whether John Kerry follows the Carter model during the four weeks left for this campaign.

[911pcars]

Robert Novak, the "principled" journalist who released the name of a CIA agent to the public. The CIA agent is the wife of former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson who researched and disagreed there was any evidence of the sale of Nigerian uranium ore to Iraq before the war. Wilson charged that someone in the Bush administration (maybe Rove) leaked his wife's name to Novak because Wilson's report to the CIA wasn't what they wanted to hear.

For me, Novak's standing as a journalist of credibility is quite wobbly. However, there are two sides of the story.

Both sides speak, including Novak's weak rationales (MHO):
http://search.looksmart.com/p/browse/us1/us317916/us53358/us155877/us10176375/us10174299/us10201102/

Sherwood

[fintstone]

Regardless of whether you like the reporter....at least he does not lie... like rather did for Kerry....By the way..turns out Wilson was a liar also....Just like Kerry is...Changing the topic or attacking the author does not make hs reporting any less true. Kerry clearly lied in the debate last night.

[fintstone]

The beltway inquisition
Debra Saunders

September 30, 2004


If the special prosecutor's probe into the identity of Bush administration officials who leaked the name of a CIA agent isn't a witch hunt, it certainly qualifies as a colossal waste of money. And it's likely to erode the ability of journalists to report information gleaned from whistle-blowers.

This saga began on July 6, 2003, when former U.S. diplomat Joseph C. Wilson wrote a piece for The New York Times in which he revealed he was the former envoy who had gone to Niger for the CIA to investigate a report that Iraq had purchased uranium from that African nation. Wilson wrote that he had concluded the exchange was "highly doubtful" -- thus discrediting 16 words in President Bush's State of the Union address. Columnist Robert D. Novak then wrote a column that revealed Wilson had gone to Niger on the advice of Wilson's CIA-operative wife, Valerie Plame.

Howls of outrage from the left echoed. It was a felony to leak Plame's name, Bush haters panted. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called on the FBI to probe the matter, as the Nation's Washington editor David Corn asked, "So where is the investigation?"

Wilson wrote this year that his wife "had nothing to do" with the Niger assignment. But a July Senate Intelligence Committee report later found that she "offered up" Wilson for the Niger trip. More important, the Senate panel found that Wilson did not debunk the Iraq-Niger uranium connection in debriefing on his return from Niger. The panel called into question Wilson's claim that he had noticed that certain documents were forged -- when he had not seen them -- and noted that his debriefing supported suspicions about an Iraq-Niger deal.

Thus, after Wilson and his wife posed for photos in Vanity Fair (odd behavior for a couple outraged that Plame's cover had been blown), and after Wilson wrote a book on the subject, "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies That Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity," the diplomat looked as discredited as he tried to make Bush look. (He also reinforced my personal rule to not trust any person or organization that claims possession of "truth.")

The calls for an investigation led to one. First, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself. Then, he assigned Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, as a special prosecutor.

A year later, the investigation lives. Novak won't say if he has been subpoenaed or has testified before a grand jury, but The New York Times reported that four reporters -- none of whom broke the Plame story -- were subpoenaed and testified before the grand jury. Since Fitzgerald compelled federal employees to sign agreements waiving any confidentiality agreements with journalists, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan has argued that reporters must testify. That's bad news for whistle-blowers.

When attorneys for New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who had talked to confidential sources, protested, Hogan wrote, "Although Ms. Miller never wrote an article about Ambassador Joseph Wilson or his wife Valerie Plame, she contemplated writing one."

Think about that.

The worst of it is, it is not clear a crime has been committed. Former federal prosecutor Victoria Toensing said this: "I don't think they have a crime." Federal law requires that the CIA take "affirmative measures" to hide Plame's identity, or there was no crime. There is reason to believe the CIA did not protect her identity or that the leakers did not know Plame's status, another element necessary for a conviction.

In the meantime, innocent reporters have been thrown before a grand jury, pressured to air confidential information. While lefties who hate Bush may enjoy the prospect, the net result easily could be a drought on leaks that damage Bush as well. Again, the left is too clever for its own good.

As happens, Fitzgerald's office wouldn't say how much the investigation has cost or why it cares to subpoena reporters who didn't out Plame. So I will leave it to you, dear reader, to try to imagine how much money and energy has been spent on this inquisition when these resources could go toward investigating terrorists, organized crime or white-collar criminals.

An apology. A reader pointed out my error in calling France and Germany "gun-shy" in my Sept. 28 column, "With friends like this ... " after both nations sent troops to Afghanistan. While I take strong issue with France, especially for undermining U.S. efforts to win a U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force against a non-compliant Saddam Hussein -- the passage of which might have changed history -- I was guilty of doing what I accused Kerry of doing -- that is, not appreciating U.S. allies' contributions. I take it back.

[911pcars]

"Regardless of whether you like the reporter....at least he does not lie... like rather did for Kerry"

It's not a matter of whether I like Novak. It's a matter of someone in the administration directing a media whore to get even by outing this man's wife, a CIA agent, or of someone in his position who goes along with the plan as a complicite tool in the guise of investigative reporting. Journalists should hold themselves to high standards. Unfortunately, not all of them have the reach.

I'm not concerned with Novak revealing his sources. He lives with his decision to do what he did. He explains his rationale in a linked article in my previous thread.

Did Rather lie or did he not want to face the truth? They're not the same. Since you brought this up, many politicians don't tell the truth, some more than others. However, for the really big one, there are only 2 leaders on this earth who still maintain there was a connection between AlQuida and Iraq. Uhhh, make that just one. The other day Tony Blair said he was sorry. He'll answer to his constituents for his leap of faith.

Despite early as well as current evidence to the contrary or a lack of hard evidence to substantiate the fact, GW still maintains there was a connection. If not an outright lie (or any euphemism for the word), his continued assertions reveal a strong belief system and intractable resolve under the circumstances. These are misplaced values in the context of making knowledgeable and wise decisions as a president, especially with so much at stake.

The success of a President's term in office is due to the people on his staff. They should provide sound counsel and good advice. In this regard, GW has done himself a disservice. He could have done a lot better, but perhaps not. I have no belief system in this regard.

Sherwood

[fintstone]

Face it, when the man and his wife decided to play national politics with information they recieved while working for the CIA...and actually misrepresent that information...they effectively "outed" themselves.
It is odd that liberals are so conbcerned that she was "outed"...(he outed himself), yet are not concerned that he lied about serious national security matters to either our government, the people or (likely) both.