It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Bush and Kerry Both Manipulate the Truth

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 08:18 AM
link   
In the first presidential debate where we saw John Kerry and George W. Bush discuss major issues for the first time face to face, the facts show that both candidates fiddled with the truth of their answers to tough questions. Each candidate tried to pound home certain key words and key phrases to show where they stand on issues such as Iraq, terrorism and North Korea, but neither of them fully acknowledge the truth of the situations.
 



www.miami.com
So who was telling the truth?

No American combat units were transferred from Afghanistan to Iraq, but about half of the Special Forces who were hunting bin Laden were pulled off and sent to Iraq, and many of the CIA's intelligence assets also were transferred to Iraq. Kerry was correct that the United States relied on three Afghan warlords to capture bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders, and that they failed to do so in a battle at Tora Bora. However, that wasn't because American troops had been sent from Afghanistan to Iraq.

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."

In addition, Defense Intelligence Agency analysts concluded in several papers in 2002 that even if Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons, it was unlikely to give them to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups.

Bush was correct in saying that Saddam had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction, but Kerry was also correct when he said many more countries also have that capacity. Kerry also was correct that North Korea is believed to have four to seven nuclear weapons and that Iran is accelerating its pursuit of them. However, Kerry's suggestion that North Korea went nuclear because Bush took his eye off the ball is wrong: The CIA believed the North Koreans had one or two weapons by the mid-1990s.

Iraq's U.S.-appointed interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, has publicly supported Bush's contention that elections are on track for January. According to U.S. military commanders in Iraq, the president was correct that 100,000 Iraqi soldiers and police have been trained. However, the quality of that training has been open to question, and the U.S. military commanders acknowledge that the Iraqis have sometimes performed poorly in combat situations.

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" project, ignored intelligence warnings that the country could descend into chaos and failed to include enough troops to secure the country's borders, nuclear plants and ammunition dumps. Kerry also was right that the only government building in Baghdad that was guarded by American troops after the city fell was the oil ministry.

And while the CIA's assessment of Iraq's future is bleak and even many of Bush's advisers believe that he's overly optimistic about the chances for successful elections in Iraq, Kerry's claim that he could recruit other nations to help out there is probably overly optimistic, too. France and Germany have said they wouldn't send troops to Iraq under any circumstances.

Bush's main line of attack all evening was his charge that Kerry keeps changing positions on Iraq. In fact, while Kerry admitted Thursday night that he hasn't always expressed himself clearly, he's never backed away from his vote authorizing the war and he's always said that Bush should have sought more international help.

When he voted for the war resolution in October 2002, Kerry made it clear that he favored a "multilateral effort" if diplomacy failed.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Depending on our personal preferences we all saw the truth as we wanted, however knowing the facts and realizing that politics is simply a game, it should be in our best interest to keep ourselves informed.

Related News Links:
www.abovetopsecret.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Kerry wins the first
Kerry is not a flip-flopper: Verified by Factcheck.org



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Remember first and foremost that they are politicians. Their end goal is the presidency and that has nothing to do with the morality of their means.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Well I have to say this is the most sensible take on the debates I have seen.
Those making a case of win/lose for either candidate are either ill-informed or purposely ignoring reality.

The Miami Herald article does a good job on the facts buts lacks analysis of the sometimes ludicris policy positions as stated by candidate Kerry.

Such as,

Unilateral negotiation with North Korea that even Prisident Clinton knew better than to do. This is especially unworkable because China is a key to any plan on NK co-operation and verification and lets not forget the other player with the most at stake here - South Korea.

Would we stand by passively if South Korea unilaterally negotiated a treaty with NK that bound the U.S. to action we don't agree with...........I think not.

The assumption that just because Kerry asks - countries known as "traditional" allies will jump at the chance to advance U.S. policy in Iraq or elsewhere is naive and completely ignores reality.

Bush has made mistakes in his presidency, chief among them not clearly defining the Iraq invasion and its future effect on middle east politics, he touched on the subject last night but not in a way that people can fully understand the strategic goal and how long it will take.

In answer to how long U.S. troops will be in Iraq the pat answer of "until we're done" in no way helps the American people understand the mission.

Far better if Bush had descibed particular milestones to achieve that would allow drawdown of forces in Iraq. The steps to complete this goal if described in a clear manner would have gone a long way toward helping people know and see specific success.

Are there grounds to change presidents under the current circumstances?
I don't believe so and caution those that do to be very careful because they may get more than they expect.

Bush at least believes in what he is doing.

Kerry tells you what you want to be true.



 
0

log in

join