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.

 

The debate - Who lied more...check it out

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Just read an interesting "fact check" article on CNN. Good read on who lied, err...exagerated the truth during the last debate...




www.cnn.com...

CNN) -- Claim: Bush said Kerry cut the intelligence budget by $7.5 billion in the 1990s.

CNN Fact Check: It is true that Kerry proposed or supported cutting several billion dollars from the intelligence budget in the 1990s, however this amounted to a small fraction of the overall intelligence budget, and some of the proposed cuts were in reaction to the discovery of a $1 billion fund that a government intelligence agency had secretly -- and illegally -- accumulated without informing Congress.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Mod Edit: Removed part of a full copy paste, please review the site terms and conditions of use. See Rule #8

MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[edit on 10-10-2004 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
This is a nice sensfan, nice post is amazing how some can take the truth and twisted for their own personal and political agendas.



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Most educated people knew this already. It's never as black and white and the Bush administration would like it to be. But it doesn't seem as though most Bush supporters care to be enlightened, or care to educate themselves on how Congress really works, so a simple "Kerry voted no to intelligence funding!" provides them all they want to hear.



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Edit: Double Post

[edit on 10-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Why did you leave out that Kerry lied about the Bush Admin forcing Gen. Shinseki to retire. Or that Kerry lied about the amount of job losses. Or that Bush's medicare plan would make money for drug companies when in fact their profits will go down 1%.

I think the most important lie/exaggeration by Kerry is that his healthcare plan will NOT provide coverage to ALL Americans as he claims. Here are the 'facts' on that:



Kerry closed by saying "I have a plan to provide health care to all Americans." He doesn't. His plan would extend coverage to between 24 and 27 million Americans who don't have it now, depending on which estimate one chooses. But none of the estimates predict "all" would be insured. A study by the independent Lewin Group, for example, projects that 92% would have coverage, up from just under 86% in 2003.


They both lied/exaggerated in the debates. And they continue to do so on the campaign trail.

Jemison



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Exaggerating is different than lying. Both camps do that, I don't fault them for it, I just prove them wrong when I see it. Lies are a different story. Cheney saying he never met Edwards before was a lie. Cheney saying he never implied that there was an Iraq/Al'Qaeda connection was a lie. Those are not exaggerations, those are not misleading statements, those are LIES.

Taken from factcheck.org:

It is true that Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 25, 2003 that "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would be required for an occupation of Iraq. It is also true that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called that estimate "wildly off the mark" in testimony to the House Budget Committee on Feb. 27, 2003. And it is true that the general retired several months later on June 11, 2003.

But the administration didn't force General Shinseki to retire. In fact, The Washington Times reported Shinseki's plans to retire nearly a year before his Feb. 25, 2003 testimony. The Times article was published April 19, 2002:

Washington Times: He (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) and Army Secretary Thomas White have settled on Gen. John M. Keane, Army deputy chief of staff, to succeed the current chief, Gen. Eric Shinseki. Gen. Shinseki does not retire for more than a year. Sources offer differing reasons for the early selection.

There was some truth to Kerry's comment, however. According to the Oct. 9 Washington Post , the story of Shinseki's replacement was leaked "in revenge" for Shinseki's position on troop requirements, which he was already expressing in private. By naming a replacement 14 months early, the Post said Pentagon leakers effectively undercut Shinseki's authority.

*********************************************************

Has Shinseki made a comment on this situation one way or another? Not that I would expect him to say that he was forced out early, esp if he is receiving retirement benefits and such which I assume he is. Unless maybe he would get a book deal out of it or something



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   


Cheney saying he never met Edwards before was a lie.


I know that photos of Edwards standing next to Cheney (or more accurately Edwards walking in back of a seated Cheney), and talk of them sitting near each other have been circulated but what exactly has proven that they have met and have known each other?

I have been many places where I have been in the prescence of famous people, have stood next to them, even sat next to them and been introduced to them. But in most cases claiming that I actually MET them would be a gross exaggeration. Look at the various definitions for the word "meet"

meet

Function: verb
transitive senses
1 a : to come into the presence of : FIND b : to come together with especially at a particular time or place



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison
I know that photos of Edwards standing next to Cheney (or more accurately Edwards walking in back of a seated Cheney), and talk of them sitting near each other have been circulated but what exactly has proven that they have met and have known each other?


Umm I dunno, because Edwards and his wife said they weren't just in the same room with him, they said they met him. Cheney said he had never met Edwards before. No problem, but then the picture comes out, with Edwards not 2ft from Cheney. Who are you more likely to believe now? Good thing this wasn't a criminal issue or they'd be hauling Cheney's @ss off to jail with that type of evidence




[edit on 10-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   


Umm I dunno, because Edwards and his wife said they weren't just in the same room with him, they said they met him.


Actually I'm not really arguing to protect Cheney. It was more of a reaction to your comment:



But it doesn't seem as though most Bush supporters care to be enlightened, or care to educate themselves on how Congress really works, so a simple "Kerry voted no to intelligence funding!" provides them all they want to hear.


In order to understand where Kerry is coming from or his stand on ANYTHING one has to weed through all of his different comments along the way. Not just on the issue you were talking about, but on all issues. He has a disclaimer for almost every vote he makes. Kerry is a man that does not see ANYTHING in black or white and those that support him accept his gray vision while at the same time do not accept the gray from the opposition. They use any Bush/Cheney gray as a chance to go on the attack and call them liars.

I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself but I'm counting on the fact that you being able to understand Kerry will help you decipher what I'm trying to communicate.


Jemison



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison
Kerry is a man that does not see ANYTHING in black or white


And that's a good thing.

I already explained to you how this works in another thread, but apparently you ignored it. So if you really want to educate yourself, go pick up a "Congress for Dummies" book or something because I'm not gonna explain it to you again.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join