SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (639569)10/6/2004 3:42:05 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
FACT CHECK

When Points Weren't Personal, Liberties Were Taken With the Truth

By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM
October 6, 2004
nytimes.com

In a debate laden with detailed assertions and rebuttals more than with rhetorical flashes, Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards often stretched the facts last night on issues including the war in Iraq and medical malpractice lawsuits.

Often the matters were old saws, like Mr. Edwards's suggestion of an improper relationship between the Bush administration and the Halliburton Company, or Mr. Cheney's assertion that Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee and Mr. Edwards's running mate, had voted nearly 100 times to raise taxes.

But on matters like Iraq, taxes and jobs, the liberties the vice presidential candidates took with the truth are worthy of scrutiny.

Iraq and Al Qaeda

Mr. Edwards accused the vice president of having justified the invasion of Iraq by saying a link existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Mr. Cheney declared, "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

What Mr. Cheney said was only partly true, because while he has never explicitly made the link, he has on several occasions strongly suggested that evidence pointed to such a connection.

The vice president went furthest along these lines on Sept. 8, 2002, on "Meet the Press" on NBC.

"I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11," he said. "I can't say that. On the other hand," he went on to say, since a previous interview on the show, "new information has come to light," adding "there has been reporting that suggest that there have been a number of contacts over the years."

He said that Mohamed Atta, one of the lead Sept. 11 hijackers, was "in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debate's about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there. Again, it's the intelligence business."

Investigations later concluded that Mr. Atta was not in Prague at that time. Nor did Mr. Cheney's frequent accusations of deep contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda hold up, though there apparently were contacts. A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded, "The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda throughout the 1990's but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship."

The Senate report added that the C.I.A.'s assessment that "there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an Al Qaeda attack was responsible and objective."

Weapons Votes

Mr. Cheney said that Mr. Kerry had repeatedly voted against spending for military weapons systems in the last years of the cold war. That is true. But Mr. Cheney, as secretary of defense in the first Bush administration, opposed some of the systems himself, including the Apache helicopter and the F-14 aircraft.

Halliburton

Mr. Edwards suggested an improper relationship between the Bush administration and Halliburton, the company with large contracts in Iraq that Mr. Cheney led before he ran for vice president.

Mr. Edwards was right that Halliburton holds a no-bid contract for services in Iraq, is under investigation for overcharges and is still being paid by the government. But there is no evidence Mr. Cheney has pulled strings on Halliburton's behalf since becoming vice president. And the independent Government Accountability Office concluded that Halliburton was the only company that could have provided the services the Army needed at the outset of the war and was thus justified in having received the noncompetitive contract.

War Costs and Casualties

Some factual disputes were echoes from last week's debate between the presidential candidates, including the cost of the war - Mr. Edwards put the figure at $200 billion, but only $119 billion has been spent so far. Another issue was the proportion of casualties borne by the United States: Mr. Edwards said 90 percent of fatalities, but that includes only foreign troops killed, and does not count approximately 700 Iraqi security forces said to have died.

Taxes

Mr. Edwards said that under the Bush-Cheney tax laws, millionaires receiving dividends paid taxes at a lower rate than did troops fighting in Iraq. The 2003 tax law lowered the rate on stock dividends to 15 percent. Many soldiers pay a rate higher than that on some of their income.

Mr. Cheney said that Mr. Kerry had voted 98 times to raise taxes. No question, he cast votes for higher taxes. But the number Mr. Cheney cited included multiple votes on the same legislation. Mr. Edwards said Mr. Kerry had voted against the overall legislation to cut taxes because the benefits went largely to the wealthy.

Mr. Cheney said that 900,000 small businesses would be affected by the Kerry proposal to raise taxes on individuals with incomes of more than $200,000. The Tax Policy Center found that only about 5 percent of small businesses would be affected by the Kerry plan and that much of the income of the business operators who would be affected came from sources other than their businesses.

Afghanistan

Mr. Cheney said that two and a half years ago, Mr. Edwards said the situation in Afghanistan "was chaotic, the situation was deteriorating, the warlords were about to take over." Noting that elections are scheduled to take place in four days, the vice president said his opponent "just got it wrong."

In an October 2002 speech in Washington, Mr. Edwards called Afghanistan "largely unstable," with much of the country "under the control of drug lords and warlords."

Last night Mr. Edwards stuck to essentially that description, saying that contrary to the "rosy scenario" described by Mr. Cheney, "What's actually happened is, they're now providing 75 percent of the world's opium" and "large parts of the country are under the control of drug lords and warlords."

The Drug Enforcement Administration has reported that opium production in Afghanistan has soared since the end of Taliban rule in 2001, from 74 metric tons in 2001 to 2,965 metric tons last year. The government of President Hamid Karzai does not control large parts of the country.

Jobs

Mr. Edwards said that the nation has lost 1.6 million private-sector jobs since Mr. Bush took office, while Mr. Cheney said the nation has added 1.7 million jobs in the past year.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of payroll jobs has declined by about 900,000 since Mr. Bush took office. Mr. Edwards's higher number comes from isolating private-sector jobs, not taking into account increases in state, local and federal government jobs.

Mr. Cheney was correct in saying that the nation has added about 1.7 million jobs in the past year. But employment has yet to return to its level before the 2001 recession and a sharp decline in manufacturing employment continued for nearly two years after the recession officially ended in November 2001.

More importantly, in the view of many economists, employment growth has lagged even further behind the growth in population. The nation's adult work force climbs by more than a million people every year. So even if the number of jobs returns to its level of January 2001, as many as three million more people would still be unemployed or underemployed than they were then.

Voting Records

Mr. Cheney said correctly that Mr. Edwards had missed most votes in the Senate this year, as well as many committee meetings. Candidates for president and vice president generally skip all but the most important votes because they are on the campaign trail.

Mr. Cheney said that Mr. Edwards had been absent so often that he had never even met him before last night. Mr. Edwards said later last night that he and Mr. Cheney had in fact met twice before, at a prayer breakfast in 2001 and at the swearing-in last year of Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina.

Mr. Edwards was correct in saying that Mr. Cheney, as a member of the House, had voted against such measures as the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, Head Start and creation of the Department of Education.

Contributing reporting for this article were David E. Sanger, Edmund L. Andrews, Robert Pear and ScottShane.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (639569)10/6/2004 3:47:17 PM
From: CYBERKEN  Respond to of 769670
 
The Napoleon Bonaparte of the 21st century, L Paul Bremer (aka "Le General"), has reached into his EXTENSIVE training and knowledge on militaryu science and made the BRILLIANT determination that we didn't use enough troops in Iraq.

The fact that he PERSONALLY failed in his mission, and that he chose this back-stab right around election time is MERELY COINCIDENCE...



To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (639569)10/6/2004 3:47:18 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03

By DOUGLAS JEHL
October 6, 2004
nytimes.com

WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 — Iraq now appears to have destroyed its stockpiles of illicit weapons within months of the Persian Gulf war of 1991, and by the time of the American invasion in spring 2003, its capacity to produce such weapons was continuing to erode, the top American inspector in Iraq said in a report made public today.

The report by Charles A. Dulfer said the last Iraqi factory capable of producing militarily significant quantities of unconventional weapons was destroyed in 1996. The finding amounted to the starkest portrayal yet of a vast gap between the Bush administration's prewar assertions about Iraqi weapons and what a 15-month postinvasion inquiry by American investigators has concluded were the facts on the ground.

At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer concluded, Iraq had not possessed military-scale stockpiles of illicit weapons for a dozen years and was not actively seeking to produce them.


The White House had portrayed the war as a bid to disarm Iraq of unconventional weapons, and had invoked images of mushroom clouds, deadly gases and fearsome poisons. But Mr. Duelfer concluded that even if Iraq had sought to restart its weapons programs in 2003, it could not have produced significant quantities of chemical weapons for at least a year, and would have required years to produce a nuclear weapon.

"Over time he was getting further away from nuclear weapons," an official familiar with the report said of Saddam Hussein in advance of the public release of Mr. Duelfer's report. "He was further away in 2003 than he was in 1991. The nuclear program was decaying rather than being preserved."

Mr. Duelfer presented his conclusions to Congress today, beginning with a closed-testimony session before the Senate Intelligence Committee. But his findings were described to reporters in advance of the testimony, although only on condition that they not to be published until an afternoon appearance by Mr. Duelfer before the Senate Armed Services Committee, when the report was made public.

The three-volume report, totaling more than 900 pages, is viewed as the first authoritative attempt to unravel the mystery posed by Iraq during the crucial years between the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and the American-led war that began in 2003. It adds new weight to what is already a widely accepted view that the most fundamental prewar assertions made by American intelligence agencies about Iraq — that it possessed chemical and biological weapons and was reconstituting its nuclear program — bore no resemblance to the truth.

Mr. Duelfer concluded that Mr. Hussein made fundamental decisions, beginning in 1991, to get rid of Iraq's illicit weapons and accept the destruction of its weapons-producing facilities as part of an effort to win an end to United Nations sanctions. But Mr. Duelfer argued that Mr. Hussein was also exploiting avenues opened by the sanctions, including the oil-for-food program, to lay the groundwork for a long-term plan to resume weapons production if sanctions were lifted.

"It was clearly Saddam Hussein's intention to restart his W.M.D. activities when the opportunity arose to do so," the official familiar with the report said of Mr. Duelfer's findings, using an abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction. But that conclusion, the official acknowledged, was based more on inference than solid evidence. Mr. Duelfer did not find concrete evidence of such a plan, the official said, though he argued that the nature of the Iraqi regime had made it extraordinary unlikely that such a blueprint would have been committed to paper.

The report was based in part on the interrogation of Mr. Hussein in his prison cell outside Baghdad. Mr. Duelfer said he had concluded that Mr. Hussein had deliberately sought to maintain an ambiguity about whether Iraq possessed illicit weapons in a strategy aimed as much at Iran, with whom Iraq fought an eight-year war in the 1990's, as at the United States....



To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (639569)10/6/2004 3:49:24 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Beaten Afghan Brides

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
October 6, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
nytimes.com

KABUL, Afghanistan

I had an inspiration about where Osama bin Laden might be hiding. But when I visited the women's detention center in Kabul, there was no sign of him.

I did meet Ellaha, a bold 19-year-old prisoner who startled me by greeting me in English. (Like many Afghans, she uses only one name.) She had been attending college as a refugee in Iran when her family pulled her out, alarmed that education might corrupt a young lady's morals.

Her family returned to Afghanistan, and she found work in a U.S. construction company, where her bosses were so impressed that they began arranging a scholarship for her to go to Canada to study.

That horrified her family because the patriarchs had decided that she would marry her cousin. "I didn't agree to marry him," she told me through an interpreter, "because he is not educated and I don't like his job - he is a butcher. Plus, he's three years younger than me."

"When it was almost time for me to go to Canada, and I was asking about flights," she added, "they tied me up and locked me in a room. It was in my uncle's house. My father said, 'O.K., beat her.' I'd never been beaten like that in all my life. My uncle and cousins were all beating me. ... They broke my head, and I was bleeding."

Ms. Ellaha's younger sister, who had been pledged to another cousin, was facing the same treatment. After a week of being tied up, the two sisters agreed to marry their cousins.

"So we went home," Ms. Ellaha added, "and escaped."

The two sisters moved into a cheap guesthouse as they prepared to flee Afghanistan. But their family learned where they were hiding, and the police came to arrest them.

On what charge?

"It's because their lives were in danger," said Rana, the head of the detention center. Ms. Ellaha agrees that her family was pretty close to killing her. The sister is apparently back home, but I was not allowed to interview her.

The police subjected Ms. Ellaha to a mandatory virginity test. Fortunately, her hymen was intact, or she would have faced a prison sentence.

Now she worries that she will be released into her family's custody and then forced to marry her cousin. If that happens, she told me, "I will kill myself."

The entire jail is a kaleidoscope of woe. It's been two years since President Bush declared that in Afghanistan, "Today, women are free." But that's news to the inmates.

Nazilah, 17, had been married to an old man with tuberculosis who beat her - she was his second wife. She ran away and was picked up by the police. Now the authorities are figuring out whether they can return her to her husband's family without getting her killed.

Then there is Sohailla, 18, who says she was kidnapped for three days by the family of a young man who wanted to marry her (the police suspect that she went to his house voluntarily). The police subjected her to a virginity test; after she failed, she got a three-year sentence for fornication.

Inequality is so deeply embedded in this society that there are no easy solutions. In a new opinion poll in Afghanistan, 87 percent of those surveyed said women needed to ask their husbands' permission to vote. There was little difference in the answers of men and women.

The best route to change is new schools, new clinics and more economic opportunity - and those steps are just what the lack of security is blocking in much of southern Afghanistan, the most traditional part of the country. Mr. Bush urgently needs to bolster security in rural areas in the south, so reconstruction projects can go ahead there. The liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban was crucial, but only a first step.

If this sounds like a gloomy assessment, it was reinforced when I located Ms. Ellaha's father, Said Jamil, a carpenter, and spoke to him on the street in his Kabul neighborhood. He told me that he was arranging for his daughter to be released to him - but he vowed that he would no longer allow her to "be so free."

He did promise me that he would not beat Ms. Ellaha or force her to marry her cousin. I asked him to show mercy toward his daughter, but I have a bad feeling about what lies ahead.

This is how "women are free" in Afghanistan.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (639569)10/6/2004 3:56:03 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
New CIA assessment finds evidence inconclusive on Saddam-Zarqawi link

Tue Oct 5, 7:56 PM ET
news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A new CIA assessment has found no conclusive evidence that former president Saddam Hussein gave safe haven before the war in Iraq to Abu Mussab Zarqawi, a Jordanian extremist with links to Al-Qaeda, a US official said.

The reappraisal, which was based on a mix of new information plus a reassessment of old intelligence, raises new questions about US rationales for invading Iraq that highlighted alleged links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

President George W. Bush and other top administration officials have contended that Zarqawi's presence in Baghdad before the war was the 'best evidence of Saddam's links to Al-Qaeda'.

"This mix of the new information and the reassessment -- it does suggest the relationship was not as previously described," said the US official, who asked not to be identified. "But I want to emphasize the point, it does not reach definitive conclusions."

The assessment follows a report by a panel that investigated the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States that concluded there was "no collaborative relationship" between the Iraqi regime and Al-Qaeda.

Although Zarqawi, who has emerged as a leading foe of US forces in Iraq, was believed to have been operating in Iraq before the war, the nature of his relationship with the regime remains murky.

Knight-Ridder newspapers, which first disclosed the new CIA assessment, said the new information included the arrests in 2002 and 2003 of three Zarqawi associates by the regime, one of whom was later released, according to one official.

There are now also doubts about whether Zarqawi received medical attention at a Baghdad hospital in May 2002 as administration officials have asserted, Knight-Ridder said.

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appeared to allude to the new intelligence on Monday when he told foreign policy experts in New York that he had seen no "strong, hard evidence" of a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

"I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way," he told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"I just read an intelligence report recently about one person who's connected to Al-Qaeda who was in and out of Iraq. And it is the most tortured description of why he might have had a relationship and why he might not have had a relationship," he said.

Rumsfeld later issued a statement saying he had been misunderstood, but did not disavow his comments.

"He knows that the CIA is going through to reassess all its conclusions prior to the war," Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita told AFP. "And also to refresh what they think those connections are, and that's what he was talking about."

But he said Rumsfeld had no reason to believe the CIA's assessment is different now than what it was before the war.

In September 2002, Rumsfeld used what he said were "bullet-proof" findings by the CIA in leveling charges of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

Among the claims were that US intelligence had "solid evidence" that Al-Qaeda members were in Iraq; "reliable reporting" that senior level contacts went back a decade and included possible chemical and biological agent training; and "credible information" they discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq.