This is how Factcheck.org injects itself into the debate and confuses!

[ProSense]

False Claims About Body Armor

A new group falsely accuses Republicans of voting against body armor for troops. Both sides have misled the public about this issue.

It is true that in a press release Landrieu quoted the Marine Corps Reserve as saying it needed more "bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests" before another wave of reservists went to Iraq, among many other items. But neither Landrieu nor any other senator mentioned that during debate.

http://factcheck.org/article438.html

The key statement above is the real issue, but Factcheck is citing the ad as inaccurate because Landrieu didn't mention it on the floor? BS!

Where has Factcheck.org been all this time? Suddenly they surface with this dubious claim.

[AX10]

1. They are run by GOP shills.

[blm]

2. Factcheck is more like checkfax sent by Rove.

They spin away using some tedious point to try ansd detract from the overall point. They crank it up against Dems before elections.

[RangerSmith]

4. oh that wacky Rove and his Faxes!!

Pro-Bush group misstates key facts about anti-terror campaign.
Hello? Hello?: Democrats Blame Corker for Missed 911 Calls
09.06.2006 - modified: 09.06.2006

Outside groups funded by U.S. Sugar mount deceitful attacks on a Democratic primary candidate
August 2006
08.30.2006 - modified: 08.30.2006

Bush supporters falsely quote Lincoln as advocating arresting, exiling or hanging members of Congress who damage military morale in wartime.
New RNC Web Ad Blurs History
08.22.2006 - modified: 08.25.2006

Another video on homeland security twists Democrats' words and exaggerates "the Republican record."
Club for Growth: Chafing Chafee's Record
08.19.2006 - modified: 08.19.2006

But a party web video strains some facts about homeland security.
RNC Ad Mischaracterizes Murtha
08.17.2006 - modified: 08.17.2006

Web video edits his remarks. He did NOT say the US is a bigger threat to world peace than North Korea or Iran.
Hillary Clinton's Voting Record Distorted
08.16.2006 - modified: 08.16.2006


We find Ralph Reed's TV ads false and misleading, and his opponent's are on target.
A Bumper Sticker Con in Connecticut
07.10.2006 - modified: 07.11.2006

Joe Lieberman's latest ad shows a supposed Lamont bumper sticker and website address that don't really exist.
Down and Dirty in Georgia
07.07.2006 - modified: 07.07.2006


The Competitive Enterprise Institute runs ads saying "The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker." A professor objects, saying CEI deliberately misrepresents his research.
Early Reviews For Campaign 2006 Ads: 'Sleazy,' 'False,' 'Rubbish'
05.23.2006 - modified: 05.23.2006

Republican Brian Bilbray accuses Democrat Francine Busby of supporting "amnesty" for illegal aliens. What does that mean?
More California Fact-Twisting
05.17.2006 - modified: 05.18.2006

A new wave of distortions via TV and mail in a "bleak" special House election.
Objection! In Re Santorum, Trial Lawyers Withhold Evidence
05.12.2006 - modified: 05.12.2006

Their ad mischaracterizes a quotation from his book and gives a one-sided description of his obstetrical malpractice bill
Another Misleading Republican Attack In California
05.01.2006 - modified: 05.01.2006

An NRCC ad says Democrat Francine Busby "praised a teacher reported to have child porn," but fails to mention she voted to fire him.
April 2006
Is This A Joke?
04.25.2006 - modified: 05.01.2006
RNC Ad Mischaracterizes Democratic Stance On Immigration
04.19.2006 - modified: 04.19.2006

Spanish-language ad says Democrats voted to "treat millions of hardworking immigrants as felons."
Scandal and Corruption in California
04.10.2006 - modified: 04.11.2006


RNC Mischaracterizes Feingold's Censure Resolution
03.21.2006 - modified: 03.21.2006

A GOP radio ad falsely characterizes Sen. Feingold's censure resolution as reprimanding the President for pursuing Al Qaeda
Guilt by Association
03.13.2006 - modified: 03.13.2006

A somewhat misleading pro-DeLay ad is funded by $200,000 from a donor who also bankrolled the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Misstatement of the Union
02.01.2006 - modified: 02.03.2006

The President burnishes the State of the Union through selective facts and strategic omissions.
January 2006
DNC State of the Union Attack
01.31.2006 - modified: 01.31.2006


The President says "We do not torture." We look at what has surfaced so far.
RNC Web Ad: Are Democrats Waving White Flag In Iraq?
12.12.2005 - modified: 12.13.2005

Controversial ad implies Dean, Boxer & Kerry advocate “retreat and defeat.” We supply background.
Democratic Radio Ads Can Stand Clarification
12.06.2005 - modified: 12.06.2005

It claims conversion to all-digital is a “win-win.” Actually, there could be 21 million losers, and taxpayers could pay billions in subsidies
October 2005
California: Drug Company Half-Truths
10.28.2005 - modified: 10.28.2005

The industry wages an $80-million campaign against a California ballot measure to require discounts on prescriptions for middle-income patients.
Taxing The Truth In New Jersey Ad War
10.24.2005 - modified: 10.25.2005

Forrester says 15 votes were for "higher taxes." Corzine says the same 15 votes were "to lower taxes."
No Death Penalty For Hitler? GOP Ad Goes Too Far.
10.19.2005 - modified: 11.09.2005

The Republican candidate for Virginia governor claims his opponent "says that Adolf Hitler doesn't qualify for the death penalty." But that's not what the Democrat said.
We Need A Fence?
10.19.2005 - modified: 10.20.2005

TV ads say "easy immigration from Mexico" provides cover for terrorists. But the 9/11 hijackers had visas. And what about Canada?
RNC's False Email
10.03.2005 - modified: 10.04.2005

Mehlman claims,"Before Ms. Miers was even announced many Democrat groups said they would oppose her." Actually, none did.
September 2005
Anti-war Ad Says Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Rice "Lied" About Iraq
09.26.2005 - modified: 09.26.2005

Bush says "progress is uneven" in Iraq, but accentuates positive evidence and mostly ignores the negative.
A Premature Attack
06.23.2005 - modified: 06.23.2005

Pro-Bush group's ad faults Democrats for criticisms they haven't yet made, about a Supreme Court nominee who hasn't been named, to a vacancy that doesn't yet exist.
Kerry's PAC Touts Health Insurance For All Kids
06.20.2005 - modified: 06.20.2005


Contrary to a pro-Bush TV ad, Republicans share the blame for "empty courtrooms," and delays are shorter now than they were before Bush.
April 2005
Bush Proposes Slowing Growth of Social Security Benefits for Future Retirees
04.29.2005 - modified: 04.29.2005

A conservative group again overstates the Social Security shortfall, and attacks Democrats for doing nothing.
Pro-Bush Group Overstates Social Security Shortfall
03.11.2005 - modified: 03.11.2005

We find that brokers netted only 16 cents in fees to manage a $10,000 retirement account under the federal retirement system on which Bush is modeling his private Social Security accounts.
February 2005
Bush's State of the Union: Social Security "Bankruptcy?"
02.03.2005 - modified: 02.04.2005

That term could give the wrong idea. Bush also makes private accounts sound like a sure thing, which they are not.
MoveOn.org Social Security Ad
02.01.2005 - modified: 02.03.2005


Bush and Cheney say yes. But actuaries say the figure is "likely to mislead" the public on the system's true financial state.
Social Security Ads: Risk or Protection?
01.15.2005 - modified: 02.24.2005

It says he's sponsoring a proposal to ban "every pump shotgun" and voted "to ban der-hunting ammunition." Don't believe either claim.
Kerry and Bush Mislead Voters With Promises of Energy Independence
10.27.2004 - modified: 10.27.2004


A misleading Bush ad criticizes Kerry for proposing to cut intelligence spending -- a decade ago, by 4%, when some Republicans also proposed cuts.
An Avalanche of Misinformation
10.21.2004 - modified: 10.21.2004


Two Bush ads full of misleading and false statements ran more than 9,000 times in 45 cities last week.
How Liberal is John Kerry?
10.19.2004 - modified: 10.19.2004

A new RNC ad claims Kerry is "the most liberal man in the Senate." Actually, his lifetime rating is 11th or lower, depending.
Kerry Falsely Claims Bush Plans To Cut Social Security Benefits
10.18.2004 - modified: 10.18.2004


Bush claims Kerry's plan puts "bureaucrats in control" of medical decisions, "not you, not your doctor." But experts don't agree with that.
Distortions and Misstatements At First Presidential Debate
10.01.2004 - modified: 10.01.2004

Selective use of Kerry's own words makes him look inconsistent on Iraq. A closer look gives a different picture.
The "Willie Horton" Ad Of 2004?
09.28.2004 - modified: 09.28.2004

Republican group's ad shows Osama, Kerry. It appeals to fear, and twists Kerry's record on defense, intelligence, Iraq.
GOP Website Uses Misleading Kerry Quote On Abortion
09.24.2004 - modified: 09.24.2004

When Kerry said abortions should be moved "into the mainstream of medical practice," he was talking about safer locations, not more frequent abortions.
Are Bush and Cheney "Small Businesses?" Their Ad Counts Them As Such
09.23.2004 - modified: 10.01.2004

A Bush-Cheney ad says Kerry would raise taxes for 900,000 "small businesses" and "hurt jobs." It's a big exaggeration.
ACLU Ad On "Sneak-and-Peek" Searches: Overblown
09.21.2004 - modified: 09.22.2004


"Texans for Truth" group features another Alabama Guardsman who doesn't recall seeing Bush in 1972.
Zell Miller's Attack on Kerry: A Little Out Of Date
09.03.2004 - modified: 10.04.2004


Bush Still Fudging the Numbers on Kerry's Tax Votes
08.30.2004 - modified: 09.17.2004

Ad claims Kerry cast "98 votes" to raise taxes, but the total is misleading.
DNC Radio Ad on Terrorism: Accurate (Mostly)
08.27.2004 - modified: 09.02.2004

Democratic ad reminds voters: Bush opposed creating the Homeland Security department before he supported it.
08.25.2004 - modified: 08.25.2004




Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree -- and so do Navy records.
Internet "Whispering Campaigns" Falsely Accuse Teresa Heinz Kerry
08.04.2004 - modified: 08.12.2004

Bogus e-mail messages claim she's given millions to "radical" groups, some linked to terrorists, and located Heinz factories overseas. Both claims are false.
Kerry's Dubious Economics
08.03.2004 - modified: 09.01.2004


It's a misleading ad. What Kerry really voted against was the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act."
07.09.2004 - modified: 08.30.2004

Pro-Bush group repeats misleading attacks on Kerry's defense record.
June 2004
Kerry "Paperwork" Ad: Accurate
06.24.2004 - modified: 06.24.2004

Bush Ad Falsely Implies Kerry Would Repeal Wiretaps of Terrorists
05.25.2004 - modified: 06.01.2004

In reality, Kerry favors some of the same "safeguards" as several conservative Republicans.
Bush Ad "Doublespeak" Leaves Out Some Context
05.24.2004 - modified: 05.24.2004

Bush ad claims "dramatic results" in Texas schools, but fails to mention data-manipulation scandal.
05.03.2004 - modified: 05.03.2004

More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense Record
04.26.2004 - modified: 04.30.2004

Latest barrage of ads repeats misleading claims that Kerry "repeatedly opposed" mainstream weapons.
04.24.2004 - modified: 04.24.2004

Treasury Tax Expert to Bush: Clinton's Increase WASN'T The Biggest.
04.16.2004 - modified: 04.16.2004

Study published by Bush's Treasury Department contradicts Bush's campaign.
04.12.2004 - modified: 04.13.2004

Bush Ad Is "Troubling" Indeed
04.07.2004 - modified: 04.07.2004

The President's ad recycles bogus claims, then tells only part of the story about Kerry's position ontax breaks for couples and children.
Outsourcing jobs: The PRESIDENT Said That?
04.03.2004 - modified: 04.03.2004

Bush campaign falsely accuses Kerry of voting 350 times for tax increases. Bush's own words mislead reporters.
Did Kerry Vote "No" on Body Armor for Troops?
03.16.2004 - modified: 03.18.2004

Yes, along with $87 billion worth of other things. But Bush didn't send enough in the first place.
Bush Strains Facts Re: Kerry's Plan To Cut Intelligence Funding in '90's
03.15.2004 - modified: 03.15.2004

President claims 1995 Kerry plan would "gut" the intelligence services. It was a 1% cut, and key Republicans approved something similar.
Bush Says Kerry Will Raise Taxes $900 Billion; Kerry Says That's False
03.11.2004 - modified: 03.12.2004


Conservative Group Engages in Class Warfare Vs. Kerry
03.10.2004 - modified: 03.10.2004

Citizens United TV ad calls Kerry a "rich, liberal elitist." But Bush is rich, too. So was George Washington.
03.05.2004 - modified: 03.05.2004

Did Kerry Oppose Tanks & Planes? Not Lately
02.26.2004 - modified: 02.26.2004

Kerry voted often against nuclear missiles and bombers in the '90s, but GOP claims that he opposed a long list of conventional weapons are overblown.
Here We Go Again: Bush Exaggerates Tax Cuts
02.20.2004 - modified: 02.20.2004

The President can't keep his figures straight. And most people are getting less than he implies.
02.18.2004 - modified: 02.18.2004

Bush's Misleading Attack Video
02.13.2004 - modified: 02.17.2004

Internet attack ad says Kerry got most "special interest money" of any senator. He didn't. And Bush got lots more.
02.11.2004 - modified: 02.15.2004

The President wrongly claimed he cut the growth of discretionary spending. Reality: the growth rate multiplied.
02.05.2004 - modified: 02.05.2004

Forget Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now its "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."
01.15.2004 - modified: 01.15.2004

Tough attack twists Dean's words about Medicare
01.14.2004 - modified: 01.14.2004

He claims Dean aided Enron at the expense of Vermont's needy. But Enron got nothing special, and the state GAINED revenue.
Republican Economist Asks "Retraction" – But Our Facts Stand
12.22.2003 - modified: 12.23.2003

Official statistics still show most US families lost income in 2002 even after taxes, despite misleading GOP claim to contrary.
Puncturing a Republican Tax Fable
12.19.2003 - modified: 12.19.2003

GOP fact-twisters claim 80% of the tax relief given to the rich goes to job-creating small businesses. Don't believe it.
Facts Take a Bath at Democratic Debate
12.10.2003 - modified: 12.10.2003

Did the Bush tax cuts make up for income lost to the recession? No - but watch out for Republicans who claim it did
George Bush As Herbert Hoover? Oh Come On!
12.05.2003 - modified: 01.13.2004

*******

I like 'em.

I Really miss spinsanity.

[ProSense]

5. Really no defense,

as their argument in this latest piece is that Landrieu didn't mention it in the debate.

Then this little gem at the end from 2004:

Did Kerry Vote "No" on Body Armor for Troops?
Yes, along with $87 billion worth of other things. But Bush didn't send enough in the first place.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/87_billion_dollar

Factcheck.org is no different from the shill GOP/media, just look for the snark!

Factcheck spent the entire 2004 campaign comparing Kerry's statements to Bush's lies, and finding justification in them.

[RangerSmith]

6. You;re kidding right?

They point out numerous problems with the ad.

Granato says of the newer armor, "Senator George Allen voted against giving our troops this. Now it's time for us to vote against him."

That's false. Allen did not vote against giving troops modern body armor.

The ad also exaggerates the body-armor problem by falsely claiming that troops were sent to Iraq using vests " left over from the Vietnam War." What the ad actually shows, however, is not a Vietnam-era vest at all but an improved vest the Pentagon adopted in the 1980's, and which was standard issue until the current "Interceptor" armor began to be phased in starting in 1999.

This is a swiftboat type ad and to support these kinds of things is just blind bias.

Look, there is plenty of shit out there to show how bad these clowns are, we don't need to support made up make shit.

[ProSense]

8. No I'm not kidding!

When they add comments from the group and it's advisory board instead of this one-sided crap, I will take it for what it's worth!

And the argument that Landrieu didn't mention it on the floor is still BS.

The shit at the end of factcheck.org's current post is the made up shit. They shill. Period!

[gratuitous]

17. So if the ad showed a different, but still defective, vest

How does that go to the point that the troops were sent to Iraq without the latest and greatest equipment, equipment that would unquestionably save lives? It seems to me someone's body is going to get perforated whether the vest used in the ad is of Vietnam vintage or from a decade later.

We're spending over a billion dollars a day on the defense budget and Republicans like George Felix Allen can't see their way clear to authorizing expenditures on the most effective body armor on the market?

Seems to me the point of the ad is untouched. But your concern over "made up make shit" {sic} is duly noted, "RangerSmith."

[blm]

7. Right before election, FC said Kerry falsely claimed Bush would cut SS.

Exactly the same defense the RNC made before the election, and factcheck repeated their lie.

Kerry said WH already had plans drawn up to cut SS right after Bush was elected.

Kerry was right - Bush took on SS first thing.

It's easy for factcheck to correct GOP now, but the work they did and DIDN'T do BEFORE the election is what mattered for Dems.

Factcheck is----- a COSMETIC watchdog, not a scrupulous one. They minimized Bush's errors while they maximized and in crucial cases LIED about Kerry.

[RangerSmith]

9. You may or may not find this interesting

since it's no longer on the server, I'll post all of it...

A Shocker: Partisan Thought Is Unconscious
The New York Times
By BENEDICT CAREY

Liberals and conservatives can become equally bug-eyed and irrational when talking politics, especially when they are on the defensive.

Using M.R.I. scanners, neuroscientists have now tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain's pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected.

"Everything we know about cognition suggests that, when faced with a contradiction, we use the rational regions of our brain to think about it, but that was not the case here," said Dr. Drew Westen, a psychologist at Emory and lead author of the study, to be presented Saturday at meetings of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in Palm Springs, Calif.

The results are the latest from brain imaging studies that provide a neural explanation for internal states, like infatuation or ambivalence, and a graphic trace of the brain's activity.

In 2004, the researchers recruited 30 adult men who described themselves as committed Republicans or Democrats. The men, half of them supporters of President Bush and the other half backers of Senator John Kerry, earned $50 to sit in an M.R.I. machine and consider several statements in quick succession.

The first was a quote attributed to one of the two candidates: either a remark by Mr. Bush in support of Kenneth L. Lay, the former Enron chief, before he was indicted, or a statement by Mr. Kerry that Social Security should be overhauled. Moments later, the participants read a remark that showed the candidate reversing his position. The quotes were doctored for maximum effect but presented as factual.

The Republicans in the study judged Mr. Kerry as harshly as the Democrats judged Mr. Bush. But each group let its own candidate off the hook.

After the participants read the contradictory comment, the researchers measured increased activity in several areas of the brain. They included a region involved in regulating negative emotions and another called the cingulate, which activates when the brain makes judgments about forgiveness, among other things. Also, a spike appeared in several areas known to be active when people feel relieved or rewarded. The "cold reasoning" regions of the cortex were relatively quiet.

Researchers have long known that political decisions are strongly influenced by unconscious emotional reactions, a fact routinely exploited by campaign consultants and advertisers. But the new research suggests that for partisans, political thinking is often predominantly emotional.

It is possible to override these biases, Dr. Westen said, "but you have to engage in ruthless self reflection, to say, 'All right, I know what I want to believe, but I have to be honest.' "

He added, "It speaks to the character of the discourse that this quality is rarely talked about in politics."

[blm]

10. No problem for me - I use National Security Archives and congressional

record for MY facts.

You use RW sources to whine about the left.

You lose.

[RangerSmith]

11. I didn't know Michael Moore was a part of the NSA or

the congressional record.

Damn, learn something new everyday.

I do agree with you about the "MY facts" part though. They are truly "yours."

[blm]

12. Really? In "factcheck" world, Bush DIDN'T try to mess with Social Security

right after election.

Yep - Kerry lied about that in YOUR WORLD. It never happened.

You realize you put up rightwing talking points and try to pretend the National Security Archives don't even exist. And Moore did get alot right - more than factcheck did, and factcheck PURPORTS to be a neutral organization, while Moore never did.

Big difference.

[ProSense]

13. Your response to this: FC said Kerry falsely claimed Bush would cut SS.

is this:

The first was a quote attributed to one of the two candidates: either a remark by Mr. Bush in support of Kenneth L. Lay, the former Enron chief, before he was indicted, or a statement by Mr. Kerry that Social Security should be overhauled. Moments later, the participants read a remark that showed the candidate reversing his position. The quotes were doctored for maximum effect but presented as factual.

That has nothing to do with the reality that Bush did exactly as Kerry said he would.

There was also the $200 billion war cost, which Factcheck cited as exaggerated because Kerry included appropriations for the next fiscal year. Then they wen to great lengths to show that the war would eventually reach $200 billion if the U.S. stayed "indefinitely."

There's little question that the Iraq war and its bloody aftermath will cost $200 billion, eventually. But so far, the bill for the war is still under $120 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Kerry runs the figure up to $200 billion by counting money scheduled to be spent next fiscal year, plus additional funds for the future that haven't even been requested yet. He also is counting money projected to be spent for operations in Afghanistan and to protect US cities, not for Iraq.

The Iraq War has cost more than originally estimated, and there's no end in sight. But Kerry takes liberties with the facts when he claims the cost "is now $200 billion." It isn't. Not yet.

Snip...

There's little question that the Iraq war will eventually cost a total of $200 billion, and possibly even double that figure, depending on how many US troops remain there and for how long. The CBO produced three hypothetical "scenarios" for the future, and their ten-year price tag. A pullout starting next year and leaving no US forces in Iraq by October of 2008 would still add $52 billion to the total cost of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," not counting costs of reconstruction or "undistributed" costs shared among Iraq and other operations. Gradually reducing the current 160,000 US forces to 54,000 and leaving them there indefinitely would cost $233 billion through the year 2014, beyond what's already been spent.

http://www.factcheck.org/article253.html

(emphasis added)

"Beyond what's already spent," which they cited as under $120 billion. Add $233 billion and the war through 2014 would cost under $353 billion.

Appropriations to date for both wars is already at $447 billion (about $360 billion of it for Iraq), and 2014 is still nearly a decade away.

[RangerSmith]

15. ......

That has nothing to do with the reality that Bush did exactly as Kerry said he would?

In the context of what factcheck is... No, Honestly, I really don't think so.

I really do think if you are going to try to take on the mammoth undertaking they do you absolutely should address these types of things... ie.. statements of fact by a candidate... and when you do, try to provide as much context as possible and I think all things considered, they did just that.

"A Kerry ad claims "Bush has a plan to cut Social Security benefits by 30 to 45 percent." That's false."

"Bush hasn't proposed any specific plan. This ad refers to one of three different possible "reform models" that were detailed in the final report of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security in December 2001. Bush hasn't endorsed any of them. He may propose something similar if elected, but so far hasn't spelled out for voters exactly what he has in mind."

Bush hadn't proposed a plan... which was their only real point here... but, they did say he could do just that it if he was elected.

To me it's like all the crap we heard going into the election about the draft. "The Dems have a plan to implement the draft."

Well, either they do or they don't should be all that a group like FC or Spinsainity should look at. What they do in the future is the stuff of crystal balls and well, political pundits. Especially when they make that clear in their piece.

As far as the 200 million thing Kerry tossed out...

"George W. Bush's wrong choices have led America in the wrong direction in Iraq and left America without the resources we need here at home. The cost of the President's go-it-alone policy in Iraq is now $200 billion and counting."

There is really no getting around the fact that when that statement was made, the number wasn't 200 bil.

That's what these guys should do, point out what is true and what isn't, and IMHO, they clearly do it to both sides.

Just because I don't like the message doesn't mean it isn't true.

As I have said before, this is a pet peeve of mine and I strongly agree with this....

"Liberalism is as badly served by liberal intellectual dishonesty as it is by conservative intellectual dishonesty"

[ProSense]

16. "Bush hadn't proposed a plan"

Parse much? Kerry didn't say Bush proposed a plan, he said Bush had a plan, which turned out to be true!

Kerry runs the figure up to $200 billion by counting money scheduled to be spent next fiscal year, plus additional funds for the future that haven't even been requested yet. He also is counting money projected to be spent for operations in Afghanistan and to protect US cities, not for Iraq.

The $200 billion was appropriated, and Kerry doesn't say spent, he stated $200 billion for Iraq.

Now can Factcheck explain this completely delusional point:

Gradually reducing the current 160,000 US forces to 54,000 and leaving them there indefinitely would cost $233 billion through the year 2014, beyond what's already been spent.

[RangerSmith]

18. Actually,

144 bil had been appropriated at the time Kerry made the statement.

Their "completely delusional point" only makes sense if you read it in the context of the whole paragraph it was presented in.....

"There's little question that the Iraq war will eventually cost a total of $200 billion, and possibly even double that figure, depending on how many US troops remain there and for how long. The CBO produced three hypothetical "scenarios" for the future, and their ten-year price tag. A pullout starting next year and leaving no US forces in Iraq by October of 2008 would still add $52 billion to the total cost of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," not counting costs of reconstruction or "undistributed" costs shared among Iraq and other operations. Gradually reducing the current 160,000 US forces to 54,000 and leaving them there indefinitely would cost $233 billion through the year 2014, beyond what's already been spent."

It was part of a scenario they borrowed to show how Kerry's number actually could be spent in the long run.

[ProSense]

19. Including the next fiscal year,

as the text states, it was $203 billion:

The war is at $360 billion. These estimates (and not all of them were) were not only wrong, they were completely off to the point of being fictional!

[RangerSmith]

20. The next fiscal yrs funds were proposed, not

appropriated.

Before you switched tacts again, you were hanging on "appropriated."

And as they said,

"There's little question that the Iraq war will eventually cost a total of $200 billion, and possibly even double that figure."

[ProSense]

21. Factcheck hyped a decade, 2014, to show how off

Kerry's numbers were. There were plenty of people questioning the administration's numbers from a realistic perspective. The war is a $360 billion, is underfunded and there are now estimates that indicate if assessed realistically the cost will be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion.

[RangerSmith]

3. They will

take all info presented after the release and if accurate they will modify their piece.

Most of the time you need to wait about 72 hours to see if anybody can solidly refute whatever their initial claim is. If they get new info, they'll ammend. They do it quite often. Most of their pieces have last edit dates.

Send them your concerns with documentation.

[4bucksagallon]

14. I see someone mentions this is "swift-boating"

well what is wrong with using the same dishonest tactics that are used against you. If the Dem's are afraid to get into the mud and get some dirt on them, all is lost. Taking the high ground will not win elections and the sooner we learn that the better. Yeah, I wish it wasn't necessary but it is. Who cares if these vest are Vietnam era or not, the ad is effective for the sheeple.

[RangerSmith]

22. IMHO, there is nothing

wrong in doing the same things that are being done to you. to do that would be to know you are being dishonest.

What we are discussing here is the ability to know what is dishonest and what isn't, and my point is that bias clearly blinds.... both sides.

[ProSense]

23. You have no basis to say the ad

is dishonest except Factcheck.org's one-sided analysis, which has on occasion been wrong!

[RangerSmith]

24. and yet

a scan of their archive clearly shows the one-sided accusation to be coming from a position of bias.

Love it and never question it when they blast your enemy but can't take it when the light is turned inside.

[ProSense]

25. They spent the entire 2004 campaign

using qualifers such as "not exactly" to characterize Bush's lies and distortions, and pushing the perception that the opposition was pretty much doing the same thing!

Bush A Military "Deserter?" Calm Down, Michael

Clark backer Michael Moore calls President Bush a "deserter" for missing Air National Guard drills 31 years ago. Puh-lease!

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131

Wow, talk about a subjective headline!

Underfunded by $28 Billion?

Kerry claimed the "the president has underfunded by $28 billion," but that's an opinion and not a fact.

Actually, as we reported last March, funding for the federal Department of Education grew a whopping 58% under Bush during his first three years, and Bush proposed another 5% increase for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, including sizeable increases in spending for children from low-income families and for special education for disabled children. Even the Kerry campaign's own data -- which they provided to FactCheck.org at our request -- shows funding for programs specific to the No Child Left Behind law have increased by $2.7 billion, or 12%, since the new law was enacted.

http://www.nea.org/newsreleases/2004/nr040714.html

Forced to Retire?

Kerry claimed, as he had in the first debate, that the Army's Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, was forced to retire for saying before the invasion of Iraq that many more troops were needed than the administration was planning to send.

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:

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-21075sy0sep08,0,2264542.story?page=1&coll=dp-widget-news

What's really missing is investigative jounalism, and relying on the Washington Times doesn't cut it!