0
gary350

State of Union - Evasions, Half-Truths

By gary350, in The Bonfire

Recommended Posts

gary350    0

gary350
http://slate.msn.com/id/2094214/

Evasions, Half-Truths, and the State of the Union
Can we trust this year's speech?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2004, at 2:35 PM PT

This time, at least, there were no blatant lies in the national-security section of the State of the Union address. The speechwriters, no doubt watched over by a hyperalert Condoleezza Rice, made sure to avoid a reprise of last year's scandal over false claims of an Iraqi hunt for yellowcake. Instead, however, the scribes piled on so many half-truths and evasions, often in disingenuous phrasings, as to erase the customary distinction between mere deceit and sheer falsehood.

Let's take them one by one.

"We must continue to give our homeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us."

Yet this is precisely what President Bush has failed to do. His homeland security budget for fiscal year 2004 was smaller than the budget for FY 2003. He has yet to order a serious effort to develop or procure WMD-detecting sensors. Security of cargo on ships and commercial airliners is riddled with holes. The borders are sieves. Most local police and fire departments lack the money, gear, and training to prevent, or to deal with the aftermath of, terrorist attacks.

"Nearly two-thirds of [al-Qaida's] known leaders have now been captured or killed."

Good. But the remaining one-third constitutes a distressingly large number still at large—not least Osama Bin Laden, President Bush's "Wanted Dead or Alive" poster-villain of last year's chest-pounding address. More worrisome still is that phrase "known leaders." The real concerns, as Donald Rumsfeld's hand-wringing memo of last October acknowledged, are the unknowns (or, as he put it in a different context, the "unknown unknowns"—the stuff we don't even know we don't know) and the haunting question of whether, through our (for the most part quite proper) tactics in tracking down terrorists, we might be spawning new recruits in the process.

"[In Afghanistan], our coalition is leading aggressive raids against the surviving members of the Taliban and al-Qaida."

Now we are. The Taliban are not so much "surviving" as returning, re-entering the country through the many doors we left open—and exploiting the discontent we allowed to seethe—after proclaiming that mission complete. To its credit, the Bush administration has renewed its attention to Afghanistan, even to the point of getting NATO to help, but it took a while.

"[In Iraq] men who ran away from our troops in battle are now dispersed and attack from the shadows."

First, that happened because the Bush administration decided the war was over after the statue of Saddam toppled and because the occupation forces weren't nearly large enough to secure the country in any serious way. Second, as the CIA and others have observed, the insurgents attacking U.S. troops aren't just Saddam loyalists and foreign jihadists. They're also Iraqis—Sunnis and, more and more, Shiites—who simply don't like the occupation.

"Our forces are on the offensive, leading over 1,600 patrols a day and conducting an average of 180 raids a week."

It's a puzzle why Bush's staff wrote this sentence or, having done so, kept it in the speech. It inexorably brings to mind related, but less assuring, statistics—the weekly rate of Iraqi attacks and U.S. casualties.

"We're working with Iraqis and the United Nations to prepare for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June."

Again, now we are, sort of. Until very recently, when the realities on the ground finally pressed too hard to ignore, the Bush administration did everything it could to keep the United Nations out of such preparations, to deny that any outside powers were necessary.

"Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destructions programs. … Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya."

Almost certainly the war in Iraq, especially the collapse of Saddam's reign, had a sobering effect on Col. Qaddafi. Still, it is worth noting that his weapons of mass destruction program amounted to little more than a handful of centrifuges and a smattering of uranium; he wasn't close to mounting a real project, much less to building a bomb. Also, the reference to "nine months" raises questions. That indicates the "intense negotiations" got under way last March—before the war began. Bush didn't say much about, at best, uneven attempts to dash the nuclear ambitions of Iran or North Korea—a failing that, in North Korea's case, can be placed squarely on Bush's refusal to negotiate.

"Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq."

This is a low blow. In last year's address, the war was sold only peripherally as a campaign of liberation; its main pitch was to chop off the world's most dangerous possessor of biological, chemical, and—any day now—nuclear weapons.

"The Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities…"

Here is where the speechwriters most fastidiously avoid last year's dread "16 words" syndrome. Note that the sentence mentions not "weapons of mass destruction" but "weapons of mass destruction-related," and not even "programs" but "program activities." This careful phrasing is in keeping with David Kay's report, which is replete with phrases that, skimmed swiftly, suggest much danger but, read closely, indicate next to nothing. (For a detailed analysis of the report, click here.)

"Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This … is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq."

Let's go to the numbers (courtesy of globalsecurity.org). Some of these countries do have fairly substantial numbers of troops in Iraq. Britain has about 11,000. A few of them have something like the equivalent of a battalion: Italy, 3,000; Ukraine, 2,000; Spain, 1,300; the Netherlands, 1,100; Australia, 1,000; Poland, 630. The others can only be called token: Bulgaria, 470; Thailand, 443; Denmark, 367; El Salvador, 360; Hungary, 150; Japan, 41. (Norway has only naval forces in the area; the Philippines' numbers are unrecorded but doubtless minuscule.) Few of these troops are detailed, or even trained, for combat. None (except Britain's and Italy's) comes close to the levels committed by the genuine coalition of forces that President Bush's father amassed for the Gulf War of 1991. In that earlier war, several Arab and European countries deployed whole divisions on the ground and wings of jet fighters in the air.

More to the point, Bush's critics on this point are concerned not just with spreading the costs and the burdens but also with legitimizing the transition to Iraqi sovereignty. The issue isn't so much which countries send troops as who's making the decisions.

"There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."

This is a textbook definition of a red herring. Even the U.N. Charter explicitly allows the right to unilateral self-defense. The question, of course, is whether Saddam Hussein constituted a threat to the security of the United States. Last year's address spent much time contending that he did, citing the tons of anthrax, warehouse loads of bioweapons, and secret laboratories full of nuclear gear that Saddam had at his disposal—and the links between Iraq and al-Qaida that could bring these dangers to our shores. This year, the speechwriters might have contemplated reminding the American people of the case. But, to their credit and their caution, they decided not to give it a single word's credence.

Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ChasingBlueSky    0

ChasingBlueSky
Quote

Look on the bright side, you only have to listen to 4 more State of the Union speachs by Bush. If you don't count the 8 that Jeb will give. :D



I loved the movie about those two - Dumb and Dumberer

What, you don't want 4 year of Dick running this country and giving the rest of his friends no bid contracts?

Do you think Jeb will need to come into office to finish up everything that Dad started and GWB stumbled his way though? Guess this is the best the GOP can put out there?

I want a conservative to give me at least 10 solid good reasons why GWB deserves to be in office again outside of his stance on terrorism and the war.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

fudd    0

fudd
Bush thanked Norway for sending troops to Iraq.
I just want to point out that both our prime minister and foreign minister officially declared that Norway did not support a war against Iraq, and would not support a war without UN approveal.
There were massive demonstrations against sending troops to Iraq.

However, Norway has sent troops later to help rebuild Iraq.

There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ChasingBlueSky    0

ChasingBlueSky
Quote

Bush thanked Norway for sending troops to Iraq.
I just want to point out that both our prime minister and foreign minister officially declared that Norway did not support a war against Iraq, and would not support a war without UN approveal.
There were massive demonstrations against sending troops to Iraq.

However, Norway has sent troops later to help rebuild Iraq.



Nah, that would mean that GW put a spin on it....nah, he wouldn't lie to us.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

TheAnvil    0

TheAnvil
Oh goody. More leftist rantings posted for all to see. One wonders why Mr. Kaplan only commented on half the speech, but because that half went way too long for my tastes I guess I can see that. I'll comment on his article since I offended some folks' tender feelings for not drudging through some other liberal rantings recently. I apologize for the length, but will use humor to keep it interesting if at all possible - if not, you won't be reading this 'cuz I'll simply not post it! Let's go!


Quote


http://slate.msn.com/id/2094214/

Evasions, Half-Truths, and the State of the Union
Can we trust this year's speech?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2004, at 2:35 PM PT

This time, at least, there were no blatant lies in the national-security section of the State of the Union address. The speechwriters, no doubt watched over by a hyperalert Condoleezza Rice, made sure to avoid a reprise of last year's scandal over false claims of an Iraqi hunt for yellowcake.


Hot damn, call the CIA! Mr. Kaplan knows more than the Brits' own intelligence service - who never backed down from their claim referenced here by Mr. Kaplan. If Mr. Kaplan can prove this, then he's surely worthy of a nice job. WIth their Clandestine Trainee Service perhaps. Let's see what other gems he has for us...
Quote


Instead, however, the scribes piled on so many half-truths and evasions, often in disingenuous phrasings, as to erase the customary distinction between mere deceit and sheer falsehood.


Oh joy. Nice attack piece sure to follow. Let's read on and see....
Quote


Let's take them one by one.

"We must continue to give our homeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us."

Yet this is precisely what President Bush has failed to do. His homeland security budget for fiscal year 2004 was smaller than the budget for FY 2003.


Failed to do, eh? Love to see Kaplan's plan for doing it better. Since he's complaining about smaller budgets, from now on when lefties who don't decry Kaplan's words scream about the deficit, let's all laugh at them. Let's continue...
Quote


He has yet to order a serious effort to develop or procure WMD-detecting sensors.


Develop or procure? If they aren't developed, how can they be bought? What sort of sensor? What's the current technology readiness level? Inquiring minds want to know...I digress...
Quote


Security of cargo on ships and commercial airliners is riddled with holes.


Point them out please, though for the cargo ships I'd agree with you. Geez, those new fangled cargo container tracking devices would sure be nice for our ports, wouldn't they? Are you calling for them to be USED? The Longshoremen's Unions would just love the candidate that would do so. Let's continue.
Quote


The borders are sieves. Most local police and fire departments lack the money, gear, and training to prevent, or to deal with the aftermath of, terrorist attacks.


Local police and fire departments are federally funded? They are FEDERAL employees? Really? When did this happen? OH! I see! Kaplan has to blame that on BUSH! The federal government should fund all state employees' salaries! That way denizens of Vermont could see their federal tax $ doing such great things for the LAPD. Get a grip.
Quote


"Nearly two-thirds of [al-Qaida's] known leaders have now been captured or killed."

Good. But the remaining one-third constitutes a distressingly large number still at large—not least Osama Bin Laden, President Bush's "Wanted Dead or Alive" poster-villain of last year's chest-pounding address. More worrisome still is that phrase "known leaders." The real concerns, as Donald Rumsfeld's hand-wringing memo of last October acknowledged, are the unknowns (or, as he put it in a different context, the "unknown unknowns"—the stuff we don't even know we don't know) and the haunting question of whether, through our (for the most part quite proper) tactics in tracking down terrorists, we might be spawning new recruits in the process.


What the hell is Kaplan getting at here. The ones we don't have and the ones that we don't know about are dangerous? Bush's fault there too? What a moron.....let's keep going...always love these 'pearls of wisdom' from the left....
Quote


"[In Afghanistan], our coalition is leading aggressive raids against the surviving members of the Taliban and al-Qaida."

Now we are. The Taliban are not so much "surviving" as returning, re-entering the country through the many doors we left open—and exploiting the discontent we allowed to seethe—after proclaiming that mission complete.


OK. This is a total lie. My brother is a Ranger. Lot's of my best friends are military folks. And, gosh darn-it, I read the news quite often. We've been active in Afghanistan since we've been there. Wouldn't be a leftist attack article without a few lies here and there. Don't want to elaborate/gloat now...there's MORE to read! What fun!
Quote


To its credit, the Bush administration has renewed its attention to Afghanistan, even to the point of getting NATO to help, but it took a while.


Hot DAMN! I must be the most geographically uneducated bloke on the planet! NATO is the organization we should first turn to for aid when we want to do something in....Middle East/ASIA! Ingenious! Groundbreaking logic here! Don't know what we'd do without thinkers[sic] like this Kaplan fellow. Let's see what ELSE he shows us! I can't wait!
Quote


"[In Iraq] men who ran away from our troops in battle are now dispersed and attack from the shadows."

First, that happened because the Bush administration decided the war was over after the statue of Saddam toppled and because the occupation forces weren't nearly large enough to secure the country in any serious way.


Armchair general Kaplan gives his keen insight. The Iraqi's resorted to guerrilla tactics not because it was the only avenue left them, but because the US didn't send enough troops for stabilization purposes. They had a secret staging/regrouping area unbeknownst to us, but chose not to use it. The statue must have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Kaplan really needs a job at CIA if this is true. Let's see what else he's got for us...this is fun.
Quote


Second, as the CIA and others have observed, the insurgents attacking U.S. troops aren't just Saddam loyalists and foreign jihadists. They're also Iraqis—Sunnis and, more and more, Shiites—who simply don't like the occupation.


Saddam loyalists aren't Iraqis? The demographics of a guerilla force seem to consist of citizens of the nation in which it operates? Move over Sun Tzu, Jomini, and von Clausewitz....heeeeeeere comes Kaplan!!!
Quote


"Our forces are on the offensive, leading over 1,600 patrols a day and conducting an average of 180 raids a week."

It's a puzzle why Bush's staff wrote this sentence or, having done so, kept it in the speech. It inexorably brings to mind related, but less assuring, statistics—the weekly rate of Iraqi attacks and U.S. casualties.


:S Good filler. After that brilliant insight into guerrilla warfare, I think we needed a break. But I'm not giving up hope that he'll continue later. Let's move on (notice the lack of '.org':D)
Quote


"We're working with Iraqis and the United Nations to prepare for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June."

Again, now we are, sort of. Until very recently, when the realities on the ground finally pressed too hard to ignore, the Bush administration did everything it could to keep the United Nations out of such preparations, to deny that any outside powers were necessary.


The UN wouldn't enforce its own resolutions, scoffed at the US for doing what it wouldn't, left the country after their HQ got bombed, and Kaplan wants them involved? Maybe he'll tell us why later...
Quote


"Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destructions programs. … Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya."

Almost certainly the war in Iraq, especially the collapse of Saddam's reign, had a sobering effect on Col. Qaddafi.


Is this a compliment to Bush's foreign policy team? Geez this guy is inconsistent.
Quote


Still, it is worth noting that his weapons of mass destruction program amounted to little more than a handful of centrifuges and a smattering of uranium; he wasn't close to mounting a real project, much less to building a bomb.


Hmmm...Kaplan...nuclear weapons physicist...or left-wing journalist.....you make the call. So Bush's FP worked, but it doesn't matter because Ghadaffi REALLY wasn't close to producing nukes yet anyway? :S
Quote


Also, the reference to "nine months" raises questions. That indicates the "intense negotiations" got under way last March—before the war began.


So let me get this straight...Kaplan is inferring that we shouldn't have been using diplomacy to get Ghaddaffi to cease and desist his WMD programs? Wacky.
Quote


Bush didn't say much about, at best, uneven attempts to dash the nuclear ambitions of Iran or North Korea—a failing that, in North Korea's case, can be placed squarely on Bush's refusal to negotiate.


Kaplan should read the news a bit more often. Then again, he is quite amusing. Exactly what would he have the US do in the case of Iran?

With regards to his NK remark, it's gotta hurt being that stupid. Bush's refusal to negotiate? Does he know what the NK's proposed? When they did so? Does he recall their cheating on Clinton's 1994 exortion agreement with them - right from the get-go no less? What a BUFFOON...good thing he's got such a knack at the intel business, as we found out previously...let's keep going....this particular point is just too stupid to ponder....
Quote



"Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq."

This is a low blow. In last year's address, the war was sold only peripherally as a campaign of liberation; its main pitch was to chop off the world's most dangerous possessor of biological, chemical, and—any day now—nuclear weapons.


Low blow....this right after his NK comment? ROFLMFAO. What a hypocrite.
Quote


"The Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities…"

Here is where the speechwriters most fastidiously avoid last year's dread "16 words" syndrome. Note that the sentence mentions not "weapons of mass destruction" but "weapons of mass destruction-related," and not even "programs" but "program activities." This careful phrasing is in keeping with David Kay's report, which is replete with phrases that, skimmed swiftly, suggest much danger but, read closely, indicate next to nothing. (For a detailed analysis of the report, click here.)


Uhhhhh...only GWB goofed on the intel he was given? Ahem....http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20040122.shtml
Quote


"Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This … is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq."

Let's go to the numbers (courtesy of globalsecurity.org). Some of these countries do have fairly substantial numbers of troops in Iraq. Britain has about 11,000. A few of them have something like the equivalent of a battalion: Italy, 3,000; Ukraine, 2,000; Spain, 1,300; the Netherlands, 1,100; Australia, 1,000; Poland, 630. The others can only be called token: Bulgaria, 470; Thailand, 443; Denmark, 367; El Salvador, 360; Hungary, 150; Japan, 41. (Norway has only naval forces in the area; the Philippines' numbers are unrecorded but doubtless minuscule.) Few of these troops are detailed, or even trained, for combat. None (except Britain's and Italy's) comes close to the levels committed by the genuine coalition of forces that President Bush's father amassed for the Gulf War of 1991. In that earlier war, several Arab and European countries deployed whole divisions on the ground and wings of jet fighters in the air.


Check out the Japanese constitution and the populations of the countries mentioned, then relook at the #'s Mr. Kaplan. You're making a fool of yourself, but hey, you started earlier in the article...

Quote


More to the point, Bush's critics on this point are concerned not just with spreading the costs and the burdens but also with legitimizing the transition to Iraqi sovereignty. The issue isn't so much which countries send troops as who's making the decisions.


So any decision made by the US is illegitmate? WTFO? The man just doesn't quit! At least he's funny....let's keeeeep going! :)
Quote



"There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."

This is a textbook definition of a red herring. Even the U.N. Charter explicitly allows the right to unilateral self-defense. The question, of course, is whether Saddam Hussein constituted a threat to the security of the United States. Last year's address spent much time contending that he did, citing the tons of anthrax, warehouse loads of bioweapons, and secret laboratories full of nuclear gear that Saddam had at his disposal—and the links between Iraq and al-Qaida that could bring these dangers to our shores. This year, the speechwriters might have contemplated reminding the American people of the case. But, to their credit and their caution, they decided not to give it a single word's credence.



I refer all to the Larry Elder column I mentioned earlier. Or to recall the words of Bubba Clinton on the Saddam WMD issue.

Kaplan is cheap entertainment. Too bad he forgot to comment on the rest of the speech. The idea of partially privatizing social security probably sent him into fits and convulsions. Must have, because he never answered the question he posed in the article's title.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

rehmwa    2

rehmwa
Quote

Quote

Bush thanked Norway for sending troops to Iraq.
I just want to point out that both our prime minister and foreign minister officially declared that Norway did not support a war against Iraq, and would not support a war without UN approveal.
There were massive demonstrations against sending troops to Iraq.

However, Norway has sent troops later to help rebuild Iraq.



Nah, that would mean that GW put a spin on it....nah, he wouldn't lie to us.



Wouldn't it actually mean that Norway's PM and FM lied to their people?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

turtlespeed    226

turtlespeed
Quote

www.drinkinggame.us



So I'm thinking that the Democratic responce only has so few options because thier platform and thier rebuttle is so limited. Or is it only their intelligence? Perhaps they can only focus on those few options at one time.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ChasingBlueSky    0

ChasingBlueSky
Quote

Quote

www.drinkinggame.us



So I'm thinking that the Democratic responce only has so few options because thier platform and thier rebuttle is so limited. Or is it only their intelligence? Perhaps they can only focus on those few options at one time.



Or maybe it has to deal with the amount of time they are given to read over his speech and come up with the rebuttle. Wonder if they have any time to do that much research.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gravitymaster    0

Gravitymaster
Quote

Quote

Quote

www.drinkinggame.us



So I'm thinking that the Democratic responce only has so few options because thier platform and thier rebuttle is so limited. Or is it only their intelligence? Perhaps they can only focus on those few options at one time.



Or maybe it has to deal with the amount of time they are given to read over his speech and come up with the rebuttle. Wonder if they have any time to do that much research.



They are given copies of the Presidents speech in advance. I don't know how far in advance exactly, but rest assured they have a team of staffers pouring over it. Hasn't been a problem coming up with an appropriate response in the past. Perhaps this time they had more trouble coming up with an intellegent rebuttal?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
0
Go To Topic Listing