| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/10 |
| 2004/7/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31104 Activity:very high |
6/30 So the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124079,00.html
Regarding Moore's veracity has some troubles itself.
The number they give about vacations, excluding camp david trips,
assumes that every weekend was spent at camp david. This doesn't
jive with the month long vacations to Crawford. And excluding the
Camp David trips doesn't go all that far in negating Moore's point.
\_ So you agree that Moore is lying, you just disagree with the
specific numbers?
\_ Um, no. I'm saying Fox, even with an invalid qualifier,
got their numbers wrong. --scotsman
\_ But the point is still valid that Moore puts weekends at Camp
David as part of his "vacation" time. Is Moore's 42% number
exaggerated or not?
\_ Interesting. According to <DEAD>csua.org/u/80m<DEAD>
The first President Bush had a ratio of 37% per year if you include
weekends at Camp David. Was he slacking off?
\_ Moore's source for the 42% is almost certainly this article:
<DEAD>www.dke.org/haginranch.html<DEAD>
Interestingly, that was published in 8/2001 and said:
By the time President Bush returns to Washington on Labor Day
after the longest presidential vacation in 32 years, he will have
spent all or part of 54 days since the inauguration at his
parched but beloved ranch. That's almost a quarter of his
presidency.
Throw in four days last month at his parents' seaside estate in
Kennebunkport, Maine, and 38 full or partial days at the
presidential retreat at Camp David, and Bush will have spent 42
percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route.
So the percentage is based on the first year up to the end of the
big vacation, including weekends at Camp David--which of course is
going to be much higher than the total percent for the first year,
and has been the highest percentage of the entire presidency.
It's a pretty disingenuous statistic unless all the qualifiers are
included.
\_ So FNC could be correct if they're talking about the entire
presidency while this article is talking about the most
vacation-filled part of Bush's presidency.
They counter the 7 minutes with a politic quote from L Hamilton.
Fallacy of Appeal to Authority (not to mention an authority that
the right screamed about for months as being a non-starter
witchhunt).
\_ Of course, I credible is FNC these days? If you've ever taken
\_ Of course, how credible is FNC these days? If you've ever taken
a look at "Lying Liars and the Liars the tell Them" there are
documented cases of people on FNC just flat out lying. And
unlike FNC, Franken actually presents evidence to back things
up when he accuses others of lying.
\_ So we disagree about the significance of the 7 mins. No biggie.
Moore turns it into something it isn't.
The news of Clarke having approved the saudi flights
didn't come out until June 1st, well after the Palme D'or was
handed down.
\_ So here Moore was just incompetent? No only did Clarke approve the
flights, but they didn't happen when US airspace was closed (which
is part of what Moore claims).
\_ Where do you get "incompetent"? He said what was general
knowledge at the time. Clarke retracted his statement
some time after the film was released. This goes to Clarke's
veracity. Not Moore's. --scotsman
\_ How is the White House magically not responsible for what
their cabinet does? The Cabinet are the closest direct
reports to the President and appointed by him. Bush can't
claim that he is not responsible for their actions, no matter
what Clarke tries to claim to deflect responsibility onto
himself.
Since I don't have a transcript, I can't address the
parts about the Taliban visit to Texas, but faulting Moore for
"not mentioning that THE CLINTON approved the visit" is pretty
hollow.
\_ Check the history then. The visit happened during the Clinton
administration. How is this hollow? He's blaming Bush for letting
the EVIL TALIBAN in when it wasn't Bush who did it.
\_ This is why I said "I don't have the transcript." But I'll grant
you, he did suggest it. And will you grant that the Bush admin-
istration suggested that saddam was involved with 9/11?
--scotsman
Moore has had plenty of harsh words about Clinton and
other democrats in his books. But he seemed to be comparing the
\_ That's right. When he's done with the right, he's coming
after you too. Be careful who you get into bed iwth.
tacit approval of THE CLINTON vs. the active support by THE BUSH
in regards to the Taliban. To wit:
But do not declare war and massacre more innocents. After
bin Laden's previous act of terror, our last elected
president went and bombed what he said was "bin Laden's
camp" in Afghanistan-but instead just killed civilians.
Then he bombed a factory in the Sudan, saying it was
"making chemical weapons." It turned out to be making
aspirin. Innocent people murdered by our Air Force.
Back in May, you gave the Taliban in Afghanistan $48
million dollars of our tax money. No free nation on earth
would give them a cent, but you gave them a gift of $48
million because they said they had "banned all drugs."
Because your drug war was more important than the actual
war the Taliban had inflicted on its own people, you
helped to fund the regime who had given refuge to the
very man you now say is responsible for killing my friend
on that plane and for killing the friends of families of
thousands and thousands of people.
\_ This is a big lie. The money was to a relief fund administered by
the UN to relieve the FAMINE in Afghanistan.
\_ How 'bout the Cato Institute's take?
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html
\_ Cato is anti-american. Boycott Cato!
\_ While CATO is useful to find stuff, I can't rely on them
alone. Every news story I find about this says the $43M was
in "additional emergency aid" and was the result of
perceived efforts in reducing the poppy harvest (which was
wrong). It doesn't say it went to the Taliban, and it
doesn't say how the funds were administered. My
understanding is that it was through the UN and was typical
aid (food, clothing, medicine, etc.). Do you have any
reason for believing it was a cash payment to the Taliban as
Moore suggests?
\_ Cato does not say (though kind of impies) that the money
\_ CATO does not say (though kind of impies) that the money
went to the Taliban. As far as I can tell that untruth
originated in an LA times, by (yet another leftist liar)
Robert Scheer. However, if you think that the taliban
got no part/control/benefit of that money (to say, give
building contracts to their cronies) then
you don't understand how international aid works in
autocratic 3rd world countries, even if it was
administered "though NGOs" by the U.N.
\_ So Moore is arguing that we shouldn't give aid to
countries with totalitarian leaders?
\_ I don't know about Moore, but I like that
argument. --erikred
\_ Moore said that we gave the Taliban in Afghanistan $48M
dollars. He did not say what the aid went for. He simply
say that we gave it. You call this "a big lie" yet you
agree with him that the money went to Afghanistan, which
was controlled by the Taliban at the time. How is this
a lie, again? It matters not if the money went directly
to the Taliban or indirectly helped them by supporting
their government and substituting for tax money they
would have had to spend on the same programs anyway.
--scotsman |
| 7/10 |
|
| www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124079,00.html search) "Fahrenheit 9/11" broke records this weekend, becoming the first documentary to debut as Hollywood's top weekend film -- but there are holes in the controversial film's story. For instance, in one often-showed clip, Moore claims that President Bush was on vacation 42 percent of the time during his first several months in office -- but that estimation included weekends at Camp David, a common practice for presidents. Without those days figured in, Bush actually spent 13 percent of his time on vacation. The movie also criticizes Bush for staying inside a Florida classroom full of kids for a full seven minutes after he learned that the country was under attack on Sept. "Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom," said Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. In addition, Moore says that the departing Saudis were not properly processed by the FBI when leaving the country. Finally, Moore shows prominent members of the Taliban visiting Texas, implying that they were invited by then-Governor Bush. Moore also doesn't mention that the visit was made with the permission of the Clinton administration, which twice met with Taliban members -- in 1997 and 1998. Click on the video box at the top of this story to watch a report by FOX News' William LaJeunesse. com Site Tools Take advantage of services and tools that get you closer to the news. Subscribe to FOX News Alerts, or download our FNC Ringtones, Search Toolbar, Ticker and more. |
| www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and is the author or editor of 14 books on international affairs including the forthcoming "Bad Neighbor Policy: Washington's Futile War on Drugs in Latin America" (Palgrave/ St. The United States has made common cause with an assortment of dubious regimes around the world to wage the war on drugs. Perhaps the most shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies. When the Taliban implemented a ban on opium cultivation in early 2001, US officials were most complimentary. James P Callahan, director of Asian Affairs for the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, uncritically relayed the alleged accounts of Afghan farmers that "the Taliban used a system of consensus-building" to develop and carry out the edict. That characterization was more than a little suspect because the Taliban was not known for pursuing consensus in other aspects of its rule. Columnist Robert Scheer was justifiably scathing in his criticism of the US response. "That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising," Sheer noted, but he considered it "grotesque" for a US official to describe the drug-crop crackdown in such benign terms. Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the US economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters. To make matters worse, US officials were naive to take the Taliban edict at face value. The much-touted crackdown on opium poppy cultivation appears to have been little more than an illusion. Despite US and UN reports that the Taliban had virtually wiped out the poppy crop in 2000-2001, authorities in neighboring Tajikistan reported that the amounts coming across the border were actually increasing. In reality, the Taliban gave its order to halt cultivation merely to drive up the price of opium the regime had already stockpiled. Even if the Taliban had tried to stem cultivation for honest reasons, US cooperation with that regime should have been morally repugnant. Among other outrages, the Taliban government prohibited the education of girls, tortured and executed political critics, and required non-Muslims to wear distinctive clothing--a practice eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany's requirement that Jews display the Star of David on their clothing. Yet US officials deemed none of that to be a bar to cooperation with the Taliban on drug policy. Even if the Bush administration had not been dissuaded by moral considerations, it should have been by purely pragmatic concerns. There was already ample evidence in the spring of 2001 that the Taliban was giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network that had bombed two US embassies in East Africa. For the State Department to ignore that connection and agree to subsidize the Taliban was inexcusably obtuse. Scheer was on the mark when he concluded, "The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns." Washington's approach came to an especially calamitous end in September 2001 when the Taliban regime was linked to bin Laden's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed some 3,000 people. Moreover, evidence quickly emerged that the Taliban all along had been collecting millions of dollars in profits from the illicit drug trade, with much of that money going into the coffers of the terrorists. Rarely is there such graphic evidence of the bankruptcy of US drug policy. |