Muse – The Facts? (3 of 5)
Asked by a noter to look into some articles by another diarist, I took a peek and decided to muse them for myself. One of the things I find the most amusing when it comes to this recent election year is the easy way in which people bandy about the word fact. As if using the word itself carries some grand weight.
Anyway, personal peeves aside, the entries are from the diary of liberals*suck. Are you feeling the impartiality yet? Links to the entries and snippets from the entries will be presented along with my commentary and, of course, links to back it up. Considering my boredom after compiling the first, I think I’ll limit myself to covering one a day at most. Unless I get bold or something.
Previous Entry: Part Two
The Entry in Question for today
Kerry’s Claim: Former Military Officers Are Supporting Kerry.
The Facts:
The President Has Been Endorsed By Over 250 Flag Officers.
So? This doesn’t prove that former military officers aren’t supporting Kerry. Some do express support. How many? Who can say, I’m not going to spend hours trying to dig them all up. That’s just one article I found after a few mins.
Question Four: Safety & Security
Kerry’s Claim: President Bush Went Into Iraq Without A Plan To Win The Peace.
The Facts:
Kerry Voted Against The $87 Billion Supplemental, Which Contains Funds For Iraq’s Reconstruction, Including The Training And Equipping Of Iraqi Security Forces. PRESIDENT BUSH: “This legislation also includes nearly $20 billion to help build stable democratic societies in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will help train and equip the growing number of Iraqis and Afghans who are fighting and dying to defend and secure their rights. We’ll help to upgrade hospitals and schools and repair infrastructure and improve basic services, including water, electricity and sanitation.” (Remarks By The President At Signing Of HR 3289 – The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act For Defense And For The Reconstruction Of Iraq And Afghanistan, 11/6/03, Available At http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/print/20031106-4.html)
Former Centcom Commander General Tommy Franks, US Army (Ret.), Says “There Was Actually Excellent Planning” For The Post-War Reconstruction. BLITZER: “Why was there such poor planning for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq?” “GENERAL FRANKS: “I don’t think there was poor planning. I think there was actually excellent planning. I think if you take a look at the book, what you see is the use of the term ‘catastrophic success’ or ‘catastrophic victory.’ I think what we saw, Wolf, was that the combat forces moved up to Baghdad, isolated and removed the regime very, very quickly.” (CNN’s “Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer,” 8/15/04)
Again, a Kerry claim is met with irrelevant information. Neither of these prove that Bush went in with good planning for the aftermath of the Iraq war. It shows what Tommy Frank thinks, but does one expect him to admit to poor planning even if it was true?
I think the events following the Iraq war speak for themselves. Massive looting and destruction of property, general lawlessness that got the post war phase off to a very poor start and made things harder than they had to be. Collapse of the Iraqi government, which should have been foreseen, but obviously wasn’t as there was no preparation to replace it in the short term. If any of these observations(note, no use of the word fact here) are wrong, feel free to correct me.
Kerry’s Claim: President Bush Rushed To War Without Fully Equipping Our Troops With Body Armor.
The Facts:
“All Front Line Troops In Iraq Had Interceptor Body Armor During Offensive Operations In Iraq In Early 2003.” “All soldiers and Defense Department civilians and contractors in Iraq have had interceptor body armor since January 2004.” (House Armed Services Committee, “Talking Points: Protecting Our Troops,” 3/24/04)
Every Solider And Marine In Iraq Had Body Armor, But Only Some Had Brand New Interceptor Body Armor, While Others Had Older Model. JOINT CHIEFS VICE CHAIRMAN PETER PACE: “Every soldier and Marine on the ground over had body armor. The difference is, is that our industry has produced an even better body armor than what we have, so what the folks went over to the war with is what we’ve been wearing for several years, which is body armor that’s very, very good against a certain caliber of munition. The new body armor is better against large caliber munition, industry produced it and Congress funded it and industries producing as fast as they can and as fast as they’re making it we’re getting it to Iraq. The projection is that by December of this year [2003] everybody in Iraq will have the new armor, so everybody has armor it’s the difference between whether they have the most recent capacity armor or the armor that we’ve been wearing body armor that we’ve been wearing for a couple years.” (U.S. Department Of Defense Website, “Secretary Rumsfeld And Gen. Pace Stakeout At The House Of Representatives,” http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20031021-secdef0805.html, 10/21/03)
At Beginning Of War, Troops Had At Minimum Same Body Armor Troops Have Worn For “Past 10, 15, 20 Years,” And All U.S. Troops And Civilians In Iraq Now Have New Interceptor Body Armor. NPR’S JUAN WILLIAMS: “Senator Kerry, who, as you know, is running for president, has made the charge that American servicemen and women have had to reach into their own pockets to pay for some body armor. Is that true?” JOINT CHIEFS VICE CHAIRMAN PETER PACE: “Those of us in uniform do not talk about politics nor should we. The fact of the matter is that there have been some units that in the early stages of the war had the kind of body armor that we have had for the past 10, 15, 20 years and that as the war was beginning we had a new prototype that the Army was trying out called SAPI Armor, that in fact was, when field-tested, much better than the body armor that everyone else had. Now in the Gulf region every single American, civilian military who’s over there serving our country, has available to them a set of this SAPI Armor.” (NPR’s “Morning Edition,” 3/18/04)
The $87 Billion Supplemental Funding Bill Kerry And Edwards Voted Against Provided “Extra Money For Body Armor For Soldiers ” (“Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures,” The Associated Press, 10/17/03; S. Rept. 108-160, Conference Report On S. 1689, 10/2/03)
Kerry Had Characterized A Vote Against The Funding As “Irresponsible.” (CBS’ “Face the Nation,” 9/14/03)
Kerry Later Offered A Tortured Explanation Of His Vote Against The $87 Billion To Support Troops In Iraq. “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” (Richard W. Stevenson And Adam Nagourney, “Bush’s Campaign Emphasizes Role Of Leader In War,” The New York Times, 3/17/04)
Kerry Said He Was “Proud” That He And Edwards Voted Against $87 Billion In Funding For U.S. Soldiers, Then Said His Vote Against Body Armor And Supplies For Troops Was “Complicated.” (John Kerry, Remarks At “Women’s Voices: A Luncheon With John Kerry,” Boston, MA, 7/12/04; MSNBC’s “Imus In The Morning,” 7/15/04)
Kerry Even Said His Vote For The War And Against Funding For Our Troops Was “Not A Flip-Flop.”(CBS’ “Evening News,” 7/21/04)
Kerry Then Defended His Vote Against The $87 Billion By Saying President Bush “Didn’t Have A Plan To Win The Peace, It Was Irresponsible To Give [President Bush] A Blank Check That Gave $20 Billion That Was Going To Go To Halliburton And All These Other Companies.” (Mike Allen And Lois Romano, “Closing Laps In Race To November,” The Washington Post, 9/4/04)
Kerry Said He’s “Glad” He Voted Against The Iraq Supplemental. (CBS’ “The Late Show With David Letterman,” 9/20/04)
This point is an interesting one. The cusp of it comes at the two different types of body armor in use at the time of this little conflict. The Interceptor body armor and lesser flack jackets. The military was well equipped with the flack vests, but Interceptor vests were not available for all.
So, ignoring the irrelevance of the $87 billion supplemental, it comes down to your perception of events. It is said that frontline troops all had the Interceptor vests. But was that so after there were no more frontlines in the immediate aftermath of the war? I’m sure there are instances of those who lives might have been saved had they been wearing Interceptor armor, which is the detail that is at the heart of the issue. The troops were sent without a full equipping of the Interceptor armor, however. So again, Kerry isn’t quite right on, but there is kernel of concern. What it means to you depends on.. well, you. Considering it’s been in production since 1999, it could have been in better supply by now, if they’re already securing enough for everyone in Iraq.