Revealing and Disputing  Bush's Desperate Last Minute Distortions, Lies and Spin

Revealing and Disputing  Bush's Desperate Last Minute Distortions, Lies and Spin

By Anthony Wade

OpEdNews.com

As we all head down the stretch of the most important election of our lifetime we need to be ever vigilant to ensure that we go into the voting booth armed with the truth. Now that the debates are over, president Bush has stepped up his rhetoric, distortions and lies. The strategy is to misinform voters with little time left, to scare people with fabrications hoping that no one will realize until Election Day.

Yesterday, George Bush was in New Jersey stumping for voters and stumping voters with illusion and dishonesty. He started by duping the media into covering the speech by pretending he was giving a "major policy speech", when in reality it was just his old recycled trash. The following is an analysis of his speech, providing you with the truth behind the deceit. The text of the speech can be found at:

http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=3968

The president only talked about his perceived strength, the war on terror and why we need to be scared of a pre-911 mentality. Bush stated at the beginning:

"During the decade of the 1990s, our times often seemed peaceful on the surface.  Yet, beneath that surface were currents of danger.  Terrorists were training and planning in distant camps.  In 1993, terrorists made their first attack on the World Trade Center .  In 1998, terrorists bombed American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania .  And then came the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, which cost the lives of 17 American sailors.  In this period, America 's response to terrorism was generally piecemeal and symbolic.  The terrorists concluded this was a sign of weakness, and their plans became more ambitions [sic], and their attacks became more deadly."

Let's dispel this nonsense right away. The perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing WERE ALL CONVICTED. That's right, they are all behind bars. As for the Cole, guess what? Two of the perpetrators were sentenced to death and another four were handed jail sentences. How in the world is that "generally piecemeal and symbolic?" Now, do you know how many convictions George Bush has since he has started his war on terror? NONE. Not one. He had one in Detroit , but the judge recently had to throw the case out because of prosecutorial misconduct. Now, I am sure we all remember the Clinton Impeachment debacle and what was the mantra of the Republican Party back then? THE RULE OF LAW. Everyone came out saying we had to uphold the rule of law because we are a nation of laws. Now, fast forward a few years and there is no concern about the law. George Bush is proud of saying that he has brought 75% of al Qaeda leadership to justice. What he is omitting is that intelligence sources all agree that those leadership positions have all been refilled and al Qaeda is STRONGER today BECAUSE of the Bush Iraq War.

So before Bush, we saw convictions in courts. That means the people who committed the crimes were sought, caught, and prosecuted successfully. Under Bush, we have zero convictions, no one brought to justice, and a more terror-filled world. You cannot fall for this fear-mongering and need to see the truth behind the lies. George Bush has not been able to do anything to stem the tide of terror. He points to no attacks on American soil since 911, but let us not forget that 911 happened on his watch, after months upon months of warnings.

Bush continued:

"Most Americans still felt that terrorism was something distant, and something that would not strike on a large scale in America .  That is the time that my opponent wants to go back to. A time when danger was real and growing, but we didn't know it.  A time when some thought terrorism was only a "nuisance."

Bush has much abused the "nuisance comment" made by Kerry. He has misled the people by taking one word out of an entire paragraph out of context. Kerry was making a larger point, that we need to try and move our country to the point that terror is not all we think about. For Bush, it is all he wants you to think about. I might add here that John Kerry was not the first to use the word nuisance when talking about terror. In 2002, General Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security advisor to President Gerald Ford and the first President Bush, said the following:

"Can we win the war on terrorism? Yes, I think we can, in the sense that we can win the war on crime. There is going to be no peace treaty on the battleship Missouri in the war on terrorism, but we can break its back so that it is a horrible nuisance and not a paralyzing influence on our societies."

Bush plays this card over and over again, scaring Americans into thinking that only Bush can stop the terrorists. He wants you paralyzed with the mere thought of terror. The reality is that I think most do want to get back to a point where terror is not the end-all event each day. Bush does not wish that to happen, Kerry understands that we NEED to as a country. Don't be afraid America ; George Bush has not made this world safer, but just the opposite. I look forward to the day that Bush is merely a nuisance. Hopefully that day will be November 3, 2004 .

Bush went on:

"September the 11th also changed the way we should look at national security.  But not everyone realizes it.  The choice we face in this election, the first presidential election since September the 11th, is how our nation will defeat this threat.  Will we stay on the offensive against those who want to attack us?"

This is a major portion of the standard Bush stump speech. This is the "we must fight them abroad so we will not have to fight them at home". It is also misleading. We were not attacked by Iraq . Iraq was a secular Islamic nation which was despised by bin Laden and al Qaeda. They had never worked together. The Deufler Report clearly displayed that the UN sanctions were working quite well. Right after 9-11 Bush declared that bin Laden was wanted "dead or alive". Bush promised that we were going to "smoke em out". Six months later however, we saw the true designs this president had. From the day he entered office, Bush had wanted to invade Iraq . This is a fact that has been corroborated by no less than three former administration employees. 9-11 managed to give Bush a perceived rationale. The problem for Bush was that the country wanted bin Laden, and Bush had already promised him to the electorate. That is when you started to hear more about how the war on terror was against those countries that harbor terrorism. Then the subject of bin Laden came up at a press conference and Bush responded by saying "I don't really think about him much anymore". Thus, the focus was shifted from the actual man responsible for 9-11, onto the country Bush had intended to invade from the beginning. Blowing up Iraq has not protected us at home.

Bush continued:

"Winning the war on terror requires more than tough-sounding words repeated in the election season.  America needs clear, moral purpose and leaders who will not waver, especially in the tough times." 

Will not waver??? What about bin Laden "dead or alive" and then six months later saying he didn't think about him much anymore? How much more wavering can you be?

The spinning went on:

"Our first duty in the war on terror is to protect the homeland.  This morning at the White House, I signed a strong law that will make our nation more secure.  With the 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, we are providing essential funding for Coast Guard patrols and port security, for the Federal Air Marshal program, and for technology that will defend aircraft against missiles.  We're adding new resources to patrol our borders and to verify the identity of foreign visitors to America .  We need to know who's coming in and out of our country. The new law includes vital money for first responders, and for better security of chemical facilities and nuclear plants and water treatment plants and bridges and subways and tunnels."

Realizing that Kerry skewered him in the debates on the actual security of our homeland, this is a new part of the stump speech which begs an obvious question. If this is our "first duty", why has Bush waited until 2005 to address it? Currently 95% of our shipments coming into this country are not inspected. We have had 200 billion dollars for the security of Iraq and very little for our own country. Then Kerry points this out correctly, and Bush responds with a plan, three years too late. First responders have also been cut by Bush, as the COPS program has been eliminated. Additionally, the monies have become a political reward for those states which support Bush, as opposed to those states which need to money more. Wyoming , Dick Cheney's state, receives far more first responder money per capita than democratic New York . I do not recall that terrorists were targeting the World's Largest Elk Horn Arch. New York had to beg Washington just to make good on the 20 billion Bush had promised three years ago.

Bush continued:

"To protect America , we passed the Patriot Act, giving law enforcement many of the same tools to fight terrorists that they already had to fight drug cartels and organized crime. Since September the 11th, law enforcement professionals have stopped terrorist activities in Columbus , Ohio ; San Diego , California ; Portland , Oregon ; Seattle , Washington ; Buffalo , New York and other places, including New Jersey , where we apprehended an arms dealer who was allegedly trying to sell shoulder-fired missiles to terrorists."

A pure shill job for a law that has been abused by John Ashcroft. Considering the vast amounts of successes Bush references, one would assume that there have actually been some convictions, but as I have pointed out, NOT ONE. There have however been multiple reports of abuses under this law, as people have seen their civil liberties violated and some have been held for years now, with no access to the American judicial system that was their right until Bush took office. Whether or not you think that Jose Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb, he was an American citizen before Bush declared him an enemy combatant. He had rights before John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act. He deserved to at least be charged and tried, not held off the coast of North Carolina indefinitely.

Continuing on the Patriot Act, Bush said:

"My opponent voted for the Patriot Act, but now he wants to weaken it. There are plenty of safeguards in this law, making sure that civil liberties are protected and searches are authorized by court order.  By seeking to dilute the Patriot Act, my opponent is taking the eye off the ball.  The danger to America is not the Patriot Act, or the good people who use it; the danger to America is the terrorists.  And we will not let up in this fight."

Yes, Kerry did support the law until he saw the problems it was causing to the American people, courtesy of John Ashcroft. He does not want to "weaken it". He wants to remove the portions that have little to do with the war on terror and more to do with the abuse of civil liberties. Do not fall for this scare tactic from Bush. Terrorists are, of course, a danger to us, but so are politicians circumventing the constitution for their own agendas. One can argue that without those protections, we have nothing to fight for.

Moving into direct distortions of Kerry's record, Bush stated:

"My opponent has taken a different approach, and it shows in his record.  Just one year after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, Senator Kerry proposed a $6 billion cut in the nation's intelligence budget."

Luckily for us, we have the Dick Cheney endorsed, factcheck.org to rely on to debunk this nonsense. According to factcheck:

"The proposal Bush criticized would have amounted to a reduction of roughly 1%. And senior congressional Republicans supported a cut two-thirds as large at the time"

Bush is lying yet again. He paints this vote as "gutting" intelligence, when it amounted to only 1% and it was less than what some congressional republicans were proposing to cut. Don't fall for the talking points. See through the spin.

On intelligence, Bush was not done prevaricating:

"Senator Kerry has a record of trying to weaken American intelligence.  I am working every day to strengthen American intelligence."

Considering how many times Bush has blamed the intelligence community for his own misguided shortcomings, I am surprised the president tried this. The fact is that Bush realized that he would not get the Intel he wanted to go after Saddam, so he placed his own cell in the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans, to purposefully cook intelligence for a justification for going into Iraq . Is that Bush's idea of strengthening intelligence? 

On al Qaeda, Bush used his tired old lie:

"These efforts are paying off.  Since September the 11th, 2001 , more than three-quarters of al Qaeda's key members and associates have been brought to justice.
The rest of them know we're coming after them."

Yeah, they seem scared too, since al Qaeda has strengthened since the Bush War in Iraq . This three quarter number is misleading at best. Bush offers no specifics and since there have been no convictions; I assume he is saying he killed them all. Either way, they have been replaced and it is has bolstered al Qaeda.

More on terror:

"We removed the Taliban from power.  We have persuaded governments in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to recognize the enemy and join the fight.  We ended the regime of Saddam Hussein, which sponsored terror."

Where to start here? First of all, the Taliban still controls a large portion of Afghanistan . The Bush puppet government has actually invited the Taliban to join the governing process, realizing that they were in control anyway. Opium production is back to full strength. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may pay lip service to Bush and the world, but they are still terrorist sponsoring nations, far more than Iraq ever was. Most credible intelligence now places bin Laden somewhere in Pakistan , either on the border of China , or Afghanistan . Lastly, the only terror Saddam sponsored was for families of suicide bombers who attack Israel , not the US . Outside of that, even the stacked and compromised 9-11 commission had to conclude that there was no relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda, despite the incoherent lying of Dick Cheney.

On Libya :

"We sent a message to Libya , which has now given up weapons of mass destruction programs and handed nuclear materials and equipment over to the United States ."

Well George, not exactly. As I have reported before, most credible intelligence sources have said that Libya decided to play ball because the UN sanctions had crippled the country, as they had Iraq . Realizing that he may face an overthrow, Ghaddafi realized that he had to be able to sell his oil competitively again if he was going to regain the economic prosperity he needed to stay in power. Bush had obviously stated that he was going to concentrate on Iraq and Afghanistan , with Iran and Syria next on the hit list. To postulate that Libya saw how we shock and awed the Iraqis and were scared so they agreed to dismantle is fundamentally flawed logic. Bush, of course, wants to take credit for it.

Getting back to Kerry, Bush said:

"My opponent has a fundamental misunderstanding on the war on terror. A reporter recently asked Senator Kerry how September the 11th changed him. He replied, "It didn't change me much at all."

Bravo to Kerry. Weren't we told by this president that we let the terrorists win by allowing them to change us and how we live? It seems Bush flips and flops to suit his political needs at any given time.

Getting warmed up now, Bush lets the bull fly:

"Senator Kerry's approach would permit a response only after America is hit."

This is a flat out lie, period. Kerry reiterated over and over again during the debates that he would never cede our right to pre-emptive war, but did state that it needs to done more effectively. Randomly picking countries out that have little to nothing to do with terror against us is patently STUPID. This is Bush's hope though. He hopes he can scare you into thinking that Kerry is somehow weak and is going to wait until we are attacked to fight back. Nothing is farther from the truth however. Bush is lying and you need to be aware of such when you go into vote.

Moving into some scary rhetoric:

"The war on terror is a real war, with deadly enemies, not simply a police operation.  In an era of weapons of mass destruction, waiting for threats to arrive at our doorsteps is to invite disaster.  Tyrants and terrorists will not give us polite notice before they attack our country."

Obviously, Bush does not believe in this being a police operation since he has no convictions to hang his hat on but read into this comment and what do you see? Where does it end for Bush? How many tyrants are in this world that he wants to eradicate? Is that really the role you want your country to have? It used to bother Americans to think of ourselves as the global police, now somehow Bush has convinced you that it is ok for us to be the global bully. Iraq now, Iran and Syria next. Maybe North Korea and who knows what other countries are on the agenda as Bush and his cronies try and control the last vestiges of oil in this world. By this rationale, all Bush has to do is say that a country could be a threat, maybe, at some point in the future, and we all of a sudden have a basis for a pre-emptive war. Where does it end for us? Bush admitted once that this is a war that cannot be "won", per se. He was correct so again I ask, where does it end? How can he possibly wage these wars without bringing the draft back? All valid questions.

While lying about Zarqawi, the new boogeyman, Bush said:

"He fled to Saddam Hussein's Iraq , where he received medical care and set up operations with some two dozen terrorist associates.  He operated in Baghdad and worked with associates in northern Iraq "

Pay close attention here, it is very subtle what Bush did. Yes, intelligence did say that Zarqawi fled to Iraq , and yes, Saddam was still in power. Zarqawi was not in Baghdad , he was in Northern Iraq . The part omitted by Bush though is that Northern Iraq was a no-fly, no-go zone for Saddam. We did not allow Saddam to have any control over that region. If you do not believe me, go read Colin Powell's UN speech where he admits this plainly. Thus, it is a tad unfair to blame Saddam for allowing Zarqawi to set up shop in an area of Iraq that WE would not let him control. I might add here, that it begs the question that since  we knew Zarqawi was in Northern Iraq , why did we not take him out then, since WE controlled it?

Continuing on Zarqawi:

"Here, the difference between my opponent and me is very clear. Senator Kerry believes that fighting Zarqawi and other terrorists in Iraq is a "diversion" from the war on terror.  I believe that fighting and defeating these killers in Iraq is a central commitment in the war on terror."

Ahh, a little misdirection here for Bush, the master of diversion. Kerry never said fighting Zarqawi and terrorists was a diversion. What he said was that going into Iraq , which was not part of the terror network, was a diversion. Now that Bush has created a terror haven in Iraq , Kerry agrees that we need to fight the terrorists there. Iraq was not only NOT the central commitment to the terror war, it was not even on the radar until Bush invaded. Yet, Bush turns this around to use against Kerry, hoping you do not put one and one together.

Moving on to try and prop up his depleted coalition Bush lies with:

"Third, to win the war on terror, America must work with allies and lead the world with clarity.  And that is exactly what we are doing.  The flags of 64 nations fly at U.S. Central Command Headquarters in Tampa , Florida , representing coalition countries that are working openly with us in the war on terror."

This is quite disingenuous. Bush asked countries if they support the concept of eliminating terror from the world. Most obviously said, sure. They were then added to the "list" of supporting countries. Recently, Costa Rica , realized they had been added to the coalition and the immediately protested and had the US remove their name. Bush took countries token of verbal goodwill and made them "partners". They actually do not provide anything to the war on terror; they simply say they are against terror. Please.

Moving into the specific coalition countries actually fighting, Bush stated:

"My opponent promises that he would do better with our allies.  Yet, he's decided that the way to build alliances is to insult our friends.  As a candidate for President, Senator Kerry has managed to offend or alienate almost every one of America 's fighting allies in the war on terror.  He has called the countries serving alongside us in Iraq -- quote -- "a trumped-up ... coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted. He has dismissed the sacrifice of 14 nations that have lost forces in Iraq , calling those nations "window dressing."  In our debate a few weeks ago, he declared, "when we went in [to Iraq ], there were three countries -- Great Britain , Australia , and the United States ."  He left out Poland , one of the first countries to see combat on the first days of hostilities in Iraq .  He never shows respect for some of the 30 nations that are serving courageously in Iraq today."

A lot of lies for one subject. First, the coalition of the bribed is a reference to the fact that Bush bullied some countries into the coalition by saying beforehand, if you do not fight with us; do not bother applying for reconstruction contracts. Where I come from that is called extortion, or a bribe. The fact is that the coalition is WINDOW DRESSING. As for Poland , they are leaving the coalition next year. I do not blame Kerry for denigrating the very superficial contributions of these countries that are there mostly in name only. We have 130,000 troops there. The next largest amount is Great Britain , with a paltry 8,300. On top of that, 85% of the coalition has 300 or less. Are you kidding me??? How can anyone honestly call this a coalition? Bush needed to try and lend some international credibility to his war. So, he enticed some countries to join without really making sacrifices, in return for a piece of the post-war rebuilding pie. I would like to add here that Kerry has promised to bring the world truly into this struggle, so the bullseye will come off our kids' backs and our wallets. Just this month, Germany has come out and said they would welcome any proposal from a President Kerry. The world wants us back leading, not bullying and conquering.

Not content with lying about the coalition, Bush moves into Iraq :

"Senator Kerry even has disregarded the contributions of Iraqis who are fighting for their freedom.  When he speaks of coalition casualties in Iraq , he doesn't count the hundreds of Iraqis who have given their lives fighting the terrorists and the insurgents.  When Iraq 's Prime Minister came to Washington to address Congress last month, Senator Kerry did not show up.  Instead, he called a press conference and questioned the Prime Minister's credibility.  The Prime Minister of Iraq is a brave man, who survived the assassins of Saddam. The Prime Minister of Iraq deserves the respect of the world, not the scorn of a politician."

Now, how big a lie is this. The coalition went in, allegedly, to free Iraq . How can you count the Iraqis themselves in the coalition? As for the puppet Allawi, Kerry realized what everyone else did; that the visit was a cheap political stunt. The speech he gave has been suspected to have been written by the Bush people. The American people saw through this sham. I might add that Allawi was also accused of shooting captured dissident prisoners in the head, not usually the mark of a "brave" man.

Bush now moves into his "global test" lie:

"As far as I can tell, it (global test) comes down to this:  Before we act to defend ourselves, he thinks we need permission from foreign capitals."

No, that is not what it means. What it means is that there needs to be transparency to the world. That you do not run off like a cowboy thumbing your nose at the rest of the world. Bush took this one phrase which was clearly defined and twisted into Kerry saying he would ask permission to defend this country. Kerry has said over and over, that he would never ask permission to protect this country. Bush does not care about mangling the truth, as long as it suits his own political agenda.

Going back to Afghanistan , Bush said:

"The election in Afghanistan less than two weeks ago was a landmark event in the history of liberty. That election was a tremendous defeat for the terrorists."

The election was rife with fraud and shenanigans. All of the candidates, other than the US backed puppet, had protested the vote. I guess Bush has delivered our style of elections. The defeat of the terrorists comment is patently ridiculous since the warlords and Taliban still control the country and it is constantly on the verge of "implosion".

More on Afghanistan :

"My opponent has complained that we are trying to -- quote -- "impose" democracy on people in that region. No one forced them to register by the millions, or stand in long lines at polling places." 

I would be very interested to see the entire quote, since Bush is notorious for skewing and extrapolating Kerry's comments. Even if he did say this, he is technically correct. Democracy is not a forced concept. As for the millions of people voting, they were paid an incentive to register, and pre-vote controversy had discovered that people registered multiple times.

Drawing a comparison to Iraq :

Actually, experts do not think January is viable. Even if it does happen, there will be entire sections of Iraq that will not vote. The result will be a non-recognized government and possible civil war.  

Dragging back out a tired old lie, Bush stated:

Unfortunately, Senator Kerry does not share our commitment to victory in Iraq .  For three years -- depending on the headlines, the poll numbers and political calculation -- he has taken almost every conceivable position on Iraq . First, he said Saddam Hussein was a threat, and he voted for the war.  Then he voted against funds for bullets and body armor for the troops he had voted to send into battle. He declared himself an anti-war candidate.  Months later he said that knowing everything we know now, he would have still voted for the war.  Then he said the war was a "mistake," an "error," or "diversion."  Having gone back and forth so many times, the Senator from Massachusetts has now flip-flopped his way to a dangerous position.  My opponent -- my opponent finally has settled on a strategy, a strategy of retreat. He has talked about artificial timetables to pull our troops out of Iraq .  He has sent the signal that America 's overriding goal in Iraq would be to leave, even if the job is not done.

This lie has been refuted so often. Kerry has always said Saddam was a threat, never said otherwise. The vote against body armor is not only a lie, it is a disgusting one. Here is the truth behind that vote against the 87 billion dollar supplemental, taken from a previous article I had done:

1) President Bush sent our kids to fight these wars without body armor or armor on Humvees necessary to properly protect them. This has led to unnecessary deaths and maiming of our soldiers. Parents have had to buy body armor at $1,500 each and fed-ex them to their children fighting. It took one year for Bush to correct this problem.

2) Within the 87 billion dollar bill was about 20 billion more for Halliburton. Considering Halliburton had already lost 1.8 billion they could not account for and they had been caught overcharging for meals they never served to our troops, some Senators, including Kerry thought the 20 billion should be removed and done separately for stricter accountability with our tax dollars.

3) Bush said he would veto the supplemental if the 20 billion had those accountability measures attached, siding with Halliburton over your kids.

4) Congressional Republicans took an anti-profiteering provision out of the $87 billion supplemental appropriation bill for Iraq . The Leahy-Feinstein-Durbin amendment would have penalized "war profiteering" -- meaning jail terms or fines for overcharging taxpayers for any good or service with the specific intent to excessively profit from the war or reconstruction. Once again, Bush siding with his corporate friends over the lives of your kids.

5) John Kerry supported a version of the bill that would repeal the tax break on the top 1%, in order to pay for the supplemental, since the deficit was so high already. He correctly understood that it was reckless to spend another 87 billion when we didn't have the money to pay for it and thought it would be reasonable to ask the billionaires of this country to sacrifice in a time of war.

6) Bush disagreed and said he would veto the supplemental if this caveat was in it. He sided yet again with his base of millionaires instead of the soldiers.

7) Because Bush controlled Congress, the version he wanted, with no accountability for Halliburton and no sacrifice from his affluent base, was the one that went to vote. 

8) Once Kerry confirmed that the supplemental had enough votes to pass, he cast a "no" vote, in protest.

This means that the very vote Bush criticizes Kerry for voting "no" for, he himself said he would have vetoed if it included any protections for our tax monies or sacrifices for the richest in this country. That is the height of hypocrisy. Additionally, it is fundamentally dishonest to then turn Kerry's vote of protest, cast only after he knew the bill would pass, into a referendum on his not supporting the troops. Especially considering that it was Bush that sent the troops out there without the protection they needed to start with.

All Kerry has said is that Bush mismanaged the war, badly. Now, he recognizes the need to clean up the mess Bush has gotten us into. As for the retreat comment, another lie as Kerry has never advocated that. The difference between the two men is striking though. Bush has NO EXIT STRATEGY, NONE. Your kids will be there according to Bush "as long as it takes". What does that mean??? Kerry has a plan to not only succeed but to take the target off of our kids and bring them home within four years. Shouldn't Bush at least have a clue as to when this war will be over? An inkling? To criticize Kerry for formulating an exit strategy is envious and transparent.

Starting to wrap up, Bush is not quite done lying yet:

"The Senator who voted against the $87 billion for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is the same Senator who has voted against vital weapons systems during his entire career."

This is another favorite of Bush, the "voting against vital weapons systems" card. Unfortunately for Bush, the record is there to prove that he is a lair yet again. According to the Cheney's Factcheck.org, the Bush campaign "bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons."

Here is the important part though, that Bush hopes you do not find out. Factcheck.org continues:

"Nonetheless, since Kerry has been in Congress he has voted for 16 of the 19 overall Pentagon funding bills. Therefore, "even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should - on balance - be called a supporter of the 'vital' weapons."

Did you get that America ? Of the 19 times Kerry had to vote on Pentagon funding bills, 16 times he voted yes and three times he voted no. Bush is only talking about the three times he said no. This is the height of distortion and more importantly arrogance. Bush does not think you will find the truth behind the clever catch phrases and the pretty wrapping. John Kerry has supported defense spending, period.

Bush finished with his usual malapropism, which often belies some truth about the man. Bush said in his closing sentence, "In a new term as your President, we will finish the work we have started.  We will stand up for terror". Bush has not stood up to terror; he has facilitated a culture of terror. In Iraq , he turned a floundering third world country into a haven for terrorists. At home, he has turned a representative democracy into a referendum on sacrificing civil liberties for safety. Benjamin Franklin once said "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". Bush cares nothing about these matters.

He only cares about one thing, doing anything to get elected. This was an analysis of the entire speech yesterday. Did you notice what was missing? It sounds as if Bush is running for president of Iraq , not the United States of America . What attention did Bush pay in this entire speech to this country? Here was what he said about your country, as an introduction basically to the speech:

"We are now 15 days away from a critical election.  Many important domestic issues are at stake.  I have a positive, hopeful agenda for job creation, broader health coverage and better public education.  Yet all the progress we hope to make depends on the security of our nation."

Well, thanks for clearing that up Mr. President. A positive, hopeful agenda for job creation, health coverage, and public education? What happened to these vital concerns during the first four years? On job creation, we have seen 1.6 million private sector jobs lost and over 800,000 overall. Bush will be the first president since the Great Depression to lose jobs. The solution Bush has is to hand back more and more money to the richest people in this country and hope that they somehow create more McJobs for you. On healthcare we have seen 5 million people lose their healthcare and now 50 million have no coverage at all. Those that do, are paying astronomical prices as Bush has supported the big insurance companies over you. Bush's solution is to take away your right to sue if you are wronged. This despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has stated that lawsuits amount to less than 1% of healthcare costs. This is simply Bush supporting the large HMO's over your protection. Lastly on education, Bush has yet to even fund his trumpeted No Child Left Behind law. Within this law is a caveat that all schools must provide names, addresses and phone numbers of all their students to the military, or face the loss of federal funding. On Pell Grants, Bush has never followed through on his promise to up the per grant award to the $5,100 level. More than one million more grants were awarded under Bush, further supporting the proof that more people are falling into poverty. That is a hell of a domestic agenda.

Bush cannot run on his record, he can only run from it. In order to not have you think about these issues, his speeches now are all about terror. Not just the terror abroad, but the fear he wants you to vote with. He knows that if you walk into the voting booth unafraid and armed with the truth, you cannot possibly vote for him. Thus, he wants you scared. He will continue to distort Kerry's record and lie with impunity. This was billed as a major policy speech by Bush, so he could get free media coverage. All it amounted to was the same old recycled lies. It was the same old fear factor that he used so effectively in the run-up to war. He came to us over and over again and swore to us that Saddam had weapons that he could use against us. He put the fear of the mushroom cloud in your head, knowing full well, that the intelligence was cooked. Now he comes back to us and tries to scare you into voting for him. In his own words:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

I couldn't agree more.

Anthony Wade is co-administrator of a website devoted to educating the populace to the ongoing lies of President George W. Bush and seeking his removal from office. He is a 37-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites.  A Christian progressive and professional Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess.

Anthony Wade's Archive:     http://www.opednews.com/archiveswadeanthony.htm