CHAPTER 22
THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
As he did four years earlier, Bush again relied on his “Pioneers” and “Rangers” in 2004. The Pioneers raised over $100,000 each and the Ranger brought in $200,000 each in the 2000 campaign. Of the 246 fundraisers, 104 -- or slightly more than 40 percent -- ended up in a job or an appointment. Twenty-three Pioneers were named as ambassadors, and three were named to the Cabinet: Donald L. Evans at the Commerce Department; Elaine Chao at Labor; and Tom Ridge at Homeland Security. At least 37 Pioneers were named to post-election transition teams, which helped place political appointees into key regulatory positions affecting industry. (Washington Post, May 15, 2004)
A more important reward than a job, perhaps, was access to Bush. Twenty percent of the 2000 Pioneers were lobbyists. More than half the Pioneers are heads of companies -- chief executive officers, company founders, or managing partners -- whose bottom lines were directly affected by a variety of government regulatory and tax decisions. (Washington Post, May 15, 2004)
Bush kicked off Campaign 2004 in the summer of 2003. The number of Pioneers and Rangers had doubled from the 2000 campaign. He set out to raise $200 million, twice the amount raised for the 2000 campaign which was a record. In the first two weeks of the month, Bush raised $20 million. Those donating $200,000 to the campaign were designated as Rangers, while those at $100,000 or above were known as Pioneers, as they were in the 2000 campaign. (Washington Post, May 15, 2004)
Bush’s fundraising began with a $2,000-a-person reception at a Washington D.C. hotel ballroom filled with lobbyists and other supporters. In June 2003, he traveled across the country to attend six more fund-raisers for the re-election committee (New York Times, June 15, 2003)
Bush focused on cities where there was a concentration of donors, or a conservative base, or both. After Washington, he attended a fundraiser at the Ritz Carlton Hotel at the Reynolds Plantation. The resort was near Atlanta was owned by the family of Mercer Reynolds III, the Bush campaign’s finance chairman. (New York Times, June 15, 2003)
Then it was on to Los Angeles and San Francisco in a single day on June 27. Three days later, Bush visited Miami and Tampa in a state where the courts blocked a recount to assure him victory in 2000. In Tampa alone, 900 attendees paid $2,000 per person, amounting to a haul of $1.8 million. (New York Times, June 15, 2003)
Once John Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination on Super Tuesday, the Bush campaign took to the airways and spent $10 million in one week alone. Three-fourths of the Republican National Committee’s television ads were negative, while the Kerry campaign’s ads consisted of 25 percent negativity.
Bush immediately used the tragedy of 9/11 in his first wave of televised campaign commercials in March. The ads showcased Ground Zero images, angering some 9/11 families who accused Bush of exploiting the tragedy for political advantage. (New York Times, June 15, 2003)
As president, Bush created fewer jobs since Herbert Hoover. Yet, GOP headlines on the Bush campaign website read: “John Kerry’s Economic Policies Would Cost Jobs in Ohio.” The Bush campaign accused Kerry of plotting “to raise taxes by at least $900 billion” because that was the estimated cost of his health care program.
Using the 9/11 tragedy as its major selling point, the Bush campaign portrayed Kerry as a weak candidate on national defense, proposing a $1.5 billion cut over five years in the intelligence budget. (New York Times, June 15, 2003)
Just minutes after Kerry announced his running-mate in July, Republicans began trashing Senator John Edwards immediately. On television and the radio, on the Internet, and in the print media, the GOP painted a picture of Edwards as too liberal.
The North Carolina senator was portrayed as one who disagreed with Kerry on issues and who was connected the trial-lawyer lobby. Republicans also characterized Edwards as Kerry’s inexperienced second choice after GOP Senator John McCain turned down Kerry’s offer to run with him. (New York Times, July 7, 2004)
BUSH PUSHES PAKISTAN TO CAPTURE “HIGH VALUE” TERRORISTS BEFORE THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION. In the summer of 2004, top Pakistani intelligence officials confirmed that the Bush Administration had demanded the Pakistani government find as many “high value” terrorist targets specifically before the November presidential election. (New Republic, July 7, 2004)
However, the Bush administration never pushed for a “timetable” at any time in 2002 or 2003. Pakistani sources admitted that Bush administration aides told the Pakistani Director of Intelligence that “it would be best if the arrest or killing of (any high value terrorist target) were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July.” That was three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston. (New Republic, July 7, 2004)
IGNORING AMERICA’S AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY. During the 2000 campaign, Bush chastised his own conservative colleagues. He said, While some in my party have avoided the NAACP, and while some in the NAACP have avoided my party, I’m proud to be here. … I believe we can find common ground.” (George W. Bush speech, July 10, 2000)
Four years later -- in the 2004 campaign -- Bush sunned the NAACP, refusing to speak at the annual convention. He was the first president since Herbert Hoover in the 1920s to shun the civil rights group. The NAACP had reached out to Bush numerous times in hopes of meeting with him, but he never responded. (New York Times, July 9, 2004; CNN, July 13, 2004)
Instead, Bush chose to mark key civil rights holidays with insensitive announcements and behavior. In 2003, Bush chose the Martin Luther King holiday to announce the administration’s stance against affirmative action. (www.whitehouse.gov, January 2003)
In 2004, Bush used the same holiday to unilaterally elevate Charles Pickering to the federal appellate bench, despite the judge’s hostility to civil rights and leniency to cross burners. Bush also used a visit to Martin Luther King’s grave to force taxpayers to foot the travel costs for a $2,000-a-plate political fundraiser in Atlanta, Georgia. (The Daily Mis-Lead, January 15, 2004; Fox News, January 16, 2004; CNN, July 13, 2004)
GOP SPENDS THOUSANDS TO STOP DEMOCRATS FROM VOTING. Despite a zero-tolerance policy on tampering with voters, the Republican Party quietly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide private defense lawyers for a former Bush campaign official charged with conspiring to keep Democrats from voting in New Hampshire. (Associated Press, August 11, 2005)
James Tobin, the president’s 2004 campaign chairman for New England, was charged in New Hampshire federal court with four felonies accusing him of conspiring with a state GOP official and a GOP consultant in Virginia to jam Democratic and labor union get-out-the-vote phone banks in November 2002. (Associated Press, August 11, 2005)
A telephone firm allegedly was paid to make repeated hang-up phone calls to overwhelm the phone banks in New Hampshire and prevent them from getting Democratic voters to the polls on Election Day 2002. (Associated Press, August 11, 2005)
THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION. The Democratic Party’s platform offered an indictment of Bush’s national security policies, charging the administration “walked away from more than 100 years of American leadership in the world” and left the country less safe.
The platform said Bush’s doctrine of preemption cost the United States the support of traditional allies and accuses the administration of repeatedly missing opportunities to attract international support for the mission in Iraq. The document called for a new effort to rebuild alliances, saying the path to victory in the war on terror “ill be found in the company of others, not walking alone.”
The Democratic platform also castigated the Bush administration for its economic policies, arguing that Bush ignored the needs of middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthy, failed to produce enough new jobs and squandered the budgetary surpluses he inherited.
Democrats vowed to “restore responsibility to our budget” by rolling back part of Bush’s tax cut, eliminating some corporate tax breaks, enacting tough spending caps, and other means.
The platform outlined a long list of new spending initiatives or tax cuts for health care, education, and other domestic needs. (Washington Post, July 4, 2004)
On the other side of the aisle, Republicans set loose their attack dogs. While Kerry promised to run a positive campaign, the GOP turned to the airways. Eighty percent of their commercials were negative ads leveled at the Democratic nominee.
Republicans lashed out against Kerry. Bush advisor Karen Hughes said Kerry had come across as “lecturing,” pointing his finger like a schoolmaster. Karl Rove said Kerry’s position on Iraq was a “puzzlement,” a contradiction on his own votes. White House communications director Tom Bartlett said Kerry’s approach to terrorism was unconvincing. (Time, August 9, 2004)
With Republicans in several states acknowledged that they bankrolled and gathered signatures for Nader to get his name on presidential ballots in important swing states. (New York Times, August 19, 2004)
DEFENSE AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM.
1. April 13: “Can you ever win the war on terror? Of course you can.”
2. July 19: “I have a clear vision and a strategy to win the war on terror.”
3. August 30: “II don’t think you can win it.” (New York Times, August 31, 2004)
Republicans attacked Kerry for being soft on defense while serving as senator in the 1990s. Bush repeatedly criticized Kerry for voting to slightly reduce funding for intelligence after the end of the Cold War.
But when Cheney served as defense secretary under George Herbert Bush, he objected to proposed intelligence reform legislation, particularly the Director of National Intelligence position. He specifically opposed empowering a director of national intelligence. Cheney wrote, “I would recommend that the President veto (the measure) if (it) were presented to him in its current form.” (Defense Secretary Cheney, letter to President George Herbert Bush, March 17, 1992)
Cheney repeatedly tried to cut defense spending at the very same time. In 1984, during the height of Cold War tensions, it was Cheney who said that if President Reagan “doesn’t really cut defense, he becomes the No. 1 special pleader in town.” Cheney urged Reagan “to reach out and take a whack at everything to be credible” and said “you’ve got to hit defense.” (Washington Post, December 16, 1984)
In 1990, Cheney proudly told Congress, “Since I became Secretary, we’ve been through a fairly major process of reducing the defense budget.” He bragged that during the first year of his tenure, he cut almost $65 billion out of the five-year defense program and that subsequent proposals would take another $167 billion out. In 1990, Cheney bragged to Congress about weapons programs that I have recommended for termination, including fighter jets, the Phoenix missile and the Apache helicopter. (Washington Post, December 16, 1984)
Cheney even admitted he led the effort to slash the size of the armed forces. In 2000, Cheney said that as defense secretary he “did in fact significantly reduce the overall size of the U.S. military.” Cheney worked to reduce active-duty troop strength from 2.2 million to 1.6 million while making deep cuts in the Reserves and National Guard. (Los Angeles Times, August 24, 2000)
In the months before 9/11, the Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called ‘Catcher’s Mitt’ to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States. (Newsweek, March 21, 2004)
Reversing efforts in the fight against terrorism, a senior Bush administration official in April 2001 said the government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on Bin Laden. In 2002, the Bush administration’s national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to 9/11, but terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions. (CNN, April 30, 2004)
In its final 2003 budget request, the Bush administration called for spending increases in 68 programs, none of which directly involved counterterrorism In his September 10 submission to the budget office, Ashcroft did not endorse FBI requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts, and 54 additional translators. Ashcroft proposed a $65 million cut for a program that gives states and localities counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training. (Washington Post, January 20, 2002; Newsweek, May 27, 2002)
By comparison, under Janet Reno, the department’s counterterrorism budget increased 13.6 percent in the fiscal year 1999, 7.1 percent in 2000 and 22.7 percent in 2001. (New York Times, February 28, 2002)
Bush’s nominee to run the CIA, Florida Congressman Porter Goss sponsored legislation that would have cut intelligence personnel by 20 percent in the late 1990s. He was one of six original co-sponsors of legislation in 1995 that called for cuts of at least 4 percent per year between 1996 and 2000 in the total number of people employed throughout the intelligence community. The cuts by Goss were much higher than those of Kerry who was the object of GOP attack dogs who claimed he was weak on defense. (Washington Post, August 23, 2004)
Goss sponsored legislation that would have cut intelligence personnel by 20 percent in the late 1990s. He was one of six original co-sponsors of legislation in 1995 that called for cuts of at least 4 percent per year between 1996 and 2000 in the total number of people employed throughout the intelligence community. The cuts by Goss were much higher than those of Kerry who was the object of GOP attack dogs who claimed he was weak on defense. (Washington Post, August 23, 2004)
In August, Bush announced the massive overhaul of the structure of the military, outlining a vague restructuring of deployment which would bring home about 60,000 to 70,000 uniformed personnel. Bush claimed, “The Pentagon has been striving to become lighter, more agile.” (Washington Post, August 16 2004)
But Bush divorced this issue from a complex debate about the future of the military. The announcement skirted addressing any of the crucial details and questions. Bush’s proposal sent the wrong message to North Korea which was pushing for nuclear capability. Bush’s statement ran counter to America’s economic, military, and strategic interests.
Bush still refused to support a permanent increase in the size of the Army, causing American troops to have to endure longer and longer deployments in battle-torn Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kerry responded by saying Bush’s proposal was vague, ill-timed, and risky. Kerry said Bush’s plan would not bolster the country’s ability to combat terrorism nor relieve the stress on overburdened troops.
THE VIETNAM WAR AND SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR PEACE. With Kerry making his strong Vietnam War record a key issue in the election, Republicans painted a picture of him as weak on defense. First, the GOP tried to turn Kerry’s military service against him with repeated derogatory references to his 1971 testimony on behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (Associated Press, August 5, 2004)
While Kerry risked his life in Vietnam, several high-level GOP officials were able to avoid the war. Cheney received five deferments, and Ashcroft got seven deferments, while Bush’s father was able to pull strings to get his son into the Texas Air National Guard to avoid Vietnam.
While serving in Vietnam on March 13, 1969 on the Bay Hap River, Kerry, captain of Swift boat PCF-94, defied enemy fire and heroically saved the life of First Lieutenant Jim Rassmann, who had been blown off Kerry’s boat into the water by a mine explosion. Rassmann and PCF-94 crew members all said Rassmann was under fire when Kerry pulled him aboard. (The Nation, August 23, 2004)
Three Navy men won Bronze Stars for their actions that day: Kerry, Thurlow, and radarman first class Robert Eugene Lambert, a petty officer in the boat captained by Thurlow. The citation for Lambert's Bronze Star corroborated the description of the incident included in the citation for Thurlow’s Bronze Star: “All units came under small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks.” (The Nation, August 23, 2004)
Lambert's citation also noted that Lambert -- who assumed command of PCF-51 after Thurlow went to assist another Swift boat damaged by a mine -- directed accurate suppressing fire at the enemy. The citation praised Lambert's “coolness, professionalism and courage under fire.” (The Nation, August 23, 2004)
In August, “The Swift Boat Veterans for Peace,” a group of far-right Bush allies, released a series of outrageous television ads that claimed that Kerry faked his injuries, betrayed his troops, and “dishonored his country” in Vietnam. The ad featured people who said, “I served with John Kerry” (although they did not) and who made numerous provably false accusations about Kerry’s war record. (Associated Press, August 5, 2004)
The Swift Boat Veterans for Peace had ties to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures, and White House political aide Karl Rove. The group received the bulk of its hundreds of thousands of dollars from two men with ties to Bush and his family -- one a longtime political associate of Rove’s, the other a trustee of the foundation for Bush’s father’s presidential library. The Swift Boat Veterans for Peace received two $100,000 donations from Bob J. Perry, a Houston home builder. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Bush’s father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. (New York Times, August 20, 2004; Boston Globe, August 20, 2004)
Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, strongly disputed Kerry’s claim that he came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. However, that did not jive with Thurlow’s military records. They contained several references to “enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire” directed at “all units” of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praised him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat “despite enemy bullets flying about him.” (Washington Post, August 20, 2004)
In July, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was “not under fire” when he fished Lieutenant James Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry’s Bronze Star citation, which said that all units involved came under “small arms and automatic weapons fire,” as “totally fabricated.” (Washington Post, August 20, 2004)
Arizona Republican Senator John McCain spoke out against the “Swift Boat” ad, calling it “dishonest and dishonorable.” Despite McCain’s request for Bush to “specifically condemn” the ad, the president refused to comment. (Associated Press, August 5, 2004)
Democrats called on Bush to disavow these attack ads. Twelve years earlier -- in the 1992 presidential campaign -- Bush authored a letter to more than 85,000 Republican donors on behalf of his father’s presidential campaign urging them to stop funding sleazy and dishonest attacks on Bill Clinton. But Bush remained silent as his top Texas fundraiser Robert Perry poured in thousands of dollars to castigate Kerry. (Washington Post, July 14, 1992)
Even war hero Max Cleland was a target of the GOP. Cleland gave three limbs to the Vietnam War, only to lose his Georgia Senate seat in 2002 to a Republican demagogue. His opponent, Saxby Chambliss, who avoided service in Vietnam with a knee problem, ran campaign ads comparing Cleland to Osama Bin Laden. Chambliss implied that Cleland was a soft-on-terror traitor. (Los Angeles Times, August 3, 2004)
In mid-August, Kerry finally lashed out at those who waged the unrelenting and increasingly negative attacks on his military record, calling them a “front for the Bush campaign.” (New York Times, August 19, 2004)
Eventually in late August, in a token gesture Bush criticized all ‘527’ ads as campaign law loophole, and surprisingly he lauded Kerry’s military service. But Bush refused to specifically denounce the one accusing Kerry of lying about his war record. (New York Times, August 22, 2004)
Days later, Bush’s top lawyer for the pre4sidential campaign, Benjamin Ginsberg, admitted he had done some work for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Ginsberg reigned his post but denied any improprieties. (New York Times, August 23, 2004)
THE IRAQ WAR. GOP attack dogs tried to box Kerry into a corner, claiming his position was the same as the president’s on Iraq. Bush himself mocked Kerry for remarks that he would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known that there were no weapons of mass destruction. (Los Angeles Times, August 3, 2004)
The following day, Vice President Cheney lashed out at Kerry for suggesting he would provide “a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror.” (Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2004)
Speaking in Ohio in mid-August, Cheney said, “A sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more.” Cheney added, “America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive.” (Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2004; Chicago Sun Times, August 13, 2004)
But Cheney neglected to mention that Bush and other top administration officials -- including Cheney himself -- publicly called for “sensitive” use of American military power. On March 3, 2001, at the christening of the USS Ronald Reagan, Bush said, “Because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence.” (The White House, March 4, 2001)
On January 7, 2001, General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the administration asked “our troops to go out there and be, on the one hand, very sensitive to cultural issues, on the other hand, be ready to respond in self-defense to a very ticklish situation.” (Department of Defense, January 7, 2001)
On April 13, 2004, Cheney said, “We recognize that the presence of U.S. forces can in some cases present a burden on the local community. We’re not insensitive to that. We work almost on a continual basis with the local officials to remove points of friction and reduce the extent to which problems arise in terms of those relationships.” (Washington Post, April 13, 2004)
In July, the National Intelligence Counsel spelled out “a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq.” The estimate outlined three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war. The most favorable outcome described was an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic, and security terms. (New York Times, September 16, 2004)
Yet, Bush said on August 5, “Iraq is on the path to lasting democracy and liberty.” (The White House, August 5, 2004)
On August 24, Cheney told voters in Iowa that “We’re moving in the right direction (in Iraq.” (The White House, August 24, 2004)
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said Iraqis were “working at making a success out of that country. ... And I think they’ve got a darned good crack at making it.” (U.S. Department of Defense, September 14, 2004)
Cheney regularly attacked Kerry’s national security credentials, calling him weak on terrorism. It was Cheney who actually did business with terrorist countries and traveled abroad to attack America’s counter-terrorism efforts in the 1990s.
Cheney oversaw Halliburton’s effort to do business with Iraq and Iran in the 1990s, despite American sanctions against those countries. During his time as CEO, he oversaw Halliburton’s $73 million worth of business with Hussein. (The American Prospect, September 15, 2004)
As vice president, Cheney imposed a “firm policy” of not doing business with Iraq. Halliburton was investigated by authorities. In September, Halliburton admitted one of its subsidiaries still performed between $30 million and $40 million annually in oilfield service work in Iran. (Washington Post, July 21, 2004)
While evading United States sanctions laws against terrorist countries, Cheney actually attacked the United states government in a series of trips abroad, demanding sanctions be lifted on terrorist countries so he could do business with them. In trips to Malaysia and Canada, for instance, he insisted the Clinton administration lift sanctions on Iran, despite that country being listed by the State Department as a state-sponsor of terrorism. (Department of State, April 30, 2001)
Cheney told an audience in Cincinnati in September that Hussein provided safe harbor and sanctuary for Al Qaeda. (Los Angeles Times, September 10, 2004)
CODDLING DICTATORSHIPS. When Kerry made it clear that he opposed the war to topple Hussein, Bush and his attack dogs immediately castigated him. Bush said, “It’s hard to imagine a candidate running for president prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy.” (Bush’s Remarks at Victory 2004 Rally in New York City, The White House, September 20, 2004)
Yet, it was Bush who regularly declared his personal friendship and gratitude to some of the world’s most oppressive dictators, often wining and dining them at his ranch in Texas.
In June 2004, Bush referred to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia as “My friend.” (Bush’s Press Conference Following the G-8 Summit" The White House, June 10, 2004) Saudi Arabia was listed by the State Department as one of the world’s most oppressive regimes. The authoritarian Saudi Arabia regime was investigated for his financial ties to the 9/11 terrorists. (United States Department of State, February 25, 2004; www.truthout.org, August 2, 2003)
In April 2004, Bush referred to the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak as “My friend” and welcomed him to the Crawford ranch by saying “I always look forward to visiting with him.” (The White House, March 12, 2004) Bush praised the Egyptian leader, even though Human Rights Watch noted that “torture in Egypt is widespread and systemic.” 6. (“Egypt: Human Rights Background,” Human Rights Watch, October 2001) The State Department said Mubarak had passed a Constitution in which the electorate was barred from being “presented with a choice among competing presidential candidates.” (“Egypt: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2003,” Department of State; February 25, 2004)
In 2002, it was Bush who said “I want to welcome the President of China to our ranch, and to Texas.” (The White House, October 25, 2002) Bush invited a dictator who, according to the State Department, presided over a government that regularly engaged in the “arbitrary or unlawful” murder of its own citizens, kidnappings of political dissidents, and repression of religious minorities.(“China: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2003,” Department of State, (February 25, 2004)
THE ECONOMY. Republicans carried out relentless attacks against Kerry on his position on the economy. On August 13, GOP Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon accused Kerry of advocating socialism within the United States and appeasement overseas. Smith said Kerry looked and acted “French,” and to claim that he supported socialism. Smith charged that it was Kerry’s fault that “he wants to pursue policies that have us act like the French. He advocates all kinds of additional socialism at home, appeasement abroad, and what that means is weakness for the future.” (Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2004)
Bush pledged that his administration would not overspend your money. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated the budget deficit would grow to $445 billion in fiscal year 2004. The projection was $70 billion more than the 2003 deficit. In 2003, the administration projected the 2004 deficit to be $307 billion. The administration claimed the $445 billion deficit was positive news because, due to stronger than expected economic growth, the figure was below its deficit projections released earlier. (New York Times, August 1, 2004)
Bush also insisted that he would remain on pace to reduce the deficit by half over the following five years. But the administration’s 2009 budget projections were not credible because they omitted the cost of a number of the administration’s own policies. For example, revising the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) -- a proposal favored by the administration and bipartisan majorities in Congress to prevent a massive tax hike on the middle class -- was projected to cost $57 billion in 2009. (White House Briefing, August 1, 2004)
Bush also failed to include the cost of the multi-year defense blueprint and the cost of the continued fight against terrorism. He also excluded expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as over $70 billion in defense costs for 2009.
Bush was dealt a major blow when only 32,000 jobs were created in July. Analysts had predicted a gain of 250,000 jobs.
THE ENVIRONMENT. Addressing a crowd in Michigan in mid-August, Bush said, “We’ve got to use our resources wisely, like water. I t starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin.” Bush then attacked his political opponents for supposedly equivocating on the issue, and said, “My position is clear: We’re never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water.” (The White House, August 16, 2004)
But Bush’s declaration was a direct flip-flop from statements he made in 2001. He said, “I want to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien about piping (Great Lakes) water to parched states in the west and southwest.” Though experts said diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent, Bush insisted, “A lot of people don’t need (the water) but when you head South and West, we do need it.” (Associated Press, July 19, 2001; Remarks by Bush in Roundtable Interview with Foreign Press, White House, July 17, 2001)
CIVIL RIGHTS. After bypassing the NAACP, Bush courted voters at the National Urban League. He questioned what Democrats had done for them and invited them to embrace his agenda promoting small business and economic development in their community. (Washington Post, July 24, 2004)
SHIFTING REPUBLICAN STRATEGY. After nearly six months of charging Kerry was a flip-flopper, the Bush campaign changed strategy. Apparently White House strategist Karl Rove believed that label had run its course. Less than one month before the election, the GOP attack dogs daily began calling Kerry a New England liberal -- and even more liberal than Senator Ted Kennedy.
Republicans painted a picture of Kerry as soft on defense – that he was incapable of being the country’s commander-in-chief. The Bush-Cheney campaign ran television ads that were filled with untruths and distortions.
Some television ads accused Kerry, after the first terrorist attack on America, of voting to “slash America’s intelligence operations” with cuts “so deep they would have weakened America's defenses.” The accusations were totally misleading. The vote in question did not occur after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The vote took place in 1994, a year after a truck bomb went off in a parking garage beneath one of the World Trade Center towers. (www.factcheck.org, October 23, 2004)
For several years prior to 9/11, Kerry supported increases in intelligence funding. Also, Kerry never supported “slashing” the intelligence budget. In 1994, as part of an effort to balance the budget, he supported a provision that would have cut the intelligence budget by $5 billion over five years. This amounted to about a 3.7 percent reduction. (www.factcheck.org, October 23, 2004)
Moreover, the implication that Kerry’s vote disqualified him from being in charge of intelligence operations is disingenuous. Porter Goss -- whom Bush appointed to lead the CIA -- supported far more significant reductions in intelligence resources. In 1995, Goss sponsored a bill that would have cut the staff at the CIA by 20 percent over five years. (Washington Post, August 24, 2004)
INACCURATE VIEWS OF REPUBLICAN VOTERS. A high majority of supporters for Bush held inaccurate views about the world. Seventy-two percent believed that before the war Iraq had WMD. (“The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters,” Program on International Policy Attitudes, October 21, 2004)
1. Fifty-seven percent also believed that the recently released report by Charles Duelfer, the administration’s hand-picked weapons inspector, concluded Iraq either had WMD or a major program for developing them. (“The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters,” Program on International Policy Attitudes, October 21, 2004)
In fact, the report concluded: “Saddam Hussein did not produce or possess any weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade before the U.S.-led invasion” and the United Nations inspection regime had “curbed his ability to build or develop weapons.” (Los Angeles Times, October 7, 2004)
2. According to the study, 75 percent Bush supporters also believed Iraq was providing substantial support to Al Qaeda. (“The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters,” Program on International Policy Attitudes, October 21, 2004)
3. Fifty-five percent believed that was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. (“The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters,” Program on International Policy Attitudes, October 21, 2004)
However, the 9/11 Commission concluded there was no “collaborative relationship” between Al Qaeda and Iraq. (Washington Post, June 17, 2004)
THE PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES. During the 2000 presidential debates, Bush rattled off several pieces of disinformation:
1. Bush said, “By far the vast majority (of my tax cuts) go to the bottom end of the economic ladder.”
2. According to the nonpartisan Citizens for Tax Justice, when his tax cuts were fully implemented in 2010, the top 5 percent of income earners received more than half the tax cuts while the bottom half of Americans received less than 8 percent of the benefits. (Citizens for Tax Justice, Fall 2003)
3. Bush said he believed gay marriage is a state issue. (CNN, February 15, 2000)
Then in 2004, he proposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. (The White House, February 24, 2004)
4. Bush promised not to overuse the military. He said, “If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I’m going to prevent that.” (www.austrianpolitics.com, October 3, 2000)
But war in Iraq and efforts to cut soldiers’ pay, the military faced recruitment gaps, morale problems, and insufficient troops. (ABC News, June 2, 2004; Christian Science Monitor, June 7, 2003; NBC News, March 9, 2004)
THE 2004 DEBATES: THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.
John Kerry came off as more presidential than did Bush. The president did not have a firm grasp on the major issues being discussed. Instead, he made his usual slogan-like remarks, and he repeated attacks on Kerry. Bush charged that Kerry had sent “mixed messages” and “mixed signals.” Over and over, Bush accused Kerry of having called the invasion of Iraq “the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Bush appeared irritated on several occasions during the 90-minute debate. His aides knew that his temper was a potential vulnerability, and his debate coaching sessions included practice in not getting rattled. Bush’s obvious annoyance at the idea of Kerry as the commander in chief was clear. Bush repeatedly prefaced his answers with “of course” and even used the phrase he uses to rebuke offending journalists: “Let me finish.” (Washington Post, October 1, 2004)
Bush continued where he had left off during the 2000 debates, tossing out bits and pieces of misinformation.
1. Bush boasted of the upcoming presidential election in Afghanistan, saying that the fact that 10 million people had registered to vote was a “phenomenal statistic.” But Human Rights Watch said that figure was inaccurate because of the multiple registrations of many voters. Human Rights Watch also documented how human rights abuses actually led to an atmosphere of repression and fear in many parts of the country. Voters in those areas had little faith in the secrecy of the balloting and often faced threats and bribes from militia factions. (Washington Post, October 1, 2004)
2. On North Korea, Bush charged that Kerry’s proposal to have direct talks with that country would end the six-nation diplomacy that the administration has pursued over Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions. Kerry has said he would continue the six-party talks as well. Bush said direct talks with North Korea would drive away China, a key player in the negotiations. But each of the other four countries in the talks had held direct talks with North Korea during the six-party process -- and China repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea. Moreover, the Bush administration had talked directly with North Korean diplomats on the sidelines of the six-party talks, and Secretary of State Powell met with his North Korean counterpart over the summer of 2004. (Washington Post, October 1, 2004)
3. In the debate over nuclear proliferation, Bush asserted: “ Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice. He referred to a nuclear smuggling ring based in Pakistan. But many experts also credit the patient diplomacy started in the Clinton administration for persuading Libya to cooperate. Moreover, Khan, a national hero in Pakistan, was pardoned by President Musharraf, and not a single person involved in his network has been prosecuted anywhere. On September 30, 2004, the International Atomic Energy Agency complained that it had been prevented from interviewing Khan. (Washington Post, October 1, 2004)
4. Bush jumped on Kerry’s proposal for direct talks with North Korea. Bush falsely claimed that such negotiations would lead to the “evaporation of multilateral talks” with six countries. (MSNBC, October 1, 2004)
5. Bush said he had increased spending on curbing nuclear proliferation by “about 35 percent” since he took office. But in his first budget, he proposed a 13 percent cut -- about $116 million -- and much of the increases since then had been added by Congress. (Washington Post, October 1, 2004)
6. Bush said, “Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming.” Yet Iraq asserted in its filing with the United Nations in December 2002 that it had no such weapons, and none has been found. The Bush administration invaded Iraq because it believed Hussein was concealing WMD. Some post-invasion reports argued that Hussein retained the capability to restart his weapons programs, but many experts considered that doubtful as long as he remained under United Nations sanctions and inspections. (Washington Post, October 1, 2004)
7. Bush tried to rebut Kerry about the prewar need for more patience on Iraq, saying diplomacy would not have persuaded Hussein to disarm. (Boston Globe, October 1, 2004)
8. Bush overstated the case when he corrected Kerry by saying that the senator forgot to mention that Poland supplied forces when the invasion began. Kerry said there were three countries that did -- Britain, Australia and the United States. Bush said, “Actually he forgot Poland.” Poland later supplied troops and commanded a zone in Iraq. But, except for a few commandos, Polish troops were not part of the original ground invasion. And though Bush said there are 30 countries in the coalition, he neglected to say that about a half-dozen have recently withdrawn their troops. (Washington Post, October 1, 2004)
9. As part of his case that Kerry has sent mixed messages, Bush asserted, “He voted against the $87 billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it.” While Bush meant it as a jab, this was an accurate description of the Senate process. Kerry supported a different version of the bill, which was opposed by the administration. At the time, many Republicans were uncomfortable with the administration's plans and the White House had to threaten a veto against the congressional version to bring reluctant lawmakers in line. In a floor statement explaining his vote, Kerry said he favored the $67 billion for the troops on the ground, but he faulted the administration’s $20 billion request for reconstruction. (Washington Post, October 1, 2004)
10. Bush cited as a sign of progress in Iraq that the United States “spending reconstruction money,” when in fact the slow pace of spending has become a major problem for United States officials. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage testified to a House Appropriations subcommittee September 24, 2004 that only $1.2 billion in reconstruction money had actually been spent so far, out of the total of $18 billion that was appropriated last December in “emergency” funds for Iraq and Afghanistan. (www.factcheck.org, October 1, 2004)
11. Bush said 100,000 troops and other Iraqi security personnel had been trained to date. But he failed to mention that many trainees had received nothing more than a three-week course in police procedures -- what Armitage referred to as “shake-and-bake” forces. Only 8,000 of the total are police who had received a full eight-week course of training. (ABC News, October 1, 2004)
12. Bush misquoted Kerry’s position on how quickly troops might be withdrawn from Iraq. Bush claimed Kerry once said, I’ll have them out of there in six months.” That was false. Kerry complained, “He’s misled us again.” What Kerry actually said was that he believed he could “significantly reduce” United States troop levels in Iraq within six months of taking office -- not at all the same thing as having all troops “out of there.” (www.factcheck.org, October 1, 2004)
13. Bush said twice that “75 percent” of Al Qaeda leaders had been “brought to justice.” But Bush was referring to the deaths or arrests of 75 percent of Bin Laden’s network at the time of the September 11 attacks -- not those who were running the terrorist organization. The CIA said in early 2004 that two-thirds of those leaders were gone. Then Bush increased his count to three-fourths based on unreleased intelligence data. Furthermore, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported on May 25, 2004 that the occupation of Iraq had helped Al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted “conservative” intelligence estimates as saying that Al Qaeda had 18,000 potential operatives and was present in more than 60 countries. (www.factcheck.org, October 1, 2004)
14. Bush suggested that the war in Iraq was connected to 9/11. He said, “The enemy attacked us.” But the 9/11 Commission said that it found no evidence “indicating that Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.” In addition, Defense Intelligence Agency analysts concluded in several papers in 2002 that even if Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons, it was unlikely to give them to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. (Knight-Ridder, October 1, 2004)
15. Kerry was correct that, while Bush promised he would plan carefully for a war in Iraq, his administration ignored a huge State Department “Future of Iraq” project. Bush ignored intelligence warnings that the country could descend into chaos and failed to include enough troops to secure the country’s borders, nuclear plants and ammunition dumps. Kerry also was right that the only government building in Baghdad that was guarded by American troops after the city fell was the oil ministry. (Knight-Ridder, October 1, 2004)
16. Bush’s main line of attack was his charge that Kerry keeps changing positions on Iraq. In fact, while Kerry admitted he had not always expressed himself clearly, he never backed away from his vote authorizing the war. Kerry always said that Bush should have sought more international help. When he voted for the war resolution in October 2002, Kerry made it clear that he favored a “multilateral effort” if diplomacy failed. (Knight-Ridder, October 1, 2004)
17. Bush claimed that Congress allocated 35 percent more funds than the previous year to dispose of Russian nuclear weapons. The actual increase was a mere 8 percent, most of which was added to the president’s proposal by Congress. (MSNBC, October 1, 2004)
While GOP attack dogs continued to castigate Kerry for being a flip-flopper, it was Bush who was guilty of the charge.
First, Bush said terrorists could not be defeated: “You cannot lead if you send mixed messages. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our troops. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our allies.”
But, throughout his presidency, Bush did send mixed messages on fundamental terrorism-related issues. In September 2001, Bush said that he was determined to capture Bin Laden “dead or alive.” (ABC News, September 17, 2001)
Six months later Bush said, “I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him. ... I truly am not that concerned about him.” (White House Press Conference, March 13, 2002)
In April 2004, Bush said that we could win the war on terrorism. Then, on August 30, he said, “I don’t think you can win (the war on terror).” (NBC’s Today Show, August 30, 2004)
The next day, he said “Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win (the war on terror).” (The White House, August 31, 2004)
THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.
1. John Edwards accused Dick Cheney of making repeated charges of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Cheney replied, “The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11.” (New York Times, October 6, 2004)
However, in numerous interviews, Cheney repeatedly had charged that a link existed between 9/11 and Hussein. (Washington Post, October 6, 2004)
*Cheney cited the possibility that Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers on 9/11, met with an Iraqi official -- even after that theory was largely discredited. (Washington Post, October 6, 2004)
*On September 8, 2002, Cheney appeared on Meet the Press and said that Atta “did apparently travel to Prague. … We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center.” (Washington Post, October 6, 2004)
*In 2003 as a guest on Meet the Press, Cheney described Iraq as part of “the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” (Washington Post, October 6, 2004)
2. Cheney referred to Hussein as having “an established relationship with Al Qaeda” and said then-CIA Director Tenet talked about “a 10-year relationship” in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What Tenet actually cited were several “high-level contacts” over a 10-year period, but he also said the agency reported they never led to any cooperative activity. (Washington Post, October 6, 2004)
3. Cheney suggested that an agreement had been reached on debt relief for Iraq, saying that “the allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive Iraqi debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion, by one estimate.” While there were reports of some sort of agreement, no plan has been made public. (New York Times, October 6, 2004)
4. Cheney said that allies had contributed $14 billion in “direct aid.” Actually, $13 billion was pledged, but only $1 billion has arrived. (New York Times, October 6, 2004)
5. Cheney said Iraqi security forces had “taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the United States with 50 percent, not 90 percent.” The United States did not keep track of Iraqi casualties, either civilian or in the security services. A senior American official in Baghdad estimated that 750 Iraqi policemen had been killed but had no estimate of those wounded. (New York Times, October 6, 2004
6. Cheney said that Kerry repeatedly had voted against spending for military weapons systems in the last years of the cold war. That was true. But Cheney, as secretary of defense in the first Bush administration, opposed some of the systems himself, including the Apache helicopter and the F-14 aircraft. (New York Times, October 6, 2004)
7. Cheney said that Kerry had voted 98 times to raise taxes. It was true that Kerry had cast votes for higher taxes. However, the number that Cheney cited included multiple votes on the same legislation. Edwards said Kerry had voted against the overall legislation because the benefits went largely to the wealthy. (New York Times, October 6, 2004)
8. Cheney said that 900,000 small businesses would be affected by the Kerry proposal to raise taxes on individuals with incomes of more than $200,000. The Tax Policy Center found that only about 5 percent of small businesses would be affected by the Kerry plan and that much of the income of the business operators who would be affected came from sources other than their businesses. (New York Times, October 6, 2004)
9. Cheney referred to a suspected ricin facility in Iraq as evidence of support for terrorism by Hussein’s regime. It was in an area controlled by a group linked to Al Qaeda operating in northern Iraq at a time when that region was controlled by Kurdish forces, and not patrolled by Hussein’s forces. (New York Times, October 6, 2004)
10. Cheney was correct in saying that the nation has added about 1.7 million jobs in the previous year. What he did not say is employment has yet to return to its level before the recession of 2001 and the sharp decline in manufacturing employment that continued nearly two years after the recession officially ended in November 2001. Employment growth lagged even further behind the growth in population. The nation’s adult work force climbed by more than a million people every year. So even if the number of jobs returned to its level in January 2001, as many as three million more people would still be unemployed or underemployed than they were at that time. (New York Times, October 6, 2004)
11. Cheney said Kerry’s tax-cut rollback would hit 900,000 small businesses. This was misleading. Under Cheney’s definition, a small business was any taxpayer who included some income from a small business investment, partnership, limited liability corporation or trust. By that definition, every partner at a huge accounting firm or at the largest law firm would represent small businesses. According to IRS data, a tiny fraction of small business “corporations” earn enough profits to be in the top two tax brackets. Most were in the bottom two brackets. (Washington Post, October 6, 2004)
12. Cheney charged that Kerry and Edwards opposed the No Child Left Behind education law, which imposes new accountability standards on public schools. Both senators voted for the law and support some modifications and billions of dollars to fully fund the education program. (Washington Post, October 6, 2004)
13. Edwards said Halliburton “did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States” and was now “under investigation for having bribed foreign officials” while Cheney was CEO. Edwards was correct.
* Iran: Halliburton did about $30 million to $40 million in oilfield service business in Iran annually through a subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services. The company said that the subsidiary fully complies with United States sanctions laws. This was under investigation by a federal grand jury in Houston. (www.factcheck.org)
* Bribery Investigation: United States and French authorities investigated whether a joint venture whose partners included a Halliburton subsidiary paid bribes or kickbacks to win a $12 billion construction project in Nigeria. (www.factcheck.org)
14. Cheney said Edwards had voted “for the war” and “to commit the troops,” when in fact the Iraq resolution that both Kerry and Edwards supported left the decision to the president and called for intensified diplomacy. The resolution for which Edwards and Kerry voted said, “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.” Edwards made clear at the time of the vote that he hoped to avoid war by enlisting broad support from the United Nations and American allies. (www.factcheck.org)
15. Cheney claimed Edwards had such a poor attendance record in the Senate that he was just meeting Edwards for the first time during the debate, even though Cheney visited the Senate every Tuesday. Yet, there were two instances in which Cheney had met Edwards previously. Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole when she was sworn in as North Carolina’s other senator on January 8, 2003. Cheney also was present with Edwards at a National Prayer Breakfast on February 1, 2001, when a transcript showed Cheney acknowledged Edwards among those at the gathering. (www.factcheck.org)
16. Cheney disputed Edwards’s statement -- often repeated by Kerry -- that United States forces had suffered “90 percent of the coalition casualties” in Iraq, saying that in fact Iraqi security forces “have taken almost 50 percent” of the casualties. Edwards was correct counting only “coalition” forces -- those of the United States, Britain, and the other countries that took part in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. (www.factcheck.org)
17. Cheney used a misleading figure to support the idea that the administration was “deeply concerned” about the toll that AIDS had taken on poor countries. He stated that the administration had “proposed and gotten through the Congress authorization for $15 billion to help in the international effort.” That was correct. However, the $15-billion figure was to be spread over five years. When it came to asking for money to be actually appropriated and spent, Bush sought only $2 billion for Fiscal 2004. Congress increased that to $2.4 billion. (www.factcheck.org)
THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.
1. Bush commented on Al Qaeda, “We’ve already (got) 75 percent of his people.” That was a loose interpretation of intelligence findings that up to three-quarters of the group’s leadership from before 9/11 -- not the rank and file -- had been run down. (USA Today, October 8, 2004)
2. Kerry startled Bush by saying that the president was counted as a small business for tax purposes because he once earned $84 from a timber company he owned. “I own a timber company?” Bush asked. “That’s news to me.” (USA Today, October 8, 2004)
But Bush continued to receive an annual check of $84 from a timber company, enabling him to qualify as a small business owner. According to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush owned part interest in “LSTF, LLC,” a limited-liability company organized “for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales.”
Bush did not tell the truth to suggest that he did not have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush’s definition of “small business” was so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a “small business” in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income. (www.factcheck.org)
3. Bush claimed that importing drugs from Canada were not safe. He said another way to make drugs cheaper was “to get our seniors to sign up to these drug discount cards, and they’re working.” (www.factcheck.org)
But they were not working nearly as well as originally advertised. Seniors complained the cards were confusing, and healthcare advocates faulted the Department of Health and Human Services for failing to effectively publicize the program. The Associated Press reported that of the 7 million poor seniors, who were eligible for the card and a $600 subsidy, actually signed up to receive the discount. (www.factcheck.org)
4. Bush again claimed that lawsuits force physicians to practice “defensive medicine” that added substantially to medical costs, and increased federal spending for health-care programs by $28 billion a year.
However, both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office criticized the 1996 study the Bush administration used as their main support for that claim. These nonpartisan agencies suggested savings from passage of limits on malpractice damages -- if there were any savings at all -- would be relatively small. (www.factcheck.org)
Bush’s claim rested on a single 1996 study by two Stanford economists who said caps on damage awards could hold down overall medical costs by 5 percent to 9 percent. They studied heart patients who were hospitalized, compared costs in states with and without limits on malpractice lawsuits, and then projected their findings to the entire health-care system. (www.factcheck.org)
5. Bush attacked Kerry’s proposal to expand health-care insurance through an expensive assortment of subsidies and expansions of Medicare and Medicaid. Bush stated Kerry’s plan “would lead to rationing” of medical care, and “would ruin the quality of health care in America.” (www.factcheck.org)
Yet, Bush’s attack echoed a grossly misleading claim made in his earlier television ad, which said Kerry’s health plan would put “Washington bureaucrats in control” of medical decisions, putting “big government in charge. Not you Not your doctor.” This view was not supported by neutral experts. An estimated 97 percent of Americans with health insurance simply kept the plan. (www.factcheck.org)
6. Bush said Kerry voted 98 times to “raise taxes” during his 19-year Senate career. But on August 30, the Bush campaign’s list of votes included 43 votes for budget measures that merely set targets for taxes without actually legislating changes to the tax code. And it counted multiple votes on the same bills, including 16 votes on the 1993 Clinton package of tax increases and spending cuts. (www.factcheck.org)
7. Bush once again claimed 900,000 “small businesses” would see a tax increase under Kerry’s proposal to raise taxes only on persons making over $200,000 a year. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 471,000 small employers would see an increase in taxes. (www.factcheck.org)
8. Bush claimed that “we increased that child credit by $1,000.” But it increased by half that much under his legislation. t was $500 before Bush took office, and his tax-cut bills doubled it. USA Today, October 8, 2004; www.factcheck.org)
THE THIRD PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
1. Bush denied making remarks that he was not concerned about finding Osama Bin Laden. Bush accused Kerry of “one of those exaggerations.” But Bush’s comments at a news conference at the White House on March 13, 2002 proved otherwise.
Q (March 13, 2002): Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama Bin Laden. Why is that?
Bush: So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.
Q: But don’t you believe that the threat that Bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
Bush: Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I – I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. (www.factcheck.org)
2. Bush said most of his tax cuts went to “low- and middle-income Americans” when independent calculations show most went to the richest 10 percent. He was dead wrong.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center calculated that most of the tax cuts – 53 percent to be exact -- went to the highest -earning 10 percent of American individuals and families. Those most affluent Americans received an average tax cut of $7,661. As for the “low- and middle-income Americans,” Bush mentioned -- the bottom 60 percent of individuals and families got only 13.7 percent of the tax cuts, according to the Tax Policy Center. (www.factcheck.org)
3. Bush said Pell grants have been increased by a million students. But in the 2000 campaign, Bush promised to increase the maximum size of Pell grants to $5,100 for first-year students. He broke that promise. The maximum grant increased from $3,300 at the time Bush made that promise, but only to $4,050. Under Bush’s proposed 2005 budget, the maximum grant would remain frozen there for most students for the third year in a row. (www.factcheck.org)
In April 2004, Bush proposed an increase of as much as $1,000 in the maximum award, but only for those students who prepared for college with demanding courses in high school, which would allow only a small number of Pell grant recipients to qualify for the maximum. Kerry was correct when he said students were “not getting the $5,100 the president promised them.” (www.factcheck.org)
4. Bush tried to avoid any responsibility for the flu vaccine shortage by making misleading statements. When asked about the scarcity of flu vaccines, he claimed, “We took the right action” in blocking “contaminated” influenza vaccine from entering the United States. Bush said the problem was, “We relied upon a company out of England.” That was not true. The company whose vaccine plant was contaminated was Chiron Corporation, a California company that was subjected to regulation by the United States government. It operated a factory in England. (New York Times, October 13, 2004; Philadelphia Inquirer, October 14, 2004) (New York Times, October 17, 2004)
The Bush administration was caught by surprise when Chiron Corporation notified the United States Center for Disease Control just eight days before the debate that the company would not be shipping the vaccine due to the British action. The Food and Drug Administration did not begin an investigation until five days later. (www.factcheck.org)
In June 2003, the Food and Drug Administration inspected the Chiron plant. Initially, the FDA found that the plant was contaminated with bacteria but later announced, “The problems were corrected to their satisfaction.” The FDA allowed the plant to continue to operate. (New York Times, October 17, 2004)
5. Bush said that in Iraq “We’ll have 125,000 troops trained by the end of this year.” He was wrong. The security forces being trained are a "mixed bag" of soldiers, border guards, and even three-week “shake and bake” police officers, according to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. (www.factcheck.org)
6. Bush claimed that the fear of lawsuits was the reason that “the defensive practice of medicine costs the federal government some $28 billion a year and costs our society between $60 billion and $100 billion a year.” That statement was contrary to nearly all academic studies. (www.factcheck.org)
7. Bush again said Kerry “voted to increase taxes 98 times.” But that total included up to 16 votes on a single tax bill, and 43 votes on budget measures that set targets. However, they did not actually legislate tax increases. (www.factcheck.org)
ANTI-BUSH SENTIMENT AROUND THE GLOBE
Nearly 34,000 people in 35 countries on five continents were asked about their views on United States foreign policy. A majority in 32 of the 35 countries surveyed preferred John Kerry to George Bush. Only in Nigeria, the Philippines, and Poland did a plurality support Bush.
Norway: Kerry - 74 percent; Bush - 7 percent Bush.
France: Kerry - 64 percent; Bush - 5 percent.
Germany: Kerry - 74 percent; Bush - 10 percent.
Indonesia: The world’s most populous Muslim country with 220 million citizens. Kerry - 57 percent; Bush - 34 per cent.
Turkey: Kerry led by 40 percent to 25 percent.
Kazakhstan: Kerry - 40 percent; Bush - 12%.
Source: Dag Herbjornsrud, Norwegian author and journalist, October 27, 2004)
THE BUSH VICTORY
THE FEAR FACTOR. Most of the media claimed that the key issue in the election would be family values. The Bush-Cheney campaign mobilized evangelical Protestants and conservative Roman Catholics to win the November election. To win, Bush had to draw 4 million more evangelicals to the polls than he did in 2000.
In June and July of 2004, the reelection campaign began urging Christian supporters to turn over their church directories and was seeking to identify “friendly congregations” in battleground states. The campaign consulted with leaders of the Christian right in weekly conference calls.
This showed that the Bush campaign was leading churches to violate laws against partisan activities by tax-exempt organizations. Even some of the White House’s closest religious allies said the campaign had gone too far.
In battleground states, clergy members attended legal sessions explaining how they could talk about the election from the pulpit. Hundreds of churches launched registration drives, thousands of churchgoers registered to vote, and millions of voter guides were distributed by Christian and anti-abortion groups.
The rallying point for social conservatives was their opposition to same-sex marriage. Secondary issues included their opposition to abortion and pornography, while they advocated school prayer.
Bush won 79 percent of the 26.5 million evangelical votes and 52 percent of the 31 million Catholic votes. Turnout soared in conservative areas such as Ohio’s Warren County, where Bush picked up 18,000 more votes than in 2000. (New York Times, November 7, 2004)
As it turned out, it was not the issue of family values that got Bush reelected. It was the fear factor. The GOP used the fear factor to convince the electorate to keep Bush in the White House. Throughout the summer and fall of 2004, the Bush campaign sought to make terrorism the central theme. GOP spokespeople across the country painted a picture of Bush as a strong and decisive leader, while they portrayed Kerry, if elected, as a dangerous president who would be weak on terrorism.
It was no coincidence that Osama Bin Laden spoke out one month before Election Day. After one year of silence, Bin Laden released an audiotape threatening the United States. It was he who surely hoped Bush would be reelected. The American president was Bin Laden’s best recruiter for Al Qaeda, since it was Bush’s cowboy foreign policy that drove influenced numerous radical and moderate Muslims to join the terrorist camp.
VOTING IRREGULARITIES. The 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was mean to reform voting procedures by mandating computerized voter databases and upgraded technology. Yet, Significant problems marred the 2004 election: machine glitches, long lines, confusion over provisional and absentee ballots, and the lack of paper trails for lost votes. (USA Today, November 9, 2004)
Electronic voting machines caused substantial errors. In a suburban Columbus precinct in Ohio, an electronic voting machine added 3,893 votes to Bush’s tall, even though there were just 800 voters there. (New York Times, November 6, 2004)
In Cleveland’s Cuyahoga County, the official records of 29 different voting precincts showed more votes than registered voters to a total of 93,000 extra votes in that county alone. (Michigan City News Dispatch, November 4, 2004)
E-voting machines also caused havoc in some areas. In Broward County, Florida, software subtracted votes rather than added them. (Omaha WOWT News, November 10, 2004)
As many as 10,000 extra e-votes cast in Nebraska and 19,000 mysterious “extra ballots” were added on electronic machines elsewhere in Florida. (The Free Press, November 10, 2004; The Nation, November 9, 2004)
The use of provisional ballots for the first time also created problems. Had Bush’s margin of victory in Ohio been any slimmer, there would have been a fierce legal battle over the 155,337 provisional ballots cast in the state. Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell ordered election officials to only issue provisional ballots to voters in the right polling places. This prompted two federal lawsuits and possibly disenfranchised crucial votes. (Dayton News, November 10, 2004)
The provisional ballots created confusion in other states as well. Before the election, Colorado’s Secretary of State Donetta Davidson decided she would count provisional votes for president, but not for the state’s United States senator race. (Democracy Now, October 26, 2004)
THE DEMOGRAPHICS. Most men, Anglos, Protestants, regular churchgoers, high earners, conservatives and, naturally, most Republicans voted for Bush. Women, Blacks, Latinos, young voters, the lower paid, moderates, liberals and, of course, Democrats gave Kerry a majority of their votes.
The gender vote. Although the majority of women continued to vote Democratic, Bush increased the Republican share, reducing the gap between his results among women and men to 7 percentage points, down from 10 points in 2000. A gender gap was seen in all age groups, ranging from 4 points among voters under 30 to 11 points among those over 60. Kerry won the most votes among unmarried voters in every election since 1988. Unmarried women gave Kerry 62 percent of their votes.
The religion vote. A majority of Protestants, particularly Anglo and Latino Protestants, supported Bush. Black voters, regardless of religion, supported Kerry overwhelmingly, giving almost 9 in 10 of their votes to Kerry. Jewish voters remained firmly in the Democratic column, though Bush expanded his share to 25 percent this year from 19 percent in 2000. Bush was supported by 52 percent of all Catholics, a significant change from 2000, when Al Gore won more Catholic votes than Bush did. Fifty-six percent of Anglo Catholics backed Bush, but 58 percent of Latino Catholics voted for Kerry.
The urban vote. Although Kerry was backed by a majority of voters who lived in big cities, their support of the Democratic ticket fell to 60 percent this year, compared with 71 percent for Gore in 2000. Bush once again ran strongly in rural areas, and did slightly better among suburbanites, who split evenly in 2000. Suburban men were particularly supportive of Bush, giving him 55 percent of their votes.
Party loyalty. As in 2000, few voters crossed party lines, and fewer still voted for a different party than last time. Political independents split their votes fairly evenly. In party identification, Republicans pulled even with Democrats at 37 percent of the voters each. In 2000, Democrats led, 39 percent to 35 percent. (New York Times, November 7, 2004)
BUSH’S “MANDATE.” Bush won a popular vote majority by 3.5 million and by a margin of 51 to 48 percent. He won the in the Electoral College by 286 to 252. Bush governed both a House and Senate controlled by his party. He called this a mandate. However, by comparison with most presidents, this was no mandate.
In the presidential elections from 1904 up until 2004, the victors in 21 of 25 contests won by wider percentage of the popular vote than that achieved by Bush.
From 1904 to 2004, the victors in 23 of 25 presidential elections won by wider margins in the Electoral College than did Bush. The only narrower wins were those of Bush in the disputed election of 2000 and Woodrow Wilson in 1916.
Bill Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt (in all four of his campaigns), Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson (in 1912), William Howard Taft, and Teddy Roosevelt all won elections by significantly wider popular vote and electoral vote margins than did Bush in 2004. (New York Times, November 7, 2004)
MORE ARROGANCE, INCOMPETENCE, AND RECKLESSNESS. The Bush mantra during the 2000 campaign was, “I’m a uniter -- not a divider.” During the campaign, Bush spoke of his desire to unify the country -- including working with Democrats on the other side of the aisle. But the opposite happened. It was Bush who created divisiveness between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, as well as across the country. And it was Bush who created a hostile environment among allies around the globe.
In 2004, it was déjà vu once again. Two days after the November election, Bush strutted to the podium to hold one of his few press conferences. He did not say that he hoped to improve the disunity between Republicans and Democrats. He did not say that he would work to heal the deep divisions among Americans. And he did not say he would work to shore up the deteriorated relations with allies across the globe.
During his first term, Bush’s demonstrated his arrogance, incompetence, and recklessness. After his reelection, these same characteristics did not disappear. Bush only gloated in his victory. “I have political capital, and I intend to spend it,” he proclaimed. And he put White House journalists in their place, saying, “From now on, I’m enforcing the one-question rule.” (Washington Post, November 5, 2004)
Contending Americans have embraced his conservative agenda, Bush pledged to aggressively pursue major changes in Social Security, the tax code, and medical malpractice awards -- working with Democrats if they were receptive.
Bush signaled that he would add personal investment accounts to the Social Security system, simplify the tax code without raising taxes, and cut the budget deficit in half, all before he leaves office in 2009. However, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded it was mathematically impossible. The deficit in Fiscal 2004 was $413 billion. Under Bush’s plan for spending and taxes, the deficit would be $258 billion in 2009. The administration understated the size of the deficit in future years, because it did not include any additional costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Washington Post, November 5, 2004)
Moreover, Bush’s budget did not include the cost of a Social Security reform plan that included the personal investment accounts that Bush promised. Workers could divert one-third or more of their share of Social Security taxes into stocks, bonds, or other investments. Because the diverted money would otherwise have gone to existing Social Security beneficiaries, the funds would have to be made up through additional government borrowing or spending cuts. (Washington Post, November 5, 2004)
A CBO analysis of one of the plans drafted by Bush’s Social Security commission concluded the near-term cost would be $104.5 billion in 2005, rising to $146.6 billion in 2009. (Washington Post, November 5, 2004)
Bush was also hit with criticism from the far right. Angry conservatives demanded that Republicans prevent Senator Arlen Specter from presiding over the Judiciary Committee after he remarked that strongly anti-abortion judicial nominees might be rejected in the Senate. (New York Times, November 6, 2004)