1
   

Republican ads stretch truth on Iraq to influence elections

 
 
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 09:35 am
Commentary
Opinion: Pro-Republican ads stretch the truth on Iraq to influence elections
By Steven Thomma
McClatchy Newspapers
10/18/06

WASHINGTON - It's an easy claim to make, calling yourself a "political truth squad." But when a shadowy group pouring untraceable millions into this fall's campaign makes that claim, that bears a little truth-checking itself.

Television ads from the group, Progress for America, manage to grab the heart, but also stretch or twist the truth as they work to boost support for the Iraq war.

They feature David Beamer, whose son led a counterattack against the terrorists who hijacked United Flight 93 on Sept. 11, 2001. Todd Beamer was the one who said, "Let's roll," as he and others courageously stormed the cockpit. The plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, well short of either the Capitol or White House, its presumed target.

"Todd was one of the passengers and crew who fought back on 9/11 and saved our capital from being destroyed," the elder Beamer says in one ad, looking squarely into the camera as a picture of his smiling son flashes beside him.

"Al-Qaida killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and will do anything to destroy us and our way of life. Todd and United 93 fought back. We continue this fight in Iraq today. This enemy must be destroyed in Iraq and wherever we find them."

That makes it sound as though the war in Iraq is retaliation against al-Qaida.

It's not. Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaida's attack on us. In fact, a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report showed that not only did Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein not have anything to do with Sept. 11, he also wanted nothing to do with al-Qaida and shunned pleas for help from Osama bin Laden.

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaida to provide material or operational support," the report said.

Asked to back up its ad, the group pointed to news articles about al-Qaida in Iraq now. But we didn't "find" al-Qaida in Iraq. They came in to fight us after we invaded.

Misleading assertions like those made by Progress for America feed a lingering misunderstanding of the Iraq war. As recently as March, 39 percent of Americans believed that Saddam was personally involved in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, according to the Gallup poll. That's down from 53 percent in 2002, but still surprisingly high.

Progress for America presumably hopes the ads will rebuild that false connection between Sept. 11 and Iraq - and thus make the Iraq war more justifiable to an increasingly skeptical public. The ads are being aired in Missouri and Ohio, two states where Republican senators are in danger of losing their seats, and on national cable TV.

Progress for America is a mysterious conservative group. It has aired ads supporting President Bush and his Supreme Court nominees, as well as the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism.

It was founded in 2001 as a "527" group, named for a section of the tax code, and raised an estimated $45 million for ads in the 2004 campaign.

It's now incorporated under section 501c(4) of the tax code, which prohibits it from directly supporting or opposing candidates, but also exempts it from having to disclose who finances it.

Nicole Philbin, a spokeswoman for the group, declined to say how much it's raised or spent, or who has financed its ads.

The group has another ad featuring Beamer, this one supporting the war on terrorism and ripping unnamed people who question U.S. tactics. It was aired in Missouri and on national cable channels.

In it, Beamer says: "Now, we have narrowly escaped another 9/11 . . . using prove surveillance that some would stop."

That's a reference to the breakup of a plot to blow up U.S.-bound planes from London - and an apparent suggestion that it was stopped using the kind of warrantless eavesdropping that the Bush administration uses here.

But there's no evidence that the London plot was stopped by warrantless eavesdropping. And there's no backup to the assertion that "some" want to stop U.S. surveillance.

To the contrary, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who would chair the Judiciary Committee in a Democrat-controlled Senate, told a recent congressional hearing that he supports eavesdropping, but wants it done with court oversight.

To back up the ad, the group noted news articles that refer to U.S. surveillance done at the time of the London investigation. But that surveillance was done with court approval - exactly the approach that has universal support here. There was no documentation of the charge that "some" want to stop that surveillance.

To see the Beamer ads, go to www.progressforamerica.org and click on "videos."

For more on the Senate Intelligence Committee report, http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
----------------------------------------------

Steven Thomma is chief political correspondent for the McClatchy Washington bureau. Write to him at: McClatchy Newspapers, 700 12th St. N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005-3994, or e-mail [email protected].
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 326 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 10:28 am
Well, to be fair, how else are they going to sell this quagmire of their own creation? Undoubtedly, there will be a few people stupid enough, uninformed enough or blindly loyal enough to believe this swill (some of them even to be found on A2K). And every vote still counts, except maybe in Florida and Ohio.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 10:47 am
Today's gem from Miss Molly...

Calculating the human and dollar toll of failed war in Iraq
By Molly Ivins
Fort Worth Star-Telegram

AUSTIN, Texas - One reason despair is not an option is because things can always get worse, and then what'll we do? I was actually trying to figure that out when I came across a remarkable article written for the The Nation magazine (known for its liberalism for 141 years) by Richard J. Whalen - a conservative in good standing, a former Nixon staffer. Whalen has undertaken the singularly valuable task of talking to dissenting generals about the war in Iraq.

I suppose one could argue, and I am sure someone will, that these are mostly retired generals. Some, like Lt. Gen. William Odom, are calling Iraq ''the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States.'' And they are retired precisely because of their opposition to Iraq.

''The only question is whether a war serves the national interest,'' one retired three-star told Whalen. ''Iraq does not.''

Whalen writes: ''The dissenting retired generals are bent on making Iraq this nation's last strategically failed war - that is, one doggedly waged by civilian officials largely to avoid personal accountability for their bad decisions. A failed war causes mounting human and other costs, damaging or entirely destroying the national interest it was supposed to serve.''

During Vietnam, senior soldiers kept quiet. But after it ended, officers, including Colin Powell, ''vowed it would never happen again.'' But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the other civilians in charge overruled the military minds and ignored the possible consequences.

Some of Whalen's and the generals' clearest points come from breaking the silent ban against comparing Iraq to the Vietnam War. Don't know if you noticed this, but from the beginning anyone who spoke right up and said, ''This is just like Vietnam,'' had the experience of right-wingers landing on them, screeching: ''This is not like Vietnam. This Is Not Like Vietnam. THIS IS NOT LIKE VIETNAM.'' Of course it is. We just haven't wasted 57,000 American lives yet.

Odom tells Whalen that ''our objectives in Vietnam passed through three phases to defeat. These were (1) 1961-65, 'containing' China; (2) 1965-68, obsession with U.S. tactics, leading to 'Americanization' of the war and (3) 1968-75, phony diplomacy and self-deluding 'Vietnamization.' Iraq has now completed two similar phases and is entering the third.''

In late September, it was reported that the National Intelligence Estimate for April said the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists: ''A large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists . . . are increasing in both number and in geographic distribution. If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.''

The administration has released three pages of the 30-page report. We may see the rest of it, but not until after the election.

It's difficult to argue this war with people who look straight at you and say: ''Stay the course. Don't cut and run.'' We can't even get reasonable discourse on the report, the work of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and signed by Bush's man, John Negroponte.

Meanwhile, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health now estimates about 655,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war. All the work in the study fell to a knee-jerk response from conservatives, ''Oh, that can't be right.'' Yet the methodology employed is the same as is used by the federal government to decide how to spend millions of dollars every year. It is, as they say, the industry standard.

Speaking of money, though 'tis a pittance compared to lives, we are also wasting billions, as the new ''showcase'' Iraq police academy demonstrates. It seems we are trying to create a police force in Iraq loyal to the state by housing them in a place with water and feces running down the walls.

Further, we're going to have to spend millions and millions to investigate how we frittered away billions and billions.

# # #
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 11:09 am
Victory in Iraq is just past the next bog of quicksand!
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 11:12 am
There's light at the end of the tunnel!

Oops, wrong quagmire.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 11:15 am
Stretching the TRUTH?

That preseumes there is truth to be stretched.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 12:29 pm
"Well, I'm not going to point any moral;
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on."

Pete Seeger
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 12:31 pm
factcheck.org (thanks, as always, to Timber) has been providing good coverage on ads gone wild


http://www.factcheck.org/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Republican ads stretch truth on Iraq to influence elections
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/01/2024 at 06:41:18