Hmm...

Bush Failures:

Economic:
*Adopting an economic policy that favored high deficits as opposed to balanced budges
*Adjusting the tax code to shift the tax burden away from the upper class and toward the middle class. (To be fair, that one's probably what he was trying to do).
*Failure to adopt a policy of job growth, leading Bush to be the first President to preside over a net loss of jobs since Herbert Hoover

Military/WoT

*Failure to commit adequate force to secure and stabilize Afghanistan
*Failure to commit adequate force to caputre Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora
*Failure to listen to conflicting intelligence regarding Iraqs alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction
*Failure to secure an adequate coalition to prosecute the war against Iraq
*Failure to provide adequate troop strength to secure post-war Iraq

Social:

*Failure to adequately fund No Child Left Behind, leading to a program that has a big stick and no carrot
*Failure to adopt a meaningful medicare prescription drug benefit, wasting billions of dollars while not actually providing a significant benefit

Oh, and lies?

*Declaring "major combat" over in Iraq in May of 2003
*Claiming Hussein had a nuclear program, large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he presented an imminent threat to the United States
*Outing Valerie Plame
*Using junk science to justify decisions from revamping the Missouri River to failing to adequately fund stem cell research

Now, that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure, with a few hours and Google, I could come up with a list quite a bit longer.

Any questions?

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at August 25, 2004 12:17 PM

Well, I'll take a stab at one of these.

"and that he presented an imminent threat to the United States"

Take a few hours and Google. When did GWB ever refer to Iraq as an imminent threat? My memory may be faulty, but the idea was always this: intervene before the threat *becomes* imminent. If we don't, and suddenly Iraq has WMD and the ability to deploy them, then it's a whole new ball game.

Posted by: Kris at August 25, 2004 12:29 PM

Your post is a little confused. You put failures in quotes without an antecedant. But I'll assume you're talking about the presidents. In that case Jeff's list is a good start.

As for lies, are you asking for Bush's, or the Swifties'? Since you refered to them lying about, I'm going to guess that's what you want. In that case, there are two sets of pretty much antithetical statements below. Take your pick on which ones are lies:

Roy Hoffman, today: "John Kerry has not been honest."
Roy Hoffman, 2003: "I am not going to say anything negative about him — he's a good man."

Adrian Lonsdale, today: "He lacks the capacity to lead."
Adrian Lonsdale, 1996: "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

(Shamelessly stolen from Kevin Drum at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004557.php)

Posted by: DaBunny at August 25, 2004 02:27 PM

Mitch asks, "where are the lies"?

You mean apart from these lies, for starters:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Navy task force overseeing John Kerry's swift boat squadron in Vietnam reported that his group of boats came under enemy fire during a March 13, 1969, incident that three decades later is being challenged by the Democratic presidential nominee's critics.

The March 18, 1969, weekly report from Task Force 115, which was located by The Associated Press during a search of Navy archives, is the latest document to surface that supports Kerry's description of an event for which he won a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart.

The Task Force report twice mentions the incident five days earlier and both times calls it "an enemy initiated firefight" that included automatic weapons fire and underwater mines used against a group of five boats that included Kerry's.

Task Force 115 was commanded at the time by retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the founder of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has been running ads challenging Kerry's account of the episode.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040825/D84M6LQ80.html

From the Associated Press:

In the ad, French says: "I served with John Kerry. He is lying about his record."
. . .
Before recording the ad, French signed an affidavit that said: "I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief."
. . .
In an interview with The Oregonian newspaper on Thursday, French said he relied on the accounts of three other veterans in making the statement about Kerry, and did not personally witness the events. French did not return two messages left at his office Monday.
8/24/04 Columbian C3

[French, a district attorney, knows what non-lawyers might not, that “personal knowledge” is a term of art when applied to testimony under oath, meaning that he had first-hand knowledge of the facts – facts he personally observed. In other words, swearing personal knowledge of something you in fact heard from other people is a false statement under oath. I assume you’ll call for French’s firing and perjury prosecution, right Mitch?]

From the New York Times:

[one lie:]

The group also offers the account of William L. Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral who says in the book that he had been on the small skimmer on which Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968. He contends that Mr. Kerry wounded himself while firing a grenade.

But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they cannot recall a third crew member. "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three," Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself.
. . .
[another lie:]
The Silver Star was awarded after Mr. Kerry's boat came under heavy fire from shore during a mission in February 1969. According to Navy records, he turned the boat to charge the Vietcong position. An enemy solider sprang from the shore about 10 feet in front of the boat. Mr. Kerry leaped onto the shore, chased the soldier behind a small hut and killed him, seizing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth describes the man Mr. Kerry killed as a solitary wounded teenager "in a loincloth," who may or may not have been armed. They say the charge to the beach was planned the night before and, citing a report from one crew member on a different boat, maintain that the sailors even schemed about who would win which medals.

The group says Mr. Kerry himself wrote the reports that led to the medal. But Mr. Elliott and Mr. Lonsdale, who handled reports going up the line for recognition, have previously said that a medal would be awarded only if there was corroboration from others and that they had thoroughly corroborated the accounts.

"Witness reports were reviewed; battle reports were reviewed," Mr. Lonsdale said at the 1996 news conference, adding, "It was a very complete and carefully orchestrated procedure." In his statements Mr. Elliott described the action that day as "intense" and "unusual."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?pagewanted=1

From ABC’s This Week:

JOHN O'NEILL: The whole country's watching him avoid the question. You asked about Cambodia. How do I know he's not in Cambodia? I was on the same river, George. I was there two months after him. Our patrol area ran to Sedek, it was 50 miles from Cambodia. There isn't any watery border. The Mekong River's like the Mississippi. There were gunboats stationed right up there to stop people from coming. And our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek. So it was a made up story. He's told it over 50 times, George, that was on the floor of the Senate. He wrote articles about it, it was a malicious story because it painted all the guys above him, all of the commanding officers, in effect, as war criminals, that had ordered him into a neutral country, it was a lie.

From a 1971 Nixon/O’Neill tape:

O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.

And before you say it, Mitch, Brinkley confirms that Kerry was in Cambodia and is publishing a New Yorker article to lay out the proof.

Just me again, distracting you with these silly fact things I like so much.
/jc

Posted by: Slash at August 25, 2004 03:27 PM

Fair enough, Slash. Yet, I'm curious, does Brinkley confirm that Kerry was five miles inside Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1968? You know, that day that was "seared" into Kerry's mind? That day that Kerry invoked on the freakin' floor of the Senate in 1986 in order to affect policy to restrict assistance to the Nicaraguan democratic resistance? Did Brinkley confirm THAT? Because, if not, then you're still left with a big steaming Kerry lie. A whopper. A tall tale, if you will.

Hey, you know what? I was in Milwaukee the same day that Jeffrey Dahmer was arrested. By your reasoning, however, I could probably get away with saying something like "I remember the day Jeffrey Dahmer was arrested, because I delivered a package to his apartment, and I saw the human body parts lying around, and I knew something was wrong, so I called the cops. That is seared - seared - in me!"

Admit it, dude. Kerry told a big smelly lie. You can do it. Take a couple of nice big breaths, and say it with me. . . "John Kerry lied."

Feel better? I thought so.

Posted by: Ryan at August 25, 2004 03:48 PM

Here ya go, Slash:

http://instapundit.com/archives/017384.php

O'Neill was in-country longer than Kerry -- long enough for the Cambodian Incursion of 1970 to begin. Is that fact-y enough for you?

Posted by: Kris at August 25, 2004 03:54 PM

Funny how O'Neill indicates Kerry was in the same area, on the Cambodian border. Funny that O'Neill's recollection would tend to back Kerry's contention that he was in Cambodia at some point (though not on Christmas).

So again, we're back to the timeline, and the question of when, not if. And I say again: if the best you can do is show me that Kerry was in Cambodia for Tet instead of for Christmas, I'll remind you that Ronald Reagan managed okay as President despite being in Los Angeles on VE day, instead of Berlin. By Reagan's standards, Kerry's soi-disant lie is nothing.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at August 25, 2004 04:45 PM

Jeff- I don't have the time or frankly the inclination to dismantle your whole list (although I imagine that Mitch will do just that in short order) so I'll limit myself to two questions for you:

1. What is a "policy of job growth" and exactly how should Bush have implemented such a policy? Please provide specifics. Simply wishing for more jobs does not make them appear. By the way, do you suppose that the recession (which started under Bill Clinton) and the 9/11 attacks had anything to do with the job losses? Just asking.

2. What other countries should Bush have "secured" to make our coalition adequate to prosecute the war against Iraq? Please cite specific countries and explain what forces they would have contributed and how they would have made a difference, keeping in mind the hollow shell that the German military has devolved into and the inability of the French to project significant force anywhere in the world. If you name Canada please be advised that I will be unable to respond as I will be rolling on the floor in spasms of uncontrollable laughter.

Posted by: the elder at August 25, 2004 04:49 PM

The problem is that Kerry most certainly was nowhere near Cambodia in 1970 when the large-scale cross border incursion occurred. The fact that O'Neil was in Cambodia in 1970 is much more plausible than Kerry being there in '68 or '69 and really has no relevance to the veracity of Kerry's claims.

Posted by: the elder at August 25, 2004 04:53 PM

In response to Ficke:

- When the DNC proposes a balanced budget let us know.
- The top 20% of income earners pay 80% of the income taxes.
- The job statistics ignore self employed people (which I am one) and will likely be in net surplus by the election.

- Afghanistan is as secure as can reasonably be done in that region by anyone.
- OBL (if he is alive, which I increasingly doubt) only 'got away' because of a truce to allow the remnants to surrender. I guess the US wasn't ruthless and bloody-minded enough.
- Every intelligence service on the planet throught Saddam had WMDs, including your beloved France.
- There are at least 21 countries in the coalition.
- Kerry says he wants to reduce troops in Iraq; are you saying he's wrong?

- GWB has increased spending by the Dept of Education by 30%, you want even more?
- (I agree the Medicare prescription benefit was dumb.) You think Kerry is less likely to bribe seniors for votes w/taxpayer money?
- Major coordinated operations were over in May 2003 when the Iraqi govt fell. (And without the 100000+ deaths, sorry to disappoint).
- GWB *never* said that Saddam was an "imminent threat" - just the opposite.
- Joe Wilson's falsehoods were exposed about his activities and he is totally discredited. See Instapundit.
- Adult stem are better science - they show better promise (coveniently ignored). Reseachers can go kill all the embryos want; just dont force us to pay taxes for it.

Posted by: Gideon at August 25, 2004 04:58 PM

Fecke,

George W. Bush outed Valerie Plame?

Posted by: Trudger at August 25, 2004 06:06 PM

Trudger:

You're right. It was Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff who outed Valerie Plame.

George Bush only lied when he promised his administration would look into the matter.

I stand corrected.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at August 25, 2004 06:42 PM

"George Bush only lied when he promised his administration would look into the matter."

If Bush's administration did not look into the matter, then whose administration did?

Posted by: Trudger at August 25, 2004 07:48 PM

I wonder how many more years Americans will continue to talk past one another.
Not that I have any brilliant ideas of how to unite. Another terrorist attack? Is that what is required?
In The Day The Earth Stood Still the world was united when it was visited by aliens.

Posted by: pinkmonkeybird at August 25, 2004 10:13 PM

Isn't this a great country? We can call people, like, say, (arguably) the most powerful man in the world, a liar all day without any personal, first hand proof and not be hauled off to prison. (of course in the present US a lawsuit would be much more realistic) Of course, in the "good old days" you'd all be slappin' leather and skinning those smoke wagons--Hmmmm, if everyone carried a six shooter would there be less slander?
Back to the GWOT.

Posted by: fingers at August 26, 2004 07:26 AM

Jeff Fecke:

Any source for "You're right. It was Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff who outed Valerie Plame."?

I remember reading a news item referring to Cheney's Chief of Staff releasing a reporter from his promise of confidentiality, but no details as to what he actually told the reporter.

Are you jumping to conclusions, or do you have a link to actual information?

Posted by: Steve Meyer at August 26, 2004 09:25 AM

The problem with these arguments are that everyone is talking over everyone elses heads. I saw Chris Mathews talking to someone last night and Mathews stated that because O'Neil had indicated he was in Cambodia therefore that lays open as a lie that Kerry was not in Cambodia. He needs to stop being a flack for Kerry and do some research.
With regard to O'Neil's voice on the recording in Nixon's office. In the next sentence O'Neil mentions near Cambodia. Additionally, O'Neil was in Cambodia after Kerry and took over Kerry's boat. O'Neil has stated that when he was near Cambodia it was in a completely different patrol area. The Washington Post has already laid bare the Christmas In Cambodia statement. You just need to look at the maps provided to show how difficult it would have been.

Posted by: DavidWard at August 27, 2004 05:44 AM

*Declaring "major combat" over in Iraq in May of 2003
-Whether or not "major combat" was over is subjective. So differences of opinion are now lies, apparently. Lies that the commander of American forces apparently agreed with, since he suggested the declaration. (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/2004/08/11/news/local/9368921.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp)
*Claiming Hussein had a nuclear program, large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he presented an imminent threat to the United States
-Even though the head of virtually every intelligence agency, including his own, thought that Saddam had them, Bush somehow knew Saddam did not have weapons and lied about it. Errors are now lies. (see also link above where Tommy Franks thought he had them.)
*Outing Valerie Plame
Not a lie. No evidence that he lied. More properly belongs in "Bush's failures".
*Using junk science to justify decisions from revamping the Missouri River to failing to adequately fund stem cell research
-Don't know what you're talking about. I'm unfamiliar with the Missouri River issue. As far as stem cell research goes, he's fairly consistently stated that the policy is based on ethical concerns, not the science behind it. (For examples:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010811-1.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040713-7.html#research)

You say "Bush lied", well show us. Just asserting that he lied about the Missouri River doesn't cut it. If he's such a liar, it shouldn't be that hard to produce evidence, should it?

Posted by: scott h. at August 28, 2004 09:49 AM

*Adjusting the tax code to shift the tax burden away from the upper class and toward the middle class.
http://www.detnews.com/pix/2004/08/27/asec/082704-o-bushtaxcuts-cht.jpg
Yep, I see how it shifted away from the upper class.

Missouri River lie mentioned in this unbiased article:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040308&s=kennedy

Posted by: benji at August 29, 2004 09:45 PM