Just the Facts, Ma'am

You have seen these things in your email inbox, haven't you?
Watch out for cars driving with their lights out. If you flash your lights to warn them, they will hunt you down and kill you.
Be careful reaching into the change slot of a soft drink machine, there might be an aids-infected needle placed there by an insane person.
Amy has a wish, but it can only be fuilfilled if you forward the message to at least 800 other people.
Some are obviously hoaxes, but some might sound real. Generally, a lack of verifiable details (names, places, actual dates in stead of "last Tuesday") is at least a warning that the email might not be real. But what if it is and your best friend winds up sitting in a tub of ice without their liver just because you didn't forward the email? How can you tell?
Generally I visit truthorfiction.com as my first stop. The site is no-frills and features a convenient category listing on the left sidebar, virus alerts on the right sidebar, and a search engine. Usually there is an example of the email as received on the internet and a short description of why it is true or false. A convenient link to new items saves me a lot of time.
Another favorite is Snopes Urban Legends page. Generally the articles here are longer than at truthorfiction. They frequently contain links to original documents (where appropriate). They also have a search engine. This is not for a "quickie" read, but an in-depth analysis.
There is also Break the Chain. While not as user-friendly as truthorfiction or as detailed as Snopes, it does focus on "waste of time" emails. Check them out.
For political truth check, I generally go to Annenberg Political Fact Check. While these are generally well-researched and attempt to be bias-free, occasionally they fail. I recently documented one such failure.
My next post will feature an update on that issue. I think I hear Blarney and Dave talking. Maybe we can listen in on them later, also.

Update 5:33 AM on August 1, 2005
camojack recommends about.com also. There are a lot of interesting things there, but it is more of a general information site than a rumor check site. I was able to find the picture that Hawkeye® showed by using their serach feature.

Update 11:32 AM on August 1, 2005
Try this for urban legends at about.com. Hat Tip to camojack, again.

Public Service Warning

There is a strange fad going around these days. Adolescents are inhaling the compressed air in such products as Dust-Off, manufactured by Falcon. This is, in fact, deadly. Falcon is so concerned that it hosts a page dedicated to inhalant abuse. The label has a clear warning: A cleaning duster is a serious product. Inhalant abuse is illegal and can cause permanent injury or be fatal. Please use our product responsibly. There is a video public service anouncement available from Falcon.

To view the video using RealPlayer, click a link below:

56K Connection Public Safety Announcement DSL Connection Public Safety Announcement T1 Connection Public Safety Announcement To view the video clip in Windows Media Player format, click on a link below. 56K Connection Public Safety Announcement DSL Connection Public Safety Announcement T1 Connection Public Safety Announcemen

This is NOT a JOKE. Please warn all people you know who have children. Better yet, warn the children.

What About Karl?

Recently, the press has tried to get a commitment from President Bush to fire Karl Rove. They bring these questions up, regardless of the occasion. Watch this sandbag question (all emphasis added by me):

Occasion: President, Prime Minister of India Discuss Freedom and Democracy
The East Room , July 18, 2005
Q Mr. President, you said you don't want to talk about an ongoing investigation, so I'd like to ask you, regardless of whether a crime was committed, do you still intend to fire anyone found to be involved in the CIA leak case And are you displeased that Karl Rove told a reporter that Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife worked for the Agency on WMD issues? [Did you notice that the second question implies that Rove sought the reporter? - Rick]

PRESIDENT BUSH: We have a serious ongoing investigation here. (Laughter.) And it's being played out in the press. And I think it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. And I will do so, as well. I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts. The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it. I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.
Source
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Some in the media claim that President Bush is now changing the rules. Just where did this "crime" criteria come from? He never said that in June of last year! They want to go back to another sandbag question from last year. Watch closely:

Occasion: President Bush Holds Press Conference Following the G8 Summit
International Media Center
Savannah, Georgia June 10,2004
Q: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

Q: My final point would be -- or question would be, has Vice President Cheney assured you --

THE PRESIDENT: It's up to the --

Q: -- subsequent to his conversations with them, that nobody --

THE PRESIDENT: I haven't talked to the Vice President about this matter, and I suggest -- recently -- and I suggest you talk to the U.S. Attorney about that.
Source
= = = = = = = = = = =

It is obvious to me that they were talking past each other. This reporter didn't give the President time to answer the first question before asking two more. They want to twist this exchange into a promise that the President will fire anyone who leaked information. But notice that the recent question (above) goes even further - fire anyone involved in the case. That is not what the President said "several months ago".

This is what he "said several months ago" and which he promised to stick to:
Occasion: President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois September 30, 2003
Q: Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better? [Do they teach this questioning technique in journalism school? - Rick]

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
Source
= = = = = = = = = =

The President has been consistent in saying that violation of the law, or a crime, was the criteria for removing someone. It is clear from what has already been revealed that Rove is not a target of the investigation. It seems pretty clear to me that Judith Miller's source is not Karl Rove. So why all the hoopla about Karl?

Next question.

Update 4:41 AM July 23, 2005
FactCheck.org, in an otherwise accurate article, includes this editorial comment about the July 18 statement: Bush – easing off his earlier statement to fire anyone who leaked – says. I sent them an email calling them on it.

Update 7:44 PM July 23, 2005
One of the commenters mentioned that the factcheck.org article states that Scott McClellan, on September 29, 2003, stated “If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leak], they would no longer be in this administration.” So I went back to read it again. I found it interesting that everywhere in the White House briefing that Mr. McClellan used some form of "leak", the words classified information also appear. Some examples (emphasis added):
MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, if someone leaked classified information of this nature, the appropriate agency to look into it would be the Department of Justice.
MR. McCLELLAN: The President has been -- I spoke for him earlier today -- the President believes leaking classified information is a very serious matter.
MR. McCLELLAN: If someone leaked classified information of the nature that has been reported, absolutely, the President would want it to be looked into.

Apparently the editors thought "[the leak]" was sufficiently clear that we are talking about classified information.
So I sent them a second email on this point.

Blarney and Dave Discuss Iraq

Blarney: This Bush is always lying.
Dave: What do you mean?
Blarney: Take this "War on Terror" thing. We know it was all about Oil and Haliburton. Bush keeps changing his story because he won't admit the truth.
Dave: Can you explain that?
Blarney: Sure. First it was all about WMD. When those didn't show up it was all about deposing an awful tyrant.
Then it was this nonsense about establishing a Democracy. He is trying to force freedom down their throats and he still won't admit the real purpose of the War.
Dave: But on March 19, 2003 as Operation Iraqi Freedom began, he said: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military
operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
And on March 22, 2003 he said: And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.
Blarney: Wow! Thanks for proving my point.
Dave: Huh?
Blarney: "Yes' I thought he couldn't keep his story straight for two years. You just showed he changed the reason three times in a single sentence. See what I told you, he is a complete liar.
Dave: *sigh*
Blarney: And you know there is absolutely no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. That's why al Qaeda attacked London.
Dave: Now what are you talking about?
Blarney: Well, if the US and England had not invaded Iraq and continued their oppression of the mullahs, the London bombings would not have occurred.
Dave: But I thought there was no connection.
Blarney Right.
Dave: * sigh *
Blarney And another thing, this war was supposed to be a cakewalk. Already it has been almost four months past two years. That's the biggest quagmire in history!
Dave: But President Bush said on March 20, 2003: A campaign on harsh terrain in a vast country could be longer and more difficult than some have predicted.
Blarney Yeah, but Bush is an idiot. The military thought it would be a cakewalk.
Dave: Well, General Tommy Franks describes his thinking in American Soldier, and he said (page 373) I hoped that this briefing would squelch speculation that a decisive operation in Iraq would be a simple matter requiring relatively few troops. Some staffers in the Pentagon had suggested that one heavy division with massive air support could kick open a door, through which exiled Iraqi opposition groups would march triumphantly to liberate their country. This line of thinking was absurd, and I wanted to terminate it as quickly as possible.
Blarney: There, you see. You even admitted that the Pentagon thought it would be easy.
Dave: But the president is the Commander in Chief and General Franks was CINC CENTCOM at the time.
Blarney: So what? You told me that Pentagon personnel thought it would be easy. That's because they knew there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Dave: Now, Blarney, look at what General Franks had to say about that in his book:
(p 353) Primary among my assumptions was that Iraq possessed and would use weapons of mass destruction, so our forces would likely be fighting in a toxic environment. Intelligence operations would attempt to confirm the extent and locations of Iraq's WMD programs and the regime's doctrine for use of WMD, but without a robust human intelligence infrastructure - which we did not have - I was not confident we would be able to preempt WMD use.
Blarney: Just like I've always said, they were willing to sacrifice thousands of American lives just to get Hussein. They didn't care that there would be massive slaughter of our troops with chemicals.
Dave: OK, look at page 372:
Weather was also a factor. Since our troops would likely be fighting in MOPP suits to protect against chemical and biological weapons, the mid-summer daytime heat, which could reach 130 degrees Fahrenheit, constituted a yellow light. And the sandstorms of early spring were another obstacle to avoid if at all possible. "Therefore, Mr. President," I said, "optimum operational timing would be from December to mid-March."
Blarney: You know, Dave, I thought you were intelligent, but you have not disproved a thing I said, and you refuse to believe that you are just a puppet of Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh.
Dave: But I quoted exactly what the president and General Franks were saying in the early phase of the war.
Blarney: My point, exactly.
Dave: I give up.
Blarney: See. You could not even hold a candle to me in the debate. When faced with logic, you guys just resort to name calling. You are a complete LOOOOOSER. Paint an "L" on your forehead, fascist!
Dave: * sigh *

Correcting the Persistent Lies - Updated

It appears that the terrorist sympathizers in the US and abroad will continue to claim "Bush lied" about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. They will continue to claim "there is no connection between 9-11 and Iraq". They will claim that "Bush keeps changing the rationale for the war in Iraq". You might encounter some of them. I have compiled a list of sources that might help you counter these arguments. Of course, in the words of Hillary Clinton "it's hard to deal with people who have no respect for the truth," but at least you will know.

WMD
Look at this compilation of quotes by Democrats (including John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton) asserting that Iraq possessed WMD. Each quote has a link to the source (NOTE, however that the links to the actual web sites of the individuals have been removed. The news sources still remain.)
President Clinton, on Feb 4, 1998 and Madeline Albright (Secretary of State) pointed out the dangers of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton even fired on Iraq in December 1998.

In his book, American Soldier , General Tommy Franks outlined the precautions and training in expectation that Saddam might use WMD.

Even the "smoking gun" Downing Street Memo worried about "For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began?"

So, everyone thought Hussein both had and might use WMD. Nobody "lied" about it. Where are they? Who knows. We do know that several Foxbats were discovered buried in the sand.

According to the CIA Fact Book, Iraq has a land mass of 432,162 sq km and Aruba has a land area of 193 sq km. They have been searching full time for a missing girl there for over 40 days. Iraq is 2,239 times the size of Aruba. If the effort were proportional, 40 days in Aruba equates to 89,560 days (245 years) in Iraq. We have been "searching" Iraq (while conducting military operations, humanitarian missions, training and other distractions) for a little over two years. In another 240 years or so, we could conclude that Bush and all those Democrats lied. Or, looking another way, after searching for about one half day, the Aruba search would be where we are in Iraq. If "Bush lied" about WMD, maybe the Holloways lied about Natalie being in Aruba.

Connections between 9-11 and Iraq - Updated July 16 at 8:11 AM
Let me say right up front that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was directly connected to the attack on 9-11. That's what the 9-11 Commission Report says. That is even what President Bush said. However the Commission Report also clearly established connections between Al Qaeda operatives and Saddam Hussein. Hussein's Iraq was clearly a state sponsoring terrorism. Let's look at what the President actually said on September 11, 2001: Note the second sentence.
The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

Following the successful military operation in Afghanistan, Abu Musab al Zarqawi fled to Iraq. He was "harbored" there. Let's hear the President on September 20, 2001: (Emphasis added)
Nor will we forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own: dozens of Pakistanis; more than 130 Israelis; more than 250 citizens of India; men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico and Japan; and hundreds of British citizens
...
Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world -- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.
...
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
...
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Andrew McCarthy presents a long list of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, which you can read yourself. And he answers questions about the list.

Update Lengthy article in the Weekly Standard details Iraqi connections to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda from captured Iraqi intelligence documents.

Rationale for the War in Iraq
This usually goes like this: "First the rationale was WMD and when we found no WMD, it was deposing Saddam Hussein and then it was establishing a democracy in Iraq. Bush keeps changing the story. He lied."
On March 19, 2003, at the opening of hostilities in Iraq, the President said:
My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

Hear the President on March 22, 2003 as he updates The War on Terror in Iraq:
Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.

And again on March 29, 2003:
And we have prevented the dictator from launching missiles from key sites in western Iraq. We are now fighting the most desperate units of the dictator's army. The fighting is fierce and we do not know its duration, yet we know the outcome of this battle: The Iraqi regime will be disarmed and removed from power. Iraq will be free.

In case you missed it, let me number the mission parts, which he said on all three occasions:

1. Disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.
2. End Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism.
3. Free the Iraqi people.

So, how are we doing? Two out of three at least. (if there are no WMD, then we are three for three). Saddam is incarcerated, the Iraqi's held a courageous election in January, and they are working on a plan for their own government. You might recall that it took us from 1776 to 1787 to have a Constitution. They are doing at least as well as we did. Oh, yes. What was the name of the operation in Iraq? Operation Iraqi Freedom
And did you notice how President Bush went "unilateral" with 40 nations in 2003 and 49 nations now?

Yet another update 9:12 PM on July 17, 2003
Right Wing News debunks eight anti-war myths.

Bush Lied? - Updated

Started at 5:17 AM on Jun 27, 2005
This will take a while to complete, but I wanted to place in a single reference all the speeches and radio talks bearing on the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq made prior to the liberation of Iraq. In them, the POTUS clearly spells out the naturre of the war, the anticipated length, and the rationale for establishing a free and democratic Iraq as necessary to victory. This is a public service for members of Scrappleface particularly, since the occasional troll invariably brings up "war for oil", "Bush lied", etc.

So, let's begin with the September 11, 2001 speech where he said:

America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.

and

The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

Then let's move to September 20, 2001:

Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done. (Applause.)

and

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

and

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

So, from the beginning it was "We will now come after the terrorists and those who harbor them." and "This will be long and different from other conflicts."

About Iraq, prior to entering the war, he said

But America's cause is always larger than America's security. We also stand for the advance of freedom and opportunity and hope. The lives and freedom of the Iraqi people matter little to Saddam Hussein, but they matter greatly to us.

As the war began, he said

We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

And for those who wonder about the tie between al-Qaeda and Iraq, Cassandra at Villainous Company has a history review.

Andrew McCarthy also connects the dots at National Review Online. Please go there and read the information.

Update 9:36 PM on 30 Jun 2005
Powerline reminds us of the text of the joint resolution.


Update 5:55 AM on July 1, 2005
Melanie Phillips provides more evidence of the links between Iraq and al Qaeda.


Update 5:55 AM on July 7, 2005
Some people continue to throw smoke screens like "what about North Korea and Iran" or "There is no connection between Iraq and the War on Terror". The President actually addressed both of those in his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002:

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.