With campaign season in full swing, the ad wars have started – and not just ones from the candidates themselves. It seems anyone with a camera and some video editing software is getting in on the fun. Making a point in 30 seconds is pretty hard to do, so playing fast and loose with the facts seems to be the way things are going.
One place you can go to check the veracity of ads is FactCheck.org. At the top of the page is an appropriate quote from Senator Patrick Daniel Moynihan:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
FactCheck.org is a “nonpartisan, nonprofit, “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.” With all of the campaigns going on around the country, they can’t possibly review every ad. But they have picked up a few. Here they debunk the VoteVets.org ad and here they discuss the MoveOn.org ads “Caught Red-Handed.”
Everyone is not a political junkie and can’t keep up with the details of this stuff. Thanks to FactCheck.org, we don’t have to.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Fact check is wrong on the Vote Vet Add….Because the amendment did not include “body amour” that was the intent.
You do not offer a 1 billion dollar supplement to procure new equipment for the Guard and create an individual laundry list. That is up to the procurement and contracting office for the Guard.
The language or the amendment defeated by Allen and the GOP…
In chapter 3 of title I, under the heading “PROCUREMENT’’, insert after the matter relating to “PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE’’ the following:
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
For an additional amount for “National Guard and Reserve Equipment’’, $1,047,000,000.
Now, what did Landrieuu mean by Reserve equipment? Let’s go to the floor debate.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor to support the supplemental appropriations bill that is before us because it is a bill that supports our troops, it strengthens our Nation, and it sends a very positive and I hope united signal that we are unified in support of our men and women on the battlefield and our men and women who are supporting our warriors on the battlefield…..
In addition to increasing the combat pay and the separation pay for all our Guard and Reserve units, I also think we need to do everything we can possibly do to send our Guard and Reserve on the battlefield with the equipment they need to win the war and to protect themselves, to stand up the American flag and be victorious in this effort. I am very concerned, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, as a former member of the Armed Services Committee, that our budgets do not reflect the commitment to our Guard and Reserve that their actions and their contributions warrant
Hmmmm…what could she mean by “equipment they need to win the war and to protect themselves”. Gosh, we have to continue from the Senate record.
I want to list some of the items this money will buy. A great many of these items do not take a great amount of time to order. You could pick up the phone and dial it and ask them to deliver it. Let me just give you a couple of examples in the few minutes that I have.
Some of the items…not an itemized list…shocking!
Now the grand finale….Landrieu’s press release on why she offered the amendment…..
Calling official reports of serious equipment shortfalls by National Guard and Reserve troops “a grave concern to our nation,” Senator Mary Landrieu today offered an amendment to fill any equipment needs of Reservists and Guardsmen currently training for service in the second wave of Operation Iraqi Freedom. While all troops in the field today are properly equipped, reports indicate that subsequent call ups may be hindered by a lack of equipment. The Marine Corps Reserve reports that before they could deploy a second wave of troops a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests must be fulfilled. Likewise, the Army Reserve reports a shortage of rifles – both the M4 and M16 – would have to be replenished before deploying a second wave of troops. Landrieu’s amendment would increase funding for the Reserves and Guard by $1 billion.
Wahhhh? Shortage of helmet, tents, BULLET-PROOF INSERTS, and TACTICAL VESTS….
Spin baby spin….Allen and the GOP voted against the latest protective equipment for the Guard.
So how come FactCheck.org hasn’t been presented this information? You will note that on the MoveOn.org ads supplemental information to rebut FactCheck.org is included. I did find this statement on their website.
And, by the way, I don’t do spin here, at least not intentionally.
whoops…that last line was included on a post on a right wing blog.
I should have eliminated it when I copied here….SORRY!!!!
Media Matters picks up the unfactual, fact checking.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609220002
Vivian…I assume you present that as a rhetorical question. As it seems the burden of proof lies with FactCheck.org, we cannot know why they have declined to present this information.
But initeresting to speculate how the Allen campaign would then respond to a correction of the record.
As the point by point back and forth occurs, I want to know the official Allen/GOP position on why they voted against the equipment….
Allen supporters, please explain and clarify…
We covered that from a number of perspectives here, including the observation that the amendment was not relevant to the current bill, not for equipment to be procured anytime in the near future, and extraneous, anyway. Had the DoD wanted funding for armor, there was emergency acquisition funding already made available in the bill.
http://www.allenhq.com/2006/09/16/webbs-dirty-tricksters-body-armor/
Ironically, the guy behind the ad Jon Soltz, who now says we should vote against somebody who (allegedly) voted against body armor, worked for John Kerry. (who voted against at least one bill that included something about body armor) Kerry was also hit during the ’04 campaign by charges that he’d voted “against” various military programs, based on the fact that he voted against one particular incarnation of a defense spending bill.
They’re just playing the fact that most people don’t know the ins and outs of legislation against Allen. It’s deceptive, and — in the case of the “vietnam era” nonsense — it’s a lie.