I'm voting for Kerry, but need facts about Bush

[Algernon]

I have some friends who, believe it or not, are still on the fence about who to vote for on November 2.

I’m writing a white paper for them, outlining the reasons why I’m voting for Kerry, and why they should also vote for Kerry. I have a lot of information and I think a pretty good argument.

However, there are a few areas where my knowledge is lacking, and so I turn to the SDMB for assistance. Perhaps needless to say, I’m looking for damning and negative information, but I want it to be factual.

• What is the name of the guy who was feeding the Bush administration all the pre-war BS about Iraq WMD etc., who essentially turned out to be an Iranian spy?

• What facts can I present concerning Bush’s favoring industry over the environment?

• What facts can I present concerning Bush’s stance towards stem cell research and other scientific endeavors?

• What facts can I present concerning Bush’s handling of education issues?

• What facts can I present concerning the Patriot Act?

As a postscript I want to say that never, ever again do I want to be a swing state. I am sick to death of all the television attack ads. They go non-stop. Sheesh.

[Mr.Moto]

If you don’t know this yourself, and these are important issues for you, why can you be so sure you’re voting for Kerry?

You don’t sound like a terribly informed voter, if you need basic facts about a candidate you’ve already rejected.

Why, praytell, have you rejected him. You don’t seem to know.

[stpauler]

@Algernon

• What is the name of the guy who was feeding the Bush administration all the pre-war BS about Iraq WMD etc., who essentially turned out to be an Iranian spy?

Chalabi was the Iranian spy.

Mr. Moto, please read the OP. Algernon didn’t give a wide litany of topics that they were uninformed on, solely a few. I can’t say I know every topic that’s worth debating thoroughly for each candidate. Maybe you can contribute to the thread better by refuting any information presented instead of a thinly veiled insult by insinuating that the OP is uninformed.

[Marley23]

@Mr. Moto

Why, praytell, have you rejected him. You don’t seem to know.

He obviously knows how he feels, Mr. Moto, he asked for specifics. Get off the high horse.

• What is the name of the guy who was feeding the Bush administration all the pre-war BS about Iraq WMD etc., who essentially turned out to be an Iranian spy?

That would be Ahmed Chalabi.

• What facts can I present concerning Bush’s stance towards stem cell research and other scientific endeavors?

Bush has allowed federal funding for research on existing stem cell lines. He says there are (I think) 78 of them, but this is inaccurate. Many are unavailable, some didn’t survive unfreezing, and others may be contaminated and unusable. What he plans to do when those few existing stem cell lines have been used up is beyond me, I’m pretty sure he hasn’t said anything because either position he could take - ‘we won’t fund any more research’ or ‘we’ll fund more’ - will upset someone.

[Algernon]

Let me clarify for you Mr. Moto. These issues I’ve listed are only ancillary issues. Not even needed, but for a full perspective I thought I’d try to be thorough.

I have plenty of other reasons to not vote for Bush, such as:

• his inability to admit mistakes and correct course
• his screwing up of the economy (the deficit, the loss of jobs, etc.)
• his screwing up of the war on terrorism (abandoning Afghanistan for Iraq)
• his screwing up of post-war Iraq
• his misjudgement and out-and-out lies about the reasons to invade Iraq
• his embracing the neoconservative philosophy of unilateral pre-emptive military strike
• his pandering to the religious right
• his administration’s handling of the prisoner atrocities
• his stance against abortion and gay marriage
• the possibility that he will be able to appoint absurdly conservative judges to SCOTUS
• his abandonment of some of the Republican tenets I actually admire

So please, don’t accuse me of not knowing why I’m not going to vote for Bush. It’s insulting.

[John_Mace]

@Marley23

He obviously knows how he feels, Mr. Moto, he asked for specifics. Get off the high horse.

If the OP didn’t want a debate, he shouldn’t have posted in GD.

[Algernon]

@John Mace

If the OP didn’t want a debate, he shouldn’t have posted in GD.

I was advised by TubaDiva that an inquiry such as mine would inevitably end up in a debate, so I might as well start there. I’d have preferred GQ since I’m looking for factual answers, but, well, you know how it’s been lately.

[PatriotX]

@Algernon

• What is the name of the guy who was feeding the Bush administration all the pre-war BS about Iraq WMD etc., who essentially turned out to be an Iranian spy?

I’m not sure who you’r etalking about here. There was Chalabi who was in chargre of the Iraqi National Congress. But the Iranian connected fellow was Aras Karim Habib (or Aras Habib Karim by some accounts). This guy was in charge of the Pentagon funded Intelligence Collection Program of the INC’s. But the most well known of the actual suppliers of info was a fella code named Curveball. Powell described some of the the intel from Curveball et al as “inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading.”

**For your further edification:

DIA says Iran used INC to get US in Iraq?

Put an End to the Well-Founded Rumors Surrounding GWB Admin’s Use of Intel re Iraq?**
As for the rest maybe some one else will be along shortly

[stpauler]

@Marley23

Bush has allowed federal funding for research on existing stem cell lines. He says there are (I think) 78 of them, but this is inaccurate. Many are unavailable, some didn’t survive unfreezing, and others may be contaminated and unusable. What he plans to do when those few existing stem cell lines have been used up is beyond me, I’m pretty sure he hasn’t said anything because either position he could take - ‘we won’t fund any more research’ or ‘we’ll fund more’ - will upset someone.

To expound on Marley23’s post, check out Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research which is from whitehouse.gov.

[PatriotX]

@stpauler

Chalabi was the Iranian spy.

Reasonably close, but no Partagas.

[rjung]

As an all-purpose reference to Bushit, I recommend The Lies of George W. Bush and/or Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. The first is devoted exclusively to Bush, the second is funnier, but both are extensively documented and researched.

@Algernon

• What facts can I present concerning Bush’s favoring industry over the environment?

Market Environment Finance pops up fairly quickly on Google.

[PatriotX]

Iranian-INC Spy Scandal Notes

[RadioWave]

@Algernon

• What facts can I present concerning Bush’s stance towards stem cell research and other scientific endeavors?

This describes some recent attempts to politicize science. For instance

Dr. Gerald T. Keusch, who left his post as associate director for international research and director of the John E. Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health, said the Department of Health and Human Services had rejected 19 of his 26 candidates for the center’s board over three years. Among the 19 was a Nobel laureate who, Keusch said he was told, was turned down because his name had appeared in newspaper ads accusing the administration of manipulating science.

[PatriotX]

Might want to combine the Iranian Spy Scandal with the Iranian mullahs’ endorsement:
Bush receives endorsement from Iran
By Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer | October 19, 2004

TEHRAN, Iran – The head of Iran’s security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran’s best interests…

[Shayna]

There are a LOT of reasons NOT to vote for George W. Bush, many of the things on your list among them. But there are a whole hellova lot of reasons to vote FOR John Kerry that have nothing to do with how bad George Bush is.

John Kerry will make an EXCELLENT Pesident of the United States of America and an OUTSTANDING Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces.

He has been working, often behind the scenes and against his own party and political future, to crack down on and cripple terrorism since the ‘80s, when he was the original whistle-blower on Iran/Contra, and personally led the investigation that got the terrorists’ international banking institution shut down. He is well-known and respected for his diplomacy skills, which led to the normalization of relations between the U.S. and Vietnam in 1995.

John Kerry actually gives a damn about our environment and how we leave our planet for our children and grandchildren. He is a devout man of strong faith, yet holds up with awesome respect, one of the primary tenets of our great Constitution – that of separation of Church and State, and refuses to legislate his religion on a public made up of hundreds of other faiths (and/or non-faiths). I am simply blown away by the stength of character that shows. No “my way or the highway” for John Kerry.

John Kerry understands fiscal responsibility and, even if you disagree with his methods, is at least willing to look for a solution to our ever-mounting national debt, as opposed to slashing taxes for the rich and spending more and more of the middle and lower class’s money.

John Kerry will work tirelessly with the international community to help get us out of this quagmire we’re in in Iraq. And based on past performance, I have full faith that he’ll be successful. John Kerry will be a uniter, and our country and the rest of the world will be the better for it.

Some articles of interest:

Bush Claimed Right To Waive Torture Laws.

THE CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH: PART II. “The administration has not confined its mania for secrecy to obscure policy wonkery; it has been essential to selling most of its signature policies.”

Rolling Stone: The Secret File of Abu Ghraib.

Post-war planning non-existent.

Open Letter to President Bush on U.S. Economic Policy, By: 169 professors of business and economics at U.S. business schools, Published: Oct 13, 2004

The Case Against George W. Bush, By Ron Reagan.

186 former United States Ambassadors who have served under both Republican and Democratic presidents endorsed John Kerry for president.

Republican Congressman Doug Bereuter’s exit letter after a 26 year Congressional career.

Statement by William G. Milliken, World War II veteran; member of Michigan state senate, 1961-64; alternate delegate to Republican National Convention from Michigan, 1964; Lieutenant Governor of Michigan, 1965-69; Governor of Michigan, 1969-82.

John Eisenhower: Why I will vote for John Kerry for President.

Good Luck!!

[Measure_for_Measure]

*- What facts can I present concerning Bush’s favoring industry over the environment?

• What facts can I present concerning Bush’s stance towards stem cell research and other scientific endeavors?*

There’s an article in today’s Science Times on conflicts between the Bush Admin and various scientists. Choice quotes:

From the New York Times:

Another area where the issue of scientific distortion keeps surfacing is in the composition of advisory panels. In a host of instances documented in news reports and by groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, candidates have been asked about their politics. In March 2003, the American Association for the Advancement of Science criticized those queries… Despite three years of charges that it is remaking scientific and medical advisory panels to favor the goals of industry or social conservatives, the White House has continued to ask some panel nominees not only about their political views, but explicitly whether they support Mr. Bush.

One recent candidate was Prof. Sharon L. Smith, an expert on Arctic marine ecology at the University of Miami.

On March 12, she received a call from the White House. She had been nominated to take a seat about to open up on the Arctic Research Commission, a panel of presidential appointees that helps shape research on issues in the far north, including the debate over oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The woman calling from the White House office of presidential personnel complimented her résumé, Dr. Smith recalled, then asked the first and - as it turned out - only question: “Do you support the president?”

“I was taking notes,” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’m thinking I’ve lost my mind. I was in total shock. I’d never been asked that before.”

She responded she was not a fan of Mr. Bush’s economic and foreign policies. “That was the end of the interview,” she said. “I was removed from consideration instantly.”

Emphasis added. If you want to sit on a Bush admin scientific panel, you better support the war in Iraq and tax cuts, apparently.

But that’s not all. Scientists that W likes have their concerns:

Yet complaints about the administration’s approach to scientific information are coming even from within the government. Many career scientists and officials have expressed frustration and anger privately but were unwilling to be identified for fear of losing their jobs. But a few have stepped forward, including Dr. Hansen at NASA, who has been researching global warming and conveying its implications to Congress and the White House for two decades.

Dr. Hansen, who was invited to brief the Bush cabinet twice on climate and whose work has been cited by Mr. Bush, said he had decided to speak publicly about the situation because he was convinced global warming posed a serious threat and that further delays in addressing it would add to the risks.

“It’s something that I’ve been worrying about for months,” he said, describing his decision. "If I don’t do something now I’ll regret it.

“Under the Clinton-Gore administration, you did have occasions when Al Gore knew the answer he wanted, and he got annoyed if you presented something that wasn’t consistent with that,” Dr. Hansen said. “I got a little fed up with him, but it was not institutionalized the way it is now.”

Under the Bush administration, he said, “they’re picking and choosing information according to the answer that they want to get, and they’ve appointed so many people who are just focused on this that they really are having an impact on the day-to-day flow of information.” …

There the intensity of the disagreements has been stoked not only by disputes over claimed distortion or suppression of research findings, but on the other side by the enormous economic implications.

Several dozen interviews with administration officials and with scientists in and out of government, along with a variety of documents, show that the core of the clash is over instances in which scientists say that objective and relevant information is ignored or distorted in service of pre-established policy goals. Scientists were essentially locked out of important internal White House debates; candidates for advisory panels were asked about their politics as well as their scientific work; and the White House exerted broad control over how scientific findings were to be presented in public reports or news releases.

Emphasis added.

[erislover]

Thank god we’ve already painted such people as ivory tower, left-biased, elitist liberals or they might actually convince someone!

[jshore]

@Algernon

• What facts can I present concerning Bush’s favoring industry over the environment

A quick summary would be:

(1) The “Clear Skies Initiative” which actually delays the cleanup of major air pollutants relative to what would be achieved if the Clean Air Act (which it would replace provisions of) were to be enforced. [And, like most things, this was accompanied by lots of deception. Basically, when the EPA made the initial presentation of a Clear Skies-like “cap-and-trade” proposal to the power company industry trade group, the provision had caps that were supposed to get about the same amount of reduction in pollution that the Clean Air Act would have gotten. When the final proposal came out, the caps on pollution were much higher, but miraculously it was now shown to give greater reduction in pollution than the Clean Air Act. How did they accomplish this? They radically changed their “baseline” of what would be accomplished by the Clean Air Act! Originally, they assumed that the executive branch would put pollution controls in effect such that the Clean Air Act provisions would be met. In the new baseline, they assumed that the executive branch went to sleep for the next 10 years or so and simply let the controls on the books stay as is…which they could do only if they were willing to completely violate Clean Air Act provisions (and, of course, if they did do this, they could be sued by an environmental group for not enforcing the law).]

(2) A change in New Source Review rules that now allows power companies to make quite major changes to old dirty power plants and still not have to install new modern pollution controls.

(3) On global warming: Not only pulling out of Kyoto (which is well-known and provokes arguments over whether Kyoto could ever have been ratified by the Senate anyway), but also being strongly opposed to the bipartisan Climate Stewardship Act introduced by Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Despite the White House’s strong opposition, it garnered like 43 votes in the Senate and thus likely could have passed if the White House had supported it.

There’s lots more and others have already given your cites. Suffice it to say that League of Conservation Voters (LCV) named George W. to its “dirty dozen” list, the first time in history that they have done this to a sitting President. [By contrast, Kerry has a lifetime LCV rating of something like 92%]

• What facts can I present concerning Bush’s stance towards stem cell research and other scientific endeavors?

You can get to this indirectly through RadioWave’s link, but here is a more direct link to the UCS’s report on “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking”, along with sign-on statement that takes Bush to task and has been signed by 48 Nobel laureates and 62 National Medal of Science recipients, among others.

@Shayna

Open Letter to President Bush on U.S. Economic Policy, By: 169 professors of business and economics at U.S. business schools, Published: Oct 13, 2004

One might argue that these sorts of letters are a dime-a-dozen, but one fact should give one definite pause: this letter was started at George W.'s alma mater of Harvard Business School where 56 tenured and emeritus faculty signed. This is something like 19% of the total faculty by my count and since they didn’t allow sign-ons by the non-tenured faculty (so as not to have the appearance that these faculty could have been pressured to sign), the percentage among those allowed to sign is even higher.

This is all the more interesting given that the letter not only takes Bush to task for his fiscal mismanagement but also for the distributional nature of the tax cuts - excerbating already growing inequality. When you have like 1/5 of the faculty at Harvard Business School of all places lecturing the President on inequality, it seems to me it shows just how extreme the President’s policies are!

[MrFantsyPants]

Back in July, 2001, I was talking to a forest ranger in Southern Ontario. He was involved in a North America-wide study of lichens, finding ways to use lichens as environmental indicators. The results so far were looking promising, but IIRC, the success of the project depended on 20 years of uninterrupted data.

4 months into his term, Bush cut all funding to the program (a pretty measly sum, I was told) without any consultation. 12 years of data had to be thrown out.

Bush started pissing off scientists pretty early, and it seems he never stopped.

[Marley23]

@John Mace

If the OP didn’t want a debate, he shouldn’t have posted in GD.

He didn’t start a debate, he just said Algernon didn’t know what he was talking about because he asked for information. A debate is “you’re wrong, Bush is good on [issue X] for [reason Y].” That’s just a drive-by.

Oh look, this isn’t an argument.
Yes it is.
No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
No it isn’t.