Kerry's Lies on 'Meet The Press'

[The Wenis]

Kerry's Inaccurate Statements on Meet the Press
George W. Bush ^ | April 19, 2004


CAFE STANDARDS

Kerry Claim:

Kerry Said He Is Flexible On Miles Per Gallon Standard That His Own CAFE Legislation Proposed. RUSSERT: “That was your legislation. You stand by that.” KERRY: “Well, we tried to do that that year but both McCain and I said at the time, you can go back and look at the quote -- we said we're not fixed in stone as to the number or how we do this. We're ready to negotiate. The problem is nobody wanted to negotiate because they had the votes.” (NBC's "Meet The Press," 4/18/04)

The Truth:

In 2002, Kerry Proposed His Own Legislation To Increase Fuel Efficiency Standards For Automobiles To 35 Miles Per Gallon. Kerry sponsored failed legislation that would have required automakers to boost Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2013. (S.1926, Introduced 2/8/02; Peter Cohn and John Godfrey, "Another Committee Loses Voice On Energy Overhaul," Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, 2/12/02)

Kerry Sticking With Plan To Raise CAFE Standards. “In the face of rising gasoline prices and stagnating fuel efficiency, Senator John Kerry is sticking with a plan he backed in the Senate to increase the nation's fuel economy standards 50 percent by 2015. That would be the largest increase, by far, since automotive fuel economy standards were first imposed after the oil shocks of the 1970's.” (Danny Hakim, "Kerry Is Sticking With Plan To Raise Auto Fuel Efficiency," The New York Times, 3/26/04)

Kerry Has Called For Higher CAFE Standards That “Go As Far And Fast As We Can.” “The Senate Commerce Committee is now reviewing the need to raise fuel economy standards for cars and SUVs. The question is: how far and how fast can we go? My answer is that we should go as far and fast as we can, guided by the legitimate concerns of the domestic automobile industry and the limits on what it is technically and economically feasible.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At The Center For National Policy, Washington, DC, 1/22/02)

In 1999 And 2002, Kerry Voted For Increased CAFE Standards. (H.R. 2084, CQ Vote #275: Rejected 40-55: R 6-45; D 34-9; I 0-1, 9/15/99, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 517, CQ Vote #47, Adopted 62-38: R 43-6; D 19-31; I 0-1, 3/13/02, Kerry Voted Nay)

i don't see a lie in this statement nor do i see how raising cafe standards is bad. one certain way to decrease dependence on foreign oil is to increase cafe standards. the technology is available to do it now and to do it cheaply.

 

[AAP]

Has anyone checked Syria? Libya? Iran? Jordan?

Give us a fucking break. Bush never said they were in Syria. Nor Libya. Nor Iran, etc..

He said they were MOST DEFINATELY in Iraq. Hiding behind those 4 million new jobs he created last year no doubt.

 

[atlantabiolab]

i don't see a lie in this statement nor do i see how raising cafe standards is bad. one certain way to decrease dependence on foreign oil is to increase cafe standards. the technology is available to do it now and to do it cheaply.

If such technology was cheap, then why would the companies not implement this? Would a full size SUV that could get 30 miles to the gallon NOT sell?

Such measures will not remove our dependance on foreign oil since we will still be using oil, this will not produce alternative fuels. What it will definately do is raise the costs of cars, which will decrease the demand for cars, which will reduce profit of the car companies, which will cause job cuts, etc.

 

[AAP]

It is a fact that there were WMDs in Iraq. He used them on more than one occasion. The question is, where are they?

Mr. "I am not in Politics" Powell contradicts your silly belief sir.

The evidence keeps mounting that the intelligence concerning WMDs was wrong, and either the Bush Administration is so inept that it lied about the reasons for military action. Increasingly, it appears that the main reason GW Bush wanted to oust Saddam Hussein was to settle the Bush family vendetta against the man what tried to kill his daddy.

Powell: Iraq Evidence May Have Been Wrong
BY BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell has conceded that evidence he presented to the United Nations that two trailers in Iraq were used for weapons of mass destruction may have been wrong.

In an airborne news conference on the way home from NATO talks in Brussels, Belgium, Powell said Friday he had been given solid information about the trailers that he told the Security Council in February 2003 were designed for making biological weapons. But now, Powell said, "it appears not to be the case that it was that solid."

He said he hoped the intelligence commission appointed by President Bush to investigate prewar intelligence on Iraq "will look into these matters to see whether or not the intelligence agency had a basis for the confidence that they placed in the intelligence at that time."

Powell's dramatic case to the Security Council that Iraq had secret arsenals of weapons of mass destruction failed to persuade the council to directly back the U.S.-led war that deposed the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. But it helped mobilize sentiment among the American people for going to war.

As it turned out, U.N. inspectors were unable to uncover the weapons, but administration officials have insisted they still might be uncovered.

David Kay, who led the hunt for the weapons, showed off a pair of trailers for news cameras last summer and argued that the two metal flatbeds were designed for making biological weapons.

But faced with mounting challenges to that theory, Kay conceded in October he could have been wrong. He said he did not know whether Iraq ever had a mobile weapons program.

Powell told reporters that as he worked on the Bush administration's case against Iraq U.S. intelligence "indicated to me" that the intelligence was solid.

"I'm not the intelligence community, but I probed and I made sure, as I said in my presentation, these are multi-sourced" allegations, Powell said.

The trailers were the most dramatic claims, "and I made sure that it was multi-sourced," he said.

"Now, if the sources fell apart we need to find out how we've gotten ourselves in that position," he said.

"I have discussions with the CIA about it," Powell said, without providing further details.

The trailers were the only discovery the administration had cited as evidence of an illicit Iraqi weapons program.

In six months of searches, no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons were found to bolster the administration's central case for going to war: to disarm Saddam of suspected weapons of mass destruction.

 

[BO-DEN]

Bo-den- I agree with the rest of what you say tho about arguing about things you know nothing about and they're trying to keep the hens laying eggs... it is just when it comes down to it, I woud rather have someone that is ready to pull the trigger than some waffling pansy...

i agree with you , i think our leader needs to be a warrior leader in thies times but...

A- i want someone thats gunna aim at the real enemy and not have the gun backfire leaving us with the bloody hands... then he retires (with full benifits,4 mansions,full salery till he dies.. playing golf with dad) and lets my childrens generation pick up the peices.


B-i think we need to rethink our system for intellegence because we have dropped the ball twice in that area in the last 3 years and together both cost us about 3,700 american lives. (the intellegence should be saving us american lives. its why we pay through the nose in this country so we can at least THINK we are safe)

(IMO)
i dont want a pansy behind the wheel of this country but blind fury is just as dangerouse as impetence in this situation.

(EXAMPLE OF BLIND FURY)

BO-DEN

 

[HUCKLEBERRY FINNaplex]

Our government is like a nightmare you can't wake up from that just keeps getting worse and worse by the moment.I never thought I'd see the day when I was ready to move to a different country from being so tired of the relentless bullshit,lies,and special interest agendae.

 

[WODIN]

Our government is like a nightmare you can't wake up from that just keeps getting worse and worse by the moment.I never thought I'd see the day when I was ready to move to a different country from being so tired of the relentless bullshit,lies,and special interest agendae.

It's survivor with nukes.

 

[BO-DEN]

It's survivor with nukes.

brilliant.

 

[The Wenis]

If such technology was cheap, then why would the companies not implement this? Would a full size SUV that could get 30 miles to the gallon NOT sell? What it will definately do is raise the costs of cars, which will decrease the demand for cars, which will reduce profit of the car companies, which will cause job cuts, etc

hybrid technology is here now. when it was intro'd 7-9 years ago it doubled the price of a car. it has currently advanced to a stage where it adds 2-3 thousand to the manufacturing cost of a vehicle. car manufacturers don't want to spend the extra $ and congress has failed to put any meaningful increased cafe legislation on the table. why? because those same car manufacturers grease congressional pockets to keep the standards lower than what is possible and reasonable.
and surely you don't believe demand for cars in this nation will ever decrease. americans love cars too much to ever switch to mass transit.

 

[atlantabiolab]

hybrid technology is here now. when it was intro'd 7-9 years ago it doubled the price of a car. it has currently advanced to a stage where it adds 2-3 thousand to the manufacturing cost of a vehicle. car manufacturers don't want to spend the extra $ and congress has failed to put any meaningful increased cafe legislation on the table. why? because those same car manufacturers grease congressional pockets to keep the standards lower than what is possible and reasonable.

Why would they pressure government to prevent such legislation if as you claim the demand for cars will not diminish? If I can add costs into a product yet still recoup my costs, then what would preclude me from doing this, especially if it is in demand?

and surely you don't believe demand for cars in this nation will ever decrease. americans love cars too much to ever switch to mass transit.

The demand for hybrid cars is not that great, thus the companies are not pushing hybrid designs hard. You state that the car manufacturers don't want to spend the extra money...do you think that the consumers should have to pay the extra costs when they don't have to? Is it OK to force consumers to pay extra for something they don't want?