Desperate Dems Return To False Social Security Attacks

DESPERATE DEMS RETURN TO FALSE SOCIAL SECURITY ATTACKS
President Has A Plan; Kerry Only Has Same, Tired Scare Tactics
___________________________________________________________________

“You remember what happened in the campaign in 2000? They said, if George W. gets elected, they’re going to take away the checks of the seniors on Social Security. … [I]t didn’t happen. So when they try and say it again in 2004, don’t believe them.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Lehigh Parkway, Allentown, Pennsylvania, 10/1/04)

Late Sen. Moynihan: “Privatization” Is “Scare Word.” MOYNIHAN: “Let me just answer that. This is not privatization. The same Social Security provisions that are in existence today will continue. We will add a provision that is the same – almost identical to that which federal employees including the three of us – I’m not – I just don’t want, because I’m not in politics, I want to say that’s not a proper characterization. That’s a scare word.” (Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), Press Conference, 5/4/00)

Representative Charles Stenholm (D-TX) Said Calling Personal Accounts “Privatization” Is “Less Than Honest.” “I happen to be an individual very supportive of personal accounts. To those that continue to use the word privatization, that’s less than honest a description of what we’re talking about.” (Ways And Means Subcommittee On Social Security, U.S. House Of Representatives, Hearing, 3/6/02)

Cost Of Doing Nothing: $10 Trillion. Sen. Kerry does not address the $10 trillion funding gap in Social Security. “[T]he remaining long run financing gap that program reforms must ultimately close is $10.4 trillion in present value.”(Social Security Administration Website, “2004 OASDI Trustees Report,” http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/IV_LRest.html#wp239829 , Accessed 10/18/04)

John Kerry’s Plan: “Ignore It And Hope The Problem Will Go Away.” “Sen. John Kerry has said he won’t consider personal investment accounts, raising the retirement age or cutting benefits. So far, his answer has been to talk about the need for economic growth. In other words, ignore it and hope the problem will go away.” (Matt Moore, Op-Ed, “SOCIAL SECURITY: Bush’s Reform Plan Bests His Opponent’s No-Plan Approach,” St. Louis Post Dispatch, 10/17/04)

“Kerry Has Not Laid Out A Clear Path To Solvency For Social Security And Medicare.”(Janet Hook, “Major Fiscal Worries Not On Anyone’s Agenda,” Los Angeles Times, 7/27/04)

Magazine Said “No Serious Economist” Believes Kerry Solution Will Work. “In 1996, Senator Kerry argued that America needed to consider bold options in pensions reform, including raising the retirement age and means-testing pension benefits. Now he rejects that position, claiming economic growth will fix America’s pension problem. … No serious economist believes such a blasé approach will work.”(“The Problem With Kerrynomics,” The Economist, 5/1/04)

President Bush Promises “No Changes In Benefits For Current Retirees And Near-Retirees.”(Bush-Cheney ‘04 Website, “A Plan For Promoting An Era Of Ownership,” www.georgebush.com, Accessed 10/18/04)

President Bush Has Plan For Personal Retirement Accounts For Younger Workers. “Voluntary personal retirement accounts for younger workers … would give workers ownership, control, and the opportunity to use their Social Security payroll taxes to build a nest egg for retirement that can be passed on to their families.”(Bush-Cheney ‘04 Website, “A Plan For Promoting An Era Of Ownership,” www.georgebush.com, Accessed 10/18/04)

President Bush Promises “No Increases In The Social Security Payroll Tax.”(Bush-Cheney ‘04 Website, “A Plan For Promoting An Era Of Ownership,” www.georgebush.com, Accessed 10/18/04)

The lie in the NY Slimes magazine comes from Susskind, who is a Woosey Girly boy liar about GW, who pretends to be a great writer.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005628.php

January 12, 2004
Lid Blown Off O'Neill/Suskind Hoax

Laurie Mylroie sent out an email about Paul O'Neill's appearance on 60 Minutes last night; she notes what appears to be a major error in Ron Suskind's book, which casts doubt on the credibility of both Suskind and O'Neill. Here is the key portion of Mylroie's email:

"In his appearance this evening on '60 Minutes,' Ron Suskind, author of The Price of Loyalty, based to a large extent on information from former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, made an astonishing, very serious misstatement.

"Suskind claimed he has documents showing that preparations for the Iraq war were well underway before 9-11. He cited--and even showed--what he said was a Pentagon document, entitled, 'Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield Contracts.' He claimed the document was about planning for post-war Iraq oil (CBS's promotional news story also contained that claim).

"But that is not a Pentagon document. It's from the Vice-President's Office. It was part of the Energy Project that was the focus of Dick Cheney's attention before the 9/11 strikes.

"And the document has nothing to do with post-war Iraq. It was part of a study of global oil supplies. Judicial Watch obtained it in a law suit and posted it, along with related documents, on its website at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml Indeed, when this story first broke yesterday, the Drudge Report had the Judicial Watch document linked (no one at CBS News saw that, so they could correct the error, when the show aired?)"

What Mylroie says about the "Foreign Suitors" document is correct. The Judicial Watch link still works as of this morning, and as you can easily see, the document, dated March 5, 2001, has nothing to do with post-war planning. It is merely a list of existing and proposed "Iraqi Oil & Gas Projects" as of that date. And it includes projects in Iraq by countries that obviously would not have been part of any "post-war" plans of the Bush administration, such as, for example, Vietnam.

So Suskind (and apparently O'Neill) misrepresented this document, which appears to be a significant part of their case, given that Suskind displayed in on 60 Minutes. It would not be possible for anyone operating in good faith to represent the document as Suskind did.

But the truth is even worse than Mylroie pointed out in her email. The CBS promo linked to above says that this document "includes a map of potential areas for exploration. 'It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,' says Suskind. 'On oil in Iraq.'"

True enough; there is a "map of potential areas for exploration" in Iraq here. But what Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind don't tell you is that the very same set of documents that contain the Iraq map and the list of Iraqi oil projects contain the same maps and similar lists of projects for the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia! When documents are produced in litigation (in this case, the Judicial Watch lawsuit relating to Cheney's energy task force), they are numbered sequentially. The two-page "Iraqi Oil Suitors" document that Suskind breathlessly touts is numbered DOC044-0006 through DOC044-0007. The Iraq oil map comes right before the list of Iraqi projects; it is numbered DOC044-0005.

DOC044-0001 is a map of oil fields in the United Arab Emirates. DOC044-0002 is a list of oil and gas development projects then going on in the United Arab Emirates. DOC044-0003 is a map of oil fields in Saudi Arabia. DOC044-0004 is a list of oil and gas projects in Saudi Arabia. So the "smoking gun" documents that Suskind and O'Neill claim prove that the administration was planning to invade Iraq in March 2001 are part of a package that includes identical documents relating to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Does Paul O'Neill claim the administration was planning on invading them, too? Or, as Mylroie says, was this merely part of the administration's analysis of sources of energy in the 21st century?

There is only one possible conclusion: Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind are attempting to perpetrate a massive hoax on the American people.

UPDATE: Paul Krugman is ecstatic about O'Neill's allegations, and views them as vindicating his three years of over-the-top Bush hatred. Needless to say, Krugman has nothing to say about O'Neill's and Suskind's fraudulent misrepresentation of the documents on which their claims are based. The battle is joined: the New York Times propagates lies, the blogosphere points out undeniable facts that are inconvenient for the left. Spread the word.

FURTHER UPDATE: Judicial Watch notes that these documents originated in the Commerce Department, not Vice-President Cheney's office, but were turned over to Judicial Watch in connection with that organization's lawsuit against Cheney relating to the Vice-President's energy task force. This, of course, has no bearing on the point we make about Suskind and O'Neill's fraudulent use of these documents, which relate generically to world energy supplies and had nothing to do with a purported plan to invade (or reconstruct) Iraq. Indeed, the documents' origin in the Commerce Department underlines the absurdity of Suskind's and CBS's claim that they demonstrate the existence of a scheme to invade Iraq.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.