Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #2  
    FactCheck.org says that the claims made in this ad are false.

    A new ad claims Republican Sen. George Allen of Virginia "voted against giving our troops" modern body armor. He did no such thing. The ad cites a vote on an appropriations amendment that had nothing whatever to do with body armor.

    The ad also claims troops were sent to Iraq with flak vests "left over from the Vietnam war," another falsehood. The ad actually shows an improved vest that wasn't available until the 1980's.
    http://www.factcheck.org/article438.html
  2. #3  
    Another load of leftist macacca.
  3. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    FactCheck.org says that the claims made in this ad are false.

    http://www.factcheck.org/article438.html
    When did the truth ever get in the way of someone trying to make a political point?
  4. #7  
    For those who aren't familiar with these groups, FactCheck is a nonpartisan organization run out of the Annenberg Center at the University of Pennsylvania. They're funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation, and they regularly criticize both Republican and Democratic political ads for inaccuracies. They're very good at doing thorough research. And when they make mistakes, they admit it.

    MediaMatters is a strictly partisan group formed to attack anything that sounds conservative. It stands in league with Michael Moore and Joe Wilson.


    MediaMatters repeats the ad's claim that the vest was left over from Vietnam, but they don't mention that that claim was shown to be false by FactCheck nor do they dispute that it was false. Nice.

    It also doesn't dispute that the Landrieu amendment which the ad cited was not about body armor - despite spending one thousand words on the subject. It takes a skilled lawyer to do that.

    It does say:
    But the Republic's criticism -- that Landrieu did not use the words "body armor" in her speech on the legislation -- does not undermine the ad's assertion that Allen voted against legislation that would have increased funding for "helmets" and "bullet-proof inserts," as the press release made clear.
    The ad I saw didn't even make that assertion.


    And finally, it says that Allen voted against the Dodd amendment on October 2, 2003, and quotes Dodd talking about body armor. But it ignores the "Body Armor Timeline" provided by FactCheck:
    October 21, 2003 - At a House subcommittee hearing , Lt. Gen. Richard A. Cody, an Army Deputy Chief of Staff, is asked several times if the Army has enough money to cover the costs of buying Interceptor body armor for all soldiers. Cody repeatedly says "yes."
    And this:
    April, 2005 - The Government Accountability Office reports that the initial shortage of Interceptor body armor resulted from the sudden surge in demand which manufacturers couldn't meet, due to shortages of Kevlar fabric and of a critical material used in ceramic plates. It also faults the Pentagon logistics system, which it says was trying to ship units so fast (sometimes directly from the factory to the troops) that it lost track of thousands of vests and plates.
    (GAO, "Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during Current and Future Operations," April 2005)
    Last edited by samkim; 09/22/2006 at 11:39 AM.
  5. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    For those who aren't familiar with these groups, FactCheck is a nonpartisan organization run out of the Annenberg Center at the University of Pennsylvania. They're funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation, and they regularly criticize both Republican and Democratic political ads for inaccuracies. They're very good at doing thorough research. And when they make mistakes, they admit it.

    MediaMatters is a strictly partisan group formed to attack anything that sounds conservative. It stands in league with Michael Moore and Joe Wilson.


    MediaMatters repeats the ad's claim that the vest was left over from Vietnam, but they don't mention that that claim was shown to be false by FactCheck nor do they dispute that it was false. Nice.

    It also doesn't dispute that the Landrieu amendment which the ad cited was not about body armor - despite spending one thousand words on the subject. It takes a skilled lawyer to do that.

    It does say:The ad I saw didn't even make that assertion.


    And finally, it says that Allen voted against the Dodd amendment on October 2, 2003, and quotes Dodd talking about body armor. But it ignores the "Body Armor Timeline" provided by FactCheck:

    And this:

    Oh my! That sounds like 2004 Republican election ads.

  6. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Oh my! That sounds like 2004 Republican election ads.

    So many of your posts tend to have zero meaning to me.
  7. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    So many of your posts tend to have zero meaning to me.
    Might I recommend the handy ignore feature.
  8. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Might I recommend the handy ignore feature.
    I was just subtly suggesting that you might be more clear what your point is when you post. What exactly about my post reminded you of Republican ads? Was it truthful, logical, clear, unbiased, compelling, and unassailable? If so, I would enjoy your praise more if you were more specific. If not, was there any point that I made that you'd care to dispute?
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I was just subtly suggesting that you might be more clear what your point is when you post. What exactly about my post reminded you of Republican ads? Was it truthful, logical, clear, unbiased, compelling, and unassailable? If so, I would enjoy your praise more if you were more specific. If not, was there any point that I made that you'd care to dispute?

    BAAWWHAAAHAHAHAHA
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  10. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I was just subtly suggesting that you might be more clear what your point is when you post. What exactly about my post reminded you of Republican ads? Was it truthful, logical, clear, unbiased, compelling, and unassailable? If so, I would enjoy your praise more if you were more specific. If not, was there any point that I made that you'd care to dispute?
    I was referencing the mediamatters factcheckers dance of the 2004 election which largely centered around the "swift boat" attack ads.
  11. #14  
    Whatever. I believe it should be unlawful to air/post/publish/distribute/election advertising until all registered voters have received their Election Handbooks.
  12. #15  
    Oh my! That sounds like 2004 Democratic election ads.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I was referencing the mediamatters factcheckers dance of the 2004 election which largely centered around the "swift boat" attack ads.
  13. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man View Post
    Oh my! That sounds like 2004 Democratic election ads.
    Enjoy the election next month.
  14. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Enjoy the election next month.
    Might I recommend the handy ignore feature.

Posting Permissions