Stephen F. Kislock, III – 9/9/04

This page was last updated on September 25, 2004.

Try telling the truth; Stephen F. Kislock, III; Beaver County Times; September 9, 2004.

This is just the latest Kislock rant against President Bush since 2002. As in previous letters, Mr. Kislock doesn’t mind “fudging” his “facts” here and there.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“The truth of the matter is that in 300 words, I cannot tell all the distortions of George W. Bush.”

[RWC] Based on the content of his letter, I’m not sure Mr. Kislock and truth are on speaking terms.

“What I have is a question. Where are the weapons of mass destruction that President George W. Bush took this once-great nation to war for?”

[RWC] I almost can’t believe there are still some people on the “Bush lied about WMD” kick. Democrats and Republicans alike in both the Clinton and Bush administrations believed WMD existed in Iraq. So did the intelligence services of every major country. So did the U.N. Security Council by unanimous vote. Every investigation – both foreign and domestic – of the intelligence cleared decision makers like President Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of distorting the intelligence they were provided.

“Once great?” I’m sorry Mr. Kislock no longer believes the United States is great.

“Since the ‘evil doer’ Saddam Hussein has been captured, how many American soldiers have been killed?”

[RWC] I believe the number is approximately 800 – approximately 75% in combat – but I don’t understand the point Mr. Kislock is trying to make. Did he expect everyone else in Iraq to give up when we captured Hussein? Did he believe Hussein wannabes wouldn’t try to fill in the vacuum?

“The truth shall set you free: Where is Osama bin Laden? Why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia, where all but three of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers came from?”

[RWC] “Where is Osama bin Laden” is a good question, but what has that to do with “The truth shall set you free?” Approximately 20,000 U.S.-led troops remain in Afghanistan to track down members of the Taliban and al-Qaida, including bin Laden. Pakistan forces are working their side of the border in the same mission.

Perhaps the distinction is lost on Mr. Kislock, but while most of the hijackers were Saudis, they were not agents of Saudi Arabia and they were not acting on the behalf of the Saudi government. Indeed, al-Qaida has an active campaign against Saudi Arabia.

“Why did the rose petals that were supposed to be to thrown at the American forces liberating the Iraqi people become improvised explosive devices?”

[RWC] For the record, a lot of Iraqis did throw flowers, but that’s not the point of my response.

The “flower-throwing population” was a convenient myth dreamed up by some folks so they could use it as a bashing tool. It’s like putting words in another person’s mouth and then calling him a liar for those words. For example, in a previous letter Mr. Kislock tried the disproved “Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat” tactic. When you listen to returning servicemen and servicewomen, they report the vast majority of Iraqis support the removal of Saddam Hussein. So do independent polls of Iraqis. The “people” attacking coalition and Iraqi forces are those who supported Hussein, foreign terrorists, and others determined not to allow a democracy to take root in their heartland.

“What are 1,000 American deaths in Iraq?”

[RWC] What are approximately 3,000 dead civilians in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC, and the hundreds – perhaps thousands – of victims overseas we incurred since the 1970s? I don’t like anyone dying because of evil, but I believe we are better off fighting terrorism in its heartland instead of in our heartland.

“Weapons of mass destruction? In the Bush administration, allocations of zero dollars in 2003 went for U.S. port security even though 95 percent of foreign goods comes in by sea. Why?”

[RWC] The U.S. Conference of Mayors report Mr. Kislock cites below indicates $245 million were allocated to the Port Security Grant Program.

“According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors 2004, the Bush administration has yet to give any money to first-response units in 76 percent of 215 American cities. Why?”

[RWC] What Mr. Kislock didn’t say was that the U.S. Conference of Mayors report (Second Mayors’ Report to the Nation: Tracking Homeland Security Funds Sent to the 50 State Governments) cited the states as the logjam. The appropriate federal funding had been dispersed to the states, but the states were slow to disperse it to the cities. Why did Mr. Kislock fail to note that significant detail?

“Our children are our future. In January 2001, they had a $5.6 trillion surplus to look forward to. Instead, the national debt as of mid-2004 is $7.22 trillion. Why?”

[RWC] Does Mr. Kislock make up his figures? According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the federal debt, not a surplus, as of September 30, 2001, was $5.8 trillion. The reason I cited the debt as of 9/30/01 is that we operated under President Clinton’s last budget until October 1^st, the beginning of the federal fiscal year. When President Clinton took office, the debt was $4.4 trillion and increased in every one of his budgets. I don’t like debts or deficits either, but I don’t make up numbers to support my case.

“As in all Third World countries, 40 percent of the wealth in America is held by 1 percent of the population. President George W. Bush in 2003 saved $30,858 in taxes.”

[RWC] The United States is a third world country? Assuming the figures are correct, so what? Does Mr. Kislock believe everyone should have an equal cut of the pie regardless of effort, talent, or even good luck, as a good Marxist would? Does Mr. Kislock believe wealth concentration is a new phenomenon brought on by President Bush?

What Mr. Kislock omitted was that the top 5% of taxpayers – those persons making more than $128,000/year – pay over 53% of income taxes! The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay only 3.9%. Please explain to me why the group paying the majority of taxes shouldn’t get a piece of tax cuts. Mr. Kislock also didn’t note the relative income tax burden of the wealthy actually increased because of the Bush tax cuts. That is, as a percentage of income taxes paid, the wealthy bear a larger share now than they did before the Bush tax cuts.

President Bush got a tax cut because everyone got cuts. Though Mr. Kislock was happy to mention President Bush’s alleged tax saving, he “forgot” to mention that President Bush still paid $227,490 in federal income taxes and contributed $68,360 to churches and other charitable organizations. Why would Mr. Kislock fail to present these relevant details?

“We have Enron and the $60 billion lost to the stockholders. Why isn’t Ken Lay in jail?”

[RWC] President Bush is somehow responsible for the Enron scandal? The Enron misbehavior, and that of the other major accounting scandals, took place primarily during the Clinton administration. That said, I don’t blame the Clinton administration either. The criminals are to blame. Let’s remember that it was during the Bush administration that indictments were brought against these crooks. In the case of Enron, everyone has been indicted, including Lay, and some have already been convicted. The prosecutors are using the strategy of working their way up from the bottom, getting the guys lower down the “totem pole” to “flip” on their superiors.

“The truth, I am happy to say, is that Graydon Carter of Independent News was the source for this letter and the seven pages of ‘Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards.’”

[RWC] I have to admit, I don’t know many persons who would admit their data source was Graydon Carter, editor of Vanity Fair. This explains a lot of the discrepancies I noted above.

Graydon Carter doesn’t work for Independent.co.uk – a United Kingdom web site – as Mr. Kislock wrote. As I noted, Carter is editor of Vanity Fair. The column Mr. Kislock cited was merely an excerpt from a book Carter wrote, What We’ve Lost.

Here is how the column’s “About the author” section describes Carter. “It is hard to imagine Carter doing physical work of any kind, beyond exercising his thumb on his silver Zippo lighter. His labour is restricted to rejigging headlines in his magazine. In recent months he has transformed the regular editor’s letter at the front of the magazine [Vanity Fair] into less of a chat about its coming contents the spreads of Annie Leibowitz and rants of Christopher Hitchens and more a full-bore diatribe against the world of George Bush.” Yeah, Graydon Carter is someone to rely on for factual information in context. Not.

“I will give The Times credit. Most U.S. newspapers hide the numbers of Americans killed in Iraq.”

[RWC] Perhaps Mr. Kislock can give us a list of newspapers that hide these numbers. All of the local newspapers carry these figures on almost a daily basis. That’s also true for radio and TV newscasts.