"Making Up Numbers"

This came out earlier this week, and has received too little attention. This week the Pentagon again started pushing a story that 61 former detainees from the Guantanamo Bay had "returned to terrorism since their release from custody."

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as "returning to the fight" and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Morrell declined to provide details such as the identity of the former detainees, why and where they were released or what actions they have taken since leaving U.S. custody."This is acts of terrorism. It could be Iraq, Afghanistan, it could be acts of
terrorism around the world," he told reporters.

Morrell said the latest figures, current through December 24, showed an 11 percent recidivism rate, up from 7 percent in a March 2008 report that counted 37 former detainees as suspected or confirmed active militants.

Get that, they would not provide any details such as identity, actions taken, or even an actual number as some of the numbers are just "suspected" of being militants. So at a time when there is a lot of discussion about closing Gitmo Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell (who has had a problem with telling the truth in the past) makes a wild claim, but no real details are given. Th March figures that are refrenced in the news release are themselves up from a 2007 Pentagon claim (also by Geoff Morrell) of 30 former detainees "returning to terror" after their release from Gitmo. The trouble is that claim was firmly debunked by reports from the hard-working Seton Hall School of Law.

Just as the Government's claims that the Guantanamo detainees "were picked up on
the battlefield, fighting American forces, trying to kill American forces," do not comport with the Department of Defense's own data, neither do its claims that former detainees have "returned to the fight." The Department of Defense has publicly insisted that at least thirty (30) former Guantanamo detainees have "returned" to the battlefield, where they have been re-captured or killed. To date, however, the Department has described at most fifteen (15) possible recidivists, and has identified only seven (7) of these individuals by name.

More strikingly, data provided by the Department of Defense reveals that:

- at least eight (8) of the fifteen (15) individuals identified alleged by the Government to have "returned to the fight" are accused of nothing more than speaking critically of the Government's detention policies;

- ten (10) of the individuals have neither been re-captured nor killed by anyone;

- and of the five (5) individuals who are alleged to have been re-captured or killed, two (2) of the individuals' names do not appear on the list of individuals who have at
any time been detained at Guantanamo, and the remaining three (3) include one
(1) individual who was killed in an apartment complex in Russia by local authorities and one (1) who is not listed among former Guantanamo detainees but who, after his death, has been alleged to have been detained under a different name.

Seton Hall's studies also found that a bare 55% of Gitmo detainess had ever taken up arms against the US and only 8% were suspected of being members of Al Qaida. The vast bulk of Gitmo detainees had been turned in by local warlords for bounty payments with no US witnesses to their alleged involvement in terrorism at all. No wonder their recidivist rate is so low, at a Pentagon figure of 11%. That compares with "an estimated 67.5%" in the general prison population.

Now Seton Hall has released a new report which examinins the Pentagon's dubious claims and overhyped allegations. The report is entitled Propaganda by the Numbers. Their press release states:

Professor Denbeaux of the Center for Policy & Research has said that the
Center has determined that “DOD has issued “recidivism” numbers 43 times, and
each time they have been wrong—this last time the most egregiously so.”

Denbeaux stated: “Once again, they’ve failed to identify names, numbers, dates, times, places, or acts upon which their report relies. Every time they have been required to identify the parties, they have been forced to retract their false ID’s and their numbers. They have included people who have never even set foot in Guantanamo —much less were they released from there. They have counted people
as “returning to the fight” for having written an Op-ed piece in the New York Times and for having appeared in a documentary exhibited at the Cannes Film Festival. They have revised and retracted their internally conflicting definitions, criteria, and their numbers so often that they have ceased to have any meaning— except as an effort to sway public opinion by painting a false portrait of the supposed dangers of these men.

Fourty-three times they have given numbers—which conflict with each other—all of which are seriously undercut by the DOD statement that “they do not track” former detainees. Rather than making up numbers “willy-nilly” about post release conduct, America might be better served if our government actually kept track of them.”

The study notes that the Pentagon keeps hedging the numbers they use:

Eighty-two percent (82%) of the publicly made claims catalogued in the Appendix
of this report contain qualifying language, including terms such as: “at least”;
“somewhere on the order of”; “approximately”; “around”; “just short of”; “we
believe”; “estimated”; “roughly”; “more than”; “a couple”; “a few”; “some”;
“several”; and “about.”

Why? Because the Department of Defense "does not keep track of released detainees nor does it follow their post release conduct". It makes these claims up from data collected which might show Gitmo detainee involvement but having previously claimed as recidivists men who were never in Gitmo in the first place and someone whose only terrorist act after release was to pen an op-ed for the new York Times it's amazing that the mainstream takes them seriously.

Rachel Maddow interviewed Mark Denbeaux of the Seton Hall School of Law.who has rese about the Torture and Prisoners and this "Returning to the Battle Field" story:

LibertyAir Blog

Media Matters' 2008 Misinformer of the Year

Media Matters has named it's 2008 Misinformer of the Year, and this year it is Sean Hannerty. Honestly I think this was a runaway this year. Sean Hannerty has been pushing a line of BS this year about Barack Obama, and his aquaintences that was head and shoulders above what anyone else has done this year.

Because of the unending stream of falsehoods and character attacks that fueled the "Stop Obama Express," and the countless other distortions he promoted throughout 2008, Sean Hannity is Media Matters for America's Misinformer of the Year.

Media Matters has demonstrated time and again Sean Hannity of Fox News has been a dominant and inexhaustible outlet for every type of rightwing, nutball, conservative propaganda. Never before has he so enthusiastically applied his talents for spreading lies, half truths, fabrications, and innuendo as he did to the 2008 presidential race, focusing his energies primarily on President-elect Barack Obama.

Relentlessly, Hannity devoted his Fox News shows and his three-hour ABC Radio Networks program to "demonizing" the Democratic presidential candidates.

He was pretty open about it to, as he explaining in August:
"That's my job. ... I led the 'Stop Hillary Express.' By the way, now it's the 'Stop Obama Express.' "

Hannity's "Stop Obama Express" promoted and overstated and inflated a vast array of misleading attacks and bogus claims about Barack Obama. He uncritically adopted and pushed countless Republican talking points and rightwing smears. He played host to numerous credibility-challenged smear artists who painted Obama as a dangerous radical. When he was not going after Obama, Hannity attacked members of Obama's family, as well as Senator Hillary Clinton and other progressives, and denied all the while that he had unfairly attacked anyone.

Hannity's attacks have at times influenced mainstream media coverage. ABC News' George Stephanopoulos appeared on Hannity's radio program on April 15, during which Hannity suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama at the Democratic presidential debate the following evening about his "association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground." Stephanopoulos assured Hannity that he was "taking notes right now." Stephanopoulos then did ask Obama at the debate to "explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem," though he later denied that Hannity had exerted any influence on his questioning.

The Myth of Auto Worker Wages

To Bailout or Not To Bailout.

That is the question of the moment for the U.S. automotive industry.

If you have been following this debate you have probably noticed the growing conservative storyline which is blaming the Big Three's workers for the companies' financial difficulties. Since this is coming from the Wingnut Right, it is of course untrue, and what it really is, is pretty blatant union bashing.

The myth being put forward is that U.S. auto workers make $73 an hour, where as the average hourly cost per worker is only $28.48.

Today while listening to Stephanie Miller, I heard someone explain that this is a lie, and that someone used hinky math to come up with the $73 figure, and now we have conservative talking heads parroting the figure over and over, with no clue how it was established. Based on what I had heard I did a quick Google Search and found a great explanation as to how and why the conservatives are lying.

What I found was an article by Jonathan Cohn who did a really good job explaining why these conservative talking points are a total lie.

Let's start with the fact that it's not $70 per hour in wages. According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research -- who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read -- average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income -- hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers. [...]

[T]hen what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits -- namely, health insurance and pensions -- and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages -- again, $24 per hour -- and you get the $70 figure. Voila.

Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that -- probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees -- in other words, the cost of benefits for other people. [...]

Make no mistake: The argument over a proposed rescue package is complicated, in no small part because over the years both management and labor made some truly awful decisions while postponing the inevitable reckoning with economic reality. And even if the government does provide money, it's a tough call whether restructuring should proceed with or without a formal bankruptcy filing. Either way, yet more downsizing is inevitable.

But the next time you hear somebody say the unions have to make serious salary and benefit concessions, keep in mind that they already have -- enough to keep the companies competitive, if only they can survive this crisis.

Report Negative Mailings and Phone Calls

Barack Obama and his campaign are not sitting idally by as John McCain and his allies lie and smear. They need the help of all of us though. If you get one of McCain's sleazy robcalls, let the Obama campaign know.

From the Obama campaign:

The McCain campaign has orchestrated a vicious “robocall” and direct mail smear
campaign against Barack.

Fight the Smears is an online resource to help correct the record. More frequently now, Fight the Smears addresses the baseless accusations from John McCain’s 100% negative campaign.

You can help fight back by reporting one or more of the smears they are spreading.

Report smear literature -- Create a digital copy

There are three ways to create a copy. Once the copy is created, upload it using the form to the right.

If you have a computer scanner, you can scan the mail piece to create a digital copy on your computer. Then upload the file using the form to the right.

Go to a nearby print shop to scan the mailing. They should be able to email you the digital versions of the mailings or put them on a CD or USB drive.

The UPS Store, FedEx, or any major office supplies store should be able to create a digital copy.

Take a picture with a digital camera.

Set your camera to its highest quality setting and take the photo in good lighting -- preferably outside in the daytime or with a flash.

Notify the campaign of "Robocall" smears

If you can create a recording of the automated phone call on your computer in .mp3 format, you can upload it directly using the form to the right.

If you have a recording of the negative phone call (on an answering machine or other device), you can report the call over the phone. Call 312-506-8685 and then replay the attack message into the receiver of the phone.

Before you play the message into the phone, be sure to clearly state your name, location and phone number so that the campaign can reach you with any questions.

Count the Lies 157

I had not gone back to this site in awhile, and boy did the number of lies that John McCain has said jump up. 157 lies have been fact checked and proven false.

Count the Lies here.

How Far Has McCain Fallen

The Huffington Post is reporting that John McCain has resorted to using the same Robocall firm that helped to smear him in the 2000 primary race. I ask in all honesty, how low will John McCain go to win the Presidency?

From the Huffington Post:

In his efforts to attack Barack Obama, John McCain appears to have turned to the same political consulting firm that was responsible for spreading vicious smears about the Senator during the 2000 South Carolina GOP primary.

In recent days, the Huffington Post and other outlets have reported on the McCain-funded nationwide robocall campaign charging that Barack Obama "worked closely with" former 60s radical William Ayers. Another RNC/McCain campaign call states that Obama is a "celebrity" politician who was fundraising in Hollywood during the financial crisis.

Once John McCain railed against the practice of using robocalls, calling them "hate calls" and he complained loudly that voters were "inundated" by them. And this was not just back in 2000, no this was also this year. As recently as nine months ago, John McCain and his campaign "were decrying a series of negative robo-calls that were being made to voters before the South Carolina primary accusing him of voting to 'use unborn babies in medical research."

"The tactic - people do phone calls, and they have a political effect when there's unknown quantities about the candidate,'' [senior McCain adviser Steve] Schmidt said back then, as the bus rolled through South Carolina. "So if you look at it eight years ago, John McCain had won the New Hampshire primary, comes down here where he was nowhere nearas widely known as he his today by the people of South Carolina on the issues."

Guess times change, because now the McCain campaign is using similar calls as it seeks to discredit Mr. Obama in a series of battleground states. Tucker Bounds, a McCain campaign spokesman, defended the calls, saying, "These calls are based on hard facts." Of course the McCain campaign is never able to substantiate these "facts" and independent groups have thoroughly debunked the crap McCain is peddling.

I question again, how low will John McCain go to win the Presidency?

McCain Tries To Blame Financial Crisis On Democratic Takeover Of Congress In 2007

In an interview with right-wing radio host Michael Medved this past Friday, John McCain agreed with Medved’s assertion that “the economy was really progressing pretty well under most of President Bush’s term” before Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007:

MEDVED: Let me ask you one other thing senator, which again, I think is on the minds of lots and lots of our listeners. The economy was really progressing pretty well under most of President Bush’s term. Then the Democrats took over in Congress in 2007 and now we’re in this horrible crisis. Coincidence?

MCCAIN: No, it isn’t.

McCain went on to place the blame for the financial crisis on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, claiming that Democrats “were willing co-conspirators with this game of three-card monty that went on and then it collapsed.”

This claim that “the economy was progressing really well” before Democrats took control of Congress is a joke.

As Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Christian Weller’s economic snapshot from December 2006 shows, the economy was already in rough shape:

Famly Debt Was Rising: By September 2006, household debt rose to an unprecedented 130.9% of disposable income. From March 2001 to September 2006, personal debt relative to disposable income grew each quarter by 1.6 percentage points—almost five times faster than in the 1990s. In the second quarter of 2006, families had to spend 14.4% of their disposable income to service their debt—the largest share since 1980.

The Housing Market Had Slowed: The supply of homes for sale each month averaged 6.9 months of supply for the six months ending in October 2006—the largest supply since 1991.

Savings Had Plummeted: The personal saving rate of -1.3% in the third quarter of 2006 marked the sixth quarter in a row with a negative personal saving rate.

As for John McCain’s claim that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the central cause of the current economic crisis is a total fabrication. McClatchy Newspaper thoroughly debunked this conservative talking point over the weekend, writing that “private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis.” McClatchy Newspaper notes that the “weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages” began in late 2004 while Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate.

1111111

John McCain is Just a Liar

That is all he has left in this campaign; he has no vision of the future, no plan for this crisis. The New York Times documents all the falsehoods in McCain's most recent attack speech. The Times shows that many of McCain's charges relating to the economic meltdown, taxation and health care contained inaccuracies or exaggerations of his own position or Mr. Obama’s.

Sarah Palin's 18 lies Last Night

John Aravosis of Americablog has posted the 18 lies of Sarah Palin from the debate.

SARAH PALIN’S 18 LIES

1. FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC: Palin said “it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures,” but fact checkers say that’s “Quite A Stretch” And “Barely True,” and that McCain was a “latecomer” to the discussion.

2. FUNDAMENTALS ARE STRONG: Palin tried to say “John McCain saying our economy was strong” but McCain has used the phrase “The Fundamentals Of The Economy Are Strong” At Least 16 Times This Year.

3. PARTISAN POLITICS: Palin said McCain is “known for putting partisan politics aside to just get the job done,” but he has voted with Bush 90% of the time in the Senate and bragged about his support for Bush on important issues.

4. TAXES ATTACK: Palin repeated the attack that Obama voted for higher taxes 94 times, which the New York Times says is “false,” CNN says is “Misleading,” and FactCheck.org says is “inflated.”

5. TOBACCO REGULATION: Palin said to “look at the tobacco industry” as an example of McCain pushing for even harder and tougher regulations. But McCain opposed expanding the SCHIP children’s health insurance program for 5.8 million
children because it would increase tobacco taxes.

6. SPENDING INCREASES: Palin said Obama is is proposing “nearly a trillion dollars on new spending,” but didn’t mention that he has also proposed cuts to balance it out, an attack CNN has already debunked as “misleading” and that ignores the far larger cost of McCain’s tax cuts and spending hikes.

7. HEALTH CARE: Palin claimed Obama’s health plan is “government run” which has been widely debunked as a “canard.”

8. HEALTH CARE. Palin says taxes wouldn’t go up under the McCain health care plan, a fact even his own campaign has acknowledged isn’t true.

9. TROOPS: Palin repeated what the AP called the “highly misleading” attack that Obama opposed funding for the troops, and Factcheck.org notes that the same
methodology would lead to the same conclusion for McCain.

10. GLOBAL WARMING: Palin said “I don’t want to argue about the causes” for global warming, when she has clearly taken the position that she doesn’t not believe it is man-made.

11. MCCAIN IS CONSISTENT: Palin said McCain” doesn't tell one thing to one group and then turns around and tells something else to another group,” when that is exactly what he has done on immigration, telling Hispanic leaders he was
for comprehensive reform instead of the enforcement focused approach he has taken with conservatives.

12. MCCLELLAN NOT MCKIERNAN: Palin referred to the US commander in Afghanistan, David McKiernan as “McClellan.”

13. MCKIERNAN ON “SURGE:” Palin said that [McKiernan] did not say a surge wouldn’t work in Afghanistan, when just yesterday he said “The word I don’t use for Afghanistan is ’surge,’ ” McKiernan stressed, saying that what is required is a “sustained commitment” to a counterinsurgency effort that could last many years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution

14. KILLING CIVILIANS. Palin said “Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air raiding villages and killing civilians and such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment again hurts our cause. That's not what we are doing there.” Unfortunately, the Associated Press says that Obama was right in discussing a critically important point about avoiding civilian casualties.

15. TEACHING: Palin said we need to make sure “that education in either one of our agendas, I think, absolute top of the line,” when McCain has repeatedly favored tax cuts for the wealthy over funds for more teachers and class size reduction.

16. PARTISAN APPOINTMENTS: Palin said “You do what I did as governor. And you appoint people regardless of party affiliation. Democrats, independents, Republicans, you walk the walk, don't just talk the talk” when she repeatedly
appointed friends and supporters to positions for which they weren’t qualified.

17. FOCUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE: Palin falsely claimed that she was the first governor to form a climate change subcabinet, when at least 28 states had already taken action.

18. DARFUR DIVESTMENT: Palin claimed that “when I and others” found out that the state had money invested in Sudan that “we called for divestment,” when the reality is that Palin’s appointees worked to kill a Darfur divestment plan.

Count the Lies 78

After last night's debate the count went way up. John McCain is not even trying to be honorable or honest any more.

McCain's Lie Counter.

Count the Lies

McCain still lying.

The McCain Lie Counter is here.

John McCain and the Lying Game

Joe Klein has in my opinion been a total tool of the conservatives. I have often thought he should be the poster child for all that is wrong in the mainstream media. To easily manipulated by conservatives, and way too quick to attack democrats. Something happened though recently, and Klein has started to really go after John McCain for all of his sleaze and lies. You can read his most recent article John McCain and the Lying Game here, but for the money quote check out the end.

John McCain has raised serious questions about whether he has the character to
lead the nation. He has defaced his beloved military code of honor. He has run a
dirty campaign.

Lie Counter at 56

McCain's Lie Counter Rolls On


Brought to you by LibertyAirBlog

Tax and Spend Palin Lies about Obama Tax Cuts

If the media is paying attention, Sarah Palin's tax record is pretty clear. A real and honest look at Palin's record tells a story of raising taxes and run away spending. And since that's not enough for the rugged individuals of Alaska, gobbling federal tax money at a rate higher than any other state in the union.

With a record like hers, it's no wonder she's lying yet again and distorting the Obama tax cuts for most Americans.

As if it couldn't support itself, Alaska ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.

Under the state constitution, the governor of Alaska has unusually strong powers to shape the state budget. At the Republican National Convention, Palin bragged that she had vetoed "nearly $500 million" in state spending during her two years as governor. This amounts to less than 2% of the proposed budget. That's how much this warrior for you (the people) against it (the government) could find in wasteful spending under her control.

Lie Counter at 55

McCain's Lie Counter Rolls On

Brought to you by LibertyAirBlog

More on McCain's Dishonor

You know things have turned in the campaign when Richard Cohen, who has been one of John McCain's biggest fans, has now turned on McCain because of his lies:

McCain has turned ugly. His dishonesty would be unacceptable in any politician, but McCain has always set his own bar higher than most. He has contempt for most of his colleagues for that very reason: They lie. He tells the truth. He internalizes the code of the McCains -- his grandfather, his father: both admirals of the shining sea. He serves his country differently, that's all -- but just as honorably. No more, though.

I am one of the journalists accused over the years of being in the tank for McCain. Guilty. Those doing the accusing usually attributed my feelings to McCain being accessible. This is the journalist-as-puppy school of thought: Give us a treat, and we will leap into a politician's lap.

Not so. What impressed me most about McCain was the effect he had on his audiences, particularly young people. When he talked about service to a cause greater than oneself, he struck a chord. He expressed his message in words, but he packaged it in the McCain story -- that man, beaten to a pulp, who chose honor over freedom. This had nothing to do with access. It had to do with integrity.

McCain has soiled all that. His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir -- the person in whose hands he would leave the country -- is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not.

Palin-McCain Bridge to... Somewhere?

Let's hope that McCain's free ride on the Double-Talk Express may be at an end. Great stuff from Tom Toles.