Jack Kelly's doing it again

Something about rightwing nutbags, they can't seem to grasp that reality is far more complicated than the typical "Conservatives are good. Liberals are bad." meme.

Take a look at Commando Kelly's column today. He does his usual song and dance about how the Democrats would screw up everything if they were in charge (yea, like the Republicans are doing such a wonderful job!) with a series of criticisms of a newly released Democratic plan called "Real Security." It can be found here, by the way. There' s no reason for you to trust what Jack Kelly says about it.

Here's one of his criticisms about the plan for Defense Spending:

This would be a welcome change from past Democratic practice. A majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress voted against the B-2 bomber, the Patriot missile, the M-1 tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, ballistic missile defense and virtually every other weapon system that brought us victory in the Cold War, the Gulf war and the march on Baghdad.

I think we might need to flesh this one out a bit. Pop quiz! Who said this at a State of the Union address?

After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down production of the B-2 bomber.

I'll give you a hint. It was the Dubya's dad. In January of 1991.

As for the rest of it, it's almost worthless as evidence for anything. Kelly's phrasing ("A majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress voted against...") is so open ended that it's impossible to tell exactly what he's talking about. When was this vote? Were they multiple votes over many Congresses or just one? Of course, he doesn't say.

For instance, the Bradley fighting vehicle entered service in 1981. How many votes were there for its initial and then continued funding? What bills were they in? What were the reasons for the votes? Of course, Jack Kelly doesn't say. He's just hoping you won't bother to check. He's betting that you agree with him that liberals are bad and conservatives are good.

There are some other flat out lies in today's column. Take a look at this:

Since eliminating Osama bin Laden isn't exactly a radical departure from the policy President Bush is pursuing, Democratic stress on this objective suggests they think they could be more successful in obtaining it than the president so far has been. But the Democratic "plan" provides no hint of what Democrats would do differently to catch bin Laden.

Perhaps what Democrats have in mind is to build a time machine, and go back to February 1996, when Sudan, where bin Laden was then residing, offered to turn him over to the United States, and the Clinton administration refused to take him. Where's H.G. Wells when you need him?

Let's ponder for a moment Dubya's own flip flop on Osama Bin Laden. Initially he said he wanted bin Laden, "dead or alive." Then there's this press conference from March of 2002 in which Dubya sed:

Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

So which is it? Does dubya want bin laden dead or alive or what? Which policy is Bush pursuing? Jack Kelly doesn't say.

Then we get to the great myth. It's has been told and retold so many times it's now become common knowledge.

Except that it isn't true. Here it is, in case you missed it:

...Sudan, where bin Laden was then residing, offered to turn him over to the United States, and the Clinton administration refused to take him...

Take a look at what the 9/11 commission wrote. You'll have to go to the bottom of page 3 to read this:

Diplomacy had an effect. In exchanges beginning in February 1996, Sudanese officials began approaching U.S. officials, asking what they could do to ease the pressure. During the winter and spring of 1996, Sudan’s defense minister visited Washington and had a series of meetings with representatives of the U.S. government. To test Sudan’s willingness to cooperate on terrorism the United States presented eight demands to their Sudanese contact. The one that concerned Bin Ladin was a request for intelligence information about Bin Ladin’s contacts in Sudan.

These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.[emphasis added]

And then on the top of page 4:

Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all.

U.S. officials also wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan. They knew the Sudanese were considering it. The U.S. government did not ask Sudan to render him into U.S. custody.

According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy national security adviser, the interagency Counterterrorism and Security Group (CSG) chaired by Richard Clarke had a hypothetical discussion about bringing Bin Ladin to the United States. In that discussion a Justice Department representative reportedly said there was no basis for bringing him to the United States since there was no way to hold him here, absent an indictment. Berger adds that in 1996 he was not aware of any intelligence that said Bin Ladin was responsible for any act against an American citizen. No rendition plan targeting Bin Ladin, who was still perceived as a terrorist financier, was requested by or presented to senior policymakers during 1996.

Yet both Berger and Clarke also said the lack of an indictment made no difference. Instead they said the idea was not worth pursuing because there was no chance that Sudan would ever turn Bin Ladin over to a hostile country. If Sudan had been serious, Clarke said, the United States would have worked something out.

However, the U.S. government did approach other countries hostile to Sudan and Bin Ladin about whether they would take Bin Ladin. One was apparently interested. No handover took place.

Under pressure to leave, Bin Ladin worked with the Sudanese government to procure safe passage and possibly funding for his departure. In May 1996, Bin Ladin and his associates leased an Ariana Airlines jet and traveled to Afghanistan, stopping to refuel in the United Arab Emirates. Approximately two days after his departure, the Sudanese informed the U.S. government that Bin Ladin had left. It is unclear whether any U.S. officials considered whether or how to intercept Bin Ladin.

Interesting detail about the United Arab Emirates, huh?

So there's no evidence of any offer from the Sudanese government to turn bin Laden over to the US. So Jack, how can there be any refusal on the part of the Clinton administration for that offer?

But Jack Kelly asserted both - doesn't he even bother to check his facts?

Nope. He doesn't have to. He's a conservative and they already know that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. And in the words of my good friend Fred Honsberger, why let facts get in the way of a good story?

IMPEACH