AP Fact Check: GOP Candidates Were ‘Out of Their Comfort Zone’ During the Debate
- Posted on November 14, 2011 at 7:04am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Editor’s Note: The following “fact check” was composed by the Associated Press (not the Blaze). Below, find the inconsistencies the AP claims to have found during this weekend’s GOP debate, and weigh in on the comments if you agree or disagree.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Businessman Herman Cain contradicted himself on torture, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney offered a prescription for challenging China that didn’t add up and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich seemed to forget about crucial help by Pakistani intelligence in running down terrorists.
Factual missteps in the latest Republican presidential debate suggested that on some of the knottiest foreign policy and national security issues of the time, contenders were out of their comfort zone. Several raised the prospect of an eventual war with Iran that the U.S., by any current measure, is ill-prepared to start.
A look at some of those claims Saturday night and how they compare with the facts:
—
ROMNEY on President Barack Obama and Iran: “What he should have done is speak out when dissidents took the streets and say, `America is with you.’ And work on a covert basis to encourage the dissidents.”
GINGRICH: “First of all, as maximum covert operations – to block and disrupt the Iranian (nuclear) program, including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems. All of it covertly, all of it deniable. ”
THE FACTS: It is widely believed that the Obama administration has been covertly attacking the Iranian nuclear program. By definition, covert action is not publicly acknowledged, so criticizing Obama for not doing something that he might very well be doing adds little to the debate. On just one front, there are strong suspicions the Obama administration either unleashed the sophisticated Stuxnet computer worm on Iran’s nuclear program or supported Israel in that effort. The attack infected systems at the Bushehr power plant and set back Iran’s nuclear development.
It is also believed that the administration has provided secret help to Iranian dissidents, even if to little effect so far. Romney, Gingrich and most other contenders do not know what the U.S. is doing, and not doing, covertly. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, as a member of the House intelligence Committee, might. If so, she’s legally barred from talking about it.
—
ROMNEY on China: “On Day One, it’s acknowledging something which everyone knows, they’re a currency manipulator. And on that basis, we also go before the WTO and bring an action against them as a currency manipulator. And that allows us to apply, selectively, tariffs where we believe they are stealing our intellectual property, hacking into our computers, or artificially lowering their prices and killing American jobs. We can’t just sit back and let China run all over us.”
JON HUNTSMAN: “I don’t think, Mitt, you can take China to the WTO on currency-related issues.”
THE FACTS: As Huntsman, former ambassador to China, said, the World Trade Organization has no specified mandate to adjudicate allegations that a country is manipulating its currency to gain an unfair trade advantage. But using currency in a trade dispute hasn’t been tried, so it’s unclear how that might play out in practice.
Even if the international trade panel does take the case, any remedy would come long after Day One. As a highly political case, it would drag out. For example, the U.S. and European Union have been litigating a dispute over alleged subsidies to Boeing and Airbus since 2004, with no resolution in sight.
Nor is it clear how a currency case could address the theft of U.S. intellectual property, an issue unrelated to the price of Chinese exports.
—
CAIN: “I will trust the judgment of our military leaders to determine what is torture and what is not torture. That is the critical consideration.”
CAIN: “I would return to that policy (waterboarding). I don’t see it as torture. I see it as an enhanced interrogation technique.”
THE FACTS: Cain’s conclusion that waterboarding is a legitimate means of interrogation contradicts the judgment of military leaders – and his own statement that he would be guided by them. The Army Field Manual prohibits waterboarding. It was the CIA, with the approval of President George W. Bush’s White House and Justice Department that conducted waterboarding, not the armed forces. As president, Cain could certainly decide that interrogators need not be constrained by the Army Field Manual rules. But if he did so, he would not be letting military leaders determine the tactics.
—
GINGRICH: “We don’t have a reliable intelligence service. We don’t have independent intelligence in places like Pakistan. We rely on our supposed friends for intelligence. They may or may not be our friends. And the amount of information we might or might not have, might or might not be reliable.”
THE FACTS: The U.S. killing of a succession of al-Qaida figures in Pakistan, none more prized by America than Osama bin Laden, demonstrates that the United States indeed gets vital and reliable intelligence out of Pakistan. While it may have been true when Gingrich left government in 1999 that the CIA’s spy network was limited, since 2001 the agency has dramatically expanded its on-the-ground operations worldwide. The CIA station in Islamabad is now one of the most important in the world and officers there are responsible for building sources and helping select targets for the long and successful campaign of drone attacks.
Gingrich is right that Pakistan’s intelligence agency is an often-unreliable U.S. partner and elements of the country’s power structure have supported U.S. terrorist enemies. But as the bin Laden raid shows, the CIA is hardly impotent in its ability to operate alone in Pakistan.
—
ROMNEY: “The president should have built (a) credible threat of military action, and made it very clear that the United States of America is willing, in the final analysis, if necessary, to take military action to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.”
GINGRICH: “Every possible aspect short of war of breaking the regime and bringing it down. And I agree entirely with Governor Romney. If, in the end, despite all of those things, the dictatorship persists, you have to take whatever steps are necessary to break its capacity to have a nuclear weapon.”
CAIN: “I would not entertain military opposition. … We could deploy our ballistic missile defense … warships strategically in that part of the world. We have the biggest fleet of those warships in the world. And we could use them strategically in the event that they were able to fire a ballistic missile.”
THE FACTS: It is an open question whether the U.S., stretched thin by two long wars and a massive debt, is in a position to make a credible threat of war against Iran right now.
As it stands, U.S. plans to put additional forces in the Middle East, including in Kuwait, are part of a military hedge against Iran. So is a program to put missile defense radars and interceptors at sites around Europe and the region. The threat of U.S. attack might become more credible in time, whether from Obama or the next president.
Meantime, Obama, like George W. Bush before him, has not ruled out military action against Iran as a final resort.
The U.S. certainly has military force readily at hand to destroy Iran’s known nuclear development sites in short order. This is highly unlikely, however, because of the strategic calculation that an attack would be counterproductive and ultimately ineffective, spawning retaliation against U.S. allies and forces in the region, and merely delaying eventual nuclear weapons development.
—
GINGRICH: “You’re giving some country $7 billion a year. So you start off – or, or, in the case of Egypt, $3 billion a year. So you start off every year and say, `Here’s your $3 billion, now I‘ll start thinking’? You ought to start off at zero and say, `Explain to me why I should give you a penny.’”
THE FACTS: In supporting Rick Perry’s proposal to make every recipient of U.S. foreign aid justify the money before it is approved, Gingrich exaggerated the amount of aid the U.S. gives to Egypt. The Congressional Research Service says total aid to Egypt is about $1.5 billion annually.
—
BACHMANN: “Now President Obama has made a very fatal decision in Afghanistan. He’s made the decision that by next September, our troops will be withdrawn. ”
THE FACTS: By September 2012, Obama is only planning to withdraw the additional forces he sent in. Once the 33,000 “surge” troops are gone, 68,000 will be left. They are to be pulled out gradually and won’t be gone until the end of 2014, barring some change in the drawdown of troops.
—
RICK PERRY: “This country can sanction the Iranian central bank right now and shut down that country’s economy. And that’s what this president needs to do, and the American people need to stand up and force him to make that stand today.”
THE FACTS: Perry is right that sanctions have stopped short of tough action against Iran’s central bank, which handles the country’s massive oil commerce around the world. The debate moved on without the pros and cons of that step being explored. The option of banning U.S. and European dealings with the bank is being considered by Western powers and their allies, even if it is a stretch to expect such a move would shut Iran’s economy as Perry suggested. The downside risk is significant: Isolating the bank could drive up oil prices and imperil the fragile world economy.
Comments (67)
Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 684 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 647 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 361 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 314 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 174 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 211 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 146 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 174 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
liberal_equals_liar
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:15pmAP has some good liberal spin in these “factcheck” articles. When you start any factual statement with “THE FACTS: It is widely believed that…”, then you need to have your pee-pee slapped hard. How the hell can you have a fact start with liberal belief statements that Obama is somehow really a covert hero? Gee, let me try this – it looks like fun to make stuff up:
THE FACTS: It is widely believed that Obama supports the constitution.
AP Factcheck = FAIL
Report Post »TexasBornTexasProud
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 9:43pmIs it just me or does anyone else find it interesting that Ron Paul made no questionable fact statements?… He just looks better all the time! LOL
Report Post »nobummer12
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:33pmWake up People Ron Paul is the answer.
Report Post »Arshloch
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:27pmLikely because their ‘comfort zone’ does not include being stupid questions by an even stupider media flack. Look in the mirror media vermin!
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:37pmCain Flip Flops
-Pro Choice, now Pro Life
-9-9-9, then 3-3-3, now 9-0-9
-Against marriage amendment, now for it
-Against killing al Awlaki, now for it
-For TARP, now against it
-For releasing terrorists from Gitmo, now against it
-Against Auditing Fed, now for it
-Against having Muslim cabinet members, now for it
-Church attended believes in Social Justice and Jesse Jackson was a speaker quite often
Romney Flip Flops
-For cap n trade, now against it
-Pro Choice, now Pro Life
-Romneycare, now obamacare is wrong
-For Auto Bailouts, then against it
-For campaign spending limits, now against it
-For Tarp and now against it
-Against Captial gains tax cut, now for them
-For stem cell research and now against it
-For Amnesty, now against it
Newt Flip Flops
-For cap n trade, now against it
Report Post »-For mandated health insurance, now against it
-For treating terrorists like criminal, now against it
-For “Cost saving end of life treatments, now against it
-For foreign aid, now against it
-Ignored withdrawal from UN bill as speaker, now for it
-Ignored bill to audit Fed as speaker, now for it
-Supports a North American Union with Canada and Mexico
-Wants to “fundamentally transform the Government”
West Coast Patriot
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 3:04pmHas anyone looked at the polling results of the CBS debate on who won? Here is the link: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57323832/who-won-the-gop-debate-take-our-poll/ check it out before they take it off.
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 12:24pmTo me its amazing that for most of the debate they all just agreed with each other. Ron Paul is the only one with real different answers and they ignored him. The real debate should have been Ron Paul VS the rest. Using the constitution and American principles he would have owned them.
Does Ron Paul look like a president? No not really.
Does Ron Paul sound like a president? No not really.
If those matter, we should do the presidential election like American Idol.
I wish Ron had walked off the stage the other night. 60mins on air, 90 seconds of talk time. He would have made the point he is being ignored.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:26pmOne correction is they were on the stage for 90 minutes. I also noticed The Blaze did not mention Paul in this story. The media blackout is outrageous on Paul. Paul has the best ideas on foriegn policy than any of the other candidates because he approaches the policy based on Constitutional principles. We need to start looking at the Constitution for all our decisions. The reason we are in such bad shape is the fact that we have gotten away from the rule of law and the Constitution. We need someone in office that will actually take their oath to protect and defend the Constitution seriously..
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 6:47pm@ West Coast…this is not a blaze story rather a blaze posting of an AP story
Report Post »Halo9x
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:11amOne nuke on American soil going off will finally settle the “water boarding” question! For those who are ignorant of the facts, water boarding is a technique used to train our own soldiers who might be in danger of being captured. It was used only 2 or 3 times and did in fact gain valuable intel from the recipient. They didn’t die nor were they bodily injured as a result. No one shot their kneecaps off or removed their fingers. Their heads certainly were not cut off. We are NOT our enemies.
Report Post »Water boarding has become a hot topic because of liberals who are more concerned in having another 9/11 more than they are in preventing one. Gitmo is more humane in it’s treatment than any of our men would be treated by Muslims!
CptStubbing
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:37pmYou should look into the book “The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda” by Ali Soufan. He is an actual interrogator, not a bureaucrat or some other outside person trying to find things out afterwards. Here is an interview with him:
You do have to read this one.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,785558,00.html
He was on the Colbert Report also if you don’t want to read.
Report Post »http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/400168/october-19-2011/ali-soufan
kaydeebeau
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 6:46pmYep the Colbert Report now there’s a credible journalistic source.
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 10:52amHere are some clear answers on Iran… I’ve read the IAEA reports and they agree with what Horton says about the intelligence reports…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb4etdm86Qg
Report Post »David11
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 12:06pmI find it amazing that adults are so ignorant that they base their ideas, facts and all around knowledge from Youtube and other unknown websites that can be made in 30min by anyone with an agenda. Pathetic and scary that are political parties are voted in and out based on what youtube says. LOL
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 12:18pmYoutube is simply a medium of watching videos… it’s not like a Wikipedia or something. If someone watches a youtube of a congressional hearing does that somehow discount the information obtained from that hearing? Or in this case a debate of scholars on foreign policy… If the same video is on a different site does that make it more believable? I could see an argument if someone posts a crap video from an unreliable source… but that has nothing to do with Youtube… Youtube is simply where you found it. So your argument is simply a straw man that distracts from the issue, and it has nothing to do with the issue.
Did you watch the video? If so, do you have anything to say about it?
Report Post »LouC57
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 2:24pmGilbertAcct
Report Post »Posted on November 14, 2011 at 12:18pm…do not trust Wikipedia. For most subjects you, I, or the monkey down the road can “edit” historical information to their perspective.
I find that to be frightening, actually.
GilbertAcct
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 2:55pmLou… I agree. I believe they do have people who verify information so they can have some legitimacy (if you post some obvious nonsense it will be deleted within minutes)… but I would suggest getting information elsewhere. Did you happen to watch the video?… I was hoping to get some discussion on that, but David decided to distract from the issue.
Report Post »TRUTHSENSE
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 10:32am“THE FACTS: The U.S. killing of a succession of al-Qaida figures in Pakistan, none more prized by America than Osama bin Laden, demonstrates that the United States indeed gets vital and reliable intelligence out of Pakistan.” That’s why it took a decade to find him, and then the info didn’t come from the Pakistan government. The liberal media has no qualms with twisting anything to suit it’s liberal agenda. They have abandoned any sense of responsibility in keeping the public informed except for those things which suit their bias.
Report Post »proudpatriot77
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 10:00amFor the Ron Paul Zombies: Why does he think its a bad thing to build a border fence? He first said because he is afraid people will be kept from leaving the US. He then explained he was referring to a financial fence. Look it up. He has alot of good things to say, but to try to go on every web comment page you can and pretend this guy is some kind of god reminds me of the Obama Zombies. There is not one single candidate that doesnt suck on something. Ron Paul is no different.
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:41am1) We didn’t get anything useful from Pakistan on Obama. In fact, all the people inside the country who helped us with that operation were arrested. That tells you everything you need to know about our relationship with them.
2) These were 30 second answers. In 30 seconds you have to give a 30,000 foot view of the problem and answer. In this situation there’s always going to be issues with the answers.
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 9:57amThese debates are foolish because they allow progressive bottom-feeders to define the debate.
Who gives a rat’s ass about torture when this country is teetering on the brink of insolvency???
I‘d urge every single person in this country to resist the temptation of watching the debates until such time as they’re organized and run by people with a clue.
Report Post »proudpatriot77
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 9:55amThis article is an example of the ridiculous bias in media. Dont go any further than the 1st supposed fact. “It is widely believed…” Since when is that a proof of fact? My two kids widely believe in Santa Claus. The Associated Propaganda is at work for their Progressive masters.
Report Post »TRUTHSENSE
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 10:23amExactly. It is widely believed by me that the Associated Press writers are not all knowing.
Report Post »TWO BITS
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 9:46amUnfortunately, these debates are viewed by millions of people, but individual interviews receive less attention. For what it’s worth, the CBS post-debate poll numbers show Paul: 36,162, Perry: 19,065, Gingrich: 15, 341, Huntsman: 14,261, Romney: 8,895.
Report Post »If the populace continues to vote on sound-bites, we are in serious trouble.
JRook
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 9:53amGood point. But unfortunately the lack of depth and understanding displayed by these folks, shows they don’t have much beyond sound bites. The majority are cheap movie critics at best. Easy to critic a movie…. a little bit tougher to make one.
Report Post »Witness2theFlyover
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 9:42amHave you looked at the Republican Presidential Debate schedule?
Report Post »I cannot believe the GOP contenders agreed to all of this.
The only plausable reason for the networks hosting so many debates is to catch/help the candidates stumble, then the liberal networks can have a field day.
The formats are ridiculous…a minute to state your foreign policy ideas, 30 seconds for something else?
All the networks want is to have a sound-byte to run with for a few days to try and humiliate the Conservative(s).
Sorry, I realize I am stating the obvious.
It just chaps me.
Maybe the GOP could take a lesson from Nancy Reagan….“Just say No”.
YoungBloodNews
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 9:00amNo need to fact check Ron Paul, not only did he get the shaft with questions (89 sec’s given during a 60 minute televised event)… Oh yeah, and he has that crazy thing known as ‘principles’ (lacking so much in DC today) so his solid past and present statements aren’t questioned.
And interesting enough, In the ‘80s, the Reagan Department of Justice, defined waterboarding as torture.
Report Post »boltach
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:58amFunny – Ron Paul wasn’t mentioned…oh wait, he was only given 90 seconds in the first hour.
Report Post »KTsayz
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:43amI guess everything Ron Paul said in those 90 seconds was absolutely true! Love that the AP never has to ‘fact check’ Ron Paul because Ron Paul knows his stuff.
Report Post »President Ron Paul 2012
Workforit
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:35amHey it is politics as usual… No surprise.
Now let’s take a another look at Obama…
The sound bites from his presidential campaign are nowhere near his actions. If we are going to give Barry ground… we sure had better give our GOP candidates some leeway.
Any one of the GOP contenders would and could do a better job for America as a whole (except Romney, “Mr. Obama Lite”) than Obama could do…EVER.
Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate that could and would do serious damage to the last 100 years of Progressive political gains. He would hit progressives where they live. We would see change, and it would hurt for a while, the Elite and the bankers would make sure of it!
But at least our kids would have a fighting chance…
Report Post »HunterCurt
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 10:57amCongressman Paul is unbending in his adherence to his understanding of the constitution and he is the best and defending those positions. Unfortunately he has ZERO ability to get other elected representatives to agree with him. No matter how good his positions are if he can’t build the political coalitions to get the legislation through congress his commitment to the purity of his positions are meaningless. This is a Republic and if you can‘t get the votes you DON’T WIN. I can’t find a single example of legislation proposed and sponsored by Paul that was ever adopted. So at the end of the day, even if he was elected NOTHING would change.
Report Post »riseandshine
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 6:37pmHunter Curt…Yeah, if we get another Progressive (they’ve all been Progressives in my lifetime), boy will they get things done……we’re the ones getting done…right up the butt. One of my favorite Presidents was Grover Cleveland…because he vetoed practically everything that came to his desk…I would call Grover a wise steward and a defender of liberty.
Report Post »Workforit
Posted on November 19, 2011 at 1:17amHunter it is that exact attitude that never would have let Bill Gates get out of his garage… Look what he did. I could add example after example but why, you get my point.
Report Post »Tri-ox
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:09amCain was truly awful in this debate, and proved (again) that he has zero understanding on key issues.
Report Post »Insuranceman
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:24amHe was not the only one.
Report Post »Jack of Hearts
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:54amWhy pick on Cain? Read the story and you’ll see what a bunch of ignorant losers the candidates are. The horror of the reactionary mind. Still, at least there’s no threat to Obama here.
Report Post »Trenaway
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 9:13amYou Ron Paul cultist are coming out in force today! WAAAAAHHH my god (Ron Paul) Did not get anytime to speak.
Report Post »Jack of Hearts
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 10:23am@ Trenaway
Report Post »I hope you’re not referring to me. A Ron Paulista!? Where did that come from. Is he still a candidate?
GilbertAcct
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 10:32amTrenaway… You remind me of this guy I used to know… QPWillie. Anyway, maybe you should spend less time going from article to article calling RP supporters “cultist freaks” and more time defending whomever you support. I‘m guessing it’s Cain because his supporters seem to be the most viscous name callers and the least likely to make any cogent arguments.
Do you have any thoughts on how you’ll pay higher taxes with 9-9-9-9?
Or maybe you’d like to defend his claim to be able to balance the budget in one year without touching SS, Medicare, or the Military?
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:11pmTrenaway… I happen to find Cain’s following a little more cultish…
The Tea Party people supporting him are supposed to be against bank bailouts, which Cain supported. They’re supposed to be against Mitt Romney, whom Cain supported. They’re supposed to care about the debt, and Cain is criticizing Ron Paul for being too extreme in wanting to balance the budget in three years! They’re supposed to care about the economy, but Cain gave the economy a clean bill of health on September 1, 2008, on the eve of the collapse.
In addition, they don’t care when he says he is pro choice, they don‘t care that he didn’t know China has had nukes for decades, they don’t care that his 9-9-9-9 plan raises taxes for most Americans, they don‘t care when he proves over and over and over that he doesn’t know what is going on in foreign matters…
So Cain directly defies the principles his supporters claim in the abstract to stand for, yet they support him anyway. Isn’t that a little cultish?
Report Post »circleDwagons
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:15pmi watched the first hour of debate last night. I thought Cain did well. it also looks like cbs did Paul a good service by not giving him much time. if you think someone is a kook you stand out of the way and give him plenty of rope. Cain / Paul 2012
Report Post »Steve0218
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 7:53amBased on the IAEA report whatever he is doing covertly, if anything, is not working.
Report Post »Jomil48
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:07amHe is very busy doing covert operations in this country.
Report Post »Insuranceman
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:27amOdd comment seems to me that Iran has had a lot of problems setting up nuclear program.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:33amWhatever.
Iran didn’t try anything on US soil.
That would be your corrupt Federal Government and their false-flag attacks to come after your GUNZ!
Report Post »ares338
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 7:38amSome of the fact checks ring true but most have the taint of Liberal bias on them.
Report Post »Jomil48
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:05amwhy didn’t the AP do a fact check on the Obama administration?
Report Post »manjodad
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:21amIt is not that they don’t ring true, there is no way to fact check the fact checks. We’re doing covert operations in Iran. How do they know that since, as they say, they’re covert. We had Pakistani intelligence to capture OSM. Yeah, thay is why he was there for 5 years and they jailed some of those who helped. I agree, AP’s liberal slip is showing.
Report Post »Insuranceman
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:31amYes facts do have a liberal bias. That’s why it is so hard to find a candidate to lead the Republicans and why that person must be a rhino. They will occasionally have to visit the real world.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 10:26amWell then good thing there is no biased exhibited here….
Report Post »mwhaley
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 7:36amAP needs to spend time “fact checking” their own Obama while he is POTUS. Talk about creating or saving jobs. The AP would keep a lot of folks busy.
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 7:46amNewt’s contract with America
Report Post »Another of the problems with the Contract was that it called for stronger federal crime-fighting measures, despite the Constitution’s prohibition on federal involvement in police matters outside of piracy and treason. Countries that do not have such strict constitutional safeguards on federal police end up with Gestapos, KGBs, and Departments of Homeland Security.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=36799
bikerr
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:12am@Tower7_TRUTH—-ANY candidate in the debate will be better for United States of America compared to the failure we know have in the White House!. Now cut and paste that fact!
Report Post »bikerr
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:13amnow have. Oops.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:32amBiker
We Libertarians aren’t idiots who will vote for the lesser of evils just to get Obama out of office.
We vote on principle, not under duress during a manufactured crisis.
Ron Paul 2012
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 10:00amElecting a RINO into the position of POTUS will only do more harm for our country in the long run. If we elect one of your beloved RINOs, we’ll have more of the same just at a slower pace. Then when re-election comes alone, the liberals will elect another horrible president since “conservatism” doesn’t work. It doesn’t seem to work because it had been a RINO pretending to have conservative principles. I’d rather have Obama for another 4 years then have a RINO in office to make things worse for the cause of liberty in the long run!
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 7:31amSTOP showing me AP Propaganda called Facts: this is Bunkum!
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 7:43amhere is some facts for ya
Newt Gingrich served in Congress from 1979 until 1999. His first Freedom Index score (when it was known as the “Conservative Index”) was 84, but it nose-dived from there. He achieved his lowest scores as Speaker of the House. Gingrich consistently lost points for his propensity to support unconstitutional legislation.
1. Education – Gingrich backed federal education funding from his earliest days in office, though the Constitution gives absolutely no authority over education to any branch of the federal government. He helped garner support to create President Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education in 1979. Since then educational spending has soared while educational standards have plummeted. Things got worse when he was Speaker. In 1996, then-Republican Party Chairman Haley Barbour bragged that “education spending went up under the Republican Congress as much as it went up under the Democratic Congress.” That is a bit of an understatement since Gingrich’s Republican Congress increased education funding by $3.5 billion in 1996, the largest single increase in history.
2. Foreign Aid – Gingrich voted numerous times throughout his 20 years in Congress to increase and expand unconstitutional foreign aid and trade. He supported both subsidized trade with the Soviets and federally funded loans to foreign governments through the Export-Import Bank. Between 1994 and 1995, Gingrich voted for $44.8 billion in foreign aid. He also helped push throug
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 7:45am4. Contract With America – Another con-game Gingrich played was the much-acclaimed “Contract With America,” the Republican Party’s supposed answer to big government. It turned out to be a public relations smokescreen to cover various unconstitutional measures that Congress planned to pass under Gingrich’s leadership. The Contract included a “balanced budget amendment,” which amounted to a Republican excuse to continue spending while claiming to fight for fiscal conservatism. If the government only spent money on constitutional programs, the deficit would take care of itself.
Report Post »Other areas of the Contract With America dealt with measures to reduce welfare programs and relieve tax burdens on families and businesses. That sounds good until one considers that the Constitution prohibits welfare programs and taxes that the Contract proposed only to reduce. If Gingrich had been loyal to his oath of office, he would have worked not to trim but to purge them. Ironically, but hardly surprisingly, federal spending in all the areas addressed by the 1994 Contract rose in subsequent years. Edward H. Crane, president of the Cato Institute, observed that “the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract With America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.” Crane also pointed out, “Over the past three years the Republican-controlled Congress has approved discretionary spending that exceeded Bill Clinton’s requests by more than $30 billion.”
Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 7:47amhttp://2012patriot.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/who-is-newt-gingrich/
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:08am@TOWER7_TRUTH
Report Post »And all the GOP Billions of spending… are what percentage of… the Obama/Democrat Trillions of spending. Just another Spin Master!
manjodad
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:32amSounds to me that Tower7-Truth is a Pauly Parrot. You guys are really funny!!!!
Report Post »KTsayz
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:39am5. Salamander (Newt, for those who don‘t know what a ’newt is) became a member of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1990. One of the goals of the CFR is global governance – a world without borders. The EU is one of its projects. The other is the North American Union (NAU) – a borderless North America. Newt worked on that project and was instrumental in getting NAFTA passed. NAFTA was stage one toward the NAU. Stage two is the NAFTA superhighway. One piece of that superhighway is the Trans-Texas Corridor which, as if you couldn’t guess, was Rick Perry’s baby. He pushed it from the time he got into office in 2001 and tried for for 9 long years to get it happening only to finally give up in 2010.
Report Post »6. In a 2009 interview with the World Futurist Society, that’s just 2 years ago folks, Newt said he would “FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM” (salamander is even stealing Obambi’s talking points) America’s government system. He believes our Constitution is outdated and doesn’t work fast enough for the 21st century. So what would he replace our Constitution with. Oh, that’s right, a brand spankin’ new North American Constitution, one that would include former Canadians and former Mexicans. (We are all North Americans now)
The_Almighty_Creestof
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 7:29amRE Newt: THE FACTS: The U.S. killing of a succession of al-Qaida figures in Pakistan, none more prized by America than Osama bin Laden, demonstrates that the United States indeed gets vital and reliable intelligence out of Pakistan.————————————————————————————-
Um, how do we have “vital and reliable” intel from Pakistan ESPECIALLY regarding Bin Laden…when he lived there for years under their noses and they were upset that we took him out without giving them a chance to warn him?
They are “out of their comfort zone?” …Well sort of…the problem is they are trying to parrot what they think the voters want to hear in an intelligent sounding manner in order to get support and the nomination. If they would just stick to what they believe, the truth as they see it and let the chips fall where they may…they’d be as “comfortable” and well spoken as BO’s teleprompter. Under pressure, lies are tough to say in a lucid and convincing manner.
Report Post »demint.disciple
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 7:16amHmmmmm, NEVER did I see a AP fact check for a Democrap debate… Wonder why that is ?? Can’t be that they are bias , no ,no, no can’t be. lol @ the word Covertly.. Thats the word of the day, huh ? It describes what they think obama is doing but can’t tell anyone about it, so he is just a perfect president. pppffftt !!!
Report Post »demint.disciple
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 7:21amBACHMANN: “Now President Obama has made a very fatal decision in Afghanistan. He’s made the decision that by next September, our troops will be withdrawn. ”
THE FACTS: By September 2012, Obama is only planning to withdraw the additional forces he sent in. Once the 33,000 “surge” troops are gone, 68,000 will be left. They are to be pulled out gradually and won’t be gone until the end of 2014, barring some change in the draw down of troops.. Ummmm What did she say that was wrong ? Ok, she is off by a year but BY 2014 THEY WILL BE GONE, not good a military strategy and is exactly what she is talking about.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 9:32amThere are “fact checks” after every debate.
Report Post »