The Dems have caught some flack for putting terrorists and illegal aliens in the same ad. Yet, on the latter, I have to agree with them, in the sense that Bush deserves some criticism on this matter. Open borders and homeland security are mutually exclusive.

Misrepresentation of facts, omission of clarifying evidence, dismissal of larger trends, and race-baiting? Wow, looks like Democrats have mastered the Republican playbook for political ads.

Incidentally, Mark, the trends in polling show Democrats are now more trusted on national security than Republicans.

You know Mark, though I am not questioning the validity of the article (quite to the contrary, I love fact-check), this post does remind me a lot of the subject of your previous post entitled "The Magical Mystery Poll."

As I implied before, Fackcheck is probably one of the best nonpartisan news sites on the internet, so you can imagine my suprise when I see that this is the first time that you have used this great site (to my knowledge). Surely they must have pointed out before (and they have). Many of the articles, however, don't "fit the script".

RNC Ad Mischaracterizes Murtha
Hillary Clinton's Voting Record Distorted
Scientist to CEI: You Used My Research To "Confuse and Mislead
We'll Always Have Paris
Swift Boat Veterans Anti-Kerry Ad: "He Betrayed Us" With 1971 Anti-War Testimony

Factcheck tends to go after Republicans and Democrats about equally. The truth of the matter is that you will propagate your opinion using whatever sources you can find, and by only using evidence that supports your view, you lead the reader to come to the incorrect conclusion that only liberals/Democrats are being dishonest this campaign season. All of the articles I cited, with the exception of the Swift Boat ad, were published this summer (the ad about the death tax goes against a liberal group too), and the Swift Boad ad was released during the 2004 campaign season.

You can either lie by omission, or you can be completely truthful. So far, you only seem capable of the former.

Georgia,

That is absurd - because I don't bring up everything FactCheck has ever done, I'm lying by omission?

Methinks you owe me an apology.

I'm just saying that because you only give credence to evidence that supports one side of the issue, you are leading people to false conclusions.

Sorry for the harshness of my words; you are here to propagate your opinion, afterall.

I'm just saying that because you only give credence to evidence that supports one side of the issue, you are leading people to false conclusions.

Sorry for the harshness of my words; you are here to propagate your opinion, afterall.

Mark,

Georgia's point reiterates what I said: the lies Factcheck points out in the Democratic ad are the same kind of lies Factcheck routinely points out in Republican ads.

Yet you remain silent about those lies, in fact you routinely push these lies as truthful statements about Democrats.

If Factcheck is a credible organization, which by citing it I assume you agree that it is, then you would have to admit that many of the 'truths' you push about Democrats are nothing but Republican spin and lies.

What say you, Mark?

It says that only 6 percent of cargo containers are being inspected. That’s about right, but its also a big improvement from three years earlier when the figure was only 2 percent. Also spending has increased seven-fold.

I like how spending has increased 7 fold but the number of container inspected has increased 3x. Goverment efficency at work!!

A Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ad that appeared on the Internet this week attacks the record of "Bush and the GOP" on homeland security, but makes some factual stumbles.

It claims terror attacks have increased four-fold under Bush, which isn't true. The official count jumped due to a much broader definition of what constitutes a terrorist attack.

-- In other words, they are not disputing the fact that terror attacks HAVE increased since the war on terror began, they are instead disputing that more things that were once not considered terror, now are. The fact remains that terror attacks have increased, not decreased during Bush's war on terror, a sure sign of a failed policy (what a surprise)

The ad says "law enforcement" spending has been cut $2 billion, but that refers only to cuts in aid to states and localities and ignores a big increase in spending on federal anti-terrorism activities.

-- Wow, you mean a big increase to fund that illegal spying program (found illegal by federal court), that has not shown to have cought a single terrorist in the 5 years its been running, or even prevented a single terrorist act for that matter. Its much more important to fund those programs that are not working rather than send the money to the cities where the actual attacks are going to occur.

It says that only 6 percent of cargo containers are being inspected. That’s about right, but its also a big improvement from three years earlier when the figure was only 2 percent.

-- Wow, to go from 2% to 6% in only 5 years. Some "big improvement". Other countries that are vigiliant on terror activities inspect 100% and they do it on a fraction of the money spent now by the US to inspect only 4-6%. Not mentioned of course in the article is the fact that Republicans have crushed Democratic bills in congress for 5 straight years which would have allocated funds to inspect 100% of incoming containers.

Also spending has increased seven-fold.

-- Wow. A 700% increase in spending to get only a 4% increase. Not very good spending habits you Republicans have.

The ad's biggest stumble was political, not factual. It correctly noted that millions of illegal aliens have entered the US in recent years. But the ad's images of bazooka-toting terrorists and Osama bin Laden, associated with men furtively crossing the border, drew objections from Hispanics and the DSCC quickly took the ad off their website.

I want to pick on Mark's post, too, but for a different reason.

Mark, how can you refer to bltatant lying as mere "stumbles"?

Note how GAsteve tries so desperately to put a neorad spin on what you said. Another 'stumble'?

Axis,

Long time no see - good to know we can still count on you to both ignore the substance of the post and bring in irrelevant DNC talking points...its nice to have some fixed stars, and you are one of them.

Georgia,

Yeah, how 'bout that? I write for "Blogs for Bush" and I don't bring up anti-Bush items...I'm sure everyone ie surprised about that.

So Mark,

The CEI misusing scientific information is anti-Bush?

The RNC distorting facts is anti-Bush?

How so?

So are you willing to ignore viable, true facts if they don't fit your Conservative=Good, liberal =bad worldview?

You are either blindly partisan or just foolish...