Republican lies used to trick the public

[chaos_5]

4). The price of oil is based solely on supply and demand
This week investigations began as retail prices have outpaced wholesale prices by as much as 70%.

In the wake of two major hurricanes that disrupted the drilling for and the refinement of crude oil products!
Your premise is fundamentally flawed. Oil is traded as a commodity. Stock brokers who trade in the futures market are responsible for the high price per barrel numbers you hear about. In that sense, the supply and demand as a consumer of oil is slightly diminished; however there are supply and demand forced driving the price of that commodity market.
The Price of gas at the pump is what we all notice. This is most certainly driven by supply and demand. Obviously the cost of production is dictated by the price per barrel (which lags behind the stock price); however there are other forces that will push the prices up further causing the disparity in “retail” and “wholesale” prices you are complaining about.
In some local areas, after the hurricanes, where panic buying occurred, the prices of fuel rose dramatically and rapidly. I concede the point that $5-$6 dollars a gallon is excessive. However the administration did two things to facilitate a decline in the cost of fuel at the pump. The release of the strategic oil reserves was the lest effective, this mostly political maneuver may of helped maintain a supply of crude products to crippled refineries, but that’s about all. The second and most important action that was taken was the suspension of formula regulations. Given the variation of gas formulation from one area of the country to the next, distribution is hamstrung when a disruption of locally refined products occurs. The repealing of the formulation laws allowed refined products to be more freely distributed. The result is lower gas prices. Hear in San Diego we have had a 1c a day decrease in the average gas prices over the last 10 days.
The bottom line is this - there is no Saudi/Halliburton conspiracy to drive up the cost of gas so Bush gets rich. What we have is a supply problem. With a refining capacity that is 30years out of date, and increased environmental pressures on distribution and exploration, prices will continue to rise. In order to fix the problem there are four things that we need to do, and in this order.
1. Drill more oil (I don’t like foreign oil)
2. Build more refineries (NIMBY ha! Ok, you’ll pay for that attitude)
3. Repeal the insane formula laws (find one or two good clean formulas and stick with it)
4. Invest in new technology (Lets face it, technology is the long term answer.)
Well, that’s my 3.5 cents.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

(CBS/AP) Eight Democratic governors asked President Bush and congressional leaders on Tuesday to investigate possible gasoline price gouging in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

In a letter, the governors urged an investigation into "excessive profits being made by oil companies who are taking advantage of this national crisis."

The letter was signed by the governors of Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, New Mexico, Iowa, Montana and Washington. It also urged Congress to refund any excessive profits to consumers.

The letter cited a study by University of Wisconsin economist Don Nichols that found the hurricane was not entirely to blame for high gas prices.
[continued]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/21/katrina/main870784.shtml

 

[edward]

Here is something that I only discovered today while googling info on the Humvees in Iraq. The Humvees are assembled in South Bend Indiana by AM General. They are then sent to an Akron "Ohio" factory where "Armor Holdings Inc." manufactures the armor plate and installs it on the hummers.

"Sept. 15, 2004 - Diversified manufacturer Armor Holdings Inc. received a $135 million contract award to provide additional M1114 Up-Armored HMMWVs to the U.S. Army. The total contract is now over $650 million."

 

[Art]

Another example of poor 'intelligence', ignorance or just plain lying?

U.S. Diplomat Defends Iraq War

Saturday October 22, 2005 6:31 AM

AP Photo JAK103

By CHRIS BRUMMITT

Associated Press Writer

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) - Karen Hughes, who has faced a rocky road since being named Washington's public relations chief, answered tough questions Friday about the invasion of Iraq, and wrongly stated that Saddam Hussein gassed to death ``hundreds of thousands'' of his people.

Although the U.S. undersecretary for public diplomacy twice repeated the claim after being challenged by journalists, Gordon Johndroe, a State Department official traveling with Hughes, later called The Associated Press to say she misspoke.

Hughes, a longtime confidante of President Bush, was in the world's most populous Muslim nation to improve America's battered image after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq...

When asked to elaborate on claims that Saddam had poisoned hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to death, Hughes told reporters: ``I know it was upward of 200,000.''

``I think it was almost 300,000. (That) is my recollection,'' she said. ``They were put in mass graves.''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5361823,00.html

Actual estimates are 5,000.

 

[Gokul43201]

Another example of poor 'intelligence', ignorance or just plain lying?

It seems to me that it's no longer an issue of EITHER ignorance OR untruth.

The attitude seems more to be "why bother knowing what the truth is (and/or conveying it) when you can say anything you please".

 

[Skyhunter]

The current talking point, that is being echoed here on this forum is that if they can only charge someone with perjury or obstruction of justice, that it is a not a real crime.
Here is Senator Kay Baily Hutchison yesterday.

Ms. Hutchison said she hoped "that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."

Here is Senator Kay Baily Hutchison on Feb. 12, 1999

The President's Counsel and a number of Senators advance a `felony-plus' interpretation of the Constitutional terms `high crimes and misdemeanors.' They seem to agree that the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice are `high crimes' under the Constitution, but they argue that, even if guilt is admitted, nevertheless, a Senator should vote `not guilty,' on any article of impeachment of a President, if the `economy is good,' if the underlying facts in the case are `just about sex,' or if the Senator simply feels for whatever personal reason that the President ought to stay in office despite having committed felonies while holding it.
To this Senator, this astounding application of the plain language of our Constitution strikes at the very heart of the rule of law in America. It replaces the stability guaranteed by the Constitution with the chaos of uncertainty. Not only does it obliterate the noble ideal that our highest public officer should set high moral standards for our Nation, it says that the officer is free to commit felonies while doing it if the economy is good, if the crime is just about sex, or if, except for the crime, `things are going pretty well right now,' or simply that `they can indict and try the President for the crime after leaving office in a couple of years.'
I will not demean our Constitution or the office of the Presidency of the United States by endorsing the felony-plus standard.

http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/hutchison.shtml

And now she is, in her own words, demeaning the Constitution by endorsing the felony-plus standard.
I wonder how many echoing this talking point shared her views in 1999?

 

[loseyourname]

^
Utter crap. If it can be proved that anyone in the adminstration, or anywhere in the government, is guilty of any felony, that person needs to go.

 

[pattylou]

I have wondered if Rasmussen's poll numbers for Bush will drop - they had had approval hovering at 43% the last few days, which "ties for the lowest score ever recorded."

Today they sunk to 42%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

Today they sunk a point lower and disapproval rose by two points. Approval was at 41%, with disapproval at 59% and strong disapproval at 44%.

Wednesday October 26, 2005--Forty-one percent (41%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. This is the lowest level recorded ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports.

Among Republicans, the President's Approval Rating has fallen to 73%, matching the lowest level ever recorded.

For most of his time in office, the President's Approval Rating among Republicans has been in the high-80s.

Overall, 59% of Americans Disapprove, including 44% who strongly disapprove. That is the highest percentage to Strongly Disapprove of his job performance.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of Americans now say that bringing the troops home from Iraq is more important than finishing the mission in that country. This is the first time that a majority of Americans have held that view.

I am almost ... confused by this. I suppose I'd like to see a breakdown of where the changes are happening. Obviously, in his own party - and presumably because of the scandals, Miers, and everything else that is going wrong.

The reason I am ... confused is because I am not particularly surprised by Bush's actions lately, and if anything I personally think he's in a tougher spot than ever before. I wouldn't disapprove of him for *that,* though - that's circumstance.

Is it *circumstance* that seems to be causing his drop? (If so, that's pretty dumb.) Or, is it more people changing their minds about his policy? His behavior seems largely the same to me, if anything he is more moderate than he was four year ago.

 

[faust9]

Today they sunk a point lower and disapproval rose by two points. Approval was at 41%, with disapproval at 59% and strong disapproval at 44%.
I am almost ... confused by this. I suppose I'd like to see a breakdown of where the changes are happening. Obviously, in his own party - and presumably because of the scandals, Miers, and everything else that is going wrong.
The reason I am ... confused is because I am not particularly surprised by Bush's actions lately, and if anything I personally think he's in a tougher spot than ever before. I wouldn't disapprove of him for *that,* though - that's circumstance.
Is it *circumstance* that seems to be causing his drop? (If so, that's pretty dumb.) Or, is it more people changing their minds about his policy? His behavior seems largely the same to me, if anything he is more moderate than he was four year ago.

I'd say Bush's poll number decline is due to scandle (Rove, Libby) as well as Miers and the view that the US is doing poorly in Iraq. That same poll says:

Fifty-three percent (53%) of Americans now say that bringing the troops home from Iraq is more important than finishing the mission in that country. This is the first time that a majority of Americans have held that view.

Bush has shown incompetence in selection as well as in action. People who were blinded by terrorism-Iraq-911 are now seeing Bush for who and what he is.

 

[SOS2008]

I'd say Bush's poll number decline is due to scandle (Rove, Libby) as well as Miers and the view that the US is doing poorly in Iraq. That same poll says:

Bush has shown incompetence in selection as well as in action. People who were blinded by terrorism-Iraq-911 are now seeing Bush for who and what he is.

The usual anonymous sources inside the WH say Bush is more mean-spirited and profanity spewing than ever these days. I'm sure the scandals are distressing, but I'd bet it has more to do with approval ratings, and in particular lack of support for the war.

On the Daily Show, Al Franken said Cheney will probably have a heart attack and Bush will go back to drinking (or something to that affect). :uhh:

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

A list of ongoing lies seems appropriate at this point. I will list my top six.
1). The media is liberal
Clinton was more than ample evidence that the media goes after anyone possible. They only seem liberal because the Republicans give them so much more to attack. This has been true for most of my life; going back to Nixon.
2). Republicans are fiscal conservatives :rofl:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=90511
3). Here is the lie that gets me the most: We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq.
My uncle still thinks that Saddam attacked New York - this is the thinking that gives Republicans their power. We have the corrupt leading the blind.
4). The price of oil is based solely on supply and demand
This week investigations began as retail prices have outpaced wholesale prices by as much as 70%.
5) We have been preparing for future terrorist attacks
New Orleans proved that if anything, the Federal Gov response was inept, and the real protectors of homeland security - The National Guard - are short on equipment and unable to do their primary job of keeping Americans safe. Which leads us to the greatest lie of all
6). The Republicans have acted responsibly to keep America safe.
Not only are we clearly unprepared for large scale terror attacks at home, as was seen in New Orleans, also, the war in Iraq has had exactly the opposite effect of that claimed: The Bush administration has sacrificed homeland security for other agendas.

Wow, I just got to say, well put Ivan! The only thing I would disagree with is that not only republicans, but democrats say and believe these things too. Of course not as many as republicans, and some republicans (the true to definition ones) feel the same way as you and I, and think that their party has gone mad. I think the main thing is that there is a philosophy in common with all those in power who say and believe such things as you mentioned. That philosophy recruits some of the less powerful who give into their arguments, and they then become "blind followers" or "an echo of the man when he speaks", I like to call them nationalists. I feel that their philosophy is going to destroy america. All the things that were done in that last five years really got me thinkin about how our possible future as space travelers (like in star trek) may have been averted to the other possible future as suicidal maniacs, hell bent on our own certainty and therefore lacking of any desire to explore reality anymore (global war leading to our extinction). Of course, that possible future can be turned back to the star trek future, but with all that has been done already, it's going to be very diffacult. I believe that it will be turned around though, and America might even survive! but I doubt it. We'll just have to junk America and start over, with better organization and better peolpe in charge.

 

[RunDMC]

Here's a scary thought: given that (it seems) the United Nations was right in being skeptical of the WMD claim, do Iraqi citizens have a patriotic duty to fight off the unsanctioned attack with every means possible?

What if it were China invading Taiwan? Would Taiwanese 'insurgents' be branded as terrorists? Who knows!

 

[Skyhunter]

The usual anonymous sources inside the WH say Bush is more mean-spirited and profanity spewing than ever these days. I'm sure the scandals are distressing, but I'd bet it has more to do with approval ratings, and in particular lack of support for the war.
On the Daily Show, Al Franken said Cheney will probably have a heart attack and Bush will go back to drinking (or something to that affect). :uhh:

I heard a rumor that Laura has posted guards at the liquor cabinet.

Has anyone noticed his hula jaw?

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t69540.html

Here is a link to his press conference expaining his choice of Miers for the SC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/video/bush-miers.mov

 

[Skyhunter]

Here's a scary thought: given that (it seems) the United Nations was right in being skeptical of the WMD claim, do Iraqi citizens have a patriotic duty to fight off the unsanctioned attack with every means possible?

What if it were China invading Taiwan? Would Taiwanese 'insurgents' be branded as terrorists? Who knows!

They would probably be branded such by the Chinese.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Here's a scary thought: given that (it seems) the United Nations was right in being skeptical of the WMD claim, do Iraqi citizens have a patriotic duty to fight off the unsanctioned attack with every means possible?

What if it were China invading Taiwan? Would Taiwanese 'insurgents' be branded as terrorists? Who knows!

That question has been asked of the people in Afghanistan, too.

How many people in the middle of Afghanistan knew that there was an invasion by the US military?

So you're sitting around one night outside your mud hut. You have your trusty AK-47 beside you as you guard your sheep.

Suddenly, somebody opens fire on you. Thinking it is a group of bandits, you return fire.

You defend yourself and your country.

It's only later that you find out they were US soldiers and by that time you are being prepped for travel to either Camp X-ray or Abu Ghraib.

Are you a terrorist? Or was the force that hit you a terrorist?

 

[pattylou]

I have heard mention of Bush's temper flares all over lately, including SOS's reference above. I wanted to read the article that everyone is buzzing about, and in case you do as well, you can find it here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/358714p-305660c.html

 

[The Smoking Man]

I have heard mention of Bush's temper flares all over lately, including SOS's reference above. I wanted to read the article that everyone is buzzing about, and in case you do as well, you can find it here:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/358714p-305660c.html

I suddenly got this mental picture of Dan Akroyd in an old Saturday Night Live doing 'The last days of Nixon'.

He wandered the White House at night talking to the portraits of former presidents.

It's at times like this that I really worry about the 'Conversations with God'.

Son of Sam ... No. Son of George Senior.

Please ... somebody take the Atomic Football away.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bush appeared in the Rose Garden to reject charges of cronyism, criticism of her scant constitutional background and suspicion of her judicial philosophy. He presented her as the most qualified candidate in the country...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400591.html
This goes so far beyond a lie that it becomes a joke.

Edit: A good example of the fact that nothing the man says can be believed.

Going back, he also stated that Miers "will be confirmed". Could it be that his direct line to the almighty has suffered wind damage?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On the point of oil, it seems that even the Republicans have had enough. I suppose that it now cost waaaaaaayyyyyy too much to fill the SUV?

Frist orders oil price probe
Oct 27, 2005 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid record-high earnings from oil companies, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Thursday ordered a Senate hearing with testimony from major oil company executives on why energy prices are high.
The unexpected announcement by the chamber's top Republican showed the growing political pressure as American consumers brace for higher winter heating costs at the same time energy companies are reporting fat profits.
"If there are those who abuse the free enterprise system to advantage themselves and their businesses at the expense of all Americans, they ought to be exposed, and they ought to be ashamed," Frist said in a statement.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1256876

 

[pattylou]

I realize I sound like a vulture.

I wouldn't describe myself that way about these numbers, just more sort of fascinated with them. Frankly, I don't understand why they are falling more now, than they did in the post - katrina stuff. Bush's own actions were horrible then. At the moment, he's not really doing anything wrong he's just trying to hold a slipping line.

I conclude (tentatively) that approval has less to do with performance, and more to do with public perception. That's depressing.

President Bush Job Approval

Strongly Approve 21%
Somewhat Approve 19%
Somewhat Disapprove 15%
Strongly Disapprove 44%
RasmussenReports.com

Friday October 28, 2005--For the third time in a week, President Bush's Job Approval Rating has fallen to a new low. Just 40% of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President.

Overall, 59% of Americans Disapprove of the President's performance including 44% strongly disapprove. Less than half that number, 21%, Strongly Approve. Early in the year, the number who Strongly Approved roughly equaled the number who Strongly Disapproved.

Before this past week, the President's Approval Rating has never dipped below 43% in a Rasmussen Reports poll. It fell to 42% for the first time last Friday, to 41% for the first time this past Wednesday, and to 40% for the first time today.

Among Republicans, the President's Approval Rating has fallen to 71%, the lowest level ever recorded. For most of his time in office, the President's Approval Rating among Republicans has been in the high-80s.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

 

[selfAdjoint]

Frankly, I don't understand why they are falling more now, than they did in the post - katrina stuff. Bush's own actions were horrible then.

What you're seeing is the wringing-out of the slack cutters. Bush successfully parlayed the blame game after Katrina to imply that bad as he was, he was no worse than anyone else. And that kept a shaky hold on the people who just don't want to despise their president. But as second thoughts and the Miers mess and the Plame scandal keep the pressure on, more and more of them are falling away.

 

[SOS2008]

I realize I sound like a vulture.
I wouldn't describe myself that way about these numbers, just more sort of fascinated with them. Frankly, I don't understand why they are falling more now, than they did in the post - katrina stuff. Bush's own actions were horrible then. At the moment, he's not really doing anything wrong he's just trying to hold a slipping line.
I conclude (tentatively) that approval has less to do with performance, and more to do with public perception. That's depressing.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

People continue to be unhappy about hurricane relief in Florida. Oil company profits versus taxpayer subsidies in the energy bill aren't helping. But maybe, just maybe the CIA leak indictments are making it hard to deny that we went to war with lies.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think this quote sums it up.

"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."
Abraham Lincoln

 

[The Smoking Man]

"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."

—Bush Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[The Smoking Man]

Politics ... The art of fooling as many people as you possibly can for the longest time and destroying the evidence.

-- ME

The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made.
Jean Giraudoux
French diplomat, dramatist, & novelist (1882 - 1944)

(Why did it have to be a French man?:uhh: )

 

[SOS2008]

Bush continues to link the war in Iraq with terrorism:

“The best way to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops is to complete the mission and win the war on terror,” the president said in his weekly radio address.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9859772/

:grumpy:

 

[The Smoking Man]

Bush continues to link the war in Iraq with terrorism:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9859772/
:grumpy:

But it's not a war I tell you.

He declared the cessation of hostilities ages ago.

Now, "we're just helping them out until they can get back on their feet."

 

[Astronuc]

"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."

—Bush Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Good reason to avoid drug and alcohol abuse - otherwise one will end up like George Bush.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Good reason to avoid drug and alcohol abuse - otherwise one will end up like George Bush.

President?

 

[SOS2008]

I believe this was already mentioned somewhere, and if so, here it is again:

KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: One of the senior terrorist operatives from whom the administration got its pre-Iraq war intel was probably making it up. So said a Defense Intelligence Agency memo sent to the White House in February 2002.

…The just-identified fabricator of some of the president‘s prewar intelligence, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. …the guy was not only making it up, but by February of 2002, the government knew he was making it up. Al-Libi was the first al Qaeda big get, arrested in Afghanistan back in November 2001.

Under interrogation, he reportedly told agents that al Qaeda was training in Iraq. In 2004, he recanted. He admitted he had made that up. But far earlier, the Defense Intelligence Agency had already figured out that his information was bogus, two years before his confession.

According to a newly declassified document, the DIA warned that the fact al-Libi didn‘t share any specifics about al Qaeda in Iraq had to have meant one of two things. Quote, “It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.”

That‘s called telling them what you think they want to hear. The document goes on to note that Saddam Hussein‘s regime was wary of extremist Islamic groups, and that his government was, quote, “unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”

The DIA assessment was made available to several agencies, including the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House.

Yet eight months later, in October 2002, the president used al-Libi‘s information to lay out an al Qaeda link in his speech at Cincinnati, and five months after that, February 2003, the information was still being treated as credible, most notably by then-secretary of state Colin Powell, when he made his case for war to the U.N.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9969022/

How much more do we need before we can start impeachment proceedings?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How much more do we need before we can start impeachment proceedings?

Fewer Republicans in office?

 

[SOS2008]

Fewer Republicans in office?

I can't even respond to that--I'd be banned for foul language. I did vote today--just got back. Nothing exciting in my district, but at least I know I'm registered.

In regard to the quote in my post above, I forgot to ask how the information was obtained. Perhaps...torture?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In regard to the quote in my post above, I forgot to ask how the information was obtained. Perhaps...torture?

No kidding. Could this be why they heard what they wanted to hear?

"You will tell us where the WMDs are stored..."

 

[SOS2008]

No kidding. Could this be why they heard what they wanted to hear?
"You will tell us where the WMDs are stored..."

FOREMAN (voice-over): Polls have shown that more than 60 percent of Americans think torture can sometimes be justified. But here is the catch. Experts, including General Marks, are convinced with the vast majority of prisoners, it just doesn't work.

MARK JACOBSEN, FORMER OFFICIAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE: It does not give you credible, accurate, timely and actionable intelligence.

FOREMAN: Mark Jacobsen, a former Defense Department official, outlines the troubles. You need to know a prisoner has critical information. The prisoner must be susceptible to torture. And, oh by the way,

JACOBSEN: When people are tortured, when people endure physical pain, they're going to seek to stop that as quickly as possible.

(voice-over): If I torture you, you're going to tell me exactly what I expect to hear.

CNN transcripts - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/08/acd.02.html

 

[SOS2008]

Rewriting history again -

Here’s one for those who love Word Wars:

At the Oct. 31 briefing, David Gregory of NBC News stated the following question to McClellan about White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby: "Whether there's a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations."

The official White House transcript states that McClellan's response was "I don’t think that's accurate."

But two outside news agencies, Congressional Quarterly and Federal News Service -- which provide transcripts for a fee -- both reported the response as "that's accurate."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001477236

In the footage this evening on MSNBC, Scotty clearly said “that’s accurate.”