News Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy/Republican Lies

  • Thread starter SOS2008
  • Start date

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
I found this site with some comments about the cost of war.

http://fuller.mit.edu/peace/support_troops.html

I haven't verified the accuracy, so the reader must apply due diligence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
14
0
with respect to holding people without access to an attorney, I'm torn on this issue.

On the one hand, it's clear (at least in my mind) that fighting the war on "terror" by treating it as a criminal investigation is worthless. Many times the details of plots are unknown, hence getting a warrant to search would be impractical (It must be specified what you're searching for and why). By the time you knew the details, it would probably be too late.

To me, it is a military issue. The whole, and the ONLY purpose of our government (and any other) is to protect our citizens from all threats, foreign and domestic. Since these so called terrorists seek to do us harm, it is the executive branch's job to deal with the issue, not the judicial. Consequently, they should be accorded the rights of any other prisoner of war - not those of someone tried in a case of conspiracy to commit murder.

On the other hand, there is a very real and persistent concern that this power to sweep people under the rug will be abused. I, like any rational human being, realize that government is not to be trusted. Given this, it would seem reasonable to extend the checks and balances system to our war on "terror". Of course, the bush administration is not too keen on checks and balances - so this is a valid point of concern for any semi informed citizen.

Also, I noticed that someone invoked the words of one of our forefathers: "those that would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - this has GOT to stop. Our forefathers said lots of things they didn't mean. ie "all men are created equal" - so long as you're not black or red skinned and "inalienable rights" - like the right to pick cotton in a field.


With regards to the original topic, the lies of the republican party, need I remind anyone here that lies are not central to the republican party. Clinton, for example, committed purgury (don't give me the line that we had no right to ask. He was an employee of the citizens and he was using his power as a government official to have an affair. It was happening on the taxpayers dime. If a CEO of a big corporation had been using investor money to get BJ's in his office, he'd be fired or in prison).
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
holding people
That is the whole point!

The idea of due process is that the authorities (which normally applies to civil authorities) must have a legitimate reason to hold and prosecute someone. Otherwise, innocent people would be arbitrarily detained, which has already been the case in Afghanistan.

I believe 'due process' and a 'just application of the law', including observance of basic human and civil rights, must be extended to 'ALL' peoples, not just US citizens, i.e. there must be 'one' standard applied uniformly and fairly to all people.


As for Clinton being on the taxpayers' dime, presidents must inherently mix public and private lives. It would be a stretch to say Clinton did it on the payroll or at taxpayer expense. However, I do agree he lied. On the other hand, Bush makes Clinton look like a 'boy scout'. :rolleyes:
 

SOS2008

Gold Member
18
0
Astronuc said:
I believe 'due process' and a 'just application of the law', including observance of basic human and civil rights, must be extended to 'ALL' peoples, not just US citizens, i.e. there must be 'one' standard applied uniformly and fairly to all people.
The best way to spread democracy is to set a good example.

Unfortunately BushCo decided to adopt Israel's philosophy of "hit them before they hit you," but this is reasonable only if there is good intelligence first. The high percentage of prisoners that are released after years of investigation because of lack of evidence indicates the U.S. is WAY off.

Well that's what you get when you put a bunch of idiots in charge. First BushCo divided the world, then our country, and now even their own party. I wonder how long it will take for the U.S. to gain back respect from the rest of the world, and if our wounded country will ever heal.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
States Sue Federal Gov't Over Forest Protections
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5691875
All Things Considered, August 22, 2006 · Logging has begun on the largest area of roadless forest in the state of Oregon, and the state's government is fuming.

When the Bush administration reversed the ban on building new roads on now roadless federal lands, it agreed to let the states decide which areas should remain protected, and which should be open to activities such as road-building, mining and oil and gas exploration.

But the federal government is allowing logging in Oregon and energy development in Colorado before either state has finished its plan for the roadless lands. Five states have gone to court in protest of the actions.

The job being undertaken in Oregon is relatively small, but it's causing a large controversy. National conservation groups see it as proof that the Bush administration is intent on opening more federal wild land to logging, mining and drilling.
Despite Health Risks, D.C. Power Plant Kept Open
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5673425
Morning Edition, August 21, 2006 · Hundreds of old coal-fired power plants still haven't installed modern pollution controls. One plant, across the Potomac River from the White House, is so vital to the Washington, D.C. region's electricity supply that the federal government is bending pollution rules to keep it running.

The federal government sees the Mirant power station in Alexandria, Va., as an essential source of electricity for central Washington. Local politicians and residents see it as an especially potent health hazard. They say that, even though the plant was here first, it doesn't belong in a neighborhood that's now full of garden apartments, brick town houses and high-rise condominiums.
U.S. Power Plants Slow to Clean Up Their Act
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5673484
by Elizabeth Shogren
NPR.org, August 20, 2006 · Most of country's 420 coal-fired power plants still lack advanced pollution controls, even though the equipment to clean up their hazardous exhausts has been widely available for many years, according to Environmental Protection Agency officials.

Serious Health Hazards

The federal government has long known that the plants harm public health, but in recent years, science has shown that they are deadlier than Congress realized when it adopted major air-pollution laws.

The EPA now estimates that each year, tens of thousands of older Americans die early from heart or lung failure, and younger Americans suffer asthma attacks, as a result of tiny particles or soot from power plants. Both sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emitted by the plants form fine particles or soot.

"These are much smaller than the width of a human hair, so they can deposit very deep in the lungs and can contribute to a lot of respiratory effects, as well as cardiovascular effects," says Jonathan Levy, a professor of public health at Harvard University who studies power-plant pollution.
Putting profit ahead of peoples' health. Hmmmm. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
SOS2008 said:
...Israel's philosophy of "hit them before they hit you,"...
Not from anything I've read or heard about!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/israel-inde.htm
War of Independence
The UNSCOP reported on August 31 that a majority of its members supported a geographically complex system of partition into separate Arab and Jewish states, a special international status for Jerusalem, and an economic union linking the three members. Backed by both the United States and the Soviet Union, the plan was adopted after two months of intense deliberations as the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29, 1947. Although considering the plan defective in terms of their expectations from the League of Nations Mandate twenty-five years earlier, the Zionist General Council stated willingness in principle to accept partition. The League of Arab States (Arab League) Council, meeting in December 1947, said it would take whatever measures were required to prevent implementation of the resolution.

Despite the passage of the UN partition plan, the situation in Palestine in early 1948 did not look auspicious for the Yishuv. When the AHC {Arab Higher Commission] rejected the plan immediately after its passage and called for a general strike, violence between Arabs and Jews mounted. Many Jewish centers, including Jerusalem, were besieged by the Arabs.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/yom_kippur.htm
Yom Kippur War
On 6 October 1973 Egyptian and Syrian forces launched a surprise attack on Israel.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/lebanon.htm
Lebanon
(Civil War 1975-1991)

An interim cease-fire brokered by the U.S. in 1981 among Syria, the PLO, and Israel was respected for almost a year. Several incidents, including PLO rocket attacks on northern Israel, as well as an assassination attempt on the Israeli Ambassador to the United Kingdom, led to the June 6, 1982 Israeli ground attack into Lebanon to remove PLO forces.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/6-day.htm
Six Day War (War of 1967)
On 13 May 1967, Egypt reinforced its forces in the Sinai border and Israel mobilized in response.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/israel-terror.htm
Terrorist Attacks in Israel
Initially linked to Syria, Al Fatah came into its own after the June 1967 War, when the West Bank and the Gaza Strip fell under Israeli control. Palestinian refugees poured into Jordan, where the PLO established virtually autonomous enclaves, and from which it launched guerrilla raids. Israel's retaliation inflicted heavy damage within Jordan. The PLO refused demands from King Hussein that it cease operations and, in a sharp conflict with Jordanian forces in 1970 and 1971, was driven out of Jordan. Shifting its headquarters to Lebanon, the PLO adopted a more formal military structure, benefiting from an abundant flow of arms from other Arab nations. In spite of the danger of Israeli reprisals, the Lebanese government was forced to accept the independent political and military presence of the PLO in Lebanon.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/intifada2.htm
Al-Aqsa Intifada
The Al-Aqsa Intifada began in September 2000, in response to Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on September 28th. The Temple Mount, known as the Haram as Sharif in Arabic, is also the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, from which the uprising takes its name. This visit was seen by many to be a provocative gesture aimed at inciting the Palestinians because the mosque is considered the third holiest site for Muslims. Many Israelis viewed Sharon's visit as an internal political move against Prime Minister Ehud Barak, his opponent in the upcoming election. Some sources contend that the Intifada was planned by the Palestinian Authority or other Palestinian groups. Additionally, the Israeli government received some assurances from the Palestinian government that Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount would not cause violence. Contrary to some reports, Sharon did not enter the mosque itself. Regardless, violent Palestinian demonstrations occurred on September 29th. Israeli police used rubber-coated metal bullets and live ammunition to disperse the stone-throwing protesters and in the process killed four and wounded about 200 Palestinians. Following these demonstrations, similar protests broke out across Israel.
...
Negotiations at Sharm-el-Sheikh in October to end the violence produced the Mitchell Report, considered an authoritative report on Al-Aqsa Intifada. The report blamed both the Israelis and the Palestinians for the violence. At the negotiations, both sides vowed to put an end to the violence. At an Arab League summit in Cairo, however, Arafat and other Arab leaders praised the Intifada and rejected the Mitchell Report. Soon thereafter, a suicide bombing in Jerusalem increased tensions and diminished hopes of ending the violence.
...
No agreement was reached during negotiations in Washington in December 2000, either. President Clinton's proposal called for Palestinian control over 97% of the West Bank, complete control over Gaza, control of West Bank airspace, an international force in the Jordan Valley to replace the IDF, and control over Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and the Haram as Sharif. The Israelis accepted Clinton's proposal with reservations and the Palestinians did not respond before the deadline. Negotiations at Taba in January 2001 failed to produce an agreement either. Violence continued over the course of 2001.
...
UN Resolution 1397, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's peace proposal, and American General Anthony Zinni's visit to the region failed to end the violence in March 2002. After a suicide attack killed 27 Israelis during a Passover seder in April 2002, Israel embarked on Operation Defensive Shield and reoccupied Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm and other towns in an attempt to destroy terrorist infrastructure, disrupt funding, and prevent attacks.
...
In November 2004, Yasir Arafat died and many thought that new opportunities for peace would come from his death. In January 2005, Mahmoud Abbas was elected President of the PNA and met with Sharon at Sharm-el-Sheikh in February 2005. Both sides announced an end to the violence. The Israeli parliament approved the disengagement plan during the same month. In March 2005, militant groups agreed to a tahideyah (lull in the fighting). While not a full truce, this was considered major progress and some have argued that it marked the end of the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

In July 2005, the truce was broken by a suicide bombing in Netanya, which led to raids by the IDF into the West Bank. Hamas responded with rocket fire from the Gaza Strip.
...
Israel implemented its disengagement plan in August 2005, evacuating settlers from all of its Gaza settlements and four settlements in the West Bank. Sharon suffered a massive stroke in January 2006 and leadership of the Israeli government fell to Ehud Olmert. Hamas was victorious in Palestinian elections held in January 2006 and Olmert's Kadima Party retained power in Israeli elections in March 2006.

Hamas continued to launch rockets from the Gaza Strip and on June 25th, 2006 captured an Israeli corporal after killing two other Israeli soldiers in a raid attacking an Israeli border post near Gaza. Hamas's incursion into Israel led to Operation Summer Rains, a major thrust into Gaza. On July 12th, Hizbullah militants killed three Israeli soldiers in the north and captured two others. This led Israel to commence Operation Just Reward, a sustained bombing campaign against southern Lebanon.
The commonest phrase one comes across, it seems, (when you read the history of Israel) is "in retaliation". I've come across several objections that these retaliations were employing excessive force with a dangerously negligent attitude towards collateral loss - never that Israel was the one with the policy of first strikes.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
Certainly Israel has retaliated when attacked, but Israel has targeted Hamas people in Gaza, and in some cases 'vehichles suspected of . . . '.

ARABS-ISRAEL - May 8 - Hamas Leader Killed In Gaza Helicopter Attack
APS Diplomat Recorder, May, 2003
Israeli attack helicopters fire three missiles, killing Eyad Al Beik, a 30-year-old Hamas leader, and leaving his white sedan mangled and scorched in the Shaikh Radwan neighbourhood in Gaza City. (The violence points to the challenges facing US State Secretary Colin Powell, who is ...
Israel Launches Missile Strikes Against Hamas
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4755346
Morning Edition, July 15, 2005 · Israel launches helicopter missile strikes against vehicles suspected of transporting members of Hamas. The strikes occurred in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip and killed at least four people.

Overnight, Israeli helicopters fired missiles at five Palestinian targets in Gaza. The strikes came after a 22-year-old Israeli woman was killed in a rocket attack on an Israeli village. That rocket fire sparked a gun battle Friday between Hamas militants and Palestinian police; two Palestinians reportedly died.
Whether or not such pre-emptive strikes are justified is certainly debatable.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
Astronuc said:
Certainly Israel has retaliated when attacked, but Israel has targeted Hamas people in Gaza, and in some cases 'vehichles suspected of . . . '.

ARABS-ISRAEL - May 8 - Hamas Leader Killed In Gaza Helicopter Attack
APS Diplomat Recorder, May, 2003


Israel Launches Missile Strikes Against Hamas
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4755346

Whether or not such pre-emptive strikes are justified is certainly debatable.
But Hamas was established to eliminate Israel, and has engaged in coutless terrorist strikes against Israeli civilians since its inception. Attacking a terrorist organization that was formed to destroy you, and has made every effort to do so, is, strictly speaking, retaliation, not pre-emption.

But this is now derailing the thread into another Israel-Palestine debate. I'm dropping this issue here - feel free to throw in your response - so we can get back on topic. I wish however, that SOS hadn't attempted an offhand swipe at an unrelated target.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,969
5,131
SOS2008 said:
The high percentage of prisoners that are released after years of investigation because of lack of evidence indicates the U.S. is WAY off.
If you are talking about detainees in the war on terror/war in Iraq, there are three things you are forgetting:

-A high fraction of the detainees (not just at 'gitmo) were little more than POWs and were never going to be prosecuted.
-Having evidence, on its own, does not provide a means to deal with the detainees, so it is going to far to say that not enough evidence was a critical part of why so many were released.
-This isn't a police investigation. You can't just drive to someone's house and interview them. Because of that, they have to cast a wide net and releasing people doesn't imply that "the U.S. is WAY off".
Well that's what you get when you put a bunch of idiots in charge. First BushCo divided the world, then our country, and now even their own party. I wonder how long it will take for the U.S. to gain back respect from the rest of the world, and if our wounded country will ever heal.
The US - and the world - are doing just fine. The biggest problem for the Democratic party is how to convince people who are bumping into the ceiling that they are falling to the floor. Its the reason the dems are losing the battle over economics. It doesn't matter how many times a guy hears 'you're poor, you're poor, you're poor, you're poor, you're poor' - if he just got a raise and bought a house, he's not going to believe it.
 
Last edited:

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
The US - and the world - are doing just fine.
Well - some of the US and some of the world are doing fine.

Starting with -
Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day.
So nearly half the people are not doing fine, because a reasonable standard of living is way more than $2/day anywhere in the world. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp#fact1

I imagine most people in Afghanistan and Iraq are not doing fine, nor in S. Lebanon, nor in many parts of Russia, China, India, . . . , nor in many parts of S. America, nor in much of Africa - especially Darfur . . . .

Unemployment is up slightly in the US from 4.6% to 4.8%, many more are employed in low wage jobs because they can't get higher paying jobs (I need to find statistics on this).

And how about - Struggling Ford Puts the Brakes on Production
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5671732
All Things Considered, August 18, 2006 · As part of its "Way Forward" restructuring campaign, the Ford Motor Company says it will reduce its fourth-quarter vehicle production by 168,000 in North America, compared with a year ago. That's down more than 20 percent. The company hopes to reduce bulging dealer inventories by temporarily shutting down ten plants. Analysts say the production cuts could pay off if Ford's new models prove popular.
Northwest's Advice to the Laid Off: Dumpster Dive :rolleyes:
Morning Edition, August 23, 2006 · Losing your job hurts.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5693397
But earlier this month, Northwest Airlines made things even worse. The company gave pink-slipped employees a tip sheet on how to cut living expenses. Among the suggestions: Rummage through other people's garbage (Tip# 46: "Don't be shy about pulling something you like out of the trash").

The tip sheet was called "101 Ways to Save Money," and it went out to 60 Northwest employees slated to lose their jobs this fall in Montana, Texas and North Dakota.
 

SOS2008

Gold Member
18
0
Gokul43201 said:
Not from anything I've read or heard about!
As Astronuc alludes to, I am talking about a Mossad philosophy of target killings that the Pentagon, under Rummy, along with Bush/Cheney, have adopted (e.g., preemptive strike) -- in particular as each defines individuals/groups as terrorists. Here are a few citations on the topic:

Fatal Choices: Israel's Policy of Targeted Killing - SR David - 2002 - Bar-Ilan University

S Gazit - Combating Terrorism: Strategies of Ten Countries, 2002 - press.umich.edu

The Counter-Terrorism Puzzle: A Guide for Decision Makers - B Ganor - 2005 - Transaction Publishers

The Elite Unit of Israel - M Zonder - 2000 - Jerusalem: Keter

Israel against Terror: A National Assessment - SL Gordon - 2002 - Tel Aviv: Meltzer

R&D and the War on Terrorism: Generalizing the Israeli Experience - I Ben-Israel, O Setter, A Tishler - Science and Technology Policies for the Anti-Terrorism Era, …

The Logic of Israel’s "Targeted Killing.” - G Luft - Middle East Quarterly, 2003

russ_watters said:
If you are talking about detainees in the war on terror/war in Iraq, there are three things you are forgetting: ...releasing people doesn't imply that "the U.S. is WAY off". The US - and the world - are doing just fine..
Wow, that was a good spin. I think you may have plans to run for office someday. In regard to this particular point, the ratio of how many have been detained, the number of years they have been detained, and most of all the number that ultimately have had to be released IS an indication that the U.S. is off--aside from simulating drowning to get confessions.

russ_watters said:
The biggest problem for the Democratic party is how to convince people who are bumping into the ceiling that they are falling to the floor. Its the reason the Dem's are losing the battle over economics. It doesn't matter how many times a guy hears 'you're poor, you're poor, you're poor, you're poor, you're poor' - if he just got a raise and bought a house, he's not going to believe it.
Saying the world is surviving is not to say the world is thriving. People less fortunate than the few you refer to already have a sense of it, and why confidence is low despite good economic indicators.

When people run out of equity in their homes, which has artificially supported them and the economy (and the misleading indicators such as low unemployment but neglecting to address that those employed are earning less--no, "he didn't just get a raise"--particularly in comparison to rising cost of living), we will see confidence decline even more.

As for the poor, they don't vote and they don't have money to contribute to campaigns, so why the right-wing continues to purport that the Dems need the poor to exist as a party, I'll never understand. Even philosophically, hand-outs appeal to no one. But protection of what is earned, such as Social Security, is appealing. But please, don't listen to this. It is better that you continue to feel blind confidence in the GOP.

Though more and more Americans are no longer convinced:

From "Bush tries to win over war-weary" -- nationhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14777090/page/2/[/URL]

LIE
[QUOTE]In his speeches, Bush has advanced several arguments, starting with the proposition that the United States is engaged in a long-term ideological struggle between forces of freedom and Islamic radicals who want to destroy freedom. Although U.S. adversaries come from different backgrounds -- ranging from radical Sunnis in al-Qaeda to Shiite militants such as Hezbollah -- Bush has characterized the opposition as forming a single movement, "a worldwide network of radicals that use terror to kill those that stand in the way of their totalitarian ideology."[/QUOTE]TRUTH
[QUOTE]"That's is an oversimplification of the task of dealing with the tactic [terrorism] that is used by many different groups, with many different ideologies," countered Paul R. Pillar, a former top CIA analyst and the author of a respected book on terrorism. "It leads to a misunderstanding of the need of what is in fact a different counterterrorist policy for each groups and state we are dealing with. . . . Hamas is an entirely different entity than al-Qaeda. . . . Their objectives are very much different."[/QUOTE]And with recent confirmation that there never was any ties between Iraq/Saddam and Al Qaeda/Bin Laden, nonetheless in commemoration of 9-11 (but of course) the link continues to be claimed by Bush as follows:

LIE
[QUOTE]Bush this week reiterated his four-year-old argument that Iraq is a central front in the broader struggle against Islamic terrorism. Premature withdrawal, he asserted, could make Iraq what Afghanistan was before the Sept. 11 attacks, an incubator for al-Qaeda.[/QUOTE]TRUTH
[QUOTE]Daniel Benjamin, a U.S. counterterrorism official in the Clinton administration who has written extensively about the subject, said efforts to defeat the radical Islamist ideology have been undermined by the Iraq invasion.

Credibility at issue - "There is no acknowledgement that because we have inadvertently confirmed their claims -- that we seek to occupy Muslim lands, as we have in Iraq -- the ideology is spreading and undermining our efforts," Benjamin said.[/QUOTE]So more of the same garbage is getting them nowhere, thankfully.

[QUOTE]Setbacks in Iraq have soured a majority of Americans on that mission. Falsely optimistic predictions of progress have undermined the administration's credibility. A majority of Americans question fundamental elements of the president's argument, including his contention that Iraq is the central front in the campaign against terrorism.

...Polls show how the political ground has shifted over time. The Pew Research Center began charting early in Bush's presidency public confidence in his leadership. ...In February 2001, 60 percent of Americans said they saw Bush as trustworthy, compared with just 28 percent who did not. By last month, a majority, 52 percent, said they did not believe he was trustworthy.[/QUOTE]LIE
[QUOTE]"People see him as less trustworthy because things are not going very well," said Pew center director Andrew Kohut.[/QUOTE]TRUTH
Bush supporters see him as less trustworthy because things are not going very well. The rest of the nation continues to see him as not trustworthy because of the pattern of lies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Skyhunter

This is an interesting piece.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?source=newsletter [Broken]

The parallels with the torture debacle are obvious. The torture controversy arose because the president wanted to use techniques of torture to interrogate detainees, and he proposed an extremist piece of legislation to accomplish that. Republican senators flamboyantly opposed that legislation -- thus bestowing themselves with "moderate" credentials -- but introduced their own slightly less extremist proposal that accomplished the same thing (legalizing the torture techniques).

Identically, the National Security Agency scandal arose because the president wants to eavesdrop on Americans with no judicial oversight of any kind, and he proposed an extremist piece of legislation (the Specter bill) to accomplish that. Republican lawmakers are flamboyantly opposing that legislation -- thus bestowing themselves with "moderate" credentials -- but have introduced their own proposals that accomplish the same thing (legalizing warrantless spying on Americans).

In each instance, Republican lawmakers are advocating a radical outcome that vests extraordinary powers in the president. But because their legislative approach for achieving that end in each case is slightly less radical than the president's, the media depicts their proposal as moderate and mild. Meanwhile, the Democrats are silent, invisible and completely absent from the debates, which means that the full range of views is marked by the president on one end and right-wing Republican senators on the other end (only millimeters away from the president), with the "middle" being as close to the president's position as one can get without embracing it in full.
Good to know I am not the only one who sees it this way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
So what's this about democracy and freedom?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/23/us/politics/23suppress.html
Texas Democrats File Suit Against Voting Fraud Law
HOUSTON, Sept. 22 — In the latest of the nation’s skirmishes over voting rights, Texas Democrats have sued two top Republican state officials over an antifraud law that the suit says is being used to intimidate minority voters casting ballots by mail.

The action, filed Thursday in federal court in Marshall, challenges both the constitutionality of the law and the way it is being enforced. It contends that Attorney General Greg Abbott and Secretary of State Roger Williams are exaggerating the threat of election fraud and selectively applying the statute, enacted in 2003, so that they can “suppress voting by disfavored groups” that generally support Democrats.

The law makes it a crime in certain cases to carry someone else’s filled-out ballot to the mailbox, to possess another person’s blank ballot or to provide absentee ballot assistance to anyone who has not asked for it.

One plaintiff, Gloria Meeks, a 69-year-old Fort Worth woman who said she was being investigated for helping elderly and disabled voters cast ballots, provided a sworn statement saying two state investigators “peeped into my bathroom window not once but twice while I was in my bathroom drying off from my bath.”
However
Responding to the suit in another statement, the state’s solicitor general, Ted Cruz, dismissed it as baseless and called the plaintiffs “a combination of political operatives and individual criminals who have already pleaded guilty to voter fraud.”
Report Says Education Officials Violated Rules
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/23/education/23education.html
Department of Education officials violated conflict of interest rules when awarding grants to states under President Bush’s billion-dollar reading initiative, and steered contracts to favored textbook publishers, the department’s inspector general said yesterday.

In a searing report that concludes the first in a series of investigations into complaints of political favoritism in the reading initiative, known as Reading First, the report said officials improperly selected the members of review panels that awarded large grants to states, often failing to detect conflicts of interest. The money was used to buy reading textbooks and curriculum for public schools nationwide.

States have received more than $4.8 billion in Reading First grants during the Bush administration, and a recent survey by an independent group, the Center on Education Policy, reported that many state officials consider the initiative to be highly effective in raising reading achievement. But the report describes a tangled process in which some states had to apply for grants as many as six times before receiving approval, with department officials scheming to stack panels with experts tied to favored publishers.

In one e-mail message cited in the report, from which the inspector general deleted some vulgarities, the director of Reading First, Chris Doherty, urged staff members to make clear to one company that it was not favored at the department.
:rolleyes: Can you spell "Corruption"?
 
38
165
I not only see corruption in the Bush administration, there are a lot of political appointees who are working in areas well above their ablilities. (shades of the Peter principle).

They seem to be in all departments. Fema was the most publicized, but Homeland Security is a close second. The ironic thing about this is that even corrupt individuals can be promoted beyond their level of ability.:rolleyes:
Bush himself is the most dramatic example.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
President Dodges Katherine Harris on Florida Visit

I heard this tonight on NPR. Showing their true colors.

The President and the Republican Party are shunning Katherine Harris, who help ensure that Bush won in Florida in 2000. People are keeping a distance, because among other things, Harris has apparently stated that 'only Christians should be elected'. :rolleyes:

I think the big problem for Bush and his supporters is that Harris is saying publicly what these people are thinking and doing privately. Afterall, Karl Rove would like to see a one-party state, ostensibly under control of a small group of people who share a common philosophy.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6135350
All Things Considered, September 24, 2006 · People involved in Florida politics say they've never seen anything like it: Deep in her campaign for U.S. Senate, Katherine Harris, is all but shunned by her party. On President Bush's recent trip, she was pointedly avoided and was not invited to travel to another GOP event with the president on Air Force One.

Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) prepares to speak Sept. 19, 2006, at the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport in Sarasota, Fla. The candidate has suffered several setbacks in her campaign, and has been shunned by her own party. AP
I mean what's the big deal? She has shown the same contempt for the Constitution, for democracy and for voters' rights as the Bush administration. Shouldn't they be rewarding her? :yuck:
 
14
0
Transparency?

What's the deal with Bush releasing the report indicating that the situation in Iraq has made matters worse?

This is totally contrary to their past practice of secrecy.

I'm suspicious
 

turbo

Gold Member
3,028
45
ptabor said:
What's the deal with Bush releasing the report indicating that the situation in Iraq has made matters worse?

This is totally contrary to their past practice of secrecy.

I'm suspicious
He has only declassified parts of the report. Does anybody here think that he declassified the parts that are most critical of his policies in Iraq? :grumpy: Apparently, his handlers have selected about 3 pages worth of information out of a 40+ page report, and have told him to declassify those phrases. You can bet that the still-classified portion is damning.

Edit: Remember that this is a concesus report by all the intelligence agencies in the administration. Such reports should be expected to be homogenized, watered-down, and depoliticized in order to achieve the concensus necessary to enable their release as such. It is likely that the representatives of some of the intelligence agencies supported the inclusion of much more scathing language and had to back down in order to come up with a report that the other agencies would sign.
 
Last edited:
38
165
As I understand it this information was leaked.

The Nation -- Reality intrudes again. President Bush and his allies keep insisting that the invasion of Iraq was essential to winning the fight against anti-American Islamic jihadists. The government's top experts on terrorism and Islamic extremism disagree. As The New York Times reported on Sunday, a National Intelligence Estimate produced earlier this year noted that the Iraq war has fueled Islamic radicalism around the globe and has caused the terrorist threat to grow. In other words, Bush's invasion of Iraq has been counterproductive. Or put this way: the ugly war in Iraq that has claimed the lives of thousands of American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians has placed the United States more at risk.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20...nation/3124395 [Broken]

According to other links this NIE was completed in April. I have a gut feeling that a lot of people didn't need this report to come to come to the same conclusion. Bush is rapidly approaching a point where he must run because he can no longer hide.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
Bush 'concealing Iraq violence'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5393964.stm
Veteran US journalist Bob Woodward has claimed that the true extent of insurgent attacks in Iraq has been hidden by the administration.
He makes the claim in a book, State of Denial, due to be released on Monday.

Mr Woodward has had better access to policymakers in the Bush White House than any other writer.

In a preview interview he also revealed that former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has become a frequent adviser to President Bush.

State of Denial is a follow up to earlier volumes on the Bush White House which have contained a vivid detail of who said what to whom but have been largely uncritical of the President.

Indeed, they have been recommended as essential reading by Bush supporters.

This book appears to be much more challenging, with Bob Woodward making at least one eye-catching and politically damaging claim that the true extent of the violence in Iraq is being hidden.

"The insurgents know what they're doing, they know the level of violence and how effective they are" - Bob Woodward​
Well, of course this is coming out just in time for the November elections. Hmmmm!

Interesting to see how this shakes out.

Well - Bush may yet go down in history as "Dishonest George".
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
Someone sent me this link - http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

Lie by Lie: Chronicle of a War Foretold: August 1990 to March 2003
The first drafts of history are fragmentary. Important revelations arrive late, and out of order. In this timeline, we’ve assembled the history of the Iraq War to create a resource we hope will help resolve open questions of the Bush era. What did our leaders know and when did they know it? And, perhaps just as important, what red flags did we miss, and how could we have missed them? This is the first installment in our Iraq War timeline project.
I guess people missed them because many could not believe that Bush could become president. :rolleyes:
 
38
165
Astronuc
That is one terrific link. It has a very complete searchable and verified chronology of events.

With great sub links like this one to a CBS video.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

It is almost as if the Bush administration has dumped so much dissinformation, and so many lies on the American people that many millions aquired an illusion that what was said and done was true. This entire era of this administration has been a well calculated and effective form of mind control.

Bush of course apparently does not have the intellect to be the driving force behind it. The people have a right to know exactly who has been pulling the strings behind that curtain.
 
Last edited:

Skyhunter

edward said:
Bush of course apparently does not have the intellect to be the driving force behind it. The people have a right to know exactly who has been pulling the strings behind that curtain.
Is there really any doubt that Shooter and Rove are the brains.
 
38
165
Skyhunter said:
Is there really any doubt that Shooter and Rove are the brains.
Shooter and Rove are definitely in the inner circle. There have to be more people involved. They have brainwased an entire nation.

Judging by the bills approved recently giving Bush even more power, it appears that the Republican Congress and Senate are unwilling to defend the Untied States Constitution.:mad:
 

Skyhunter

edward said:
Shooter and Rove are definitely in the inner circle. There have to be more people involved. They have brainwased an entire nation.
Not the entire nation, I still have a dirty mind. :biggrin:
 

Skyhunter

Has everyone seen Olbermanns commentary on Bush's latest string of lies?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/05/olbermanns-special-comment-it-is-not-the-democrats-whose-inaction-in-the-face-of-the-enemy-you-fear/

I recommend watching it.

Here is an excerpt from the transcript.

Olbermann: And lastly tonight, a Special Comment, about — lying. While the leadership in Congress has self-destructed over the revelations of an unmatched, and unrelieved, march through a cesspool… While the leadership inside the White House has self-destructed over the revelations of a book with a glowing red cover…

The President of the United States — unbowed, undeterred, and unconnected to reality — has continued his extraordinary trek through our country rooting out the enemies of freedom: The Democrats.

Transcripts below the fold


Yesterday at a fundraiser for an Arizona Congressman, Mr. Bush claimed, quote, "177 of the opposition party said 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists."

The hell they did.

177 Democrats opposed the President's seizure of another part of the Constitution*.

Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn't be listening to the conversations of terrorists.

President Bush hears… what he wants.

Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said "Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we're attacked again before we respond."

Mr. Bush fabricated that, too.

And evidently he has begun to fancy himself as a mind-reader.

"If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party," the President said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, "it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is — wait until we're attacked again."

The President doesn't just hear what he wants. He hears things, that only he can hear.

It defies belief that this President and his administration could continue to find new unexplored political gutters into which they could wallow.
Olbermann rocks!
 

Related Threads for: Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy/Republican Lies

Replies
65
Views
7K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
19K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
150
Views
18K

Hot Threads

Top