News Republican lies used to trick the public

[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

 

[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? )

 

[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/

 

[The Smoking Man]

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

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.”

 

[Skyhunter]

Here’s one for those who love Word Wars:
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.”

The official White House transcript.

Not what I would consider a reliabe sources these days.

 

[SOS2008]

Speaking of rewriting history...

Bush: Critics try to rewrite Iraq war history
He calls new questions about pre-war intelligence ‘deeply irresponsible’
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 2:25 p.m. ET Nov. 11, 2005

TOBYHANNA, Pa. - President Bush, in the most forceful defense yet of his Iraq war policy, accused critics Friday of trying to rewrite history and charged that they’re undercutting America’s forces on the front lines.

“The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges,” the president said in his combative Veterans Day speech.

“While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began,” the president said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10004606/

I'm sure Bush realizes his approval ratings are very much linked to the war, including how the invasion was instigated, so he is coming out with this defense. Or, he is very out of touch with reality? After Libby's indictment, he can't be serious.

 

[SOS2008]

I'll add more to the post above, but in the meantime...

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., says that the No. 1 health care crisis in his state is medical lawsuit abuse and in the past he's called for a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage awards or awards for pain and suffering. "We need to do something now to fix the medical liability problem in this country," he declared at a rally in Washington D.C., this past spring.

But Santorum's wife sued a doctor for $500,000 in 1999. She claimed that a botched spinal manipulation by her chiropractor led to back surgery, pain and suffering, and sued for twice the amount of a cap Santorum has supported.

----------

But the fact is that Santorum has sponsored or co-sponsored a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages two times — even though he testified in his wife's case against the doctor.

"Of course I'm going to support my wife in her endeavors," he said. "That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything that she does."
But Santorum agreed enough to tell the jury that he had to carry the laundry upstairs for his wife and that, because she suffered humiliation from weight gain, she no longer had the confidence to help him on the campaign trail. The jury was so moved it voted to award Karen Santorum $350,000.

"That's where again you're misled is that a lot of, there was cumulative damages," he said. "The medical bills, lost income, all those other things that were out there."

Those medical bills totaled $18,800, yet she sued for $500,000. And lost income? The judge made no mention of that when he slashed the jury's award in half, saying it was excessive.

The judge noted that the remaining damages "awarded amounted to something in the neighborhood of $330,000 or so for injuries sustained and the effect upon Mrs. Santorum's health, her past and future pain and suffering and inconvenience."

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1300271&page=1

He had to carry the laundry, and his wife was, well...not as sexy? I always knew he was a chauvinist creep.

 

[Skyhunter]

Bush: Critics try to rewrite Iraq war history
He calls new questions about pre-war intelligence ‘deeply irresponsible’
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 2:25 p.m. ET Nov. 11, 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10004606/
I'm sure Bush realizes his approval ratings are very much linked to the war, including how the invasion was instigated, so he is coming out with this defense. Or, he is very out of touch with reality? After Libby's indictment, he can't be serious.

What a great way to honor veterans on veterans day.

He has no shame.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Classic Bushtalk

Edited back to original statement for continuity

"We do not torture. We're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it possible, more possible, to do our job," Bush said. "There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. And so, you bet we will aggressively pursue them. But we will do so under the law." [continued]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051107/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_torture

Translation:
Until we got caught we did not call what we do torture. Since most people realize that it is torture, and since we wish to use torture, we are soliticing congress to prevent McCain from banning its use. In my dirty little world the ends justify the means. So even though we have been wrong at nearly every turn - invaded a country on false pretenses and all that, you know - and even though we have clearly shown ourselves to be inept and over zealous at best, we now wish to act without any constraints, but under the law.

 

[SOS2008]

What a great way to honor veterans on veterans day.
He has no shame.

So true, he used this day for political leverage instead of honoring the men and women he sent to Iraq to die.

And now the rest of the story:

Asterisks dot White House’s Iraq argument
Administration had access to intel that wasn’t shared with Congress
ANALYSIS
By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Updated: 12:30 a.m. ET Nov. 12, 2005

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

…Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material.

And

…the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions.

Also, I’d hardly refer to the committee as bipartisan. But to top things off:

Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."

That’s right, this is the part that really gets me:

A vote for regime change?
Bush, in his speech Friday, said that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." But in trying to set the record straight, he asserted: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

Not only is he casting blame on Congress and Democrats for going along with him, he admits the real reason for the invasion was regime change!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10009710/

OMG he is providing testimony for impeachment. What are we waiting for?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Another glaring misrepresentation: The Bush camp often cites the alleged fact that nearly every allied intelligence org believed that Saddam either had WMDs, or that he was trying to make them. What is left out here is that almost no one else supported the invasion, so despite Bush’s implications that it was, it is clear that the Saddam threat was not generally perceived as imminent. Does Bush forget that he snubbed most of our allies and then counted Island nations as partners for a head count? What was that one little country that he touted so proudly when Germany, France, and most of the UN refused to be mislead; Cameroon?

 

[Skyhunter]

…the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions.

Also, I’d hardly refer to the committee as bipartisan.

If we can all remember back to the 2004 election and the results of the 911 commission report. In the interest of the country, in order to release the commission's report and have it's recommendations taken seriously, the members agreed to separate the report into two phases.

Phase 1 was the most important.

What happened and how do we fix it?

That was the 911 commission report

In order to have a consensus they agreed to leave out the part about how Bushco handled the intelligence until after the election.

This is where the bi-partisanship=date-rape analogy comes in. With the best interests of the country in mind, Democrats agreed to not look at how the "facts and intelligence were being fixed to fit the policy". If the facts had been allowed out during the election, Bush likely would not have been elected. Now as the facts are coming to light, he is saying that his opponents are trying to re-write history.

Projection is what these guys do. Makes it real easy to know what they are up to. Whatever they accuse their opponents of, is exactly what they themselves are doing.

Why is it the Dem's who always seem to make these compromises in order to do what is best for the country?

It just may be that they do have the better interests of the country at heart. I still try to judge politicians individually. I have however noticed this trend since Jim Wright was ousted as House leader and the new Repub's like Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay came into power.

Do not get in a car with these guys. Call a cab from the restaurant or movie theater!

 

[SOS2008]

More on the White House “fear and smear” strategy -

From MSNBC:

BLITZER: Why do you shake your head?

PRESS: Well, first of all I'm shaking my head -- look, I don't know what got into this gang at the White House. They used to be so smooth. This speech today I think was a big mistake. Bad timing. You know, we all know what happens on Veteran's Day. The president, not the vice president -- the president goes to Arlington.

The president brings a whole country together supporting our troops, he lays a wreath at the tomb of the unknowns. Today, instead, the president goes up to Pennsylvania, makes a political speech dividing the country, attacking his political enemies. I think this is a big mistake, Wolf.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/11/sitroom.01.html

From AP-The Washington Times:

Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, who is still under the cloud of the CIA leak investigation, hopped Air Force One to attend the speech, an indication that it was a political event.

Bush shared the stage with a tan Army depot vehicle, and banners behind him read "Strategy for Victory." "Hail to the Chief," which is rarely played to mark Bush's arrival, blared from speakers in the warehouse.

http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME

Not to mention that many veterans are Democrats, and Bush attacked all of them on Veterans Day.

From CNN:

Bush takes on critics of Iraq war
President says war is central to fight against terrorism
Friday, November 11, 2005; Posted: 5:43 p.m. EST (22:43 GMT)

Democrats respond -

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, responded to Bush's speech in a statement, saying that the commander-in-chief missed an opportunity to lay out "a clear strategy for success in the war in Iraq."

…In a statement, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, noting that a majority of House Democrats voted against the resolution that authorized the war, faulted the president for politicizing Veterans Day.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/11/bush.intel/?section=cnn_us

I would add, the war is central to generating terrorism.

More from AP-Washington Times:

"This administration misled a nation into war by cherry-picking intelligence and stretching the truth beyond recognition. That's why Scooter Libby has been indicted. That's why a statement in the State of the Union Address was retracted," said Kerry...

http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME

Getting back to the speech - Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."

Congress did not vote to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. Those who voted for the resolution did so because of claims regarding WMD and links to Al Qaeda/terrorism--both of which have been proven to be false.

 

[Skyhunter]

Getting back to the speech - Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."
Congress did not vote to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. Those who voted for the resolution did so because of claims regarding WMD and links to Al Qaeda/terrorism--both of which have been proven to be false.

Actually they did vote with the goal of removing Saddam from power.

Regime change in Iraq was already US policy. Congress voted to authorize force in order to lend credibility to the threat and force Saddam to let the inspectors in unfettered. (Which he did.) There was also an exile deal being worked out.

When it looked like we might possibly avoid a war Bush told the inspectors he could no longer guarantee their safety and rushed in.

 

[Astronuc]

Medicare's new prescription drug benefit starts next week

Remember Bush's claim that he would take care of Medicare and our senior citizens. Well

From PAUL KRUGMAN, The Deadly Doughnut, NY Times, Nov 11, 2005

Americans will also learn a bigger lesson: politicians who don't believe in a positive role for government shouldn't be allowed to design new government programs.

At first, the benefit will look like a normal insurance plan, with a deductible and co-payments.

But if your cumulative drug expenses reach $2,250, a very strange thing will happen: you'll suddenly be on your own. The Medicare benefit won't kick in again unless your costs reach $5,100. This gap in coverage has come to be known as the "doughnut hole."

One way to see the bizarre effect of this hole is to notice that if you are a retiree and spend $2,000 on drugs next year, Medicare will cover 66 percent of your expenses. But if you spend $5,000 - which means that you're much more likely to need help paying those expenses - Medicare will cover only 30 percent of your bills.

A study in the July/August issue of Health Affairs points out that this will place many retirees on a financial "roller coaster."

People with high drug costs will have relatively low out-of-pocket expenses for part of the year - say, until next summer. Then, suddenly, they'll enter the doughnut hole, and their personal expenses will soar. And because the same people tend to have high drug costs year after year, the roller-coaster ride will repeat in 2007.

The smart thing to do, for those who could afford it, would be to buy supplemental insurance that would cover the doughnut hole. But guess what: the bill that established the drug benefit specifically prohibits you from buying insurance to cover the gap. That's why many retirees who already have prescription drug insurance are being advised not to sign up for the Medicare benefit.

Why is this bill so bad?

The probable answer is that the Republican Congressional leaders who rammed the bill through in 2003 weren't actually trying to protect retired Americans against the risk of high drug expenses. In fact, they're fundamentally hostile to the idea of social insurance, of public programs that reduce private risk.

Their purpose was purely political: to be able to say that President Bush had honored his 2000 campaign promise to provide prescription drug coverage by passing a drug bill, any drug bill.

Can this mess be fixed? Not by the current leaders according to Krugman.

 

[Skyhunter]

Remember Bush's claim that he would take care of Medicare and our senior citizens. Well

Can this mess be fixed? Not by the current leaders according to Krugman.

One of the reasons I can't believe Bush won Florida is that the seniors I know from Florida, my grandmather and her friends, all seemed to understand this. It was their biggest beef with Bush.

My grandmother has volunteered for the Republican party and worked the polls every election since about 1950, except for the this last one.

 

[SOS2008]

Actually they did vote with the goal of removing Saddam from power.
Regime change in Iraq was already US policy. Congress voted to authorize force in order to lend credibility to the threat and force Saddam to let the inspectors in unfettered. (Which he did.) There was also an exile deal being worked out.
When it looked like we might possibly avoid a war Bush told the inspectors he could no longer guarantee their safety and rushed in.

What? It wasn't because of the "smoking gun--that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" nor the infamous “aluminum tubes?" We all know regime change was Bush's real reason, but that's not what was presented to the UN, Congress and the American people:

War justifications
Stated or allegedly perceived goals of the invasion and occupation as stated by the United States in 2002 before the Iraq invasion are likewise controversial factors. Over time, these have varied, but as originally given (before the 2003 Iraq invasion) for the initiation of the war included:

That Hussein's regime was in violation of United Nations demands for weapons inspections;
1) that the Hussein regime allegedly had a program intended to develop weapons of mass destruction;
2) that Hussein had failed to comply with UN resolutions requiring a full accounting of its weapons of mass destruction and full cooperation with UN inspections;
3) that the Hussein regime had ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that posed a threat to international safety; and,
4) promoting democratic self-government in the nearly-entirely autocratic Arab Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#War_justifications

One could argue that regime change would likely result in relation to addressing the above, but I would remind folks that regime change is illegal and the main reason why the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" to support the war.

 

[scott1]

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
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.

1)Ture the Media isn't liberal but sometimes just seems that wayto Republicans(The more powerful gourp/person the more parnoid you are)
2)Who know's?
3)It's kind of ture and a lie they are terroist and the insurgent leader did swear his allgince to osma bim laden and not every terroist gourp that aganist is really wit Al-Qudiea(Fact:Al-Qudiea means "the base" in arab)
4)No it's solely based on supply demand but it does have to lot with it rember more people in china and India are buying cars
5)I'am not sure if you this know this but terroist and Hurricanes(I'am not joking) two differnt things but yes New Orleans did prove that were not well prepared for a terroist attack but it was te Mayor of New Orleans that he didn't have plan when he was soppesd to make a plan not the president
6)Again big differnce from Hurriane and Terroist.But we have been planing better for Emegencies since rember Rita

 

[Skyhunter]

1)Ture the Media isn't liberal but sometimes just seems that wayto Republicans(The more powerful gourp/person the more parnoid you are)
2)Who know's?
3)It's kind of ture and a lie they are terroist and the insurgent leader did swear his allgince to osma bim laden and not every terroist gourp that aganist is really wit Al-Qudiea(Fact:Al-Qudiea means "the base" in arab)
4)No it's solely based on supply demand but it does have to lot with it rember more people in china and India are buying cars
5)I'am not sure if you this know this but terroist and Hurricanes(I'am not joking) two differnt things but yes New Orleans did prove that were not well prepared for a terroist attack but it was te Mayor of New Orleans that he didn't have plan when he was soppesd to make a plan not the president
6)Again big differnce from Hurriane and Terroist.But we have been planing better for Emegencies since rember Rita

Dude...get a spell checker.