Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy/Republican Lies

[Evo]

SOS, I'm not talking about valid arguments, I'm referring to the fact that some people in their blindness are actually detracting from the issue.

Haven't you ever wished that some people weren't on your side because they are hurting your cause? I know I have.

 

[Cyrus]

In that response to my post, you still equated things that were not equivalent. Ie, prohibiting money transfers to the ME is not equivalent to outlawing business ownership by Muslims.

Ok, that's fair. But I am showing you that things are not all fine and dandy either. Being Muslim in America does not mean having TOTALY equal rights. (The same can be said for blacks)

Ie, prohibiting money transfers to the ME is not equivalent to outlawing business ownership by Muslims.

I did not say that. I said shutting down middle eastern owned money service businesses by the US government.

 

[edward]

And yet they think it anyway: and that's the problem!
Don't let your imagination run wild. If you don't know what to think, don't start with the default assumption that something terrible must be going on that you don't know about.

It has alreay been proven that terrible things have been going on that the people didn't know about. That is the problem. And no imagination running wild was needed. It started with Cheney's pre 9/11 secret meeting with top energy executives and has never ended.

This administration has shown no evidence that they can or should be trusted by the people. Except for those who will follow the administration blindly along like a bunch of sheeple, the public, including many Republicans, rightly want some answers.
And for those who have always distrusted the administrations motives: the secrecy, innaccuracies, and just plain lies have only fueled the fires of their discontent.

As I stated previously in reguards to Bush bashing, the secretive nature of the Bush administration has been the problem. They have invited bashing. They have shot themselves in the foot and are now trying to blame the public. Secrecy invites distrust and that has born itself out during the Bush years.

 

[Evo]

As I stated previously in reguards to Bush bashing, the secretive nature of the Bush administration has been the problem. They have invited bashing. They have shot themselves in the foot and are now trying to blame the public. Secrecy invites distrust and that has born itself out during the Bush years.

That's very true, I have never seen an administration more overtly secretive.

 

[edward]

But really, how is this any different from past administrations? What about Watergate? If you really know American history, you know this is not unusual. Have you read about the intrigue during the Kennedy administration, or even what went on under Johnson? Does anyone even remember President Johnson? Does anyone remember what went on during Nixon's administration.

Actually I am old enough to remember all of the above with the addition of Ike and Truman. I held a top secret government security clearance for over thirty years and I never encountered or even dreamed of the kind of blatant concealment of government information that has happened during the Bush administration.

We had in the past many military and espionage related secrets. We even had secret missile bases virtually on the Russian border. Then there were, as with Nixon and Kennedy, some "nasty" little secrets, Nixons of course being the worst.

But a secret meeting between the Vice President and the Captains of the oil industry?? Give me a break. And that is just the tip of the iceburg. Under Bush secrecy has been expanded into every level of the federal government including the EPA, and other govenmant agencies which should really hold no information from the public.

Harry Truman understood the importance of open government in a free society. George W. Bush does not.

http://www.bushsecrecy.org/

 

[Evo]

Yeah, my first husband was in Naval Intelligence and had a Top Secret clearance, "need to know only" or "eyes only" or something like that, even my background had to be checked. It was a level above top secret? They even questioned if he talked in his sleep. He used to declassify spy photos and bring them home to teach me how to PI (photo interpret) missile silos and bridges and stuff. Apparently knowing bridges is real important in a war. It makes sense, cut your enemy off from supplies.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)...blatant concealment of government information that has happened during the Bush administration.(snip)

If the information is concealed, you don't know about it. If you know about it, it ain't concealed. How something can be "blatantly concealed" is the biggest mystery of this thread.

 

[edward]

If the information is concealed, you don't know about it. If you know about it, it ain't concealed. How something can be "blatantly concealed" is the biggest mystery of this thread.

You seem to be forgetting that some of that blatantly concealed information has now been made public, and not by the Bush administration.

Nice try. but no cigar. Might I suggest that you try reading a link occassionally.

 

[Cyrus]

Nice try. but no cigar.

Just for saying that, you are the man! Thats old school and badass

 

[edward]

Yeah, my first husband was in Naval Intelligence and had a Top Secret clearance, "need to know only" or "eyes only" or something like that, even my background had to be checked. It was a level above top secret? They even questioned if he talked in his sleep. He used to declassify spy photos and bring them home to teach me how to PI (photo interpret) missile silos and bridges and stuff. Apparently knowing bridges is real important in a war. It makes sense, cut your enemy off from supplies.

AHH yes the good old background investigation. They went back 10 years (I think they still do) and I was sweating it because they were going to be talking to the people who had been my neighbors when I was a teenager. Apparently either my loud mufflers were not brought up during the interview, or loud mufflers were not seen as a threat to my ability to maintain secrecy.

 

[Bystander]

Just for laughs, and I can't vouch for completeness or accuracy of the discussion, here's a link that's sort of relevant to the discussion:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread40058/pg1 .

 

[russ_watters]

This is going to start going around in circles, but the problem isn't with the things that have come out, it is with the things that people are speculating about - which is why Bystander's point was perfectly correct. If you are going to make wild speculations about things that you have no information about, you may as well throw in the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot - Bush hasn't mentioned them, so he must be hiding them too.

Remember, this portion of the argument started with people comparing the Bush admin to the Gestapo despite the utter lack of a demonstrable connection. Ie, Computergeek, you said you know things about the motivations of the Bush admin (that Bush admin officials want to "exterminate Muslims") that other people don't know because it is a secret. So do you have ESP, or what?

 

[jimmie]

Remember, this portion of the argument started with people comparing the Bush admin to the Gestapo despite the utter lack of a demonstrable connection.

by Tim Harper, Toronto Star
Nov. 18, 2003
Canadian kidnapped by U.S. asks for public inquiry

Canada is still demanding answers from Washington as to why Arar, a dual Syrian-Canadian national, was deported to Syria, where he was tortured during a 10-month stay in a dank, cramped cell he described as a "grave."

In an interview published in The New York Times, Arar, an Ottawa computer consultant, said he was given an injection in a Brooklyn detention centre while being held there in September, 2002. He said guards would not tell him what they had injected him with.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has promised his Canadian counterpart, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham, some clarification on the case and is seeking more information from Ashcroft. The U.S. justice department would not say whether Ashcroft would provide an update, or any new information to Easter tomorrow.

He has never been charged and critics in the U.S. — where the Arar case is gaining more attention — accuse the government of breaking international law by, in essence, sub-contracting torture of suspects to other countries.

I was using my Air Miles to travel, and the best flight I could get went from Tunis to Zurich, to New York, to Montreal. My flight arrived in New York at 2 p.m. on Sept. 26, 2002. I had a few hours to wait until my connecting flight to Montreal.

This is when my nightmare began. I was pulled aside at immigration and taken to another area. I asked to make a phone call and they would not let me.

Then a team of people came and told me they wanted to ask me some questions. One man was from the FBI, and another was from the New York Police Department.

This interrogation continued until midnight. I was very, very worried, and asked for a lawyer again and again. They just ignored me. Then they put me in chains, on my wrists and ankles, and took me in a van to a place where many people were being held — another building by the airport. They would not tell me what was happening.

Then, they put me on a small private jet. I was the only person on the plane with them. I was still chained and shackled. We flew first to Washington. A new team of people got on the plane and the others left. I overheard them talking on the phone, saying that Syria was refusing to take me directly, but Jordan would take me.

Then, we flew to Portland, to Rome, and then to Amman, Jordan. All the time I was on the plane I was thinking how to avoid being tortured. I was very scared.

Where they hit me with the cables, my skin turned blue for two or three weeks, but there was no bleeding. At the end of the day, they told me tomorrow would be worse. So I could not sleep.

I was not exposed to sunlight for six months. The only times I left the grave was for interrogation, and for the visits. Daily life in that place was hell. When I was detained in New York I weighed about 180 pounds. I think I lost about 40 pounds while I was at the Palestine Branch.

http://www.unknownnews.net/031119torture.html"

How many other cases like the above? Hundreds? Thousands? How many cases ended in death of the kidnapped individual?

"This case crystallizes the danger of this period in U.S. history — when you can be held on the flimsiest of evidence, or non-evidence, based on the suspicion that one might have done something," said Ron Daniels of the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights.

 

[SOS2008]

Remember, this portion of the argument started with people comparing the Bush admin to the Gestapo

I posted the article, but not with the intention of this thread going in that direction. I would really like to return to the original topic and purpose of the thread. So hopefully this can be put to rest and all can move forward. From Meet The Press last night:

MR. RUSSERT: Let’s talk a little bit about the language people are using in the politics now of 2006, and I refer you to some comments that Harry Belafonte made yesterday. He said that Homeland Security had become the new Gestapo. What do you think of that?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, I never use Nazi analogies, because I think those were unique, and I think, you know, we have to be careful in using historical analogies like this. I think people are rightly concerned that we strike the right balance between our concerns for civil liberties and the uniform concern that all of us have about protecting ourselves from terrorism.
----------
MR. RUSSERT: Is it appropriate to call the President of the United States the greatest terrorist in the world?

SEN. OBAMA: …That’s not language that I would use.

…What I do think we have to focus on is—in the context of the Middle East and Iraq, Iran—is the fact that we are at a very delicate time right now, which requires not just military might, but also diplomacy. And there’ve been times where we have not used all the tools in our tool kit. There’s been a tendency on this part of this administration to talk tough, to act first and plan later…
----------
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the political situation here at home. Your colleague Senator Hillary Clinton said some things that have been talked about all week long. Let’s listen to that and come back and talk about it.

(Videotape, Monday)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, (D-NY): We have cronyism, we have incompetence. I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Do you agree with Senator Clinton that the Bush administration will go down in history as one of the worst?

SEN. OBAMA: I agree with her remarks about cronyism and incompetence. I don’t think that anybody who’s been watching the news over the last year who’s seen what happened in New Orleans, who’s seen some of the botched planning that took place post-war in Iraq would not think that there is a competence issue when it comes to this administration. I think that with respect to cronyism, we have seen, I think, consistently, a tendency on the part of this administration to appoint people on the basis of their politics as opposed to their abilities and their merits, and that has real consequences for the American people…

MR. RUSSERT: Will George Bush be considered one of the worst presidents in history?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, that’s a tough standard to meet. We’ve had some pretty bad ones. So, I, you know, I don’t prognosticate in terms of where George Bush will place in American history.

MR. RUSSERT: But in terms of the dialogue and the civility in Washington, is it appropriate to be talking in these terms?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, here in Chicago we’ve got a saying that “politics ain’t beanbag.” And sometimes I think that we get overexcited, or we fasten on remarks that people are making in the heat of political battle. I agree that generally we need to improve the tone of civility in politics. I think that that starts, by the way, with the White House and some of those closest to George Bush. I’m always happy if we can tone down the rhetoric and focus on the problems that the American people care about.
----------
MR. RUSSERT: No sin for the Democrats?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, with respect to how Tom DeLay consolidated power in the House of Representatives, invited lobbyists like Abramoff into help write legislation, leveraging those lobbyists and telling them that they can only hire Republicans, manipulating the rules of the House and the Senate in order to move forward legislation that was helpful to special interests. There is a qualitative difference to what’s been happening in Washington over the last several years that has real consequences. It means a prescription drug bill that doesn’t work for our seniors. It means an energy policy that does nothing to help relieve high gas prices at the pump. These aren’t just abstractions, these are problems that have very real consequences to the American people. And my hope is is that, on a bipartisan basis, we can come up with a solution that returns some semblance of responsiveness to Washington.
----------
MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Welcome all. James Carville, Paul Begala, “Take It Back,” the new blueprint, the Bible for Democrats. And here’s what it says: “George W. Bush and the Washington Republicans have presided over the most corrupt reign since Richard Nixon and his Watergate crooks were driven from Washington in disgrace.”
Mr. Carville, substantiate that.

MR. JAMES CARVILLE: Today, Friday, the Department of Defense high-ranking Bush appointee plead guilty 12 years. We got two people in the White House that are under indictment. We have a Republican congressman who’s convicted. I don’t know how many more indictments are coming. We have a prescription drug bill that was written by, for and of the pharmaceutical industry. I really don’t—it’s going to be hard to imagine that that is not going to be substantiated, and we’ll have to wait and see, but I think we’re in for more. Now we find out today in Time magazine that five pictures of Bush and Abramoff together. We find out that there are numerous contacts between the White House and Abramoff and his clients. So we are—hang on. We got a long way to go. A long, long way to go.
---------
MR. RUSSERT: Mary Matalin, many are questioning whether or not the Republicans or the Democrats are serious about reform. Trent Lott back in November said this about John McCain, who had introduced legislation dealing with this: “John McCain needs to relax. He needs to focus on national security and issues critical to our country. We don’t need a new law on lobbying.” Have the Republicans been born-again on reform?

MS. MATALIN: You know, James is right, Harry Reid has been refreshing. He refused to give back his Abramoff money, because it’s not illegal to petition the government, it’s not illegal to give money to the government. Well, what is unethical and what is illegal and what the people want—not illegal, but what people want to be focused on is where is all—where are our tax payers’ dollars going. Not where are the contributions going, what are they doing with our money? And in the middle of night, under cover of darkness, without legislation being read, across the board, both sides, they’re putting it into their pet projects. That’s what needs to be reformed.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, let’s talk about that, because that’s an important point. In the Wall Street Journal, which is hardly an organ for the Democratic Party, wrote this, “When Republicans took control of the purse strings in 1995, the federal budget was $1.5 trillion dollars. It’s now $2.55 trillion dollars, or $5 million dollars a minute. And the latest Treasury data reveal that fiscal 2005 federal outlays grew by another $179 billion dollars, an 8 percent increase, and more than twice the rate of inflation.” And then they added this to the editorial, “The smell of bacon.” In ‘95, when Republicans captured both houses of Congress, there were 1439 earmarked projects, the special projects you talked about, they cost $10 billion dollars. Ten years later, nearly 14,000 specific earmarked projects by individuals congressmen and senators, $27 billion dollars. Republicans control both houses of Congress.
----------
MR. BEGALA: …I think—we agree about this earmarking congressional reform and the way the congressman in both parties hide the way they spend their money. But I got the most important reviews for the book yesterday: Diane and I went to Houston, our friend Analie Sanchez was getting married. We went to lunch with my dad. ‘OK, Dad, what did you think?’ And it was interesting—he picked up on something that I’d forgotten was in the book, he said, ‘The thing that troubles me most’—and this is a guy who voted for Ronald Reagan and spent his career in the oil business in Texas, he’s no liberal—he said, ‘What bothers me the most was that President Bush hired a lobbyist from the mining industry to be the number two guy in the Interior Department.’ And that he says, in the book, he says, ‘My goal is to turn out the lights on the mine safety agency.’ That’s just, you know, one guy’s real world response. This is the problem of the culture of corruption. Lord Acton was right, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that’s what, I think, Madison was looking for in his checks and balances. We don’t have that right now. In part, because Democrats have been too feckless and ineffective in campaigning. That’s why we wrote the book, though.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10909406/page/5/

Which brings us to the newest lie:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Monday defended the government's oversight of the Sago mine and said none of the previous safety problems cited at the West Virginia mine appeared to be the cause of the January 2 explosion that killed 12 miners.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012300697.html

And at a White House briefing yesterday, spokesman Scott McClellan said improved mine safety has been a priority for the Bush administration.

If it has, it's been in the opposite direction. I can't believe the information to the contrary with a simple Google.

"Secrecy and a free democratic government don't mix" - President Harry S. Truman

 

[edward]

Just for laughs, and I can't vouch for completeness or accuracy of the discussion, here's a link that's sort of relevant to the discussion:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread40058/pg1 .

There are a number of different TS clearances that are meant for various positions. For instance, yankee white, refers to someone who will be working with the president and in some cases military pilots. Yet yankee white does not refer to the security clearance, it refers to the type of background investigation which must be carried out.

Ironically federal elected officials do not have to have a security clearance, yet the aids and other employees working in their offices do.

In essence neither Bush nor Cheney has a security clearance. The president, however, has a unique status in that he can grant a presidential clearance to any person.

Here is another link. The whole security clearance scenario has gotten a bit whacky ie illegal aliens working in secret areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._security_clearance_terms

 

[SOS2008]

The newest lie is a two-for-one. Lie Part I (a recycled lie):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10991763/
Bush on the offensive over secret spy program

“It’s amazing that people say to me, ‘Well, he’s just breaking the law.’ If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?” [Heh!] said Bush.

Bush did not brief Congress, rather the “president provided limited notification to only a few lawmakers” who were sworn to secrecy. Which prompted a letter of grave concern and request for more details--details that were never provided:

John D. Rockefeller IV, a wealthy man representing a poor state, had been the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee for six months when he sat down to a secret briefing on July 17, 2003. What he heard alarmed him so much that immediately afterward he wrote two identical letters, by hand, expressing his concerns.

He sent one to Vice President Cheney and placed the other -- as he pointedly warned Cheney he would -- in a safe in case anyone in the future might challenge his version of what happened. Rockefeller proved prophetic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901641.html

That's what Bush calls briefing Congress?

Lie Part II:

Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, meanwhile, has put Democrats on notice that the White House regards the issue as a political winner for Republicans in this year’s congressional elections.

Beginning by making the statement that Democrats do not support surveillance of terrorists.

Er…WHAT!? Democrats most certainly support sureveillance of terrorists—as long as it’s done legally!

Democrats countered that many important questions remain.
“We can be strong and operate under the rule of law,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “These are not mutually exclusive principles — they are the principles upon which our nation was founded.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10991763/

So Karl is back in his laboratory cooking up more crap. Who let the dog out? Well we’ll see how long the “terrorist surveillance” propaganda works once the photos of Bush and Abramoff are released.

 

[loseyourname]

I posted the article, but not with the intention of this thread going in that direction. I would really like to return to the original topic and purpose of the thread.

No kidding, huh? I almost regret ripping on Belafonte now; I forgot how ravenous people get at any suggestion that Bush isn't the ultimate evil. It's not like there's no legitimate point to be made here. Bush can still be bad, impeachably bad and even historically bad, without homeland defense needing to be the next SS. Honestly, what the whole NSA thing tells me is that Alberto Gonzales is the guy that really needs to go. He may not be the publicly blatant backwards fool that Ashcroft was, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that his sole purpose in office is to tweak legal interpretations so as to circumvent every possible check on executive power. That doesn't mean Bush will use that power to perpetrate an Islamic genocide, but it's a bad thing even the president was completely benevolent, because the next one might not be.

So y'all can carry on.

 

[edward]

It appears to me that Bush has told so many lies that a lot people have given up on trying to keep track of them. How many times has he denied something, then admitted it, then started a PR campaign to convince the American people that he did it for their safety??

Rove is back in the picture already and just two months ago former CIA agents were demanding that Rove have his security clearance pulled.

 

[Amp1]

I had a strange thought...maybe not so strange, what if there were a dual impeachment, Cheney and Bush, who would be Prez?

 

[daveb]

Well, depends on whether they were convicted in the Senate or not. Impeachment doesn't mean forced removal from office.

 

[ray b]

Well, depends on whether they were convicted in the Senate or not. Impeachment doesn't mean forced removal from office.

like nixon and a-gag-new
force out the VP first

and try to get a desent guy in [ford]
before forcing the creep out

saddly the rightwing will close ranks
and not allow justice to win
no matter how much they talk about respect for the law
party is more important to the rightwing nuts

 

[BobG]

I had a strange thought...maybe not so strange, what if there were a dual impeachment, Cheney and Bush, who would be Prez?

If both Bush and Cheney were removed, Dennis Hastert would be President (Speaker of the House).

The complete order of line of succession is here. A couple of these folks may occupy a slot in the line of succession, but they are ineligible and their spot in the list would be skipped (Carlos Guttierrez and Elaine Chao are naturalized citizens).

Once the bill goes through Congress and is enacted, the Secretary of Homeland Security will have a slot in the list, as well (between the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior).

 

[Amp1]

Thanks BobG. So, Condi is forth on the list. I had thought she was third.

 

[SOS2008]

Having just posted in the thread about the WH and the EPA, what is particularly disturbing about Bush is he is so controversial on so many issues, whether fiscally, militarily, constitutionally, etc. –-it’s so unending and overwhelming to try and understand how one person could be so detrimental, I really have wondered if he sold his soul to the anti-Christ. It seems all that can be done is to try to contain the damage as much as possible until we can at last be free from this horrible administration.

 

[edward]

And Now This

I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theories, but the timing of this nomination is a little odd.

President Bush on Wednesday nominated one of the Justice Department's lead prosecutors in the Jack Abramoff corruption probe to a U.S. District Court seat in New Jersey.

Noel Hillman, chief of the department's public integrity section, was nominated for a federal judgeship in New Jersey, where he served in the U.S. Attorney's office under Michael Chertoff, now secretary of Homeland Security. […]

During a news conference earlier this month following Abramoff's guilty plea on corruption-related charges, Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher said Hillman played an important role in providing leadership in the investigation.

.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6444.html

Sure Abramoff pleaded guilty, but the investigation just began a new phase.
How do they get away with this garbage. This was on page eight of my morning paper.

 

[SOS2008]

How do they get away with this garbage. This was on page eight of my morning paper.

That's part of the problem right there--page eight.

But of course, the tactics are so typical of BushCo.

 

[SOS2008]

By Will Dunham | January 25, 2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended the state of U.S. military... "The force is not broken," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon briefing. "This armed force is enormously capable."

"So I'd read very carefully what these reports are saying and ask yourself the question: Do the authors of them really have a clear understanding of what's gone on in this department in the last five years?" Rumsfeld said.

Hmm...or ask why anyone should believe you Rummy?

According to a study for the Pentagon by Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer, and more recently by William Perry, defense secretary from 1994-97, and other senior officials who served under former Democratic President Bill Clinton … were the latest to warn of a looming crisis for the all-volunteer military amid large ongoing troop deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

"If the strain is not relieved, it will have highly corrosive and long-term effects on the military," Perry told a news conference.

"We believe that the Bush administration has broken faith with the American soldier and Marine," the report said, citing poor planning for bringing stability to Iraq, too few troops there to do so at an acceptable level of risk, and inadequate equipment and protection for deployed troops.
It said these failures caused "a real risk of 'breaking the force."'

The report's contributors included former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; former national security adviser Samuel Berger; retired Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, former supreme allied commander of NATO.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/25/rumsfeld_rejects_criticism_on_harm_to_us_military/

Ah, the report contributors have nothing on Rummy.

 

[SOS2008]

Okay, I'm predicting the next lie--That Bush is looking out for our national security during a time of war (you know, the war he started based on lies).

January 26, 2006
LATimes

Probe Underway After Exit to Border Tunnel Is Found
By Richard Marosi, Times Staff Writer

SAN DIEGO — Federal authorities have launched a criminal investigation after finding a long, cross-border tunnel that began in a warehouse in Tijuana, Mexico, and was apparently used for smuggling drugs or people, authorities said Wednesday.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-tunnel26jan26,0,7351701.story?coll=la-news-state

"This one is just absolutely amazing. It's just huge," said Michael Unzueta, special agent in charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in San Diego. "It really looks like a professionally done mine shaft."

...Authorities have long been concerned that such subterranean passages could be used to pass high-powered weaponry or terrorists into the country.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0127mexico-tunnel27.html

That's right, by monitoring an average of 500 telephone calls a day, Bush is protecting you...500 calls a day being made by terrorists...terrorists who know they are being monitored are making 500 calls a day. In fact, they are making so many calls a day that we forgot about the border!

 

[ComputerGeek]

That's right, by monitoring an average of 500 telephone calls a day, Bush is protecting you...500 calls a day being made by terrorists...terrorists who know they are being monitored are making 500 calls a day. In fact, they are making so many calls a day that we forgot about the border!

Like Al Franken satirically said: "Gosh, that would mean like 2% of the US population is Al Quadia... that is like 500,000 people!"

Yes, it was a joke, but it certainly has a point.

 

[SOS2008]

I provided a quote in the filibuster thread in which Bush commented that the Palestinian vote showed they wanted honest government.

After holding a Cabinet meeting at the White House Monday…Bush said the U.S. would work with its allies to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear technology. "And the message is: Give up your nuclear weapons ambitions. The good news is: Most of the world recognizes that Iran being the nontransparent society that it is ... cannot be trusted with technology that could enable it to develop a nuclear weapon."

The National Security Agency is so secretive that the joke is that the initials stand for "No Such Agency."

I can’t decide if he’s clueless, delusional, or what.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I can’t decide if he’s clueless, delusional, or what.

"Or what." His speeches are written for him by very clever people and they are not intended to express facts, or even opinions, but to serve some end. Mostly to affect the future voting behavior of the less reflective half of the voting population, the more reflective half having already chosen up sides.

Unreflective Americans mostly take presidential pronouncements at face value unless there is some OBVIOUS and RECENT reason not to. Obvious because nonreflective people do not respond to subtle or complex presentations and recent because their memory for such things is rather short, and there is an ever present urge to cut the president an awful lot of slack.

 

[Xenophon]

Blog

This seems like a thread blown out of proportion. You can look at a glass of water and claim that it's half empty and you can do the same with facts. This has already turned into a Bush bashing, sounding more like a blog instead of a thread now. Do you really want people to respond to this, or is this thred just a way your vent your frustration, SOS?

-Xenophon

 

[SOS2008]

This seems like a thread blown out of proportion. You can look at a glass of water and claim that it's half empty and you can do the same with facts. This has already turned into a Bush bashing, sounding more like a blog instead of a thread now. Do you really want people to respond to this, or is this thred just a way your vent your frustration, SOS?

-Xenophon

Actually the media in America is pretty lax, yet most of what I post includes current news quotes, not just my opinion (i.e., a blog). The purpose of the thread is to keep people informed about the propaganda constantly spewed by BushCo, in part because the media doesn't do their job. If Bush would stop doing horrible things, we wouldn't have anything to say. I've said it before, if it is the truth, it isn't bashing.

So why don't you stop with the “Bush protectionism,” and contribute something meaningful to this thread? Moving on…

The newest lie of course was Bush’s glowing report of success in Iraq in the State of the Union address. Just look at the polls—people know it’s not the truth.

 

[edward]

This seems like a thread blown out of proportion. You can look at a glass of water and claim that it's half empty and you can do the same with facts.

The facts are that the American people have been misled by the administration. So whether the glass is have full of lies or half empty, is irrelevant.

For instance in the state of the union speech Bush made it sound like New Orleans is in great shape ,with a great future. and has 87 billion dollars of federal help. The facts are, [according to CNN today], that one third of the city is still without power.

A large portion of the money went to no bid contractrors and the gulf coast oil industry.

 

[Xenophon]

Fine, here's wonderful speculation I picked up.

http://www.sgtscorpion.com/Other-Pages/Sgt-Scorpions-on-The-Desert-Wars.htm

Try it out. Sure its sketchy, but also mightily entertaining.
As for the Bush protection thing, I'll apologize. I have a patriotic streak, so I see it as an accusation of the country. Your facts seem to be in place, so yeah its not a blog. Still, I'm not sure either of his opponents would have been better choices.

Also, with Iraq, it's perspective again. You can look at the death count (where were getting off easy compared to other major conflicts) or you can look at the progress in Iraq and consider their situation now compared to before and their prospects in the future.

Also, the Grant administration was considered corrupt, but it was because President Grant was naive and would not remove corrupt cabinet officials. Just a fast fact.

-Xenophon

Note-CNN is slightly Democrat and Fox is slightly Republican. Cross refrence them before calling their statements facts, because while the numbers maybe true, the inferences lean one way or the other. It's mainly the editors.

Aren't smilies great.