Republican lies used to trick the public

[SOS2008]

What have we done to prepare ourselves for a future attack? Making a huge governmental agency does not prepare us for an attack. Attack preperations require drills(you should know this being an ex-sailor) and we have run less than a handful of these. We are not prepared for an attack. Cities are not prepared to exacuate. The government is not prepared to take control of a bad situation. We do not have the troop and equipment stateside to handle an attack muchless to drill and prepare on top of normal operations. Once again Russ creating an agency does not prepare for an attack---it may prevent an attack, but that is not preperation for an attack.

As Ivan said, NO shows how prepared we are, or were, as a nation. How many cities had proper plans of evacuation prior to this? Don't you think it's important for the HLS department to know what these plans are? Don't you think it is important to have a central agency to coordinate response to an attack? NO shows the above were simply not there. We had a lackey in place with no experience and a president who refused to ask questions like "Who is in charge?" We are not prepared to evacuate Washington DC---if we are then please post some evidence---in the event of a large scale biological, chemical, or nuclear assault.

Irwin Redlener, M.D., is associate dean of the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and director of The National Center for Disaster Preparedness said last night in an interview that despite the large sums of money spent on HLS, America is not prepared. I tend to believe his statement over opinion or rhetoric on PF.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Ethics Truce Frays in House
Since 1997, the House ethics panel has remained quiet as:
• A Texas grand jury began investigating a political action committee set up by DeLay.
• Several newspapers described how officers of Kansas-based Westar Energy wrote memos about steering $56,500 to GOP campaigns in return for legislative help from DeLay and Reps. W. J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.) and Joe Barton (R-Tex.). Barton later sponsored a legislative exemption sought by Westar, but it eventually was dropped.
• The Washington Post reported that Blunt, the House's third-ranking Republican, tried to slip a last-minute provision into a bill to help a tobacco company for which his son lobbied. Blunt said the measure was meant to combat cigarette smuggling, but a Hastert aide removed it.
• Common Cause, the public watchdog group that helped topple Wright, called for an ethics probe after the Post reported that aides to Rep. Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio), who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, told a trade group that a congressional probe might ease if the group replaced its Democratic lobbyist with a Republican.
• The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy21.org, public interest groups, charged DeLay's charitable children's organization is improperly soliciting large donations from special interests to finance lavish parties at this summer's Republican National Convention. DeLay says the charity is legal and proper.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64604-2004Mar16?language=printer - This list was as of March 17, 2004

Other Current/Ongoing Matters:
· Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction
· Medicare Prescription Drug Bill Vote Scandal, 2003
· Memogate
· National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9-11 Commission)
· Valerie Plame
· Weapons of mass destruction investigation

The problem is when the Executive and Legislative branches are both controlled by the GOP, the investigations are not independent and are easily manipulated by the Whitehouse (e.g., Katrina, which has become the mode of operation for Bush & Co.). Here is Dubya's view on the topic:

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." GWB, May 24, 2005, while in Greece - http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/25.html#a3118

Bamboozlepalooza Tour '05:
“If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about — third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)” - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html

Kinda tells you something.

 

[pattylou]

I don't know if the following counts as opinion or as fact, but I thought it was appropriate for this thread. Please click on the link.

 

[Astronuc]

Some background -

That guy al Zar... is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi )

not to be confused with Ayman al-Zawahiri ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda

Al Qaida was not very functional in Iraq until the US and it coalition invaded.

al-Zarqawi was most likely in Jordan, Syria and/or Lebanon, or possibly the west Bank before he got involved in Iraq.

. . . . but intentional deception is wrong.

I certainly concur. Too bad Bush and his administration do not believe the same.

 

[SOS2008]

Some background -

That guy al Zar... is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi )

not to be confused with Ayman al-Zawahiri ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda

Al Qaida was not very functional in Iraq until the US and it coalition invaded.

al-Zarqawi was most likely in Jordan, Syria and/or Lebanon, or possibly the west Bank before he got involved in Iraq.


I certainly concur. Too bad Bush and his administration do not believe the same.

U.S.: Al-Zarqawi No. 2 killed in Baghdad
Military says top aide to Jordanian-born terrorist shot dead on Sunday
Associated Press - Sept. 27, 2005

Al-Qaida in Iraq issued an Internet statement denying Abu Azzam was the group’s deputy leader, calling him “one of al-Qaida’s many soldiers” and “the leader of one its battalions operating in Baghdad.” It confirmed the raid but said it was not certain yet whether he was killed.
----------
It was not clear what effect Abu Azzam’s death would have on al-Qaida in Iraq. The U.S. military has claimed to have killed or captured leading al-Zarqawi aides in the past and attacks continued unabated — though Abu Azzam appeared to be a more significant figure.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9498356/

U.S. forces hunted down and killed terrorist Abu Azzam, the top lieutenant of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. Yep, the healine was hype.

 

[pattylou]

I don't know if the following counts as opinion or as fact, but I thought it was appropriate for this thread. Please click on the link.

It's hard to say if he's lying or telling the truth in the quote below, but it sure is more of the same spinning.

In other words, the middle east and particularly Iraq is a mess. He could just say that, you know.

Bush Warns of Upsurge of Violence in Iraq

WASHINGTON Sep 28, 2005 — President Bush on Wednesday warned there will be an upsurge in violence in Iraq before next month's voting, but said the terrorists will fail. "Our troops are ready," he said.

I mean, now, no matter what events occur over the next few weeks, he can claim to have told us.

Anyway, is this quote a lie, propaganda, the truth, or all of the above? I'm not even sure exactly that it has any meaning.

 

[SOS2008]

It's hard to say if he's lying or telling the truth in the quote below, but it sure is more of the same spinning.

In other words, the middle east and particularly Iraq is a mess. He could just say that, you know.


I mean, now, no matter what events occur over the next few weeks, he can claim to have told us.

Anyway, is this quote a lie, propaganda, the truth, or all of the above? I'm not even sure exactly that it has any meaning.

Weren't we told the same thing before the last election? I hate to break it to 'em, but increased violence and additional loss of lives are not acceptable whether prewarned or not. Quite frankly, I almost saw the statement "Our troops are ready for them," as being a little too close to "Bring it on."

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Personally I think that the biggest problem is that the US's Media's are Not Liberal, meaning Not Free, you've lost some of the "Freedom of the Press" in that 9/11 follow-up legislation.

Makes it easier to Hoodwink people, doesn't it?

 

[loseyourname]

Personally I think that the biggest problem is that the US's Media's are Not Liberal, meaning Not Free, you've lost some of the "Freedom of the Press" in that 9/11 follow-up legislation.

Makes it easier to Hoodwink people, doesn't it?

Which passages of legislation are you referring to?

 

[russ_watters]

Opinions can be lies Russ---when the opinion is built on a lie.

Just to be clear, here, can an opinion be a fact? I would assume so, based on your statement (they are related) but I need you to clarify this before I respond to the rest, because this point is huge.

You may wish to review the definitions of the relevant words before we continue...

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Good Question!

Which passages of legislation are you referring to?

Specifically? none, just that the climate, and the ability, to openly report upon 'news events' seems to me to have been stifled by the subsequent pieces of empowerments that have been emitted by the Governing Body of the United States of America.

Maybe something like that Patriot Act, How it gets applied, I'm not certain as I don't study US Law.

 

[Townsend]

Specifically? none, just that the climate, and the ability, to openly report upon 'news events' seems to me to have been stifled by the subsequent pieces of empowerments that have been emitted by the Governing Body of the United States of America.

You think so? What gives you that impression, if you don't mind?

 

[Informal Logic]

Specifically? none, just that the climate, and the ability, to openly report upon 'news events' seems to me to have been stifled by the subsequent pieces of empowerments that have been emitted by the Governing Body of the United States of America.

Maybe something like that Patriot Act, How it gets applied, I'm not certain as I don't study US Law.

Maybe smearing opponents in campaigns, pundits on the whitehouse payroll, pressure from the whitehouse to retract stories even though true, and state news like Faux News, or fear of retaliation like the Plame case, etc., etc., maybe things like that?

 

[Lapin Dormant]

More like in all governments some things get suppressed, but usually it is Because it is for the Public Benefit. In some governments this silent power can be used quite subversively, especaily when they are Media Informed from a Concentrated Group of Media companies, coupled with a Nationalistic Bias (is a Polite word) tends to lead one to the sense that immersent in the Obviousness of the reality, is the Truth of it, out front, so unseen.

LD
Hey Just A Rabbits Opinion...ou sont les Lapine?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here are a couple of quotes from today regarding surpreme court judges.

Sen. Richard Burr (R): "If we aren't careful, no one will want the job."

In other words, support ourt candidate or you'll ruin the supreme court.

Another R Sen. whose name escapes me stated approx:
~"He [Bush] said that he would nominate conservative judges and that's what he's doing. This shows that there are still politicians who can be trusted to keep their word"

Oh God just shoot me now! Could these yahoos be any more shallow and obvious? What is sickening is that someone doesn't run down there and slap them silly.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Grassley, Chuck (R) - Iowa

 

[Astronuc]

Oh God just shoot me now! Could these yahoos be any more shallow and obvious? What is sickening is that someone doesn't run down there and slap them silly.

I can't aim when I'm so hard I'm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Retiring Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Myers: "The terrorists want to end our way of life".

According to every independent expert that I've seen interviewed or read about, terrorism results from our foreign policy in the middle east.

also
"If we weren't fighting them there, we'd be fighting them here".

Why would terrorists who want to harm us choose to go head to head with the US military in Iraq instead of planning attacks on civilians here? Granted, the stability of the middle east may be at stake, but this has nothing to do with his false claim. We are fighting insurgents in Iraq over Iraqi issues and not as a result of US/terrorist issues. This is part of the continuing lie that this war is about terrorism.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes, while we're on the subject of Myers,

The Bush administration is seeking to appoint a lawyer with little immigration or customs experience to head the troubled law enforcement agency that handles those issues, prompting sharp criticism from some employee groups, immigration advocates and homeland security experts.

The push to appoint Julie Myers to head the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, comes in the midst of intense debate over the qualifications of department political appointees involved in the sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina...

...Her uncle is Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers...
...She married Chertoff's current chief of staff, John F. Wood...

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003576.htm

Late edit

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Nepotism? isn't that a Family Game, something Akin to Incest?

 

[SOS2008]

Retiring Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Myers: "The terrorists want to end our way of life".

According to every independent expert that I've seen interviewed or read about, terrorism results from our foreign policy in the middle east.

also
"If we weren't fighting them there, we'd be fighting them here".

Why would terrorists who want to harm us choose to go head to head with the US military in Iraq instead of planning attacks on civilians here? Granted, the stability of the middle east may be at stake, but this has nothing to do with his false claim. We are fighting insurgents in Iraq over Iraqi issues and not as a result of US/terrorist issues. This is part of the continuing lie that this war is about terrorism.

This is why I started the thread about terrorism and our foreign policy. And as posted above, the Bush administration tactic is to repeat things over and over again (a brainwashing technique). Even if billions were spent on billboards and leaflets and every form of information distribution, how can this be overcome?

The Bush administration is seeking to appoint a lawyer with little immigration or customs experience to head the troubled law enforcement agency that handles those issues, prompting sharp criticism from some employee groups, immigration advocates and homeland security experts.

The push to appoint Julie Myers to head the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, comes in the midst of intense debate over the qualifications of department political appointees involved in the sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina...

...Her uncle is Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers...

In the interview with Irwin Redlener, director of The National Center for Disaster Preparedness, he said the problem is that most presidents appoint their friends to be ambassadors or some such thing--not critical positions that require expertise. He also said the problems stem from dismissing the scientific community. He expressed concern, for example about pandemic disease stating there is no medication, no hospital resources, no plan, nothing.

I really despise Bush--on a daily basis. There, I've said it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 1, 2005

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.

In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban. [continued]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/politics/01educ.html

 

[pattylou]

How will the Bush administration be penalized for breaking the law?

 

[SOS2008]

How will the Bush administration be penalized for breaking the law?

The same as always, ignore it? Perhaps a lot of the problem is that there has been so much deception and unethical behavior associated with the White House and GOP, it is a confusing blur that people feel numb to. Thus your thread about keeping track via a list? And look how hard it is to remember everything. Also in reference to the thread on FOX News, will they report this, and if so, truthfully? Such a large percent of Americans watch FOX News, and they watch FOX News exclusively.

I only hope Bush's low approval ratings is beginning to leave him exposed to the scrutiny he should have been exposed to all along.

 

[Skyhunter]

Weren't we told the same thing before the last election? I hate to break it to 'em, but increased violence and additional loss of lives are not acceptable whether prewarned or not. Quite frankly, I almost saw the statement "Our troops are ready for them," as being a little too close to "Bring it on."

Reminds me of a song.

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

I also found this from the website on your earlier post that sums up my feelings of this administration quite succinctly.

"Most people seem not to understand that when we deal with the Bush administration, we are dealing with something unique, and uniquely dangerous: an administration which is fully committed to an ideology—an ideology that is entirely self-contained and completely self-referencing. It is not concerned with facts, evidence, logic and argument. It is concerned only with its own internal vision of the world, and how that world should be constructed and how it should operate." --Arthur Silber, Light of Reason, August 1, 2005 (http://coldfury.com/reason/?p=828 ).

 

[Lapin Dormant]

That quotation of A. Silber sums it up quite well. (IMO)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Another R Sen. [Grassley of Iowa] stated approx:
~"He [Bush] said that he would nominate conservative judges and that's what he's doing. This shows that there are still politicians who can be trusted to keep their word"

There is so much irony here that I hardly know what to say!

...His nomination on Monday of Ms Miers... Confronted by growing disillusionment and a sense of betrayal among conservatives of all stripes, Mr Bush used a hastily arranged press conference in the Rose Garden to assure his traditional supporters that he was still one of them...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1811541,00.html

Unfortunately, from what I've heard so far, I would wager that she's one of those scary [I mean dangerous] ultra-conservatives.

 

[SOS2008]

Regarding the recent press conference:

Iraq policy - Bush claimed progress on training Iraqi forces — a key measure for when American troops can begin coming home — despite last week’s statement from the top U.S. commander there that only one Iraqi battalion, down from three, is ready to fight without U.S. help. “More and more Iraqis are able to take the fight to enemy,” the president said, adding that more than 80 Iraqi army battalions are fighting alongside U.S. troops, and that 30 Iraqi battalions are capable of taking the lead in combat. Gen. George Casey told Congress that only one Iraqi army battalion was ready to go into combat without U.S. support. He also argued that the Iraqi army overall is getting stronger.

Aside from this, on the topic of HLS...

Avian bird flu - Bush said he was considering whether the U.S. military should be used to help quarantine part of the country in the event of a pandemic of Avian bird flu. “I’m not predicting an outbreak,” he said. “I’m just suggesting to you that we need to be thinking about it. ... I think the president should have all ... assets on the table to deal with something this significant.”

Ur, um, there's no vaccination, no hospital beds...and he is focusing on containment via military quarantine during which people can perish...like Katrina? Not a lie, but troubling...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9587683/

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Ur, um, there's no vaccination, no hospital beds...and he is focusing on containment via military quarantine during which people can perish...like Katrina? Not a lie, but troubling...

Maybe he just watched that Movie Outbreak one to many times, bought into the Propaganda Machines own "Histrionics"

 

[Skyhunter]

Aside from this, on the topic of HLS...

Avian bird flu - Bush said he was considering whether the U.S. military should be used to help quarantine part of the country in the event of a pandemic of Avian bird flu. “I’m not predicting an outbreak,” he said. “I’m just suggesting to you that we need to be thinking about it. ... I think the president should have all ... assets on the table to deal with something this significant.”

Ur, um, there's no vaccination, no hospital beds...and he is focusing on containment via military quarantine during which people can perish...like Katrina? Not a lie, but troubling...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9587683/

Remember he has to repeat something over and over again before it sinks in.

I believe he is starting the cycle of getting us used to the idea of domestic military operations.

 

[Informal Logic]

Say What?
Bush's speech was a sad, demoralizing spectacle.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Oct. 6, 2005, at 2:23 PM PT

...He instantly retreated to the same old, irrelevant formulas. He likened the struggle against terrorism to the Cold War struggle against Communism—ignoring that Communism's strength derived less from its ideology than from its embodiment in the massive, heavily armed, centrally controlled Soviet state. He boasted that we had killed or captured "nearly all" of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks—not just finessing his failure to find Osama Bin Laden, the man most responsible, but also ignoring that such head counts might not matter in fighting a "loose network."

...We were supposed to be in and out of there in a matter of months; Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz all said so. Now it's stretching out for years, with no end in sight—and dubious prospects of meaningful victory.

...It was an uncharacteristically defensive speech, Bush reciting, then rebutting, the arguments of his critics. But his counterblows were usually unpersuasive. For instance:

"Some have argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September 11, 2001, and al-Qaida attacked us anyway."

This is mere playing with words. Notice: First, he cites the claim that the U.S. occupation has "strengthened" the extremists; then he dismisses some straw man's contention that our presence has "caused or triggered" the radicals' rage. The fact that 9/11 preceded the invasion of Iraq is irrelevant to the point that he started to counter—that the occupation "strengthened" the insurgency. This point is incontestable. (On the most basic level, before the invasion, there was no insurgency and no al-Qaida presence in Iraq, except for a training camp run by Zarqawi—and that was in the Kurdish-controlled northern enclave, which Bush could have bombed, and was encouraged by the Joint Chiefs to bomb, at any time.) More important, to evade the point is to misunderstand this phase of the war—and, therefore, to misjudge how to win it.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2127616/

Last night on CNN an expert on terrorism was interviewed in regard to the claims made in the speech about prevention of 10 terrorist attempts since 9-11. Of the 10, three were on US soil. All three were of questionable seriousness, with charges still not made against the one individual. It is high time the Bush regime is being held to their claims (on MSNBC and CNN anyway). And as discussed before, that we have not been attacked since 9-11 is not necessarily due to good security.

 

[Astronuc]

Ur, um, there's no vaccination, no hospital beds...and he is focusing on containment via military quarantine during which people can perish...like Katrina? Not a lie, but troubling...

I wonder if that will be the Blue states.

It will be interesting to see where the US goes under Bush during the next 3 years.

Maybe he will be 'called' for a third or more terms. The military could be very handy.

 

[Gokul43201]

Just happened upon this article in an old issue of the NewYorker (probably old news to most here; wasn't to me) :

When asked exactly when he learned war in Iraq was definite, [Richard] Haas said, 'The moment was the first week of July (2002), when I had a meeting with Condi. I raised this issue about were we really sure that we wanted to put Iraq front and center at this point, given the war on terrorism and other issues. And she said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath'.

--[New Yorker, 3/31/03]

And this was in July 2002. So subsequent claims (all through the year) from the White House that war was the last option (and the entire UN charade) were what ?

 

[Lapin Dormant]

The UN part was not a charade, the White Houses part, was.

 

[pattylou]

I didn't know where to put these latest numbers from Rasmussen Reports.

One major issue that makes me think the election results *do* accurately reflect the public's opinion, is the fact that Rasmussen seemed to nail the predictions ahead of time. So, they may do a better job of correcting in polls, than other pollsters.

Rasmussen Reports was the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.

As Bush's approval has sunk into the high 30's in most other polls, Rasmussen has still found his approval at ~44-47%. Someone commented that this may be because Rasmussen has several categories of approval to choose from (strongly approve, weakly approve, weakly disapprove, strongly disapprove), and that if forced between two choices the numbers might come out differently. Also, Rasmussen polls likely voters, not the general population, all adults, or registered voters.

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

Today they sunk to 42%.

Friday October 21, 2005--Forty-two percent (42%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That's the lowest level recorded ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm