Wrong, Mars. You are so Left Behind. Ho hum.
A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations has found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study was posted on the web site of the Center for Public Integrity on January 22. CPI had worked on the project with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. The report counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them, or had links to al-Qaeda, or both.
The report also breaks down who told how many lies:
Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda. That was second only to Powell’s 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaeda.
The groups concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”
Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Bush never technically lied
While Rush fusses over the technicalities of what, exactly, is a 'lie', I'll repeat that I've always preferred "deliberately misleading". There's no controversy or legalese involved, and there's not much doubt that the Bush team deliberately misled us.
I agree with most rationals that the Dems who supported the Iraq invasion before they were against it are contemptible.
Many of us had it right from the first days of the run-up. We saw the deliberate misleading and called them on it, every step of the way.
Rush can also yammer about how Clinton believed the same things, bla-bla-bla, but Bush and only Bush sent our kids there to die and kill. It's Bush's war, plain and simple.
Afghanistan, you might realize, is also Bush's war. He started it (for good reason), he messed it up, he passed it on to Obama.
Now it's Obama's to figure out, but it was Bush's action, no way around it.
All historians will be clear that Bush did Iraq and started Afghanistan, without any doubt at all. And the many efforts to deliberately mislead the American public and Congress about Iraq are, and always will be, richly and precisely documented.
The desperate attempts by con-men like Rush simply to save face mean nothing to history. The actual acts of the President of the United States ARE history.
Sorry, Rush. Go home and lick your wounds in private.
I agree with most rationals that the Dems who supported the Iraq invasion before they were against it are contemptible.
Many of us had it right from the first days of the run-up. We saw the deliberate misleading and called them on it, every step of the way.
Rush can also yammer about how Clinton believed the same things, bla-bla-bla, but Bush and only Bush sent our kids there to die and kill. It's Bush's war, plain and simple.
Afghanistan, you might realize, is also Bush's war. He started it (for good reason), he messed it up, he passed it on to Obama.
Now it's Obama's to figure out, but it was Bush's action, no way around it.
All historians will be clear that Bush did Iraq and started Afghanistan, without any doubt at all. And the many efforts to deliberately mislead the American public and Congress about Iraq are, and always will be, richly and precisely documented.
The desperate attempts by con-men like Rush simply to save face mean nothing to history. The actual acts of the President of the United States ARE history.
Sorry, Rush. Go home and lick your wounds in private.
The leftist cynics say stuff as wild as Glenn Beck, why doen't the left distance themselves from those guys?
Rugh, which leftist cynics would you suggest that Democrats distance themselves from?
Honestly, I can't think of any that are in the same galaxy as Beck. Can you?
They might be there, but I've never heard of them. Do any leftists cynics have a national cable show? Do they have national radio shows? The left not only is not as nutty as the right, it has no national forum even if it were. That is why the left does not present the danger to our democracy that the right wing nuts do.
And if they are there someplace on a lonely blog, does anyone associate them with the Democratic party the way most people associate Beck et al with Republicans?
That's why Graham felt the need to distance himself from Beck, you know.
Because to the world, Beck is a Republican.
Claiming that the left and right are identical in extremism is ridiculous and you know it.
Tell me who on the left is as widely heard or as wildly cynical as Beck?
Make a list of the uber-popular extremists of the right (Hannity, Rush, Coulter, Levin, Beck, etc etc) and then of the left (? KeithO, Maddow?) and try to say with honesty that these are similar and equal lists.
You know, and I know, that it's nonsense.
As I said, the point is not Beck et al, it's all the people that make Beck et all what they are. I'm sure there are nutjob leftist cynics out there, but you know what? No one's ever heard of them because they have no nutjob leftist cynical audience. That's the problem.
SO who are the equivalent cynics that people think of as Democratic media-leaders?
Honestly, I can't think of any that are in the same galaxy as Beck. Can you?
They might be there, but I've never heard of them. Do any leftists cynics have a national cable show? Do they have national radio shows? The left not only is not as nutty as the right, it has no national forum even if it were. That is why the left does not present the danger to our democracy that the right wing nuts do.
And if they are there someplace on a lonely blog, does anyone associate them with the Democratic party the way most people associate Beck et al with Republicans?
That's why Graham felt the need to distance himself from Beck, you know.
Because to the world, Beck is a Republican.
Claiming that the left and right are identical in extremism is ridiculous and you know it.
Tell me who on the left is as widely heard or as wildly cynical as Beck?
Make a list of the uber-popular extremists of the right (Hannity, Rush, Coulter, Levin, Beck, etc etc) and then of the left (? KeithO, Maddow?) and try to say with honesty that these are similar and equal lists.
You know, and I know, that it's nonsense.
As I said, the point is not Beck et al, it's all the people that make Beck et all what they are. I'm sure there are nutjob leftist cynics out there, but you know what? No one's ever heard of them because they have no nutjob leftist cynical audience. That's the problem.
SO who are the equivalent cynics that people think of as Democratic media-leaders?
Go Beckerheads, Go, no really, go.
I watch Glen Beck as a source of entertainment.
I watch in short spurts and rely on his inanity to keep me in stitches.
That thing on his chalk board with the Copenhagen was priceless.
Working in the word "snuff" was pure genius and the cancer sticker next to Michelle Obama's picture was racism in its purest form.
Go Beckerheads!! No really, go.
I watch in short spurts and rely on his inanity to keep me in stitches.
That thing on his chalk board with the Copenhagen was priceless.
Working in the word "snuff" was pure genius and the cancer sticker next to Michelle Obama's picture was racism in its purest form.
Go Beckerheads!! No really, go.
Bush kept us safe from Al Queda after Clinton dropped the ball
Clinton kept us safe from Bin Laden.
Using police techniques instead of invading the wrong country, he tracked down, caught, arrested, tried, convicted and jailed those responsible for the first WTC bombing that occurred just a few weeks (not months) into his administration.
Then, by focusing on Bin Laden, the Clinton administration let those to whom they delegated those responsibilities actually do their jobs instead of micromanaging (at best) and ignoring or obstructing (at worst), and were able to intercept and prevent the planned LAX and Millenium attacks and KEEP US SAFE.
Bin Laden had to wait until Baby Bush took over, ignored (and fired) terrorism experts like Richard Clarke (who had been there since Reagan), gave $43 MILLION to Bin Laden’s hosts, the Taliban (May 2001), ignored the files prepared by Clinton’s terrorism experts, and ignored the 8-6-2001 PDB.
Bush let 911 happen.
Bush (and his accomplices) LIED about the specific details about specific knowledge regarding imminent danger from Iraq’s WMD, as the basis for justifying opening a second war when we hadn’t finished the first.
Clinton did say that Hussein was dangerous and that we should promote regime change.
Clinton did NOT say that the way to do it was by invading with a hot war.
Clinton did NOT, as Bush, Rumsfeld and, sadly, Colin Powell did, say that he had detailed specific knowledge of specific sites, showing maps and pictures and saying we had confirmed intelligence.
Clinton did keep Saddam contained in No-Fly Zones and with tough international sanctions, leaving him impotent and NO THREAT TO THE U.S.
Clinton kept us safe.
Using police techniques instead of invading the wrong country, he tracked down, caught, arrested, tried, convicted and jailed those responsible for the first WTC bombing that occurred just a few weeks (not months) into his administration.
Then, by focusing on Bin Laden, the Clinton administration let those to whom they delegated those responsibilities actually do their jobs instead of micromanaging (at best) and ignoring or obstructing (at worst), and were able to intercept and prevent the planned LAX and Millenium attacks and KEEP US SAFE.
Bin Laden had to wait until Baby Bush took over, ignored (and fired) terrorism experts like Richard Clarke (who had been there since Reagan), gave $43 MILLION to Bin Laden’s hosts, the Taliban (May 2001), ignored the files prepared by Clinton’s terrorism experts, and ignored the 8-6-2001 PDB.
Bush let 911 happen.
Bush (and his accomplices) LIED about the specific details about specific knowledge regarding imminent danger from Iraq’s WMD, as the basis for justifying opening a second war when we hadn’t finished the first.
Clinton did say that Hussein was dangerous and that we should promote regime change.
Clinton did NOT say that the way to do it was by invading with a hot war.
Clinton did NOT, as Bush, Rumsfeld and, sadly, Colin Powell did, say that he had detailed specific knowledge of specific sites, showing maps and pictures and saying we had confirmed intelligence.
Clinton did keep Saddam contained in No-Fly Zones and with tough international sanctions, leaving him impotent and NO THREAT TO THE U.S.
Clinton kept us safe.
Bush kept us safe from Al Queda after Clinton dropped the ball
Clinton kept us safe from Bin Laden.
Using police techniques instead of invading the wrong country, he tracked down, caught, arrested, tried, convicted and jailed those responsible for the first WTC bombing that occurred just a few weeks (not months) into his administration.
Then, by focusing on Bin Laden, the Clinton administration let those to whom they delegated those responsibilities actually do their jobs instead of micromanaging (at best) and ignoring or obstructing (at worst), and were able to intercept and prevent the planned LAX and Millenium attacks and KEEP US SAFE.
Bin Laden had to wait until Baby Bush took over, ignored (and fired) terrorism experts like Richard Clarke (who had been there since Reagan), gave $43 MILLION to Bin Laden’s hosts, the Taliban (May 2001), ignored the files prepared by Clinton’s terrorism experts, and ignored the 8-6-2001 PDB.
Bush let 911 happen.
Using police techniques instead of invading the wrong country, he tracked down, caught, arrested, tried, convicted and jailed those responsible for the first WTC bombing that occurred just a few weeks (not months) into his administration.
Then, by focusing on Bin Laden, the Clinton administration let those to whom they delegated those responsibilities actually do their jobs instead of micromanaging (at best) and ignoring or obstructing (at worst), and were able to intercept and prevent the planned LAX and Millenium attacks and KEEP US SAFE.
Bin Laden had to wait until Baby Bush took over, ignored (and fired) terrorism experts like Richard Clarke (who had been there since Reagan), gave $43 MILLION to Bin Laden’s hosts, the Taliban (May 2001), ignored the files prepared by Clinton’s terrorism experts, and ignored the 8-6-2001 PDB.
Bush let 911 happen.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
The Cult of the Con--it's a religion, LATimes editorial agrees
I have posted several times about the Cult of the Con. Seems I am not alone in noticing our fact free cons act more like religious zealots than rationals having a civilized discussion of facts. At least one other person agrees with me. See "Politics as Religion" by Neal Gabler at the following URL:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gabler2-2009oct02,0,7817347.story
Here is a sample of what he says in his editorial:
"Conservatives who sincerely believed that theirs is the only true and right path have come to realize that political tolerance is no match for religious vehemence.
Unfortunately, they are right. Having opted out of political discourse, they are not susceptible to any suasion. Rationality won't work because their arguments are faith-based rather than evidence-based. Better message control won't work. Improved strategies won't work. Grass-roots organizing won't work. Nothing will work because you cannot convince religious fanatics of anything other than what they already believe, even if their religion is political dogma.
And therein lies the problem, not only for liberals but for mainstream conservatives who think of conservatism as an ideology, not an orthodoxy. You cannot beat religion with politics, which is why the extreme right "wins" so many battles. The fundamentalist political fanatics will always be more zealous than mainstream conservatives or liberals. They will always be louder, more adamant, more aggrieved, more threatening, more willing to do anything to win. Losing is inconceivable. For them, every battle is a crusade -- or a jihad -- a matter of good and evil."
I could not agree more with his point about the new Limbaugh conservatism being a religion, but I highly disagree that the current cons cannot be beat. They have been beaten over and over again recently in every election everywhere. There movement of lies fueling raw emotion and hate has 'no there, there' at its center (as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland). When their center collapses from hate and lies, this whole phony Limbaugh dominated 'conservative movement' will fold and fall. Perhaps then we can get back to a real conservative movement that offers ideas that can be discussed instead of lies whose purpose is solely to inflame.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gabler2-2009oct02,0,7817347.story
Here is a sample of what he says in his editorial:
"Conservatives who sincerely believed that theirs is the only true and right path have come to realize that political tolerance is no match for religious vehemence.
Unfortunately, they are right. Having opted out of political discourse, they are not susceptible to any suasion. Rationality won't work because their arguments are faith-based rather than evidence-based. Better message control won't work. Improved strategies won't work. Grass-roots organizing won't work. Nothing will work because you cannot convince religious fanatics of anything other than what they already believe, even if their religion is political dogma.
And therein lies the problem, not only for liberals but for mainstream conservatives who think of conservatism as an ideology, not an orthodoxy. You cannot beat religion with politics, which is why the extreme right "wins" so many battles. The fundamentalist political fanatics will always be more zealous than mainstream conservatives or liberals. They will always be louder, more adamant, more aggrieved, more threatening, more willing to do anything to win. Losing is inconceivable. For them, every battle is a crusade -- or a jihad -- a matter of good and evil."
I could not agree more with his point about the new Limbaugh conservatism being a religion, but I highly disagree that the current cons cannot be beat. They have been beaten over and over again recently in every election everywhere. There movement of lies fueling raw emotion and hate has 'no there, there' at its center (as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland). When their center collapses from hate and lies, this whole phony Limbaugh dominated 'conservative movement' will fold and fall. Perhaps then we can get back to a real conservative movement that offers ideas that can be discussed instead of lies whose purpose is solely to inflame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
