BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign

Subject: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Dec 05 - 10:33 PM

Well, I'd say the other thread might possibly be long enough and this issue had nothing to do with it anyway.

However, Teribus and any other giant intellect on that side, let's try to keep this simple, so you might be capable of answering it directly--you still haven't done so.

Exactly why is the statement "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained." not propaganda linking Saddam and 11 September 2001"?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Subodai
Date: 26 Dec 05 - 11:27 PM

The real question is, can Bush be contained? Before September 11th there was some hope he could be. Afterward....a different story. Containment of this administration's aggressive and illegal policies has thus far proven impossible. Many lives have been lost or damaged as a result, and many more are yet to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Mr. Smarty Pants
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 12:41 AM

Mr. Bush is much more effective when he is seen publicly in a suit. When he is attired in his 'business casual' he leaves an impression that he just can't be taken seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 12:43 AM

If Americans have never taken a President seriously, IMO they'd better take this one seriously. He is a very dangerous man.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: John O'L
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 02:23 AM

I think I agree with you Ron, that statement would seem to be creating a link between Saddam and Sept. 11th.

Whenever I see Bush on TV, regardless of what he's wearing, he always seems to me to be on the verge of bursting into a high-pitched giggle. He seems to be only just able to hold it in. I wait for him to lose it, but he never does. Not yet at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,A
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 07:28 AM

Not claiming to be any "giant intellects on that side".

With the above statements, appears the claim cannot be made period.

Anyway, with my mediocre intellect, Ron, would you please rephrase the question?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,A
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 07:39 AM

Never mind, Ron. Would someone please point out the "illlegal policies" being used or is that just someones' daydream.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 08:08 AM

Published on Monday, December 26, 2005 by the Washington Post
Bush Presses Editors on Security by Howard Kurtz

President Bush has been summoning newspaper editors lately in an effort to prevent publication of stories he considers damaging to national security. The efforts have failed, but the rare White House sessions with the executive editors of The Washington Post and New York Times are an indication of how seriously the president takes the recent reporting that has raised questions about the administration's anti-terror tactics. Leonard Downie Jr., The Post's executive editor, would not confirm the meeting with Bush before publishing reporter Dana Priest's Nov. 2 article disclosing the existence of secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe used to interrogate terror suspects. Bill Keller, executive editor of the Times, would not confirm that he, publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Washington bureau chief Philip Taubman had an Oval Office sit-down with the president on Dec. 5, 11 days before reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau revealed that Bush had authorized eavesdropping on Americans and others within the United States without court orders.

But the meetings were confirmed by sources who have been briefed on them but are not authorized to comment because both sides had agreed to keep the sessions off the record. The White House had no comment.
"When senior administration officials raised national security questions about details in Dana's story during her reporting, at their request we met with them on more than one occasion," Downie says. "The meetings were off the record for the purpose of discussing national security issues in her story." At least one of the meetings involved John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, and CIA Director Porter Goss, the sources said.

"This was a matter of concern for intelligence officials, and they sought to address their concerns," an intelligence official said. Some liberals criticized The Post for withholding the location of the prisons at the administration's request. After Bush's meeting with the Times executives, first reported by Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, the president assailed the paper's piece on domestic spying, calling the leak of classified information "shameful." Some liberals, meanwhile, attacked the paper for holding the story for more than a year after earlier meetings with administration officials.

The admission by two columnists that they accepted payments from indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff may be the tip of a large and rather dirty iceberg. Copley News Service last week dropped Doug Bandow -- who also resigned as a Cato Institute scholar -- after he acknowledged taking as much as $2,000 a pop from Abramoff for up to two dozen columns favorable to the lobbyist's clients. "I am fully responsible and I won't play victim," Bandow said in a statement after Business Week broke the story. "Obviously, I regret stupidly calling to question my record of activism and writing that extends over 20 years. . . . For that I deeply apologize."

Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation has acknowledged taking payments years ago from a half-dozen lobbyists, including Abramoff. Two of his papers, the Washington Times and Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, have now dropped him. But Ferrara is unapologetic, saying: "There is nothing unethical about taking money from someone and writing an article."

Readers might disagree on grounds that they have no way of knowing about such undisclosed payments, which seem to be an increasingly common tactic for companies trying to influence public debate through ostensibly neutral third parties. When he was a Washington lawyer several years ago, says law professor Glenn Reynolds, a telecommunications carrier offered him a fat paycheck -- up to $20,000, he believes -- to write an opinion piece favorable to its position. He declined.

Jonathan Adler, an associate law professor and National Review contributor, wrote that when he worked at a think tank, "I was offered cash payments to write op-eds on particular topics by PR firms, lobbyists or corporations several times. They offered $1,000 or more for an op-ed," offers that Adler rejected. Blogger Rand Simberg writes that "I've also declined offers of money to write specific pieces, even though I agreed with the sentiment."

Two years ago, former Michigan senator Don Riegle wrote an op-ed attacking Visa and MasterCard without disclosing that his PR firm was representing Wal-Mart -- which was suing the two credit card companies.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,A
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 08:34 AM

Sounds like paying for a college term paper written by someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 11:08 AM

Although cheating college is unethical, misleading the American public by bribing journalists is propaganda.

Yes, the Bush administration have studied the works of Joseph Goebels very carefully and have used bribery to oil their propaganda machine.

We can be happy that these 'reporters' have been exposed and fired.

Now what can we do about an administration that has no shame or American citizens that can't put two and two together.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,A
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 12:53 PM

Pardon me for saying, but I think those with such a vitriolic attitude to bring Goebels into the duscussion would have a problem putting two and two together.
Pause and read about Geobles. It is obvious you are not informed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 12:56 PM

.sp.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,B
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 01:52 PM

"informed by whom, guest A, Fox News? Hopefully not. B

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 02:22 PM

Yes, American do take Bush seriously. It is the unamericans that constantly find fault with everything he does.

If he was so dangerous, no one would dare say anything negative.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 04:16 PM

"It is obvious you are not informed."

You proclaiming it does not make it so. What is singularly lacking in your pronouncements is stuff resembling fact, substance.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Bobert in North Carlolina
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 05:41 PM

Well, not only is Bush trying to bully editors of both the Post and Times into reproting only the news that Bush wants publishded but now it would appear that PAC money has been paid to folks, who write op-ed columns that propagandize Bush's policies...

Think ol' Tom Jefferson, if he were to come back today and see what Bush is doing wouls probably challenge the whimp to a public duel...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 09:16 PM

I'm only trying to establish that in fact the Bush regime did carry out a propaganda campaign between mid 2002 and March 2003, to convince the US public to support the Iraq invasion they had decided on.

As far as I know, there's only one poor benighted soul who denies this----to the rest of the world it's obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 09:46 PM

'the Bush regime did carry out a propaganda campaign between mid 2002 and March 2003'

That's the word I was looking for: propaganda. Until now I've been calling it bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 08:24 PM

Propaganda apparently originated with the R C Church as a shorthand for "Propagation of the Faith."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 09:30 PM

Well, both Goebbels and the Bush administration have proven themselves dab hands at the art. The mid-2002 to March 2003 propaganda campaign was a smash success, as was of course the campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Character Assassination.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 10:00 PM

Ron: You and Peace are like a French firing squad.

You proclaim something with out the quotes to back it up. You think if you repeat it enough it will be true.

It is not up to otheres to convince you that you are wrong. It is up to you to convince others that you are right, which you have failed to do.

George Bush never fooled me because I can hear things correctly and understand them.

Boobert: Why don't you challenge him to a duel or are are you a whimp?

Where is Anus? Got to have his anarchist proclamations on this thread too to make it official 100% retarded drivel.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,A
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 10:43 PM

All the attempts at discrediting GWB is so pathetic.
Again, facts, not feelings. Otherwise, just go on your own minor tangents.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 10:53 PM

How's about a few facts from you, hotshot? Because so far you haven't given a damned one. Makes you nothing more or less than a troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 10:58 PM

Old Guy--

You are joining your fellow intellectual giant, Teribus, then, in denying that the Bush regime carried out a--quite successful-- successful propaganda campaign between mid-2002 and March 2003 to persuade the US public to support an attack on Iraq?

Yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:14 PM

And you are in the ranks of Al Sharpton, Farrakhan, and Jesse Jackson.

I would rather be in T's ranks.

There was no propaganda campaing. You are imagining it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Bobert Still in North Carolina
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:15 PM

Hey, Bush don't botgher me one bit... I've allready challenged him to a fist fight... I've challenged him to a carrier landing contest so what more can I do???

Yeah, heck, if he waznts to shoot it out with me then I'm sjufre we can accomodate him... I rreally ain't into shootin nobody but I'm sure I can at least take out one of his legs if it it means him admitting that he went into Irag on false premises and agrees to pull the heck ougt and let the enevitable civil war that Bush has created begin.....

Ol' Bobert ain't no whimp...

Fir real....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:15 PM

Right. There is also no moon. We're imagining that, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:31 PM

You sure switch from nobody should have to die to shootin' someone in the leg to prove a point.

Did you ever fly an F-102 fighter jet? If not I would not impune the flying skill of one who has.

Now you could say Bush can't do any folk music and that would make him feel real bad.

Yes Peace, you don't sound so sure of it but there is a moon.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:33 PM

"Yes Peace, you don't sound so sure of it but there is a moon."

Did you check that with Bush?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Bobert Still in North Carolina
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:44 PM

Nah, Old Guy, maybe you weren't around durin' the carrier landing challenge but I challednged Bush to a jet verses Cesna challenge.... Now he supposed to be the pilot and I ain't got no pilot's license but, hey, who cares.... The challenge is still on the table... I land a Cesna and he lands whatver makes him happy....

He bails and he calls off the Iraq war....

(Wish I'd chosen a tail drtagger but, hey....)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 12:39 AM

In the photo op, he didn't land the plane.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:05 PM

OK "Old Guy"-

1)   Sounds like you'll have to join Teribus at your local library to learn about propaganda.

Again: Exactly why is "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained." not propaganda linking Saddam and 11 Sept 2001?

I'm still waiting patiently for your answer, hoping (vainly?) that you have the brainpower to formulate one--that actually answers the question.

2) Jesse Jackson is an opponent of the Iraq war. I'm fine being with him. It's fascinating that your entire list is black. You wouldn't have a little racist tinge, now would you? If so, you're cordially invited to leave Mudcat. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

3) Interesting that Bush never quite found the time to use those wonderful piloting skills you're convinced he has--use them in Vietnam--though the vast majority of his fellow piloting students did. But he did find time for the important national security mission of helping his chosen candidates.

Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?

4) Did Kerry fight in Vietnam? Yes or no?
    Did Bush fight in Vietnam?   Yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:26 PM

Ron,

Hmmmmmm? Good detective work there... I didn't even see that O-G had very much played the race card, amybe without even knowing it???

Like, yeah, now that it has been brought to my attention, O-G, what's this thing with you thinking that only me and black folks are against the Iraq war???

Like 60 some percent of the Amercian people now think that invading Iraq was plain dumb yet I represent about 1/300,000,000th of them and, ven if all black folk opposed the war that would make (with me) about maybe 15% of the population...

Hmmmmm???? 60-some percent minus 15%.... Think maybe you do have some explaining to do...

No, the Wes Ginny Slide Rule ain't gonna help you outta this mess, O-Guy...

Better start bailin', brother, 'cause yer little racist boat is fillin' up fast!!!

Bail, bail, bail...

Danged, Ron.... The boy went on down... Yeah, he was abiling as fast as an old guy can but the hole was roo big...

Sniff...

I'm sure gonna miss that old fart...

Sniff...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:29 PM

I have been reading Conyer's House Resolution 635. I will continue on to 636 and 637. I am beginning to think that the Bush administration (and Bush himself) is in deep, deep doo-doo.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 02:01 AM

Thats right, Peace. Its about time.

If the dems don't get him, the A.C.L.U. will.

Makes you wonder what might be next. Lets hope its not Cheney.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:54 PM

Ron is very good at quotings bits of things, mainly because by doing so it helps his agruement. Here is a fuller quotation to the one with which he opened this thread:

It is taken from the President's 2003 State of the Union Address

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

IMAGINE (referring to something that may happen in the future) those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, THIS TIME (referring to something that may happen in the future) armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

Now back that up with what the President said in his 2002 State of the Union Address regarding the two stage plan in his war against terror:
First - We will strike against the terrorist organisations
Second - We will strike against the regimes that could support those terrorist organisations.

The "Propanda Campaign" that Ron talks about does not and never has existed outside of his own imagination - it really has been "The Propaganda Campaign that Never Was".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:59 PM

Well, Washington's trying to convince someone the war's a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:15 PM

No, not so, T-TheImiginator....

Propaganda has been very much part of what the Bush adminisration has been about...

It started during the 2000 election when he fly in thousands and thousands of paid goons to harass poll workers who were just terying to do their jobs and it has been a stalworth ever since...

It doesn't matter what the issue...

Takwe the Social Security Reform isssue where Bush went around the country attending these so-called town meetings... Problem is that 100% of the folks in attendence had been handpicked by local Repub operatives and had been screened to be sure they were very much Bush supporters... So they hold tghe so-called town meeting and it makes the local news.... Can anyone with an I.Q. on the plus side of zero say that this wasn't propaganda????

Teribus???

Old Fart???

A-Follower???

Hey. lets get real here... If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a friggin' duck...

This administartion is so steeped in propaganda that ity os no wonder that a few folks here would hold the views they hold...

T-Employee perhaps has an excuse since he is being paid by the Bushites to defend his client...

But, A and Old-Guy???? Like why would they continue to defend Bush??? If they are also paid then all I can say is that Bush is scrapin' the bottom of the gene pool barrell...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:17 PM

Any of you Yanks ever hear of the Office of Global Communications (OGC)?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:26 PM

MR. ESKEW : Yes.

       Q Yeah, my name is Eva Schweitzer. I work for a German daily called Die Berliner Zeitung.

       My question is about one year from now, an office made headlines in Germany, and I think all over the world, but isn't that the office of disinformation? I actually forgot the real name. And it was supposed to put out stories which might be right or not in favor of the American government. So, it is not completely clear if this office is still existing or not. And my question is, is the Office of Global Communications this very same office in another name and another leadership? Thanks.

       MR. ESKEW: Thank you, Ms. Schweitzer for that question, and I appreciate the opportunity to address it, very directly.

       I'll point out that here in Washington we have copies of the executive order, and they're also available on the White House website, in which the president notes that our office assists in the development of communications programs that disseminate truthful, accurate and effective messages about the American people and their government. Let me be very blunt. We're in the business of working with you to provide the facts, provide stories that are accurate and reflect something true about the intent of our government and our people.

       The office in question was not created -- that story was based on speculation, and the White House spoke quickly after the publication of that story to indicate that the president's desire was to have a new office, our office, to coordinate these truthful and accurate messages.

       We -- we're going to deal with overt information. We're going to deal with reporters. We're going to deal with our embassies, and the interaction they carry out with reporters and other public groups around the world in a way that is true to the president's executive order. We'll abide by that very carefully.

       Thank you.

That is from

here

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:33 PM

Ok Teribus--

Welcome back.

And now we resume our originally scheduled program.


WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER AS TO WHY THE BUSH QUOTE I HAVE CITED IS NOT PROPAGANDA?


Somehow you have neglected, yet again, to answer that question?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:38 PM

And guess what, folks???

Give up???

Now it looks as if the Justice Departement is going to harass a bunch of other news folks and whistle blowers in trying to find out who informed the media thjat Busdh was involved in illegal spying on American citizens...

Like what does this say???

Don't turn us in and if you do then whomever you turned us into is gonna pay...

This is reverse propaganda where it isn't what is being said but how you go about the dealing with the folks who won't tell yer lies...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:00 PM

RD "many in the world" How many? How many did not? You claim there are many and ask me to explain why. There were not many. There were many more that did not think Saddam could be contained.

Yes Kerry went to Vietnam with a camera and a JFK complex. There he claimed purple hearts dishonestly so he could get the hell back home, out of harms way and try to use them to build his career. A cheap trick. Did he ever release all of his military records?

Bush was a fighter pilot and his unit could have been called up to go to Vietnam but it did not. His daddy didn't pull any strings and the Democrats popaganda campaingn to prove he was a deserter fell on it's ass when it was revealed that the document was forged.

Should he have retrained to land a S-3B Viking on an aircraft carrier to satisfy a few crybabies or is he too busy?

I will answer this one again: Bush did not conduct a propaganda campaign linking Saddam with 9/11. You can repaet your charge a million times iof you want. You have to prove he did rather than me having to prove he did not.

You can call me racist if you want. What do I care? I am allowed to think what ever I want of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. It is your idea to make a connection between anti war and race in order to find shelter for your ass backward opinions created by you personal dislike for George Bush. Is it because he is white? Are you a racist?

Bobert: What do you know about my genes? Are you one of those WV inbreds and therefore suspicious of others? Why do you continue to persue your personal assault against Bush?

The useless "Wes Ginny Slide Rule" couldn't calquelate how many Thermonuclear devices (bombs) could be made from the 1.77 metric tons of partially enriched uranium found in Iraq.

Your current Modus Operandi (MO) consists of thinking up funny names for those that have opposing opinions in order to discredit them. Facts work better than sarcasm.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:04 PM

If you believe YOUR facts so much, why do you post as GUEST?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:19 PM

Dear Guest - Lets hope that whoever logs into the link you provided does not accept the cookies from that site.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:19 PM

Peace, stop talking like a jerk. You are smarter than that!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:26 PM

I forgot to type Old Guy in that 11:00PM Post

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:27 PM

You are right, GUEST. So while we're on the subject, perhaps you could answer this: '"The useless "Wes Ginny Slide Rule" couldn't calquelate how many Thermonuclear devices (bombs) could be made from the 1.77 metric tons of partially enriched uranium found in Iraq."' Let us know when you figure it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:29 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy - PM
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:26 PM

I forgot to type Old Guy in that 11:00PM Post"

Gee, who would have guessed?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:10 AM

Peace: "If you believe YOUR facts so much, why do you post as GUEST?"

I thought I was responding to you and still you make maokery of it. That is the limits of your abilities.

The answer is more than one but you will find fault with that answer regardless, that is your mission, to find fault.

The point was that your son, Bobert, refused to acknowledge that the uranium was found in Iraq. All he can do is think up more Bobertisims, funny stuff, sarcasm and distorting other people's names.

Who is he convincing? Bush's number keep going up no matter how hard he tries.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:14 AM

"The answer is more than one but you will find fault with that answer regardless, that is your mission, to find fault."

Absolutely. Just as it is your mission to troll. Notice you answer no questions from others? Notice that?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 11:48 AM

If you read my 11:00 post you will see I amswerd RD and bobert so what are you babbling about.

Plese take a moment and present some facts to support your opinions. Sarcasm, namecalling and personal quips prove nothing ecxept to fill up space where facts are absent.

Let's get back to the Rasmussen polls. Do you still believe a leftist website "vote" is the equivalent nationwide poll?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:19 PM

But he did conduct such a campaign. Over and over again he and his "talking point" marionettes asserted or implied that Saddam Hussein was "the same as" the sources of terrorism, and the effect of that campaign was that over 50% of our brilliant citizens believed that Saddam was behind 9-11. Do you REALLY need one of your minders to go drag out the quotes that have been posted lo, these many times?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 03:16 PM

Bush's daddy found no problem actually getting an opportunity to fight.   The vast majority of the Bush's fellow piloting students went to Vietnam and fought. These are facts.

Bush was actually teased about the fact at the time that he was not going to Vietnam.

Kerry fought.
Bush did not.

These are facts.


Let's see some facts to deny them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 05:35 PM

So, OG, you are then going to start being polite with me? I will return politeness--but please understand that I will return sarcasm ten-fold, and I do know how to hate. Your call.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 07:35 PM

Yo, Old Guy,

Can you offer any evidence that the documents that Dan Rather presented were forged???

Seesm to me that wasn't the issue of the documents but that they could not be substantiated... Big difference, pal...

And while we are on the subject, had the US wanted to call up Bush duruing his AWOL all I can say is good luck... Hard to call up the missing...

As for Kerry, can you provide any evidence that he didn't turn the boat around and save one of his men??? No, seems that the those Swift Boater for Bush weren't there... Yeah, they might have been in Nam and prolly were but they weren't there when Kerry either turned the boat around or didn't... Or when he took his boat onto shore and killed a Viet Cong, or didn't...

Do you have any criduible sources that would hold up in any court of law???

No, you don't..

What you have is a bunch of partisan Bushite Vietnam vets who did a nice hatchet job on a man who may have actually shown more valor than all of them put together???

Hey, Old Guy, I will say one thing and that is that the Bush propaganda machine has worked just like it was drawn up when it comes to you...

Try independent thought... It don't hurt at all...

I ain't no partisan here, pal, but you sure as heck are...

What you don't see, or care to see, is that Bush and his boys are Hell-bent on bending over to corporate interests... Hitler, BTW, also courted the industrialists... No, I'm not callin' Bush Hitler but he has certainly taken some pages out of Hitler's play book...

It was Hitler who remarked that the masses would believe the "Big Lie" and when it comes to the "Big Lie" there's been no one in my life time that was in the same class with Bush... Hey, he's got ice-water running in his viens when it comes to telling lies...

Like I said, I ain't no partisan... Kerry, I agree wasn't too hot... Clinton outright sucked... Gore was a bore... Hillary is about as bad as her hubby...

But now yer God, Bush, he's the worst of 'um all... And not only is he a liar but he is a thief... He's trying to bleed the middle class and poor to death...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 07:52 PM

I suspect that once you have signed up to support the debble, you gotta forward all his PR. It comes with the package; it's in the very fine print. No-one ever reads it, but they gotta do it anyhow.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 01:53 AM

Amos:

You haven't produced any quotes and no stats to support your assertions. Go and check out your source, the Onion where they post lies and call it Satire.

Then left wing ninnies get sucked in (Yeah, this is what I want to hear about the evil right wing), seize on to the data and proclaim it to be truth.

http://www.theonion.com/content/faq/editorial
"The Onion is a satirical weekly publication published 52 times a year on Thursdays."

An example of an Amos truthful news source:
"WASHINGTON, DC—The recent leak revealing Santa Claus to be "your mommy and daddy" has been linked to President Bush's senior political adviser and deputy chief of staff Karl Rove. "If this devastating leak, which severely..."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 07:51 AM

Old Guy--

Sorry you had nothing better to to with your time at 1:53 AM 1 Jan 2006 (EST) than to make absurd charges, while somehow not finding a way to contradict the facts that Kerry fought in Vietnam; Bush never found the time to do so.

Hope your hangover isn't too severe.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 07:54 AM

And of course, yet again none of the Bush regime's apologists have yet even attempted to explain why the quote that opened this thread is not propaganda linking Saddam and 11 Sept 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:06 PM

RD:

Thousands of words later you have yet to explain why it is.

To me, not being a left wing nut extremist, like the majority of US citizens, the qoute means that the occurrence of 9/11 caused some who previously believed that Saddam could be contained to think that he could not be contained.

Explain to me why you are not an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:11 PM

I am sick and tired of the biased media reporting and constant Bush bashing that goes on on this forum. Not all the news is bad from Iraq
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/19/wirq19.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/19/ixworld.html

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:24 PM

OG--

Did the quote link Saddam and 11 Sept 2001 or not? Simple question--simple answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:39 PM

To RD that does not answer questions from others, demands answers from others and then ignores others when they answer:

No, the quote does not link Saddam and 9/11 in any way shape or form.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 01:32 PM

Use your head, Old Guy --(for once, unless of course it's too much of a strain). It puts Saddam and 11 Sept in the same sentence (and does not sever the link)--and why do you think that was done--total coincidence?

Do you need chapter and verse from Goebbels to see the similarity?

What about that trip to the library you and Teribus were going to make?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:12 PM

THe Los Angeles Times argues in this article that civil war is already a fact of life in Iraq, but that it is distributed, high-quantity but low in the traditional scale of sizes of armies, often guerilla-driven.

But, they say, civil war it is, and it has been ongoing since the fall of Saddam.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:35 PM

Yeah, Amos, Knight Ritter reported this past week that the Kurds within the Iraqi Army are ready to turn on the no-Kurd folks in their ranks, kill them, and take oil-rich Kirkuk...

Yes, the civil war that many of us predicted would occur way back during the Bush mad-dash-to-war seems to be materializing...

Now if we could predict this consequence it's shamefull that Bush's folks couldn't see it... But then again, back then (as now) they only hear their own small little voices and no one elses...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 08:52 PM

"Before Sept the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained."

It breaks my heart that you don't like the quote, Old Guy--particularly fascinating --(30 Dec 2005 11:00 PM)-- that you disagree with "many in the world"--don't think that phrase is justified.

Sorry--you'll have to work that out with your mighty leader, Mr. Bush--he's the stellar thinker who said it.

Congratulations---you and Mr. Bush are in a circular firing squad.

Maybe you'll actually start to read a post before you shoot from the lip. That would be refreshing.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 10:11 PM

I love the quote because it proves that GWB was not trying to connect Saddam and 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: TIA
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 11:20 PM

"I love the quote because it proves that GWB was not trying to connect Saddam and 9/11."

HUH?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:43 AM

Ignore OG. He's crazier than a shithouse rat.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:51 AM

'"The relations with, uhh — Europe are important relations, and they've, uhh — because, we do share values. And, they're universal values, they're not American values or, you know — European values, they're universal values. And those values — uhh — being universal, ought to be applied everywhere." —George W. Bush, at a press conference with European Union dignitaries, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005'

God Almighty, that man has a way with words, doesn't he, OG?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:54 AM

No rats in my shithouse. I don't even have a shithouse.

I have an rat free indoor toilet.

If you guys really want to convince the weakminded, write a Bush propaganda song, A rap song would work good.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: number 6
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:01 AM

I heard he doesn't like rap ... now if you did in a Texas Swing kind of thang ... he might listen.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:13 AM

Home, home and deranged,
Where the President thinks in his dreams,
Where seldom is heard
A discouraging word,
For we can't figure out what he means.

'"We need to apply 21st-century information technology to the health care field. We need to have our medical records put on the I.T." —George W. Bush, Collinsville, Ill., Jan. 5, 2005'

Home, home and deranged,
Where the President thinks thoughts all night,
Where seldom is heard
An informative word
For his head's in a place with no light.

'"Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red." —George W. Bush, explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005'

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 02:08 AM

Yes, Peace, that is a bit confusing.

Maybe one of the Bush apologists can translate that for us.

Of course, they see no need to explain it because they believe that daddy knows best and all they have to do is believe in him.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 04:24 AM

<>

Ron Davies would like his question detailed above answered.

The actual quote is as follows:
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

IMAGINE (referring to something that may happen in the future) those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, THIS TIME (referring to something that may happen in the future) armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

Now what on earth, having read the State of Union Addresses of 2002 and 2003, possesses Ron Davies (Republican) to isolate one sentence from the 2003 speech and then proclaim to the world as "Fact" that for the previous there had been a concentrated propaganda campaign to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001. In another thread Ron identified this "campaign" as running from mid-summer 2002 to March 2003 - so where are the quotes launching this campaign from mid-summer 2002. I would have thought that Ron would have used at least one instead of a single sentence from a rather long speech given towards the end of Ron's randomly selected period.

In answer to his very poorly and improperly framed question. No Ron it does not represent propaganda.

What it does do is mark a watershed after which attitudes are perceived as having to change to meet the requirements of the threat to the nation as evaluated and assessed by the House Security Committee.

What it says is perfectly in accord with the US Government's stated approach to international terrorist threat as outlined in the State of the Union Address of 2002.

One thing is certain Ron - It was not the propaganda campaign that would appear to be the child of your imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 05:12 AM

Ron Davies 31 Dec 05 - 03:16 PM

"Bush's daddy found no problem actually getting an opportunity to fight.   The vast majority of the Bush's fellow piloting students went to Vietnam and fought. These are facts."

So the above are "facts" are they Ron? Can you verify or substantiate them? I asked you to do so before and you declined.

Now the, "...vast majority of the Bush's fellow piloting students went to Vietnam and fought." Just what do you define as "fellow piloting students":

- All personnel USAF; NAG; Army; Marines; US Navy learning to fly at the same time?
- Initial flight training class within the Texas NAG?
- His fellow students at the time he and Fred Buckley made inquiries, i.e. during OTU?

Your post seems to indicate the latter as you go on to mention teasing with regard to the request, but if investigated you will rapidly determine that for each category described above, the vast majority DID NOT go and fight in Vietnam. The "vast majority" went nowhere near Vietnam, the "vast majority" were busily engaged elsewhere.

Numbers involved in Vietnam peaked during the years 1966 to 1970, highest number being in 1968 (536,100) now (to use Ron's terminology) the "vast majority" of those would be made up of infantry and logistics units, the percentage of that half million that were pilots would be fairly small. Sorry Ron at the height of the "Cold War" the vast majority of the armed forces of the United States of America, let alone the pilots serving in the armed forces of the United States of America, were otherwise engaged. In writing his post I don't think that Ron checked the number of people serving in the US Armed Forces, of course he would have to to establish his vast majority claim, he didn't though, as half a million is nowhere near a "vast majority" compared to the three and a half million serving at that time.

But of course if Ron is correct he could provide the numbers of George W Bush's fellow students who went on to serve in Vietnam. One thing is for certain, they wouldn't be flying F-102A's (aircraft type was being/had been withdrawn from theatre). Another certainty is that that they wouldn't be there under the *Palace Guard* Scheme (that was already being wrapped up).

Oh yes!! Ron's source is the one referring to "piloting students" who previously mentioned them going to "piloting classes". OK fellow Mudcatters who have had any connection whatsoever to flying, or exposure to flying in the military - A question - Have you EVER heard such terminology for basic flight training or flight school? With regard to military aviation anyone referring to flight students and flight school as "piloting students" and "piloting classes" plainly hasn't got the foggiest notion of what they are talking about.

Utter drivel Ron, exactly as is your claim regarding "The propaganda campaign" That Never Was.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 09:54 AM

Teribus???

Hmmmmmmm, catchin' a little overtime pay to cover them Christmas expenses...

Word on the street was that you'd been reassigned...

Yeah, with all the money going to Bushite blog sites that has been reported in recent days and Bush's push to conrtol the news, I figgured that you were too important to the overall Bushite effort for Bush to ask you to do so much work at a folk music web site...

Go figure???

Ahhhh, do you all get paid by the number of words you write???

Just curious...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 10:03 AM

In a speech today President Bush said contrary to reports, he has no plans to attack Iran. The president said 'That's ridiculous. We didn't even have plans when we attacked Iraq.

The president submitted his annual budget -- $2.5 trillion. Don't kid yourself with this George W. Bush. This guy is sneaky, this guy is cunning, this guy is shrewd. He budgeted the upcoming invasion into Iran under office supplies.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 11:30 AM

Like O'Reilly, RD is only interested in hearing the answer he wants.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 11:35 PM

Teribus and other giant intellects of his sort--

""Before Sept 11th , many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained". Just total coincidence that Sept 11 and Saddam are mentioned in that context?

Yet again, how naive are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 01:11 AM

I think that Guest Old Guy is correct in his statement, "...RD is only interested in hearing the answer he wants."

Your question has been answered RD, and those answering it have given reasons for believing as they do. You on the other hand have merely stated your opinion without offering anything to substantiate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 01:16 AM

Well Bobert (02 Jan 06 - 09:54 AM) just goes to prove how much you can rely on your "Word on the street" crap ..... Doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 01:46 PM

current campaign:

There will be total victory
(unless the American defeatists against the war undermine us by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.)
Those who leaked any of the so called crimes we have committed, while protecting America, are traitors and are guilty of TREASON!

nothin like a another witch hunt to counter a witch hunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 11:17 PM

Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat discussed the Saddam / Al-qaeda connections in an appearance last week on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Said Lieberman: "I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I've seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I never could reach the conclusion that [Saddam] was part of September 11. Don't get me wrong about that. But there was so much smoke there that it made me worry. And you know, some people say with a great facility, al Qaeda and Saddam could never get together. He is secular and they're theological. But there's something that tied them together. It's their hatred of us."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 12:11 AM

Teribus et al.--

"Before Sept 11 many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained"

As Carol put it earlier: "What happened on 9-11 that would cause many in the world to change their belief that Saddam Hussein could be contained?"

A fascinating question indeed--good luck answering it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 12:51 AM

Bobert:

Can you offer any evidence that the documents that Dan Rather presented were forged???

It was shown by several different people that the different size fonts Like the tiny elevated th after 187th) couldn't have been produced by the typewriters of the day without changing type balls which would have messed up the vertical alignment. Even if they could have done that, the horizonal spacing could not have been done on typewriters of the day. There were no Laser printers at that time, maybe dot matrix which is easily recognized.

It was done on a laser printer with a word processor with kerning. Someone should demand a Senate investigation tho prove if it is legit or forged and who forged it but Valerie Plamegate is more important because it might damage the president and National Guardgate would only damage Democrats.

        

9/9/2004: Bush Guard Documents: Forged

I opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Microsoft's Times New Roman, tabbed over to the default tab stop to enter the date "18 August 1973," then typed the rest of the document purportedly from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian.

And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as "authentic."

The spacing is not just similar—it is identical in every respect. Notice that the date lines up perfectly, all the line breaks are in the same places, all letters line up with the same letters above and below, and the kerning is exactly the same. And I did not change a single thing from Word's defaults; margins, type size, tab stops, etc. are all using the default settings. The one difference (the "th" in "187th" is slightly lower) is probably due to a slight difference between the Mac and PC versions of the Times New Roman font, or it could be an artifact of whatever process was used to artificially "age" the document. (Update: I printed the document and the "th" matches perfectly in the printed version. It's a difference between screen and printer fonts.)

There is absolutely no way that this document was typed on any machine that was available in 1973.



Kerry Supporter: 99% Sure it's a hoax

The experts are weighing in, and it doesn't look good for the documents. The Weekly Standard's Steve Hays did a little more research and discussed the documents with several forensic examiners. Here's what they have to say:

    And according to several forensic document experts contacted by THE WEEKLY STANDARD say the Killian memos appear to be forgeries. Although it is nearly impossible to establish with certainty the authenticity of documents without a careful examination of the originals, several irregularities in the Killian memos suggest that CBS may have been the victim of a hoax.

    "These sure look like forgeries," says William Flynn, a forensic document expert widely considered the nation's top analyst of computer-generated documents. Flynn looked at copies of the documents posted on the CBS News website (here, here, here, and here). Flynn says, "I would say it looks very likely that these documents could not
have existed" in the early 1970s, when they were allegedly written.

    Several other experts agree. "They look mighty suspicious," says a veteran forensic document expert who asked not to be quoted by name. Richard Polt, a Xavier University philosophy professor who operates a website dedicated to typewriters, says that while he is not an expert on typesetting, the documents "look like typical word-processed documents."

And later:

    So can we say with absolute certainty that the documents were forged? Not yet. Xavier University's Polt, in an email, offers two possible scenarios. "Either these are later transcriptions of earlier documents (which may have been handwritten or typed on a typewriter), or they are crude and amazingly foolish forgeries. I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but I won't let that cloud my objective judgment: I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."


CBS admits memo fraud:


CBS News acknowledged for the first time yesterday that retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a disgruntled former guardsman, was its source for the four memos, and the network accused him of victimizing it by lying to producer Mary Mapes.
On the newscast, Mr. Rather introduced a brief clip of a testy interview he conducted with the retired lieutenant colonel in Texas this weekend.
In the interview, Col. Burkett admits that he lied to CBS when he said the documents had come from a former guardsman.
"I simply threw out a name that was basically I guess to take a little pressure off for a moment" as the CBS producer pressed for the name of the source, Col. Burkett told Mr. Rather.
Col. Burkett later provided a second name as the source, but CBS says it has been unable to verify the source's connection to the Guard.
On Sept. 10, when Mr. Rather was asked whether an internal probe was needed, he said it was "not even discussed, nor should it be." Yesterday, CBS said a soon-to-be-named panel would conduct an "independent review" to "help determine what actions need to be taken."
Col. Burkett has waged a long campaign to discredit Mr. Bush's military service. A CBS statement last week said it got the memos from "unimpeachable sources."
Col. Burkett, who has connections to Texas Democrats, has retracted some of his past accusations. Witnesses have failed to support his other accusations.
Journalistic ethics require reporters to conceal the identities of confidential sources, unless the source deliberately provides wrong information or agrees to be named.
Republicans, who last week called for an investigation into whether Mr. Rather was trying to influence the presidential election with fake documents, kept up the pressure yesterday.
Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said the CBS investigation should probe whether the documents came out of a Burkett-Democratic Party conspiracy. The Democratic National Committee has begun broadcasting an ad, "Fortunate Son," that attacks Mr. Bush's Guard duty.
The Associated Press reported during the weekend that Col. Burkett communicated with Kerry advisers before CBS aired the memos.
"CBS has now answered questions about the authenticity of the documents but questions remain surrounding who created the documents, who provided them to CBS, and if Senator Kerry's supporters, party committee or campaign played any role," Mr. Gillespie said.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who has suggested that White House political adviser Karl Rove floated the fake memos, responded by unleashing another attack on Mr. Bush.
"We know that George Bush was a fortunate son, a child of privilege, who refuses to admit that he used his connections to avoid fulfilling his requirements," Mr. McAuliffe said. "But what we still don't know is why Bush didn't fulfill his duty to his country or why he has continued to lie to the American people about it."
CBS News President Andrew Heyward, in a personal statement, said the four memos should never have been used.
"Based on what we know," Mr. Heyward said, "CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."
Mr. Rather, who conservatives say is consistently biased against Republicans, also offered an apology. He said:
"Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers."
"If I knew then what I know now," he said, "I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
"But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism."
"Memogate," as some have dubbed it, will surely rank high in the pantheon of journalistic scandals, up there with Janet Cooke's bogus Pulitzer-Prize-winning story at The Washington Post, and fictitious reporting by Jayson Blair at the New York Times and Jack Kelley at USA Today.
All three newspapers did internal probes and admitted mistakes.
Mr. Rather disclosed the four memos on prime time Sept. 8 as a major exclusive. But within hours, bloggers and document analysts crowded the Internet with accusations that the memos were created by computer software not available in the early 1970s.
In the following days, recognized forensic document experts were nearly unanimous in telling the press that the memos were forged because they likely were typed on Microsoft Word software.
In addition, the signature of Col. Killian, who died in 1984 of a heart attack, did not appear to match known samples of his memos.
Attention then shifted to how CBS News veterans such as Mr. Rather could have aired such suspect papers and who could have provided them.
Suspicion centered on Col. Burkett, who has called Mr. Bush "Hitler." He has told stories — still unproven — of attempts inside the Guard to cleanse Mr. Bush's records of supposedly incriminating documents in the late 1990s when he worked at state headquarters.
In one account, Col. Burkett said he saw Mr. Bush's personnel file in a trash can near a museum on the grounds of Guard headquarters in Austin. But the friend he named to corroborate the story said he had no memory of such an incident.
Col. Burkett also retracted an accusation that the Guard retaliated against him for criticizing Mr. Bush's Guard service.
The CBS independent investigation likely will examine why "60 Minutes" relied on a critic such as Col. Burkett for the documents, and apparently ignored some of its own hired document experts, who expressed doubts before the broadcast.
His lawyer, David Van Os, released a statement last week attacking the Bush White House and reporters for focusing on whether the memos were legitimate.
The CBS statement yesterday cast the network as being victimized by Col. Burkett.
Col. Burkett "also admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source," the statement said.
"Burkett originally said he obtained the documents from another former guardsman. Now he says he got them from a different source whose connection to the documents and identity CBS News has been unable to verify to this point," the network said.
CBS also was feeling political pressure. Thirty-nine Republican members of Congress sent a letter to Mr. Heyward calling for an investigation.
Mr. Bush weighed in during the weekend.
"There are a lot of questions about the documents and they need to be answered," Mr. Bush said in New Hampshire. "I think what needs to happen is people need to take a look at the documents, how they were created, and let the truth come out."
Press reports on Mr. Bush's National Guard service have surfaced nearly every time he runs for office.
The Yale graduate enlisted in the Texas Guard in May 1968 and successfully completed flight training in the demanding F-102 interceptor. In 1972, he sought to leave flight status and move to Alabama to work on a senatorial campaign. He received an honorable discharge in 1973 and enrolled in Harvard Business School.
Democrats say Mr. Bush was "AWOL" by missing drills during that 1972-73 span. The White House says he arranged with Col. Killian to go off flight status and made up missed drills to earn enough credits for an honorable discharge.
The CBS memos further inflamed the Democratic accusations. According to the documents, Col. Killian ordered Mr. Bush to take a flight physical and Mr. Bush refused. A memo also discussed pressure from higher-ups to "sugarcoat" his performance evaluations.
As the "60 Minutes" documents crumbled under the weight of evidence, Mr. Rather changed course. He subsequently interviewed a former Guard secretary, 86-year-old Marian Carr Knox. An admitted Bush critic who calls him "unfit" to be president, Mrs. Knox said she believed the memos are fake, but contended that some of their contents were true.
But Mr. Bush's flying mates and Col. Killian's son, rebutted that accusation. They said pilots were never ordered to get physicals and that Mr. Bush was well respected by fellow pilots.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:56 AM

Woody - Can you please condense the above so maybe I can read it?

Either that or answer the question,

"What happened on 9-11 that would cause many in the world to change their belief that Saddam Hussein could be contained?"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 02:23 AM

Are you having to change the wording of your 'selected' sentence to make your point Ron? Why not just provide, as I have done, the entire passage and let people make their own minds up.

CarolC's question was answered in the post of 02 Jan 06 - 04:24 AM. The statement made by the President in the 2003 State of the Union Address clearly indicated that after having suffered a partialy successful, anonymous, a-symetric attack on the 11th September, 2001 that marked:

"..... a watershed after which attitudes are perceived as having to change to meet the requirements of the threat to the nation as evaluated and assessed by the House Security Committee.

What it says is perfectly in accord with the US Government's stated approach to international terrorist threat as outlined in the State of the Union Address of 2002."

No propaganda campaign Ron, no matter how much you insist on it, that particular dog won't hunt, because what you contend flies in the face of reason, logic and fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 08:52 AM

Yo, Woody,

Of course I can't produce an waterproof evidence that the documents that Dan Rather used were not forged but that isn't really at issue here...

What is at issue is that Bush can't pove they were...

What occured with the CBS was a bull-rush by Karl Rove to protect Bush... Hey, it worked and was probably the only thing that would have worked to save Bush the embarassment of having to come out and flat admit thzt he was AW#OL... Especially at a time when he was asking American kids to die in Iraq-mire...

So, I ask you, Woodster, do you have waterproff evidence the documents were forged???

In yout own words please... Long ambiguos cut 'n posts are mot all that convincing...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 09:27 AM

The facts which those documents represented, however, were not bogus; those who were in charge of the Guard unit at the time said as much during the investigation into Memo Gate.

I would also point out that the WHite House under Bush has hardly ever investigated its own errors and owned up to them. The nation swooned when Bush even acknowledged that no WMD had been found and that that intell had been false.


A little perspective here. (1) a professional and respected news anchor gets misled by false documents, and acts on it based on false representations. When the lie is discovered he apologizes publically for his wrong doing. Cost: public embarassment for his network, embarassment for the Administration, perhaps a couple of hundred thousand dollars wasted.

(2) A standing president gets false information about Iraq's weapons programs. At the same time he also gets the correct data from others. He acts on the negative data, changing the emphasis multiple times for the reason for doing so. After years of people pointing out the obvious error in his thinking, he finally acknowledges the data was wrong, but insists on the rightness of the decision anyway. Cost: between two and three thousand U.S. lives, thousands of scarred and wounded veterans, tens of thousands of lives lost among residents of Iraq, loss of repute internationally, billions of dollars wasted.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 11:16 AM

CIA had plenty of evidence Iraq had no illegal weapons, book reveals
By Mark Coultan Herald Correspondent in New York, Sydney Morning Herald; January 5, 2006

THE CIA had evidence from 30 Iraqi weapons scientists that Saddam Hussein had abandoned its weapons of mass destruction programs long before the US invaded, an explosive new book on America's spying operations says. James Risen, national security writer for The New York Times, also says that in 2004 a CIA officer mistakenly sent one of its Iranian agents data that could be used to identify virtually the entire spy network in Iran...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 12:48 PM

What kind of evidence would convince Bobert?

Be specific.

The document in question makes an accusation. Does it have to be proven true or proven untrue?

If it has to be proven untrue that means Bush is guilty of the charges made in the document with out proof that they are legit.

It if has to be proven true that means Bush is innocent of the charges made in the document unless there is proof that they are legit.

Are people innocent until proven guilty or are people guilty until proven innocent?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:03 PM

Dianavan will have to read through the information to from her conclusion.

4 events happened on 9/11 that caused the US government to declare war on terrorisim. Saddam supported terrorisim so he is part of the war on terrorisim. One immediate evidence of this is he paid $250,000 dollars to the familys of suicide bombers. He supported terrorisim in many other ways including having terrorist training camps in Iraq. Not specifically Al Qaeda camps but camps for anybody that want to kill Americans and Jews.

No one has claimed that he had anything to do with the execution of 9/11

I am not going to engage in hours of digging up information to be disputed by diehard Bush haters. The information is there for people that want to keep an open mind while they read all of the information on the subject before they make a personal judgement. However if they have already made up their mind and refuse to read or give any credit to any thing that would be counter to their made up mind, they will always come to the same conlusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:49 PM

Quoting myself from a thread back in March...

"Amidst all the righteous indignation about "falsified" or "forged" or "fake" memos, Bush supporters always, always, always forget Marian Carr Knox. She's the one who typed the real memos. And, she says that "those aren't the memos I typed", but "their CONTENT IS ACCURATE"! So, ultimately, Dan Rather was driven out for reporting the truth."

Link to her interview is back there somewhere too.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:55 PM

No one has claimed that he had anything to do with the execution of 9/11


Funny, isn't it, that as a result of the Presidential briefings to the nation, 40% of the public thought he did? I just can't imagine where they all got that stupid idea, eh?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 02:07 PM

It asays here the documents are forgeries. Dates are wrong. Terminology is wrong. What happened to the original?

Why would it have to be recreated if the original exists?

Where is the Seante Investigation?

If the original does not exist it does not exist how do we know the recreated one is exactly like the original?


TEXAS GUARD SECRETARY SURFACES: SAYS CBS DOCS 'FORGERIES', BUT STANDS BY ACCUSATIONS AGAINST BUSH

The DRUDGE REPORT has found Lt. Col. Jerry Killian's former secretary who claims that the Texas Air National Guard documents offered by CBS in its 60 MINUTES II report filed by Dan Rather last week are indeed 'forgeries'.

"I did not type these particular memos. I typed memos like these," Knox told the DRUDGE REPORT from her home in Houston.

"I typed memos that had this information in them, but I did not type these memos. There are terms in these memos that are not Guard terms but that are Army terms. They use the word 'Billets'. I think they were using that to refer to the slot. That would be a non-flying slot the way we would use it. And the style... they are sloppy looking."

But Marian Carr Knox stands by the accusations contained in the allegedly fraudulent documents that Bush skirted a medical and flight exam without suffering institutional repercussions.

"The information in these memos is correct -- like Killian's dealing with the problems."

"It was General Staudt, not then Lt. Colonel Hodges [who succeeded Staudt], that was putting on the pressure to whitewash Bush. For instance he didnt take his flight examination or his physical. And the pilots had to take them by their birthdays. Once in a while there would be a reason why a pilot would miss these things because some of them were commercial pilots. But they had to make arrangements to take their exams."

Knox speculated as to how she thought the forgeries were created saying, "My guess is that someone in the outfit got hold of the real ones and discussed it with a former Army person."

Knox worked for the Guard from 1957 until she retired in 1979, and she was Lt. Col. Killian's secretary during the time President Bush served in Texas.

Contacted by the DRUDGE REPORT, Lt. Col. Killian's son Gary, who also served in the unit during the same period, responded: "I know Marian Carr. I remember her as a sweet lady who reminded me then of a dear aunt."

"But if Staudt had put pressure on my dad, there would have been a blow-up -- instantly. It was one of the reasons they got along so well. They had a mutual respect for one another."

"As has been pointed out by so many others, then Col Staudt had been out of the unit for 18 months. And I stand by my previous comments regarding my dad's admiration for Lt. Bush and his regard for him as an officer and pilot -- which was exemplary."

Knox told the DRUDGE REPORT that she did not vote for Bush in 2000 because he is 'unqualified' for the job, and does not intend to vote for him in 2004, either.

"Bush was not the only person of privilege who had a spot in the Guard. Senator [Lloyd] Bensen's nephew was in headquarters. There was a big jewelery store, Gordons. Their son was in the Guard. The owner of Batelstein's, a posh department store in the area, his son was in. The other kids couldn't get in like that. Hugh Roy Cullen's grandson was also in. He was a big oil man."

Knox, however, did have some kind words about then Lt. Bush.

"[Bush] was always pleasant and gentlemanly to me," she said. "I never noticed him not being respectful. I thought he was a nice young man and that he must have had very nice parents to produce a son as nice as he seemed to be."

Knox has been following the story since last week when the 60 MINUTES II broadcast aired, and on Friday she contacted the HOUSTON CHRONICLE wanting to tell her side of the story. Since then the DALLAS MORNING NEWS has also contacted her.

"What really hecked me off was when it was somebody on TV, associated with the White House, who said that all of this information was lies. And I got excited at the time because I knew that I had typed documents with this information because a person like Bush stood out from the others -- because of his association with his father."

Asked about reports that Lt. Col. Killian's wife and son saying he didn't type, Knox stated, "He didn't need to. He had me."

Knox explains that the August 18, 1973 date typed on one of the "forged" documents proves that they were faked. Group Commander Staudt, who allegedly had been putting pressure on Killian, retired in 1972.

To the best of her recollection, Knox explains that Staudt must have put pressure on Killian in 1972 -- the year he retired.

"If my father was going to type a CYA memo, which he didn't," Gary Killian responded. "He would have typed it himself because he wouldn't have wanted anyone to see it. But it's academic because Colonel Staudt had been out of the unit for 18 months -- as is well documented."

Contacted at his office in Bartlett, Texas, former Major Dean Roome, who served with Lt. Bush, responded to the latest information.

"If the memos are fraudulent, then why were they generated? Roome asked.

"Marian Carr Knox is validating what the rest of us are saying. She says once in a while a pilot would miss a physical because some of them were commercial pilots. I was also a commercial pilot with Continental Airlines. The clinic did not just open up for us to take a personal physical. The Flight Surgeons had to be there along with a full complement of medical personnel. We took our physical during the Uniformed Training Assembly (UTA) just like everyone else."

"The 'former Army person' she references is the person we believe may have created the fraudulent documents in an effort to injure President Bush. He has his own agenda and I doubt that he has any 'real ones' [documents].

Ms. Knox states emphatically that she is not acting for political motives, and has no formal relationship with any political party. She says she just wants to set the record straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 04:06 PM

Wal, there ya have it, as far as Rathergate goes -- correct facts, bad documents.

Now, Bush, on the other hand has been a snake's nest of altered facts AND bad documents.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 04:11 PM

100!! Woohoo!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: TIA
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 05:08 PM

Thanks Guest@2:07

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 08:19 PM

Well, one thing seems for sure, forged or unforged, AWOL BUSH, with the help of Karl "Bull-rush" Rove not only took out an old adversary in Dan Rather but seem in doing so also got Bush yet another deferment in having to answer the AWOL charges...

But, one thing is for sure, Bush and Rove's games will keep historinas gainfully employed for some tome to come unraveling the stories and mythology these two have spun...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 08:54 PM

Why would correct data have to be forged?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 09:46 PM

Looks like it has been more or less accepted that there was no propaganda campaign Ron. The anti-Bush crowd are now concerned about the content of clearly forged documents. I on the other hand would like to hear you expound on your "vast majority" of piloting students - you must have had some reason for making the claim? All you have to do now is substantiate it - But I tell you what Ron, I don't think you will. I'll tell you something else Ron, this "vast majority" of piloting students and "propaganda campaign" crap that you peddle here - are both classic "Bobert Facts". If you dispute this point then provide substantiation without resorting to personal attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 09:52 PM

Ya bin Told.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:12 PM

No Teribus. There clearly was a propaganda campaign, and it was self-admitted by the WHIG (you never did do any reading on this did you?). We've given up arguing with you on this because we'd make more progress with a bag of hammers. Sorry, the truth doesn't simply belong to the last man standing. You are like Cool Hand Luke who keeps comin' at George Kennedy "with nothin'". It just ain't worth schoolin' you.

And BTW, if "forged" documents contain the truth, is it no longer the truth?

If I write "I am brilliant", and sign it "Teribus". Clearly then, ... oh never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:12 PM

Never mind the Killian documents. The documents the White House released are more than enough to build the case that George Bush was a rich boy who went to the ANG to avoid going to Vietnam--that place that Kerry, McCain, Murtha, Clark and a few others were vacationing--and then promptly went AWOL.

He was a bad pilot. Barely passed the entrance exam (25 out of 100). He got qualified on an F-102 and was certified combat ready in 1970 while serving in Houston. But, by '72, Bush lost all will to continue flying. First he couldn't land his F-102 on a simulator and had to make extra passes. He failed the simulator test twice. He was downgraded to a T-33 two-seat training craft. Then he put in for a transfer to a postal unit that had no training or aircraft. He was denied. He was then absent from Houston, missed his physical, was grounded.

He supposedly put in for the Tac Recon 187th in Alabama (the very day he was grounded no less). No record he ever reported there. No one there remembers him except one guy who claimed Bush was there several months before he even put the transfer in. Guys who definitely would have remembered him all say they never saw him ever. Yet Bush told America he served with the 187th in Alabama.

When his evals in Texas when filled out in March of '73, his senior had all facets of his training and duties marked as "NOT OBSERVED" and he goes onto explain that Bush "cleared the base" in March of '72 to go Alabama!! Yet we know he never reported there! Where did he go during that time?

Incredibly, Bush was discharged from Houston in October 73. He had not fulfilled his full 6-year obligation. He was allowed to get out several months early (gee, I served 6 years and I had to stay the full 6 years). He supposedly was going to some ANG station in Denver but there is no record he was ever there and what for? He was already discharged. He was out. The amazing thing about Bush's discharge papers however is that at the bottom where he was supposed to sign is the typewritten statement "NOT AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE" so Bush was not even at his own discharge!!! Where the hell was he??? He couldn't have been discharged from Houston in late '73 when his own seniors stated he had cleared the base in early '72!

In fact, the pay records do not show Bush being paid during much of that time. Despite the bizarre assertions of Scott McClellan that those documents proved Bush has served and was being paid, they proved nothing of the sort. He appears to have been AWOL. After he left Houston in early '72, Bush was essentially out of the service. He is not shown as having served in any meaningful capacity after that anywhere. He seems to show up sporadically here and there. Where was he most of the time and why don't his records say?? That they could neglect that information is beyond all belief and credibility.

For instance, there is a base dentist office record from Alabama that lists one Lt. George Walker Bush as having come in to get his teeth looked at in January of '73. Ah that proves he was in Alabama!! No. It raises the question of why he never checked in with the 187th and why no one who served there remembers him. Even stranger, he was supposed to have been back in Houston no later than December of 72. What was Bush still doing there in January of 73 and why is there no record of him being anywhere else on that Alabama base? Moreover, why do his records show him as being in Houston when the Alabama base dentist office had him listed as a patient at the same period???

When asked point-blank by reporters if Bush was ever sentenced to do community service that interfered with his Guard duties, McClellan refused to answer. He refused to answer! Was Bush in jail during his absence?

It might explain his statement to Nestor Kirchner, president of Argentine, when they met in Monterrey, Mexico on Janauary 13, 2004. Kirchner told Bush about some Argentine delegates that had been imprisoned by the military dictatorship to which Bush replied, "I was a prisoner too--but for bad reasons." What the hell did he mean by that??

What was the reason he was grounded (he never flew another aircraft after being grounded and indeed he never regained his flying status)? Could be his drinking. Bush himself admits he had an alcohol problem as late as age 40. But I wonder if it might be something else. Bush was actually a top-notch pilot in 1970. Certified combat ready on an F-102 fighter and getting a write-up in the local papers about it is pretty impressive. But Bush suddenly just went bad and from bad he went to worse.

I think he got word that his piloting skills were causing him to be considered for service in Vietnam. Bush himself is quick to point out that pilots in his unit were not exempt from Vietnam and could be rotated there. Was he about to be rotated there so he could prove his mettle on the battlefield? Did Bush have other ideas? It is odd how he put in for a postal unit with no aircraft or training BEFORE he was grounded. He had already made up his mind he didn't want to fly anymore. And you just have to wonder why.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:21 PM

GUEST,AR282 04 Jan 06 - 10:12 PM

Having read your post referred to above I have come to the conclusion that it is complete and utter crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:24 PM

Now, was that a personal attack or "substantiation"? Ooops, bye, gotta get back to that bag of hammers.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:37 PM

In your dreams, Teribus. Nice try.

"Looks like there was no propaganda campaign"--either that, or most people are thoroughly sick of trying to make you see what's obvious to the rest of the world.

I wonder which it is.

Teribus 2:223 AM 4 Jan 2006--"...a partialy (sic) successful anonymous a-symetric attack on the 11 Sept 2001."    A singularly clumsy way to describe it.

But fascinating.

"anonymous"--but not when Bush got through with it. Why mention Saddam Hussein in the context of your favorite sentence?--yes, that old chestnut'--"Before September the 11th many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained."

Congratulations, you have proven your mastery of cut-and-paste. The only thing left for you to do now is to actually answer the question.

To save your ego, you are stubbornly--indeed, as I noted earlier, beyond stubbornly, insisting on no link between Saddam and 11 Sept in this speech.

Sorry--any reasonable person would see a link--and many have already said so.


The only charitable explanation is that since you are not an American, you cannot imagine the state of mind of Americans since 9-11. After being immune from foreign attack at least since 1941-- (the first Trade Center attack was, you may recall, not as serious), suddenly the illusion of security is shattered.
And the 1941 attack was not on the mainland.

The UK had been under direct terrorist threat for decades--in fact been hit quite a few times. The US had not.

When I start telling you about the UK response to the first IRA bombings, you can start telling me about the US public's reaction to 9-11. And even after toppling the Taliban (but not "bagging" Osama), the US public was still jittery--and only too willing to see shadowy villains anywhere--especially if their President pointed them out. After all the President has all sorts of information sources the ordinary citizen does not--and would never mislead the public about anything as vital as national security-------right?

So you want more of the 2003 State of the Union speech--it really peeves you that I cite the one sentence. Pobre cito.

It's just a coincidence that Saddam and Sept 11 are mentioned in that context.

Anything you say.


And you obligingly provide more of the speech yourself--"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein".

"19 hijackers"--any idea of the context there?   Heard that term before?

And "Saddam Hussein"?--ever heard of him?


Well, look at that, another total coincidence--no connection at all.

Somehow, it's not likely.

As a sage once said "That particular dog won't hunt".


Only the wilfully blind--or a prisoner of his own ego--like your good self?---would fail to see the connection.

On top of that, you have yet to come up with even one quote in the period mid-2002 to March 2003 in which Bush or one of his minions clearly denies a link between Saddam and 11 Sept 2001. The 8 Sept 2002 quote you love so much is unfortunately fatally flawed--Cheney undercuts his own "clear" statement badly.


You may now resume desperately floundering.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:38 PM

AR283:

Man that was a nice piece of work; I gotta say, I have never seen the whole NG issue tallied up so succinctly.

As for Teribus, I am hard put to understand what it is in particular he thinks lacks merit, unless it is the speculation at the end. Perhaps he thinks some of the facts cited are out of order in some way. If so it would be kind of him to correct them. Seems to me you upset him and he didn't feel like playing nice no more. Odd.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:43 PM

New Mudcat Term:

"TERIBUS FACTS"

definition: Any type of denial that can be woven into a "War n' Peace" length thread that has little or nuthing to do with the topic at hand...

Yeah, T-theDisrtactor, would have folks think it is me that tries to chance the subject when times get tough... Problem is, it ain't me... It's T-Denial...

I call 'um straight up...

I, unlike T-Employee's boss, George Bush, who signs T-Prostitutes pay checks don't have no boss to over look what I say....

T has never been ablwe to prove that anything I have said was false with the lone exception of syaing that I thought I had remembered him PM'in' me once...

But on the other side, between Ron D and me, we've painted T into so many corners that he'd need a SWAT team to come crashin' thru the wall to get him out...

Well, given the strong possibility that he is paid by the Bushite folks, I'm sure that could be arranged...

And this ia all part of this Bush proaganda thread... Folks like T have been assigned to websites all over the world to try to but a smiley face on Bush's anti-human policies...

Proble is that here in this little folk music site, we know the real deal...

Sorry, T-FoundOut...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Moveon.org
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 11:48 PM

Ron Davies:

You are doing such a good job we are going to double your pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Dick Cheney
Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:57 AM

Teribus:

Keep it up. I think the anti-Bush movement is in its last throes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 06 - 09:34 AM

" 'Dangerous' does not mean exciting or bold. It means likely to cause great harm. The most dangerous idea is the only dangerous idea: The idea that ideas can be dangerous.

We live in a world in which people are beheaded, imprisoned, demoted, and censured simply because they have opened their mouths, flapped their lips, and vibrated some air. Yes, those vibrations can make us feel sad or stupid or alienated. Tough sh-t. That's the price of admission to the marketplace of ideas. Hateful, blasphemous, prejudiced, vulgar, rude, or ignorant remarks are the music of a free society, and the relentless patter of idiots is how we know we're in one. When all the words in our public conversation are fair, good, and true, it's time to make a run for the fence."

-- Daniel Gilbert, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University and Director of the Social Cognition and Emotion Lab, answers The Edge's Annual Question for 2006: What is your most dangerous idea? --

Food for deep thought....

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Crazy Chester
Date: 05 Jan 06 - 10:34 AM

Is Scientology dangerous?

If so Amos is a near critical mass.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Shaughnessy
Date: 05 Jan 06 - 10:46 AM

As long as the baathist's still have resources to share with their usefull idiots, the foriegn terr's (who consider the baathist's usefull idiots), they're gonna be happy to continue to cooperate together to different degrees if they see Americans getting it.

Methink that once soddom is not only merely dead, but really really reaaaally dead, that baathist support will be drying up, hopefully affecting the others in degrading fashion.

An unfortunate accident (toaster fell in the tub etc.) would be right on time. A rocket-docket (Ito!) might get to the verdict faster, but with the patronizin', plodding obligatory strategic courtroom decorum window dressing ( patiently condoning non-germane rantings) the lasting effect hopefully will show to the less-than-well-wishing UspectatorsN that the new Iraqi justice system contains a propensity for real relevance,glimmer of real justice.

Hope, man, hope!. Can't beat hope. 'sides, I like watching the lefty's squirm during the more horrendous testimony. Why do ya suppose they're so uncomfortable? ;) 'Sucker's already gotten more justice in his first few minutes in the courtroom than the sum of justice bestowed on all Iraqi's during his tenure. Get'er done, do it right.

Leaf chipper goes RRRRRrrrraaawwwrrrRRRR,,The dictator's carcass jet's into the soil,,and the little flowers start perkin' in time for spring.

Hey cherac! You 'n koffi are next!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 06 - 10:48 AM

Old Guy:

Why don't you get off that hobby horse, huh? And stop sliming around with your silly little secret Gurest identities. You don't fool anyone. I had the courtesy to provide you with all the responses you deserve, and more, in other threads.

Yer beginning to tick me off, and you don't want to be doing that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:13 PM

Your question has been answered Ron - you just do not like the answer.

Guest AR282 - "He was a bad pilot. Barely passed the entrance exam (25 out of 100). He got qualified on an F-102 and was certified combat ready in 1970 while serving in Houston." Guest AR282, reasonable, impartial and totally objective as you no doubt believe yourself to be, why did you not also include GWB's training officer's opinion of his performance at OTU which put him in the top 5% of his fellow pilots. Also no mention of how difficult the F-102A was to fly - indication - take a look at the casualty figures for that type of aircraft. My apologies, but your post, so admired by Amos, was complete and utter drivel.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:22 PM

>>>Man that was a nice piece of work; I gotta say, I have never seen the whole NG issue tallied up so succinctly.<<<

Thank you!

>>>As for Teribus, I am hard put to understand what it is in particular he thinks lacks merit, unless it is the speculation at the end.<<<

I'm willing to bet that speculation is in the neighborhood.

>>>Perhaps he thinks some of the facts cited are out of order in some way. If so it would be kind of him to correct them.<<<

Yep. That's all you gotta do--disprove it. Please do try.

And one more thing about Bush's early discharge. By my own experiences, the only guys I ever knew that got out early were problem guys. Not always bad guys--some really good ones, in fact--but they were a problem for the Navy. They get rid of you so that they don't have to deal with you. So for Bush to be processed out early and wasn't even present at his own discharge, that has to set off all kinds of warning lights right there. I wonder what he did.

>>>Seems to me you upset him and he didn't feel like playing nice no more. Odd.<<<

He'll get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Big Dog
Date: 05 Jan 06 - 11:43 PM

He is dangerous!

Tell us that you're who they say you are.

The man is in town right now to whip up some support.

A rabble rousing mission that I think we must abort.

He is dangerous!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 12:19 AM

NEOCON Super war!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 01:07 AM

Can you offer any evidence that the documents that Dan Rather presented were forged???

Has changed to:

"facts which those documents represented, however, were not bogus"

Knox explains that the August 18, 1973 date typed on one of the "forged" documents proves that they were faked. Group Commander Staudt, who allegedly had been putting pressure on Killian, retired in 1972.

There are terms in these memos that are not Guard terms but that are Army terms. They use the word 'Billets'. I think they were using that to refer to the slot. That would be a non-flying slot the way we would use it. And the style... they are sloppy looking."

If the facts are true, why would the documents be forged? Just pull out the real ones and the whole thing will be layed to rest. If we do not have the original ones to go by how do we know the facts are correct?

Why were they artificially aged? Why were authentic looking signatures forged on these documents?

The original assertion that the documents were not forged has been proven wrong so now the argument has been changed to "The facts are true"

The flimsiest shard of anything that a Liberal wants to belive is true is called a "fact"

Anything a Liberal does not want to believe is called a "lie"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 05:42 AM

So, Teribus, you really don't know how propaganda operates. And I took you for an educated person--guess I was wrong about that. I really thought that someone who holds himself out as an expert on military strategy and geopolitics might possibly understand how propaganda works.

But, no matter. Good thing I have endless patience--we'll educate you yet.

Let's see what you do know.

First question--does propaganda need a direct statement of cause and effect in order to be effective?

Yes or no?

No song and dance about "watersheds"-- or any other big words you may like--is necessary. Just answer the question, please.

Thank you.

I knew you would.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: TIA
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 11:19 AM

There's been no change in the argument Guest. Go back in the archives to last March, when this first broke, and you will see exactly the same argument I'm making now. If they are forged, yet contain the truth, finding the source of the forgery is certainly interesting, and may reveal someone's character, but it doesn't change Bush's history in the Gaurd, and what that reveals about HIM.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 11:20 AM

Dear T:

I am proud to be a liberal, as I believe it is the intellectual and moral legascy of our best forebears. And I am open to believing anything that can be verified, and many things that cannot be, immediately. I do have some criteria that have to be met. One is consistency, internally, and a logical alignment between the data being presented and what I nknow of how the world works. The less consistent the information is with what I have collected about similar situations, the closer I have to look at it before granting it credence.

It has nothing to do with the desire tobelileve x or y.

Another factor is reasonable assessment of importances. Getting all tied up around a blue dress, but ignoring slaughter en masse on foreign fields is an example of an inversion of a sense of importances.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 02:28 PM

The charge was "Can you offer any evidence that the documents that Dan Rather presented were forged???"

The Person that typed the originals says these are not the originals and tells of several innacuracies as proof.

That is evidence that they were forged.

When this evidence is presented, the charge is denied and the new charge is "the data is correct" even it the documents are forged, an admission that they were forged.

My charges still stand, unanswered by liberals who try to change positions deny what was said when cornered.

Is this "an important advance in philosophy" or proof that liberals are ninnies?

If the facts are true, why would the documents be forged? Just pull out the real ones and the whole thing will be layed to rest. If we do not have the original ones to go by how do we know the facts are correct?

Why were they artificially aged? Why were authentic looking signatures forged on these documents?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: TIA
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 05:57 PM

We know because the person who typed the originals says that the content is exactly what she typed. Apparently you choose not to believe her without the verified originals. That seems rather ninnie to me.

Don't know exactly who you are talking about, but my story has never changed. I don't care whether those papers were forged. I care about whether their content is the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 07:52 PM

Yo, GUEST...

Yeah, I can plainly see that you have made the arguement that the Dan Rather documents were forged and though given the intense pressures placed on ordinary folks by the Bush administarrtion who might have been is a position to verify the authenticity, its possible that even the hostroians won't be able to prove or disprove their authenticity....

When Rather went public, the Bush folks went into "war" reaction... They had to... It was the now famous Karl Rove "bull-rush" startegy of taking no prisoners and attacking with every possible weapon in the barn....

Now that we';ve seen the "bull-rush" a few times it ain't quite as scarey... But they bull-rushed, bulldozed Rather into a pancake...

Problem is that yer guiy still ain't been able to account for the time he had signed up and this ain't got one thing to do with Dan Rather... Dan Rather, as we all know, dodged his share of bullets in Nam....

But if you want to just hang onto yer "prove-it" rebutttal, fine...

But at some point in time yer guy is gfonna have to prove he completed his stint and that's gonna be a tall order fir yer boy...

Just fact...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 09:09 PM

The military, those in it who work on simulators and scenario generators use the expression "the ground truth" to refer to the material facts of a series of events that one or another side might see only bits and pieces of.

The documents and assertions about their invalid nature are just screen, scenarios, smoke and mirrors. The real question is what actually happened, the ground truth -- where was he, when, and did he do what he said he would?

If you don't want to answer that question, keep on shifting the focus to he-said, she-said, neener neener and PR smokery dopery.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 05:28 PM

Bobert is the one who is attempting to rebut and has not suceeded. Instead he says no one can prove anything which is apparent in his feeble attempts.

Therefore the evidence documents are admitedly forged, the charges are unprovable and the verdict is not guilty.

The way Bobert would have it is the charges are valid because invalidity of the forged documents is unprovable and the verdict is guilty, inviolation of civil rights.

Amos is babbling like a lunatic let loose for the weekend.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 05:34 PM

"Amos is babbling like a lunatic let loose for the weekend."

Since he's making more sense that you, I wonder who got 'let loose'!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 06:39 PM

Thanks, Guest. ANd thanks, Peace. Guest, I'm sorry if my post went a bit over your head.

What I am saying is that the real-world facts (in this case what Bush did where and when) are orders of magnitude more important (in trying to understand the man and his potentials) than what any pieces of paper say or where they came from.

That's not too hard, I hope? Even for a sniper?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 07:27 PM

I think before th Iraqis draft a new constitution, perhaps they should do as we did and declare their independence first. They should, then issue a Declaration of Independence. If the Iraqis are unfamiliar with what should go into such a document, I have provided them a verbatim excerpt from our own:

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 08:17 PM

Well cited, AR!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 08:36 PM

"Admitedly forged", GUEST???? By whom and under what circumstances.... Folks say alot of stuff then faced with the Karl Rove "bull-rush"... Hey, at the time that Rather went down Bush had supreme power and had everyone on the planet scared.... You know, I think I know where Bush learned this... Have you read up on the Texas Justice sytem??? Same crap... Arrest some poor black guy, beat the crap outta of him until he confesses, give him a court apppointed attorney to sleep thru the trial and then fry the guy...

Yeah, I am not convinced that these copioes were forged... I am convinced that the bullrush scared the crap outta a lot of folks, CBS included... Different times now and perhaps time to take another look at the doucments...

And great post, AR...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 11:35 PM

"Admitedly forged" Knox said she believed the memos are fake

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 11:41 PM

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A01

"...In her interview with Rather yesterday, Knox repeated her contention that the documents used by "60 Minutes" were bogus. Knox, 86, worked for Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian while he supervised Bush's unit in the early 1970s...."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 11:57 PM

LA Times Sep 15,2004...

Ex-Guard Typist Recalls Memos Criticizing Bush

But the commander's secretary says she thinks the ones that
surfaced last week are fakes.

By James Rainey, Times Staff Writer

George W. Bush's commanding officer in the Texas Air National
Guard wrote memos more than 30 years ago objecting to efforts
to gloss over the young lieutenant's shortcomings and failure
to take a flight physical, the officer's former secretary said
Tuesday night.

But Marian Carr Knox of Houston said she thought four memos
unveiled by CBS News last week were forgeries — not copies
of the ones she typed at the time.

Knox, 86, worked for 23 years at Ellington Air Force Base in
Houston and served as a typist for Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian,
then Bush's squadron commander, and several other officers.

In a brief interview Tuesday, she confirmed that Killian had
concerns about Bush's failure to take his physical examination
in 1972, which prevented him from flying, and about efforts by
higher-ups to protect the future president from the fallout.

Knox told several newspapers that Killian kept the personal
files on Bush, and on other topics, in a desk drawer as a way
of "covering his back" in anticipation of later questions about
his actions. She retired in 1979, before Killian's death, and
said she did not know what became of the files.

Knox said that the four memos first shown last week on CBS
News did not look authentic. After speaking briefly to The
Times, Knox said she was tired of talking about the subject
and turned the phone over to her son, Patrick M. Carr.

Carr said he had heard his mother describe for other reporters
how some of the terminology in the memos, including the use
of "billets" and a reference to the "administrative officer"
were not in common usage in the 147th Fighter Interceptor
Group, for which she worked. She said those terms sounded
more like the ones used by the Army National Guard, her
son said.

The four memos in question, revealed by CBS Sept. 8,
purportedly were written by Killian between May 1972 and
August 1973, during a time when Bush was absent from his
regular Guard duty. The network called the source of the
documents "unimpeachable," but declined to say who it was.

The first memo ordered Bush to take a physical in order to
maintain his flying status. The next discussed how he could
"get out of coming to drill" so he could go to Alabama to
work on a political campaign. The third and fourth memos,
respectively, said Bush had been "suspended from flight
status" and that Killian was resisting pressure from a former
Guard officer to "sugar-coat" Bush's yearly evaluation.

Killian died in 1984, and his views of Bush have been hotly
debated by those around him, with Knox joining another
former Guard officer who said objections to Bush's service
sounded like those the squadron commander would have made.

Killian's son and widow, however, have said adamantly that
they do not believe he kept such "personal" records on Bush
or other employees and that the officer held his young
pilot in high esteem.

Gary D. Killian, 51, of Houston said that Knox was a "dear
old lady" but that she was not in the best position to know
or recall his father's feelings of 30 years ago.

"I had more time to talk to my father and know what he
thought about those things than Ms. Carr, bless her heart,"
Killian said Tuesday.

"First of all, she was the secretary not just to my dad
but to many officers, and her primary job was to do typing
for the group commander," Killian said.

"All the documents from Bush's record have been released
and these don't exist. That's because they never happened."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 12:04 AM

New York Times September 16, 2004

By JIM RUTENBERG and KATE ZERNIKE

Dan Rather interviews Killian's secretary Marian Carr Knox, who was alleged to have written memos in question; Knox says she does not believe memos are authentic..

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 11:55 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 11:35 PM

"Admitedly forged" Knox said she believed the memos are fake

Odd, wouldn't you say, that the Bush apologists get so stressed with anybody here who (according to them) quotes out of context, and thereby alters meaning?

As far as I recall, she said "Those are not the documents I typed, BUT THE CONTENT IS WHAT I TYPED (my emphasis). She should know, and it's hard to see what she would gain by lying. In fact, with this government, she may be placing herself in serious danger.

Quoting either part of that statement on it's own would change the meaning of the whole out of all recognition.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 02:47 PM

So why would correct data be presented on forged documents with inaccuracies and forged signatures?

Why would they have to be artificially aged?

Is this what Amos calls "he-said, she-said, neener neener and PR smokery dopery"?

Bobert asks "Can you offer any evidence that the documents that Dan Rather presented were forged???" And when 3 of his favorite leftwing suckass newspapers provide the evidence, he shifts the focus in the typical liberal "you can't catch me" mode to the data on the forged documents is correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 02:54 PM

The issue, as I mentioned before, is, "What is the ground truth". If you want to change that to "why did someone forge documents and then pitch them to Dan Rather", by all means do so; but bear in mind that the issue is a different one, aimed at a very different culprit for very different kinds of dishonesty, and of much less interest, because of his obscure position, then the culpability or lack thereof on the part of the current Resident.

So I am curious why you keep trying to change the subject from Bush to Rather. Or from Bush, in other threads, to some other administration long out of power? Or from Bush to those who criticize him? Or from Bush to your momma? Any duck, any weave will serve?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 03:14 PM

The issue is whatever you want to shift it to when you get cornered.

I answered Bobert's charge. Now after the evidence is presented you say that was not the charge.

My charge is that according to American law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Can proof come from forged documents? If the information in the documents is correct, why were they forged with forged signatures and why were they artificially aged? Care to give a straight answer to any of these questions before you accuse me of shifting something?

I don't know why you keep bringing Dan Rather into it except to duck and weave and to protect your comrade Bobert. Neither of you can stand on your own.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 03:17 PM

"Can proof come from forged documents?"

Proof can come from anywhere. People provide anonymous info to the police all the time. Maybe the person phoning is a no-good sonuvabitch, but if the cops follow up on the accusations and they prove to be true--hey, tough shit, ya know?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 03:29 PM

Truth exists on its own. If a forged document speaks the truth, that does not make it a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 03:35 PM

Do you know why rattlesnakes will not bite Peace?

If you go to the police with forged documents, What happens?

Where is the Senate investigation?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 04:13 PM

The straight answer as to why they were forged: unknown.

The straight answer as to the ground truth appears to be that the documents were reflections of actual facts even though they came from a falsified source.

The straight answer about ad hominem arguments: they have no lefgitimate place in debate.

The charge comes from those who say that the facts in the documents are a reflection of reality.

Not from the documents. Let's not confuse reality with law. Perish the thought.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 06:49 PM

Crowbar:

Yes, American do take Bush seriously. It is the unamericans that constantly find fault with everything he does.

Ummm, can you think of one thing he has not foobared completely? If you can, out with it, and maybe I won't find fault with everything he's done....

If he was so dangerous, no one would dare say anything negative.

Not everyone's a quaking coward, Crowbar. There's still plenty of people willing to stand up for what's right, even at a potential risk to themselves. Strangely enough, in the ranks of the Chickenhawk Republicans (see this and this for who those "brave, brave Sir Robins" are), there seems to be a distinct lack of courage, unlike, say, Cleland, Murtha, and Kerry....

Maybe you'd like us all to cower down and shut up, but it ain't gonna happen....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 07:02 PM

Bobert:

Takwe the Social Security Reform isssue where Bush went around the country attending these so-called town meetings... Problem is that 100% of the folks in attendence had been handpicked by local Repub operatives and had been screened to be sure they were very much Bush supporters... So they hold tghe so-called town meeting and it makes the local news.... Can anyone with an I.Q. on the plus side of zero say that this wasn't propaganda????

Not to mention that little "video conference" with the troops in Iraq where the troops were told by a maladministration flack in advance what to say and when, and who was to talk. And the Armstrong Williams, Maggie Galllagher, and other cases. And the gummint funding propaganda to be handed out as "news releases" with fake reporters. Misusing Social Security funds for propaganda about Dubya's privatisation schemes. And the ad/PR agency (Renton Group, IIRC) hired to gussy up the Iraq stories. Anonanonanonanon.....   The maladministration is just one huge PR campaign.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 07:26 PM

Oooops. "Rendon Group".

Guest:

Yes Kerry went to Vietnam with a camera and a JFK complex. There he claimed purple hearts dishonestly so he could get the hell back home, out of harms way and try to use them to build his career. A cheap trick. Did he ever release all of his military records?

Ooooooohhhh. A "Swift Boat" sucker, eh? Nice little smear job there, but it just goes to show the character of the more partisan Dubya supporters. Care to show any evidence that any of Kerry's three Purple Hearts were not deserved? I mean, real evidence, not "Swift Boat Veterans Against The Truth" (as Bill O'Reilly called them in a moment of surprising candour) crap. Then you have to deal with Kerry's Silver and Bronze Stars, which actually are quite a bit more prestigious than Purple Hearts. Guess you think Kerry faked those as well, eh?

Bush was a fighter pilot and his unit could have been called up to go to Vietnam but it did not.

Which is why Dubya checked "will not go" on his form?

His daddy didn't pull any strings...

Oh, yeah, they did. The "Champagne Unit". And Blount (IIRC?) confirmed this.

... and the Democrats popaganda campaingn to prove he was a deserter fell on it's ass when it was revealed that the document was forged.

Which records? The ones that show Dubya actually in Alabama? The ones that show his whereabouts for half a year?

Should he have retrained to land a S-3B Viking on an aircraft carrier to satisfy a few crybabies or is he too busy?

No, but he shouldn't have pretended to be a "flyboy" (particularly since he had his flight certificate revoked for failing to obey an order to take a flight physical), and shouldn't have made the USS Abraham Lincoln steam off shore for half a day so that he could take his little "photo-op" flight to it (and also have his flacks insist that the carrier was too far off shore for a helicopter to reach and that was why he had to use the Viking ... a lie when the photo crews went out on helicopters and he had the carrier stay away from port just so he wouldn't have to simply walk up the gangplank to get on....). The whole thing was a disgusting PR job, and you should be ashamed that Dubya did any such thing.

The useless "Wes Ginny Slide Rule" couldn't calquelate how many Thermonuclear devices (bombs) could be made from the 1.77 metric tons of partially enriched uranium found in Iraq.

Oh, I can. And without a slide rule. None. Even if they had the capacity to enrich it to HEU (which they didn't), not enough for mre than maybe 2-3 fission bombs (assuming no loss and 90+% efficiency in separation, which is quite difficult, if not impossible, particularly for novices at such). But you said "thermonuclear". That's quite a bit more tricky, and requires much more (and different) material than a couple dozen kilos of HEU....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 07:29 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 03:35 PM

Do you know why rattlesnakes will not bite Peace?"

Dear Guest: Fuck you, thirty-two ways from Tuesday.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 08 Jan 06 - 07:31 PM

"If you go to the police with forged documents, What happens?"

Phone it in, dipshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 09 Jan 06 - 02:12 AM

Here's some "must reading" for Crowbar and his ilk (and that includes OldGuy, Bearded Bruce, and Teribus).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 06 - 10:32 AM

Hello. Is this the Police?

OK. I got some forged documents here that say Bush Was AWOL and missed a physical exam.

Hello. Hello. Is anybody there?

Dang! Let me try CBS

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Jan 06 - 10:42 AM

Hello. Is this the police?

OK. I got some documents here that may contain evidence related to your investigation. The lady who typed them says they aren't the ones she typed, but the information in them is absolutley accurate.

You'll be right over then?

Thanks officer, I'll have donuts and coffee.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 06 - 11:54 AM

Judge I have some documents here that I would like to enter into evidence.

Yes they are forged. Yes signatures were forged on them, the dates are inaccurate, the termonology is wrong, they have been artificially aged in an effort to make them appear genuine but the "Base Truth" is correct according to the 86 year old secretary that says she did not type them 33 years ago.

But Your Honor we do not have originals, only forgeries.

Ok Your honor, Instead of trying to follow the legal path, I will try to "leak" them through CBS.

Yes, CBS can stir up a big stink over them just before the election without having to prove they are genuine and make money in the process. They need the money too because their ratings are falling for some unknown reason and this would give them a boost.

Thank You Your Honor.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 06 - 12:44 PM

Well, you're either gonna accept the 86-year old's assertions or you ain't; you can't cherry pick half of them as good evidence and then invalidate the witness as regards the other half.

Which do you want?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 09 Jan 06 - 06:31 PM

>>The straight answer as to why they were forged: unknown.<<

Perhaps, but I think the answer is obvious. The best way to kill the controversy was to put out the truth in fudged docs and get some idiot to take the bait and then pull the rug out from under him. Dan Rather in this case. Once that happened, America immediately tired of the controversy and refused to entertain it anymore. They were hellbent of Bush and were looking for ANYTHING that would enable them to forget his service record or lack thereof. It quickly became old news and no one wanted to hear about it anymore.

I talked to so many people who referred to "those forged documents" when they were never proven to be forged--they were, of course--but it was never proven.

It was the perfect way to kill the controversy and reassure the public that it was voting for the right guy. It has Karl Rove written all over it.

But Bush never answered the charges and the controversy will rise again once the stupid public remembers it never got an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 06 - 07:42 PM

Mr Bush released all of his records. Mr Kerry did not. Mr Dean has his under guard.

Which one is the most honest?

Paranoia will destroy ya
Written by Jay Kay, Toby Smith, Stuart Zender and Derrick McKenzie

You don't need your name in bright lights
You're a rock star
And some thin foil with a glass pipe
Is your guitar, now yes it is
Little Angela suffers delusions
From these high times
She's been cleaning up,
Since she was fourteen
On the main line
And her hunky funky junky,
Of a boyfriend
Got her on late nights
With her skirt tight
Woah she's a wild thing, letting it all swing
God bless our high times

Don't you know that last night
Turned to daylight
And a minute became a day
Last night
All my troubles
Well they seemed so, so far away
Searching my reflection
For a glimpse of, an other me
I've got to get away from these high times
All these high high times
Cause these hight times
are killing me

Now high times go on
and on and on
High Times rock your mind yeah

This twisted crystal kingdom
Where you live your nine lives
And your head spins
With purple cyclones made of dexadrine
And when the phone rings
You think bad things
Well these are high high
High high times yeah
In any backstreet when you take a hot seat
Make sure you check your flight times
Oh now mama


Don't you know that last night
Turned to daylight
And a minute became a day
Last night
All my troubles
Well they seemed so, so far away
Searching my reflection
For a glimpse of, an other me
I've got to get away from these high times
All these high high times
Cause these hight times
are killing me

Now drop it this time

Paranoia will destroy ya
Paranoia will destroy ya
Paranoia will destroy ya
Paranoia
Paranoia

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jan 06 - 08:32 PM

"Mr Bush released all of his records."

Bullshit. There is no way you can know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Jan 06 - 10:53 PM

Both pictures are unaltered.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/marhity.jpg

the young marines program is now open to all public school children.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 01:52 PM

Guest:

"Mr Bush released all of his records."

Then you agree that "all [the] records" demonstrate conclusively that Dubya was AWOL for half a year, and never put in his required service. Right??? Because "all of his records" shows that there's no evidence of him putting in any time in Alabama, or in Texas even, for at least a six month period.

Tell you what: Ask Dubya someday if he's released all his criminal records. You know, like any judicial proceedings records and any communitty service stuff....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 02:04 PM

Who are you going to believe?
Quick boat veteran ads
Karl Rove
or all of W's National Guard buddies who have collective amnesia.

The author who wrote about this segment of GWB's life is now dead by suicide. But how can you believe someone who commits suicide?

Maybe you should just believe George.
You'll live longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 04:41 PM

>>Mr Bush released all of his records.<<

But he refuses to answer questions about those records. He could release every possible record there is on him but if he refuses to further discuss, he might as well have not released a single one. The result is the same--many questions, no attempt at an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 09:23 PM

Did Kerry release all his records? Did anybody ask Kerry about his records and did he Answer?

Did Dean release all his records? Did anybody ask Dean about his records and did he Answer?

http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx

What do you really know about George W. Bush's time in the Air National Guard?
That he didn't show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

News coverage of the president's years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush "deserted" (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went "AWOL" (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren't unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

"In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," Campenni says. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."

So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

A 1970 evaluation said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."

A 1971 evaluation called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a 1972 evaluation called Bush "an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer."

Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush's service — in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets — would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry's record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And, as it is with Kerry, it's reasonable to look at a candidate's entire record, including his military service — or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it's important or not in November.

The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans' attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.

And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush's service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry's.

In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush "has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty." Earlier, Kerry said, "Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question."

Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.

That's fine. We should know as much as we can.

And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 09:28 PM

GUEST: Abe Lincoln said it so aptly, so I will paraphrase him rather than say what I'd like to: You can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 09:35 PM

Oh, I get it, Kerry, who went to Nam and has never been accused of being AWOL is the reason that Bush went AWOL???

Is that your final answer, Congressman?

You are so partisan, GUEST, that if George Bush told you to kill yer own mother, you'd do it... Real independent thinker we got here, folks...

Google up "Brownshirt", GUEST...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 09:58 PM

Correction. Kerry did eventually relaease his records.

Now where is the proof that Bush went AWOL?

Are we going to go through this fake documents must be proven fake or they are not fake shit again?

Are people innocent until proven gulity ot not. If you know everything surely you can tell us that one item?

Never mind suit your self. I am sure you are the only one that suits you. Just keep your duct tape and plastic sheeting handy.

And never let that candle in your Kerry shrine blow out.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,AR292
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 10:07 PM

>>Did Kerry release all his records? Did anybody ask Kerry about his records and did he Answer?

Did Dean release all his records? Did anybody ask Dean about his records and did he Answer?<<

My questions to Bush:

"Did you serve your full enlistment?"

Answer: No. Kerry, yes. Dean, yes.

"Did you get into legal trouble at some point that interfered with your duties?"

No answer. Kerry, no. Dean, no.

"Are there unaccountable gaps in your service record?"

No answer. Kerry, no. Dean, no.

"Did you flunk out of your military occupation?"

Yes. Kerry, no. Dean, no.

"Do men you served with in the past show up to greet you when you go to speak somewhere?"

No. Kerry, yes. Dean, unknown to me.

"Did you, in fact, tell people you served somewhere that you did not?"

Yes. Kerry, no. Dean, no.

"Have you been challenged to prove the authenticity of your claims by the very men who would have served alongside you?"

Yes. Kerry, no. Dean, no.

"Did you joing the Guard to get out of the Vietnam draft?"

Yes (by his own admission, btw). Kerry, no. Dean, no.

That's all I need. No more questions. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 10:15 PM

Well, well, well, GUEST...

I'm sure you were really happy when the Swift Boat Vets ambused Kerry.... Problem is that none of them were there... Kerry's boat mates were but they didn't have the corporate dough to go up against the big-bad-weren't-even-there-Swift-boat-Bushites....

Yeah, you can talk all you want about innocent yuntil proven guilty but guess what, pal???

Give up???

Good, you should... There wasn't one day that John Kerry was in nam that he couldn't have been killed... Do you deny that???

No, I guess you can't...

Bush never went to Nam... And there'sa lot of evidence that he didn't complete his National Guard contract either... Now, yeah, if yer some shmo on the streets of ME Washington, DC, like who really careas all that much... But Bush ain't some shmo on the streets and it's only fair that the American people know the true charater of a man who is asking these folks to send their kids into war...

Like I said, Google up "browshirts", GUEST, for you might learn something about yourself....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 11:13 PM

Did AR292 ever pick his nose?
Did he join an anti-war group that "invented" american atrocities?
Was his Anti-war speach broadcast in prison camps to "break" American prisoners?
Did he meet in secret with the enemy and violate the Constitution and UCMJ?
Is he a Nam Vet that was maligned by John Kerry?

I never mentioned swift boats.

You can talk all you want but you did not answer about innocent until proven guilty.

What is the death rate for fighter interceptor pilots?

Bobert you have already got it your way but if you want some more.
(This is interesting because it originally came from Mudville that Bobert is allways talking about) Keep in mind that Kerry "fought" 4 months, 1/3 of the average tour of duty of 12 months:

http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2004/08/bush_and_the_f1.html

The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots.

Now, doing some very preliminary calculations, total US deaths in Vietnam were of the order of 50,000 out of a total of 2.6 million who served, or roughly 2%. (1/3=.66%)
OK, how many pilots were trained to fly the F-102? 875 planes entered service, and from other figures in the same article we can see it was two years of training and three years of flying for a five year enlistment period (that's assuming that everyone did the minimum Air National Guard sign up, not career military. No draftees were ever taught to fly.). OK, and the plane was around from 1956 to 1974. OK, that's an 18 year period and three years active service each pilot gives us 5,250 pilots trained on that bird. (This is a very rough figure. Very rough indeed. Anyone who wants to help please do so. I'm assuming only one pilot per bird at a time, which may or may not be true. I'm also assuming all birds in service for the entire span which is absurdly untrue, but one will underestimate the number of pilots, the other will overestimate. If anyone actually knows the exact number trained to fly the F-102 let me know and I can change the calculation.)
So, 5,250 pilots and 70 deaths means a death rate of: 1.3%.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 11:23 PM

So how amny days did Bush fight in Nam, GUEST???

a. None

b. None

C. None

d. All of the above

Hey, don't hurt yer head too much on this quiz... Oh, but it is open book so if you ahve some oher evidence you'd like to but forward, feel free...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 11:37 PM

As regards whether or not there is a prooganda campaign underway to raise support for the war, well doh. Of course there is.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 12:06 AM

>>>OK, how many pilots were trained to fly the F-102? 875 planes entered service, and from other figures in the same article we can see it was two years of training and three years of flying for a five year enlistment period (that's assuming that everyone did the minimum Air National Guard sign up, not career military. No draftees were ever taught to fly.). OK, and the plane was around from 1956 to 1974. OK, that's an 18 year period and three years active service each pilot gives us 5,250 pilots trained on that bird. (This is a very rough figure. Very rough indeed. Anyone who wants to help please do so. I'm assuming only one pilot per bird at a time, which may or may not be true. I'm also assuming all birds in service for the entire span which is absurdly untrue, but one will underestimate the number of pilots, the other will overestimate. If anyone actually knows the exact number trained to fly the F-102 let me know and I can change the calculation.)
So, 5,250 pilots and 70 deaths means a death rate of: 1.3%.<<<

This is quite an amusing exercise in futility. I guess you're saying that flying an F-102 was as dangerous and life-threatening to Bush as fighting in Vietnam was to Kerry or McCain. I have to hand it to you--you take utter absurdity to a whole new level. I guess I should get a purple heart every time I get behind the wheel--do you have any idea of how many fatal accidents there out there on the roads every single day??? How do I do it??

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 12:31 AM

Keep trying and some day you will figure it out.

Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.

If you got different numbers let's hear them instead of a rant.

Bobert: How many days did Clinton fight in 'Nam?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 09:27 AM

Oh, right. Forgot. It's all Clinton's fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,G
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:24 AM

Com'n on Tia, how could it be Clintons' fault. Rather difficult to blame a person that did very little while in office.

I really have a problem with some of the posts here (I know, stay out!)

We see so much hateful language, particulary with a couple posters who resort to that vein when they can't come up with opposing facts. With one person, it is just simple arrogance.

Are you incapable of stating your case using logic, facts and respectful debate? Or are you simply unwilling?

Rather difficult for me to decide which is worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:24 AM

Clinton is a Canadian. I don't think he fought in Vietnam.

Hey, Hammond, were you in Vietnam?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: TIA
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:33 AM

Guest, G asked:

"Are you incapable of stating your case using logic, facts and respectful debate? Or are you simply unwilling?"

Is this a question specifically for me, or more rhetorical in nature?

Not insulted, just curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: TIA
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:36 AM

to Guest at 12:31:

It's a metter of consistency and integrity. Clinton opposed that war and didn't fight it. Bush supported that war (and supports this one), and hasn't personally fought anywhere -- did his level best to avoid it actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:36 AM

GUEST never opens his mouth without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge (thank you Mr Reed).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 05:19 PM

Peace's best efforts to say something meaningfiulll and pertinent amount to a brain fart.

Now you can tell me to fuck myself or something equally intelligent.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 07:06 PM

Consider it done.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 08:05 PM

Ahhhhh, GUEST, apparently you haven't been around here too long... Screw Clinton!!! He was the best Republican since Nixon... I wouldn't vote for him fir dog catcher though looking at Monike and Hillary he's certainly able to catch 'um...

So don't evn put me in that boat...

I asked you how many days yer boy, Bush, spent putting his live on the line in Nam. Want me to repeat the choices? Okay, here they are

1. None

2. None

3. None

4. All of the above

Now I ain't got no use for Kerry either but he went to Nam at a trime when yer boy went AWOL...

You can try to turn that back on me but in yer heart, should you have one, you know what I'm pointing out here is true... Unless you are pathological and in that case, my apologies... Go take yer meds...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 08:31 PM

Bobert, that GUEST has been around for over a year and a half. It's Old Guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 08:46 PM

Danged, Bruce.... Hey, I'm serious when I say I can't tell these danged GUEST's apart... All they do is lob their crap from the safety of GUESTdom... O-Guy, Woody, guest, A??? Yeah, yer right... They're prolly all that same though GUEST, O-Guy did say some nice things about me... Okay, not real nice... but nice....

Seems that GUEST, A wouldn't have done that... That's why he ot she is GUEST, A.... An' we know what the A is for... Woody is also a real jerk, Bruce... Is he O-Guy, too... GUEST, guest, however, really took the cake when it came to being a jerk... Was that O-Guy, too??? Yeah, prolly was...

Danged, I can be so gullable.... You know, thinking that these is differenter folks... But if all these folks is nuthin' but O-Guy then I'z real disappointed... I thought I might have been opening up O-Guy's firmly locked brain

I'm depressed now...

Sniff...

B...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 08:53 PM

I got no flippin' use fer guests at all unlest they bring beer, smokes, or weed. OR somethin' like that. Or unlest they are females. That's a hole different BALL game! Ha! Ha! Know'm sayin'?

Blobert, man, you got to get yerself a dickshionary or a theserious or somthing. I can't flippin' hardly make out what the flip you are talkin' about half the time! the only good reasion to be "pathological" is so's you can find yer way back outta the woods if you get lost, eh? Any fool knows that.

- Shane

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 08:55 PM

They let you out again, BDinBR?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 09:41 PM

Google up usefull idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 09:50 PM

Hey, listen Blind-ster... I don't need no dictionary to find my way home.... That's whad maps is fir, son... Dictinarays is good for tryin' to figgurate what the heck LH is talkin' 'bout half 'er so most of the time... No, what you need when you is blinded drunked an' BR'd you need a good map and not too much uphill stuff... You know what I mean, here, blindster... Hills is okay going down 'um 'cause if thats where yer headed yer gonna get there by morning but if you gotta go uphill then you gotta drunk issue... I hate drunk issues... You know, like standing up???

And whilst we are on the subjexct of drunkness, hey, yer spellin' sucks big time... No, don't take it personly 'er nuthin' but maybe you is a Rhoades scolar when yer sober but when yer drunkened yer splin' really stinks up the joint... But nobody is perfect 'cept me and CarolC an' I ain't too sure 'bout me at all...

Reglards,

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,G
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:23 PM

Bobert, It would appear that it is time to clean the mold from your stash box.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:51 PM

>>>GUEST: Abe Lincoln said it so aptly, so I will paraphrase him rather than say what I'd like to: You can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know.<<<

I prefer Graucho Marx's, "You have the mind of a 4-year-old and I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,not A, B or G
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 11:16 PM

Bobert:

Get out that Wes Ginny silde rool, clean all he coon guts off of it and refine my claqlations about Bush's chances of getin' kilt compared to Kerry's chances.

Now neither of them was kilt but I guess because Kerry didn't get kilt in 'NAM in his 4 month stint (1/3rd of the usual) carries more waight that the fact that GWB didn't get kilt in his 5 1/2 years as a fighter interceptor pilot.

I figger Bush's chances of gettin' kilt were about twice a high as Kerry's but that don't mean anything to you cause he was in Texas and getting killed in Texas is no where near as bad as gettin' kilt in Texas.

Now to get more specific, how many days did Kerry put his life on the line flying a fighter interceptor?

Kerry spent 1/3rd of the average tour of duty including the ones that hate him for joining the group that dreamed up propaganda about them.

Was Kerry in any danger when he went to France to meet the enemy in voilation of the UCMJ?

Did Bush meet with the enemy? Did Bush join an a subversive group?

"On the second day of the conference, Pitkin was surrounded by a group of the event's leaders, who said they needed more witnesses and wanted him to speak. Pitkin protested that he didn't have anything to say. Kerry said, "Surely you had to have seen some of the atrocities." Pitkin insisted that he hadn't, and the group's mood turned menacing. One of the other leaders leaned in and whispered, "It's a long walk back to Baltimore." Pitkin finally agreed to "testify." The Winter Soldier leaders told Pitkin exactly what they wanted -– stories about rape, brutality, shooting prisoners, and racism. Kerry assured him that "the American people will be grateful for what you have to say."
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=YesterdaysLies1

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 01:16 PM

>>GWB didn't get kilt in his 5 1/2 years as a fighter interceptor pilot<<

He didn't serve 5 1/2 years as a pilot. He pretty much stopped flying in '72.   At best, he was true fighter pilot for about 2 years. He was certified combat ready in 1970 but was under review for his bad simulator performances in '72 and was downgraded to a training craft and no longer allowed to fly an F-102. By '73, Bush had stopped flying altogether because he was grounded--a status he carried until the end of his enlistment.

As for his 5 1/2 years in the Guard, nice of you to gloss over the fact that he never fulfilled his 6 year obligation. Supposedly he was let go early so he could attend business school but you do NOT get cut loose early for reasons as that. You are only cut loose early due to hardship, disability or bad performance. I think we can easily see why Bush was let go. If he was any good, he'd have been retained for as long as the ANG could legally do so.

If you're going to dispute this, you need to register your complaint with the White House because my data was taken from the records they themselves released to the public (I NEVER quote anything from the Killian docs so please don't start with that).

As for your bizarre attempts at arranging a wimp contest between Bush and Kerry despite the clear evidence of which one punked out, I don't know what to make of it other than to conclude that you are incapable of finding any fault with Bush whatsoever no matter what he does or doesn't do. It's old, it's boring, it's pointless and you need to give it a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 01:29 PM

"Google up usefull idiots."

Spelled your way or correctly?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 09:43 PM

You, above all, should know how to spell it.

I Googled it up for ya and here's what I got:

Comments:
you are idiot

by peace, Dec 18 2005 08:54 AM
because you dont know shit abut the islamicextrims the dont care if you are jew or cris you are on there way .and about us dont worry, we will sorvive

You are a real chip off of the old Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:40 PM

You've been whupped peace. Take your stuff over to the farting in public thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 11:03 PM

Sounds like your kind of thread, Old Guy--wonder how you know so much about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 11:47 PM

My jaw is hanging down. You two are off-world. I mean, look -- you have this erudite and articulate guy, who uses a handle on an internet forum. And you Google some phrase and find some column about which someone who can't even use a shift key and who talks like a retarded fifth-grader, and you two...this is too much ... decide this must be the same guy? Because he uses the same common household word? How blind can you get?

The mind boggles that your ability to see similarities and differences is so completely buried.
Are you so full of bile and anger that ANY excuse to condemn will do? Are you cross-eyed with hatred to the point where you are trying to lash out at shadows in your nightmarish world?

Get a life.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 02:53 PM

The preceeding post conforms to all requirements of the Owners of the mudcat forum

Not a lengthy cut and past.

Contains a link to the original.

Does not use ad hominem attacks.

Contains no derogatory adjectives.

In addition it derails Amos from his anti-bush railroad and contains none of his usual derogatory adjectives altered names.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 03:00 PM

Old Guy suffers from delusions of adequacy, and Guest just suffers.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 04:05 PM

There is an implicit requirement for relative sanity, though. How anyone can justify mixing up those two people is a question that, I think, lands well outside thar parameter! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 05:25 PM

Proof Bush Deceived America
by Ray McGovern (A 27-year veteran of the CIA's analysis ranks, he is now on the steering group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS))

excerpts.. James Risen's State of War: the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, may hold bigger secrets than the disclosure that President George W. Bush authorized warrantless eavesdropping on Americans.

Risen, a senior reporter for The New York Times, reports that British Prime Minister Tony Blair had an urgent need in the summer of 2002 to get the equivalent of a "second opinion" regarding Bush's plans for war in Iraq—insight independent of his own telephone conversations with the president and independent of what Blair was hearing from his own foreign office.So he chose what intelligence parlance calls a "back channel," and sent the chief of British intelligence, Richard Dearlove, to Washington to sound out his counterpart: the garrulous CIA director George Tenet, who he knew to be very close to the president. George Tenet was reluctant to receive Dearlove, but acquiesced when the British made clear that Blair considered the back-channel meeting urgent. Tenet then rose to the occasion—with a vengeance. Risen, quoting a former senior CIA official who helped host the British for a session that lasted most of Saturday, July 20, 2002, reports that Tenet and Dearlove had a 90-minute one-on-one conversation, during which Tenet was "very candid."

Risen adds that by the time of this "intelligence summit," senior CIA officials had concluded that "the quality of the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction didn't really matter," since war was inevitable. That perverse attitude certainly prevailed two months later, when the fabricated National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and WMD was produced by Tenet's National Intelligence Council in a successful attempt to deceive Congress into voting for war. The president now says that he does not want his political opposition to dwell on how he lied to Congress and the American people in order to invade a country and kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and more than 2,200 U. S. troops—not to mention the many thousands maimed for life. Perhaps he knows that Risen's book could do as much damage to his administration by calling renewed attention to the Downing Street memos as is likely to be done by the revelations of the secret NSA wiretapping.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 05:28 PM

and what does the current Pope think of George Bush and his lies?

In a January 1 address to the world, Pope Benedict XVI made the following comments:

"…Sacred Scripture, in its very first book, Genesis, points to the lie told at the very beginning of history by the animal with a forked tongue, whom the Evangelist John calls ''the father of lies'' (Jn 8:44). Lying is also one of the sins spoken of in the final chapter of the last book of the Bible, Revelation, which bars liars from the heavenly Jerusalem: ''outside are... all who love falsehood'' (22:15). Lying is linked to the tragedy of sin and its perverse consequences, which have had, and continue to have, devastating effects on the lives of individuals and nations. We need but think of the events of the past century, when aberrant ideological and political systems wilfully twisted the truth and brought about the exploitation and murder of an appalling number of men and women, wiping out entire families and communities. After experiences like these, how can we fail to be seriously concerned about lies in our own time, lies which are the framework for menacing scenarios of death in many parts of the world."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 05:42 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 09:43 PM

You, above all, should know how to spell it.

I Googled it up for ya and here's what I got:

Comments:
you are idiot

by peace, Dec 18 2005 08:54 AM
because you dont know shit abut the islamicextrims the dont care if you are jew or cris you are on there way .and about us dont worry, we will sorvive

You are a real chip off of the old Bobert."


You, sir, are a fucking liar. I have checked my posting history and I made NO post on December 18, 2005 at 08:54 AM.

I am hereby requesting that this be checked by JOE OFFER and

1) GUEST be informed that he can either retract that with an apology

or

2) that GUEST of that post have his right to post to the Mudcat blocked permanently.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 06:30 PM

Try clicking the Google Clicky Oh Peaceful one.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 06:37 PM

That is NOT my post. I couldn't write that poorly even if I had to.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 06:42 PM

"3 visitors in the last 15 minutes: 0 Members - 3 Guests - 0 Anonymous"

In the same spirit, GUEST, this is the present info on

GOOGLE

The Hate Forum

So, which of the GUESTS are you? Like it, asshole?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 06:44 PM

And the below from a GOOGLE of

Nationalist Forums (www.nazi.org/community/forum/"

"5 Guests, 2 Users
SS__Totenkorps, spanner"

Which of those GUESTS are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 06:48 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy - PM
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:40 PM

You've been whupped peace. Take your stuff over to the farting in public thread."

Gee, I'll be sure to check back when the other half of your brain is functioning.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 06:55 PM

PS: I do not believe that GUEST (above) is a member of neo-nazi forums or any of that. I think he's a bloody dolt with shit for brains--but then, he does seem to appear when Old Guy does, so that doesn't surprise me much.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 07:24 PM

Old Guy does seem to think it terribly clever to write from one viewpoint using multiple identities. If he weren't doing it on the Internet it would diagnosable under DSM IV.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 07:48 PM

Well, not that I have any love fir John Kerry but there is no Swift Boat Lairs Against Kerry who was there when Kerry either did, or did not turn his boat around under fire to save one of his boat mates... His boat mates ***all*** said he did, including the man he saved...

Alsom their isn't one Swift Boat Liars for Bush who was present when Kerry's boat came under fire and Kerry turned th boat toward the shore and engaged in a firefight with the enemy and killed the enemy... But again, his boatmates, who were there ***alll*** said it happened...

Yet, a bunch of chickenhawk GUEST and Bushites want to makie Kerryu the coward and Bush the hero???

Hypocrits, all of you and ...

...SHAME on all you cowards who lob grenades from the safty of GUESTdom...

Tell ya what, I am more ashamed of you losers tonight than I have been in the many years I've been coming here....

Hey, I couldn't give a rat's ass if you like Kerry or not... I don't, but that ain't the issue... But you cowards seek to make her hero a hero fir going AWOL and makie a real hero the coward that you and yer guy really are...

You are disgusting human beings...

BObert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 09:29 PM

Old Guys mother should have throwed him away and kept the stork.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 06 - 02:16 AM

Was Kerry in any danger when he went to France to meet the enemy in voilation of the UCMJ?

Did Bush meet with the enemy? Did Bush join an a subversive group?

No answers?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 10:49 PM

Can you spell C H I C K E N H A W K?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 11:45 PM

"On the second day of the conference, Pitkin was surrounded by a group of the event's leaders, who said they needed more witnesses and wanted him to speak. Pitkin protested that he didn't have anything to say. Kerry said, "Surely you had to have seen some of the atrocities." Pitkin insisted that he hadn't, and the group's mood turned menacing. One of the other leaders leaned in and whispered, "It's a long walk back to Baltimore." Pitkin finally agreed to "testify." The Winter Soldier leaders told Pitkin exactly what they wanted -– stories about rape, brutality, shooting prisoners, and racism. Kerry assured him that "the American people will be grateful for what you have to say."
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=YesterdaysLies1

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 11:48 PM

You didn't answer the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jan 06 - 12:04 AM

What's better a chicken chicken or a chicken hawk?

Paul Galanti, POW, Jan. 1966 - Feb. 1973, "John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and many of my comrades in the North Vietnam prison camps took torture to avoid saying. It demoralized us."

In interviews after August 20, Galanti related that it wasn't until hearing Kerry's peculiar 1971 mispronunciation of "Genghis Kahn," when aired earlier this year, that he recognized his American betrayer.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:z8U0UnWFj7sJ:https://secure.illinoisleader.com/printer/article.asp%3Fc%3D20770+%22Genghis+Kahn%22+pow&hl=en&lr=lang_en

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Jan 06 - 11:54 AM

I won't dignify your absurd charges with an answer--at least until you can muster the courage to stand behind anything you stand with either your real name (better) or at least a handle. I don't waste my time shadow-boxing with Ghosts (you're no Guest).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Jan 06 - 11:58 AM

Also, to help you with spelling,----- C H I C K E N H A W K is also spelled G E O R G E   W B U S H   and H Y P O C R I T E. Hope that assists you in understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Jan 06 - 12:04 PM

That's G E O R G E   W   B U S H.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 11:00 PM

Just a bit of unfinished business.

Per Teribus 5 Jan 2006 8:13 PM-- "Your question has been answered. You just do not like the answer."

Au contraire---- (frightfully sorry about the French--I know using French casts grave doubt on my patriotism. But I can live with that)---the question has NEVER been answered.

For obvious reasons--because "Before Sept 11 many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained" does--obviously--link Saddam Hussein and September 11.

As does "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein."


And in fact these 2 sentences from the 2003 State of the Union are only a tiny part of a purposeful--and brilliantly successful--propaganda campaign by the Bush regime, starting at least by mid 2002 and going up to the actual March 2003 invasion of Iraq (and beyond, of course). This campaign was necessary from the Bush regime's perspective because in the early days after 9-11 the official Bush line was that there was no evidence linking Saddam to 9-11--see your own 16 Sept 2001 Cheney statement.

When the Bush maladministration-- (a tip of the hat to Arne for that particularly felicitous formulation)--decided to invade Iraq, they had to therefore create the impression in the minds of the US public that there were in fact strong links between Saddam and al-Queda (with the strong implication that Saddam also had links to 9-11.)

This propaganda campaign is of course in total disregard of the facts--not only is there no evidence linking Saddam to 9-11, but 9-11 had negative results for Saddam--many of the loose arrangements he had been exploiting up to that time were then tightened up.

However, neither you nor any other Bushite has yet come up with a clear statement, by Bush or a crony, between mid 2002 and March 2003, to deny a link between Saddam and 9-11. The Bush regime wanted to confuse 9-11, Saddam and al-Queda in the minds of the US public--and did it expertly, with the desired results.

Your refusal to acknowledge the propaganda campaign cited above is based on nothing more or less than the perceived damage to your ego if you admit you were wrong---as the ideologically unblinkered can clearly see.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 11:25 PM

You keep 'um covered, Ron...

Yeah, can any of the chickenhawks GUEST's here say they have first hand knowledge that Kerry didn't turn his boat back to save a comrad or to go eyeball-to-eyeball with someone who had fired on his boat???

Now the Swiftboat Liars for Bus are out to claim that Congtressamn Murtha is also a coward...

Hmmmmmmm?

Given the hatchet job they did on former Senator McClennen this don't seem to different from their tactics... Heckm the guy prolly cut off both his legs and one arm just to get elected????

Right???

Differentr day, same carp...

Boert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 11:47 PM

Ron Davies is a CHICKEN CHICKEN

Him and his left wing socialist comrades are the only ones with a license to do hatchet jobs.

Because he does not have a persons name to do his hatchet job on he is belligerent and hostile like the warmongers he decries.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 12:57 AM

"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein."

The "....THIS TIME armed by Saddam Hussein.", clearly detatches Saddam Hussein from involvement.

By the time your supposed propaganda campaign got underway President Bush and the US Government were already talking to the United Nations, President Bush already had whatever authority he needed from the Senate and House of Representatives to take what action was required.

Sorry Ron, there was no propaganda campaign, there was no need for one. To initiate one for whatever reason would have been completely unnecessary, it would have been a major distraction and the US Government in the wake of 9/11 had enough on their plate as it was. Your "propaganda campaign" Ron is a figment of your "conspiracy theory" obessed imagination, nothing more.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 12:59 AM

Guest:

Ron Davies is a CHICKEN CHICKEN

Ron may be of the opinion that no one should die for a stoopid and useless war (one waged incomepetently to boot, I might add). Hardly dishonourable in my book, even if that is his opinion and his opinion is mistaken (which I think is not the case).

You, OTOH, seem to be perfectly willing to support others dying for whatever twisted reasons you seem to have for engaging in the "last resort" of war. But you won't pay any price yourself (and prolly in fact think that tax breaks [for the rich, you dim bulb, need we remind you -- you ain't gonna see none of it] are in fact de riguer in time of "war"). That's the chickenhawks in the two sentence summation. And it's why the chicken hawks are some of the lowest scum to infest this planet.

HTH.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:32 AM

Well, Big T, I think you live in a dream world. Maybe we all do. But I saw and heard a river of assertions comingout of Bush and Co's mouths, all of which were illogical, distorted and designed to accomplish a war agenda.

If that ain't propaganda, I dunno.

In addition, perhaps you have forgotten the careful scripting of talking points, the leveraging and bullying of the press, and the infamous campaigns to slander and silence criticism. All these add up to propoganda in my book. They sure weren't candid discussions with the voters.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 06:04 PM

Teribus:

"We've always been at war with Eastasia."

Yeah, Teribus, whatever. I'll put you in for a Presidential Medal of Freedom, OK?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Troll
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 06:48 PM

Excuse me Bobert, but when HERO John Kerry turned his boat to shore and engaged the enrmy in a firefight, the said enemy had already taken a .50 cal. burst to the body and disapeared behind a hut.

HERO Kerry ran his boat ashore -abandonding his command- and went behind the hut. There was a shot after which he re-appeared and announced that he had finished the enemy.

Not anyone who knows one damn thing about a .50 cal. machine gun knows that a burst to the body means that the recipient is very, very, dead.
HERO Kerry was grandstanding and putting the lives of all under his command at risk. Had there been an attack at that moment, his boat would have had to wait until he re-boarded before it could move out of harms way.

I would not have wanted to serve under a commander who took those kinds of risks with MY life.

The fact that he rescued a man in the water is commendable, but it should be remembered that his was not the only boat involved in the rescue.

You may not want to believe that the stories that the Swift Boat Veterans have told are true, but, based on what I know of HERO John Kerry during and after his few months of combat service, I can believe that they are, for the most part, factual.

One has only to look at his testimony before the Congressional committee and check out his involvment with the Winter Soldier thing (where men who were not even in the military testified about atrocities that "they" has commited)to realize that John Kerry could not and cannot be believed with regard to his breif military service.

BTW, does anyone know if he ever finished his service. As a reservist, he was obligated to two years active duty and then four years in the reserve with meetings one weekend per month plus two weeks active duty per year. I've never seen anything that indicates that he did that. Maybe the answer lies in those pages of his personnel file that he has never allowed to be released.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:22 PM

Chickenhawk "Troll" sez:

Not anyone who knows one damn thing about a .50 cal. machine gun knows that a burst to the body means that the recipient is very, very, dead.
HERO Kerry was grandstanding and putting the lives of all under his command at risk. Had there been an attack at that moment, his boat would have had to wait until he re-boarded before it could move out of harms way.

Ummm, he got a freaking medal for that, and another one for hauling an injured soldier back on board while under fire, not to mention three Purple Hearts. Yeah, you, in the Chairborne brigade of the Fighting 101st Keyboarders, can spout all you want about what Kery should have done (all the while spouting the lying accounts of the Swift Boat Veterans against the Truth as to what you would have liked the "facts" in these incidents to be), but your opinion here just ain't worth a damn ... and the only character your statements impugn is your own.

... but, based on what I know of HERO John Kerry during ...

You? You??? You are full'o'crap. And a cowardly sleazeball to boot. You're not fit to spitshine Kerry's combat boots. I'd note that pretty much everyone that served with Kerry has only the highest regard for him. Think I'll take their word for it over yours, particularly seeing as you don't know Kerry at all.

One has only to look at his testimony before the Congressional committee and check out his involvment with the Winter Soldier thing...

Ohhhhhhhh. So you don't like the guy. IC. So that makes it perfectly acceptable to slime the guy for his unarguably brave acts in Vietnam, rather than to disagree as to the facts of what he said? My, with a sense of "honour" like that, I'd bet that Kerry is just as happy you never served under him.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:29 PM

Don't start confusing the issue with facts, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:32 PM

Just as well your hero Kerry didn't do it now. To deliberately use 0.50 cal against personnel is against the Geneva Convention.

By the bye Arne please explain:
Arne - 19 Jan 06 - 06:04 PM

Teribus:

"We've always been at war with Eastasia."

Where does thaqt quote come from - Certainly not from anything I have posted. Please clarify

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:36 PM

"We've always been at war with Eastasia."

Read George Orwell. No, you won't find his books on the FOX News sites.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:38 PM

1984 - A satire

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:40 PM

Yeah. Written in three parts. GFY.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:04 PM

Liberal Lefties sure use the word Coward a lot. Wonder why?

If anybody stands up to them they get branded a coward.

Do they mean more of a coward than they are?

Looks like a coward would not stand up to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:07 PM

Troll refers to Kerry when he writes, "I would not have wanted to serve under a commander who took those kinds of risks with MY life."

How would you like to serve under a commander that tortures POWS and doesn't give a damn what may happen to you under the same circumstances? In fact, the U.S. basically says its O.K. to torture. As a soldier who may at any time be captured by enemy forces, does that make you feel safe and secure?

Don't you think that puts all U.S. soldiers in a high-risk category? If they don't kill you, you can always look forward to capture and torture. Doesn't sound very risk-free to me.

At this point, Kerry has very little to do with actions of Bush. Bush has to stand on his own two feet and so do you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:17 PM

Hmmmmm???

I was all prepared to dispatch the usual cast of apologists but seems like there's nuthin' left to clean up here...

Good work, com-patriots...

***Danged*** good work, I might add...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 11:12 PM

Bobert:

While you are patting your self on the back, the word should be Comerades.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 11:12 PM

Teribus: "By the time your supposed propaganda campaign got underway, President Bush had whatever authority he needed from the Senate and the House of Representatives to take whatever action was required."

WRONG ( again).

As I said, the campaign started about mid 2002. At that point, Bush had NO authority from anybody to invade Iraq, which was the Bush regime's plan.

Much as it pains me to say it--and you can imagine how it does--you've blown it yet again.


In the US there is this pesky thing called public opinion-- (I believe you also have it in the UK, no?)--which means Senators and Congressmen make sure they have their constituents behind them before signing off on the little matter of a war.

You see, the problem is that in a war killing and dying may possibly be involved--and constituents, for some reason, tend to feel strongly about such things--even if, perhaps, you don't.

I've also explained, more than once--but your holiday break does not seem to have improved your memory---that since the first Bush line, as reflected in the 16 Sept 2001 Cheney quote, was that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, that had to change, in order to justify the planned Iraq invasion.

And it did change.

The campaign had to confuse Saddam, 9-11 and al-Queda in the minds of the US public--and it was a brilliant success in doing precisely that--as most sentient beings have noted--it would be a shame if you were not in that number.

And your absurd emphasis on the 2002 election, I'm sorry to tell you, won't hold water. Guess what happens after the 2002 election. It's the 2004 election.

It never ends. That's why the propaganda campaign was necessary--- from the perspective of the Bush regime--- right up to--and beyond-- the invasion.

Too bad about your fragile ego, which won't allow you to admit you're wrong on this one. Next time you might want to pick a better issue to defend.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 11:27 PM

Ouch, T....

Ron has zero-ed in his sights and guess who is in the middle of the cross-hairs????

You done messed up, son...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 12:17 AM

Teribus:

By the bye Arne please explain:
Arne - 19 Jan 06 - 06:04 PM

Teribus:

"We've always been at war with Eastasia."

Where does thaqt quote come from - Certainly not from anything I have posted. Please clarify

Looks like your education has some holes in it. Google is your friend. Well, that is, until your hero Dubya uses the GWOT as an excuse to start harvesting Google records to see what you've been up to. Which is perhaps another reason you should edumacate yourself about the quote above.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 12:21 AM

And your absurd emphasis on the 2002 election, I'm sorry to tell you, won't hold water. Guess what happens after the 2002 election. It's the 2004 election.

It never ends.

And that's why we've always been at war with Eastasia. Not that Teribus would be aware of such.   ;-)

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 12:16 PM

Actually Ron I was not aware that the US had declared war on Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 01:26 PM

Teribus:

Actually Ron I was not aware that the US had declared war on Iraq.

Strangely enough, Teribus, I tend to agree with you here. I don't think the U.S. did declare war in Iraq, and I think that Dubya acted lawlessly in using U.S. troops to attack. I think that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the non-delegable power to declare war, and the Congressional "authorization" (actually, it was a resolution) was not such a declaration.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Old Guy
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 03:50 PM

RD:

Are you lifting another glass of Liberal Koolaid whenever you say cheers?

When was the last time war was declared?

Was War declared when the A US President said:
" Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. "

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 04:15 PM

"Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."

Their purpose is the same as England's purpose during the colonial age. It's about conquest, not the 'interests of people . . . around the world.'

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 04:50 PM

Old Guy:

I suspect you're drinking a little nip'o'sumptin' yourself. That's me, not Ron Davies.

As for whether I think that was a declaration of war, no I do not. In fact I also think that such was illegal (and did so at the time, as well as the time of the 1993 missile attacks).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 07:42 PM

Undeclared wars need the most propoganda -- or the most secrecy. In this case, we get both.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 08:12 PM

As fir the last declaration of war, I reckon it was WW II...

But that doesn't change the dynamics that were working for Bush when he was in the middle of his mad-dash-to-invade-Iraq...

I mean, let's do a little review here... Prior to 9/11 his poll numbers were terrible... He had stolen an election and came tyo office with a major chip on his sholder as if he had actually won the election with room to spare...

Then 9/11 and Rove dressed hi up in the American flag and paraded hi around the country making grand-satnd speeches about how "No body gonna kick sand in our faces" and he had center stage... He ahd the Dems scared say one thing against George the Warrior... Yeah, he had his way with Congress at every turn always bringing up 9/11 as the reason to do this or not do that... It was 9/11, 9/11 and more 9/11 and so when he wanted to attack Iraq, the formula wae there and the Dems ran like pigs from a gun and supported the resolution....

Now that things have turned sour in Iraq, and the Dems and the press ain't afraid of George the Warrior anymore, it seems to late... George the Warrior has used that resolution to initiate the largest power grap in American history, down to breaking existing law and saying stuff like "That don't apply to me!!!"

Well, right now it's up to Congress, if it is up to the task, to reel George the Warrior back in... But they are hurt by the recnt corruption and the Repubs have been successsfull in creatign a very apothetic public who believe that all the folks in Congrss are crooks, rather than just them???

Hmmmmmmm?

So who can stop George the Warrior??? I mean he can completely blow up our country and guess what???

No one can stop him...

He owns a corrupt Congress...

He owns the Supreme Court...

The "industrailists" love him...

If this sound familiar, folks, try reading up on Hitler's rise...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 11:24 PM

Teribus--

Exactly where did I say the US declared war on Iraq? You're having that careless reading problem again. I'm fully aware there was no declaration of war on Iraq--that's part of the Iraq mess. If it had been a declared war, that would have shown some deliberation on the part of the "world's greatest deliberative body"--not a mindless succumbing to W's propaganda, in fear of being tagged "unpatriotic".

I am looking at it from the perspective of the Iraqis and Americans who actually fought. What do you suppose they called it--the "disagreement"? I'm sure your prissy objection to the term "war" makes those who died --and their survivors--feel much better.

As Arne has pointed out, nobody in the House or Senate ever explicitly gave Bush the OK to invade Iraq--just to use his judgment. We have all learned--many knew before--that the good judgment of G W Bush is the ultimate oxymoron.

But the way Bush got Congress, unopposed by the public at large, to allow him to use his "judgment" was through his regime's propaganda campaign--without that, the House and Senate would never have given him the leeway they did--since it was plenty evident what his plans were.

He had to change the original perception, as in Cheney's 16 Sept 2001 quote you love so much, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. His team had to confuse 9-11, Saddam, and al-Queda in the minds of the US public. The Bush regime's propganda campaign did so-----brilliantly. Goebbels would have been proud.

And you have provided no evidence to contradict this.

But, of course, you also do not admit it----lest your fragile ego be bruised. Poor boy (in case you don't understand "Pobre cito").

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 11:35 PM

And of course the British who fought.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 11:41 PM

To make this thread title more accurate, maybe it should be changed to "Bush, Blair and Blarney".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 08:01 AM

Ron Davies - 19 Jan 06 - 11:12 PM

"In the US there is this pesky thing called public opinion-- (I believe you also have it in the UK, no?)--which means Senators and Congressmen make sure they have their constituents behind them before signing off on the little matter of a war."

For the record Ron it was the House Security Committee that identified Iraq, among others, as being in a position to pose a serious threat to the United States of America, it was not just plucked out of the air by the Bush Administration. The outstanding UN Resolutions relating to Iraq meant that there was a point of leverage that could be used to eliminate any threat posed by the Ba'athist regime in Iraq.

You have still not offered any reasonable or logical explanation to support your contention that there was a concerted propaganda campaign. If you read the transcripts of speeches made, instead of reports of what was said, you will find nothing at odds with what was stated previously in the 2002 State of the Union Address and what was said and done later.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Old Guy
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:05 AM

Bobert

If this sound familiar, folks, try reading up on Churchill's rise.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:46 AM

OK, Teribus--good thing I have unlimited patience. Obviously you have no idea what propaganda is or how it works, so let's start from the beginning--again.

Let's find out what you do know

To be effective, propaganda needs to directly state a cause and effect--yes or no?

That's your first lesson.

Don't worry--we'll educate you yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 12:52 PM

As Arne has pointed out, nobody in the House or Senate ever explicitly gave Bush the OK to invade Iraq--just to use his judgment. We have all learned--many knew before--that the good judgment of G W Bush is the ultimate oxymoron.

Digging back into my scholar days past, I'd say that Congress cannot -- consistent with the Constitution -- "g[i]ve Dubya the OK .. to use his judgement". There's a notion of "exclusive powers" and "nondelegability" in constitutional jurisprudence. Certain powers and responsibilities are given to one of the branches of gummint amd cannot be ceded or delegated to another branch, even if the branch given that original power is willing.

This shows up, for instance, in the legislative power: it is an exclusive power of Congress (as is the power to introduce spending bills, which is vested in the House of Representatives). Whie this "non-delegability" has been under erosion, court cases at least pay lip service to it in distinguishing between "legislation" and "regulation" when decididng if the executive has the authority to pass new rules. All "regulation" must be pursuant to corresponding "legislation" and a grant of regulatory authority, and if the "regulations" exceed the scope of the original legislation to the extent they become "new" legislation, they will be looked at askanse by the courts.

Certainly, in the instance of the power to declare war, there was a lot of discussion of why such power should not be vested in the executive, and why the deliberative bodies alone should be trusted with such an awesome and singular power, potentially affecting as it does in fact the very existence of the republic. I don't for a second doubt that the founders would be horrified at the thought that Congress would abdicate its role here and give to a president the decision as to whether to go to war. But that it did, and for that, Congress should be profoundly embarrassed ... and overturned.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 02:02 PM

It's true--Congress could not--legally-- let W use his "judgment". But it did--and as you say, thereby abdicated its responsibility. Are we surprised?

And the obvious reason is the success of the propaganda campaign to convince the US public that Saddam, being linked to al-Queda, and hence to 9-11, was a clear danger to the US and had to be "taken out"--as a ( dwindling) number of Bush apologists still believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Troll
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 03:47 PM

For those of you who are interested, I have decided to answer Arnes charge that I am a "cowardly sleazeball" with a private message.

I fell that no good purpose would be served by answering him on the forum. There is one thing that I would like to address; as I have stated before on this forum, I have never questioned John Kerrys physical bravery nor would I.

He was in combat and he didn't run. That's all anyone needs to say.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Troll
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 04:34 PM

Since I cannot find Arne in the directory -possibly my computer is acting up- I'll have to make it public. This is for Arne only. The rest of you shouldn't read id.

Arne, since you don't know me and -apparently- don't know anything about me, let me start by saying that a few years ago, the man who called me a coward in public, would have answered to me physically. Alas, time is overtaking a body that has been too much abused and I am not the hothead I once was.

Be advised, however, that it is not wise to kick an old dog. He might have one bite left.

Jonh Kerry got a medal for running his boat ashore and shooting a wounded VC. I read that HE put himself in for that medal. Thats all I know about it. My co9mment stands. I think he was grandstanding.

I have never denied that he brought a wounded man aboard under fire, or that it was a brave -and proper- thing to do so I really can't see why you brought it up at all.

As for his three purple hearts, all evidence, including his own diary and the testimony of the doctor who attended him for what he described as a "bandaid" wound, was that he fired a grenade into the river bank where it hit a rock and he was hit by his own schrapnel.

In his diary he stated that he had yet to come under enemy fire and this was after the wound incident. Purple Hearts are to be given our only for wounds suffered under enemy fire. I have no real knowledge of his other wounds except that I have heard other Vets say that they should have gotten Purple Hearts for similar wounds too. Apparently the wounds were not severe.

He used the three wounds and you are out rule to his advantage. I don't blame him a bit. Everyone wanted to go home.

As far as me being in the Chairborne Brigade of the 102st Keyboarders, well, like I said before, you don't know me. I served in the US Navy Amphibious Forces between 1963 and 1967.

I don't know what ,if any, time you served. I do know that most of the Vets that I know don't make snap pronouncments about the bravery of others because you never know.

Your note that everyone who served with Kerry praised him, I'll let slide tand say only that the officers who served with and commanded his didn't care for him. About the kindest thing I heard them say was that he was a loose cannon and that it was a wonder that he didn't get somebody killed.

At least one man who served under him (his gunner) said that he lied when he claimed that he had been in the gun tub and had shot the man he later went ashore to dispach.

Regarding the Swift Boat Veterans, I don't know what of their testimony was true and what was overkill. Sinc3e I haven't read the book, I don't feel competent to comment.

Two of my very good friends were part of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and saw John Kerry in action close-up and personal. Their opinion of him, based on his testimony before the Congressional Committee, is even less flattering than mine. They HEARD him tell lies besmirched every Veteran in this country both in Congress and in Detroit.

So you are right. I don't like the guy. I think that he is a slimy liar who blackeneed the name of every man and woman who served in Vietnam for his own political gain. I think he was a selfserving rich boy who played the system, and when he tried to run for president, his past caught up with him and bit him on the ass.

To you, he may walk on water. OK.

I don't really care if he would have wanted me serving under him or not. That isn't the point. I wouldn't have wanted to serve under HIM.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 04:41 PM

The vast majority of men who served under Kerry respected his courage and respected him as a leader--at the time. That says a lot more than what anybody said after he turned against the war--which might just possibly have colored their view of him.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 04:46 PM

"He was in combat and he didn't run. That's all anyone needs to say."

Amen to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 05:11 PM

Troll:

... as I have stated before on this forum, I have never questioned John Kerrys physical bravery nor would I.

You miss the point, you slimeball. You atacked Kerry for what was deemed not only brave but meritorious conduct. Rather than attack Kerry head-on about your disagreement with him on his Vietnam testimony, you instead engaged in a collateral attack on his Vietnam service.

He was in combat and he didn't run.

From your previous post:

HERO Kerry ran his boat ashore -abandonding his command- and went behind the hut. There was a shot after which he re-appeared and announced that he had finished the enemy.

Not anyone who knows one damn thing about a .50 cal. machine gun knows that a burst to the body means that the recipient is very, very, dead.
HERO Kerry was grandstanding and putting the lives of all under his command at risk.

What's that sound like to you folks in the peanut gallery, eh? Think that ol' Troll here's not only criticising Kerry for his actions but also claiming that Kerry's bravery (based on the ol' Swift Boat Veterans Against The Truth historical "revisionism" [by people who weren't even there]) is in fact "grandstanding" and worse and not in fact "bravery" at all, and is in fact is "abandoning his command"?

Troll: You, sir, are a liar.

Arne, since you don't know me and -apparently- don't know anything about me, let me start by saying that a few years ago, the man who called me a coward in public, would have answered to me physically.

Tell you what: Seeing as you're not into that, let's have it out on this level playing field of words, eh?

Be advised, however, that it is not wise to kick an old dog. He might have one bite left.

Oooooohhhh. Ooooooooohh. Wow, now I'm running skeered.... Well, do your best, and we'll see what happens.

As for his three purple hearts, all evidence, including his own diary and the testimony of the doctor who attended him for what he described as a "bandaid" wound, was that he fired a grenade into the river bank where it hit a rock and he was hit by his own schrapnel.

Lies. But I see that you'ev swallowed the SBVATT horsepuckey hook, line and sinker. Tell me, why do you discount the words of thsoe that actually served with Kerry (not to mention the military brass in their citations)?

As far as me being in the Chairborne Brigade of the 102st Keyboarders, well, like I said before, you don't know me. I served in the US Navy Amphibious Forces between 1963 and 1967.

And right now, you're remaindered to the 101st Fighting Keyboarders of the Chairborne Division. Regardless of previous service, you're spouting from your own chair and disputing and second-guessing what those that were under fire with Kerry have said. Pretty damn chicken-hawk to me.

Apparently the wounds were not severe.

Apparently you don't know WTF you're talking about. He's still carrying a piece of hot metal fromone of them. Had it hit an artery, he might have been killed. Seems you take the SBVATT account as gospel and haven't bothered to read what anyone else has said.

I do know that most of the Vets that I know don't make snap pronouncments about the bravery of others because you never know.

No. Some are a$$h***s and instead take what the SBVATT said in a "snap judgement" and mouth off about someone that undoubtedly has more metal on their chest than you.

Your note that everyone who served with Kerry praised him

No. I said "almost everyone". Sounds like a consensus (or as close to it as you're going to get in a politically charged environment) to me.

Two of my very good friends were part of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and saw John Kerry in action close-up and personal. Their opinion of him, based on his testimony before the Congressional Committee, is even less flattering than mine.

As I said, if you had any balls, you'd take him on about that, rather than slime him for the duty and the courage he did show.

To you, he may walk on water. OK.

No. For me, I don't think he walks on water. But I do believe in fairness and honest discourse. I take particular exception to dishonest sliming of someone. I'd respect you more if you made your actual objections to Kerry the subject of your criticism and refrained from such tactics.

And you'd likewise refrain from -- and denounce -- the slime jobs the Republicans have cooked up against Max Cleland, John Murtha, and John McCain, all in the "service" of political advantage. If you're truly a vet, you'd see that such tactics besmirch all vets, and would rail against such underhanded tactics, rather than adding your own pantload to the mess.

Is that clear?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Troll
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 05:27 PM

BTW, Kerry went to 'Nam on the luck of the draw. He was in the Naval Reserve and got called up. Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard and wasn't called up.

The luck of the draw.

Quick question. If Kerry DIDN"T join the Reserves to avoid the draft, why didn't he simply sign up for a 4 year hitch instead of the 6 year obligation of a Reserve hitch?

And I still haven't seen any documentation that he completed the 6 years. Can any of you Kerry experts help out?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 05:38 PM

Info ya want may be in here. I ain't got time right now to dig for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 05:47 PM

"The luck of the draw"--not quite.

Most of the men Bush took instruction with in learning to be a pilot were going to Vietnam. They knew it at the time, so did he--and he was teased about the fact at the time.

He knew what to do to avoid service in Vietnam--and he did it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 06:08 PM

Troll:

BTW, Kerry went to 'Nam on the luck of the draw. He was in the Naval Reserve and got called up. Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard and wasn't called up.

More lies fer the cause, eh?

Dubya checked "do not volunteer" for overseas service on his national guard forms (additional source here). Kerry volunteered for Vietnam (if you have reason to dispute the factuality of this claim, out with yer evidence).

Still sliming Kerry for the GOOpers, IC. How courageous, how honourable of you....

Why don't you take my advice, and restrict your criticism to the stuff that's really got your panties in a twist (not to mention things that may a bit more factual)?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Troll
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 09:57 PM

Seems to me that by not volunteering to go, Bush showed uncommon good sense.

Please furnish a link where it shows that Kerry volunteered. That's one I've never heard .

As far as "sliming Kerry for the GOOpers," since when is the truth sliming. As far as I know, he was called up. If he actually did volunteer, fine.

As I have repeatedly stated, I have never questioned John Kerrys physical bravery. His judgement, veracity and character (or lack of it) yes. If it's any consolation to you, I feel pretty much the same way about George Bush but George Bush did not stand before a Congressional Committee and tell lies about me, my family and my friends and then sponsor the telling of more lies in Winter Soldier.

John Kerry did. I think that you can undestand my attitude toward him.

Or maybe you can't. It really doesn't matter.

My take on Kerrys service is that he did it for political gain based on statements to his fellow officers that he would be "the next JFK from Massachusetts". That is why he volunteered for Swift Boat duty. He was on a ship out off the coast and there were no chances for heroics there.

He came aboard the Swift Boats, got his medals, picked up the three Purple Hearts necessary to rotate home and left.

So far, so good. Maybe he was a geuuine hero but his actions afterward were not heroic. He saw that the anti-war movement would be politically powerful and jumped aboard, telling lies to Congress and to the nation.

He got out of his active duty obligation so he could run for office. Whether he used his families pull to acomplish this is really not important. He was part of the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War right up to a national meting in Kansas city (I think it was) where some of the more hotheaded members suggested the assasination of a few key Senators to help in ending the war. It was a time where strong leadership was called for.

Kerry resigned from the Board.

As a state Senator, he did not introduce a single piece of meaningful legislation in 20 years. To the best of my knowledge, he still hasn't.

I believe that the only reason he brought up his military service at all. is because it's the only thing he's ever done that has any meaning.

As far as his character goes, I'll cite two incidents that told me all I'll ever need to know about John Kerry.

First is the snowboarding incident in Vermont I think it was. He was either bumped or ran into a Secret Service man assigned to protect him during the campaign. He roundly cursed the man. When asked later about the fall he said, "I don't fall".

Everybody falls at sometime or another; even the pros. But, apparently, not John Kerry.

The other thing happened when he married his present wife. He had his previous marriage annulled. So, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church -of which he is a member- his children by his previous marriage are now illegitimate.

I don't know how anyone else defines lack of character, but to me these two incidents pretty well do the job.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:30 PM

Hey, I wouldn't vote for John Kerry to be the local dog catcher but with that said:

Troll,

You may think you are so high and mighty unpartisan but what you ahve written here is drippign with I-LOVE-BUSH partisanship that to anyone with a pulse...

Hey, if you love Bush this much, just start a "I love Bush" thread...

Your attacks aginst the guy who went to Nam speak volumes about which party you worship....

Nuthin' you can say to me will alter what you have already said. Plainer than plain...

And shame on you for trying to hide you absolute allegence to the Republican Party...

Like I Said... you have made yer allegience painfully clear here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Troll
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:46 PM

Bobert, this one isn't down to your usual low standards.

As far as my political affiliation, you would probably be amazed if I told you.

But I won't.

I have already made my opinion of George Bush plain on this forum. You can believe it or not. It doesn't matter.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:58 PM

Nah, troll, yer attack on Kerry superceeds anything you have written... it shows yer real *spots*....

Like I said, I ain't a Kerry guy but yer posts attacking him while defending Bush ain't gonna take no rocket scientist to figure out...

Maybe a *Duh-scientist* might have trouble figguring out where you are coming from...

Hey, I don't mind folks who is pro-Bush saying so... We got our share here but pretending to be a neutral observer while posting stuff that is obviously partisan, don't impress me at all...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 12:03 AM

"George Bush did not stand before a Congressional Committee and tell lies..."

But, of course, its O.K. for Bush to lie about WMDs, 911 and Osama.

which puts the whole nation in jeopardy including you and your family.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 12:32 AM

Paige McKenzie, NewsMax.com Wires
    Friday, Aug. 20, 2004

"One person's terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter."

Sounds just Osama bin Laden, doesn't it?

But those are words straight from the lips of John Kerry - the candidate whose record the media establishment refuses to reveal.

But David Bossie has been keeping up with Kerry for a long time, and his new book "The Many Faces of John Kerry - Why This Masschusetts Liberal Is Wrong For America" - is perhaps the most comprehensive record yet of Kerry's post-Vietnam political life. Written about a Republican, Bossie's revelations would be like chum in shark-infested waters for bloodthirsty reporters jonesing for a scoop.

Bossie is the former chief investigator for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. In an exclusive interview he told NewsMax, "Senator Kerry was on the committee when I was the investigator heading up the Whitewater case. I met him ... but he didn t show up much."

Kerry apparently viewed his responsibility to the investigating committee the same as he views his responsibility as senator - rarely showing up for work.

By now the public is well aware of Kerry's "flip-flop" image, particularly on the war in Iraq.

What most people don't know is that Kerry's reversal on Iraq is just one small waffle among a huge stack, slathered on both sides with thick, dripping hypocrisy.

Many others have changed their positions on the war in Iraq. What differentiates Kerry, however, is that he flips back and forth, sometimes within months, depending on whom he is speaking to at the moment.

"He is very much a chameleon," Bossie told NewsMax, "someone who says and uses campaign rhetoric depending on who he's talking to. If he's talking to a more liberal group, he spouts his liberal ideology very freely. But if it's a group that he just needs their votes, he tries to look like some moderate mainstream guy - and he's simply not.

"When you're ranked as the number one most liberal senator by National Journal [a nonpartisan publication], left of Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, you're doing it."

It is difficult to be more of a leftist than than Kennedy and Clinton, noted Bossie, and even harder to hide it.

But as a leftist in moderate clothing, that's what Kerry seems to be doing   and doing it well, pulling the thick, political wool over the eyes of many of his supporters.

He couldn't do it without help. Though Bossie has recorded more than 60 flip-flops in John Kerry's political career, the public remains oblivious to many of the most atrocious.

"It's up to the Bush people [to expose Kerry]," said Bossie. "He's getting a free ride because the mainstream elite media hate President Bush and desperately want him to lose. And I believe they aren't doing their jobs correctly."

Kerry's flips are not just issues on which reasonable people change their minds in light of new information. Kerry's flips include issues such as the death penalty and abortion, which typically reflect a person's core values.

In 1996, writes Bossie, Kerry criticized Massachusetts Gov. William Weld for supporting the death penalty by saying, "You can change your mind on things, but not on life-and-death issues." But by December 2002, Kerry was saying to NBC that he "always had supported sentencing terrorists to death."

And though most people who change their minds on abortion move to the more conservative position, Kerry has moved the opposite direction.

Even as new scientific evidence proving human fetuses to be viable human beings has emerged over the years since the Roe vs. Wade decision, Kerry has moved further to the left on abortion.

He now supports abortion in all forms, at any time, including partial-birth abortion. He even opposes measures to require pregnant minors to give parental notification or consent before getting an abortion, as they would to have their ears pierced.

Yet Bossie reveals the side of Kerry that once was more opposed to the practice. "I would say also that it's a tragic day in the lives of everybody when abortion is looked on as an alternative to having a child. I think that's wrong. It should be the very last thing if it has to be anything, and I say that not just because I'm opposed to abortion but because I think that's common sense, Kerry told the Lowell Sun in 1972.

Further, Bossie describes how Kerry, right after President Bush signed a law banning partial-birth abortion, denied the very existence of the procedure. "There is no such thing as a partial birth. ... There's nothing partial about their effort to undo Roe v. Wade," Kerry proclaimed.

On issue after issue, Bossie demonstrates how Kerry always wants it both ways - and it takes nothing less than the senator's particular brand of duplicity to have it both ways. How else could a soldier of four months become a war hero after committing what he describes as "atrocities"? Or take credit for his opponent's ideas in between denouncing them?

After the Democrats' huge losses of 2000 and 2002, many a pundit was amazed to see them again pick as their nominee a candidate with not just the same stiff, elitest condescension as the notoriously wooden Al Gore, but who is clearly even more liberal and out of touch with mainstream Americans than the Dems' failed 2000 candidate. But as Bossie reveals, a brief jaunt through Kerry's early background makes it clear that those aren't the only characteristics the candidate and the former candidate share.

JFK: 'Just for Kerry'

As a baby boomer coming to age in the "Born To Be Wild" '60s, Kerry has always believed he was born to be president. As much as Al Gore believed he was born to be president, having been groomed for it most of his life by his senator father, Kerry has been focused on what he's always believed to be his destiny nearly since childhood, when he used to have conversations about foreign policy via telephone with his father from his Swiss boarding school dorm room.

Bossie has Kerry's old school chums on record:

"It was an aura he created," said Harvey Bundy, a Chicago money manager and former Kerry roommate at Yale. "We sat around the room, talking about 'what are our positions going to be in John's cabinet.' I wish I could forecast the market as well."

Another contemporary remarked: "He was obsessed by politics to the exclusion of all else. At that age (freshman year of college), it's a bit creepy."

So, how creepy is it at 13? At that age, Kerry "was mocked by some ... as a Kennedy wannabe," the Boston Globe reported. "He'd sign his papers and wear his Oxford cotton shirts embossed with his initials, "JFK" as if the political affinity were preordained. Behind his back, classmates rolled their eyes and, as one said, joked that the initials stood for 'Just for Kerry.'"

Bossie's description of Kerry's exit from Vietnam demonstrates his desperate ambition to find that first stepping stone to the presidency. Like President Bush, Kerry was honorably discharged early   but eight months early, after serving only four months of the normal one-year tour in Vietnam. (Bossie also details why Bush was not allowed to serve in Vietnam, even though he volunteered to go.)

Kerry rushed back to Massachusetts to give new meaning to the terms "carpetbagger" and "district shopping," trying on "congressional districts like suits off the rack," the Boston Globe reported. "In less than two months in early 1972, the anti-war leader called three different districts in Massachusetts home. To this day he bears the brand of opportunist from that brazen district-hopping, which he acknowledges as part of his political 'baggage.'"

Great News for Pedophiles, Murderers and Rapists

Kerry's early years as a politician in Massachusetts are anything but comforting. Bossie discloses these highlights:

# As assistant district attorney in Middlesex County (a title he somehow achieved five months after passing the bar exam), his "overhaul" saw the release of convicted pedophile Robert Sedach, who later kidnapped and sexually assaulted a young boy. Later, writes Bossie, the Dukakis-Kerry administration would issue furloughs for 287 sex offenders, 82 first-degree murderers and 184 second-degree murderers.

# As Michael Dukakis' lieutenant governor, Kerry supported the furlough program that turned Willie Horton loose on two more victims.

# Kerry presided over an increase in parole rates from 50 percent to 58 percent, during which time rapes increased from 1,464 a year to 1,627. Massachusetts became the country's car-theft capital, with twice the average of all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, reported the Christian Science Monitor in November 1984.

Perhaps most worrisome of all, Kerry has opposed preventive legislation for the threat of nuclear war since 1982, as Bossie records in Kerry's own words.

"During my 1982 campaign, I called on the state to abandon planning for nuclear evacuation, calling such evacuation plans a sham intended to deceive Americans into believing they could survive a nuclear war," he said in a Senate campaign questionnaire in 1984.

His actions held true to his words on this issue.

"As Lieutenant Governor, I have carried forward my campaign promise that the Commonwealth cease planning for evacuation and relocation during a nuclear war, and drafted an Executive Order condemning such planning," he said in the 1984 Senate questionnaire. The ultra-liberal Dukakis signed the order into law.

From marriage-penalty tax relief to the Patriot Act to veterans' benefits and on and on, Kerry votes against legislation and then makes the outrageous claims not only of having supported it, but also to have always been an outspoken champion of the issue in question. All the while he accuses his opponents of not supporting the very issues they have purposely acted to support. Or vice versa - he claims one position and then votes the other, if he bothers to show up for the vote at all. Though critics complain about Kerry's constant absenteeism in an election year, Bossie reveals that Kerry's penchant for being a no-show is nothing new - even when it comes to the very legislation Kerry himself sponsored.

Kerry on Taxes

# Has voted since 1993 for a stunning $1.7 trillion in tax increases on tobacco, gasoline, income and other items.

# Voted in 1995 for a resolution that declared a middle-class tax cut unwise.

# Voted against marriage-penalty tax relief in 1998, and then told MSNBC in 2003 that he had fought long and hard to get rid of the tax.

# Lambastes President Bush's tax relief as being too large and too beneficial to "the rich," though it is smaller than those instituted by Kerry's hero, John F. Kennedy, and even though the group of zero-tax filers grew from 29 million in 2000 to a record 44 million in 2004, a huge increase.

# Refused to pay $600 more in taxes, even though Massachusetts law allows citizens two rates to choose from when paying their taxes. Kerry wants to take more Americans' money without giving up more of his.

Kerry on Faith-based Programs

Initially, Kerry said that Bush's creation of the Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives had "the potential to be helpful. But one month later Kerry even claimed credit as the first lawmaker to offer fiath-based initiatives. "George W. may be doing it now, but I was the first person to offer faith-based programs," he told the Boston Globe.

But he changed directions 180 degrees when he began campaigning for president. Bossie writes that by November of 2003, Kerry was bad-mouthing Bush's faith-based initiatives, saying they impinged on the Constitution's division of church and state. He then further confused his stance saying that he supports faith-based initiatives "as long as they don't have a religious aspect," as he told the Associated Press in December 2003.

Kerry on Veterans' Benefits

Though Kerry has accused the Bush administration of withholding veterans' benefits and funding, Bush has increased funding and benefits for veterans and related programs. Bossie notes an Annenberg Center FactCheck report: "Funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25 percent under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut."

Meanwhile, Bossie's account of Kerry's record on the issue shows a senator who votes against veterans:

# Against an amendment that would have increased funding for veterans' medical care by $650 million in 2001.

# Against an amendment that would have reallocated $210 million for veterans' medial benefits, and $10 million for construction of veterans' extended-care facilities.

# Against an amendment offered by Sen. John McCain to require equal access to health care for all veterans in 1996 - Kerry was one of only 18 senators to vote against the measure.

Kerry's Campaign Finance Scandals

Bossie's book contains a wealth of details on Kerry's addiction to money. Money is the name of the game for this senator, however he can get it   whether by marriage, "by hook or by crook," as the old saying goes.

Even if that crook happens to be Bill Clinton's favorite Chinese donor, Johnny Chung, who "visited the Clinton White House a total of 49 times and moved on to become a central figure in that administration's foreign money scandals, eventually pleading guilty to funneling $28,000 in illegal foreign contributions to the campaigns of Bill Clinton and John Kerry."

And sometimes Chung brought a friend in need   as with Hong Kong businesswoman Liu Chao-ying, who U.S. intelligence later discovered to be a lieutenant colonel in the People's Liberation Army and a vice president of a Chinese government-owned aerospace firm.

Liu wanted her company on the New York Stock Exchange, and Bossie details how happy Kerry was to help. And how the two celebrated when Liu tapped her Chinese intelligence-funded bank account to throw Kerry a big fat thank-you fund-raiser at the Beverly Hills Hotel to show her gratitude.

But Bossie s just getting warmed up describing that little transaction. Just as damning was Kerry s relationship with a key figure in the largest banking scandal in history   the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. A Middle Eastern financial institution, BCCI s customers included arms merchants, drug dealers, despots such as (Manuel) Noriega, and intelligence agencies.

CEO Paul, who now sits in a federal prison in Miami, Florida, is also a former chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee   appointed by Kerry   and a friend.

Of Kerry, Paul told Bossie, I don t know if I would vote for him. I knew Kerry well, but I don t think he has the intellect of Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice, and Kerry could change his opinion on a dime.

So when Kerry boldly makes the claim: Let me tell you something, for 35 years I ve been standing up and fighting against those special interests. I m the only United Sates senator currently serving who has run four times ...who s voluntarily run for reelection not with special interest money, not with PAC money, not with soft money...    it s all the more outrageous.

The truth is Kerry is "the Senate's number one recipient of individual campaign contributions from paid lobbyists," taking in more money   almost $640,000   from them in the last 15 years than any other senator in Washington, and more than $6.3 million from lawyers since 1989. His presidential campaign has received nearly $3.5 million, making Kerry, long an opponent of tort reform (though he recently claimed he was now for tort reform), the second-highest recipient of money from trial lawyers of all U.S. senators.

As Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., puts it, Kerry is the "Olympic Gold Medalist when it comes to special interest money."

Kerry on Terrorism

There is, however, one issue on which Kerry has almost never switched his position, one that would be terrifying under a Kerry presidency: He has nearly always taken the side of America's enemies.

Bossie describes how Radio Pyongyang, the official mouthpiece of the North Korean communist dictatorship, broadcasts Kerry's speeches in "glowing terms" and writes, "Pyongyang seems to hope victory for the Democratic candidate on November 2 would lead to a softening in U.S. policy towards the country s nuclear weapons program."

And for all of McCain's defending of Kerry against negative campaign ads, Bossie quotes his words from earlier years about Kerry's pro-communist activity, saying publicly that Kerry's anti-war rhetoric was "the most effective propaganda [North Vietnamese captors] had to use against us ... bombarding us with anti-war quotes." While McCain suffered for six years in the infamous Hanoi Hilton, North Vietnamese guards would taunt him and other prisoners with anti-war rhetoric from Kerry and others, Bossie writes.

Even since 9/11, Kerry s anti-American approach to foreign enemies has not changed. After proposing billions of dollars in cuts to America's intelligence and defense after each of the terrorist attacks against America throughout the '90s, Kerry even proposed a $10 billion cut after 9/11 - $150 million of it just two short months after the attack.

The cuts, writes Bossie, formed Kerry's defense "strategy," according to his campaign. "In all, Kerry has voted to cut, transfer, or otherwise reduce the defense budget over the years at least 38 times   including cuts in many weapons systems that have saved the lives of many U.S. soldiers in military engagements like Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere."

Even Kerry's Democrat colleagues in the Senate, including decorated World War II veteran Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), have blasted him for his proposed cuts. They say that Kerry was ignoring threats by North Korea and terrorism against "American citizens and property," and that he was trying to put "blindfolds over our pilots' eyes," something one can easily picture the hijackers doing on the 9/11 flights. Notes Bossie, even Ted Kennedy voted against some of Kerry's proposed cuts in defense and intelligence.

To add insult to injury, Kerry had the audacity to tell NBC News as recently as January that the terrorist threat against America was "exaggerated." In April 2004 on National Public Radio, he defended a Muslim extremist in Iraq who was responsible for terrorists killing scores of American troops.

In one of his fastest flips on record, it didn t take Kerry but three weeks to violate a pledge he made not to attack President Bush during a time of war. And when the images from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal surfaced, the Kerry campaign s first instinct was to exploit them for profit - urging supporters to send money as a sign of support for Kerry s demand that Rumsfeld resign over the scandal.

Completely unashamed of his anti-American foreign policy sentiments, Kerry never attempts to deny them, but rather freely admits his willingness to hand over control of America s military to other countries and the U.N. Bossie quotes the Harvard Crimson, Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. What Kerry seems less proud to say is that he s an American. Rather, I m an internationalist, he proclaims. I d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.

And that is exactly what we will see under a Kerry Presidency, as Bossie convincingly lays out.

Fact after damning fact, Bossie's expose on Kerry lays his verbal record side by side with his voting record   and the record speaks for itself. This is a candidate who believes he is entitled to the presidency and is willing to do whatever it takes to get it   even if that means sacrificing America itself.

It s a record Kerry must have already known the media would give him a pass on - knowing the facts of his life were just lying there for the taking by any reporter who chose to dig a little.

The bottom line is ... it s up to the national media to hold him accountable, and I don t have a lot of confidence that they re going to do that. ...He s very systematic and calculating...He s someone who tries to usurp and steal republican ideas and claim credit for things he didn t have anything to do with.

The candidate who has to steal his slogans from the Bush campaign because he can't come up with any on his own gets his ideas about what s good for the country from America s enemies, who have lined up for blocks to support Kerry   from Fidel Castro to North Korea s tyrannical dictator to the Communist Party to backstabbing French and German socialists and a Sandinista thug. Americans should be warned; they are alliances Kerry stands ready to virtually hand U.S. sovereignty as President. And Bossie has him on record.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 12:57 AM

"FORT CARSON, Colo., Jan 21 (Reuters) - A jury of six U.S. Army officers began deliberations on Saturday in the court-martial of an Army officer charged with murdering an Iraqi general during an interrogation, using techniques that the prosecutor described as torture."

Wonder how this will turn out.

From here.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 02:05 AM

Troll:

Please furnish a link where it shows that Kerry volunteered. That's one I've never heard.

I did. Pay attention.

But it's refreshing to have you admit that Dubya didn't volunteer. Maybe we're getting somewhere.

As far as "sliming Kerry for the GOOpers," since when is the truth sliming.

I posted three links to show you were full'o'crap in the immediately preceding slimejob you did on Kerry. And that's not counting your previous regurgitation of SBVATT shinola.

... but George Bush did not stand before a Congressional Committee and tell lies about me, my family and my friends...

Ummm, seems we're getting somewhere. But please post the quote (actual, verifiable quote) where Kerry told lies about you, your family and your friends. To be honest, I doubt that Kerry ever did such a thing because amongts other things, he probably doesn't know you from jack. But out with it. What do you allege that Kerry said. Remember, you need to provide a quote because anythign else is just not being accurate.

My take on Kerrys service is that he did it for political gain based on statements to his fellow officers that he would be "the next JFK from Massachusetts".

Which makes you a pretty dumb ass. You know that saying: When you "assume", you make an ass out of you and me (if I believe you). What ever lead you to such an uncharitable and to such an unsupported extreme conclusion from that little snippet? You know, if I used your standards for judging "character", your dishonesty here might be quite sufficient reason for me to assume you're the Devil incarnate.

[ignoring more slime, been trodden into the dust]

He saw that the anti-war movement would be politically powerful and jumped aboard.

Now you're really loopy. Since when has the anti-war movement ever been "politically powerful"? It certainly wasn't at the time.

[ignoring yet more lies; why do you do it?]

As far as his character goes, I'll cite two incidents that told me all I'll ever need to know about John Kerry.

First is the snowboarding incident in Vermont I think it was.

Well, I can see where you get your "talking poi..." -- ummm, sorry, "news". You're a walking tape machine for the Kerry Slime Project.

When you don't even know where the incident occured, hard to say that your evaluation of his character here is based on any reliable facts at all ... and certainly not from any personal knowledge. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

The other thing happened when he married his present wife. He had his previous marriage annulled. So, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church -of which he is a member- his children by his previous marriage are now illegitimate.

Scraping the depths of the barrel here, eh? Say, I'm sure that you berated dear ol' Ronnie Raygun for his affair with Nancy and for dumping his first wife and the mother of his child, eh? Right???

I don't know how anyone else defines lack of character, but to me these two incidents pretty well do the job.

I know how I define "character", and dishonesty and malice are a big no-no in my eyes. Guess where you weigh in. So, you can imagine what I think of your "character evaluation" of Kerry....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 02:13 AM

Guest:

But David Bossie has been keeping up with Kerry for a long time, and his new book ...

Oh, yeah. David Bossie. When he wasn't busy trying to dig up dirt and slime Clinton.... Just Google the name (or read "The Hunting of the President") to find out just who RNC "sleazemaster" Bossie is.....

And why dontcha quit with the cut'n'paste crap? You need to point sumptin' out, blue clickies are your friend.

And NewsMax??? Bought-and-paid-for whores of the Republican party.... Why don't you see if you can find some less obvious RNC propaganda.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 09:29 AM

What Arne said...

And like Joe Offer has said...

If it won't fit on a screen, do a "blue clicky"

Jam etiquette, you know... (We tune because we care....)

And further more, 100% of the folks here won't read some "Tropic of Cancer" length cau 'n paste... Yer better off trying to make your points in yer own words... With link...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 10:02 AM

Questions for the expert on whores Arne:

>And NewsMax??? Bought-and-paid-for whores of the Republican party.

How much? who pays them? How?

Who is George Soros? Who does he support?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 10:06 AM

As per the Washington Post:
"Newsmax doesn't have the greatest reliability, but when it reports on previous public statements it usually quotes accurately."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/11/23/BL2005112300460.html

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 10:25 AM

Guest--

Get a handle--or stop wasting our time and bandwidth.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Hassan
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 10:40 AM

48% of the US population, including The New York Times, and Michael Moore, the Hollywood elite, Moveon, and Sorros, and all the rest of the Jihad-bait are no better than a bunch of drunks cheering a burning car.

And you'll find people like this in Iraq too. So does that mean we abandon them? Not me. I'd never give the terrorist the satisfaction of seeing the sober Americans conceding an issue to the slobbering Americans. Look at the great seal of The United States. The eagle has an olive branch in the left talon (which means we'll negotiate), but arrows in the right that means we won't be intimidated.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: number 6
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 10:45 AM

"Michael Moore"

You are correct on that guy.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 11:32 AM

Yassa Boss.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 11:47 AM

Hassan--


Thanks so much for your scientifically proven survey of "48% of the US population".

What are you smoking?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 11:59 AM

Ron Davies - 21 Jan 06 - 05:47 PM

"Most of the men Bush took instruction with in learning to be a pilot were going to Vietnam."

The above statement by Ron is a BOBERT FACT - It has absolutely no basis, like the propaganda campaign that never was this is a figment of Ron's imagination, but it can be easily debunked.

Ron has been challenged on this on a number of previous occasions when he has made this claim, with the result he has not once come up with any detail to back it up. He refers to the "teasing" that Lt. G.W. Bush got about a request relating to a scheme called "Palace Guard". Ron did those reporting this also tease Fred Buckley? The stage of training he was in at the time was at an Operational Training Unit where he and his fellow students were learning how to 'fight' their aircraft - Delta Dagger F-102A's. Now all his fellow students in this unit would be learning the ins and outs of flying and fighting this one type of aircraft, OTU's do not fly mixed types it is not an efficient use of equipment or manpower. His Training officer turned down the request of both Bush and Buckley for three reasons, the first was lack of operational experience (500hrs minimum after having been passed as operational were required), the second was that the aircraft type he was training on were being withdrawn from theatre, finally the third reason was that the "Palace Guard" scheme was being cut back.

Previously Ron has made the statement about the vast majority of pilots going to Vietnam. As I have previously pointed out to Ron from figures available from the Pentagon, at the height of the war in Vietnam, the maximum number of US Troops of all services and branches of those services was about 550,000 in 1968. The official strength of the US Armed Forces at the time was 3.5 million, so even every single person serving in Vietnam would not make any "vast majority" - True Ron?? Now let's take a look at the half million odd that were there. The "vast majority" to use Ron's terms would be infantry and logistics units, as there was no question of disputed air superiority over the area you can accomplish quite a lot with very few aircraft. In 1968, Ron, the "vast majority" of US Air Force, Army, Marine, ANG and US Navy pilots were servicing the requirements of a little thing called the "Cold War", i.e. keeping an eye on Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 12:06 PM

So much for your answer on Soros

On Black Wednesday (September 16, 1992), Soros became instantly famous when he sold short more than $10bn worth of pounds, profiting from the Bank of England's stubborn reluctance to either raise its interest rates to levels comparable to those of other European Exchange Rate Mechanism countries or to float its currency. Finally, the Bank of England was forced to withdraw the currency out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and to devalue the pound sterling, and Soros earned an estimated US$ 1.1 billion in the process. He was dubbed "the man who broke the Bank of England.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 12:26 PM

"Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say", New York Times, November 20, 1998, By Barbara Crossette
"AFTER THE ATTACKS: THE OVERVIEW; U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production Of Chemical Weapons in Sudan", New York Times, August 25, 1998, by Steven Lee Myers
"Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort", New York Times, February 8, 2000, By Barbara Crossette
"Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration", New York Times, February 1, 2000, By Steven Lee Myers
"FLIGHT TESTS SHOW IRAQ HAS RESUMED A MISSILE PROGRAM", New York Times, July 1, 2000, By Steven Lee Myers
"C.I.A. Orders Inquiry Into Charges of Chemical Arms Cover-Up", New York Times, November 2, 1996, by Philip Shenon
"Czechs Say They Warned U.S. Of Chemical Weapons in Gulf", New York Times, October 19, 1996, By Philip Shenon
"C.I.A. REPORT SAYS IT FAILED TO SHARE DATA ON IRAQ ARMS", New York Times, April 10, 1997, By Philip Shenon
"U.N. Reveals New Evidence Of Gas From 2d Iraqi Depot", New York Times, July 30, 1997, By Philip Shenon
"Expert Panel Says Pentagon Ignored Evidence of Poison Gas", New York Times, October 31, 1997, By Philip Shenon
"Clinton Says Iraq's Balking Over Weapons Will Backfire", New York Times, November 3, 1998, By Philip Shenon

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 02:49 PM

Guest:

Questions for the expert on whores Arne:

>And NewsMax??? Bought-and-paid-for whores of the Republican party.

How much? who pays them? How?

Richard Mellon Scaife. The money behind the Arkansas Project, the hit-job on Kerry, and various other Republican "slime" campaigns. Big ERW Republican operative, but willing to do the dirty work for any of the Republican thug brigade.

More on WorldNetDaily and NewsMax (as well as other such "independent" organisations) here.

Glad you asked.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 02:51 PM

Guest:

As per the Washington Post:
"Newsmax doesn't have the greatest reliability, but when it reports on previous public statements it usually quotes accurately."

Wow. Ever heard the phrase "damning with faint praise"????

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 03:10 PM

Guest:

[Arne]: "More on WorldNetDaily and NewsMax (as well as other such "independent" organisations) here."

Sorry. Wrong link (but also good info). But try this one.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Troll
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 04:29 PM

Kerry volunteered.

This form the John Forbes Kerry Timeline.
Kerry is interviewed in a New York Times article titled "An Angry War Veteran," in which he admits to the reporter that he enlisted in the Swift Boats to avoid the war in Vietnam, since the boats were only used for patrol duty:

      "That first trip to Vietnam piqued his curiosity, 'I wanted to go back and see for myself what was going on, but I didn't really want to get involved in the war.' So late in 1968 he volunteered for an assignment on "swift boats" - the short, fast aluminum craft that were then used for patrol duty off the coast of Vietnam.

"Two weeks before he arrived in Vietnam as a swift boat commander, he said, 'they changed the policy on the use of the boats - decided to send them up the river to prove to the Vietcong that they didn't own the waters.'

He signed up for the Naval RESERVE (not the US Navy) after the draft deferment he applied for was denied.

I don't expect you to believe this since it is not from your usual source of information, John Kerry.com.

Rest assured that it is accurate.

If you consider John Kerry to be a man of honor, integrity and character, then I am happy not to be ranked with him in your estimation.

The snowboard incident took place inn Sun Vally, Idaho, Google John Kerry snowboard and read all about it. Also check out Dave Barrys encounter with Kerry in a local rental shop.

Ronald Reagan did not bastardize his child when he divorced his first wifr and what in the world does that have to do with John Kerry?

As for his early political aspirations, there have been numerous interviews with former classmates that address this very subject. The JFK remark was simply one among many. If you like, I'll find some for you and post them. I'll just give links. You've indicated that you don't like cut and paste.

In closing, I notice that you uaed the line, "he was in combat. He didn't rum." in a post to me.

Thank you. I posted that line on 21-Jan-2006. I was refering to Kerry.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 01:56 AM

Hey half answer man:

Who is George Soros? Who does he support?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 02:24 AM

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1167574/000095014402002242/g74688a1sb-2a.txt

                                        BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF       BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF
                                              COMMON STOCK                   COMMON STOCK
                                             BEFORE OFFERING               AFTER OFFERING(1)
                                        -----------------------       -----------------------
NAME                                     SHARES(2)         %             SHARES          %
----                                     -----------      ------       -----------      ------

Christopher Ruddy(3)...................   1,584,047       32.6%         1,584,047       27.1%
Lord William Rees-Mogg(4)..............      30,333          *             30,333          *
James Dale Davidson(5).................      93,333         2.1%            93,333         1.7%
Admiral Thomas Moorer(6)...............      43,333          *             43,333          *
Arnaud de Borchgrave(6)................      43,333          *             43,333          *
Michael Ruff(7)........................   1,092,332       25.0%         1,092,332       20.3%
R. M. Scaife...........................    311,334         7.2%          311,334         5.8%
All Directors and Executive Officers as
a Group (eight persons)..............   3,266,380       64.0%         3,266,380       53.5%

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 02:25 PM

Guest:

Yep. Thanks. There's Chris Ruddy up there too; another foamer in the Arkansas Project slimefest. You know, the one hawking videos (sold by Jerry Falwell on his telly show) "proving" that Clinton had some 50 people murdered.

But Scaife is the moneybags; he's been using his inherited multimillions for years to push the far right conservative movement, and that's who owns the Republican party now. Newsmax isn't a profitable company; it's RW subsidized "Slime Of The Day" and has been since the get-go. Other projects were the "American Spectator" and the so-called "Accuracy In Media".

Here's more and more and more on him.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 02:33 PM

Can Arne's hardwired mind answer the question:

Who is George Soros and whgo does he support?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 05:05 PM

Guest:

Can Arne's hardwired mind answer the question:

Who is George Soros and whgo does he support?

Ahhhh, an attempt at the ol' tu quoque, eh? Funny how the Republican sycophants are reduced to the ol' "The Dummycrats are just as crooked as we are....." whine. Of course, that isn't true no matter how much the RNC "spin machine" (including the likes of Newsmax and WND) keeps trying to spin it. They're also busy yelling at the top of their lungs, "but CLINTON did it!!!!" (once again, untruthfully), but it does bring a smile to my lips when the Republicans hold up that cesspool of immorality and All That Is Wrong With 'Merkuh Which Needs To Be Fixed Right Now ... their hated KKKlinton ... as the new standard for what is Right And Good. It's really touching in a way in its pathetic whining and hypocrisy.

But as to who George Soros is: He's a person that cares a hell of a lot more about what this country is really about than you do. He's not sinking money into some long-range plot to slime his political opponets, he wants people to see the malignant corruption that's going on and to be able to see that there is a much better way we can run this country. Feel free to disagree, but then you'd better be ready with documentation if you want anyoen to take you seriously.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 07:19 PM

How dare me to ask the same question again. Now I am scared shitless. Should I get my big brother to protect me from your forthcoming vicious attack?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 07:52 PM

Guest:

Now I am scared shitless. Should I get my big brother to protect me from your forthcoming vicious attack?

Hmmmmm. IC you're of the opinion that failure "to take you seriously" constitutes some kind of threat. Must be a miserable life to be so inconsequential, eh? I'm sorry for you ... well, maybe no, seeing the company you keep.

But at least we now know a bit more about Chris Ruddy, Joseph Farah, and Richard Mellon Scaife, don't we? Could have saved some bandwidth if you'd just picked up a copy of "The Hunting of the President".....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 08:25 PM

What are your criteria for documentation?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 08:27 PM

"What are your criteria for documentation?"

The same might be asked of you, GUEST.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: .Woody
Date: 24 Jan 06 - 11:54 AM

"The Hunting of the President" = journalistic opinion by left wing pundits, totaly devoid of facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: .Woody
Date: 24 Jan 06 - 01:04 PM

"For his brave and determined pursuit of the truth in the case of the death of White House Counsel Vince Foster; for his investigative efforts in the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown; for his leadership and risk-taking in the founding of NewsMax Media in 1998; and for his inspired devotion to conservative principles. Chris Ruddy endures many attacks from the left (e.g.: the hatchet job during his appearance on the TV program "60-Minutes") as he fights relentlessly for the country he loves, America."
http://www.youdontsay.org/Gff-rudy.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 06 - 01:08 PM

LOL! How mellerdramatic!! Does he find Commies under every bed and threats to our way-of-life in every coffee house?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 24 Jan 06 - 01:37 PM

Guest:

What are your criteria for documentation?

You might click through the links I gave you. Or look at the footnotes in "The Hunting Of The President".

Woody:

"The Hunting of the President" = journalistic opinion by left wing pundits, totaly devoid of facts.

Nonsense, of course. Have you even read it? Lots of references there, should you be so inclined as to actually educate yourself.

I notice you put "Chris Ruddy" and "hatchet job" in the same paragraph. But it needs some formatting.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 06 - 07:45 PM

What are your criteria for documentation?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 24 Jan 06 - 08:05 PM

Guest:

What are your criteria for documentation?

Varies, but generally cites to MSM newspaper articles is a reasonable one. I'd say that multiple sources helps establish validity, and I find that reading a compendium of different sources and slants amd trying to find the "LGM" or the "middle", or synthesizing a coherent picture from various accounts, is a useful thing to do. Well-sourced and/or referenced documenation is generally more believable, but maybe that's my academic background showing through....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 06 - 10:19 PM

We all know MSM sucks goat balls.

DeLay's most vocal accusers include a cluster of self-styled "ethics watchdog" groups, among which Common Cause, Democracy 21, Public Citizen, Public Campaign and The Campaign Legal Center have special prominence.(9)

All of the above-named groups have received large contributions from Soros' Open Society Institute. Common Cause has received $650,000; Democracy 21, $300,000; Public Citizen, $275,000; and Public Campaign, $1.3 million.(10) The Campaign Legal Center acknowledges on its Web site that it too has received "generous financial support" from the Open Society Institute as well as from other leftwing foundations.

In March of this year, the activist group Campaign for America's Future (CAF) joined forces with the Public Campaign Action Fund to launch a $75,000 TV ad campaign in targeted Congressional districts, portraying Tom DeLay as corrupt.

Both partners in the anti-DeLay ad campaign have received heavy funding from Soros. CAF — a subsidiary of the Institute for America's Future (IAF) — has received more than $300,000 from Soros' Open Society Institute. The other partner, the Public Campaign Action Fund, is an affiliate of the afore-mentioned Public Campaign, which has received $1.3 million from Soros.(11)

The propaganda din from Soros-sponsored "watchdog" groups helps feed the ever-hungry media with anti-Delay stories.

The Soros Book Machine

The Soros Noise Machine also struck through an investigative book called The Hammer: God, Money and the Rise of the Republican Congress, written by two Texas journalists named Lou Dubose and Jan Reid.

Co-author Dubose appears as a commentator in the still-unfinished documentary film The Big Buy, in which leftwing filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck chronicle Ronnie Earle's pursuit of Tom DeLay.(12)

Dubose's and Reid's book The Hammer was published in October 2004 by Public Affairs Books of New York, an imprint of The Perseus Books Group, which in turn is owned by Perseus LLC, a merchant bank and fund management company, with offices in New York and Washington, DC.

The chairman and CEO of Perseus LLC, Frank H. Pearl, also happens to be the founder and chairman of Perseus Books. More to the point, Mr. Pearl and Mr. Soros are business partners, whose collaborations include such ventures as Perseus-Soros Management LLC, Perseus-Soros Partners LLC and Perseus-Soros Biopharmaceutical Fund.

Given the close partnership between these two men, we should hardly be surprised to learn that Mr. Pearl's Public Affairs book imprint — the same imprint which published the anti-DeLay title The Hammer — also happens to have published many books by George Soros, including The Crisis of Global Capitalism, Underwriting Democracy, George Soros on Globalization, The Bubble of American Supremacy and the forthcoming George Soros on Freedom.

Transparency

The money trail strongly suggests that George Soros is implicated in the plot to frame Tom DeLay.

NOTES

1. Marc Morano, "Soros Conviction for Insider Trading Upheld in French Court," Cybercast News Service (CNSnews.com), March 24, 2005

2. Lou Dubose, "Senatorial Courtesy: Will John McCain Let Republican Perps Walk?", The Texas Observer, August 26, 2005

3. Sharon Kehnemul Liss, "DeLay Blasts `Leftwing Syndicate'", FoxNews.com, April 20, 2005; Richard Poe, "The Soros Noise Machine," MoonbatCentral.com, March 20, 2005

4. Andrew C. McCarthy, "Ronnie Earle Should Not be a Prosecutor", National Review Online, October 6, 2005; Byron York, "Dollars for Dismissals," National Review Online, June 20, 2005; Peter Flaherty, "Texas Smear Machine Targets DeLay", Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com), September 23, 2004

5. "Hammer Time: Ronnie Earle Finally Gets His Man," The Wall Street Journal Online (OpinionJournal.com), September 29, 2005

6. S.C. Gwynne,"The Daughter Also Rises",Texas Monthly, August 2004, p 112; David Horowitz and Richard Poe, "The Shadow Party" (Parts I-III), FrontPageMagazine.com, October 6, 7, 11, 2004

7. Cliff Kincaid, "George Soros and the Press", Accuracy in Media (AIM.org), April 13, 2005; Ed Morrisey, "Inside McCain's Reform Institute", Captain's Quarters, March 9, 2005; Richard Poe, "John McCain Gets Soros Cash," MoonbatCentral.com, March 10, 2005

8. Richard Poe, "Pewgate: Battle of the Blogosphere," FrontPageMagazine.com, March 25, 2005

9. Alexander Bolton, "Watchdogs in Soros's Pocket: GOP," The Hill (CNSnews.com), March 23, 2005; Michelle Malkin, "Wobbly Watchdogs," michellemalkin.com, June 22, 2004

10. "The Soros Agenda: Free Speech for Billionaires Only," The Wall Street Journal Online (OpinionJournal.com), January 3, 2004

11. Anne E. Kornblut, "DeLay's Critics are Numerous, So He Sees a Conspiracy," San Francisco Chronicle, October 2, 2005

12. Byron York, "Coming Soon, the Ronnie Earle Movie," National Review Online, September 29, 2005; Byron York, "The Movie: Ronnie Earle on a Mission from God," National Review Online, September 30, 2005

http://freerepublic.info/focus/f-news/1519089/posts

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 06:02 PM

Guest:

Blue clickies are your friend. I'd rather hear your thoughts here, rather than have you simply parrot stuff from FreeperLand. Shows you're thinking about what you said, you know.....

We all know MSM sucks goat balls.

There's a "lot of stuff 'we' know that just ain't so." But the MSM gets the vast majority of the facts right. There's cases where they're perhaps a bit too willing to spout the latest RNC "talking points" unrebutted, or perhaps they've gotten just too lazy. But FWIW, Deborah Howell did finally 'admit' that her facts were wrong about Abramoff giving to Democrats ('facts' that were curiously identical to what the Republicans have been pushing through the Mighty Wurlitzer like it's the only song they know for weeks now) ... and it did take a bunch of screaming by liberals to get her to do even that.... As for the commentatirs and columnists, there's where you start to get a bit farther afield from the facts ... and generally to the benefit of the 'story' the RNC is trying to push. But, if you read enough actual articles, you can get a pretty good idea of what's going on.

Perhaps you have your favourite stories of MSM incompetence. If so, out with 'em and we'll look to see if your charges have any truth to them.... I'll be waiting here.

DeLay's most vocal accusers include a cluster of self-styled "ethics watchdog" groups, among which Common Cause, Democracy 21, Public Citizen, Public Campaign and The Campaign Legal Center have special prominence.(9)

You sure picked a noteworthy horse to hitch your cart to there. DeLay's "most vocal accusers" would surely include Texas DA Earle, the grand jury that indicted him, the House Ethics committee that cited him for multiple ethics violations, and last but not least, the people of his supposedly rock-ribbed bastion of Republicanism, Sugarland, who would favour "any Democrat" over DeLay 49% to 36%. In fact, it's a pretty rocky road for that paragon of Republican values, who's such a good buddy with Jack Abramoff, and an exemplar of Republican family values, so much so that he offered lobbyist the chance to pour champagne all over his daughter in a hot tub. Yesindeedy, you got a good one there. I wouldn't fault you for following behind DeLay and sniffing his posterior, all the way through the gates of Leavenworth.....

All of the above-named groups have received large contributions from Soros' Open Society Institute. Common Cause has received $650,000; Democracy 21, $300,000; Public Citizen, $275,000; and Public Campaign, $1.3 million.(10) The Campaign Legal Center acknowledges on its Web site that it too has received "generous financial support" from the Open Society Institute as well as from other leftwing foundations.

Imagine that. Some one has the balls to say "Enough's enough" with all this Republican cronyism, corruption, and graft, and has the measn to try and do something about it.

In March of this year, the activist group Campaign for America's Future (CAF) joined forces with the Public Campaign Action Fund to launch a $75,000 TV ad campaign in targeted Congressional districts, portraying Tom DeLay as corrupt.

Easy work, I'd say. But you may be right; DeLay's goose may be burnt to a crisp already, and it might be smart to reallocate the money to some of the many other corrupt Republicans. Thanks for the tip.

Both partners in the anti-DeLay ad campaign have received heavy funding from Soros. CAF � a subsidiary of the Institute for America's Future (IAF) � has received more than $300,000 from Soros' Open Society Institute. The other partner, the Public Campaign Action Fund, is an affiliate of the afore-mentioned Public Campaign, which has received $1.3 million from Soros.(11)

The propaganda din from Soros-sponsored "watchdog" groups helps feed the ever-hungry media with anti-Delay stories.

Ummm, the person responsible for all the Delay "stories" is DeLay.

The Soros Book Machine

The Soros Noise Machine also struck through an investigative book called The Hammer: God, Money and the Rise of the Republican Congress, written by two Texas journalists named Lou Dubose and Jan Reid.

And good journalists too. Unlike the crap that Regnery Press puts out.

Co-author Dubose appears as a commentator in the still-unfinished documentary film The Big Buy, in which leftwing filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck chronicle Ronnie Earle's pursuit of Tom DeLay.(12)

Did you have a point? Oh, IC. You're disappointed that there's no conservatives or Republicans who have come forth to denounce DeLay and his sleaze. Imagine that. But then again, they don't call him "The Hammer" for nothing, and if he can't buy your support (like he did with that one Republican congressman who was balking but finally "saw the light"), he'll put you on the s***-list and you'll never see the inside of a committee room again (or any pork for your district, or they'll run someone against you next primary and dump tons of funding on them). Unfortunately for DeLay, he may have to adjust his 'bribery' tactics in the future towards keeping his fat a$$ from belonging to some really nasty con.....

OBTW, what did FreeperVille have to say about the "Dukester" ... before he pleaded guilty, that is?

Dubose's and Reid's book The Hammer was published in October 2004 by Public Affairs Books of New York, an imprint of The Perseus Books Group, which in turn is owned by Perseus LLC, a merchant bank and fund management company, with offices in New York and Washington, DC.

The chairman and CEO of Perseus LLC, Frank H. Pearl, also happens to be the founder and chairman of Perseus Books. More to the point, Mr. Pearl and Mr. Soros are business partners, whose collaborations include such ventures as Perseus-Soros Management LLC, Perseus-Soros Partners LLC and Perseus-Soros Biopharmaceutical Fund.

Given the close partnership between these two men, we should hardly be surprised to learn that Mr. Pearl's Public Affairs book imprint � the same imprint which published the anti-DeLay title The Hammer � also happens to have published many books by George Soros, including The Crisis of Global Capitalism, Underwriting Democracy, George Soros on Globalization, The Bubble of American Supremacy and the forthcoming George Soros on Freedom.

Did you have a point?

Transparency

The money trail strongly suggests that George Soros is implicated in the plot to frame Tom DeLay.

Gonna say it's a frame job when they frog-march him off? Say, did you hear that it was Abramoff who was reportedly shopping pictures around of Abramoff and Dubya? You Republicans just don't know how to pick your friends, eh? But I imagine that story must, considering that Abramoff has copped a plea, be making DeLay's sphincter pucker like a old two-bit whore's desperate lips....

NOTES

1. Marc Morano, "Soros Conviction for Insider Trading Upheld in French Court," Cybercast News Service (CNSnews.com), March 24, 2005

Oh, yeah. "Cybercast News Service". Another in the line of "Jeff Gannon/Guckert" faux "news outlets" pretending to be something other than cheap shills for the Republicans.

2. Lou Dubose, "Senatorial Courtesy: Will John McCain Let Republican Perps Walk?", The Texas Observer, August 26, 2005

3. Sharon Kehnemul Liss, "DeLay Blasts `Leftwing Syndicate'", FoxNews.com, April 20, 2005; Richard Poe, "The Soros Noise Machine," MoonbatCentral.com, March 20, 2005

ROFLMAO. Faux Snooze. Right. The ones that put on the liar Hannity, and Mr. "Loofah"/"I won a Peabody"/"Shut up, shut up, shut UP!" O'Reilly. The name for the other site speaks for itself.

4. Andrew C. McCarthy, "Ronnie Earle Should Not be a Prosecutor", National Review Online, October 6, 2005; Byron York, "Dollars for Dismissals," National Review Online, June 20, 2005; Peter Flaherty, "Texas Smear Machine Targets DeLay", Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com), September 23, 2004

The National Review Online. Opinion columns there. Say, when I said references, I didn't mean circular ones. At some point, the references should point to something other than opinion pieces; you know, like a real, straight-up, news article?

5. "Hammer Time: Ronnie Earle Finally Gets His Man," The Wall Street Journal Online (OpinionJournal.com), September 29, 2005

The WSJ is interesting. The actual news there is pretty straight-forward, and on the up-and-up. The editorial pages is filled with the fulminations of RW hacks. I will give them credit; they do keep the two separated. But don't make the mistake of using the WSJ's news credibility to prop up its editorial staff.

6. S.C. Gwynne,"The Daughter Also Rises",Texas Monthly, August 2004, p 112; David Horowitz and Richard Poe, "The Shadow Party" (Parts I-III), FrontPageMagazine.com, October 6, 7, 11, 2004

7. Cliff Kincaid, "George Soros and the Press", Accuracy in Media (AIM.org), April 13, 2005; Ed Morrisey, "Inside McCain's Reform Institute", Captain's Quarters, March 9, 2005; Richard Poe, "John McCain Gets Soros Cash," MoonbatCentral.com, March 10, 2005

"Captain's Quarters", eh? Cap'n Ed claimed he was for robust discussion, but when I got under the skin of his sycophantic hangers-on over there, he banned me. Since then it's tunred into pretty much a circle-jerk of the latest in Republican talking points. As Ed's "fame" has grown, he's sold his soul to Satan. As long as he spouts the party line, they invite him to all kinds of ERW thingies, like their "Justice Sunday" screechfest with all the Dominionists singing Hallelujah at the thought of a Republican/Jesus alliance to herald the new millenium....

8. Richard Poe, "Pewgate: Battle of the Blogosphere," FrontPageMagazine.com, March 25, 2005

Another RW screech machine.

9. Alexander Bolton, "Watchdogs in Soros's Pocket: GOP," The Hill (CNSnews.com), March 23, 2005; Michelle Malkin, "Wobbly Watchdogs," michellemalkin.com, June 22, 2004

Oh. Ms. Malkin. The "Kerry shot himself on purpose" wingnut. She's never apologised for that hackery. After all, it's her duty to sling mud for the party, why apologise?

10. "The Soros Agenda: Free Speech for Billionaires Only," The Wall Street Journal Online (OpinionJournal.com), January 3, 2004

11. Anne E. Kornblut, "DeLay's Critics are Numerous, So He Sees a Conspiracy," San Francisco Chronicle, October 2, 2005

Ahhh, yes. A voice of sanity here. Reporting the news. Everyone (or at least most rational people) thinks that Delay's a crook and a slimeball, so, according to DeLay, they're crazy and he's the Virgin Mary.

12. Byron York, "Coming Soon, the Ronnie Earle Movie," National Review Online, September 29, 2005; Byron York, "The Movie: Ronnie Earle on a Mission from God," National Review Online, September 30, 2005

Strange that all your news seems to come only from certified Republican-Approved(TM) sources. No wonder you don't seem to know what's going on.

http://freerepublic.info/focus/f-news/1519089/posts

Yep, a Freeper reader (if not participant). You know, over there, they censor anyone who pokes holes in their "arguments". Here, unfortunately for you, you'll have to face some opposition ... and a dose of reality. Hey, I'll give you a chance: You can dump DeLay right now, and I won't hold it against you when he goes up the river. OK? Same deal for Bob Ney, Bill Frist, Ken Blackwell, Tom Noe, Richard Pombo, Conrad Burns, etc....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 06 - 01:08 PM

Why are Liberals so nasty, sarcastic and hostile?

All I have to do is mention Soros and they go into hyperdrive attack mode.

They assume the position of being better and smarter and licensed to be assholes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 26 Jan 06 - 01:56 PM

Guest:

Why are Liberals so nasty, sarcastic and hostile?

ROFLMAO. From a person who touts (and cites) the work of some of the scummiest crew around, from Chris Ruddy, who has accused Bill Clinton for multiple murders, to the Freepers with their "Hitlery" and "KKKlinton" stuff.....

All I have to do is mention Soros and they go into hyperdrive attack mode.

In case you didn't notice, I didn't spend much time on Soros other that to say I believe he's a man of principles and doing a valuable public service.

They assume the position of being better and smarter and licensed to be assholes.

Nah. Just trying to refute some of the RW "talking points" you've been fed by the Mighty Wurlitzer of the Republican party, which is still busily trying to defend what is going to go down in the annals of history as perhaps the worst maladministration ever....

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." -- Commander Codpice, trying to brazen it out once more but as usual completely clueless.

"Bring it on." -- a remark just as stoopid, but one which arguably has had the sad effect of encouraging the killing of many fine young American soldiers.

That's barely skimming the surface of his astounding and horrifying incompetence.

* * * *

Look, "Guest", if you're feeling uncomfortable, no one is making you stay here. Feel free to bow out at any time; you might find things a bit more "genteel" over at Freeper.com....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 06 - 01:22 PM

I can put up with your Gestapo tactics.

Liberals think that if they are nasty enough people won't challenge them for fear of being attacked.

Hey man, laugh at facts and spew all the rhetoric you want. You have a reputation to keep up.

$oros is an asshole. The moneybags behind moveon.org amongst others.

"Soros unashamedly admits to making money by exploiting market anomalies, even if this meant impoverishing nations. Soros then does an about turn and espouses the need for social values, in order to curb greed, and bring sanity to the markets."
M.G.Pawley - South Africa

"He [Soros] is portrayed as someone who can be offended if a leader of a country where he is involved philanthropically is insufficiently subservient; who will consort with an autocratic regime in order to see his programs carried out; and who is intent on imposing his influence generally on an ever-expanding area of the world." (Connie Bruck, The World According to Soros, The New Yorker, 23Jan95, p. 57)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 27 Jan 06 - 03:43 PM

Guest:

You forgot to add the "critics" that were accusing Soros of anti-Semitism. ;-)

Here's some vile stuff from one of your favourite sources. Nice little rant accusing a Jew of being anti-Semitic, all the while sliming him with the standard stereotypes that the less subtle far right slings at Jews....

Hmmmmm, you seem to be engaging in the same stuff yourself, too. Fancy that.

So do you also think that Soros was "anti-Semitic" because his father changed their name, and because he supposedly (at the august and wise-beyond-his-years age of 14 years old, no less) "hid" his Jewishness and became "Aryan" in Nazi-occupied Europe? Is he some kind of "traitor to his people" in having survived Nazi Europe?

This RW slime is what passes for "fact" to the likes of you. So you'll pardon me if I don't bother reading this shite on a regular basis, much less cite it as some kind of Truth Down From The Mount.

And with that, I'm going to leave your attacks on Soros to stand for themselves as what they are. Now, let's get back to the subject here, which is Dubya and his horrific incompetence and his craven dishonesty, OK?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Parker, Bowler, and Fitch
Date: 27 Jan 06 - 03:59 PM

"We all know MSM sucks goat balls."

Actually, scientific research has discredited this out-of-date theory some time ago. More than 15,000 reputed cases of goat ball sucking have been revealed as having all been totally imaginary. In the past 5 years of extensive investigation of what has become a major ubran myth, "Not one single credible case of anyone sucking a goat's balls has emerged," according to Robert Watts, head of the research team at UCLA, "and there are reasons for this. Clear and obvious reasons. Number one: only male goats have balls. Number two: male goats, known commonly as 'billy goats', stink horribly. No one would want to get that close to one. Number three: they are very aggressive, and do not allow anyone to simply walk up to them and suck their balls. Number four: No sane human being is stupid enough to even attempt to suck a billy goat's balls. Number five: No insane human, assuming there is anyone quite that insane, could possibly succeed in persuading a billy goat to allow him to suck its balls. End of story."

Please retract your statement that MSM sucks goats balls immediately or we will take legal action.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 06 - 05:16 PM

MSM has never admitted or been convicted of sucking got balls. However it has never been disproven. MSM has been desensitized to bad smells such asbullshit as Dan Rather can confirm.

Therefore it is entirely possible that MSM could suck goat balls and not be aware of the smell.

It is highly likely that MSM is confusing goat balls with lollypops.

Now what "same stuff" am I engaging in? I have not accused Soros of being anti-semetic or sterotypical of anything. That is your charge.

His did change his name from György Schwartz to George Soros for some reason.

I am saying that Liberals think they have a license to use vicious tactics because they think they are being attacked by the right. In doing so they discredit themselves.

Words like frog marching are associated with the Nazis and then thay accuse GWB of being a Nazi. They take childish delight in altering their enemy's faces to make them look like monkeys for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jan 06 - 06:53 PM

Well, his grand=daddy did business wid 'um and the Republican Party welcomed them to America afetr WW II with open arms...

Google Hertigae Council for details...

I'm not as patient as Arne and won't do the heavy lifting for ye...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 06 - 08:24 PM

Who's grand daddy did what with whom?

Who did the Republican party welcome with open arms?

Are you dropping your requirement that nothing that happened during previous administrations can be entered as evidence?

Who did your grand daddy do business with and what did he do?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jan 06 - 08:37 PM

Ahhhhh, the thing about threads is that ya' kinda have to, ahhh, read 'um... Have you been following the thread, especially the post just before mine (major clue here) then you wouldn't have to ask the first 2 questions...

Qusttion 3: You obviously have me confused with someone else... No one get a free ride...

Question 4: Both blue collar working men... One a train engineer muscling bax cars around the industarial areas of Detroit. The other, a stone and brick layer from Trenton, New Jersey... Don't remmenber either of them talking about having big business deals with Nazis but, hey... Maybe they worked long and hard doing the dirty work to cover up their lucrative deals.... Nah, don't think so...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 27 Jan 06 - 10:40 PM

Guest:

Now what "same stuff" am I engaging in? I have not accused Soros of being anti-semetic or sterotypical of anything. That is your charge.

His did change his name from Gy�rgy Schwartz to George Soros for some reason.

As they say in legal circles, "res ipsa loquitur".

Even the FrontPageMagazine screed didn't say that he did it. Why bring it up unless you are implying or insinuating some motive to that. If so, out with it. Oherwise, just admit you're doing the ol' "I'm not saying that Soros sucks goat balls but...." type of shite.

I am saying that Liberals think they have a license to use vicious tactics because they think they are being attacked by the right.

And I'm saying, with considerably more evidence, that you're full'o'shite. The RW has had personal attack down to a fine art for decades now (not counting the McCarthy period). They've built an entire industry around it (talk radio). The liberals are late to the party if they've even bothered to come at all. I think the liberals should take off the kid gloves, and start hammering the RW slimebuckets for the piece'o'scat they are. You know, like actually saying out loud that Dubya's a two-faced liar when he's repeatedly lied his freakin' face off (the lies about surveillances being done with warrants back in 2004 is just the latest in this long string of bullshite he and the Republicans have been spewing).

Words like frog marching are associated with the Nazis....

Nonsense.

They take childish delight in altering their enemy's faces to make them look like monkeys for example.

From the side of "KKKlinton" and "Hitlery" epithets??? I suspect a bit of projection here. But just for kicks, let's see some of this alleged "alter[ation]" (and I bet I can match you 3 to 1 with Clinton and Kerry pictures, FWIW).

Who's grand daddy did what with whom?

Prescott Bush was doing bidness with the Nazis. Google is your friend. And if you'd get your nose out of Freeper.com and NewsMax, you might learn a few other things too.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Nobless Oblige
Date: 27 Jan 06 - 11:55 PM

Look, the truth of the matter is that all general categories of people (with some rare individual exceptions) say nasty, sarcastic, unfair things to their opponents in political discussions, and engage in character assassination. They all use vicious tactics. Why? Because they hold the other side in contempt, that's why. You do it. Liberals do it. Conservatives do it. Leftists do it. Rightwingers do it. Fundamentalists do it. Atheists do it.

So what's the big shock? Why the outrage? Live with it, Guest. Live with it, opponents of Guest. That is life in the political debate world. The only reason it bothers you when the other side does it is: you don't agree with them! If you did agree with them, you'd be delighted by every nasty below-the-belt jab they delivered, as long as it suited your personal style. (some people's style is gross and rude, other people favor a more subtle style of character assassination).

Don't pretend this holier-than-thou nonsense. Unscrupulous behaviour only bothers you when it is practiced by your political opponents! You love it when it's practiced by your political allies.

And the reason that your opponents miss your important points and don't answer your vital questions is simple: they only read what you have to say so they can find something wrong with it. They ignore it, other than that. And that's what you do too!

So like I said...live with it. You all lack real respect for each other. You all are patently prejudiced. You all lack true objectivity and impartiality. You all foam at the mouth in your own particular manner about your own particular obsessions...and the world goes on turning regardless. It's really damned silly, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 06 - 12:29 PM

Mr Arne:

You sure read a lot into what I post. You imagination is working overtime. I don't even know what Freeper is. I have been to Newsmax but I hesitate to quote anything from there because it makes the Liberal weenies flip their lid in anguish.

I am merely wondering why Soros changed his name from a Jewish name to something that looks like a greek name.

Can you explain why?

Childs Play

I am not defending Bush> I am pointing out the nastyness and viciousness of Liberals.

Here is a perfect example:

Sudden plea deals in tire slashing case
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel | 1/20/05 | Greg Nunnaly

Posted on 01/20/2006 1:22:41 PM PST by mafree

In an unexpected twist in the Election Day tire slashing trial, four former Kerry-Edwards campaign staffers, including the sons of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) and former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt, have agreed to plead no contest to misdemeanors.

The plea agreements came in the middle of jury deliberations after an eight-day trial on felony property damage charges that carried potential 3 1/2 year prison terms upon conviction.

Michael Pratt, 33, Sowande Omokunde, 26, Lewis G. Caldwell, 29, and Lavelle Mohammad, 36, have all pleaded no contest to misdemeanor counts of criminal damage to property. Omokunde is Moore's son.

Prosecutors will recommend probation sentences as part of the deal, and that the four together pay $5,317 in restitution for the damaged tires.

The surprise resolution was offered by prosecutors at 2 p.m., nearly 7 hours into deliberations and an hour after a jury note complained of an impasse.

Defendant Justin Howell, 21, was the only one of the five charged not included in the deal. The no contest pleas have not been formally made yet, but when they are, jurors will be left to deliberate the felony charge against Howell.

A note this morning from the jury to the judge about the verdict forms had hinted it was considering at least some convictions in the case, but the jury did not return a verdict before breaking for lunch.

Then around 1 p.m., the jury sent a second note suggesting they could not reach a verdict. "We have people that are adamant about their decision and are not budging. We don't know what to do," the note read in part.

Defense attorneys immediately requested a mistrial, which Circuit Judge Michael Brennan denied. He doubted that the jury was intractably hung, since testimony lasted close to seven court days and deliberations had only been going about six hours.

"That's (an) insufficient amount of time to declare a mistrial," Brennan said, and ordered the jury to continue deliberating.

Less than an hour later, news of the plea deals emerged.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 02:44 PM

Guest:

I don't even know what Freeper is.

Nah. Just like Dubya -- "'Kenny Boy' who? Chalabi who? Jack who?" -- you've never met them ... you just do cut'n'pase from their screeds. From your prior post:

http://freerepublic.info/focus/f-news/1519089/posts


I am merely wondering why Soros changed his name from a Jewish name to something that looks like a greek name.

Can you explain why?

A). Your facts are wrong: Even the article I cited said that his father changed the name.

B). What freakin' bizness of yours is it? Why does that matter to you? And why should I "explain" it?

Child's Play

here ya go.

So we have some web page somewhere with some pretty funny pictures ... and then we have the RW talking heads putting unflattering pictures on the covers of their books (read the rest of Digby's post too).

Not to mention what you'll see if you just Google "KKKlinton" and "Hitlery".

I am pointing out the nastyness and viciousness of Liberals.

Anything like Ann Coulter saying that Justice Stevens should be given rat poison? Saying that Muslim leaders should be killed and the rest converted? That the only regret she had about the Oklahoma City bombing is that they din't bomb the N.Y. Times instead?


OK, so four kids did kid type things. Stoopid. Real stoopid. They should be punished ... and shunned. Howzabout the Republican Party providing legal defence services to their Dubya campaign chairman in New England who conspired to sabotage GOTV efforts there (see here)? And the executive director of the New Hampshire Republican party is another work of art (see here).

Here's more from the first article:

A top New Hampshire Party official and a GOP consultant already have pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors. Tobin's indictment accuses him of specifically calling the GOP consultant to get a telephone firm to help in the scheme.

"The object of the conspiracy was to deprive inhabitants of New Hampshire and more particularly qualified voters ... of their federally secured right to vote," states the latest indictment issued by a federal grand jury on May 18.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 04:23 PM

Yeag, GUEST, if you were from the progressive side of the equation you would never, never accuse "liberals" of the being the nasty ones...

We have put up with a life time of yer crap *and* for tthe most part, your anti-human, anit-Earth policies, to boot... Not only that but for progressives it's no coincidence that if has been our brightest and best leaders who have been the one's at the wrong end of the gun barrel... Not yours... So, yeah, for progressives to hear what your perceptions are is beyond laughbable...

And you own the microphone as well to shout yer lies and propagate yer nastiness...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 08:27 PM

I will go along with the NY Times Thing. I Like the earth and humans too. I just don't like rabid protesters.

The real quotes before they are run through the Liberal screed:
"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."
"To The People Of Islam: Just think: If we'd invaded your countries, killed your leaders and converted you to Christianity YOU'D ALL BE OPENING CHRISTMAS PRESENTS RIGHT ABOUT NOW! Merry Christmas."

Go ahead and laugh you sweet old lovable burned out hippy. How are your skills with a chain saw?

Wanted: attackers of campaign signs
Photo by Bret Hartman/Vail Daily
Click to Enlarge

Browse Vail Daily Photos
A Bush-Cheney 2004 billboard in Avon has been vandalized along with other campaign signs around the Eagle Valley.
Bret Hartman/Vail Daily
Randy Wyrick
September 29, 2004

http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040929/NEWS/109290014/0/FRONTPAGE&rs=2

AVON — Enough of the burning Bush and enough of the Avon chain saw massacre.

Vandals trespassing on his property to chainsaw the middle out of Republican campaign signs spurred landowner Magnus Lindholm Wednesday to offer a $5,000 reward for information leading the arrest of those responsible.

Earlier this week, somebody chain-sawed the middle out of two Bush signs on his property in Avon at the William Post Boulevard exit on Interstate 70. A "Bush/Cheney '04" campaign sign was burned in Wolcott.

The Avon signs had been torn down previously, and others around the state have been damaged. Also targeted were campaign signs in other parts of the state promoting the U.S. Senate campaign of Pete Coors, also a Republican.

No signs promoting Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry or Senate hopeful Ken Salazar have been reported damaged.

What happened to the formidable Soros defense? Why did his daddy change his name? Who did his granddaddy do buisness with?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 08:37 PM

An appalling magic

The USA has a raucous chorus of broadcast shock jocks and rightwing loudmouths, but Ann Coulter is the undisputed star. Arguably more appealing, unquestionably the sharpest shooter, she is, of course, the darling of conservatives and a hate figure for the left - but there are others, among her detested liberals, who are gripped in fascinated awe by her scorching invective. Jonathan Freedland confronts her and recognises a truth about the United States today: Bush isn't an aberration and Coulter expresses what many Americans think

Saturday May 17, 2003
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,956452,00.html
Say "American conservative commentator" and what do you picture? A middle-aged guy in shirt and necktie, right? Speak of a "hardline Republican pundit" and what else comes to mind? Perhaps a big-mouth butterball like Rush Limbaugh? Or a Bible-bashing, burn-in-hell televangelist like Jerry Falwell? Or a gun-stroking, right-between-the-eyes cowboy à la Charlton Heston. Right? Chances are, you are not picturing a Manhattan blonde with dating worries and enough acid one-liners to blow the Manolo Blahniks off the Sex And The City gang. Chances are you are not picturing Ann Coulter: columnist, TV star, bestselling author, heroine for the ultra-right and hate figure for what remains of liberal America...

...Above all, there is something about Coulter's attackers that makes you want to rally to her side. They denounce her with such vitriol, and sexism, that she almost emerges - and she would barf at these words - as a target for feminist sympathy. In print she is trashed as a telebimbo or fembot, and her hate mail routinely damns her as a slut, bitch and whore. Even the much-admired online magazine Salon once ran a piece that demeaned Coulter in thoroughly misogynist terms."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 08:45 PM

Well, stealin' or vandalizing campaign posters and billboards go back well before any of us here was born... Nothing new and it ain't got nuthing to to with this discussion... Therer were plenty Democratic campaign signs stolen as well...

As for Soros daddy, who really cares???... He ain't the president... Might of fact, he ain't an elected official... If he were then his families financial ties would be relevant and something that voters should know, ahhhhh, that is if they care...

The financial ties between the Bush family and Nazis, as well as its ties to the bin Laden family, is fair game and is i8nformation that if more folks in the US knew might influence their voting decisions...

But information has become something that the current crop of crooks very much thinks doesn't need to be out there for public consumption... And I'm not speaking exclusively of the Bushes...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 01:44 PM

In other news of related interest:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the world's largest publicly traded oil company, on Monday reported a quarterly profit of $10.7 billion, capping a year of record earnings dominated by surging oil and gas prices.

The results pushed up Exxon's profit for the year to a staggering $36.13 billion -- bigger than the economies of 125 of the 184 countries ranked by the World Bank. Profit rose 42 percent from 2004.

The company and its peers have come under fire for posting billions in profit while consumers struggle with high gasoline prices. Exxon was quick to emphasize that such results would help it make long-term investments to meet energy demand.

The Irving, Texas company's fourth-quarter net income rose 27 percent, to $10.71 billion, or $1.71 a share, from $8.42 billion, or $1.30 a share, a year earlier. Revenue was just shy of $100 billion.

Excluding a special gain, the company earned $1.65 per share, handily beating the average forecast of $1.45 among analysts polled by Reuters Estimates.

"It's an exceptionally strong quarter -- they're the world's most profitable company," said Robert Lutts, president of Cabot Money Management. "It could raise eyebrows among some, but they're doing their job."

Exxon shares were up $1.84, or 3 percent, at $63.13 in late-morning trade on the New York Stock Exchange.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: .Woody
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 02:21 PM

"Well, stealin' or vandalizing campaign posters and billboards go
back well before any of us here was born"

Hey Bobert the hypocrite. You said nothing in the past matters.

So which way is it, or do you want it one way for you and another way for others?

The typical Liberal double standard at work again.

WEBSTER'S NEW UNIVERSAL UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY
hypocrite:
   1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
   2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

http://www.hardcoretruth.com/Hypocrisy/
The goal of this page is not only to inform you of whether you are a hypocrite or not; it is to inform you of the type of hypocrite you are or are not. Perhaps you are a hypocrite. If you are, I can show you how to deal with your hypocrisy. I will present the factors that cause honest people to be hypocritical at times. I will share with you in minutes, what took me hours of objective self-evaluation to understand. This understanding has given me peace of mind, and I hope it will for you too.

Maybe you are worse than a hypocrite is; I will give examples of non-hypocrites that have less integrity than certain types of hypocrites do. For these people, I will explain how their lack of integrity has given them a distorted perception of reality. Regardless, if you are searching for understanding about hypocrisy, you have come to the right place.

Before I can clearly communicate my ideas to you, we must go through the painstaking process of eliminating any ambiguity that could arise from the terminology that I will be using. I have even had to coin a couple of terms myself in order to convey my ideas precisely, and concisely. I have also provided a mathematical formula and a matrix to add additional aid in precisely communicating the relationship of the terms discussed. We will start with the word hypocrite. There are a couple of meanings for this word, and it is necessary to state which one we will be using in this article. "

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: .Woody
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 02:35 PM

George Soros, of all people -- the man known to some as the world's richest liberal (unless you count Bill Gates) -- said that Harken Energy (which he owned a third of at the time, because they bought out his Soros Oil) bought out George W. Bush's disintegrating Spectrum 7 company in 1986 not because it would make any profit, but because he was buying the political influence of the Bushes. An awful lot of investments in George W. Bush companies have the appearance of being made for that same purpose. Soros said that the influence "didn't come to anything" in the end. A spokesman later said that Soros's statement was taken out of context, making it appear that he was personally involved in the decision when he was not. Soros dumped his Harken stock in 1989, long before it ran into trouble.

Soros is another Abramov type crook.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 10:04 AM

Where is the defense of Soros?

Geroge Soros has all you "got to protest something" types marching around like little tin soldiers, doing his bidding.

He is an amature, self proclaimed nation builder that thinks he is so rich, he is god.

He made a billion dollars in one day on the backs of the Brits and uses it and other ill begotten proceeds to finances moveon.org and other subversive activities.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 02:17 PM

Guest:

Where is the defense of Soros?

Why should I defend him from the likes of you?

OTOH, why don't you "defend" yourself for your adulation of the likes of Freeper.com, FrontPageMagazine, NewsMax, and the other nasty RW "slime machine" sites? How about your nasty insinuation that Soros is some kind of self-loathing Jew (ignoring the fact that you personally made a false and scurrilous assertion the Soros himself had changed his name)? I think if there's anyone here that needs defence, it would be you and your nasty lip.

Geroge Soros has all you "got to protest something" types marching around like little tin soldiers, doing his bidding.

Nonsense. I was doing just what I'm doing long before Soros decided that the ERW had to be confronted for the evil they are. You know, he had some familiarity with the excesses of right wing dictatorships....

He is an amature, self proclaimed nation builder that thinks he is so rich, he is god.

He's a billionaire, and you're apparently just some 2-bit (anonymous) twerp of no consequence. Plus, I suspect he knows how to spell "amateur" (sorry if your French isn't up to snuff). Sorry, but I can't help you remedy that situation, if a remedy is even possible.

He made a billion dollars in one day on the backs of the Brits and uses it and other ill begotten proceeds to finances moveon.org and other subversive activities.

"[S]ubversive activities", eh? Miss the McCarthy days, eh? He made billions of dollars from others that thought they were smarter than him. That's the way markets work. You places your bets and takes your chances. If any common Brits have a beef about their currency, they ought to take it up with the folks than sold it out.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Old Guy
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 11:13 PM

why don't you "defend" yourself for your adulation of the likes of Freeper.com, FrontPageMagazine, NewsMax, and the other nasty RW "slime machine" sites?

I never made any claims about these sites. I still don't know what freeper is. However whatever they are you attack them in true leftwing extremist style.

I asked why he changed his name. Is that a nasty acusation? You are the nasty acuser.
"When he was a boy his parents changed the family name to the vaguely Hungarian-sounding name Soros"

Why did his parents change it? When and who changed György to George?

I suspect he knows how to spell "amateur" (sorry if your French isn't up to snuff). Sorry, but I can't help you remedy that situation, if a remedy is even possible.
In typical left wing extremist style you attack someones spelling, but only if they disaggree with you. You let the poor spelling of your buds like Bobert pass without comment. I think that is an example of the discrimination that you claim to abhor.

That's the way markets work. So any way people make money is ethical?

de riguerHow's your French?
privatisation schemes Shouldn't that be privatization?
for mre than?
any communitty?
waged incomepetently?
Whie this?
when decididng?
looked at askanse?
that you'ev swallowed ?
words of thsoe?
snap judgement?
incident occured?
political opponets?
referenced documenation?
commentatirs?
the measn ?
it's tunred into ?
millenium?
never apologised ?
Commander Codpice?
Oherwise?
they din't ?

Yep, I am just a 2-bit (anonymous) twerp of no consequence and you are so perfect and righteous that you don't have to defend Soros or offer any reasons for his name change.

You just attack anything that your imagined enemys present.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 11:19 PM

Hmmmm...Old Guy, it appears that the attacking in this little hotspot was your idea in the first place.

Soros, as far as I know, is interested in making things better. Are you, also?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Old Guy
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 01:01 AM

omly if you consider presenting facts that are contrary to someone elses an attack.

Who does Soros support in the US besides moveon.org?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 07:50 AM

Oh contraire', Woodman...

If you are of the opionion that I have ever said that nothing in the past matters then you have taken me completely out of context...

My undergraduate degree is in history and poli-sci so must have so level of appreciation for things that occured before today... My entire "KatrinaGate" thread is about stuff that happened in the past, granted the past isn't that past compared to Fred Flintstone, but in the past none the less...

So, Pleeeeezzzeee, before going thru yer righteopus indignation/Websters tirade be sure that your indictments are tight and not based on something taken well out of context...

And,once again, lets try to keep to the meaasge at hand rather than assaults on the messenegers... It really weakens yer case when you won't come to the defense of Bush when his actions/inactions effect hundreds of milliions of people yet you go after Amos, Ron or me...

Tsk, tsk...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 01:00 PM

Old Guy a.k.a. "Guest":

I never made any claims about these sites. I still don't know what freeper is. However whatever they are you attack them in true leftwing extremist style.

Old Guy! Was that you as "guest" upstairs??? You oughtta sign your posts, ya know.

If it was you, then you quoted from "Free Republic", a.k.a. "Freeperville", and gave cites to FrontPageMagazine and NewsMax yourself. If it wasn't you above, then I don't know why you're responding here.

I asked why he changed his name.

He didn't change his name. Can I ask why you're an idiot? After that, maybe I can ask why you give a rat's a$$ why his father changed the family name.

[Arne]: That's the way markets work.

So any way people make money is ethical?

How does that follow? Did I say any such thing? But FWIW, for Soros to sell something, there has to be a buyer ... a willing buyer, and vice versa. Unles you can come up with something more, how do you call such a transaction "[un]ethical"?

Spelling:

Yeah, you got me on a couple. Most are obvious typos. Tuchee.

"privatisation schemes" Shouldn't that be privatization?

Depends. See if you can figure out on what.

snap judgement?

You have a problme here?

Yep, I am just a 2-bit (anonymous) twerp of no consequence and you are so perfect and righteous that you don't have to defend Soros or offer any reasons for his name change.

Ummm, I don't have to defend Soros because there's no reason I have to defend Soros. But I'd think that you might think about defending why the name change is such a big thing to you. That has nothing to do with Soros, and a lot to do with you.....

You just attack anything that your imagined enemys present.

You need to work on your apostrophisation.   ;-)

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 10:25 PM

Sorry I haven't been able to get to this thread. Last week I had a bunch of rehearsals and 3 concerts with the National Symphony in the Kennedy Center. Maestro Slatkin was very happy, and we got a host of real good reviews. That'll have to do for an excuse.

And, of course, the thread got thoroughly sidetracked. As I recall, Soros had marginal influence, to say the least (too bad, too) on the Bush propaganda campaign to sell the Iraq war.



But now, I'm back to bring you more joy, Teribus.

Also, we'll deal with Mr. Bush's military non-service later.

Right now, Teribus, you still are obviously in desperate need of instruction in how propaganda operates.

So, once again, we'll take it slow, one step at a time for you. I'm confident you'll pick it up.

Good thing I have unlimited patience.

One more time:

To be effective, propaganda needs to directly state a cause and effect: yes or no?

That's your first lesson.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 12:04 PM

Welcome back to this thread Ron, I note you have been posting on others but I guess you had to wait till my post and it's question dropped off the 'top fifty'. So for your benefit Ron let's see if you can answer it now:

Ron Davies - 21 Jan 06 - 05:47 PM

"Most of the men Bush took instruction with in learning to be a pilot were going to Vietnam."

The above statement by Ron is a BOBERT FACT - It has absolutely no basis, like the propaganda campaign that never was this is a figment of Ron's imagination, but it can be easily debunked.

Ron has been challenged on this on a number of previous occasions when he has made this claim, with the result he has not once come up with any detail to back it up. He refers to the "teasing" that Lt. G.W. Bush got about a request relating to a scheme called "Palace Guard". Ron did those reporting this also tease Fred Buckley? The stage of training he was in at the time was at an Operational Training Unit where he and his fellow students were learning how to 'fight' their aircraft - Delta Dagger F-102A's. Now all his fellow students in this unit would be learning the ins and outs of flying and fighting this one type of aircraft, OTU's do not fly mixed types it is not an efficient use of equipment or manpower. His Training officer turned down the request of both Bush and Buckley for three reasons, the first was lack of operational experience (500hrs minimum after having been passed as operational were required), the second was that the aircraft type he was training on were being withdrawn from theatre, finally the third reason was that the "Palace Guard" scheme was being cut back.

Previously Ron has made the statement about the vast majority of pilots going to Vietnam. As I have previously pointed out to Ron from figures available from the Pentagon, at the height of the war in Vietnam, the maximum number of US Troops of all services and branches of those services was about 550,000 in 1968. The official strength of the US Armed Forces at the time was 3.5 million, so even every single person serving in Vietnam would not make any "vast majority" - True Ron?? Now let's take a look at the half million odd that were there. The "vast majority" to use Ron's terms would be infantry and logistics units, as there was no question of disputed air superiority over the area you can accomplish quite a lot with very few aircraft. In 1968, Ron, the "vast majority" of US Air Force, Army, Marine, ANG and US Navy pilots were servicing the requirements of a little thing called the "Cold War", i.e. keeping an eye on Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 09:58 PM

Teribus--

You still don't read very carefully, do you? A clear failing of Bushite giant intellects, I've noticed, especially (dare I say it?) your good self.

I clearly said we would get to Bush's military non-service after we finish the little matter of this thread topic. You'll be able to carry out your role as a Bush apologist defending Chickenhawk #1--to your little heart's content. Just not right now.   I know thread creep is a long and honorable tradition at Mudcat--but it would be nice for once to actually concentrate on the topic.

Right now, since you don't seem to have much of an understanding, here's your badly-needed instruction in how propaganda operates.

Lesson 1

To be effective, propaganda needs a clear cause-effect statement. Yes or no?

Please just answer the question. A yes or no will suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 10:13 PM

No, Ron, seems that T don't read much of anyhting that ain't in his dialy orders from Karl "Bush" Rove...

And he continues to play the "BOBERT FACVTS" card as if he repeats it often enough it will stick...

...but after the battles he and I had during the mad-dash-to-Iraqmire, its the TERIBUS FACTS, it is now painfully (to T) clear are the ones that don't hold up to close scrutiny... But then why should they??? He gets his marching orders from the biggest presidential liar of all time...

The last reason T gave for the invasion of Iraq was_________________? See what I mean???

Hey, Ron... You playing the Millinium Stage??? I got an invite to play two years ago for an all day Blues thing but played the Theater Stage (300 seat capacity) but, hey....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 09:23 AM

No answer then Ron - thought not. As to getting one later, I won't hold my breath on it. Because this claim of yours is based on exactly the same as your claim about a propaganda campaign, absolutely nothing except your own imaginings.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 09:50 AM

In other words, Ron, another TERIBUS FACT...

One thing about TERIBUS FACTS is that they are hard to argue with because when you have someone who thinks that the sky is green, to him or here, it's green???

And, BTW, when T is backed into corners its usally the TERIBUS FACT that he will use to try to extracate him T-self...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 10:59 PM

Teribus--

So sorry--you're in the distinct minority--not just on Mudcat but in the whole world--in denying the Bush regime's propaganda campaign--from about mid 2002 to the actual invasion in March 2003.

The charitable interpretation--which is therefore the one we'll use--is that you don't understand how propaganda operates.

So, again:

Lesson 1

Propaganda, in order to be effective, needs a clear cause-effect statement: yes or no?

Please just answer the question. Yes or no will suffice--we actually can get along without one of your magnificent War and Peace- length -----(a tip of the hat to Bobert)------ cut-and-paste tomes


Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 06 - 05:45 AM

From Ron,

"Teribus--

So sorry--you're in the distinct minority--not just on Mudcat but in the whole world--in denying the Bush regime's propaganda campaign--from about mid 2002 to the actual invasion in March 2003."

Ron is very handy with phrases like "vast majority", "distinct minority", the only thing is he uses them without justification and when asked to provide evidence to support his statements he conveniently forgets the question and attacks the person daring to challenge "the truth according to Ron".

To answer your question Ron, there are many things in this world that requires a clear cause-effect statement in order to be effective. It is an essential part of the decision making process.

Now having been asked to provide details of this so-called propaganda campaign that was centred around Saddam Hussein being involved in the attacks of 11th September, 2001. You have singularly failed to do so. Instead I am tasked with having to provide you with an example where, within the completely arbitrary period that "Ron the always-right" selected, the US Administration made the categoric statement that Saddam Hussein had nothing whatsoever to with those attacks. I believe I did so.

Right then Ron, now how about putting forward some substantiation for the points that you have delighted in making on this thread?

1. "Most of the men Bush took instruction with in learning to be a pilot were going to Vietnam." - How many Ron?

I won't be too surprised Ron when your research turns up the answer "None".

2. During the period GWB served in the ANG the "vast majority of pilots" served in Vietnam.

This contention of yours Ron is statistically impossible.

3. The propaganda campaign - one example Ron, just one, of where anyone in the US Administration from 11th September, 2001 until the present day has ever said that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of that day.

I do hope that this wasn't too long a post for you and Bobert, I realise that you both may have extremely short concentration spans and rely totally on someone else having to tell you what to think and why because neither of you can be bothered to read and listen to what is actually being said.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 11 Feb 06 - 02:40 PM

This thread reminds me of this story....
News anchor Dan Rather, The Reverend Jesse Jackson, NPR reporter Cokie Roberts, and an American Marine were walking in the desert one day when they were captured by a terrorist group.
They were tied up, led to the village hideout and brought before the chief. The chief said, "I am familiar with your Western custom of granting the condemned a last wish. Before we torture and kill you, do you have any last requests?"
Dan Rather said, " I would like to tape this my final news story for my fans" The chief allowed him time and gear to record his story. At the end Dan said "now I can die content"

Jesse Jackson said, "You know, the thing in this life I am proudest of is my work on behalf of the poor and oppressed. So before I go, I want to sing "We Shall Overcome" one last time." The chief said, "Go right ahead, we're listening." Jackson sang the song, and then said, "Now I can die in peace."

Cokie Roberts said, "I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job till the end." The chief directed an aide to hand over the tape recorder, and Roberts dictated some comments. She then said, "Now I can die happy."

The chief turned and said, "And now, Mr. Marine, what is your final wish?"
"Kick me in the ass," said the Marine.
"What?" said the chief. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"
"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the ass," insisted the Marine.
So the chief shoved him into the open, and kicked him in the ass. The Marine went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled a 9mm pistol from his waistband, and shot the chief dead. In the resulting confusion, he leapt to his feet grabbed an AK 47, and sprayed the terrorists with gunfire. In a flash, they were dead or fleeing for their lives.
As the Marine was untying the others, they asked him, "Why didn't you just shoot them? Why did you ask them to kick you in the ass first?"
"What!?" said the Marine, "And have you jerks call ME the aggressor?!"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Feb 06 - 06:23 PM

"The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intellegence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry picking" intellegence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and xchaos after an invasion to overthrown Saddam Hussein."

(Paul R. Pillar, former CIA intellegence officeer for the near East from 2000 to 2005)

Source: Washington Post, Feb, 10th, 2006

Whaddayathink, Ron? Another bad day fir T, I'd say...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 12 Feb 06 - 12:08 AM

Teribus:

Instead I am tasked with having to provide you with an example where, within the completely arbitrary period that "Ron the always-right" selected, the US Administration made the categoric statement that Saddam Hussein had nothing whatsoever to with those attacks. I believe I did so.

Ummmm .... *thinking back* .... ummmm, no, Teribus, actually, you didn't.

Some random OT stuff:

In 1968, Ron, the "vast majority" of US Air Force, Army, Marine, ANG and US Navy pilots were servicing the requirements of a little thing called the "Cold War", i.e. keeping an eye on Russia.

Yeah. Patrolling the Gulf of Mexico for errant Carcharhinus Sovietus (the fearsome Rusky Shark). Or taking "training flights" over to the Sunshine State and hauling back plants of some kind or another (did this have anything to do with his sagging fitness ratings?). Anyone around at the time knows what a NG posting was good for at the time, and there's hardly any dispute what the "Champagne Unit" was all about.

But, just a FYI, I posted above a link to Dubya's undisputed "do not volunteer" for overseas duty (and you dutifully ignored it). Now most people would understand that -- at the time it was signed -- for what it was.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 06 - 04:02 AM

Reported on the B.B.C. this morning
MoD to probe Iraq 'abuse' video

The footage shows British soldiers dragging youths and kicking them.

A military spokesman in Iraq condemned "all acts of abuse and brutality" by British troops, saying the allegations related to a "tiny number" of soldiers.

The Royal Military Police are probing the incident, which the newspaper said happened in southern Iraq in 2004.

Alleged abuse

On the tape, described as a "secret home video", an unidentified cameraman is heard laughing and urging his colleagues on. It was apparently filmed for fun by a corporal.

M.O.D. said it was aware of the allegations.

British military spokesman Flight Lieutenant Chris Thomas, based in Basra, said: "We hope that the good relations that the multi-national forces have worked very hard to develop won't be adversely affected by this material."


M.O.D.Have satisfied ourselves that this is an absolutely genuine article

The tape allegedly shows a disturbance in the street outside what the paper calls a military compound.

Soldiers are shown chasing youths involved in the disturbance, dragging four of them into the compound and beating them on various parts of the body with batons and kicking them, one in the genitals.

The recording is said to show an attack lasting a minute, with 42 blows counted.

A journalist who watched the video said a soldier could also be seen kicking a dead Iraqi in the face.

No doubt those found guilty will get off as previous British soldiers have done in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 12 Feb 06 - 05:11 PM

Probably because those Iraqi's were trying to kill the soldiers, but obviously the press have to give their slant on it first....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 06 - 10:16 PM

Refresh in order to give Mr. Davis a chance to answer to some points that he has made:

Ron,

Substantiation would be welcome for the following points that you have made:

1. "Most of the men Bush took instruction with in learning to be a pilot were going to Vietnam." - How many Ron?

I won't be too surprised Ron when your research turns up the answer "None".

2. During the period GWB served in the ANG the "vast majority of pilots" served in Vietnam.

This contention of yours Ron is statistically impossible.

3. The propaganda campaign - one example Ron, just one, of where anyone in the US Administration from 11th September, 2001 until the present day has ever said that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of that day. Within that same period Ron I can supply numerous examples made by members of the US Administration where a clear statement was made that Saddam Hussein was NOT involved in the attacks of 11th September, 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 06 - 10:51 PM

Teribus--

No, I'm not always right. I'm actually more of a moderate. I criticize absurd statements by both the Left and the Right.

I'm not even always correct--just more often than you--which is proving disappointingly easy.

So the Bush regime, between mid 2002 and March 2003, did make a categorical statement that Saddam had nothing to do with the 11 Sept 2001 attacks?

I'm sorry--the only one you have cited is in a Meet the Press from 8 Sept 2002, in which the quote (a clip actually) was from 16 Sept 2001. You must have a truly unique calendar if it indicates that 16 Sept 2001 is between mid 2002 and March 2003. Hang onto it--it may be a collector's item.

Cheney's allegedly clear statement on 8 Sept 2002 is badly undercut--by himself--in the very next paragraph. Sorry-- anything that mentions "new evidence has come to light" then proceeds to catalogue that "evidence" of possible connections between Saddam and 9-11 is not eligible as a clear statement for your homework. You are in danger of not getting a gold star for this assignment.

Admittedly, you may have a hard time finding a categorical statement by the Bush regime between mid 2002 and March 2003 that there was no connection between Saddam and 11 Sept 2001--possibly for the excellent reason that such a statement doesn't exist.

Regarding Bush's military non-service, I've told you several times that we need to finish the propaganda campaign issue-- (which is after all the subject of the thread)--before you can fulfill your destiny as apologist for Chickenhawk #1.

Too bad about your ego--which is still preventing you from acknowledging the above-cited propaganda campaign.

You may now resume desperately floundering.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 13 Feb 06 - 10:56 PM

Teribus:

Within that same period Ron I can supply numerous examples made by members of the US Administration where a clear statement was made that Saddam Hussein was NOT involved in the attacks of 11th September, 2001.

Well now, that would be a pleasant surprise. But your prior attempts at doing so have come to naught, so I don't hold out any great hopes, but why don't you give it a go once again? Have at it, my man.....

Word of advice for you too, Teribus: "Numerous" starts with, at the very least, one.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 06 - 11:42 PM

To Arne and Ron,

I would suggest you read my post:

Ron's arbitrary time period was mid-summer 2002 until March 2003.

The period I have detailed runs from 11th September, 2001 until the present day.

Now, whereas I can provide clear examples of where members of the US Administration have stated categorically that Saddam Hussein/Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks of 11th September, 2001. Ron Davies cannot come up with a single instance to substantiate his statement. Very much the same as the thing about Lt. G. W. Bush's fellow Students at OTU, that most were going to Vietnam (Pure invention by Ron) was just thrown in for effect, completely untrue. Leopards do not tend to change their spots, if someone is prepared to state something that they deliberately know to be false (You know it's false because they refuse point blank to make any attempt to substantiate it) in order to put across a point, my take on that is that if they can do it once, they in all probability will do it again.

So Ron, as with the pilot thing, please cite ONE, just ONE instance where any member of the US Administration has stated that there was any connection between SH and 911, the period from 11/09/01 to Present Day.

Also for Arne and Ron, the gist of the Meet the Press interview with Dick Cheney from 8 Sept 2002, was that he was reminded of his stated categoric view that Saddam had nothing to do with 911, then asked if anything had come to light that would cause him to change that view. Dick Cheney stated quite clearly in that interview, broadcast across America on 8th September 2002, that there was nothing, he still believed that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911. Now Ron and Arne might not like that, but that's in effect what was said, that was the message I got from reading the transcripts of the interview, as opposed to the reports of the interview and selective sound bites pushed by the Network and read as gospel by Ron and Arne.

Oh Arne, on the subject of ANG unit dispositions, taking into account that their role is to provide additional resources to the air defence of the United States of America, where exactly would have them stationed? Height of the "Cold War", Soviet Russia, Cuba, need any more clues?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 08:52 AM

Ron D.: "I'd like a red plaid shirt please."

Teribus: "Here you are, sir, one ham sandwich. That'll be five pounds."

Ron D.: "I didn't ask for a ham sandwich. I want a shirt!"

Teribus: "Well. (puts sandwich away) Five pounds, please."

Ron D.: "Five pounds? For what???"

Teribus: "For the sandwich, sir."

Ron D.: "But I don't want a sandwich!"

Teribus: "Oh, no problem. Why, I even took it back."

(pause) (Ron D. shifts unconfortably)

Teribus: "The five pounds, sir. I have to tally the books."

Ron D.: (exasperated) "Five pounds for what? Where's my shirt?"

Teribus: "I gave you your sandwich. Now, do I need to call a bobby?"


Some scripts just write themselves. Should Monty Python need to visit the muse, I'll send 'em your way, Teribus.

* * * * *

Also for Arne and Ron, the gist of the Meet the Press interview with Dick Cheney from 8 Sept 2002, was that he was reminded of his stated categoric view that Saddam had nothing to do with 911, then asked if anything had come to light that would cause him to change that view. Dick Cheney stated quite clearly in that interview, broadcast across America on 8th September 2002, that there was nothing, he still believed that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911.

Oh, nonsense. This has been beat to death. You know, if you want to say what Cheney said, it would be appropriate to say what Cheney said, not what you think he said (or what you want him to have said). Forget the "gist of [it]". That's your dishonest spin. His words are there to be seen. And nowhere there does he say that he thinks that "Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911".   His main claim seems to be that the evidence isn't dispositive about a Saddam involvement, but there's nothing there that indicates that he thinks (supported by evidence or otherwise) that Saddam wasn't involved. I really don't care much what you "got" from the interview, BTW, Teribus. Your reading comprehension difficulties are not my concern. It does concern me that you think that a 'paraphrase' is necessary when the actual words are at hand.

As for ANG unit disposition, yeah, he was protecting the vulnerable U.S. underbelly from shark attack. But I notice you ignored his "do not volunteer", didntcha?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 11:56 AM

From Arne:

"It does concern me that you think that a 'paraphrase' is necessary when the actual words are at hand."

Interesting statement that, coming from you Arne. If either yourself or Ron had quoted the whole conversation in the first place then we wouldn't be having this discussion, due to the fact that you would have unable to make your point.

By the way Arne maybe you can tell me, as you seem to think it important, at the time in question, was it compulsory on joining the National Guard or Air National Guard to volunteer for service overseas. Because the old adage in the British Forces as any old squaddie will tell you is "Never volunteer". Are you saying that everyone else volunteered? And that Lt. G.W. Bush was the only one that didn't. Are you saying that having far more entitlement points than required for his six year service committment that Lt. G. W. Bush was the only Officer in the US ANG who was discharged a few months early? Somehow I think we both know that the answers to both those questions are no - lots of people who joined the National Guard and Air National Guard and Coast Guard ticked the box not to volunteer for overseas service - And I believe that as many as possible were granted early honourable discharge papers if they had the requisite number of points.

Now where is your example of a clear statement from the US Administration stating that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 911 attacks?

You seem a little quiet Arne - cat got yer tongue??

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 08:25 PM

Teribus:

Interesting statement that, coming from you Arne. If either yourself or Ron had quoted the whole conversation in the first place then we wouldn't be having this discussion, due to the fact that you would have unable to make your point.

Nonsense. The followup interview was in fact quite enlightening. As you well know (but choose to dance around), Cheney even mentioned "new evidence" coming to light. Now Cheney wasn't saying that "new evidence" had cast doubt on Saddam's involvement (much less been dispositive in proving no involvement), rather the opposite. Covered above by Ron Davies:

Cheney's allegedly clear statement on 8 Sept 2002 is badly undercut--by himself--in the very next paragraph. Sorry-- anything that mentions "new evidence has come to light" then proceeds to catalogue that "evidence" of possible connections between Saddam and 9-11 is not eligible as a clear statement for your homework. You are in danger of not getting a gold star for this assignment.

as well as in other posts. But now I might as well stop beating this dead horse. Let us know when you actually find "numerous" ... "clear" examples of the maladministration saying that Saddam had no involvement with 9/11.

By the way Arne maybe you can tell me, as you seem to think it important, at the time in question, was it compulsory on joining the National Guard or Air National Guard to volunteer for service overseas.

No. Did you have a point?

Because the old adage in the British Forces as any old squaddie will tell you is "Never volunteer".

Once again, can you clue us in to what you're driving at? We can't see your hallucinations from over here.

Are you saying that everyone else volunteered?

No. IS there some reason you think I did? Talk to the docs, they might be able to cure that.

And that Lt. G.W. Bush was the only one that didn't. Are you saying that having far more entitlement points than required for his six year service committment that Lt. G. W. Bush was the only Officer in the US ANG who was discharged a few months early?

Ummmm. "[F]ar more". Care to back that up? Actually, I've read some ex-mil say that he wasn't even up to the required mark without bonus points, and that even those weren't really merited. And FWIW, his service points assume that he actually put in the time he claimed, which is another fact of some dispute.

But, I'm curious of one thing here, Teribus: Do you agree with the sleazy trashing of Kerry above in this post? And why do you defend a person of quite mediocre if not downright awful record, namely Dubya, so vociferously here? Are you getting paid by the word???

Yes, Dubya was discharged early, after not seeing a single minute in combat, and after having his flight certification revoked for (amongst possible other things) failure to take a flight physical as ordered. Perks of the privileged, I guess you can chalk it up to....

Somehow I think we both know that the answers to both those questions are no - lots of people who joined the National Guard and Air National Guard and Coast Guard ticked the box not to volunteer for overseas service - And I believe that as many as possible were granted early honourable discharge papers if they had the requisite number of points.

Ummm, lots of people joined the NG at the time precisely to get out of getting shipped off to Vietnam (some of my buddies in college were looking into this). Hardly disreputable, in my book, but just remember these four words: "It's the hypocrisy, stupid!" And then think about Dubya hamming it up as a supposed Gawd's-Gift-To-Wimmen'n'chilrun Commander Codpiece flyboy while crowing in front of a big "Mission Accomplished" sign ... while we were slowly sinking into a quagmire that has cost many more servicemen their lives in the days since that little political photo-op. Yes, friends of mine considered the Guard. But they would hardly have condemned other people's sons and daughters to horrible deaths based on lies and caused by some of the most malignantly poor planning anyone has ever seen .. and done it with a "Feels good!" fist pumped up to the sky.

Now where is your example of a clear statement from the US Administration stating that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 911 attacks?

Your "straw man", Teribus. Never said there was one. As Ron and I have stated here and elsewhere, the maladministration was quite careful (usually) ... and dishonest ... in how they presented the Iraq situation to the United States public ... and to the U.N.

But as for clear statements, we do have Dubya saying "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the inspectors] in" and that is why we had to invade Iraq (he said the same basic thing on another occasion; the guy may actually believe that and be somewhat honest ... albeit severely psychotic).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 09:01 PM

I'd be real curious to know just hom many times Bush and Cheney have collectively mentioned 9/11 in public speeches and especially during the mad-dash-to-Iragmire??? Seems that the two of them can't give a speeech on any subject without the usual refernece to 9/11...

I think the most telling argument that there was a deliberate propaganda campaign linking 9/11 to Iraq are the opionion polls taken after the invasion finding that one heck of a lot of Americans thought that Iraq had something to to with 9/11... Even ties to Al Qeada!!!

Now I'd like to ask my ol' bud, T-Determined, how could this have happened??? Like how could so many folks (I believe the percentages were in the 70% reange) come to believe something that, according to the T, the Bush folks bent over backwards trying to convince them otherwise???

This ain't rocket surgery here... These thoughts and opinions came from somewhere and it certainly wasn't from the folks here who were warning T and others that this war was a bad idea....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 11:04 PM

Teribus--

"Dick Cheney stated quite clearly in that interview (8 Sept 2002)... that...he still believed Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11".

Right.

Anything you say.

Now, about that bridge I have for you--in recognition of your (did I say pig-headed?) stubborness, I'll give you a better deal than ever.

As I've said earlier---bring back the old Teribus--this one is broken beyond repair.

Here (yet again) is the transcript of the 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press you are still trying to hang your hat on. Can't understand why the hat keeps falling off. But it certainly is telling that you can't find even one quote --in the entire period I cited-- to establish that the Bush regime categorically denied a link between Saddam and 9-11.

At any rate, the transcript:

Mr. Russert: Has anything happened to change your mind? (since 2001 when Cheney said there was no evidence of the link).

Vice President Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that."

That part of the transcript is your pride and joy, the light of your life. But even that is not a categorical "No, nothing has changed".

However, not only does Cheney not give a categorical denial in your chosen excerpt, but he then goes on to muddy the water--in fact to make it filthy--raising all sorts of possible connections between Saddam and 9-11, none of which he categorically denies.

Transcript continues:

"On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq on the one hand and the al-Queda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years, We've seen, in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center..."

This is a categorical denial of a link between Saddam and 9-11? GIve your head a shake.

If that's a categorical denial, I'm the US president.

And if that's your only candidate for categorical denial, then, as Arne said earlier, your ship is not only sunk, but encrusted with barnacles.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 12:00 AM

Correction (before Teribus accuses me of spreading lies or worse), I said Cheney's words were "new evidence". The actual words were "new information". Same song, same dance, but just for clarity and accuracy.... Yes, I was wrong, in the specific language. The actual language is now here for you to judge as to whether I misrepresented the "gist" of Cheney's statement with my substitution.

As Ron Davies points out, Cheney didn't then plow on into the specific reports of Atta meeting with Iraqi officers in Prague ... ummm, let me think ... for the purpose of "clearly" refuting Saddam's involvement in 9/11. But, strange as it may seemm, that's what Teribus wants you all to believe. Of course, Teribus must think the lot of us are completely stoopid, certainly enough to accept such 'logic'. The actual situation, of course, is the converse.

At this point, given the obvious mendacity of his arguments, curious folks have to wonder if 'Teribus' is actually a double agent sent to make Dubya and company look bad ... or whether the Dubya sycophants are exhibiting some new (or rewarmed from 70 years ago) group psychopathology.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 07:40 AM

OK people, honest opinion, what do you think:

"Mr. Russert: Has anything happened to change your mind? (since 2001 when Cheney said there was no evidence of the link).

Vice President Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that."

Now from that conversation above, between Mr. Russert and Vice-President Cheney, do you come away with any impression at all that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks made on the United States of America on the 11th September, 2001. Because I certainly don't. Others apparently are having a bit of trouble with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 08:22 AM

Yeah, "honest opinion" will do just fine...

Why is it that over 70% of Americans, right after the invasion, believed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and Al Qeada???

T would have folks believe that a staedy barrage of 9/11 references during the selling of the war had nothing to do with these misconsceptions???

What, this ain't one of these X-File things, is it T??? You know where the worms get into the water source and then take over 70% of folks brains and make them all believe the same myth???

I, for the life of me, can't figure out why you would continue fighting this point because with every every post you are watering down whatwever credibility you might have once had... I mean, I appreciate yer courage but, geeze, when even the top intellegence guy in the CIA that worked with Bush and his folks on prewar intellegence says that Bush "cherry picked" intellegence in making a case for war, then I'd say it's way past time for you to just say, "Okay, I quit" and go find a stronger issue to defend... BTW, stay away from Katrina 'er you'll get whupped up there as well...

There, that's as "honest" and opinion as one can give you... And, BTW, the stove is hot...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 08:48 AM

Teribus now:

OK people, honest opinion, what do you think:

"Mr. Russert: Has anything happened to change your mind? (since 2001 when Cheney said there was no evidence of the link).

Vice President Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that."

Teribus a few posts back:

Interesting statement that, coming from you Arne. If either yourself or Ron had quoted the whole conversation in the first place then we wouldn't be having this discussion, due to the fact that you would have unable to make your point.

Now, to paraphrase Paul Harvey: "And now, the rest of the quote....":

... On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn�t he there, again, it�s the intelligence business.

OK, folks, to the ballot box:

Proposition 1: Did Cheney argue for or against possible Iraqi involvement in 9/11 here? (Bonus question: Did he make a "clear" statement that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 here?)

Proposition 2 (should be a laugher): Is 'Teribus' not the biggest hypocrite and fool you've seen in a long time?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 11:45 AM

Arne,

I'm curious. How would you understand it if someone gave the answer 'yes' to your proposition 2 (or the answer 'no')?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 12:08 PM

Wolfgang:

Yeah, there's that "not" in there. Some might be thrown by that, and a simple "yes" or "no" answer might be misconstrued. If you really want to make your opinion clear, you might try, e.g., something along the lines of "Teribus is the biggest fool and the most complete hypocrite I have ever had the mispleasure to know." Of course, you're free to choose your own adjectives. ;-)

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 08:22 PM

Arne,

Thank you for providing that link - for those who actually go to the trouble of reading it - it proves what I have been saying all along.

Thank you once again.

Cheers.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 08:43 PM

Pee in the cup, T.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 11:08 PM

Teribus--

Sorry, you're wrong again--situation normal. It's nice to know some things never change.

The link does not prove what you've "been saying all along"--unless you've been saying that you are in deepest denial of the obvious.

You still have provided not one quote establishing that the Bush regime, during the period from mid 2002 to the invasion in March 2003, categorically denied a link between Saddam and the 11 Sept 2001 attacks. You allege--falsely--that you have done so--see your own post of 11 Feb 2006 5:45 AM--"I believe I did so" (provided an example within the period mid 2002 to March 2003 where the Bush regime "made the categoric statement that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with those attacks".)

YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED EVEN ONE.

Wishing, I'm sorry to say, will in fact not make it so.

Just as Franco is still dead, your ship is still sunk.

At this rate, I will soon have to join Arne's evaluation of the pleasures of your acquaintance.

You are fortunate that I have endless patience.

But congratulations on keeping your temper recently--no outbursts for over 2 months. See, you can do it. And, believe it or not, cursing does not make you more persuasive.

And, what's more, it would definitely jeopardize the gold star you hope to get.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 02:22 AM

Ron Davies, I see from your post of 16 Feb 06 - 11:08 PM, that you still haven't read the link supplied by Arne, you really should you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 02:49 AM

I make a statement. I'm wrong. Two years later I print a correction (even if it's a vauge correction) in the news paper column D, page 22, 3 lines long & in fine print. It isn't worth the ink used to print it. The damage is done & the retraction went by unnotice & the original incorrect statement will still hold true in the eyes of the believer/reader.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 10:12 AM

Well, I want to be very careful how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Teribus is an unbelievably stubborn fool whose flim-flamming on this issue is aparent to all readers. I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 10:21 AM

Ho Hum, GUEST,TIA, I can see from your post of 17 Feb 06 - 10:12 AM, that you haven't read the link supplied by Arne either.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 11:20 AM

Ease up. Read my post carefully. I was defending you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 11:27 AM

Oh, and I have to read it. It contains this quote as well.

"There's a story in The New York Times this morning-this is-I don't-and ** I want to attribute The Times **. I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge."

(**emphasis is mine**)

Quiz question:
Who was the source for the information in the Times?
(there is a well known, documented answer)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 06:00 PM

TIA:

[to Teribus]: Ease up. Read my post carefully. I was defending you.

ROFL. Touche. Let's see how far above Teribus's head that one sails....

And nice adding the further quote. But the refs may have to penalize you for piling on....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:59 AM

My apologies to TIA I did completely misread her post, at the time I read it and responded I did not have my glasses. The mistake however would not have been made if she had said it to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:32 AM

Teribus--

I have in fact read the link--probably more carefully than you. It does not provide anything like a clear statement, during the period in question, of the Bush regime claiming no link between Saddam and 9-11.

Franco is still dead and you are still wrong. Situation normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 09:16 AM

T:

Given yer response to TIA, maybe you misplaced yer glasses during the entire mad-dash-to-Iraq...

Barry:

Good point... Yeah, the Washington Post, as well as the NY Times, did admit that it had fallen into a "culture" of office speak in not doing a better job questioning the allogations that the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Pearle/Rice War Machine were making in their "selling" of the Iraq invasion...

It actually made the front page but was below the fold and most of it was founf buried... I believe the date or the article was August 17, 2004...

Now even the main man at the CIA in charge of the intellegence on Iraq is saying that the War Machiners weren't interetsed in anything that didn't fir the PR profile???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 02:16 PM

Okay, time's up. Here's the answer:

Cheyney fed the aluminum tube story to the Times (Judith Miller). She dutifully printed it. Then Cheyney goes on Russert, and tells the aluminum tubes story, and very pointedly credits the Times (as if to say "hey I'm not making this stuff up - it's in the Times!).

That folks, is a propaganda trick pure and simple.

Oh, and Arne - the answer seems to be "waaaaaay above".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 02:47 AM

Aluminium tubes

Super Gun

Matrix Churchill

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 07:55 AM

Is this the same Judith Miller who ordered that Scott Ritter be blackballed by the New York Times news department???

Hmmmmmmm?

Looks like Scott was on the money all the way with this one but since he wasn't speaking "office-speak" it didn't matter is he was right... Right???

What Teribus hasn't allowed himself to internalize is this entire idea of "culture" or "office speak" that both the New York Times and Washington Post news departments have confessed to becoming part of... I guess T doesn't remember those days where nationalism and patriotism were the hammers that scared alot of folks into believing the lies so readily...

Hitler is siad to have said that "The people will believe the big lie" and this was sure enough the corneerstone of the Bush War Michine's PR in selling the American people of the need to take out Iraq before Iraq took the US out...

Yeah, if you want revisionism, all you need do is read a little of T-Revisionist's posts... Yeah, he never gives up on making chicken salad out of the droppings from thwe floor of the hen house...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:04 AM

Let's try not to get too distracted from the thread topic. I'm sure Teribus is finally ready to give us a clear statement by the Bush regime, between mid 2002 and the Iraq invasion, that there was no link between Saddam and the attacks of 11 Sept 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:12 AM

Oh, is that why in just about every speech by every Bushite in the selling of the invasion included references to 9/11???

Hmmmmmmmmm?

It's just like the example I gave a while back linking (while not linking) Teribus with "little boys"... That made him real mad and I apologized for it but, hey, when we look back at the pre-war PR this is exactly the way the PR folks played it out... Inference, inference and more inference and then we wonder why over 70% of American when polled right after the invasion thought that Saddam and bin Laden were in cohoots???

I think the reason that T was angry with me when I came up with my hypothetical analogy is becasue he saw that the analagy was accurate in how the Bush PR War Machine went about it's business of spreading propaganda...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 10:37 PM

..meanwhile..
PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil - A coalition of American churches sharply denounced the U.S.-led war in Iraq on Saturday, accusing Washington of "raining down terror" and apologizing to other countries for "the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."

"We lament with special anguish the war in Iraq, launched in deception and violating global norms of justice and human rights," said the statement from representatives of the 34 U.S. members of World Council of Churches. "We mourn all who have died or been injured in this war. We acknowledge with shame abuses carried out in our name." Statement from representatives of the 34 U.S. members of World Council of Churches

The statement, issued at the largest gathering of Christian churches in nearly a decade, also warned the United States was pushing the world toward environmental catastrophe with a "culture of consumption" and its refusal to back international accords seeking to battle global warming.

The World Council of Churches includes more than 350 mainstream Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox churches; the Roman Catholic Church is not a member. The U.S. groups in the WCC include the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, several Orthodox churches and Baptist denominations, among others.

Published on Sunday, February 19, 2006 by the Associated Press
US Church Alliance: Washington is 'Raining Down Terror' with Iraq War, Other Policies by Brian Murphy

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 10:29 PM

But Freda.....

How can these nitpickers second-guess the maladministration so unfairly? According to Teribus, we went to war for no reason at all!!! The wrong reasons would have been ethically suspect, but one can hardly cavil with an act with no motives behind it (obviously no mens rea). And as he's explained over and over so well, Cheney and Dubya were absolutely positive that Saddam had nuttin' to do with terra-ism, and never said anything like what the urban legends claim about "mushroom clouds", and where all the WoMD were stashed, east, west, north and south around Baghdad and Tikrit. And you know, the maladministration was right about everything that they did not say, which is a lot more than most people think, thanks to the dishonest smear campaign the MSM and such have been spreading about the beleaguered Dubya and Poodle maladministrations.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 11:17 PM

You forgot the aluminum tubes, Arne...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 11:50 PM

Arne - 20 Feb 06 - 10:29 PM

But Freda.....

"According to Teribus, we went to war for no reason at all!!!"

Really Arne? Now when and where did I say that?

"And as he's explained over and over so well, Cheney and Dubya were absolutely positive that Saddam had nuttin' to do with terra-ism,"

Really Arne? Now then Arne what I have said is that the current US Administration have on numerous occasions between 11th September 2001 and the present day clearly stated that neither Saddam Hussein or the Iraq Government had any involvement in the attacks of 11th September, 2001. I have never ever said that the current US Administration believed that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism (don't know about terra-ism). It has been proven for quite some length of time that Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime in power in Iraq were major sponsors of terrorist organisations.

As to "mushroom clouds" apparently Iraq's best known defendant was talking about them with his Foreign Minister in association with terrorist attacks in the US about twelve years ago. Any talk with regard to "mushroom clouds" was perfectly justifiable when taken in context with the 911 attacks and what the President stated in his State of the Union Address in January 2002.

Tell us Arne who was it that stated that there were unaccounted for chemical and biological weapons, stockpiles of weaponised agents, stockpiles of precursor chemicals in Iraq? You should have no trouble with that it is rather well documented, the source is impeccable, and even in their report of March/April 2003, still could not state that their position had significantly altered, again very well documented. A little hint Arne in answering those questions the names Bush and Blair do not feature, those of Blix, UN, UNSCOM and UNMOVIC on the otherhand do.

The objective of the exercise dating all the way back to the Resolutions agreed to at Safwan was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, and to verify that that was the case and that there were no development programmes in place targeted at resurrecting those capabilities.

You really should do a great deal more reading of primary source material, rather than rely on the highly spun sound bites fed you by sources you know will substantiate the view point that they originally planted in what passes for your brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 12:12 AM

It's hard to know where irony starts and argument finishes with the posts above. But try a peek at this.. he Memo: How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was th

and for those who can't access, here's a few excerpts..

One night this January, in a ceremony at the Officers' Club at Fort Myer, in Arlington, Virginia, which sits on a hill with a commanding view across the Potomac River to the Washington Monument, Alberto J. Mora, the outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy, stood next to a podium in the club's ballroom. A handsome gray-haired man in his mid-fifties, he listened with a mixture of embarrassment and pride as his colleagues toasted his impending departure. Amid the usual tributes were some more pointed comments.

"Never has there been a counsel with more intellectual courage or personal integrity," David Brant, the former head of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said. Brant added somewhat cryptically, "He surprised us into doing the right thing." Conspicuous for his silence that night was Mora's boss, William J. Haynes II, the general counsel of the Department of Defense.

Back in Haynes's office, on the third floor of the Pentagon, there was a stack of papers chronicling a private battle that Mora had waged against Haynes and other top Administration officials, challenging their tactics in fighting terrorism. Some of the documents are classified and, despite repeated requests from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, have not been released. One document, which is marked "secret" but is not classified, is a twenty-two-page memo written by Mora. It shows that three years ago Mora tried to halt what he saw as a disastrous and unlawful policy of authorizing cruelty toward terror suspects.

The memo is a chronological account, submitted on July 7, 2004, to Vice Admiral Albert Church, who led a Pentagon investigation into abuses at the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. It reveals that Mora's criticisms of Administration policy were unequivocal, wide-ranging, and persistent. Well before the exposure of prisoner abuse in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, in April, 2004, Mora warned his superiors at the Pentagon about the consequences of President Bush's decision, in February, 2002, to circumvent the Geneva conventions, which prohibit both torture and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." He argued that a refusal to outlaw cruelty toward U.S.-held terrorist suspects was an implicit invitation to abuse. Mora also challenged the legal framework that the Bush Administration has constructed to justify an expansion of executive power, in matters ranging from interrogations to wiretapping. He described as "unlawful," "dangerous," and "erroneous" novel legal theories granting the President the right to authorize abuse. Mora warned that these precepts could leave U.S. personnel open to criminal prosecution.

In important ways, Mora's memo is at odds with the official White House narrative. In 2002, President Bush declared that detainees should be treated "humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles" of the Geneva conventions. The Administration has articulated this standard many times. Last month, on January 12th, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, responding to charges of abuse at the U.S. base in Cuba, told reporters, "What took place at Guantánamo is a matter of public record today, and the investigations turned up nothing that suggested that there was any policy in the department other than humane treatment."

A week later, the White House press spokesman, Scott McClellan, was asked about a Human Rights Watch report that the Administration had made a "deliberate policy choice" to abuse detainees. He answered that the organization had hurt its credibility by making unfounded accusations. Top Administration officials have stressed that the interrogation policy was reviewed and sanctioned by government lawyers; last November, President Bush said, "Any activity we conduct is within the law. We do not torture." Mora's memo, however, shows that almost from the start of the Administration's war on terror the White House, the Justice Department, and the Department of Defense, intent upon having greater flexibility, charted a legally questionable course despite sustained objections from some of its own lawyers.

Mora had some victories. "America has a lot to thank him for," Brant, the former head of the N.C.I.S., told me. But those achievements were largely undermined by a small group of lawyers closely aligned with Vice-President Cheney. In the end, Mora was unable to overcome formidable resistance from several of the most powerful figures in the government.

.......Published on Monday, February 20, 2006 by the New Yorker
Annals of the Pentagon; The Memo: How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted. by Jane Mayer

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 08:39 PM

Problem is T that for every cleverly couched denial that the Bushites provided that Saddam wasn't connected to 9/11 there were a couple hundred referencces to 9/11 in the selling of the invasion during the mad-dash-to-Iraq days...

Oh, what's a person to thinh???

Well, after the "Shock ans Awe" phase and the dust settles over the tens upon thousnads of innocent Iraqi women and children who were bombed to death, some 7-% plus Americans still held and opinion that Saddam and Al Qeada were linked???

Now, T, perhaps you would like to explain how this happened???

Maybe X-File worms got into the water supply... No, alienas came down and took over the minds of over 70% of the American population... No, it was....

So, T, if the Buish folks were so carefull in explaining tio the American people the fact there wasn'ta link then how come so many came to believe there was???

They sho nuff didn't get it from the anti-war folks...

I'm leaning toward the X-File worm explanation myself....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 09:07 PM

Teribus has once again stated: "Now then Arne what I have said is that the current US Administration have on numerous occasions between 11th September 2001 and the present day clearly stated that neither Saddam Hussein or the Iraq Government had any involvement in the attacks of 11th September, 2001. I have never ever said that the current US Administration believed that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism (don't know about terra-ism)."

What Teribus has not done is actually provide the "multiple" clear statements that he alleges exist that make this assertion. So you'lll pardon me if I simply refer Teribus to my last post, and the prior ones, and ask him what his actual response is....

But regardless of any response he comes up with, he's still a darn hypocrite....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 09:41 PM

Ahhhh, excuse the typo... That was 70% plus Americans who after the invasion believe that Saddam was linked to Al Qeada...

And, like Arne, I'm still awaiting T's reply on jsut how this could happen??? Especially in a population that couldn't identify Iraq on a world map just a year before...

I'm sticking with X-File worms....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 07:10 AM

Teribus 11 Feb 2006--"I am tasked with having to provide you with an example where"-- (within the period mid 2002 to the March 2003 actual invasion)-- "the US Administration made the categoric statement that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with those attacks" (of 11 Sept 2001). "I believe I did so".

You have perceived the assignment correctly. But, despite your assertion on that day, you have not provided even one such statement.

With the patience of Job I am still waiting for you to do so.

Surely just one statement, within the period in question, should be no problem for such an expert in foreign policy and geopolitics as yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 12:03 PM

Assignment:
"I am tasked with having to provide you with an example where"-- (within the period mid 2002 to the March 2003 actual invasion)-- "the US Administration made the categoric statement that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with those attacks" (of 11 Sept 2001).

Understanding of Assignment Approved by Ron:
"You have perceived the assignment correctly."

Reasoning: For the terms of the assignment to be met the following five conditions have to be satisfied:
1. Statement to the effect that Saddam Hussein/Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of the 11th September, 2001, must be made by a serving member, or members, of the US Administration.
2. Statement must be made at some point between mid 2002 and March 2003.
3. Statement had to heard by members of the US public.
4. Statement should have been able to be heard and understood.
5. For those members of the US public not watching, or listening, to the broadcast, the statement would have had to have been reported by the US media channels.

Transcript: From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press: RUSSERT: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:

Example 1
"RUSSERT on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
CHENEY (Vice-President of the United States of America): "No."

Example 2
RUSSERT 8th September,2002 show: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
CHENEY: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that.

Examination of Example 1, against governing criteria:
1. Satisfies, statement made by serving Vice-President.
2. Satisfies, this interview from 16th September, 2001 was "aired", and therefore heard by the US public on 8th September, 2002.
3. Satisfies, this was a broadcast by a major TV Network on what could be considered a popular current affairs programme.
4. Satisfies, clear and direct question, clear and emphatic reply.
5. Satisfies, widely reported and discussed.

Examination of Example 2, against governing criteria:
1. Satisfies, statement made by serving Vice-President.
2. Satisfies, this interview was "aired" and heard by the US public on 8th September, 2002.
3. Satisfies, this was a broadcast by a major TV Network on what could be considered a popular current affairs programme.
4. Satisfies, clear and direct question, clear answer.
5. Satisfies, widely reported and discussed.

Any problem understanding any of that Ron?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 04:54 PM

Teribus trots out the same lame stuff and pretends that it is a "clear" statement that Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11:

Example 1
"RUSSERT on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
CHENEY (Vice-President of the United States of America): "No."

Ummm, we've pointed this out before, but here Cheney denies that there's any evidence known to the maladministration linking Saddam to 9/11. Cheney says (amazingly enough, truthfully): "No." He denies that there's known evidence in support for such a link. He doesn't say that there's no such link (which, I should remind Teribus, is what Teribus was tasked with producing), nor does he say that the maladministration is in possession of evidence tending to refute such a link.

Example 2
RUSSERT 8th September,2002 show: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
CHENEY: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that.

He's simply saying he can't (or won't) assert positively that Saddam was involved in 9/11. But that's once again hardly a positive assertion that Saddam wasn't at all involved. Then, as pointed out above, Teribus hypocritically leaves out the follow-up, the 'rest of the story':

"On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq on the one hand and the al-Queda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years, We've seen, in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center..."

IOW, now he's saying there is "new information", new evidence (which turns out to be just as wrong as most of the "intelligence" on Iraq) about a meeting of Mohammed Atta (the lead hijacker in 9/11) with Iraqi security. Teribus wants us all to believe that this statement is (in combination with the preceding words) a "clear" statement that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. And he has a bridge for sale, too, if you have some spare cash. Still for sale, too, as no one's buying it.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 09:41 PM

Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Teribus is either incredibly obtuse or stubbornly digging himself ever deeper into his hole out of fear of being "wrong". I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 09:52 PM

Arne,

Assignment:
"I am tasked with having to provide you with an example where"-- (within the period mid 2002 to the March 2003 actual invasion)-- "the US Administration made the categoric statement that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with those attacks" (of 11 Sept 2001).

Understanding of Assignment Approved by Ron:
"You have perceived the assignment correctly."

If you now have to move the goalposts to support your view Arne, it demonstrates the weakness of your arguement in the first place. I was asked to provide one example, I have provided two.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 10:59 PM

Çorrection, Teribus--

You have provided zero--within the period mid-2002 to the invasion itself (March 2003).


You keep harping on 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press--which, we have agonizingly explained to you--is by no means a clear statement.


You have the entire period certainly from Sept 2002 to March 2003. At least 6 months. Surely you can find a clear statement by a Bush spokesman in that period that there was no link between Saddam and 9-11.

Especially since you have already claimed--totally falsely--that you have already provided such statements.

Face it--Franco is still dead, and your ship is still extremely sunk. You are dead wrong.

Yet again, too bad about your shattered ego.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 02:20 PM

Teribus sez:

If you now have to move the goalposts to support your view Arne, it demonstrates the weakness of your arguement in the first place....

Of course, Teribus alleges that I've "move[d] the goalposts", but, as seems to be the SOP for him, provides no evidence that I did any such thing.

... I was asked to provide one example, I have provided two.

Sez the floridly psychotic Teribus, after his "examples" were blown out of the water most decidedly.

And I'd note that Teribus at one time claimed "multiple" examples of such, so asking for just one ought not be a problem ... unless, that is, Teribus is just blowing gas from the nether regions....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 08:05 PM

Hello people, here's the question:

"Find a clear statement by a Bush spokesman in that period that there was no link between Saddam and 9-11."

Here's an example:

"RUSSERT on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?(911 attacks)"
CHENEY (Vice-President of the United States of America): "No."

OK Ron how bloody clear does it have to be. Just exactly what is it that you cannot understand about the above statement that was clearly broadcast to the people of the United States of America on two seperate occasions, initially on 16.09.01, and secondly on 8.09.02.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 10:09 PM

No, T-Distractor, you aren't dealing with reality... Yes, you would love nothing more than to reduce reality to an academic exercise where folks argue the definition of the word "is" of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

Propaganda is a real smooth advertisment campaign... Lopok at any ads and you see youthfullness and sex sublimininally incorporated into one ad after another... Do the ads promise that if you use Balbo that you will be younger or that by using a Balbo will have memebers of the oppoiste sex drape themselves on you??? QWell, no, they don't... Adverisement and proganda are intened to plant seeds and forms associations...

The grading of any ad or proaganda campaign is the final results and not the definintion of the word "is"...

So, here were are ajust a few months after the ivasion of Iraq and over 70% of Americans believed that Saddam had ties to Al Qeada????

Hmmmmmmmm????

Now Ron has shown where the language was manipulated so that the "denials" were over-rideen by the associations...

When I played a little PR trick on you, T, about "denying that you had relations with little boys" you got purdy steamed... I never once said you did have these relations but I crafted the wording, much like the Busd folks did, that left the impressions...

This ain't like Advertisising 402 but Advertisng 101 we're atl;king about here... You refuse to explain how 70% of Americans came to the conclusion that Saddam was linked with Al Qeada then get pissed off when I use an Advertising 101 trick involving you to show you exactly how it happened???

Like I have said before... If this were Debating 101, the professor would have sat you down a long timwe ago. You haven't made a convincing case and there's way too much evidence by way too many folks that Bush did manipulate intellegence and did manipulate words in order to get the American people to buy a war they wouldn't have bought had they simply been told the truth...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 10:33 PM

Congratulations, Bobert, you got #400. I'm so crestfallen--I didn't even manage to get it on a thread I even started. Life is just unfair.




We now return to our originally scheduled program, already in progress.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 11:26 PM

With your unerring accuracy, Teribus, you have missed the point yet again.

Congratulations! You bid fair to set a record for the most obtuse Bush apologist in history.

Nobody argues that the propaganda campaign against Iraq had started as of 16 Sept 2001 (a mere 5 days after 9-11.)

However, by 8 Sept 2002, it was in full swing--and unrelenting, right up til the March 2003 invasion (and beyond of course.)

You have told us--totally falsely, and repeatedly-- (your nose must be several miles long by now)--- that you have provided a clear statement, from the period mid-2002 up til the March 2003 invasion, in which a Bush spokesman clearly denied any link between Saddam and 9-11.

You have already admitted that you know that is the assignment--and whined to us, with   the (again false) accusation that it had changed. It has not changed.

Based on your, rather boring, truth be told, harping on the 16 Sept 2001 Meet the Press-- (outside the period in question) and the Sept 2002 Meet the Press-- (by no means a clear disassociation, as we have agonizingly explained to you, more than once, to say the least)--- I'm forced to the conclusion that you have no other possible quote--your two favorites being totally worthless, as I've just again explained-- in the entire 6 month period.

(For extra credit you can diagram that sentence).

Surely you can find just one quote to fit the specifications.. After all, you've already (falsely) alleged that you've provided several.

So here I sit, still with the patience of Job, you'll be happy to hear, hoping against hope for you to actually do what you say (falsely) you've already done.

Eagerly awaiting your next prevarication (oops, I mean posting)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 01:45 AM

OK then take a look again at the second example given:
Example 2
RUSSERT 8th September,2002 show: "Has anything changed, in your mind?" (As to whether Saddam or the Iraqi Government had anything to do with the 911 attacks)
CHENEY: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that.

Examination of Example 2, against governing criteria:
1. Satisfies, statement made by serving Vice-President.
2. Satisfies, this interview was "aired" and heard by the US public on 8th September, 2002.
3. Satisfies, this was a broadcast by a major TV Network on what could be considered a popular current affairs programme.
4. Satisfies, clear and direct question, clear answer.
5. Satisfies, widely reported and discussed.

Your trouble, Ron, appears to be that you cannot understand plain english. You are so wrapped up in inventing conspiracy and plot regarding the current administration that you completely fail to see the wood for the trees.

Bobert, don't confuse the issue:

"...explain how 70% of Americans came to the conclusion that Saddam was linked with Al Qeada"

Is not the same thing at all to -

"Saddam/Iraqi Government having anything to do with the attacks of 911"

By the way Bobert if you want the link explained go and read what the President of the United States said in the State of the Union Address in January 2002. Sorry Ron and Bobert but once again that will require the ability to read and understand plain english, so in both your cases it will in all probability prove to be a pointless exercise.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 07:29 AM

Let me see if I have this right, T???

This thread is about, if I read the title correctly, "Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign"...

70% of the American people, most of whom a year before couldn't tell you were Iraq was, now believe that Saddam was linked with Al Qeada, which if memory serves me correctly had allready been id'd as the organization responsible for 9/11...

Right_________

Wrong_________

Now TO WITT, you, T, master of hair splitting and resplitting say that I'm the one not reading and paying attention???

You are in serious denial...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 11:23 AM

Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Teribus cannot fight back against my annoying little campaign of quoting the Veep without revealing that down deep he (Teribus) really does understand the true (and intended) meaning of the Veep's statement. I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 02:34 PM

TIA: I like this version better:

"I'm not here to make a specific allegation that Teribus is a pedophile. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at the relationship between Teribus and that little boy down the street. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years...."

In fairness, we have to point out here that the "reporting" of these "contacts" was the biggest load of bull ever and flat-out wrong, and that even rational and knowledgeable people (such as the CIA) threw cold water on these "reports", but that's far more "fairness" than Cheney ever showed. Which is the entire point of this thread.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:10 PM

And now, for the benefit of the Dubya maladministration shills. we have this:

Andrew Sullivan takes a gander at Steven Cambone's notes and concludes that "My confidence that there was no deliberate misleading of the American people after 9/11 just slipped a notch." What changed his mind? This:

The most revealing items, of course, are the following: in discussing whether Iraq could have been involved, the notes say: "judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at same time." Later comes: "Hard to get a good case." Then there's this: "Go massive ... Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 07:21 AM

Teribus--

8 Sept 2002: Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that"

"On the other hand..." OK Teribus, what comes after "On the other hand?" And exactly why does it not--badly--undercut the supposed clear statement you seem to pledge allegiance to every day---making the water not just muddy but filthy.

More barnacles are growing on your sunken vessel.

It must be terrible to have such a fragile ego as yours. All you had to do was pick a better issue to defend.

Or just come up with a CLEAR statement by a Bush regime spokesman, from the period in question (mid 2002 to March 2003) which denies any link between Saddam and 9-11. Surely, with your towering intellectual abilities and wonderful grasp of all the issues, you can do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 09:05 AM

Yeah, Ron... I told T to jump this ship about 100 posts ago but here T is... sunk *but* still bailing???

"Insanity is repaeting a behavior expecting different results..." (Einstien)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 01:13 PM

And more for Teribus, BeardedBruce, and all the other folks with their intellectual blinders on:

From a noted bestselling author on America's security agencies (as well as N.Y. Times reporter, investigative producer for ABC's World News Tonight and other credentials, we have James Bamford: "A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies".

While there's some big words in there, if Teribus would just read at a minimum chapters 11-13 (in particular, Chapter 12), he'll get all the documentation he wants (including references to sources) for the Dubya propaganda campaign (and Cheney's abuse in particular of the intellignece services). Also of note is Douglas Feith's uncomfortably cozy relationship with foreign powers (see the Afterword in the Anchor Books Edition), something that 'Martin Gibson" ought te read and respond to as well.

Bamford is hardly a "dove"; he's a pretty hard-boiled and even-handed observer of the intelligence communities (his other books, The Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets are also quite interesting reading). In his latest, he points out the failings of the intelligence community in the wake of the cold war's demise, but tears to shreds the Dubya maladministration (and in particular Cheney's office) for their deliberate and -- in the end -- anti-American efforts to rewrite the geopolitical map of the Middle East in the service of Israeli hard-liners.

Included in the Pretext For War book is a blow-by-blow account of the propaganda campaign within the maladministration. If and when Teribus actually bothers to read and inform himself, it may be productive to once again "debate" him on the particulars....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 05:52 PM

So Mr. Bamford has a book to sell has he Arne, what's the punchline - Dog bites man?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 06:19 PM

Teribus:

Why don't you read it (at least Chapter 12) and see? Hey, you might even learn a few things....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 06:45 PM

Oh, Teribus:

You don't even have to buy it (unless you want all the gruesome details and the source references. You can read bout it here:

Next, Pretext describes how the claims involving Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, and Hussein's involvement with 9/11, were simply used as pretexts for a war long planned by a small group of neoconservatives supportive of the Israeli government's policies' and the expansion of U.S. military power throughout the Middle East. It examines how top Bush administration officials Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser first drafted a war plan outlining an attack on Iraq, and removal of Saddam Hussein, in 1996. But the document, titled "A Clean Break," was drafted for Israel, not the United States. At the time, the three were acting as advisors to newly elected Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. "Israel can shape its strategic environment," they wrote. "This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq � an important Israeli strategic objective." Not satisfied with regime change in Iraq, they went on to recommend that Israel continue to "shape its strategic environment" by "rolling back Syria."

Wurmser then authored a paper in January 2001 arguing that the U.S. and Israel jointly launch a pre-emptive war throughout the Middle East and North Africa to establish U.S.-Israeli dominance. The U.S. and Israel should "strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region � the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza," he wrote. He then added that, "crisises are opportunities."

About the same time, on January 30, 2001, President Bush held his first National Security Council meeting and, according to former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, discussed only two topics: becoming closer to Israel's Ariel Sharon and locating targets to attack in Iraq.

As Wurmser had suggested, following the 9/11 attacks the Bush administration immediately began using the crisis as an opportunity to launch their long planned war against Iraq. At 2:40 p.m. on September 11, as the Pentagon was still burning, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld dictated notes indicating his intention to blame Saddam Hussein, even though there was no evidence of any such link and all the intelligence pointed exclusively to bin Laden and al Qaeda. "Hit S.H. at same time," he wrote. "Sweep" him up, whether "related" to 9/11 or "not."

Next, Wurmser was put in charge of a secret unit in Feith's office with the cover name Policy Counter-terrorism Evaluation Group. Its function was to gather and feed less-than-credible intelligence -- intelligence discounted by the CIA, such as the supposed Niger uranium deal -- to the White House and Vice President Cheney's office. Wurmser is now Cheney's top Middle East advisor.

Finally, Pretext closely examines the numerous lies and deceptions presented to the Congress, the American public and the world in order to justify the war in Iraq.

And this:
One CIA analyst from the Iraq Non-Proliferation section told me that his boss once called his office together (about fifty people) and said, "You know what � if Bush wants to go to war, it's your job to give him a reason to do so." The former analyst added, "And I said, 'All right, it's time, it's time to go . . . And I just remember saying, 'This is something that the American public, if they ever knew, they would be outraged."

And this:

Pretext was also very well received by Congress. In an unusual move, a number of Republican and Democratic members of Congress hosted me at several private, members-only events to outline how the Bush administration deceived Congress and the public in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. This included both a dinner and an address in the Capitol Building.

There's other sites too, here and here. And some stuff on dear ol' "Scooter" Libby and his -- ummm, "interesting" circle of friends -- for you to peruse too.

Google is your friend, Teribus. Happy hunting.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 10:13 PM

The campaign has now been thorougly documented.

"A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations 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 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."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said he could not comment on the study because he had not seen it.

The study 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-Qaida or both....."

the rest with links...


Helluva thing to read after learning that my cousin's husband was just killed in Iraq. Holy fuck, I hope the Bush criminals are vilified by history.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 12:01 AM

White House "couldn't comment" since they hadn't seen the study? It may be interesting to see what they say when--and if--they do get a chance to see it.

More fancy footwork, no doubt.

Sorry to hear your cousin's husband has just been killed in Iraq, TIA. Tends to undercut the bragging about how the death rate is down.

I wonder where Teribus, everybody's favorite Bush apologist, is these days.

It would also still be fascinating to hear from a Bush defender just why Iraq is still in danger of "extremist takeover"--given the popularity of al-Qaeda among Iraqi Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Just which "extremists" are poised to take over in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 12:46 PM

Ron Davies:

White House "couldn't comment" since they hadn't seen the study? It may be interesting to see what they say when--and if--they do get a chance to see it.

Next on the list is "we can't comment while an investigation is being contemplated."

Next on the list is "we can't comment while an investigation is pending."

Next on the list is "we can't comment on matters of nash'null securituh."

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 01:10 PM

War Card report can be read here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 05:00 PM

(plusça change... )

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 05:06 PM

On the Repression of Dissent in American Universities.

...Plus c'est la meme chôse.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 05:16 PM

And the beat goes on while...

...the usual suspects wonder just why we don't believe either them or their hero???

We'll just refer to this as the "duhhhh, factor"...

Meanwhile, Bush, even after his own intellegence people told him that Iran curtainled it's nyclear weapons program in 2003, continues to woof-woof about Iran being such a menace...

Oh, speaking of a menace... The EU has released a statement accusing Bush for creating the current worldwide financial crisis with his econimic policies of spend, spend, spend and not have means to pay for it... Sound familiar??? Well, it should... It's a page outta Reagans "Voodoo Economics Handbook" which also brought about similar results in Reagun's 7th year... Deja' vu...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 10:42 PM

Gee, Teribus is posting on other threads. Wonder why he doesn't have the time to grace us with his presence. I'd particularly like him to tell us exactly which "extremists" are ready to take over Iraq--since we are told that's what we are there to prevent.   As even he might be aware, al-Qaeda is roundly despised and hated by Iraqi Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis.

I'm sure he has a creative suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 11:00 PM

Ron, the extremists have taken over Iraq, quite some ime ago too, I might add. They are US! We took extreme measures & we are paying extreme costs but I said this before we went into Iraq. It was appearant then but the nation was beating it's patriotic war drums & drowning out any thing sensible. Still is.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 02:02 PM

Yes, Barry, very extreme costs...

The reason "The Surge" has cut down on vioence isn't becuase of "The Surge" of troops... No, its "The Surge" of our tax dollars + guns going to Sunni croonies as protection money... Yeah, we are paying them not to kill US???

Hmmmmmmmmm???
B

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 11:23 PM

Still no Teribus. Gee, we're pining away here.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: TIA
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:13 PM

We knew they planted stories in the NY Times, then cited them as proof of W's of MD in a sneaky circular argument.

We knew they planted false stories in international newspapers.

We knew they published rigged "polls".

Now we know that they have been bribing and browbeating former military men to pretend to be objective military analysts on the news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1209405887-tvyIpgX6c9A8QG0u9X18hg

Is there really anybody out there who still does not believe there was (in fact *still is*) a carefully orchestrated, far-reaching propaganda campaign?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 08 - 05:11 PM

On-site reports from Baghdad do not show great signs of improvement if any.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 05 May 08 - 05:32 PM

Yeah, Amos, there will not be any progress until the US leaves...

But, Bobert, that might mean an escelation in the current civil war???)

Not my problem... Let them work it out... I am very sorry but we can't fix it no mattrer how long we saty... Might of fact, I think our staying will just make the civil war that much greater when we leave...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 May 08 - 10:42 PM

It's really interesting that Teribus seems to think that even though, on this very thread I believe, it was established that GWB in fact had no UN authorization to attack Iraq in 2003, he feels that if he brings up the old tired specious arguments on another thread, say for instance, the Obama bombing Pakistan one, he'll have better luck with the same nonsense.

Now what was that definition of insanity--something about trying the same failed idea over and over, in hopes of a different result?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 May 08 - 11:00 PM

Yup Ron, that's about the size of the argument:

The USA was bound by (clever/date I say evil?) interpretations of previous UN resolutions to invade Iraq even though the UN was on the verge of voting to forbid the USA from invading, and the invasion was hurredly implemented before the vote to ensure that we could hide behind this transparent rationalization.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 06 May 08 - 08:05 AM

Yo, Ron and TIA... I'd suggest that you both walk away from the "Resolutions Distractions" tactic that T is playing on you... It is nothing more than an academic pea-under-the shell game that favors endless denial on T's part...

Really, think about it... It's been, what, 5 or 6 years of endless debate over the "language" of UN resolutions...

What is happening in Iraq is criminal and anti-human??? Innocent people are dieing every day and the argument should not be made on an "academic playiong field" where T can keep it going for a "100 years or more" but on the "human field" where we have the advantage...

Upwards of a million Iraqs have now been killed... Over 5000 Anericabn and British troops and private contractors have been killed... Tens upon thousands of other "prople" have been seriously wounded and are noe disabled... Our presence in Iraq only keeps the bllod flowing in streets of various Iraqi towns and the US governemnt is beibg played by both sides in an on going civil war...

We don't even have to talk about just how much of our treasury we have spent opr the good it could have done for our people... We don't even have to talk about the fact that no WMDs, the excuse for going to war, were not found...

What we need to be talking about is getting the heck out... Period... Screw resolutions... 89 cents and a UN resolution will get you a cup of coffee at yer local Pigly Wiggly... This human catastrope is beyond dumb resoultions...

What we need is to get the heck out of Iraq...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 08 - 09:46 AM

Tens of thousands of American minds have been stressed to the breaking point, with poor chances of permanent recovery.

The physically wounded show the world. THose whose wounds are of the heart and mind have no audience but themselves for their screams. The shattered bonnes will heal, or be replaced with titanium. The shattered minds will never forget the experiences that broke them.

Those traumatized by duress and loss, even absent physical damage, carry theitr own scars. The net effect of these, on either side, is the promulgation of madness in a world that cannot afford anymore insanity.

Bad decisions at the top. Bush will retire on a legacy of economic, societal and political mayhem, and a handsome pension with secret service agents.

In another day, when justice was less convoluted, he might have been hanged, beheaded, or publically drawn and quartered. IF he were really fortunate, banished on pain of death.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 08 - 01:35 PM

Lawrence Kaplan was one of the influential proponents of the Iraq invasion. In a telling interview with der Spiegel, he concedes his support of the war was "an abstraction", not based on an appreciation of the ground elements of reality involved.

The article header is "NEOCONSERVATIVE LAWRENCE KAPLAN ON IRAQ
'I Don't See Anything Good That Has Come from this War' "

The interview can be found on this page.

An excerpt:

"SPIEGEL ONLINE: So for the record: Was the Iraq war a mistake?

Kaplan: Yes. Knowing what we know today, definitely. I know this is political poison in some quarters, but respect to reality demands this answer. However, this is a completely different question from whether or not having invaded Iraq we should stay or leave. On this I am equally clear: We turned this country upside down and we have an obligation to put it back together again. No matter how long it takes.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The Iraq war was percieved as the one chance the neocons had in our time to prove that their theories were right. Is neoconservatism already a historical footnote?


NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.

Kaplan: The near term argument here is that if John McCain wins the presidential election, neoconservatism will have been vindicated. Because by voting him into office, people will have tacitly given their endorsement to that sort of foreign policy. His advisers are the very people we are arguing about. The second argument is that, even if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton win, they can't completely escape certain ideas that could be described as neoconservative. Because in the course of American history, what we refer to as Neoconservatism today, is really just a shorthand for the practice of combining power and idealism in foreign policy. It's very difficult to escape these boundaries. The question is only how much you stress the one and how much the other. Looking at it from this angle, the difference even between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush is not huge. There's something essentially American about what we today call neoconservatism. Or to put it differently: Iraq set things back. But to extrapolate too much from Iraq would be as if after Vietnam one had said that anti-communism was discredited and we should stop fighting the Cold War. "

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 06 May 08 - 04:38 PM

"Upwards of a million Iraqs have now been killed" - Bobert

Prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 06 May 08 - 05:38 PM

No, you prove it's false, T...

Yo, Amos,

Kaplin is so fulll of it that his eyes have to be brown./.. UI don't buy into the theroy that neoconservativism is here to stay... Neoconservatism is based on a new world order that is enforced upon countries and populations...

You can count me out...

Kapklin thinks that Obama or Clinton will have to adopt some of the neocon principles??? I hope not!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 08 - 08:55 PM

I think he's trying to redefine the word from its despicable nadir, Bobert.

But at least he has confessed to bad thinking.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 May 08 - 11:38 PM

Welcome back, Teribus. We've missed you.

Now perhaps you can tell us how al-Qaeda can take over Iraq---supposedly the reason we're there---when Iraqi Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites loathe and despise it.

Looking forward to your revelations on this specific issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 08 - 12:00 AM

Neoconservatism today, is really just a shorthand for the practice of combining power and idealism in foreign policy.

Combining power and idealism. Isn't that what Hitler did?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:03 AM

Sorry Bobert, you keep coming out with this million dead statement, give us some form of substantive evidence for it.

Ron, always pleased to be of service, it's good to have something to look forward to.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 08 - 08:19 AM

Okay, T, have at it:

http://www.justforiegnpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

Current deaths: 1,205,025

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 08 - 09:01 AM

"The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings. "


info on previous 100,000 claim. Oct 2004



In fact, unless you define the term "Upwards of a million Iraqs have now been killed... " to say BY WHO, it is meaningless.

By US and coalitiion troops?

By insurgents?

By automobile accidents?

By age or disease?

By Iranian expolsive devices?

By suicide bombers?

And what number would have been killed had we NOT invaded? ( Using the pre-invasions statistics presented in past threads?

Are more or less Iraqis alive now than would have been alive if we had not invaded? THAT depends on whether the WMD PROGRAMS that were bing worked on by Saddam were stopped- which the UN has NOT been able to do in the case of Iran ( or N. Korea) so there is no reason to think they would have had any effect in Iraq.

Under the traditional ( established by the Democrats when they controlled both the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives) any attack by WMD would be met with total destruction (MAD), so that means what- 24 million dead Iraqis?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:17 AM

Google "Information Clearing House Newsletter", BB, for "cumulative Iraqi awr deaths"...

And how many Iraqis would have been killed had we not invaded??? One heck of alot less than what we've seen since the invasion...

BTW, BB, you seem to only understand military solutions and seem incapable of going back to 2002 and imagine a different world view from that of your neocon buddies... Saddam was a company man and he was vain and scared to death of his neighbors... We knew this much about him from our past dealings with the man so what if rather than having Bush surrounded by neocons he had been surrounded with folks who understood how to manipulate Saddam and bring him back into the fold with some kind of security pact??? Of course one could have put a little "stick" in the "carrots and sticks"...

But no, the neocons only understoof the "stick" part of foriegn policy and it clearly hasn't worked and won't work... Occupying countries hasn't worked out too well going back a 100 years... Colonialism and neo-colonialism has proven to be a trap to the invader... And no it is US that is very badly trapped of out own makings...

In the words of the late Waylon Jennings, "We need a change"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:18 AM

Here's the link, corrected.

"



The number is shocking and sobering.

It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003.

That study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The graphic above provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count. (See the complete explanation.)

The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion.

This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly cite it. .."


One of the cited sources, however, reports a civilian body count of 83,441 – 91,003 .

Is 100,000 an acceptable figure, T? Toluhable?

I spit.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:20 AM

"Ali Hussein was buried in the clothes he died in: a white-and-blue t-shirt and a pair of little orange shorts. It was what he wore the day his dust-covered body was pulled out of the rubble of his house, after it had been flattened by an American bomb. Ali was 2 years old.

At least 30 people died in that bombing in Baghdad's Sadr City, on the 29th of April, 12 of whom were children.

"Ya'mma, Ya'ba" ("Oh mother, oh father"), cried Amira Zaydan, a 45-year-old spinster, slapping her face and chest as she grieved for her parents Jaleel, 65, and Hanounah, 60, whose house had exploded after apparently being hit by an American rocket.
"Where are you, my brothers?" she sobbed, lamenting Samir, 32, and Amir, 29, who had also perished along with their wives, one of whom was nine months pregnant.
"What wrong have you done, my children?" she howled to the spirits of four nephews and nieces who completed a toll of 10 family members in the disaster that struck last Tuesday (The Times, 4 May).

As neighbours were trying to dig out her family's bodies out of the rubble, another rocket landed, killing 6 rescuers.

Um Aseel Ali lost her husband and 3 sons, aged 6, 4 and 2, when a rocket hit their house, while another woman, Um Marwa Muntasser, kept under sedation, lay unaware that her husband Samir and her children, 4-year-old Sajad and 2-year-old Ayat, had been killed when their home was hit. All three women may qualify for condolence payments (made for death, injury or battle damage resulting from US military operations) usually around $2,000-$3,000, which should ease their pain of having had their families exterminated inside their own homes.

Overall, 218 civilians were killed in Iraq last week, 25 of them children. 20 of those children were killed by US forces, as they tried to kill Iraqi 'criminals' through bombing house after house, neighbourhood after neighbourhood, in a city of 2.5m people.

As April 2008 came to an end, the Iraqis mourned another 1,400 civilians… perhaps as many as 1,900. At least 66 children were reported killed in April, while US forces killed a minimum of 136 civilians (and possibly as many as 600), with the blessing of the democratically elected Iraqi government.

How can we do this? How can we 'enlightened,' 'liberal' and 'moral' citizens of a culture that has allegedly reached the 'end of history', a culture that stands for freedom, human rights and equality… how can we commit such crimes? We think we can fight humanitarian wars inhumanely, we find it acceptable to meet 'evil with evil'. We, who think our morality and our ethics to be superior to those of others, less civilised, how can we bear to be so cruel?

When did we lose our faith in our principles, those principles that were true for us, that defined our western civilisation? When did we abandon those principles that made our lives a little more meaningful than the simple struggle for survival in a jungle, a little more meaningful than the basic survival of the fittest –or, in this case, the mightiest?

When did our own lives become so meaningless that we can bear to take the lives of children without guilt, without regret, so systematically and so heartlessly? "



THese are questions for which I do not have answers.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:22 AM

"And how many Iraqis would have been killed had we not invaded??? One heck of alot less than what we've seen since the invasion..."


That is the question that you are ducking. IMO, the number that would have been killed would include at least the ones that Saddam would have killed ( see past discussions- more than the war) as well as the ones that would be killed by the continuation of the plans in place by Saddam.


Saddam's non-compliance with the UN resolution ( as stated by the UN) indicates that "business as usual" would have meant and eventual WMD use by Saddam, or by some proxy that he gave the WMD to.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:56 AM

To somer degree the notion that Saddam was a better alternative than the present is because he made Iraq so much ewasier to ignore as a far-off place with different rules.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans learned the words "Shiite" and "Sunni" and perhaps even "Allah" for the first time because of Bush's war. We as a population were force dby the war to look more closely at the nature of Middle Eastern entanglements.

This beneficial side-effect is trivial, though, compared to the blood and money wasted because we looked at it as though we were the planet's SWAT team, and those contained in Saddam's web were no more players than cheap inventory in a Target store.

So Bush opted for the solution of excessive force, ruining lives and unbalancing the economy in the process

A more intelligent leader would have weighed the elements in the problem more carefully.

For all his touting phrases about freedom and democracy, Bush made the basic and ridiculous mistake of have a paternalistic approach toward democracy. The biggest hole in his plan was that he did not care to understand the people to whom he was gifting democracy and how much difference their indifference to democratic principles is. (Not economic principles or secular freedoms, mind you).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:23 AM

Spit away Amos, while doing so ponder what is stated in that link, compared to what Bobert contends and what you are spitting about:

"Tell your friends about this estimate of Iraqi deaths." - JFP site

"Upwards of a million Iraqs have now been killed" - Bobert

Notice any great difference in those Amos? Because if you can't I sure as hell can.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:38 AM

Read the JFP site more carefully, T.

Based on the earlier calculations and rate of change they estimate Iraqi deaths ast xsomething over one million. They state:

"Since researchers at Johns Hopkins estimated that 601,000 violent Iraqi deaths were attributable to the U.S.-led invasion as of July 2006, it necessarily does not include Iraqis who have been killed since then. We would like to update this number both to provide a more relevant day-to-day estimate of the Iraqi dead and to emphasize that the human tragedy mounts each day this brutal war continues.

This daily estimate is a rough estimate. It is not scientific; for that, another study must be conducted. However, absent such a study, we think this constitutes a best estimate of violent Iraqi deaths that is certainly more reliable than widely cited numbers that, often for political reasons, ignore the findings of scientifically sound demographic studies.

In September 2007, a new scientific poll of Iraqis confirmed that the number dead is likely to be over a million. The prestigious British polling firm, Opinion Research Business, estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis had been killed violently since the U.S. invasion.

The Significance of the Iraqi Death Estimate

The Lancet study already demonstrated that, as of July 2006, the deaths caused by the U.S. invasion of Iraq rivaled the death toll of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Our update suggests that it has now surpassed even high estimates of deaths in Rwanda. (Note that this does not even include Iraqi deaths attributable to the 1991 Gulf War or the sanctions imposed on the population between the two wars.)

Realization of the daunting scale of the death and suffering inflicted on Iraqis should add urgency to efforts to end the occupation and to prevent such "pre-emptive" invasions or "interventions" in the future. The American people need to rein in their government and create a new kind of foreign policy, one based on cooperation, law, and diplomacy rather than violence and aggression.

The Rationale for Just Foreign Policy's Iraqi Death Estimator
Iraq is in a state of extreme upheaval that makes it very difficult to record deaths. The occupiers and the central government they established do not control much of the country. The occupying forces have made it clear that they "do not do body counts." The Iraqi government releases regular estimates of deaths in the country, but these are unreliable. In early 2006, the Iraqi Minister of Health publicly estimated between 40,000 and 50,000 violent Iraqi deaths since the invasion. In October 2006, the same week a study was published in the Lancet estimating 600,000 deaths, the Minister tripled his estimate, saying there had been 150,000 deaths. Can this be anything but political?

The media in any country only detect a fraction of all violent deaths. In Iraq, the media is limited to shrinking zones of safe passage. While press reports of violence in Iraq are important and often heroically obtained, they cannot provide a complete picture of all deaths in that war-torn country.

In a country such as Iraq, where sufficient reporting mechanisms do not exist, there is a scientifically accepted way to measure demographics including death rate: a cluster survey. Cluster surveys provide reliable demographic information the wake of natural disasters, wars and famines. Cluster surveys give us the data about deaths in Darfur, accepted for example by the U.S. government as one basis for its charge of genocide. They are used by U.N. agencies charged with disaster and famine relief.

In Iraq, there have been two scientifically rigorous cluster surveys conducted since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. The first, published in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet (available in pdf), estimated that 100,000 excess Iraqi deaths had resulted from the invasion as of September 2004. The second survey, also published in The Lancet (available in pdf), updated that estimate through July 2006. Due to an escalating mortality rate, the researchers estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis had died who would not have died had the death rate remained at pre-invasion levels. Roughly 601,000 of those excess deaths were due to violence.

As with all statistical methods, the Lancet surveys come with a margin of error, as do opinion polls, for example. In the second survey, the researchers were 95 percent certain that there were between 426,000 and 794,000 excess violent deaths from March 2003 to July 2006. 601,000 is the most likely number of excess violent deaths. It is this number that our Estimator updates."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:54 AM

The word "estimate" seems to figure large in your "cut'n'paste" Amos.

Care to tell us what it means. From what I remember I don't think it means "definite", or "certain", or "confirmed".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:58 AM

Don't get snide with me.

It means estimate, as you well and clearly know, and no-one has imputed any other definition to it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:59 AM

From MY link...


"The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.

The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 08 - 12:30 PM

BB,

Your question is not answer-able because it deals 100% with hypotheticals... If I change the wording of the question and throw it back into your court you cannot answer it either... You are just playing childish rhetorical games...

No did intended... It's just the way it is...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:20 PM

Bobert,

Then how can you claim that any specific number are due to the US invasion? Since we invaded, you seem to claim all deaths are our fault- yet the past statistics of that country indicate a higher death rate when Saddam was in power. You are saying we should not have attacked and let a larger number of people die?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:23 PM

As Amos was a bit coy about giving us the meaning of "estimate" here it is:

estimate - noun
a guess of what the size, value, amount, cost, etc. of something might be

estimate - verb
to guess the cost, size, value, etc. of something

So what you and Bobert are basing your claim that "Upwards of a million Iraqs have now been killed" is a GUESS. Which if any had bothered to read The Lancet Article would have been obvious as in thet article the introduction clearly stated that "Iraqi civilians MAY HAVE died".

If you are going to make statements on numbers of fatalities the least you can do is base them on something better than a GUESS.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:23 PM

hypotheticals????

"the researchers estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis had died who would not have died had the death rate remained at pre-invasion levels. Roughly 601,000 of those excess deaths were due to violence."


Yet you will not allow the discussion of the "pre-invasion" levels?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 02:01 PM

T:

Don't be boring. An estimate is a guess based on rational premises, extrapolation, or reasonable probabilities. A guess is something you pull out of your ass.

What IS your problem?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:20 PM

It is still a guess not a fact so stop presenting it as such.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:29 PM

Oh, T, are you all puckered up? The order of magnitude is correct, and if it is even a whole factor of 10 off the ground truth, do you think that modulates the stupidity and immorality of the situation one whit?

It does not, my friend.

If it were only ten thousand, or two million, the equiation of this false and bloodyminded decision does not change its ugly colors or its rotten odor one scintilla.

Would you get a better view of the iceberg if I moved your deckchair a bit this way. sir? You can hear the band better from here, too...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:57 PM

BB,

Go argue with the source I provided...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 08 - 05:43 PM

What me all puckered up Amos!!! I'm not the one with a thread of damn near 800 posts the majority of them mine, practically all of which are pointless cut'n'pastes banging on about how the President misrepresented rfacts to Congress in order to get approval to invade Iraq.

But we see here that both you and Bobert are not above misrepresenting facts yourselves when it suits your purpose. Now I'd just call that downright hypocritical.

Don't care what the number is Amos but if you're going to quote it get the damn thing right, or as near right as can be managed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:55 PM

Well, T, excuse me. The source given above, as I pointed out, does in fact "estimate", using an earlier "rigorous cluster study" as a baseline, that the total deaths are over one million.

The Lancet study which first came up with the baseline figure was heavily flamed by people who dreamed of war but not of the horrors of it.

I do not know of any better estimate, given the chaos of war.

But as Bobert says, go to the page and argue with them about their methods.

I am truly sorry that you relish war so much, but that is your worry.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 08 - 08:32 PM

Yeah, T... I mean, this has become a tiresome exercise in futility and whether it's 300,000 or 1,200,000 it doesn't really change the conversation, does it??? Back when I was sayin' 100,000 you spent way too much energy attacking those figures as if I knew every one of those Iraqis personally and had an accurate count... This is beyond a waste of time with you and BB and I won't engage in ya'all's game any more...

And I'll continue to say "upwards of a million" and if you don't like it, tough...

You want to debate somethin' then lets debate the real reasons why Bush ordered the invasion... No, not to phony baloney UN resolutions crap that could become an endless academic exercise in further futility but the real reasons... You know what they are... The are based in a neocon philospohy of a "new world order" that has now shown to have more holes in it than Swiss Cheeeze... And then there is Bush who has never really succeeded at anything other than stealing 16 million bucks from the tax payer of Arlington, Texas who wanted to show his dadddy that he could do something "right"... Wrong againg, George...

But academic exercises have grown tiresome...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:50 PM

Remember, an estimated death is not an actual death. Pol Pot did nothing wrong in Cambodia, because no one can show me 4 million certified death certificates. In fact, Saddam was not doing anything wrong before we invaded. If you are going to claim that he was, you better show me the death certificates for all those Shiites.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 08 May 08 - 01:01 AM

Re Pol Pot and Saddam you don't need death certificates TIA the contents of the mass graves told the story and provided the numbers plainly enough.

As to the Hopkins Study guesswork, I do not have to argue with them or with the site linked to referring to it. IranBodyCount did more than a competant critique of Hopkins figures

You might not know of any better estimate/guess Amos, so why not use actual confirmed figures Amos? Bobert doesn't like those because they don't match his scaremongering and they are not so good for Bush bashing which in reality is all the pair of you are interested in.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 May 08 - 10:40 AM

The estimation method used in that link (provided by Amos) is a bit too creative for my taste (creative in a very verbatim sense too).

But the numbers game here is stupid from both sides: Someone with left leaning has to believe the highest estimate available, someone with right leaning has to believe the lowest estimate available, both of course irrespective of the methodological quality.

But you may want to read an interview with someone who has changed his mind.

I Don't See Anything Good That Has Come from this War (Interview with Lawrence Kaplan)

(Just BTW, J.R. would be overjoyed by the designation of both Obama and Clinton as neoconservative; but that is only a minor part in the interview)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 08 May 08 - 10:46 AM

Amos posted this somewhere else, W-Gang...

I think it is a stretch to put the neocon label on Obama... Clinton??? Maybe...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 08 - 12:13 PM

In the article there is a hard stretch made to redefine neocon, Bobert. Kinda like Ann Coulter's campaign to degrade the definition of the word "liberal" to mean any faggoty pinko socialist commie bastard bleeding heart namby-pamby pussy they want to brand. In the article they try to make the argument that neocons are really the new mainstream center-of-the-road. I don't buy it, but it is just a semantic shellgame in any case.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 08 - 02:46 PM

Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign 466* 08 May 08 - 12:13 PM
Popular views /Bush Administration 1124* 08 May 08 - 12:05 PM

I don't suppose either of these is the one you're referring to, T? Or were you averaging them together?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 May 08 - 03:54 PM

scaremongering?

Are you implying that the Iraq Body Count numbers (documented) are not scarey?

Are they acceptable?... or justifiable?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 08 May 08 - 04:11 PM

Don't ask T hard questions, TIA... His little accountant type mind is not capable of either answerin' them or even comin' close to understanding them... As long as human suffering can be shoved into the back seat whuile T rattles on about UN resolutons he is blissfully happy...

Notice that he doesn't venture too far away from the UN stuff and has never, to my knowledge, openly discussed the real reason as to why the US felt it needed to invade Iraq purdy much unilaterially...

Oh, he'll bring up the Coilition od the Willing (Bullied...) but this was Bush's decision and he made it the day that the Supreme Court overruled democracy...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 08 May 08 - 04:32 PM

"Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign 466* 08 May 08 - 12:13 PM
Popular views /Bush Administration 1124* 08 May 08 - 12:05 PM

I don't suppose either of these is the one you're referring to, T? Or were you averaging them together?"


Huh??????

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 May 08 - 05:59 PM

Teribus-

You are indeed welcome back, but you'd be even more welcome if you'd tell us how al-Qaeda is supposed to take over Iraq--which is of course the threat held over our heads by GWB and now McCain. If we pull our troops out of Iraq-- (aside from "Kurdistan" where they are actually wanted)--, al-Qaeda is going to take over Iraq, we are told.

Inquiring minds want to know why there is any reasonable chance of this, given that Iraqi Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites hate al-Qaeda.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 08 May 08 - 07:18 PM

Another question that T won't or can't answer...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 08 - 01:19 AM

Well thanks very much for that Ron.

"you'd be even more welcome if you'd tell us how al-Qaeda is supposed to take over Iraq" - Ron Davies

Where and when did I ever say that al-Qaeda is supposed to take over Iraq Ron? If that is what GWB and McCain are saying then I would suggest that you ask them. This being election year at least the latter should be communicative enough for you to get some sort of answer.

Any fool could see however that premature withdrawal of MNF troops from Iraq would be viewed by Al-Qaeda as a victory for them and a defeat for the US. Would that hearten them? Most certainly. Would that damp down any ambitions that they might have? Very much doubt it. Would it prevent further attempts to strike the US as a supposed root cause would have been removed? Most certainly not.

By the bye just reported by BBC, that the current head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Masri, has been captured.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:52 AM

Teribus--


I'm aware of the news about al-Masri. And as you know al-Qaeda uses the franchise model, not the IBM one. It is not at all clear that removing the CEO   (or division chief for Iraq) will make much of an impact. But I have been making my argument for months about the senselessness of the assertion that al-Qaeda is about to take over in Iraq--for the reason I cited.


So please be good enough to tell use whether you agree with my argument or not--rather than dodging the question by passing it on to McCain--who may possibly not answer my question.

You have been one the strongest supporters of a continued large presence in Iraq. I say it is no longer necessary---and only was ever necessary if you accept that GWB had grounds to invade in 2003. Which is also specious.

But the question now is: is the continued presence of a large US military force in Iraq necessary in your judgment or not? Yes or no.

No "War and Peace" -like tome is needed to answer the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:56 AM

Yes

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:48 AM

Apparantly the capture was of another bloke with a similar name, according to later reports. Pity.

What would the consequences of a US withdrawal from Iraq be, T?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:59 AM

You tell me Amos, or Ron, or Bobert, or Danavan, or Barak Obama, anyone in fact who keeps banging on about bringing the troops home NOW. I'd be delighted to hear.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:59 AM

There Ron, we both have things to look forward to now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:18 AM

It was not al Masri after all.
Not THE al Masri anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:40 AM

I agree with both Amos and Keith - What a pity, but if not today, then maybe tomorrow, or the next day, etc. Time is not on the man's side.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:46 AM

Well, I have too little data to make aprofessional estimate. But if you want a SWAG, here's what I think would happen.

The Northern Kurdish region would stabilize with occasional hiccups caused by the Turkish Kurdistan movement.

The main power centers of Baghdad, Basra, etc. woud split into warring faction -- not just Shiite v Sunni, but also tribal groups seeking fame and honor and dominance and revenge.

The central government would have two choices. One would be to unite all the armed elements into a strong army which dramatically suppressed violence, insurgence, and even disagreement.

The other would be to fall apart and give way to tooth and claw evolution -- after a century or so of ongoing bullshit, some form will evolve that will stabilize the region. A strong leader, a monarch or dictator, would emerge if allowed to. OR the individuals of Iraq will find their own voices and stand up for mutual aid and common consent and a democratic gnostic republic.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 08 - 11:18 AM

Leading to War is an extensive film documenting the twists and turns arriving at the present state of affairs in Iraq.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 08 - 01:02 PM

Amos,

Thanks for your views and predictions in your post of 09 May 08 - 10:46 AM, but I note that you only cover the possible consequences in Iraq.

The effects of "bring the troops home NOW" (Premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq) would be a great deal more far reaching than that, for many many countries in many many different ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 08 - 01:47 PM

PRay, T, explicate. I asked you the question in the first place because I wanted to know how you saw it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 May 08 - 04:57 PM

The terrorists will follow us home no doubt. On foot?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:30 PM

I just saw Robert Redford's movie, Lions For Lambs.

I highly reccomend it.

I really liked the scenes with Senator Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:38 PM

OK Teribus--

Thanks for the unusually direct and clear answer. See, you can do it when you have a mind to.

Next question: Do you believe that if the US troops left Iraq-- (aside from "Kurdistan" where they are actually wanted)--that al Qaeda would take over Iraq?

Again: yes or no.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 08 - 05:02 AM

Hang on a bit Ron, you seemed to have completely ignored the question I asked you.

Oh I forgot, you have to get somebody to tell you what to say first. That's OK, for that will give me something else to look forward to.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 May 08 - 04:26 PM

Scott McClellan (remember him? former Bush loyalist who was deep in the inner circle as White House Press Secretary) says of Iraq in his soon-to-be published book that "...Bush and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war."

Okay, so pretty much everyone (except maybe the current inner circle) acknowledges that there really *was* a propaganda campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 08 - 06:32 PM

The inner circle report that they are very puzzled by McLellan's disloyalty. I guess they never heard the old metaphor about rats and sinking ships. At least, like Nixon's lawyer John Dean (author of "Blind Ambition") he is trying to make up for his past falsifications in the public arena.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 28 May 08 - 07:56 PM

How comes that alot of us folk singers somehow figured this out way back then and it's news now???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 May 08 - 09:43 PM

OK Teribus--

Sorry I didn't address your question as to consequences of a US withdrawal from Iraq.

Tell you what, I'll answer your question, and you answer mine.

Mine is very specific:   Given that Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds loathe and despise al-Qaeda, how is al-Qaeda going to take over Iraq?---though this is exactly what we've been threatened with by GWB and now McCain.




As to my thesis on the outcome if the US brings its troops home now:

1) I never said all troops should be brought home. I have always insisted that since US troops are actually wanted in "Kurdistan", we should maintain a large presence there--but only there.   Among other things this will dissuade any future Turkish government from drastic action in "Kurdistan" against the PKK--and thereby help stabilize the area.


2) We should however withdraw all combat troops from the rest of Iraq. GWB invaded Iraq after the spectacularly successful propaganda campaign discussed in this thread--and recognized by all literate beings---now including GWB's former press spokesman.

As I and many others have said for quite a while--and now Scott McClellan also admits--the Iraq war was unnecessary. There was no excuse for it--and there still is no excuse. And it was foisted on the US public by means of a despicable propaganda campaign.

The Iraqis can--and will--work out their own problems (aside from the Kurds in "Kurdistan", which I've spoken about above.)

3) Anybody who predicts dire consequences from a US withdrawal needs to be specific in exactly what those would be--with facts and evidence.

If that's what you predict, we need those facts and evidence.

The ball is in your court.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: kendall
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:32 AM

This scare tactic about the terrorists following us home... we invaded Mexico, Spanish territory, Germany, Japan, Korea, Viet Nam, Panama, Granada, the Dominican republic etc. and none of them followed us home. Seems to me that if we stop walking all over the Arabs they will have no reason to "follow us home"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:57 PM

OK Teribus--

Still waiting patiently for your words of wisdom.

I've answered your question. Time for you to answer mine:

Given that Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds loathe and despise al-Qaeda, how is al-Qaeda going to take over Iraq?-which is, of course, what we are constantly being threatened with by GWB and now McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 30 May 08 - 01:02 PM

How neat and tidy, Ron. But like Amos, your answer only seems to cover Iraq. Have a good, hard think about it. I could envision wide reaching consequences of a premature departure of US troops from Iraq that would in all likelyhood result in a major global as opposed to a minor regional conflict.

John McCain is right on the money when he states:

"To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership.''

Now to answer your question: "Given that Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds loathe and despise al-Qaeda, how is al-Qaeda going to take over Iraq?"

1. Your question starts off with the false premise that Al-Qaeda is universally loathed by all parties in Iraq. If it can be presented in any way, shape, or form that Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq has forced the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, then Al-Qaeda will have all the friends they need in the region and elsewhere in the "Islamic" world the US will find itself with none.

2. As to "how is al-Qaeda going to take over Iraq?" probably the same way as a minor Sunni Group did over 50 years ago. All in all there are between 1 billion to 1.8 billion Muslims world-wide, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world, of that number approximately 85% are Sunni and 15% are Shiia. So while the Shiia may be in a majority in Iraq they are vastly outnumbered elsewhere. If in the extremely bloody "civil war" that would undoubtedly erupt if the US forces pulled out prematurely, it looked as though the "Sunni heroes" who vanquished the forces of "The Great Satan" were being slaughtered and subject to defeat at the hands of Shiia supported by Iran, I venture to guess that Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq would not lack sufficient funds or volunteers to swing the matter their way. It would take time, but the UN wouldn't be able to do anything about it and neither of course could the US.

From your answer to my question:
"1) I never said all troops should be brought home. I have always insisted that since US troops are actually wanted in "Kurdistan", we should maintain a large presence there--but only there.   Among other things this will dissuade any future Turkish government from drastic action in "Kurdistan" against the PKK--and thereby help stabilize the area.

2) We should however withdraw all combat troops from the rest of Iraq."

I do not for one minute think I have ever read anything so ridiculous in my life!! Have you looked at a map?? Who's your military advisor General Custer?? How the hell do you supply them? How would you reinforce them if needed? How would you evacuate them when the time came? The idea is absolutely preposterous.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 30 May 08 - 02:18 PM

"The Pentagon documents leaked to the Washington Post regarding Zarqawi have revealed that Al Qaeda in Iraq is fabricated."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2275

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 May 08 - 04:54 PM

Bobert;
Damn good question above...
In the wake of the Mcllelan revelations, Bushies, and the MSM are all covering there asses and saying "...but we were just going by the information we had at the time...everyone was wrong!"
Bullshit. Clearly a number of aging folkies and 36 million of their closest friends (number of people worldwide who protested the war in early 2003) were not taken in. The protest in Rome on February 15, 2003 is listed in Guiness as the largest anti-war gathering ever (about 3 MILLION people). All those Italians weren't wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 May 08 - 12:17 AM

Teribus--

You would venture to guess that al-Qaeda in Iraq would have enough support to take over in Iraq if the US pulled all combat troops out except those in "Kurdistan"--mainly because the Iraqis would be so impressed that al-Qaeda had driven the US out.

Sorry, that doesn't pass the logic test.

You conveniently forget that there is a good reason why al-Qaeda is loathed by Iraqis---their attempt to enforce their particular brand of Islam on any unbeliever--and that means any Moslem who doesn't kowtow to their Islamic Puritanism. And they enforce this by murder, maiming etc.

That's the way they are--I'm surprised an international affairs expert like your good self doesn't realize this.

And regardless of whether the US is there or not, al-Qaeda will behave the same way to their fellow Moslems--and continue to alienate them as a result.

Therefore there is no danger that they will be able to take over in Iraq.

You have provided precisely zero evidence to back up your contention that they could take over Iraq--"venture to guess" I'm sorry to have to tell you, does not really count as evidence.

You haven't even provided a plausible scenario whereby they could take over Iraq--and I have spelled out exactly why the Iraqis will never let them do it.

Therefore it is time--now--for the US combat troops to come home--aside from a sizable force in "Kurdistan" where they actually want us, and our presence plays a constructive role.

If you don't believe this, let's have a scenario, with some reasonable chance of actually occurring--in which al-Qaeda, with its vicious tactics, will get enough support--from anywhere--to take over Iraq.

So far you've struck out.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:55 AM

Well Ron, apart from your suggestion of placing/abandoning without any hope of supply, reinforcement or rescue, US Forces in a land-locked enclave ("Kurdistan"), this was another "peach" from the same post:

"Anybody who predicts dire consequences from a US withdrawal needs to be specific in exactly what those would be--with facts and evidence.

If that's what you predict, we need those facts and evidence."

"Anyone who predicts dire consequences" - So you are referring to future events here, right? In which case exactly what "facts and evidence" can possibly exist? Your demand is both illogical and impossible to comply with.

"You haven't even provided a plausible scenario whereby they could take over Iraq--and I have spelled out exactly why the Iraqis will never let them do it." - Ron Davies

"You would venture to guess that al-Qaeda in Iraq would have enough support to take over in Iraq if the US pulled all combat troops out except those in "Kurdistan"--mainly because the Iraqis would be so impressed that al-Qaeda had driven the US out.

Sorry, that doesn't pass the logic test."

For a start - No US Military Commander would dream of leaving US troops in "Kurdistan" as you call it, if all other US Forces were withdrawn from Iraq.

Would Al-Qaeda take the kudos and gain credibility if US troops left Iraq prematurely - Of course they would, they would gain enormous prestige throughout the "Muslim World" and milk it to the last drop.

Now Al-Qaeda "taking over Iraq" - What sort of time frame are you looking at here Ron? Immediate? Short-term (within the next 5-10 years)? Long term (within the next 10-20 years)?

If the US pulled out early - or announced a timetable for withdrawal that was not connected to progress on the ground - there would be civil war in Iraq. That takes care of any squeamishness about muslim attacking muslim, and it would be Shiia Arab attacking Sunni in the bun-fight for control. Al-Qaeda would side and fight alongside the Sunni faction (85% of the world's muslims are Sunni Ron - you saying that they would just stand idly by - don't think so)

That takes care of - "And regardless of whether the US is there or not, al-Qaeda will behave the same way to their fellow Moslems". Under the cicumstances outlined above the Islamic heroes who defeated the "Great Satan" and caused him to scurry for home would be viewed as saviours of their muslim brothers fighting against the Shiia. Were there many "foreign fighters" drawn to Chechnya? Balkans? Afghanistan? - Answer's yes Ron, from all over the Muslim World. The same would be the case in a Shiia/Sunni civil war in Iraq.

Slightly wider afield in the area:

- The US would have failed in its main foreign policy objective in the Persian Gulf, i.e. not to permit any one nation in the region to have overall control. Iran would control the Persian Gulf region and all the resources therein, and the UN would be powerless to do anything about it short of declaring total war (with what exactly?) against Iran which by now of course would be nuclear armed.

- At present in the region the US has quite a few friends and bases. If the US pulled out and it could be presented, as it surely would be that they had been driven out by Al-Qaeda, those friends would disappear and those bases would become untenable. The host nations would be inviting self-destruction on themselves if they permitted those bases to remain on their soil. Threats would come from two directions attack by Al-Qaeda, or attack from Iran, either way my prediction would be that the US bases would be closed.

- Intelligence within the area would go from pretty good at present to absolutely zero. The US would go back to the situation engineered by "Peanut" Carter as far as reliable intelligence the larger "middle-east" region would become a "black-hole". From within that "black-hole" all subsequent future terrorist spectaculars against the US mainland could be planned and implemented.

- Premature withdrawal from Iraq would presage a similar withdrawal from Afghanistan. Which would further enhance the reputation of Al-Qaeda.

- Both Jordan and Lebanon would cease to exist as the states we currently know of.

- Situation initially would be highly beneficial to Russia and to China, not so good for any other country reliant on middle-east oil or gas.

- In the intermediate to long term, the prospect of a nuclear attack on Israel, most likely an asymetric attack, would be greatly enhanced.

That is only the middle-east region Ron, any thoughts on what would be the effects on the USA? Europe? Far East? Africa? Those in the US are the ones that really need to be considered, and so far Ron, they are not so much as tiny blip on your radar.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:55 AM

500 Up never had one of those before

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 May 08 - 10:00 AM

Teribus--

Perhaps, like Mr. McCain, you don't understand the difference between Sunni and Shiite.

From the WSJ today: "Tens of thousands of Iraqis rallied against a proposal to keep US troops in Iraq after the UN mandate expires."

These protesters appear to be followers of al-Sadr. So tell me, how many are al-Qaeda?

Face it--if "kudos" are to be shared for driving the US "prematurely" from Iraq, al-Qaeda, which is nominally Sunni, will have to share them with this group--which is Shiite.

And as for your theory that because the majority of Islam is Sunni, they will make common cause with al-Qaeda: how popular is al-Qaeda with the Saudi regime? With the Egyptian regime? Etc.

Sounds like you still need to make that trip to your local library. After researching how propaganda works, you can study up on Islam. Then perhaps you'll start to make sense.

The situation in Iraq is not just a rivalry between Sunni and Shiite--perhaps you're unaware. In fact al-Qaeda has been relegated to the status of a bit player. Why? Because of the way they treat their fellow Moslems, trying to enforce their brand of Islamic Puritanism, as I said earlier. Do you need graphic examples?

As a result, they are hated throughout the Islamic world--and there is no chance they can take over in Iraq. Your scenario therefore fails to even start to meet the plausibility test.

Therefore there is no reason for US combat troops to remain--as potential targets--in "rump Iraq".

And you have given no good reason why they should.

Nice try.   

But you still need an actually plausible scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 08 - 10:33 AM

Ron, Oh, Ron, you are an absolute star

"The difference between Sunni and Shiite." - Well Ron you sure as hell don't know the difference, Ever worked out there Ron??? I have on a number of occasions

"Tens of thousands of Iraqis rallied against a proposal to keep US troops in Iraq after the UN mandate expires." - This signifies what exactly Ron - Don't struggle, I'll tell you - The Square Root of fuck-all.

"These protesters appear to be followers of al-Sadr. So tell me, how many are al-Qaeda?" - Wow!!! imagine that, staggers back in amazement - Eh Ron as followers of al-Sadr the Iraqi Government is not for one second going to pay the slightest attention to them - irrelevant.

"Face it--if "kudos" are to be shared for driving the US "prematurely" from Iraq, al-Qaeda, which is nominally Sunni, will have to share them with this group--which is Shiite." - Doesn't matter if it is shared Ron, or are you too dim to see that. I'll go over the basics again 1 to 1.8 billion muslims in the world, 85% are Sunni, 15% are Shiia, your premature withdrawal of US troops indicates that the "muslim lads" in Iraq have kicked US Ass big time, my take on that Ron old son is that out of 100 muslims round the wolrd 85 are going to give credit for that to Al-Qaeda and 15 are going to give it to al-Sadr and Iran. If in the ensuing civil war those numbers prove correct in terms of support then the Shiites lose - law of diminishing returns.

"And as for your theory that because the majority of Islam is Sunni, they will make common cause with al-Qaeda: how popular is al-Qaeda with the Saudi regime? With the Egyptian regime? Etc." - The Saudi's said that they would support the Sunni's didn't they? They won't give a damn whose fighting alongside them Iran is their enemy.

"Sounds like you still need to make that trip to your local library. After researching how propaganda works, you can study up on Islam." - Well Ron you sure as hell need to take your own advice, but instead of reading MSM try with a bit of original source material, take someone along that explain it to you andtake it from there.

"The situation in Iraq is not just a rivalry between Sunni and Shiite--perhaps you're unaware. In fact al-Qaeda has been relegated to the status of a bit player. Why? Because of the way they treat their fellow Moslems, trying to enforce their brand of Islamic Puritanism, as I said earlier. Do you need graphic examples?" - Well no Ron, go back to some of my earlier posts where I stated exactly what the Sunni Arabs in Iraq had to do to get onboard the political process - They have done just that. But if the US forces leave prematurely, it will revert to a Sunni Arab v Shiia Arab civil war, Al-Qaeda will come in on the Sunni side and the Iranians may or may not side with the Shiia, they'll have a hard time standing clear, but there is grave internal danger for them getting too involved.

"they (Al-Qaeda) are hated throughout the Islamic world" - hey Ron if they get you guys to scramble back to the god ol' USofA, they will be able to dine out on that until eternity.

"Therefore there is no reason for US combat troops to remain--as potential targets--in "rump Iraq"." - So I see that you have, quite sensibly abondoned your "Kurdistan" Garrison then General Davies, I am pleased about, it's the only shred of commonsense that you have shown in the whole discussion.

I'd still like to hear what your take is on the effects of "Get 'em out NOW" policy back home in the good ol' USofA. My take on the effects are that they would be profound and earth-shattering in terms of everything that you have come to depend upon.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 May 08 - 11:54 AM

Still having problems with comprehension, eh Teribus?

To pick just one of your innumerable--I'm sorry to say--reasoning flaws:

"The Saudis will support the Sunnis". Uh, I never said they would not. But they will support the non-Al-Qaeda Sunnis--which is the overwhelming majority of Sunnis in Iraq. There are fewer al-Qaeda fans every day-- not because of any supposed success of the "surge" but because of how al-Qaeda treats its fellow Moslems. What do you think the so-called "Awakening" is?

Al-Qaeda will not be the beneficiary of any pro-Sunni feeling on the part of the Saudi regime.

Or perhaps you can come up with evidence that the Saudi government backs al-Qaeda. I can be patient. But good luck--you might possibly have a problem, since such evidence does not exist.

There is a difference--a huge difference between normal Iraqi Sunni citizens and al-Qaeda. That's what you don't seem to understand--though I've been trying to explain it to you for years.

Therefore there is no danger of Iraq being taken over by al-Qaeda. And US combat troops can--and should--leave "rump Iraq".

It's back to the library for you--and don't forget to research how propaganda works.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:14 PM

"Premature withdrawal from Iraq would presage a similar withdrawal from Afghanistan." - teribus

Speculation on your part, teribus.

From my point of view, if the U.S. had stayed in Afghanistan instead of expanding to Iraq, the war on terrorism would probably be over by now. Withdrawl from Iraq could free U.S. troops to fight the terrorists on the Afghan/Pakistan border where we know they are trained. Don't you think this is more logical than fighting a phantom, al Qaeda, threat in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 08 - 07:29 PM

Hey Ron my simplistic little international expert:

"as for your theory that because the majority of Islam is Sunni, they will make common cause with al-Qaeda: how popular is al-Qaeda with the Saudi regime? With the Egyptian regime? Etc." - The Saudi's said that they would support the Sunni's didn't they? They won't give a damn whose fighting alongside them Iran is their enemy.

Ever heard of that old dictum - The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Now to put that into perspective Ron. Saudi Arabia doesn't give a flyin' fuck about what happens in Iraq as long as Iran does not come out the winner. That you complete and utter pillock is why they are currently aligned with the US as far as general policy goes in the region - HAVEN'T YOU BLOODY GOT THAT - Or are you just too thick to realise it. The Sunni rulers of Saudi Arabia will not let the Sunnis in Iraq fail and will support whoever is fighting for them because unlike you Ron they are realists.

The basis of this realism stems from this fact - If the US withdraw from Iraq prematurely rather a large number of states within the region are in deep SHIT, now they realise that Ron - YOU on the other hand have not given it a minutes thought, you have been too busy abandoning US troops as a throw away gesture in "Kurdistan".

Hey Ron wake up smell the coffee - believe it or not pal - you - the United States of America - are in a fight for your lives in both Iraq and Afghanistan - It is a fight that you must win - acknowledge that reality and get to grips with it, or alternatively stand back and watch your own self destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 06:44 AM

"Premature withdrawal from Iraq would presage a similar withdrawal from Afghanistan." - teribus

"Speculation on your part," - Dianavan

It most certainly is Dianavan, now examine the grounds for stating it as a possibility shall we:

- US cuts and runs from Iraq in order to satisfy the "Get them out NOW" brigade. How do you think that would effect Jihadist recruitment Dianavan?

- As the sectarian civil war erupts in Iraq, everybody and their dog will be claiming credit for having routed the mighty US. I have already pointed out to Ron that out of any 100 representative group of muslims asked 85 will say that Al-Qaeda did it, 15 will say that the Medhi Army did it with the backing of Iran.

- US runs the current military effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq from where Dianavan? CENTCOM at MacDill AFB, in Tampa, Florida, although a forward headquarters has been established at Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar to serve American strategic interests of the Iraq region.

- I would say that with the US Forces out of Iraq, in such a way that it can be presented as a defeat to the people in the region, pressure will be on those small Emirates currently providing the US with base facilities in the area to withdraw their consent for those bases and request that the US remove themselves from their sovereign territory.

- Main air support facility for strikes into Afghanistan is where Dianavan?

- The US is going to keep Carrier Strike Groups and Amphibious Assault Groups in the Persian Gulf, Dianavan? If so for what reason?

- US now out of the Persian Gulf Region, their nearest base, or at least until 2016, would be Diego Garcia.

- Having been perceived to have been defeated in Iraq by Al-Qaeda, Dianavan. How would the people of Pakistan view that? What sort of stance would they want their Government to take?

- All operations in Afghanistan are totally reliant upon over-flight right of access, that can be withdrawn at any time.

- "From my point of view, if the U.S. had stayed in Afghanistan instead of expanding to Iraq, the war on terrorism would probably be over by now." - From your point of view Dianavan you were solidly against any action being taken in Afghanistan at all.

- "Withdrawl from Iraq could free U.S. troops to fight the terrorists on the Afghan/Pakistan border where we know they are trained." - So an army that has just been defeated in Iraq is going to be welcomed into another country in the region to do what Dianavan - lose again? Remembering of course that the US now has full-time "professional" armed forces, have you got any idea what the premature withdrawal from Iraq would do for morale throughout the armed services of the United States of America - Hint a similar retreat from Afghanistan in 1988 finished the Red Army - but they were conscripts. Can you explain to me why the US armed forces sent to Afghanistan would trust their "Commander-in-Chief" and Congress back home in the good ol' USofA not to leave them hanging out to dry the moment things began to look tough?

- "Don't you think this is more logical than fighting a phantom, al Qaeda, threat in Iraq?" - No I do not think it more logical, Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq has been marginalised and are increasingly finding themselves being shut out in the cold. That has come about through the Sunni population turning against them, exactly as I told Ron Davies years ago. Al-Qaeda has found themselves in this position because they were sucked in to fighting battles on ground that was not of their choosing, they lost the initiative. Premature withdrawal of US forces from Iraq hands the initiative back to them and the undoubted civil war that would ensue would give them every opportunity to repair their tarnished image in the eyes of the "Islamic" World.

Yes I think that if the US withdrew from Iraq they would also have to draw stumps in Afghanistan, the big question of course, the more important consideration, would be the extent to which nuclear armed Pakistan would be destabilised in the process - Another thing that General Davies has not considered.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 01:39 PM

"I have already pointed out to Ron that out of any 100 representative group of muslims asked 85 will say that Al-Qaeda did it, 15 will say that the Medhi Army did it with the backing of Iran." - teribus

Where in the world did you come up with this little tidbit?

and teribus...

If the U.S. backs the Saudis and the Saudis back al Qaeda, what does that say about the relationship between al Qaeda and the U.S.?

If the Saudis back the Sunnis in Iraq, where were they when the U.S. ousted the Sunnis from control in Iraq? Your argument seems to support the idea that this is really a war between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. being fought in Iraq or has it become the U.S. and Saudi Arabia against Iran? Make up your mind. Either way, it makes no sense for the U.S. to be there. Let the Saudis fight their own wars. They make strange bedfellows. By your own account, its hard to know if they are friend or foe.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 05:52 PM

The make up of all the muslims in the world Dianavan is that 85% of them are Sunni and 15% are Shiia - If you then took a "representative" group of 100 muslims Dianavan how many would be Sunni and how many would be Shiia - Do the maths yourself.


"If the U.S. backs the Saudis" - Does the US back the Saudis Dianavan?

The Saudi's do not back Al-Qaeda, they have publically stated that they would back the Sunni minority in Iraq, matter of public record no secret there.

"The relationship between al Qaeda and the U.S.?" - That of quarry and hunter - so far the hunter has done quite well.

"If the Saudis back the Sunnis in Iraq, where were they when the U.S. ousted the Sunnis from control in Iraq?" - The US did not oust the Sunni's from control in Iraq Dianavan. The US ousted the Ba'athists from control in Iraq - Bit of a difference.

US foreign policy and national interests align themselves with those of Saudi Arabia in that neither country wishes to see any one country in control of the Persian Gulf region.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 01:02 PM

"US foreign policy and national interests align themselves with those of Saudi Arabia in that neither country wishes to see any one country in control of the Persian Gulf region."

What 'country' do you think wants control of the Persian Gulf Region?

"The United States and Saudi Arabia share a common concern about regional security, oil exports and imports, and sustainable development. Close consultations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have developed on international, economic, and development issues such as the Middle East peace process and shared interests in the Gulf. The continued availability of reliable sources of oil, particularly from Saudi Arabia, remains important to the prosperity of the United States as well as to Europe and Japan. Saudi Arabia is one of the leading sources of imported oil for the United States, providing more than one million barrels/day of oil to the U.S. The U.S. is Saudi Arabia's largest trading partner, and Saudi Arabia is the largest U.S. export market in the Middle East.

In addition to economic ties, a longstanding security relationship continues to be important in U.S.-Saudi relations. A U.S. military training mission established at Dhahran in 1953 provides training and support in the use of weapons and other security-related services to the Saudi armed forces. The United States has sold Saudi Arabia military aircraft (F-15s, AWACS, and UH-60 Blackhawks), air defense weaponry (Patriot and Hawk missiles), armored vehicles (M1A2 Abrams tanks and M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles), and other equipment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had a long-term role in military and civilian construction activities in the Kingdom. The U.S., as part of the Gulf Security Dialogue with individual Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, has announced plans to sell advanced, primarily defensive, military equipment to GCC members, including Saudi Arabia, to support the efforts of these countries to increase their capacity for self-defense." - from Wiki

I would consider this 'backing', wouldn't you?

...and teribus, who do you think backs al Qaeda?

Its certainly not the Shiites.

In fact, teribus, al Qaeda has most of its training grounds along the Afghan/Pakistani border. Why not base your theories in reality instead of chasing phantom threats? It seems you are more interested in reputation than you are in reality.

When are you going to realize that playing alpha dog will not bring peace to the Middle East?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 02:06 PM

Question 1 - "What 'country' do you think wants control of the Persian Gulf Region?"

Well quite a few down through the ages. Russia has longed for a warm blue water port since the time of Peter the Great, and post WWII they would have dearly loved to have enticed Iran or Iraq into being their puppets. The US spoilt their plans for Iran in 1953, and Saddam would have suited them had it not been for his rather reckless foreign adventures. More recently Iraq tried in 1980 when they attempted to knock out Iran, and currently Iran seeks to control the region.

Question 2 - "I would consider this 'backing', wouldn't you?"

Well no Dianavan I would call what your Wikipedia cut'n'pastes describes as mutual self-interest.

Question 3 - "who do you think backs al Qaeda?

Not a clue Dianavan but if you know please pass the info on otherwise you might find yourself in trouble. But my guess would be Sunni sympathisers around the World, Drugs, Guns, smuggling and extortion

Question 4 - "al Qaeda has most of its training grounds along the Afghan/Pakistani border."

Where they are losing over 7000 of them killed in Afghanistan since 2006. Where else are Al-Qaeda operating Dianavan - in Iraq where they have been driven out of every urban safe-haven that they had except Mosul and currently there is an operation in progress to deny them that city. Out in the countryside in Iraq Dianavan they will be like fish out of water, figures for Iraq Dianavan were over 4000 dead in 2007 alone. Al-Qaeda has been marginalised in Iraq they are firmly on the back foot and the same situation is coming to pass rapidly in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:48 PM

What Obama has said over and over is that in taking our eye off the real threat in Afganistan and invading Iraq we have left our country more vulnerable, not less...

On a recent book by journalist Ahmed Rashid entitiled "Descent into Chaos" he says that if the US had stayed focused and used a fraction of the resources that it is spending in Iraq that "Afganistan could have been turned around in 5 years. Instead, the Taliban has resurged."

Iraq has been a complete and utter failure from every perspective...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:03 PM

"What Obama has said over and over is that in taking our eye off the real threat in Afganistan and invading Iraq we have left our country more vulnerable, not less..." - Bobert

Is that what he has said Bobert?? If so I am now more convinced than ever that this "Presidential hopeful" is definitely as stupid as "Peanut" Carter and a damn sight more dangerous.

"The real threat in Afghanistan"??? - What threat in Afghanistan Bobert? The reality of the situation is that you have in Afghanistan and along the Afghan/Pakistan Border a bunch of geriatrics hiding in holes in the ground. Osama Bin Laden is now an irrelevance, he has been for years, his confirmed death or capture has long since been relegated to the "nice-to-know" category.

In the aftermath of 911 all of the intelligence agencies and the entire security apparatus in the US were tasked with evaluating and identifying the greatest threat that existed in the world to the United States of America. Did they come up with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan - No they did not. What did they come up with? - An asymetric attack on mainland US involving WMD provided to an international terrorist organisation by a rogue regime or government hostile to the USA. Please note Bobert I have not mention a specific weapon in the identification of that threat, I have not mentioned a specific international terrorist group in the identification of that threat and I have not mentioned a specific rogue regime of government in the identification of that threat.

If, journalist Ahmed Rashid stated, "If the US had stayed focused and used a fraction of the resources that it is spending in Iraq that Afganistan could have been turned around in 5 years". Then I would venture to suggest that Ahmed Rashid is talking out of his arse, and that he wants to sell his book to a bunch of impressionable prats who want to crow about how their President got it wrong - Unfortunately for Mr Rashid and the impressionable prats, your President hasn't made such a bad job of things according to latest figures and reports.

"Instead, the Taliban has resurged." - Really Bobert?? Does Ahmed Rashid provide any evidence of this resurgence? Chased out of the very last town they controlled in Afghanistan earlier this year, since the beginning of 2007 they have lost over 7000 men, in fact their losses are so damaging that they have given up direct attacks on ISAF and US Forces:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/01/military.afghanistan1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/frontline/2062440/Afghanistan's-Taliban-insurgents-'on-brink-of-defeat'.html

"Iraq has been a complete and utter failure from every perspective..." - Eh apart from the fact that things seem to be getting better and better every day Bobert - Oh Bummer!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 09:06 PM

Well said, bobert.

teribus, just looking at the map tells me that Iran has very good, defensive reasons to want to control the Persian Gulf (at least those waters on their border). They have the most to lose by allowing anyone else to control it. They have a long history with Arab invaders and aren't about to give up anymore control of their land and their resources. They are constantly threatened by the Arabs and more recently, Israel and the U.S. There is a very good reason they prefer to be called Persians.

Try, if at all possible, to see both sides of the story.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:45 PM

Teribus--

Temper, temper, little man.

And I'm so sorry to tell you you're still wrong about the Saudis and al-Qaeda. You must be even less aware than I had thought not to realize that the current Saudi regime feels as much--or more-- under pressure from al-Qaeda as the US does.

When you look for simplistic interpretations of international affairs, you need look no further than your mirror.

Eventually you'll have to learn that there is a huge difference between al-Qaeda and the vast majority of Iraqi Sunnis--and the conduct of the former is making the gap a chasm.

I know you like to look at international relations in simple black and white terms. Shiites in Iraq good; Sunnis in Iraq: bad.

But if you ever hope to start to understand what's going on over there--and I'll have to say, your progress is painfully slow--you'll have to realize that most Sunnis want what most Shiites and Kurds want--peace and the improving economy that comes with it. The Sunnis in Iraq are not, contrary to your strongly held misconception, like the Nazis in Germany in 1945.

I repeat--and your sputtering in opposition, while mildly amusing, is somehow bereft of any facts: al-Qaeda will not be the beneficiary of any pro-Sunni moves by the Saudis.

And since no national state wants to support al-Qaeda, and neither Shiites, Kurds nor Sunnis in Iraq want to support it either--thanks to its thuggish "Puritanism"--there is no danger of al-Qaeda taking over in Iraq.

Therefore, the US can--and should--bring its combat troops home from Iraq--now-aside from in "Kurdistan" where they are wanted and serve the purpose of deterring any rash Turkish moves in trying to combat the PKK.

Your amorphous threats that this move will mean US self-destruction are somehow not convincing. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that your attitude is totally lacking in any factual basis or logic.

Or perhaps it's something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 01:12 AM

"Eventually you'll have to learn that there is a huge difference between al-Qaeda and the vast majority of Iraqi Sunnis--and the conduct of the former is making the gap a chasm." - Ron Davies

You mean something like could have been stated by an observer in May 1941 -

Eventually you'll have to learn that there is a huge difference between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom of great Britain --and the conduct of the former is making the gap a chasm.

But what happened Ron - Operation Barberossa - Germany attacked Russia and all of a sudden The UK & the USSR were allies.

Troops out now = Civil War in Iraq

Civil War in Iraq would be a confrontation primarily between Sunni Arab and Shiia Arab, with the Kurds possibly remaining on the sidelines. It was under those circumstances that Saudi Arabia stated that they would aid the Sunni Arabs in Iraq and outnumbered, as they would undoubtedly be in this civil war, like the UK in 1941, I do not believe that they would give a toss about who jumped in to help them.

By the bye Ron, you never did give me a time reference for "Al-Qaeda taking over Iraq" - Immediately? Short Term (5 - 10 years)? Long Term (10 - 20 years)?

"Iran has very good, defensive reasons to want to control the Persian Gulf" - Dianavan.

She most certainly has Dianavan, but if you believe that oil is expensive now, just wait until Iran controls the Persian Gulf.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 09:06 AM

"An asymetric attack on mainland US involving WMD provided to an international terrorist organisation by a rogue regime or government hostile to the USA. Please note Bobert I have not mention a specific weapon in the identification of that threat, I have not mentioned a specific international terrorist group in the identification of that threat and I have not mentioned a specific rogue regime of government in the identification of that threat."

Okay, but; in order to "eliminate" that "threat", we sure as hell attacked a specific regime because we were told by our lying pond scum leaders that they were about to supply a specific WMD to a sepcific terrorist group. So *your* lack of specification means "fuck-all". (BTW, despite our clear political differences, I do like that phrase of yours).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 09:15 AM

"we were told by our lying pond scum leaders that they were about to supply a specific WMD to a sepcific terrorist group"

Not true, this is what is CLAIMED by anti-Bushites, and NOT what was actually stated by the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:46 AM

Oh Baloney BB.

Here's just a small sampling from a single two week period...and there is plenty more where these come from, and no, I am not going to go find more for you. It is clear to anybody who has been paying any attention at all that our leaders did make specific claims, specifically about Iraq supplying weapons to a specific terrorist group - Al Quaeda. Not my claim. Carved in history. Enjoy.


"… We spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years… There is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we've had recently since the operations in Afghanistan – we've seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq."

Dick Cheney, Sept. 8, 2002


"… It's just more of a picture that is emerging that there may well have been contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime."

Condoleeza Rice, Sept. 8, 2002


RICE: Well, there are clearly links between Iraq and terrorism, and there are al Qaeda personnel that have been spotted in Baghdad. There are some evidence that there have been various meetings concerning Iraqi personnel and al Qaeda personnel…
We are working very hard to put together the full picture… He clearly has links to terrorism.
SNOW: All right. And links to terrorism would include al Qaeda? I just want to be certain.
RICE: Links to terrorism would include al Qaeda, yes.

FOX News, Sept. 15, 2002



"It is the nexus between an Al-Qaeda type network and other terrorist network and a terrorist state like Saddam Hussein who has those weapons of mass destruction. As we sit here, there are senior Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They are there."

Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 18, 2002


MARGARET WARNER: Secretary Rumsfeld, in Europe today, when asked if there was evidence tying Iraq to Al Qaeda, said, "Yes." He did not elaborate. Are you prepared to elaborate?
RICE: Several of the detainees, in particular, some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development. So yes, there are contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism, in general. And there are some Al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad.

PBS, Sept. 25, 2002

REPORTER: Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al-Qaeda?
PRESIDENT BUSH: They're both risks, they're both dangerous…The danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred, and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.

Press Conference, Sept. 25, 2002

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:48 AM

and one for good luck...

""We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq… We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

GWB, Oct. 7, 2002

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 11:10 AM

"in order to "eliminate" that "threat", we sure as hell attacked a specific regime because we were told by our lying pond scum leaders that they were about to supply a specific WMD to a sepcific terrorist group. So *your* lack of specification means "fuck-all". (BTW, despite our clear political differences, I do like that phrase of yours)." - Guest TIA

"we were told by our lying pond scum leaders that they were about to supply a specific WMD to a sepcific terrorist group"

Not true, this is what is CLAIMED by anti-Bushites, and NOT what was actually stated by the Bush administration. - Beardedbruce

Beardedbruce, of course is perfectly correct, read the link, then check the date and remember that the same men gave the same advice four years later:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 11:38 AM

So, are you saying that I made up the quotes above?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 11:46 AM

TIA has provided several concrete instances of statements intended to couple Al Qeda and Hussein in the minds of the public.

They were false, but widely disseminated.

Their clear intent was to demonize Iraq or Hussein witht he same antipathy felt toward Al Qeeda.

What part of this is not not plain?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 01:01 PM

Quote 1:
""… We spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years… There is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we've had recently since the operations in Afghanistan – we've seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq." -(Dick Cheney, Sept. 8, 2002) - Courtesy of Guest TIA

That was not quite the whole story was it Guest TIA? As you seem to be a bit coy about actually quoting those remarks in context here it is:

From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:

Russert: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:"
   
Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"

Cheney: "No." - (Hey Guest TIA considering the question what part of "No" do you not understand - go back and read the question and take your time before answering)
   
Russert then asked on the 2002 show: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
   
Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. (How clear is that Guest TIA) On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, MOHAMED ATTA, WHO WAS THE LEAD HIJACKER, DID APPARENTLY TRAVEL TO PRAGUE ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. AND ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION, WE HAVE REPORTING THAT PLACES HIM IN PRAGUE WITH A SENIOR IRAQI INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL A FEW MONTHS BEFORE THE ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business."
   
Russert: "What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?"
   
Cheney: "It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 01:40 PM

Hooboy, deja vu all over again...

Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Teribus is a complete dunderhead who is oblivious as to how propaganda works. I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 01:41 PM

BTW, you have a silly quibble with one quote - there are plenty of others up there, and loads more that I don't care to go collect for you. But they are in the public record.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:40 PM

Teribus, don't reair that old mackerel. The atta==>Al Qeda connection was disproven years ago, so I am afraid, with all due respect,t hat I have to support the "dunderhead" rumor. At least there is some reportage that indicates it is the correct choice. Let's just call it unconfirmed at this time...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:01 PM

And I want to be very careful about how I say this Guest TIA - That was one of your selected quotes but quoted in full and quoted in context - Don't worry I will get round to the others.

Talking about dunderheads Guest TIA count how many times in that passage it is clearly stated that Iraq/Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911 - Don't tax yourself - there are two

By the way Guest TIA do you know what occaisioned this interview, I hope you do because it takes up the bulk of the text. It related to the possible relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in the light of reports that a senior Iraqi Intelligence Officer and Mohammed Atta met in Prague. Now at any time at all does Cheney say that they did meet?

"We have reporting that places him (Atta) in Prague with a senior Iraqi Intelligence Official a few months before the attack on the World trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business"

Might come as a bit of a stretch for you non-dunderheads - but what he is saying is that they may have been in Prague at the same time, we do not know if they met. When asked if it is credible that they met he replies very carefully that yes it is credible but it has not been confirmed.

As promised - Quote 2:
"… It's just more of a picture that is emerging that there may well have been contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime." (Condoleeza Rice, Sept. 8, 2002) - Courtesy Of Guest TIA.

- "a picture that is emerging" My, my that does sound convincing.
- "that there may well have been contacts" Obviously = there definitely were contacts does it?

Bit of a stretch as I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:07 PM

DIckhead was more wilely than some folks in insinuating the correlation, Teribus, but it was without question a major vector in the propoganda campaign. Innendo can be just as or more electrifying, I think you know, than facts, to the illiterate or those hypnotically glued to their electronic viewers.

I am sure the media helped considerably aty the time.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:12 PM

Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific prediction that it will really piss Teribus off if I just keep responding with variations of this quote. I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:20 PM

"Innendo can be just as or more electrifying, I think you know, than facts, to the illiterate or those hypnotically glued to their electronic viewers."

Seems like the Dems are using much the same language- are you claiming that they are so much less electrifying than Bush?



Clinton: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said.


More text- so the context becomes clear- which YOU deny to the Bush administrations statements

"Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said."

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them




Obama: "Terrorist groups with Iran's backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world."


more text - so you might see context.

Iran's President Ahmadinejad's regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world's most tragic history.

Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth.

But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers.

In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done.

Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.

Iranian Nuclear Weapons

The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy.

And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest that could fuel greater instability in the region—that's not just bad for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more dangerous and unpredictable place.

Other nations would feel great pressure to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran's backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 05:33 PM

Well, TIA 'n Amos, one thing is fir sure and that is the revisionists here are certainly buzy now that they realize that if they loose the argument again about the wisdom of invading Iraq that they and their boys will be on the street...

They see this very clearly and it's bad enough being them (and wrong) but will be even worse if they can't pull a rabbit out of the hat and rewrite the story with a better ending... Problem is that the Bush apologists here aren't the only friggin' people on the planet who have been watching and paying attention...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 05:39 PM

What's your vector Victor?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 08:41 PM

Teribus--

Still waiting for--any--evidence, based on the specific current situation in the MidEast-- -as opposed to cherry-picked history--- that al-Qaeda has any chance to take over Iraq---ever.

If I felt you were worth my time, I could easily pick a counterexample to Operation Barbarossa---and point out the fallacy of your parallel. Sorry, I have better things to do.
(And I recognize the rather pathetic attempt to dodge my question).

Now where is your logic that al-Qaeda can take over Iraq? Which, as I've noted more than once, is what GWB--and now McCain-- constantly threatens us with.

I note with interest you're no longer denying that the Saudi regime, far from sympathizing with al-Qaeda, feels under threat by it. Maybe you're capable of learning after all.

And you may possibly have learned that "complete pillock" is not usually considered a logical response to a question--except possibly in your circles. Pity you don't get out more.

Awaiting your next calm, well-reasoned response.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 11:06 AM

"evidence, that al-Qaeda has any chance to take over Iraq---ever."

You will wait a long time, like anything else that may, or may not, occur at some point in the future there can be be no "evidence" presented prior to that event occuring.

By all means, "pick a counterexample to Operation Barbarossa", although I do not know for what purpose. Considering Churchill's well publicised views on communism the immediate alliance between the UK and the USSR that followed Hitler's invasion is a classic example of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". In exactly the same vein the outnumbered Sunni Arabs in Iraq, in the event of there being a civil war, if they are fighting against the Shiia Arabs backed by Iran, will not give a tuppenny-ha'penny damn about who comes to their aid and fights alongside them.

You asked me how they could take over in Iraq in the event of US Forces leaving. I stated that it could be possible in exactly the same way that the Ba'athists took over Iraq. It is possible, after all almost everything is possible. Ask me if it is probable and I would say no, it is not probable because Al-Qaeda is not really in the business of running countries. Having said that, if with Al-Qaeda help and Saudi money, the Sunni Arabs in Iraq managed to defeat the Shiia Arabs of Iraq in their civil war. Would the resultant Iraqi Government be better disposed towards Al-Qaeda? In those circumstances I would certainly suppose so.

When did I ever say that the Saudi Regime sympathised with Al-Qaeda. The initial reason for Osama bin Laden's hatred of the US was down to the fact that when originally threatened by Saddam in 1990, the rulers of Saudi Arabia turned down ObL's offer to use his Mujihadeen to defend Saudi and opted for the UN coalition led by the US instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 12:13 PM

"She most certainly has Dianavan, but if you believe that oil is expensive now, just wait until Iran controls the Persian Gulf." teribus

So...all of the propaganda and the ensuing invasion of Iraq is about oil after all.

I'm sure the people who have been killed and maimed in Iraq gladly made the sacrifice so you could guzzle gas, wear your polyester and buy plastic. Admit it, teribus, your way of life is threatened and you would go to any length to protect it rather than make any changes at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 10:35 PM

There's still quite a handful of quotes above waiting to be quibbled, and scores more (I promise) to be handled when those are dealt with.

So, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that those who claim the Bush administration never tried to link Iraq and Al-Quaeda are aspirating fecal matter in their own lower colons. I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:37 AM

"So...all of the propaganda and the ensuing invasion of Iraq is about oil after all."

Eh? No Dianavan, one country gaining control of the Persian Gulf is what will really bost the price of oil and gas from that region. The US for the last 65 years has been extremely active in making sure that that does not happen. Oh, yes, you're one of the crowd that believe that the US has stolen Iraq's oil - any idea where it is?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 11:42 PM

Teribus--

So you finally admit there is absolutely no evidence that al-Qaeda can take over Iraq--ever.

That's progress.

Yet, as I've noted, this is what we have been threatened with by GWB and now McCain.

In fact, not only is there no evidence supporting a takeover of Iraq by al-Qaeda, but it is getting progressively less likely--and for the reason I cited--the revulsion by Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis at the thuggish " Islamic Puritanism" of al-Qaeda. (Not any "battlefield prowess" of the US military.)

Therefore, as I have said more than once, US combat troops have no role to play in Iraq--aside from in "Kurdistan". And so should come home.

And you have exactly zero evidence--or even logic-- to deny this.

But at least you're learning to carry on a somewhat civil debate.

That's also progress. I wonder if you can maintain it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 03:46 PM

"The US for the last 65 years has been extremely active in making sure that that does not happen."

Control of the Persian Gulf/control of oil distribution - whats the difference?

The U.S. thinks they have the right to control this at the expense of human life so you can feed your SUV and wear polyester? Why shouldn't the people of the Persian Gulf control the flow of oil? It does not belong to the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 05:22 PM

Six provided - two poorly quibbled - four completely un-addressed - lots and lots more in the wings.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 08:14 AM

So, Teribus is MIA.

Pity--but somehow, not surprising.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 06:36 AM

Washington Post:

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; Page A17

Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 07:30 AM

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."


Joseph Goebbels

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 07:34 AM

"But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: "

It seems to me that the "Big Lie" here is that Bush supposedly lied, when he did not. So why do so many here keep repeating that? Perhaps they have read Goebbells, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 07:36 AM

You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.

George W. Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 07:49 AM

You can fool most of the people most the time, and those are the ones taht will keep giving contributions to elect "anyone else" than the incumbant.

The entire Democratic party

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 10:13 AM

1. "So you finally admit there is absolutely no evidence that al-Qaeda can take over Iraq--ever." - Ron Davies

Eh, No Ron, go back and read what I said - basically boils down to - anything is possible in politics given the right timescale and circumstances - After all a minority political party took control of Iraq before in 1956 and succeeded in ruling it for 47 years - why not again. Probability is against Al-Qaeda "ruling" Iraq, but that does not discount Iraq being governed by a political party extremely sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and extremely anti-US.

By the bye, Ron, where is your "evidence" that they won't - I find it rather like talking to a five year old when they insist that they want evidence that something will happen - Bit of advice Ron, invest in a "crystal ball". Fact is Ron, that neither you or I have got any idea of what will happen, neither of us can provide any "evidence" regarding what may happen at some time in the future, we can only hypothesise, which comes down to personal opinion. You state that US Forces could withdraw now without there being any serious consequences, I strongly disagree with that to the point of view and believe that such a withdrawal would be catastrophic in terms of consequences that would affect the country, the region and the world.

2. "the revulsion by Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis at the thuggish " Islamic Puritanism" of al-Qaeda." - Ron Davies

I believe that quite some time back I identified this as a possible outcome of Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq's attempts at fomenting the "civil war" that you and your fellow-travellers here were always chattering about. Other lynch-pins were realisation that it would be essential to become part of the political process, that they had to work with their elected government if they wanted things to improve. All of that by and large has happened and things are improving every day.

3. "Therefore, as I have said more than once, US combat troops have no role to play in Iraq--aside from in "Kurdistan". And so should come home." - Ron Davies

What role do US Forces have to play in "Kurdistan"? How do they propose and argue the case to disengage and withdraw troops from the Arab Sunni centre and Arab Shiia South, yet keep troops in the most peaceful governates of the country? Might they not be accused of attempting to "steal" the Kurds oil?

I will make a prediction Ron should Obama win the Presidential Election and put his withdrawal plan into effect - It goes something like this:

1. Obama announces his "staged withdrawal of US Forces.

2. As the first withdrawal is underway attacks by remaining Sunni Insurgents, Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq and the Medhi Army and associated militias will increase.

3. Obama is trapped he cannot break his election promises so his only alternative is to alter his withdrawal plans to get the boys home quicker - i.e. the same rout that leaving Vietnam resulted in.

4. Massed broadcasts from some hole in the ground way up there in the Hindukush, by Al-Qaeda, proclaiming to the world and its aunt that they have done exactly what they said they were going to do and driven the forces of the "Great Satan" from sacred Islamic soil - Now both you and I, Ron, know that that is a load of old Tosh, but yer average "ready to be radicalised muslim youth" in "the muslin street", well he's going to lap it up big time. Is the US out of hot water - No, not in the slightest, you were firmly in their sights in the early 1990's and you will continue to be in their sights after all your troops are safely back home - The only thing now is, is that they have the initiative, and possibly an extrmely secure base from which to plan and operate.

Guest Dianavan - Petal - I know that you will really hate to learn of this but, "big bad multi-national oil companies" actually control very little of the oil and gas on this planet. I believe that it amounts to less than 7% of the total available. The rest, the vast bulk of oil and gas resources of this planet are "nationally" owned and controlled - What a bummer Eh, especially considering some of your more dearly held myths.

"Control of the Persian Gulf/control of oil distribution - whats the difference?" - Dianavan.

The US neither controls the Persian Gulf, nor does it control oil distribution. If it did can you explain why on earth the US would want to see oil at the price per barrel that it is? Oh Yes!! to generate profits for Russia, Venezuela, etc, etc. I forgot that "out of the box" thinking behind the "US Master Plan for World Domination", seems to be a winner, make money for everybody bar ourselves, talk about the strategy of "indirect approach".

"Why shouldn't the people of the Persian Gulf control the flow of oil?" - Dianavan

Psssst! Dianavan - they already do, or hadn't you heard of OPEC?

Good post BB, very informative.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 09:19 PM

So, Teribus, we should keep US combat troops in Iraq because "anything is possible"?

What a cogent foreign policy analysis.

Don't give up your day job.






Sorry, there are more pressing needs for the US budget than keeping combat troops in Iraq because "anything is possible".

And now McCain says that when the troops come back is actually not that important. It's remotely possible the families of those troops might disagree. A few more brilliant statements like that from Mr. McCain and his "experience" approach will crash and burn.

After all UK, troops are coming back from Iraq--and numbers going down. You have given precisely no logical reason why US combat troops should not also come back---now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 01:50 AM

I think Ron that as far as the presence of British troops in Iraq goes, GB will listen very carefully to what goes on between now and November with regard to the stances of McCain and Obama.

Personally if Obama wins in November, which is by no means the certainty some here imagine, then UK troops will be out of Iraq as soon as possible after that election result is announced.

If McCain wins, then they will remain until their presence is no longer required by the Iraqi Government and/or the UN Mandate expires.

On matters of policy Barak Obama appears to be as much of an ill-informed, idealistic fool as Jimmy Carter, but Barak Obama will be operating in much more dangerous times. Carter's major screw-ups could be recovered, not so now.

By the bye Ron where exactly did I say that, "we should keep US combat troops in Iraq because "anything is possible"?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 09:57 PM

Teribus--

1) You conveniently ignore the fact that the UK contingent in the "Coalition" in Iraq is already down from its peak. For some reason the UK doesn't believe that it's worth putting yet more troops in Iraq to support the "surge". Now I wonder why that is. It couldn't possibly be since the UK leadership doesn't believe it's worth it for the result--or worth the grief they would get from their own electorate if they tried it--now could it?

2) You tell us that if we pull our combat troops out of "rump Iraq" we are in grave danger of consigning Iraq to domination by Iran. Yet one of the reasons for Maliki's current temporary popularity is that he is seen as standing up to Iran--WSJ 13 June 2008. Gee, that doesn't fit with your analysis. I wonder why.

3) You also tell us how popular the US is in Iraq. Yet one of the other main reasons for Maliki's current popularity is that he is seen as standing up to the US against US pressure for permanent bases in Iraq. That doesn't fit your description of the situation either.

Gee, that's 2 strikes against you. Sure sounds like your crystal ball is getting cloudier with every posting.

And with your ego-bound insistence, against all sense and evidence, that there was no propaganda campaign to get the US public to back Bush's planned Iraq war--as per the past 500-plus postings---I'd say that's 3 strikes-- you're definitely out---way out.

But you still continue to be entertaining--if close to a perfect negative indicator. So if you denigrate Obama's foreign policy ideas, that's high praise for him--please keep it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 07:24 AM

Ah Ron, can you only ever debate any point by putting words into other peoples mouths and taking them to task over them?

Let's see what was it you eventually managed to come up with:

1) "You conveniently ignore the fact that the UK contingent in the "Coalition" in Iraq is already down from its peak." - Now of what relevance is that Ron? In the past on Iraq threads I have drawn attention to the rapid drawdown of UK troops when the leftist anti-Bush brigade were howling about US & UK establishing permanent military bases in Iraq. UK involvement peaked at 43,000 troops in the South of Iraq in March 2003 within six months that number was down to around half that, in a year it was down to 15,000, steadily reduced since then it now stands at about 4,000.

2) "For some reason the UK doesn't believe that it's worth putting yet more troops in Iraq to support the "surge". Now I wonder why that is." Could it possibly be because the situation facing the MNF troops in the Southern part of Iraq is totally different to the situation faced by the MNF troops in the Central parts of Iraq which is totally different from the situation faced by the MNF troops in the Northern part of Iraq? Please note Ron out of the eighteen Governates that comprise Iraq the "surge" only applied to about four including Baghdad. There was absolutely no requirement for a "surge" in the South or North of Iraq - could that possibly be the reason?

3) "You tell us that if we pull our combat troops out of "rump Iraq" we are in grave danger of consigning Iraq to domination by Iran." - Did I Ron? Don't think so, I did however say perfectly clearly that should the US quit Iraq prematurely in any way that could be taken as being the result of actions by the insurgents, militias or more importantly Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq then that would have extremely serious consequences not only in Iraq itself but for the middle-east region as a whole and throughout the world in general. You on the other hand seem to deny that would be the case and insist that the problems would only be local - in believing that you are deluding yourself.

4) "You also tell us how popular the US is in Iraq." - Really Ron? Where have I ever told you how popular the US is in Iraq?

5) "US pressure for permanent bases in Iraq." - Leftist, anti-war, anti-Bush myth that is rapidly approaching it's sell by date. Your eagerly awaited President-of-choice-to-be Barak Obama has I believe rather unclearly said that he would not seek to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. Which is a pity because if the Iraqis living around any projected sites for those bases had a word with their counterparts in Germany, they would find out that it would be like living on top of a gold mine.

So Ron please tell me:

A) Where exactly did I say that, "we should keep US combat troops in Iraq because "anything is possible"?

B) Where exactly did I say that if we pull our combat troops out of "rump Iraq" we are in grave danger of consigning Iraq to domination by Iran?

C) Where exactly did I tell you, or anybody else, how popular the US is in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 04:40 PM

teribus,

A) Why should the U.S. remain in Iraq?

B) Why not let Iraq choose their own allies?

C) Why is the U.S. so unpopular in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 07:25 PM

Good question, d...

Why are we still in Iraq???

Just yesterday Maliki said that the Iraqi governemnt has no interest in meeting US demands that private contractors cannot be held liable for killing or maiming Iraqis...

And al-Sadr said the ceasefire is off...

(Hmmmmmm, Bobert??? I thought the reason that casualties were down was because of "The Surge"... Ain't that right???)

No, the reason that causulties are down is because the US taxpayers are having their tax dollars diverted to pay off people who want to kill US... You know, protection money...

This is the reality that the Teribuses and the beardedbruces of the world cannot get into their little barinwashed heads...

But back to d's excellent question... Why are we in Iraq???

Can I get a one paragrah answer that ordinary people can understand or not...

(You know the answer to that question, Boberdz... Of course you won't get a concise one paragraph answer... What you will get ie reams and reams of pure unalterated bullshit... Nothing more and nothing less...)

Normal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 02:34 PM

"...if the Iraqis living around any projected sites for those bases had a word with their counterparts in Germany, they would find out that it would be like living on top of a gold mine." - teribus

I'm sure the Iraqis are quite capable of communicating with their "counterparts in Germany". How arrogant and out of touch you are. What makes you think Iraq and Germany can be compared? Apples and Oranges cannot be compared. You are so entrenched in the military that your livelihood and the well-being of your own family is dependent on war. What a pity.

Its really sad the way you talk in circles to justify your own existence at the expense of so many others.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 05:51 PM

Bases provide fairly secure employment opportunities Dianavan - Something that is in much demand in Iraq at present, No?

The rest of your post made absolutely no sense at all.

The only member of my family who has got any connection with the military at all is my youngest son, so neither myself or any other member of the family is entrenched in a thing dependent on war, or anything to do with the military.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, if you had a brain you'd be dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 09:00 PM

'...secure employment opportunities, Dianavan..."

This is the friggin' point I have made over and over... With the American working class going backwards why is it our job to be creating "secure [friggin'} employment opportunities" to Iraqis??? Like I have said, "The Surge" has been nothing but US giving my tax dollars to Iraqis not to shoot at US...

Is that your final answer, T??? 'Cause if it is it is the most stupid excuse yet for being in Iraq that you have offerd over the last 6 years of offering up stupid reason for US to be in Iraq...

I mean... ssssssttttttttuuuuuuuuupppppppppiiiiiiiiidddddddddddd!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 02:12 AM

Bobert, Just recently in Kandahar the Afghan Police, Army and the SBS found 273 tons of Hash which they had to set fire to to destroy it. From your last post you must obviously have been standing down wind of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 09:30 PM

Ahhhh, exactly what would make sane adults destroy hash... Okay, I have destroyed a little in my day but I did it responsibly...

...one hit at a time...

Now back to the subject, T... Would you like to take a stab at the "Why are we in Iraq" question??? One, okay 2 paragraphs, por favor...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 01:34 AM

Why are "we" in Iraq? We are in Iraq at the request of the Government of Iraq and at the behest of the Security Council of the United Nations. Having effected regime change in Iraq it is the duty and responsibility of those who brought about that change to ensure that the nascent democracy established in Iraq to replace the regime of Saddam Hussein is given a chance to survive its birth pains.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 09:05 AM

Ahhhhh, what governemnt, T??? The bogus one that we set up thru rigged elections???

And let me see if I have this right??? The other reason for being there is because we broke it and must fix it before we leave??? Hey, Iraqi sects ain't been too good at getting along unless there has been a "bad man" in control... Are you suggesting that Sunnis and Shites will one day get along and live in harmony??? If so, I believe that you have been downwind of the hash burnin' 'cause that ain't gonna happen meaning...

...yeah, if that is our goal then that $3B a week sucking sound on the US Treasury will go on for the next 100 years and as a consequence the average American's standard of living will continue to rapidly decline...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 11:38 AM

"Ahhhhh, what governemnt, T??? The bogus one that we set up thru rigged elections???" - Bobert

Well Bobert likes talking about millions of Iraqi civilians, but somehow I don't think that he's going to like the following numbers.

The United States of America:
National voter turn out for US Federal Elections from 1960 to 2006 give the lowest turn out in 1986 and 1998 with only 36.4% of those eligible to vote turning out to do so. The highest was in 1960 with a turn out of 63.1%. Voter turn out in the USA for the 2004 Presidential Election, supposedly the most polarised and bitterly fought Presidential contest ever was only 56.69%. Hey Bobert you're goin' to love this

The Republic of Iraq:
Voter turn out for the 2005 elections to elect the first democratically elected Government of Iraq was 79.6% Bobert, some 12,396,631 Iraqi voters braved threats of death and violence to cast their votes. The UN plus the world and its dog were there all in the wishful expectation of pouring scorn on the result, just like you Bobert, but that is not how it played out Bobert was it? The UN representatives sent to oversee the conduct of the election stated that it met all internationally recognised standards. Now Bobert one minute you are broadcasting to all and sundry that the US is hated as infidel occupiers, and next you are telling us that those same hated intruders have managed to somehow persuade 79.6% of all the voters in Iraq to vote in a certain way - Yeah Right!!!

"Iraqi sects ain't been too good at getting along" - the Kurdish Shiia and Sunni's seem to rub along quite well together Bobert. Will the others come to find common ground - Yes I am optimistic enough to believe that they will, as soon as they assist their government in getting rid of the insurgents and criminals in their midst.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 12:28 PM

The percentages mean nothing if the slate of candidates is rigged, T...

But, yeah, I would have to agree that the American percentage is disappointing... Part of the problem is systematic in that we have only one day to vote... If we had a week to vote, or at the very least a Saturday and Sunday to vote the percentages would, IMO, increase dramatically... We also play games with registrations and voting processes and have even gone so far as to drop people from the roles for no other reason but they have names which are siomilar to others who might have feloniy convictions... Upwards of 57,000 such people were dropped from the roles just prior to the 2000 election in Florida...

I'm glad you are optimistic, T, about Iraq's future... You were also optimistic before Bush & Co. killed off upwards of a million Iraqis, thousands of American and destabilized the entire region???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 12:47 PM

"percentages mean nothing if the slate of candidates is rigged, T..."

You mean like in Iran? Faulty logic when applied to Iraq, given any candidates how do you force voters to vote for them?

Still peddling the Old John Hopkins lie then Bobert? Ah well give my regards to the Easter Bunny, Tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:10 PM

Teribus-

Maybe we should have a lottery based on whether--if ever-you will admit what you've just said. You're almost as good as Bill Clinton--who denied 24 hours later what he had said about who played the "race card". Too bad he was on video saying it.

Case in point for you: 9 June 2008   10:13 "...anything--
(in this case an al-Qaeda takeover of Iraq)-- is possible in politics given the right timescale and circumstances". You did say it. Your words are still there.

I repeat: that is a singularly flimsy pretext to keep US troops in Iraq. We actually have better ways to spend money, amazing as that might seem to you. And the families of the troops would like them back home more often.

Interesting that you're now backing away from your earlier threat--supporting GWB and now McCain---that al-Qaeda can take over. Your reasoning--they're not in the business of governing. That's putting it mildly. They're in the business of firebrand sectarianism--which is alienating Sunnis every day, with al-Qaeda's thuggish enforcement of their perversion of Islam. That's why they are not supported by Sunnis in general--and never will be. And as I've pointed out--and you have not denied--even Sunni states like Saudi Arabia feel under threat by them.

Your apocalyptic--if somewhat nebulous--predictions of doom if the US combat troops are removed from "rump Iraq" are unfortunately not graced by logic or evidence.

There is no chance al-Qaeda can take over in Iraq. You have given no remotely plausible scenario as to how they could--ever. And no reason why US combat troops should sit there as potential targets in any terror attacks or Shiite-Sunni friction or, just as likely, Shiite-Shiite unrest.

And you are also wrong about the bases. It is not a leftist invention. WSJ: 17 June 2008: the Iraqi foreign minister says the one of the biggest points of contention is "how many bases the US would be allowed to maintain in Iraq longterm". And I have said there should be bases in "Kurdistan"--where the Kurds actually want us. Just not in "rump Iraq"--since "Kurdistan" will go its own way regardless of what the US and Maliki decide.

For somebody who complains about words being put in your mouth, you are both showing rather poor reading skills, and somewhat reluctant to admit what you actually say. Perhaps you'd like to try running for office--those are very useful skills, it seems--at least on the Bush "team".

But your entertainment value is still high. Congratulations.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 01:31 AM

Lot of words there Ron - very little substance - did you feel that you just had to say something?

As usual regarding your selection of quotes quote the whole sentence or paragraph to put what has been said in context.

With regard to, "...anything is possible in politics given the right timescale and circumstances" - Prove that it is not Ron. Oh and you never did stipulate over what timescale your question was tied to did you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 08:25 AM

Nice try, T, but I haven't defended Iran as some beacon of democracy... Might of fact, you seem to see democracy as the perfect system for everyone... It isn't if a country has not developed a "culture" of understanding how it works and for what each voter is responsible...

As for the Johns Hopkins' study, yeah, I'm sticking with it... Heck, it far more credible than all youre various debunked reasons why we are in Iraq... You know, aluminum tubes, uraniam cakes for Niger, Saddam was a bad man, WMDs, Iraq wants US there, etc, etc. etc...... Take about the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny??? Sheesh, T... You are a riot...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 09:41 PM

Teribus--

Interesting--you can find precisely zero evidence or even logic to contradict any of what I've just said.

Perhaps you don't like your own words quoted back to you. But there is an alternative----you could think before hitting "send".   Then perhaps you wouldn't have so many words to eat.