BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign

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,