A Vice Presidental candidate thread.

You're projecting, firefly.

Specifically, what "lies" are you referring to. Specifically.

I'm not sure you know how to read, but here it is:

False Pretenses
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith
January 23, 2008

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows 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.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

* On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
* In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction " an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
* In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."
* On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
* On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."
* On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."

The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

firefly, Excellent cartoon; it's the whole truth and nothing but for the reason the republicans are gah gah over "her." She a small state, small town, gov and mayor, and all of a sudden she's ready for national responsibilities.

My brother was also mayor of a city in California, and is now a state legislature of the largest state in the union - and the fifth largest economy in the world, but he's not ready to become the VP of the US, even though he won 63 percent of the votes in a democratic state/district.

They think Palin is ready to be VP, but she's not ready to go on Meet the Press?

Particularly because she is so relatively unknown, except for one major speech, a lot of magazine covers, and her impending grandmotherhood, you would think they would want to hustle her out on the interview circuit to prove she really is a good pick for VP and is qualified to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. I mean, one way to cut down on all the gossip and the more negative things being said about her, is to present her in a format, like Meet the Press, or any other major political interview programs, where she can demonstrate her knowledge and the breath of her experience and understanding.

The Republicans are undercutting their own argument that Palin is experienced enough to handle the second highest office in the land by not allowing her to give the kinds of interviews everyone expects from candidates for president and VP. They are acknowledging that she's not ready, and they fear exposing her deficits, and lack of experience, in any situation that's not carefully scripted for her.

So, I guess we will have to wait until Sarah finishes her crash courses in How to Be a VP (introductory level), World Affairs 101 (introductory level), The History of U.S. Foreign Policy (introductory level), Understanding the U.S. Economy for Beginners, Diplomacy for Dummies, The History and Sociology of the Middle East (introductory level), and on and on..

With any luck, the first time we get to hear her answering any tough and significant questions will be in the first VP debate, unless they can find a way for her to dodge that too.

Maybe one of her kids will be sick that day.

Sarah Palin's mother-in-law, Faye Palin, doesn't even seem particularly impressed with her daughter-in-law's credentials to be VP.

I see you're still think that President Bush is running of re-election. Apparently, you have so little mud to sling at the McCain-Palin ticket that you must continue to recycle the tired old innuendos, half-truths, and smears that have characterized your extreme partisanship for the past 8 years ... at least.

Looking backward with more information it isn't difficult to find that any President in history made countless false statements. That doesn't mean that any of their false statements were "lies". Presidents must respond to events based on limited information, and sometimes they must equivocate for very good reasons. We've been over this ground far too many times. No one has yet to show that President Bush, or his Administration, has knowingly and with malpurpose lied about the events leading up to using military force against Saddam Hussein. Doubtless, the President and his Administration were later shown to have been misinformed, and wrong in some of their judgements. The President, never a good communicator, failed to adequately "justify" the war in his public pronouncements throughout. That doesn't make the use of military force inappropriate, nor unjustified.

That's all in the past, get over it. Obama has struck a chord with large segments of the public when he began calling for "change", and insisting that only an "outsider" could effectuate change in Washington. That is a very appealing point of view to Americans, and it always has been. That's how Jackson, Harrison, Polk, Lincoln and numerous others successfully campaigned to win the Presidency. Americans generally don't trust Congress, and they tend to blame every problem on the President.

We tend to be as a People deeply suspicious of a strong central government, even as we depend upon it for our security and well-being. Since the mid-20th century, the Federal government has been given responsibilities that previously were the jealously guarded rights of individuals and States. Many of our citizens have benefited from those expansions of Federal reach, but they have also had some very negative unintended consequences. There is a social safety net in Social Security and MediCare that have benefited almost every citizen. These are huge and expensive programs, and even with an army of bureaucrats the waste and corruption stink. Minorities of all sorts have been provided protection from the tyranny of the majority, but laws enforcing Political Correctness hasn't made much progress in actually eliminating prejudices. The cost of government to maintain these programs that were never intended to be a Federal responsibility in the Constitution, is the real source of many of our current problems. Problems can be fixed, but even in fixing them we will generate more unintended problems that will have to be dealt with.

Fixing the problems facing the Federal Government, isn't going to be accomplished by extending and adding to the Federal bureaucracy. More programs, more cost and taxation, will only exacerbate the problems we face. The Obama and the Democrat idea of change is to increase programs and costs, rather than directly attack the fundamental problems.

The McCain-Palin ticket, on the other hand, are dedicated to returning many of those Federal responsibilities to the individual and States where they properly belong. They are looking to reduce size of the bureaucracy and the waste that comes from making local decisions in Washington instead of in the individual's livingroom, or in the State capitol. They intend to attack corruption, wherever it occurs without regard for the Partisan affiliation of the politician who has yielded to the temptations that come with power.

Will they be able to do it? Nope, not very likely. Most Administrations begin with high hopes and idealistic notions of improving government. Then comes the shock of reality. The Executive Branch is hamstrung by the Congress, and by an independent Supreme Court. Determined Partisan legislators can frustrated, delay and generally defeat the best intended reforms. They do it because they are elected to serve their constituents. They far too often place their own and their constituents interests above the national interest, otherwise they risk political suicide. To get things done legislators depend upon their Party for support, and that comes from following the Party Line. Compromise is essential both within Party ranks, and across the aisle with the opposition. No one gets everything they want, especially not the Executive who must rely on persuasion and the veto.

If the candidates probably won't be able to enact the reforms the nation believes are so badly needed, why vote at all? Well, the President and his administration does have a lot of potential moral and ethical power speaking from the "Bully Pulpit". Chester Arthur (product of Tamany Hall corruption) was instrumental in reforming Civil Service. Harry Truman (a failure at almost everything he ever did, and a member in good standing with the Pendergast Machine), integrated the Military and began the effort to eliminate Jim Crow from American society. Some Presidents, LBJ most notably, are effective at working the Congressional levers to get legislation passed. Neither of the two tickets currently running are likely to match LBJ's magic touch in controlling Congress.

Selecting Gov. Palin, McCain has made a choice that should appeal to many American voters. She's just "plain folks" rising from relative obscurity in what is the closest thing we still have to a frontier to stand as candidate for the Vice-Presidency. She is doubtless the closest candidate to the average American living, working and struggling with personal and local interests. McCain is doubtless the most tested and experienced candidate for the Presidency. Both McClain and Palin represent change from a continuation of Washington politics as usual by fighting to directly address the nation's problems, not by talking about them or throwing more money after them.

Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean”
September 5, 2008
by Charley James "

“So Sambo beat the bitch!”

This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat’s primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.

“It was kind of disgusting,” Lucille, who is part Aboriginal, said in a phone interview after admitting that she is frightened of being discovered telling folks in the “lower 48” about life near the North Pole.

Then, almost with a sigh, she added, “But that’s just Alaska.”

Racial and ethnic slurs may be “just Alaska” and, clearly, they are common, everyday chatter for Palin.

Besides insulting Obama with a Step-N’-Fetch-It, “darkie musical” swipe, people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska’s Aboriginal people as “Arctic Arabs” " how efficient, lumping two apparently undesirable groups into one ugly description " as well as the more colourful “mukluks” along with the totally unimaginative “f**king Eskimo’s,” according to a number of Alaskans and Wasillians interviewed for this article.
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/

Finn whines about the vast number of threads pointing up the weaknesses of the McCain-Palin ticket and Asherman denies they exist.

Then he continues with another of his fictional short stories.

Sometimes it's hard to tell.

"so sambo beat the bitch" classic

Dys, Yeah, I'm waiting for that to be proven or not. It's hard to believe that someone with aspirations like hers would have been so stupid. If she said it and the other comments, she's not only bigoted, but also stupid and angry.

edit: wait..... bigoted IS stupid and angry.

Nobody serious in interested in whether it is bigoted, stupid or angry.

It's the resonance that counts.

If we still left matters mainly to the states to decide, and went back to the "good old days" of the mid-20th century, we would still have segregated schools and state universities in the South, discrimination against women and minorities and the disabled in the workplace, shorter lifespans due to inadequate medical care for senior citizens, greater numbers of children going to bed hungry at night, greater numbers of homeless people sleeping in the streets, fewer people able to pursue higher education or vocational training, an even spottier and sub-standard public educational system, and an even greater number of people going without health care etc, etc. Greater involvement by the federal government has helped to improve the overall quality of life in this country. Personally, I want to see it continue that way. It helps to keep the "United" in the name United States.

No one approves of wasteful spending or an unnecessarily bloated bureauocracy. The solution is not to just eliminate programs, or simply hand the problems back to the states or put them on the shoulders of individual citizens. It is for taxpayers to demand more accountability, and for government to be more responsible, more efficient, and less beholden to special interest groups and large corporations. We need a more aware and involved electorate and better government, not less government.

As an example, it was the lack of government regulation in the banking/lending sphere that led to the sub-prime mortgage problems and helped to fuel the current crisis in the housing and credit markets which has shaken our entire economy, and, by extension, the global economy. Corporate greed was allowed to run wild and unfettered, with disasterous results to our entire economy. Greater federal government regulation in the lending area, and not less, would help to prevent such problems in the future.

As another example, our current Food and Drug Administration is seriously overburdened and consequently does not seem to be doing a fully adequate job of either testing and regulating drugs or protecting our food supply. To do the job adequately, and help to insure the health and safety of all Americans, probably requires that it be divided into two separate agencies--one for drugs and one for food-- each of which must be adequately staffed. Greater expansion of government would help in this situation.

As another example, the Veteran's Administration is able to negotiate fairly low prices for drugs and medications, but Medicare is not. The Veterans Administration uses its purchasing power to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry to get lower prices for its beneficiaries. Congress will not allow Medicare to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies to get lower prices--the Republicans, backed by Bush, blocked a bill in the Senate which would have allowed that. McCain still favors blocking price negotiations with the drug companies. He would prefer to allow Canadian drug imports and allow the drug companies to compete among themselves to lower prices. This is what Obama has said on that issue.


I find Obama's view the more fiscally sensible. There is no reason for the government to try to protect the profits of drug companies, while far too many seniors still cannot afford the costs of their medications. Medicare should be allowed to negogiate better prices on drugs. Consumers in this area need some protection from the big corporations, they are suffering financially and medically, the drug companies are not. In this instance, Obama proposes directly attacking the problem, McCain does not.

In some areas we might need less government, but, in other areas, we may well need more.

Thanks to the Bush administration, we are now saddled with a record deficit. Due to our failing economy, the government is bailing out banks and agencies on all sides, simply to avert disaster. They are about to takeover Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Even the FDIC may have to raise the rates they charge banks, just to maintain enough funds within the FDIC to protect and insure the monies that individual citizens keep in our banks, because of our current and potential bank failure rate. We are involved in an exhorbitantly costly, and totally unnecessary and unprovoked war in Iraq, which further drains our economic resources. The government cuurently has a definite cash flow problem.

There are only a fairly limited number of ways a financially strapped goverment can raise cash fairly quickly in an economic crisis--they can increase taxes and issue bonds. And we are in an economic crisis. So I think Americans should expect some type of tax increase no matter who is elected president in November. Do not believe McCain when he says he will not raise taxes. Remember Daddy Bush, when he said, "Read my lips, no new taxes", and then he raised taxes. McCain will do the same. At least Obama is acknowledging the reality of the situation, and he is pledging to spare the middle class from such increases.

(not mine..)

Palin may be a political newbie on the national stage, but - conservatives say - she at least has executive experience, and that's more than you can say of Obama or Biden (or, something they dont add, McCain).

Well, that liberal rag the Wall Street Journal, takes a look at "the biggest project that Sarah Palin undertook as mayor" of Wasilla, and concludes that "what was to be Ms. Palin's legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla."



full story

So much for her executive chops ...

Just proves she knows how to make decisions - like Bush. What went wrong this time?