19
   

Sarah Palin lies

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 09:07 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Did the RNC Insult Troops and Veterans?


No.


JTT
 
  3  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 09:20 pm
@H2O MAN,
No only the troops but the American public.

Quote:

And that brings me to the last point. Speaker after speaker told the convention that the "surge worked" and we were on our way to "victory."

Except not so much. Bob Woodward, in his new book, explains what those of us in the military always knew - commanders on the ground were against the surge, and knew it would not work strategically. And, in fact, it hasn't worked in stabilizing Iraq's internal political problems, hasn't aided our global strategy, or helped strengthen our military.

But, as the President explained to General Abizaid, and others, success wasn't the point of the surge - the APPEARANCE of success was the purpose.

[DECEIVING THE PUBLIC; NOW WHERE HAVE WE HEARD THAT BEFORE]

Quoting Woodward's finding, "A surge would "also help here at home, since for many the measure of success is reduction in violence," Bush said [to Abizaid]."

In short, BUSH KNEW that since less than one-percent of America had served in the wars, and most commentators were ignorant about what constitutes true military and strategic success, a reduction of violence could be sold as "success," even if it was not.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 09:22 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

No only the troops but the American public.


What?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 10:14 pm
What Palin said about the jet sale:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-palin_planesep05,0,3470364.story
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 05:57 am
Summary
We've been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain's running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn't cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She's been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesty" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

A few of these claims were included in a chain e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny. We'll be looking into other charges in that e-mail for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.

Analysis
Since Republican presidential nominee John McCain tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, information about Palin's past has been zipping around the Internet. Several claims are not true, and other rumors are misleading.

No Cut for "Special Needs" Kids
It's not true, as widely reported in mass e-mails, Web postings and at least one mainstream news source, that Palin slashed the special education budget in Alaska by 62 percent. CNN's Soledad O'Brien made the claim on Sept. 4 in an interview with Nicolle Wallace, a senior adviser to the McCain campaign:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 07:59 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

No only the troops but the American public.

Quote:

And that brings me to the last point. Speaker after speaker told the convention that the "surge worked" and we were on our way to "victory."

Except not so much. Bob Woodward, in his new book, explains what those of us in the military always knew - commanders on the ground were against the surge, and knew it would not work strategically. And, in fact, it hasn't worked in stabilizing Iraq's internal political problems, hasn't aided our global strategy, or helped strengthen our military.

But, as the President explained to General Abizaid, and others, success wasn't the point of the surge - the APPEARANCE of success was the purpose.

[DECEIVING THE PUBLIC; NOW WHERE HAVE WE HEARD THAT BEFORE]

Quoting Woodward's finding, "A surge would "also help here at home, since for many the measure of success is reduction in violence," Bush said [to Abizaid]."

In short, BUSH KNEW that since less than one-percent of America had served in the wars, and most commentators were ignorant about what constitutes true military and strategic success, a reduction of violence could be sold as "success," even if it was not.



Even Obama has conceded that the surge has worked. Get over it.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  6  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 04:12 pm
I have to agree with Steve Benen here:

Quote:
MAKING A STORY 'STICK'.... CNN had a segment this morning about Sarah Palin lying on her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere, but instead of delving into the McCain campaign's apparent inability to tell the truth, CNN's John Roberts asked why Barack Obama is having trouble making the truth "stick."

It was an unusually inane question, which Paul Begala handled very, very well.

Quote:
"Because the press won't do its job, John..... It is the media's job when a politician flat out lies like she's doing on this bridge to nowhere so call her on it. Or this matter of earmarks where she's attacking Barack Obama for having earmarks, when she was the mayor of little Wasilla, Alaska, 6,000 people, she hired a lobbyist who was connected to Jack Abramoff, who is a criminal, and they brought home $27 million in earmarks. She carried so much pork home she got trichinosis. But we in the media are letting her tell lies about her record."


At that point, Roberts did what CNN tends to do -- turn to a Republican to offer a competing side to the truth. In this case, Alex Castellanos said the media should be "a little gentle" with Sarah Palin's obviously false claims. "The amazing thing about Sarah Palin is when she became governor she actually stood up and said no" to federal pork, he said.

So, again, Begala tried to set the record straight.

Quote:
"That's just not true. You know, John, the facts matter. There's lots of things that are debatable who is more qualified or less experienced or more this or more passionate, whatever. It is a fact that she campaigned and supported that bridge to nowhere. It is a fact that she hired lobbyists to get earmarks. It is a fact that as governor she lobbies for earmarks. Her state is essentially a welfare state taking money from the federal government."


Roberts wrapped up the segment, concluding, "We still have 56 days to talk about this back and forth."

But therein lies the point. The nation doesn't need 56 days of "back and forth." We don't need 56 seconds of "back and forth." There's an objective truth here, and CNN, as a neutral, independent news source, is supposed to tell viewers what the facts are.

But CNN can't do that, because reality has a well known liberal bias. If Roberts conceded that Begala was telling the truth about demonstrable facts, then he'd be "taking sides." For a media figure to acknowledge that a candidate for national office is lying shamelessly would be wholly unacceptable -- it would break with the "balance" between competing arguments.


The viewer at home hears one side, then the other. Who's right? That's not CNN's problem. If viewers wants to hear an argument, they can turn to CNN. If viewers wants to know which side of the argument is right, they can look elsewhere.

Which is precisely why candidates for national office feel comfortable lying shamelessly in the first place.

And which is why the candidate telling the truth can't get the story to "stick."


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014632.php
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 05:01 pm
@sozobe,
CNN is not neutral; they're promoting Palin like a rock star. They don't understand anything about "fair and balanced." They've turned into the PR company for the republicans, and doing a yeoman's job at it. Wolf Blitzer is one of the weakest tv persona on CNN; he doesn't know how to ask the tough questions, but babies along lies and innuendos without any sense of ethics.
kickycan
 
  4  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 05:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
This is the problem. The playing field is not level.

CNN is actually a news organization and therefore they at least try to be objective. If the republicans start yelling about how they are being mistreated by the mean and nasty liberal media (how many times did we hear that one at the Republican convention?), CNN tries to find the middleground, seemingly unaware that they are being manipulated.

On the other hand, Fox News is a propaganda arm of the government masquerading as news, so they have no such ethics to worry about. If people call them biased, guess what? They ignore it and keep peddling their bullshit.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 06:58 pm
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:

This is the problem. The playing field is not level.

CNN is actually a news organization and therefore they at least try to be objective.

On the other hand, Fox News is a propaganda arm of the government masquerading as news, so they have no such ethics to worry about.


You drank way too much of that liberal Kool-Aid and got it wrong.

0 Replies
 
revel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 06:32 am
Quote:
Even Obama has conceded that the surge has worked. Get over it.


Yea, how about that. Here we have someone when faced with reality acknowledge that reality verses the opposite examples of what we have had for the last eight years.

Quote:
LANCASTER, Pa. - Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Thursday that the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq, which he had opposed, has succeeded in reducing violence "beyond our wildest dreams."

But Iraq still has failed to achieve the political reconciliation and self-sufficiency that is required, he said, and he vowed to withdraw American troops and end the war.

Earlier Thursday, in taping a segment for Fox's "O'Reilly Factor," Obama said the surge of U.S. troops has "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26550764/

He is right about the political problem Iraq is facing. They have not worked out their problems and in fact their political problems have digressed. Which is probably why Bush is not reducing troops as much as anticipated. The surge worked because we surged the number of troops on the ground and built up walls to seal off sections between the fighting groups of Iraq and because of a good majority of Sunni tribal chiefs decided to turn against AQ before the surge in troops commenced. If the Iraqi factions do not politically come together then all we have done is contain the situation. How long are we to continue this effort to keep a lid on Iraq, keep paying for it while we leave ourselves at risk both monetarily and our national security both at home and elsewhere abroad.

In the Iraqi security agreement which as of yet as not been agreed upon, the dates which state when Iraq want the US to leave is the same time Obama has suggested and in the agreement it also leaves the question of changing their minds to the Iraqis and no immunity for US contractors and leaving the Iraqis in charge of who gets bombed rather than the US deciding those things. In other words they are pressing the point of their own sovereignty as well they should. There are still a lot of problems so while the surge did work beyond Obama's and even McCain's expectations (can look any and including this statement to prove if asked) and most of Americans expectations, it only solved the out of the control political and AQ violence in the country, which is good and I am glad of it, bout time.

0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 12:32 pm
@Steve 41oo,
For an adult and aspiring vice-president, and, therefore, posible president to assert that God willed the invasion of Iraq sounds a bit schizoid, not unlike Bush's proclamation that "God wanted me to be president." Palin's and Bush's spiritual level seem to be about on the level of an 8 year old at best. Bush's administration has been destructive to the country, and another four years of the same could be calamitous. At the very best Palin is pandering to the far-right lunatic fringe fundamentalists.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 02:16 pm
@coluber2001,
amen!
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 02:24 pm
@coluber2001,
That's a real stretch.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 02:45 pm
@sozobe,
The Bridge to Nowhere never appeared in her budget when she became governor, and she then killed it completely. Therefore, when she says that she rejected it, she is simply telling the truth. Who cares if she supported it very early on?
sozobe
 
  4  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 01:32 pm
@Brandon9000,
Still, Brandon?

What she was saying... over and over again until recently... is that she had said "Thanks but no thanks to that Bridge to Nowhere." That's just not true.

If anything, she said "please??" and then when Congress said no she said "fine, but thanks for the money!" Which she kept.

That's the short version -- if you're actually still arguing that it's not a flat-out lie I'm happy to do a longer version. It's been a couple of days though (just saw this) and I'll see if you have recognized that it's a lie yet first.

Meanwhile, new lies (Palin or McCain? Not clear who lied more but will put it here since it's ABOUT Palin):

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/she-lied-about.html
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 02:27 pm
@sozobe,
If thats true then its a whopper since she mentioned it in that interview with "Charlie" and talked about how it changed her life.

** Correction: went back to check the transcript -- she actually said "Kuwait and Germany", so maybe that isnt her lie.
squinney
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 02:39 pm
@FreeDuck,
Aides said...

Palin's spokeswoman said...

Either way it misrepresents her to the American people.

The Ireland part is kinda funny if you don't consider that the sheep will bleet her travels as truth until the cows come home.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 02:52 pm
@squinney,
Since the trip to Ireland was just refueling stop, I bet that makes her well versed in Irish politics. She's seen more of Ireland than she has Russia.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 08:35 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:
Meanwhile, new lies (Palin or McCain? Not clear who lied more but will put it here since it's ABOUT Palin):

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/she-lied-about.html

So the McCain camp has asserted Palin visited Ireland, when she was only there on a refuelling stop and she never left the plane, and it asserted she was in Iraq, when she was only ever in Kuwait.

Remember Hillary's fib about sniperfire in Bosnia? Palin's sure getting a different media deal than she was getting.

One of the weirder things to me is how McCain and Palin even lie about completely inconsequential things. Maybe because they know nobody will call them much on it anyway?

Like this fib below - it's totally not important, but I mean jeez - what's this compulsion to just make things up out of thin air? I know McCain enjoys a bit of high-stakes gambling as hobby, maybe they share the same character trait? They expect to bluff their way through, I suppose - and not without grounds?

Quote:
History Quiz

This is not the most consequential answer Sarah Palin has given Charlie Gibson so far, but it's indicative:

Quote:
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer.


If you look back at the 10 vice presidents since 1960 -- Johnson, Humphrey, Agnew, Ford, Rockefeller, Mondale, Bush, Quayle, Gore and Cheney -- which of those would not have met a head of state before becoming VP?

Based on their pre-veep resumes, only Agnew jumps out as a possible candidate for Palin-level isolation. But I'm curious about this. Would Palin be the only veep in the last half century to have had no contact with a foreign head of state before taking office? [..]

Late Update: On it already, ABC News' Lisa Chinn reports every veep in the last 32 years has met a head of state before taking office.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Lipstick vs. Uppity - Discussion by A Lone Voice
Where is the outrage? - Discussion by Gelisgesti
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Sarah Palin, too weird. - Discussion by dyslexia
Troopergate report: Palin abused power - Discussion by blueflame1
"I fear for my country" - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Sarah Palin lies
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 04:40:21