1
   

The Lies, Foibles, and Misrepresentations of George W Bush

 
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 10:26 pm
Despite Bush Boast of Ouster, Taliban is Rebuilding on the Ground in Afghanistan


President Bush yesterday said that we "put the Taliban out of business forever"1
- taking credit for supposedly ridding the world of the terrorist regime. He made these
comments just a day after the Taliban launched a rocket attack on Kabul's most
prominent hotel2. It was also one day after Reuters reported Mullah Omar, the Taliban's
still at-large leader, "urged Afghans to unite against U.S.-led foreign forces on their soil"3
and the same day Afghanistan's Foreign Minister desperately requested more international
help in fighting off Taliban guerillas4. All told, the AP calls the Taliban "an increasingly
virulent insurgency" while the LA Times reports "nearly two years after the U.S. drove
the Taliban from power, remnants of the Islamic extremist group are regrouping and
attacking U.S. troops."5


http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df11252003.html
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 10:31 am
MORE PHOTOGRAPHIC DISHONESTY FROM PRESIDENT BUSH

In the most famous picture from his trip to Baghdad, President Bush had
himself artfully photographed to look like he was serving turkey to the
troops. The image was emblazoned on front pages throughout the country - and
now appears to be an entirely false depiction.

According to the Washington Post, Bush was actually holding "a decoration,
not a serving plate." In other words, he was holding a prop, not real food,
and thus only pretending for the cameras to be serving up the holiday meal.

The Post notes that "the foray has opened new credibility questions for a
White House that has dealt with issues" like this in the past. In fact, the
flap marks the second such distortion in as many days about his trip to
Baghdad. Just yesterday it was revealed that the White House's tall tale of
Air Force One crossing paths with a British Airways plane was entirely
false.

The deceptive picture also harkens back to the controversy surrounding the
President's "Mission Accomplished" banner. On May 1, he stood on the deck of
the U.S.S. Lincoln in front of the giant sign and declared that "major
combat operations have ended." Since that time, more troops have been killed
or wounded than before he made that statement, prompting more questions
about his photo-op.

When asked why he chose to stand in front of the "Mission Accomplished"
banner at a press conference six months later, Bush "disavowed the
background banner," saying the White House staff had nothing to do with
producing it. But then Navy and administration officials admitted the
President had been dishonest, saying that "the White House actually made
it." White House spokesman Scott McClellan specifically said, "We took care
of the production of it. We have people to do those things."

Of course, Bush's penchant for taking misleading and dishonest photos has
not been confined to Iraq. In July of 2002, the President visited a
low-income housing development in Atlanta to tout his commitment to funding
it. He then proposed a budget that eliminated its funding. Similarly, the
President visited a Boys and Girls Club in January of 2003 to tout the
organization's efforts. He said the club "has got a grand history of helping children."
Just four days after his photo-op, he proposed to cut 15% out of funding
for the Boys and Girls Club.

Read the Mis-Lead -->
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1198353&l=10920
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 10:46 am
PDiddie wrote:

... The President must mourn every loss in an intensely private way, because he does not reach out to the families of the soldiers lost in the war he was so eager to start. Breaking with long tradition, he does not attend funerals and has rarely spoken to bereaved families who might be comforted by a few words from their President.

Indeed, the Bush Administration has little use for the ceremonial traditions surrounding the dead of war. For example, a Pentagon directive to US military bases banned arrival ceremonies or media coverage of coffins arriving home from the war.

And the wounded also are hidden from view.

While the President speaks of sacrifice and resolve, the wounded soldiers who have been the instruments of that resolve are brought home under cover of darkness as if they were objects of shame.

Just as the President's staff protected him from exposure to a "politically perilous fray," so does the Bush Administration protect the public from exposure to truths that might shake their support of his administration, and his war.

On a day after 19 soldiers died, President Bush said, "America will never run."

He speaks bravely for someone who lacks the moral courage to confront the price paid for his decisions.


This is a pack of untruths, misrepresentations of fact and deliberately inflammatory rhetoric. There is no "... long tradition" of presidents attending the funerals of soldiers fallen in our wars. Every administration has sought to avoid media exploitation of our war dead and wounded in every conflict we have fought. I submit that Pdiddie is no fit judge of the president's moral courage or the lack thereof.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 11:40 am
georgeob1 wrote:
This is a pack of untruths, misrepresentations of fact and deliberately inflammatory rhetoric. There is no "... long tradition" of presidents attending the funerals of soldiers fallen in our wars. Every administration has sought to avoid media exploitation of our war dead and wounded in every conflict we have fought. I submit that Pdiddie is no fit judge of the president's moral courage or the lack thereof.


Well, george, I submit that, as usual, you are poorly informed, misguided, and rude.

According to the History News Network:

Quote:
Lyndon Baines Johnson - According to the Johnson Library, LBJ attended two funerals for soldiers who died during the Vietnam War. The first funeral was for Captain Albert Smith, son of White House correspondent Merriman Smith, which was held February 28, 1966. The second was for Major General Keith R. Ware, held September 17, 1968. LBJ had met Ware while visiting Vietnam.

Richard Nixon - Nixon awarded posthumous Medals of Honor to the families of several soldiers on April 22, 1971 and on several other occasions. On April 16, 1972, he met with the family of John Paul Vann in the Oval Office following his funeral at Arlington National Cemetery. (Vann's experience in Vietnam was the subject of a book, later made into a film, named "A Bright Shining Lie", written by Neil Sheehan.) In 1973 he met with the family of Col. William Nolde after he was buried in Arlington. Colonel Nolde was killed on January 27th, the night before the cease-fire went into effect.

Jimmy Carter - attended a memorial service for the soldiers killed in the failed rescue of America hostages in Iran in 1980.

Ronald Reagan - attended memorial services on several occasions for American soldiers. In 1983 he attended a service at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, in connection with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which cost the lives of 241 people. In 1987 he attended a service at Mayport Naval Station in Florida for the sailors killed on the USS Stark.

George H.W. Bush - President George Herbert Walker Bush does not appear to have attended any funerals for American soldiers. (The NYT, citing Marlin Fitzwater as a source, indicated that the president did attend several such funerals. But no details were provided.)

Bill Clinton - attended a service in October 2000 in memory of the 17 sailors killed in the attack on the USS Cole.



Bush is a fake, a phony; he poses in soldier uniforms and with real soldiers in order to capture some of the moxie of real heroes. A cheap facade hiding a shallow, cowardly fool.

His meeting with families (on his recent trip to London) of some of the 53 British servicemen killed in Iraq was "billed as one of the centerpieces of his state visit to wartime ally Britain," Reuters reported, and in pre-trip interviews the President "stressed his plans to meet the [British] families" and to "tell them their loved ones did not die in vain."

How nice. The same American commander-in-chief who has declined to attend funerals for any of the more than 400 American soldiers killed in Iraq?

Instead, he has occupied his time with more than 75 fundraising trips. Evil or Very Mad

President Bush has had no shortage of opportunities to honor the men who have died for his lies, as in a few short months the war death toll has already exceeded that of the first three years of the Vietnam War.

Yet he has declined to send even a single White House official to a single serviceman's funeral. He has banned ceremony and news coverage for returning coffins -- they are to be shipped in furtively, guiltily, and not in body bags but "transfer tubes ." His Pentagon has formally stated that journalists' microphones "are not permitted... anywhere near the grave site" at honor-guard Arlington funerals.

"Bush and his people sent them out to get killed and now you can't get one of them in Washington to mention these dead," notes Newsday columnist Jimmy Breslin. "Your government would prefer that night falls and the dead are buried in darkness. We must keep them remote, names on a list, and concentrate on things like patriotism, exporting democracy and shipping freedom ..."

Breslin's column concludes: "Here is your war so far this week," followed by a shockingly long list of one week's casualties. Or check out The Washington Post's "Faces of the Fallen",which tells about each American to die in the line of Iraq duty.

Remember, these are Americans your President -- on the basis of crass political calculation -- refuses to honor.

Instead, on the basis of an equally crass calculation, he focus-grouped the funeral/grief vision thing with British extras. If Karl Rove thinks it'll work, it'll be campaign season footage; if it bombs like the "Mission Accomplished" banner, it'll drop to the cutting-room floor. Apparently, it went limp, as we have heard nothing about it since his return from the UK.

Life goes cheerfully on for the "I travel in somewhat of a bubble" President.

And his apologists.
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 11:49 am
PDiddie

Bien dicho!
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 11:54 am
Gracias, Senor.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 12:22 pm
PDiddie wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
This is a pack of untruths, misrepresentations of fact and deliberately inflammatory rhetoric. There is no "... long tradition" of presidents attending the funerals of soldiers fallen in our wars. Every administration has sought to avoid media exploitation of our war dead and wounded in every conflict we have fought. I submit that Pdiddie is no fit judge of the president's moral courage or the lack thereof.


Well, george, I submit that, as usual, you are poorly informed, misguided, and rude.

According to the History News Network:

Quote:
Lyndon Baines Johnson - According to the Johnson Library, LBJ attended two funerals for soldiers who died during the Vietnam War. The first funeral was for Captain Albert Smith, son of White House correspondent Merriman Smith, which was held February 28, 1966. The second was for Major General Keith R. Ware, held September 17, 1968. LBJ had met Ware while visiting Vietnam.

Richard Nixon - Nixon awarded posthumous Medals of Honor to the families of several soldiers on April 22, 1971 and on several other occasions. On April 16, 1972, he met with the family of John Paul Vann in the Oval Office following his funeral at Arlington National Cemetery. (Vann's experience in Vietnam was the subject of a book, later made into a film, named "A Bright Shining Lie", written by Neil Sheehan.) In 1973 he met with the family of Col. William Nolde after he was buried in Arlington. Colonel Nolde was killed on January 27th, the night before the cease-fire went into effect.

Jimmy Carter - attended a memorial service for the soldiers killed in the failed rescue of America hostages in Iran in 1980.

Ronald Reagan - attended memorial services on several occasions for American soldiers. In 1983 he attended a service at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, in connection with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which cost the lives of 241 people. In 1987 he attended a service at Mayport Naval Station in Florida for the sailors killed on the USS Stark.

George H.W. Bush - President George Herbert Walker Bush does not appear to have attended any funerals for American soldiers. (The NYT, citing Marlin Fitzwater as a source, indicated that the president did attend several such funerals. But no details were provided.)

Bill Clinton - attended a service in October 2000 in memory of the 17 sailors killed in the attack on the USS Cole.



Bush is a fake, a phony; he poses in soldier uniforms and with real soldiers in order to capture some of the moxie of real heroes. A cheap facade hiding a shallow, cowardly fool.

His meeting with families (on his recent trip to London) of some of the 53 British servicemen killed in Iraq was "billed as one of the centerpieces of his state visit to wartime ally Britain," Reuters reported, and in pre-trip interviews the President "stressed his plans to meet the [British] families" and to "tell them their loved ones did not die in vain."

How nice. The same American commander-in-chief who has declined to attend funerals for any of the more than 400 American soldiers killed in Iraq?

Instead, he has occupied his time with more than 75 fundraising trips. Evil or Very Mad

President Bush has had no shortage of opportunities to honor the men who have died for his lies, as in a few short months the war death toll has already exceeded that of the first three years of the Vietnam War.

Yet he has declined to send even a single White House official to a single serviceman's funeral. He has banned ceremony and news coverage for returning coffins -- they are to be shipped in furtively, guiltily, and not in body bags but "transfer tubes ." His Pentagon has formally stated that journalists' microphones "are not permitted... anywhere near the grave site" at honor-guard Arlington funerals.

"Bush and his people sent them out to get killed and now you can't get one of them in Washington to mention these dead," notes Newsday columnist Jimmy Breslin. "Your government would prefer that night falls and the dead are buried in darkness. We must keep them remote, names on a list, and concentrate on things like patriotism, exporting democracy and shipping freedom ..."

Breslin's column concludes: "Here is your war so far this week," followed by a shockingly long list of one week's casualties. Or check out The Washington Post's "Faces of the Fallen",which tells about each American to die in the line of Iraq duty.

Remember, these are Americans your President -- on the basis of crass political calculation -- refuses to honor.

Instead, on the basis of an equally crass calculation, he focus-grouped the funeral/grief vision thing with British extras. If Karl Rove thinks it'll work, it'll be campaign season footage; if it bombs like the "Mission Accomplished" banner, it'll drop to the cutting-room floor. Apparently, it went limp, as we have heard nothing about it since his return from the UK.

Life goes cheerfully on for the "I travel in somewhat of a bubble" President.

And his apologists.


Please accept my thanks for this posting. You hit every nail squarely on its head!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 01:05 pm
Remarkable to see you guys so accurately reproducing the prefabricated treacle of the Democrat spinmeisters.

Two funerals in 50,000 casualties during Vietnam does not a tradition make. Attending memorial services after failed and ill conceived rescue efforts in Iran, or after an attack on our warship, followed by zero constructive action to find the perpetrators or to deal with the movement behind it , do not constitute moral support for our military. The fact is that Johnson, Carter, and Clinton were largely despised among the military and Bush is not.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 01:11 pm
the funerals with attendance is a non-starter, however the prohibition against photographs as well as the prohibiton of the press speaking to anyone in uniform at Bush's speech in Colorado Springs is another matter of concern to me.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 01:27 pm
george now concedes the point that there is, indeed, a 40-year-tradition (broken only by two Bushes) of attending services for fallen soldiers and singles out the Democratic Presidents for some nebulous criticism of being unloved by the military.

(Notice how he left his beloved Reagan out.)

"Johnson, Carter, and Clinton largely despised by the military."

Horse hockey. Prove it.

george: you simply no longer have a shred of credibility relative to your opinions on this matter.

Try arguing something else, because you are done on this.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 01:43 pm
I concede nothing by way of your supposed tradition.

I served in the military during most of those administrations and know of what I speak.

Are you a judge of credibility for anyone but yourself? I don't count the loss of yours as significant.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 02:04 pm
There a lot of speculation about what Presidents the military "hated" with nothing specific and especially no statistics as to who the military voted for in the elections. What military leaders specifically said they hated Clinton, Carter and LBJ? Do you suppose the military loved (or loves) Nixon, Reagan the Bushes? It is all supposition supported by little nor no facts. Just being in the military means nothing but a likelihood of hearsay evidence. Unless you were a pollmeister in the military.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:54 pm
PDiddie wrote:
george now concedes the point that there is, indeed, a 40-year-tradition (broken only by two Bushes) of attending services for fallen soldiers


I dunno about that 40-year-tradition and Bush's relative place in it. We had a big ol' debate about it in the US/UN/Iraq thread and, though I started out on your side of the debate, I've had to retract step by step.

First, there's the specific case of attending funerals. As georgeob1 already picked up from the article you quoted (I'd just found it tonight as well) - LBJ went to two - on a total of, say, 50,000. And, again on the basis of the article you posted, neither Nixon nor Carter nor Bush Sr nor Clinton attended any, and there's apparently no evidence FDR did either. So there's nothing new or drastically tradition-breaking in GWB's behaviour there.

Then there's the question of attending other ceremonies to pay tribute to those who fell or share the grief of their families. Nixon, Reagan and Clinton did, several times. But so did GWB. Sofia dug up this one:

Quote:
Bush Comforts Families Of War Dead, Cheered By Marines
At a military base hard hit by combat deaths, President Bush shed tears Thursday with relatives of Marines killed in Iraq [..] Bush and his wife Laura met in a chapel annex with about 20 family members of five Camp Lejeune-based Marines killed in Iraq. [..] Bush talked with the families after a speech to troops [..] Some 12,000 camouflage-clad Marines and 8,000 more family members and friends spilled out from a temporary stadium into a green field named in honor of Marines who have died. The field was ringed with tanks, allowing several Marines to climb higher for a better view.

And Fishin' found this more recent one:

Quote:
Bush pays respects to sacrifices in Iraq and elsewhere
On a day when two U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq, President Bush used a Columbus Day speech to pay tribute to Americans who have died in that war and others. [..] Bush recalled a meeting at Fort Stewart, Georgia, a month ago with relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq. "I've hugged and cried with, and talked to a room full of families, of loved ones, and I did the best I could do to console them in their grief. And I owe that to those who have suffered," Bush said.


Anyhow, full recap of the whole thing (as I've gotten it thus far) is in this post on the US/UN/Iraq thread. Additional info welcome.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2003 01:16 pm
I'm the one who linked the HNN article, nimh.

And good people (that's you and me) are gonna have to disagree on this one.

This sums it up for me (at least as far as why Bush will never be attending any services):

Quote:
Of course, the question begs to be asked: Why won't the leader of the free world -- the main man in our war on terrorism -- pay his respects to those who sacrificed all for our country?

The answer is enough to worry even the most pro-Bush patriots.

Bush and his handlers (Karl Rove and the Republican National Committee) don't want the press, and, moreover, the Democrats, to get any images of Bush next to a flag-draped coffin.

I can hear the Bush re-election machine chirping, "As long as the president doesn't attend any funerals -- as long as he isn't pictured next to a soldier's casket or consoling a grieving widow -- then it's America's war, not his."

That's it in a nutshell; Bush doesn't go to service members' funerals because it's not good for his re-election campaign.

Even Bill Clinton, the draft-dodging pariah of the neocons, went to Fort Benning after the Somalia disaster to pay his respects to the men he sent into battle to die for our country.

Sometimes, the right thing to do isn't always the most politically expedient decision. But it's time Bush puts re-election worries aside and assumes his title of commander in chief and everything that goes with that title.


Bush's absence at funerals unacceptable
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2003 02:25 pm
Clinton had much to regret in his handling of our participation in the Somalia fiasco. Certainly the confused UN command structure, and the equally confused objectives of the Administration gave us no help and contributed to the disaster. While his attendance at the memorial services was appropriate, I believe most military leaders would have preferred better leadership on his part.

It would be very difficult to find many opportunities in which Clinton passed up an opportunity to reassure us that he did indeed, "feel our pain". However it is a mistake to confuse such emotional ambulance chasing with real moral leadership. I am surprised that you buy it so readily.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2003 02:28 pm
Emotional ambulance chasing? Exactly what does that phrase mean? There's a left field fly headed your way.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2003 03:16 pm
This is as good a thread as any to report this:

"miserable failure" is now a Google bomb. Try it (with "I'm feeling lucky").
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2003 03:28 pm
Very Happy
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2003 10:02 pm
PDiddie wrote:
I'm the one who linked the HNN article, nimh.

I know, thats why I wrote, "from the article you quoted (I'd just found it tonight as well)".

PDiddie wrote:
And good people (that's you and me) are gonna have to disagree on this one.

Yep.

Because where you write:

PDiddie wrote:
This sums it up for me (at least as far as why Bush will never be attending any services):
Quote:
That's it in a nutshell; Bush doesn't go to service members' funerals because it's not good for his re-election campaign.

Even Bill Clinton, the draft-dodging pariah of the neocons, went to Fort Benning after the Somalia disaster to pay his respects to the men he sent into battle to die for our country.

Bush's absence at funerals unacceptable

I'm left wondering, first:

- If "Bush doesn't go to service members' funerals because it's not good for his re-election campaign", then the same can be said about why Nixon nor Carter nor Bush Sr nor Clinton nor FDR (apparently) attended funerals - which leaves you wondering exactly how exceptional Bush's behaviour can be said to be;

then remarking, second:

- that article you cite draws a false parallel by blasting Bush for not attending funerals, then continuing behind the comma, "Even Bill Clinton [..] went to Fort Benning" - but Clinton didnt go to any funeral, he only went to a public ceremony of tribute - of the kind that Bush has attended as well (see stories above).

So where's the beef?

(In fact, a Google search on "clinton "fort banning"" only yields a "Clinton considered attending the Fort Benning ceremony, but scheduling conflicts kept him away" - but that's probably beside the point.)
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2003 10:16 pm
Relevent info:

Quote:
President Bush's opponents say he is trying to keep the spotlight off the fatalities in Iraq. "This administration manipulates information and takes great care to manage events, and sometimes that goes too far," said Joe Lockhart, who as White House press secretary joined President Bill Clinton at several ceremonies for returning remains. "For them to sit there and make a political decision because this hurts them politically -- I'm outraged."


Quote:
But in early 1991, at the time of the Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon said there would be no more media coverage of coffins returning to Dover, the main arrival point; a year earlier, Bush was angered when television networks showed him giving a news briefing on a split screen with caskets arriving.

But the photos of coffins arriving at Andrews and elsewhere continued to appear through the Clinton administration. In 1996, Dover made an exception to allow filming of Clinton's visit to welcome the 33 caskets with remains from Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown's plane crash. In 1998, Clinton went to Andrews to see the coffins of Americans killed in the terrorist bombing in Nairobi. Dover also allowed public distribution of photos of the homecoming caskets after the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000.


source
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 08:23:02