1
   

The Lies, Foibles, and Misrepresentations of George W Bush

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 04:26 pm
On the contrary it is a convincing rebuttal, and, unlike your earlier argument, one based on a balanced consideration of the facts.
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 09:46 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
On the contrary it is a convincing rebuttal, and, unlike your earlier argument, one based on a balanced consideration of the facts.


Have a nice day.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 06:31 am
hehhehheh ... childish i know ... but i happened upon this, and i had to grin:

http://www.kutdag.nl/images/bush_visie_kl.jpg
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 06:42 am
nimh wrote:
hehhehheh ... childish i know ... but i happened upon this, and i had to grin:

http://www.kutdag.nl/images/bush_visie_kl.jpg



Funny!

And I hope when you said "childish" ... you were not referring to yourself. The guy trying to figure out why he can't see anything better fits that description.
0 Replies
 
Monger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 06:56 am
Here's Billy. . .

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0WgDfAnkd!ImdajSIGNHcSRxOUP1hyaKp132piLC4tu8QIA2oQimQBvEPAr1UIpmLhrULTFmPnDRVnPDENDAJAuy0Yi9n8PPDydkk3!aI5IWLJTZKV*mcoFFoLv67qRBDN966TYRcP2c/bill_clinton_binoculars.jpg?dc=4675450986464865980

Being followed by cameras all day has gotta suck ass Razz
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 08:50 am
*sigh*

Bullshit detecter...
0 Replies
 
Monger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 09:47 am
Yeah. Snopes is where I cut my picture from, McG Wink

Quote:
Status: Undetermined
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 09:53 am
McGentrix wrote:


Heh. Good digging work, McG - thanks. I merely posted the pic cause it made me laugh - but yes, youre right, stuff like that better be snuffed out as soon as it comes up. Smile
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 09:57 am
I have a belief that no matter who our president is, republican or democrat that they are not dumb-asses.
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 01:57 pm
BUSH DECISION TO INVADE IRAQ A FULL YEAR BEFORE WAR BRINGS CLAIMS OF MILITARY POWER AS "LAST CHOICE" INTO QUESTION


The president... claimed on Tuesday that, "in Iraq, there was a lot of diplomacy that took place before there was any military action." But in fact, Time reported a meeting from March 2002, a full year before the war began, in which Bush "showed little interest in debating what to do about Hussein," and told a group of Senators, "[expletive] Saddam. We're taking him out." Weeks later, Vice President Cheney separately told a group of Senators that, "The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq, he said. The only question was when." But months later, the president was still telling the public, "I hope this will not require military action."

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1198353&l=12799
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 02:19 pm
Thanks JJorge. But the true believers probably just see this as something positive the coward in chief has done. Sad War is good for business, remember?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 04:08 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I have a belief that no matter who our president is, republican or democrat that they are not dumb-asses.


Not even with Dubya????
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 04:09 pm
Especially with Dubya..he's right there with the toothless nascar fans!
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 08:02 pm
STATISTICS DON'T SUPPORT BUSH'S CLAIM THAT TORT REFORM WILL MINIMIZE COSTS

Arguing that his economic policies consist of more than tax cuts geared to
the wealthy, President Bush maintained last week in his year-end press
conference that tort reform is a key part of his "pro-growth" agenda, saying
that it, "would have made a difference" to benefit the economy. Earlier
this year, the president went further, saying that the proliferation of
medical malpractice lawsuits are "a national problem that needs a national
solution." But a recent study by the National Center for State Courts found
that medical malpractice lawsuits per capita actually decreased in the most
recent ten-year period examined.

The president has tried to qualify his support for tort reform by insisting
it's needed for plaintiffs with a "legitimate claim . . . [who] deserve a
court that is uncluttered by frivolous and junk lawsuits." But the
American Bar Association recently found that only a fraction of civil cases
filed - 1.8 percent - went to trial. Fewer cases went to trial in 2002 than
in 1962.

While Bush claims, "everybody pays more for health care" due to "excessive
litigation," a study released last month shows that medical malpractice
insurers have raised rates on doctors well beyond the cost of payouts,
particularly since 2001. Payouts and premiums for medical malpractice
claims accounted for less than one percent of total health care costs.
Even the president of the American Tort Reform Association said in 1999, "We
wouldn't tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to
reduce insurance rates."

Medical malpractice costs as a proportion of national health care spending
are less than 60 cents out of every $100 spent. In fact, malpractice
premiums as a percentage of all health costs have declined from 0.95% in
1988 to 0.56% in 2000. On the other hand, prescription drugs costs make up
about 11% of all health costs - the second largest portion after hospital
spending - and are projected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services to reach 14% in 2010. Despite these facts, the president chooses
to support a Medicare bill that would prevent the Medicare administrator
from negotiating lower prescription drug costs.
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1198353&l=13046 >
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2003 04:24 am
The Uncompassionate Conservative

It's not that he's mean. It's just that when it comes to seeing how his policies affect people, George W. Bush doesn't have a clue.

By Molly Ivins

November/December 2003 Issue



Rhetoric vs. Reality
George W. Bush the candidate promised to put the nation's needy atop his agenda. But, while discretionary spending has balooned, funding for programs that benefit the poor and at-risk has been cut or frozen. MotherJones.com takes a quick look at how Bush's 'compassionate' talk measures up against his spending priorities.



E-mail article
Print article


Death By a Thousand Cuts: Bush Economics Hits Home

E-mail the editor


In order to understand why George W. Bush doesn't get it, you have to take several strands of common Texas attitude, then add an impressive degree of class-based obliviousness. What you end up with is a guy who sees himself as a perfectly nice fellow -- and who is genuinely disconnected from the impact of his decisions on people.

On the few occasions when Bush does directly encounter the down-and-out, he seems to empathize. But then, in what is becoming a recurring, almost nightmare-type scenario, the minute he visits some constructive program and praises it (AmeriCorps, the Boys and Girls Club, job training), he turns around and cuts the budget for it. It's the kiss of death if the president comes to praise your program. During the presidential debate in Boston in 2000, Bush said, "First and foremost, we've got to make sure we fully fund LIHEAP [the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program], which is a way to help low-income folks, particularly here in the East, pay their high fuel bills." He then sliced $300 million out of that sucker, even as people were dying of hypothermia, or, to put it bluntly, freezing to death.

Sometimes he even cuts your program before he comes to praise it. In August 2002, Bush held a photo op with the Quecreek coal miners, the nine men whose rescue had thrilled the country. By then he had already cut the coal-safety budget at the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which engineered the rescue, by 6 percent, and had named a coal-industry executive to run the agency.

The Reverend Jim Wallis, leader of Call to Renewal, a network of churches that fight poverty, told the New York Times that shortly after his election, Bush had said to him, "I don't understand how poor people think," and had described himself as a "white Republican guy who doesn't get it, but I'd like to." What's annoying about Bush is when this obtuseness, the blinkeredness of his life, weighs so heavily on others, as it has increasingly as he has acquired more power.

There was a telling episode in 1999 when the Department of Agriculture came out with its annual statistics on hunger, showing that once again Texas was near the top. Texas is a perennial leader in hunger because we have 43 counties in South Texas (and some in East Texas) that are like Third World countries. If our border region were a state, it would be first in poverty, first in the percentage of schoolchildren living in poverty, first in the percentage of adults without a high school diploma, 51st in income per capita, and so on.

When the 1999 hunger stats were announced, Bush threw a tantrum. He thought it was some malign Clinton plot to make his state look bad because he was running for president. "I saw the report that children in Texas are going hungry. Where?" he demanded. "No children are going to go hungry in this state. You'd think the governor would have heard if there are pockets of hunger in Texas." You would, wouldn't you? That is the point at which ignorance becomes inexcusable. In five years, Bush had never spent time with people in the colonias, South Texas' shantytowns; he had never been to a session with Valley Interfaith, a consortium of border churches and schools and the best community organization in the state. There is no excuse for a governor to be unaware of this huge reality of Texas.

Take any area -- environment, labor, education, taxes, health -- and go to the websites of public-interest groups in that field. You will find page after page of minor adjustments, quiet repeals, no-big-deal new policies, all of them cruel, destructive, and harmful. A silent change in regulations, an executive order, a funding cutoff. No headlines. Below the radar. Again and again and again. Head Start, everybody's favorite government program, is being targeted for "improvement" by leaving it to the tender mercies of Mississippi and Alabama. An AIDS program that helps refugees in Africa and Asia gets its funding cut because one of the seven groups involved once worked with the United Nations, which once worked with the Chinese government, which once supported forced abortions.

So what manner of monster is behind these outrages? I have known George W. Bush slightly since we were both in high school, and I studied him closely as governor. He is neither mean nor stupid. What we have here is a man shaped by three intertwining strands of Texas culture, combined with huge blinkers of class. The three Texas themes are religiosity, anti-intellectualism, and machismo. They all play well politically with certain constituencies.

Let's assume the religiosity is genuine; no one is in a position to know otherwise. I leave it to more learned commentators to address what "Christian" might actually mean in terms of public policy.

The anti-intellectualism is also authentic. This is a grudge Bush has carried at least since his college days when he felt looked down on as a frat rat by more cerebral types. Despite his pedigree and prep schools, he ran into Eastern stereotypes of Texans at Yale, a common experience at Ivy schools in that time. John F. Kennedy, the consummate, effortlessly graceful, classy Harvard man, had just been assassinated in ugly old Dallas, and Lyndon Johnson's public piety gave many people the creeps. Texans were more or less thought of as yahoo barbarians somewhere between the Beverly Hillbillies and Deliverance. I do not exaggerate by much. To have a Texas accent in the East in those days was to have 20 points automatically deducted from your estimated IQ. And Texans have this habit of playing to the stereotype -- it's irresistible. One proud Texan I know had never owned a pair of cowboy boots in his life until he got a Nieman Fellowship to Harvard. Just didn't want to let anyone down.

For most of us who grow up in the "boonies" and go to school in the East, it's like speaking two languages -- Bill Clinton, for example, is perfectly bilingual. But it's not unusual for a spell in the East to reinforce one's Texanness rather than erode it, and that's what happened to Bush. Bush had always had trouble reading -- we assume it is dyslexia (although Slate's Jacob Weisberg attributes it to aphasia); his mom was still doing flash cards with him when he was in junior high. Feeling intellectually inferior apparently fed into his resentment of Easterners and other known forms of snob.

Bush once said, "There's a West Texas populist streak in me, and it irritates me when these people come out to Midland and look at my friends with just the utmost disdain." In his mind, Midland is the true-blue heartland of the old vox pop. The irony is that Midland along with its twin city, Odessa, is one of the most stratified and narrow places in the country. Both are oil towns with amazingly strict class segregation. Midland is the white-collar, Republican town; Odessa is the blue-collar, Democratic town. The class conflict plays out in an annual football rivalry so intense that H.G. Bissinger featured it in his best-selling book, Friday Night Lights. To mistake Midland for the volk heartland is the West Texas equivalent of assuming that Greenwich, Connecticut, is Levittown.

In fact, people in Midland are real nice folks: I can't prove that with statistics, but I know West Texas and it's just a fact. Open, friendly, no side to 'em. The problem is, they're way isolated out there and way limited too. You can have dinner at the Petroleum Club anytime with a bunch of them and you'll come away saying, "Damn, those are nice people. Sure glad they don't run the world." It is still such a closed, narrow place, where everybody is white, Protestant, and agrees with everybody else. It's not unusual to find people who think, as George W. did when he lived there, that Jimmy Carter was leading the country toward "European-style socialism." A board member of the ACLU of Texas was asked recently if there had been any trouble with gay bashing in Midland. "Oh, hell, honey," she drawled, "there's not a gay in Midland who will come out of the closet for fear people will think they're Democrats."

The machismo is what I suspect is fake. Bush is just another upper-class white boy trying to prove he's tough. The minute he is questioned, he becomes testy and defensive. That's one reason they won't let him hold many press conferences. When he tells stories about his dealings with two of the toughest men who ever worked in politics -- the late Lee Atwater and the late Bob Bullock -- Bush, improbably, comes off as the toughest mother in the face-down. I wouldn't put money on it being true. Bullock, the late lieutenant governor and W's political mentor in Texas, could be and often was meaner than a skilletful of rattlesnakes. Bush's story is that one time, Bullock cordially informed him that he was about to **** him. Bush stood up and kissed Bullock, saying, "If I'm gonna get fucked, at least I should be kissed." It probably happened, but I guarantee you Bullock won the fight. Bush never got what made Bullock more than just a supermacho pol -- the old son of a bitch was on the side of the people. Mostly.

The perfect absurdity of all this, of course, is that Bush's identification with the sturdy yeomen of Midland (actually, oil-company executives almost to a man) is so wildly at variance with his real background. Bush likes to claim the difference between him and his father is that, "He went to Greenwich Country Day and I went to San Jacinto Junior High." He did. For one year. Then his family moved to a posh neighborhood in Houston, and he went to the second-best prep school in town (couldn't get into the best one) before going off to Andover as a legacy.

Jim Hightower's great line about Bush, "Born on third and thinks he hit a triple," is still painfully true. Bush has simply never acknowledged that not only was he born with a silver spoon in his mouth -- he's been eating off it ever since. The reason there is no noblesse oblige about Dubya is because he doesn't admit to himself or anyone else that he owes his entire life to being named George W. Bush. He didn't just get a head start by being his father's son -- it remained the single most salient fact about him for most of his life. He got into Andover as a legacy. He got into Yale as a legacy. He got into Harvard Business School as a courtesy (he was turned down by the University of Texas Law School). He got into the Texas Air National Guard -- and sat out Vietnam -- through Daddy's influence. (I would like to point out that that particular unit of FANGers, as regular Air Force referred to the "******* Air National Guard," included not only the sons of Governor John Connally and Senator Lloyd Bentsen, but some actual black members as well -- they just happened to play football for the Dallas Cowboys.) Bush was set up in the oil business by friends of his father. He went broke and was bailed out by friends of his father. He went broke again and was bailed out again by friends of his father; he went broke yet again and was bailed out by some fellow Yalies.

That Bush's administration is salted with the sons of somebody-or-other should come as no surprise. I doubt it has ever even occurred to Bush that there is anything wrong with a class-driven good-ol'-boy system. That would explain why he surrounds himself with people like Eugene Scalia (son of Justice Antonin Scalia), whom he named solicitor of the Department of Labor -- apparently as a cruel joke. Before taking that job, the younger Scalia was a handsomely paid lobbyist working against ergonomic regulations designed to prevent repetitive stress injuries. His favorite technique was sarcastic invective against workers who supposedly faked injuries when the biggest hazard they faced was "dissatisfaction with co-workers and supervisors." More than 5 million Americans are injured on the job every year, and more die annually from work-related causes than were killed on September 11. Neither Scalia nor Bush has ever held a job requiring physical labor.

What is the disconnect? One can see it from the other side -- people's lives are being horribly affected by the Bush administration's policies, but they make no connection between what happens to them and the decisions made in Washington. I think I understand why so many people who are getting screwed do not know who is screwing them. What I don't get is the disconnect at the top. Is it that Bush doesn't want to see? No one brought it to his attention? He doesn't care?

Okay, we cut taxes for the rich and so we have to cut services for the poor. Presumably there is some right-wing justification along the lines that helping poor people just makes them more dependent or something. If there were a rationale Bush could express, it would be one thing, but to watch him not see, not make the connection, is another thing entirely. Welfare, Medicare, Social Security, food stamps -- horrors, they breed dependency. Whereas inheriting millions of dollars and having your whole life handed to you on a platter is good for the grit in your immortal soul? What we're dealing with here is a man in such serious denial it would be pathetic if it weren't damaging so many lives.

Bush's lies now fill volumes. He lied us into two hideously unfair tax cuts; he lied us into an unnecessary war with disastrous consequences; he lied us into the Patriot Act, eviscerating our freedoms. But when it comes to dealing with those less privileged, Bush's real problem is not deception, but self-deception.

What do you think?

Ever since their paths crossed in high school, Mother Jones contributing writer Molly Ivins has been an observer of our president. Her books about Bush include Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush's America and Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/11/ma_559_01.html
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2003 07:25 am
For those who didn't want to wade through all those words up above...

...the Readers Digest version:

Bush is a moron -- and probably not an especially bright one at that!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2004 08:24 pm
The ultimate one-sentence summary:

"President Bush invaded Iraq after saying Baghdad had weapons of mass destruction, which weren’t found, links to al-Qaida, which weren’t proved, and a hankering for uranium from Africa, which wasn’t true."

MSNBC: The year in review ... 2003
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2004 09:10 am
Quote:
"A promise made is a promise kept."


George W. Bush was fond of saying that when he was on the campaign trail.

Quote:
The Bush administration is considering dramatic increases in the fees military retirees pay for prescription drugs, a step that would roll back a benefit extended 33 months ago and risk alienating an important Republican constituency at the dawn of the 2004 campaign season.

Pentagon budget documents indicate that retirees may be asked to pay $10 -- up from $3 -- for each 90-day generic prescription filled by mail through Tricare, the military's health insurance program. Tricare's current $9 co-pay for a three-month supply of each brand-name drug would jump to $20.

The proposal also would impose charges for drugs the retirees now receive free at military hospitals and clinics. There would be a $10 fee for each generic prescription and a $20 charge for brand-name drugs dispensed at those facilities.

A Pentagon spokesman declined Wednesday to comment on the drug plan, calling it "pre-decisional." Shocked (emphasis and shock emoticon mine, obviously) But word of the proposal was being spread at the speed of light by veterans service organizations, who were urging their thousands of members to send calls and letters of protest to the White House and members of Congress.


Bush drug proposal enrages veterans

This Indian-giving administration is focus-group-testing another rotten idea, exemplified by their use of the Orwellian phrase 'pre-decisional'. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 02:35 pm
PRESIDENT WAVERS ON PLEDGE TO HELP FIND LEAKER

When it was first reported that a "senior Bush Administration official" had
leaked the name of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame, President Bush
dutifully pledged his full cooperation and assistance with the
investigation. He said, "I'd like to know who leaked, and if anybody has got
any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked,
you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find out the
leaker. I have told my staff, I want full cooperation with the Justice
Department."

But with the Justice Department now asking White House staff to sign forms
that could definitively expose the leaker, the President appears unwilling
to uphold that commitment. Specifically, the Washington Post now reports
that the White House "declined to say Monday whether President Bush thinks
his aides should sign the forms that would release reporters from any
pledges of confidentiality" - and thus allow reporters to identify the White
House leaker. (Time magazine reported that Karl Rove, Bush's senior adviser,
was one of a number of top White House staff that has been sent the form by
investigators).

When asked about the President's stonewalling, White House spokesman Scott
McClellan dismissed any inquiries, saying, "That's asking a specific
question about matters that should be directed to the career officials at
the Department of Justice." It was a sharp contrast to his previous comments
attempting to specifically absolve Rove, the Vice President's Chief of
Staff, Scooter Libby, and National Security Council official, Eliot Abrams,
from any responsibility. McClellan also said that "no one wants to get to
the bottom of this more than the President does." But three months ago, Bush
refused to ask his staff to sign the same release form to minimize the
investigation's cost and potential damage to national security. His
apparent reticence to fully support the Justice Department's efforts to
expose the leaker is now raising additional questions.

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1198353&l=13649
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 02:47 pm
Rodger Stevens wrote:
Quote:
"At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

-- George Orwell

It isn't nice to knowingly deceive others. It isn't nice to mislead them, to present in a self-serving manner motivations and events which eventually affect everyone else in a negative way.

Religious and philosophical teachings throughout history disparage those who deceive others, and propose, one way or another, that such deceit will rebound eventually to the detriment of those who instigated it. Whether or not one accords with such declarations, be it the Golden Rule or the so-called Laws of Karma, most people understand that all actions are somehow answerable in their results... the greater the moment, the greater the effects.

But "always tell the truth" has come on hard times, particularly among those who in recent years have ascended to positions of influence and power. No longer is honesty seen as an advantage; too often, the pretense of rectitude has masked its absence. This state of things is painfully apparent in considering the pervasive influence of advertising, wherein the 'sizzle' of the ad eventually cools to reveal the congealed grease of the real product. Spin is little more than false advertising, and no more honest.

* * *

Consider these few among the many such instances:

The president's May 1 'Top Gun' burlesque on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, while at first praised as a rousing, gung-ho endorsement of the success of the Iraq invasion, soon evolved into the shallow PR ploy it was from the beginning...the flight suit worn by a man who shirked his own military commitments was fittingly stuffed with an appropriately unmasculine cod-piece; the huge "Mission Accomplished" banner strategically placed in the background turns out to have been not a spontaneous gesture by the crew of the carrier, but a White House-provided prop. The carrier had to be turned back to sea and positioned so the nearby California coastline remained out of camera view, and so that the afternoon sun would provide the most striking shadows. The whole event was a very expensive cheap shot, particularly in light of the continuing devastation of humanity on both sides in that war. One must wonder just which 'mission' was 'accomplished'... it certainly wasn't the one advertised. And since this arrogant and self-serving event is now generally held to be such, you will probably be spared seeing reruns in the upcoming campaign.

Pfc. Jessica Lynch's experiences turn out to have been starkly different from the spin given them by the Pentagon. She didn't fight it out heroically - her gun jammed; she wasn't stabbed and shot - she was knocked unconscious in a vehicle mishap; she wasn't mistreated by Iraqi medical personnel - they saved her life; she wasn't rescued from the clutches of bands of bloodthirsty Iraqi terrorists - her rescuers staged an assault against an unprotected hospital which was guarded by exactly zero enemies. Lynch herself, in most heroic fashion (when you're a Pfc, everything else that moves is a superior) bucked the PR and insisted that she was just a normal person who only joined the Army because there were no jobs available in her part of the country and she needed the money for college. You will probably not see footage of this farce either in the upcoming campaign.

The heavily-spun reasons for going to war in the first place - enormous stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons available for use in a mere 45 minutes, nuclear weapons programs on the brink of deploying working bombs, operational links to Al Qaeda, aluminum tubes for nuclear materials centrifuges, and the enormously overblown threat to the United States which must be crushed at the earliest moment - all turned out to be false, and those who accuse others of revisionism are themselves frantically respinning those intense PR efforts to sell America on why we should subdue the entire oil-rich Middle East. The outing of the wife of Joseph Wilson, the ambassador who effectively debunked the oft-repeated claims that Iraq was seeking Nigerian yellowcake, has yet to be accounted for, but even despite the continued spin, the prospects are not encouraging for those in the administration who orchestrated this treasonous rebuke to the truth.

The harebrained trip the president took over Thanksgiving to Iraq to 'serve turkey to the troops' also turned out to have been rife with deception. The reported contact with a BOAC pilot en route was later shown to have been a total fabrication. The hastily organized turkey dinner served to the troops consisted not of turkey and all the trimmings, but airline meals, served at the traditional Thanksgiving hour of 3 a.m. local time. And the famous picture of the president toting a tray heaped with holiday fare turns out to have been just another sizzling deception, because the turkey was made of plastic. This costly but ultimately farcical extravaganza, like the others, will probably not serve its intended purpose as campaign footage, since too many people now see it for what it was: Pure spin. Pure deception.

Quote:
"Who makes the fairest show means most deceit."

-- William Shakespeare

Due to the passage of time and the numerous and repeated revelations concerning the verity of administration spin, the American people are not nearly as receptive of such deceptions as they were immediately after 9/11. Their trust, and the world's trust, in the American government has been shaken profoundly by such revelations as those described above. Unfortunately, a liar has no fall-back position but to continue to lie when he's been found out, and we can expect no less from the Bush administration as we approach the 2004 election. They are in serious trouble, and they know it.

* * *

But perhaps the biggest lie yet (not counting for the moment the highly suspicious manner in which Bush was handed the last election) is the one that catalyzed all that followed. I refer, of course, to 9/11 itself. Unless he has something to hide, why does the president continue to stonewall all meaningful efforts to discover who, in fact, actually carried out the attacks, and what evidence existed before the fact that might have been used to prevent it? Why did he sit for 20 minutes with that famous deer-in-the-headlights look on his face after Andrew Card whispered in his ear that a second plane had impacted the WTC, reading a story about a goat at a bunch of 2nd graders in a school in Florida?


The Karma of Spin
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 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 07:47:12