What the Bush administration does better than ANYONE

Excellent point Amigo.
Thread count: 521
Work involved? effortless.

okay. i was only asking because, you know, the united states was born out of unhappy citizens not standing idly by, by not being silent. they did, of course, assemble and speak out quite a bit.



criticized, okay.

shot at and assualted with a vehicle, no.

bm

Dont forget this one:

George Soros when he's funding Western-minded democrats in Georgia or the Ukraine: Good boy, we'll happily work together with him, his money comes in exactly right. Together we'll turn those countries into democratic allies of the US!

George Soros when he's funding Democrats in the US: evil incarnate! Unscrupulous, devious, democracy-undermining untrustworthy conspirator and mudslinger! Danger to democracy!

And thats both at the same time... they can get away with it, cause the only Georgia most Republicans know is in the Deep South.

" Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" -Thomas Jefferson (Founding Father)

No...I'm beginning to think when asked to jump, responding "how high" exemplifies patriotism.

this is the only country I know of were dissent was written into and even incouraged at it's inception. It is are right and even duty to pratice it when we feel the government is not acting in the interest of the people it reprsents

is that true, that he funds pro-west, pro-democs in georgia and ukraine ?

then the rightie tighties ain't got jack dukey to say, do they ?


know what's funny, nimh. when i was growing up, it was fairly hard to find a republican in the south. that was the party of the carpet baggers.

:wink:

Yup. Communists and nationalists hate him around here, with a fierceness that spurs a million conspiracy theories about this insidious cosmopolitan, this Western, Jewish interferer ...

The post-Rose Revolution (and highly pro-Western) Saakashvili government in Georgia wasnt nicknamed 'the Soros government' for no reason ...

well then good for george. imagine that, a dirty liberal helping to spread democracy.

btw, glad to see you popping up again nimh.

9-11 memorial destoryed by antiwar demonstrators.

Goes to show you B, there are disrespectful dirtgags flying red and blue flags.
There's protest and then there's outright disrespect.
This is clearly the latter.

i agree with you, candid. this same kind of stuff that always hurts any cause. it's pretty antithetical to the concept of "anti-war".

i not only don't condone it, i condemn it.

so baldi, i notice that you've condemned the protestors at the g-8 and now the 3 man strong whittier nimrod brigade (class of 2003), are you also willing to condemn the actions of matlage and northern down in crawford ?

Pat Robertson bears false witness against Sen. Boxer
Pat Robertson bears false witness against Sen. Boxer
Media Matters
8/20/05

Pat Robertson's 2004 book The Ten Offenses (Integrity Publishers, January 2004) devoted a section of a chapter titled "Tell the Truth" to "The Ninth Commandment and the Media." On page 183, Robertson described a "flagrant" violation of the Ninth Commandment:

Just a few days before I finished writing this book, Les Moonves, the president of CBS Television, pulled from the lineup a so-called documentary about former president Ronald Reagan that demeaned the reputation of this great president. ... [H]e was shown as a bumbling dolt saying something that he had never said in his life. ... While this aged man is suffering from Alzheimer's disease in the twilight of his life, a film producer bears false witness against him, puts words in his mouth that he never spoke, and seeks to destroy his legacy and reputation. A more flagrant violation of the Ninth Commandment would be hard to find.

Two pages later, Robertson explained just how serious such a violation is:

[T]hose who spread falsehoods against others ... are acting like the devil himself. Those who break the Ninth Commandment are in essence taking on the very nature of the devil.

It's clear, then, that Pat Robertson is strongly, deeply opposed to depicting a public figure "saying something that he had never said in his life" -- he considers such an act the work of the "devil himself."

Or does he?

On August 15, Robertson appeared on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, where he said of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), "I'm absolutely appalled at what she had to say. I don't know if you read all the transcripts. ... But she says first, 'I've got to wait on Ralph Neas of the People for the American Way to see what he says about it.' She's supposed to be a senator from the biggest state in America. And then she says, 'I'm going to follow the lead of Chuck Schumer. I trust him.' And he's the senator from New York, of course."

There's only one problem: Boxer never said those words in her life, as Media Matters revealed Robertson was apparently relying on a post on the weblog Radio Blogger, which purported to offer a "translation" of Boxer's comments. The "translation" was actually an obvious gross distortion of Boxer's comments -- but Robertson put Radio Blogger's words in Boxer's mouth.

Surely, then, Robertson quickly atoned for his sins and rededicated himself to faithfully following the Ninth Commandment?

Nope.

On the August 18 edition of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, Robertson again falsely quoted Boxer as saying "I've got to consult with Ralph Neas to see what stand to take on this nominee [John Roberts]." Robertson also claimed that Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is "without question the most doctrinaire left-wing radical in the United States Senate. ... he is a radical leftist who is now proven to be a puppet of Ralph Neas of People for the American Way."

Leahy, the "most doctrinaire left-wing radical in the United States Senate"? That can't be right, can it? Well, no -- not according to the Christian Coalition of America, anyway. The coalition -- which, incidentally, Robertson founded -- argues that "[w]e must see the political tide of this nation continue to turn away from liberalism." To that end, it produces "scorecards" that rate senators' voting records. The coalition gave Leahy a score of 16 in 2004. That's low, to be sure -- but 29 Senators got a zero, including Leahy's fellow Vermonter, independent Jim Jeffords, and that noted left-wing radical Joe Lieberman. Far from being "without question the most doctrinaire left-wing radical in the United States Senate," according to the Christian Coalition's most recent ratings, Leahy isn't even the "most doctrinaire left-wing radical" among senators from Vermont.

But what's a little rhetorical excess to make a point? Surely there's nothing wrong with Robertson's tiny little exaggeration; overstating Leahy's supposed extremism is well within the bounds of reasonable discourse, right? Let's turn to page 181 of Robertson's The Ten Offenses for an answer:

Falsely labeling a public figure "hard right-wing," "an extremist," or "an intractable obstructionist" when those descriptions do not clearly fit violates the [Ninth] commandment.

Looks like Robertson needs to read his own book.

Columnist dismisses Plame outing as "crappy little crime"; reporter vouches for McClellan's honesty

Wonder why the media don't do a better job of covering the investigation into the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame? Two Washington Post employees provided some clues this week.

Post columnist Richard Cohen dismissed the matter, saying "This is not a major story. It's a crappy little crime and it may not be a crime at all." But this "crappy little crime," as Cohen put it, had serious consequences not only for Plame, but for America's national security.

Meanwhile, Post staff writer Jim VandeHei participated in an online chat where he was asked "Why doesn't the press refuse to take briefings from Scott McClellan, who either lied to them about the Plame incident, or was lied to by the administration? Isn't his credibility shot?" VandeHei rushed to McClellan's defense, writing: "Scott has a lot of credibility with reporters. He is seen as someone who might not tell you a lot, but is not going to tell you a lie."

But McClellan has told reporters lies during briefings. Most notably, he assured reporters that it was "ridiculous" to suggest that Karl Rove was involved in the Plame matter, saying there was "simply no truth" to it. We now know Rove was involved; it was a lie to say otherwise. Whether McClellan originated the lie, or whether he was passing on a lie he was told is unclear -- but either way, he told reporters a lie. And he was lying when he told reporters that "it was John Bolton who pointed" out that Bolton gave the Senate a questionnaire on which he falsely denied having been questioned in a federal investigation. And he was lying when he described a law Bush signed as governor of Texas that gave doctors the right to stop treating a patient.

The Bush White House in general, and McClellan in particular, have repeatedly lied to reporters for years, about issues large and small. The evidence is overwhelming, and grows by the day. And yet the nation's leading political reporters can't -- or won't -- see it; they actually defend McClellan as someone who "is not going to tell you a lie." They're not only so taken in -- or are so intent on maintaining access -- that they don't see how consistently they're being mislead, in many cases they even think their colleagues are too hard on the White House.

New York Daily News columnist and former editorial page editor Michael Goodwin -- a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has in the past worked for The New York Times and taught at the Columbia University School of Journalism - actually argued recently that the media are at "war" with the White House:

It's a civil war in Washington. The combatants have an eye-for-an-eye mentality. The partisanship is heated and nasty.

Republicans versus Democrats? Nah. This one pits the media against the White House.

It's a war the media can't win, and shouldn't wage.

The intense grilling that White House reporters inflicted on presidential spokesman Scott McClellan Monday over whether political guru Karl Rove leaked the name of a CIA operative was no ordinary give-and-take. It was a hostile hectoring that revealed much of the mainstream press for what it has become: the opposition party.

Remember: Goodwin is talking about a "mainstream press" that has largely ignored the question of whether Rove violated the terms of his nondisclosure agreement; that ignores the consequences of outing a CIA operative, dismissing it instead as a "crappy little crime"; that took weeks to get around to mentioning the Downing Street Memos and still ignores the serious national security implications of the fact that most Americans think the president lied to them about war.

And yet, Goodwin -- and countless others -- argue, without hint that they are kidding, that the media are out to get Bush. More Goodwin:

That the mainstream media are basically liberals with press passes has been documented by virtually every study that measures reporters' political identification and issue positions. But bias has now slopped over into blatant opposition, a stance the media will regret. Instead of providing unvarnished facts obtained by aggressive but fair-minded reporting, the media will be reduced to providing comfort food to ideological comrades.

Of course Goodwin, while looking down his nose at the "hectoring" and "intense grilling" his colleagues "inflicted" on McClellan, offered not one specific example. None. He provided no details, mentioned not one specific question asked of McClellan that was out-of-bounds.

I just read in Der Spiegel about the interview with Colin Powell that ABC will broadcast today.

Powell says, amongst other things, that his famed/notorious speech for the UN Security Council in February 2003 is a "blot of shame" in his political career (I'm translating back from the German now). Also: "There were people in the intelligence service who at the time knew that some of the sources [for my claims] were unreliable, and they didnt say anything. That has destroyed me." He says he knows of no evidence of a connection between Saddam's Iraq and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Plus, he criticises current developments in Iraq (warning against "a mini-state in the North, a larger mini-state in the South and a kind of nothing in the middle").

This follows an earlier interview in March in which he said that "we were sometimes too loud, too direct, too blustering" and in which he criticised Rumsfeld for his "Old Europe" line: "that didnt exactly help to build confidence." But that was in a German magazine, so who cares. Now it's on ABC, and a bit more specific.

Wanna bet how long it takes for Bush's propagandists to insinuate that Powell isnt all as qualified, all as informed, all as reliable, etc? And for Bush's flag-wavers here to hack into Powell quite a bit more brutally?

Its whats happened with everyone who comes out with criticism, especially on the all-sensitive Iraq dossier, after all. Suddenly, such a person is not to be trusted, believed, a bad person in fact, a scandal-mongerer, who must have devious motives..

Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief
Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief
ABC Network News
9/9/05 broadcast

Former Secretary of State Speaks Out on Being Loyal -- and Being Wrong
Sep. 9, 2005

In 35 years of service as a soldier, Colin Powell earned a reputation as the quintessential disciplined warrior. As secretary of state in President Bush's first term, Powell was widely seen as a disciplined, moderate -- and loyal -- voice for the administration. Now out of government service, Powell is airing openly his disappointments and frustration on everything from the invasion of Iraq to the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

Powell, 68, who recently visited storm survivors at Reunion Arena in Dallas, said he was "deeply moved" by the families displaced by the devastating storm and was critical of the preparations for Hurricane Katrina. "I think there have been a lot of failures at a lot of levels -- local, state and federal. There was more than enough warning over time about the dangers to New Orleans. Not enough was done. I don't think advantage was taken of the time that was available to us, and I just don't know why," Powell told ABC News' Barbara Walters in an exclusive interview airing Friday night at 10 p.m. on "20/20."

Powell doesn't think race was a factor in the slow delivery of relief to the hurricane victims as some have suggested. "I don't think it's racism, I think it's economic," he told Walters.

"When you look at those who weren't able to get out, it should have been a blinding flash of the obvious to everybody that when you order a mandatory evacuation, you can't expect everybody to evacuate on their own. These are people who don't have credit cards; only one in 10 families at that economic level in New Orleans have a car. So it wasn't a racial thing -- but poverty disproportionately affects African-Americans in this country. And it happened because they were poor," he said.

Making False Case for War Still 'Painful'

When Powell left the Bush administration in January 2005, he was widely seen as having been at odds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney over foreign policy choices.

It was Powell who told the United Nations and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat. He told Walters that he feels "terrible" about the claims he made in that now-infamous address -- assertions that later proved to be false.

When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, "Of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."

He doesn't blame former CIA Director George Tenet for the misleading information he says he pored over for days before delivering his speech; he faults the intelligence system.

"George Tenet did not sit there for five days with me misleading me. He believed what he was giving to me was accurate. … The intelligence system did not work well," he said.

Nonetheless, Powell said, some lower-level personnel in the intelligence community failed him and the country. "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up. That devastated me," he said.

While Powell ultimately supported the president's decision to invade Iraq, he acknowledges that he was hesitant about waging war. "I'm always a reluctant warrior. And I don't resent the term, I admire the term, but when the president decided that it was not tolerable for this regime to remain in violation of all these U.N. resolutions, I'm right there with him with the use of force," he said.

Powell told Walters he is unfazed by criticism that he put loyalty to the president over leadership. "Loyalty is a trait that I value, and yes, I am loyal. And there are some who say, 'Well, you shouldn't have supported it. You should have resigned.' But I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is gone. I'm glad that that regime is gone," he said.

When Walters pressed Powell about that support, given the "mess" that the invasion has yielded, Powell said, "Who knew what the whole mess was going to be like?"

While he said he is glad that Saddam's regime was toppled, Powell acknowledged that he has seen no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorist attack. "I have never seen a connection. ... I can't think otherwise because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he told Walters.

Despite his differences with the administration, Powell said he never considered resigning in protest. "I'm not a quitter. And it wasn't a moral issue, or an act of a failure of an active leadership. It was knowing what we were heading into, and when the going got rough, you don't walk out," he told Walters.

Stay the Course in Iraq

When asked what steps he would take in Iraq, Powell said, "I think there is little choice but to keep investing in the Iraqi armed forces, and to do everything we can to increase their size and their capability and their strength," he said.

Still, he questions some of the administration's post-invasion planning. "What we didn't do in the immediate aftermath of the war was to impose our will on the whole country, with enough troops of our own, with enough troops from coalition forces, or, by re-creating the Iraqi forces, armed forces, more quickly than we are doing now. And it may not have turned out to be such a mess if we had done some things differently. But it is now a difficult situation, but difficult situations are there to be worked on and solved, not walked away from, not cutting and running from."

Powell said he is sensitive to Cindy Sheehan and other mothers and family members whose loved ones have been wounded or killed in Iraq, but stressed that soldiers are risking their lives for a worthy purpose. When asked what he would say to Sheehan, who has grabbed media attention with her daily anti-war protests near Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch, he told Walters he'd tell her what he'd tell any mother who suffered such a loss: "We regret the loss, but your loved one died in service to the nation and in service to the cause."

He acknowledged that the pain of losing a loved one would be heightened if a family feels the war is unjust. "If they don't feel the war is just, then they'll always feel that it is a deep personal loss and I sympathize with Ms. Sheehan. But this is not over. This conflict is not over, and the alternative to what I just described is essentially saying, 'Nevermind, we're leaving.' And I don't think that is an option for the United States."

Powell's wife of 43 years, Alma, also joined Walters for the exclusive interview. The couple share their thoughts on public service, their current life in the private sector, and whether a White House bid is in their future.

I had thought there were a number of attempts to say the intelligence was faulty including from the pentagon's middle east advisers, relegated by the Rumsfeld to impotence by his dislike of what they said, and his determination to prosecute the war against the advice of most of the pentagon and Powell himself.

Mebbe this was kept from Powell?

As for the mess = invade and you have an insurgency in such circumstances. Warnings of a Vietnam like mess were multiple.

Interesting comment.

let's synchronize our watches...now.