Study: Bush Administration Made 935 False Statements

[Cyke]

I'm actually surprised that the number is so precise. Go figure.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

Study: False statements preceded war By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jan 23, 6:43 AM ET



WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.



I suppose discussion will be raised on how this study was conducted and the issues of political media bias, but still: 935 is a pretty damning and provocative number.

[rick]

Only 935?

That number seems sort of low.

[Cyke]

Only 935?

That number seems sort of low.

I suppose that if other issues were added into the mix, like economy and environment and certain policies, that the number would be vastly different.

[gary bolt]

How much money did it cost to conduct a study that shows Bush & Co. lied to justify invading Iraq?! Who didn't already know this?

[Puma]

How much money did it cost to conduct a study that shows Bush & Co. lied to justify invading Iraq?! Who didn't already know this?

The same people who still think Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11?

[Dreadstar]

How much money did it cost to conduct a study that shows Bush & Co. lied to justify invading Iraq?! Who didn't already know this?

Enh, it was an off-week for smearing Republican primary hopefuls. He needed something to do.

[Dreadstar]

And color me the kind of person who's more interested in the intent rather than the binary true/untrue. Parroting ignorance isn't nearly as damaging as intentionally misleading.


WOW! Look at *that* can 'o worms!

[Cyke]

How much money did it cost to conduct a study that shows Bush & Co. lied to justify invading Iraq?! Who didn't already know this?

The article isn't about that they lied, but how many times they did it. Every time something comes up and we all go, 'well that's one more to add to the pile,' it eventually turns out that every false statement built up more and more.

I guess it's like 'Oh, I'll spend 99 cents on this song on iTunes! Just this once!' and you do it over and over again but never really pay attention because it's just one song at a time, until *blammo,* you've spent $935 and never realized it.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

WOW! Look at *that* can 'o worms!

You're either brave or crazy, I'm not sure which.

No, wait. I'm sure.

Crazy as a shithouse rat.

[Cyke]

And color me the kind of person who's more interested in the intent rather than the binary true/untrue. Parroting ignorance isn't nearly as damaging as intentionally misleading.


WOW! Look at *that* can 'o worms!

To be frank with you, though (and I'm not trying to incite you in any way), I imagine that a good chunk of elected officials and pundits (and I don't know how many, proportionately speaking) who will counter this study are the same people who, 10 years ago, argued that truth was indeed binary and undeniable, swearing off context all the way.

But you're right, can of worms indeed.

[Nightstar1441]

So a politicial lied to us to get support for their agenda...

Gee...this has never happened before :rolleyes:

[Ray R.]

My outrage button related to all-things-Bush broke four years ago, and I never bothered to get it fixed.

Meh.

[Donald M.]

Only 935?

That number seems sort of low.

Well, this seems to only pertain to statements made about the war in Iraq. The total number is probably in the high thousands.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And color me the kind of person who's more interested in the intent rather than the binary true/untrue. Parroting ignorance isn't nearly as damaging as intentionally misleading.


WOW! Look at *that* can 'o worms!


On NPR this morning, they talked about this, complete with a timeline - taken from statements by former Administration officials - that demonstrated how many of these statements were made when the Administration *knew* they were not true. You can't get much more intentionally misleading than that.

It's not just that they were wrong, but they were intentionally saying untrue things for political reasons.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Only 935?

That number seems sort of low.

They had some examples on NPR's coverage this morning - including one instance of Bush giving a speech - in which in a given statement he said numerous things that were untrue. That was treated in this study as one instance.

So, the amount of bullshit tossed along is greater than the 935 number would suggest. The statements from Bush and co were often packed with as much bullshit as possible.

[Ray R.]

They had some examples on NPR's coverage this morning - including one instance of Bush giving a speech - in which in a given statement he said numerous things that were untrue. That was treated in this study as one instance.

So, the amount of bullshit tossed along is greater than the 935 number would suggest. The statements from Bush and co were often packed with as much bullshit as possible.

Well, in my mind, the line of reasoning follows from that is:

Does anyone really buy their bullshit anymore? I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed. The administration has absolutely no credibility internationally and next to none domestically (unless you like the taste of Kool-Aid.)

And post-mortems on lies, mistruths, and misleading statements is much, much less impressive to me than having a media that actually investigates and then calls out the shit concurrently or at least in the same relative time frame as when it happens.

[Dreadstar]

On NPR this morning, they talked about this, complete with a timeline - taken from statements by former Administration officials - that demonstrated how many of these statements were made when the Administration *knew* they were not true. You can't get much more intentionally misleading than that.

It's not just that they were wrong, but they were intentionally saying untrue things for political reasons.

If you say so.

[gary bolt]

On NPR this morning, they talked about this, complete with a timeline - taken from statements by former Administration officials - that demonstrated how many of these statements were made when the Administration *knew* they were not true. You can't get much more intentionally misleading than that.

It's not just that they were wrong, but they were intentionally saying untrue things for political reasons.

This is why I can't understand why, in the current and last election, people are concerned whether candidates did or didn't vote to support the war effort. Everyone who did vote for it did so based on deliberately falsified information. Bush gets slammed for being stupid and incompetent but he's so much worse than that. He has deliberately sent thousands of Americans to their deaths in Iraq and he has caused the death of many thousand more Iraqis and he still hasn't bothered to tell anyone why he did it. He is a monster.

[Cyke]

So a politicial lied to us to get support for their agenda...

Gee...this has never happened before :rolleyes:

Again, I direct you to the focus of the study: it's not that he lied, it's about how many times he lied, period. It's quality vs. quantity, but at this point, since we know about the lies, there's some focus on the amount of lies now (or, at least, the quantity can help shed some light about the context of those lies).

[Nightstar1441]

Again, I direct you to the focus of the study: it's not that he lied, it's about how many times he lied, period. It's quality vs. quantity, but at this point, since we know about the lies, there's some focus on the amount of lies now (or, at least, the quantity can help shed some light about the context of those lies).

I understand, the point being is that many other polticians lie and lie continuously to us.

They just have not been studied as this has.

If we were to eliminate any official that has lied to us on numerous occasions for years and years about a specific issue. There would only be a few handful of politicians left.

[JeffreyWKramer]

If we were to eliminate any official that has lied to us on numerous occasions for years and years about a specific issue. There would only be a few handful of politicians left.

And that would be very much a good thing.

[Cyke]

I understand, the point being is that many other polticians lie and lie continuously to us.

They just have not been studied as this has.

If we were to eliminate any official that has lied to us on numerous occasions for years and years about a specific issue. There would only be a few handful of politicians left.

You're right, of course. But then Dreadstar does have a point about the context of facts. Lying about drug use twenty years ago is one thing, lying about body armor allocation and WMDs is something else entirely.

[gary bolt]

You're right, of course. But then Dreadstar does have a point about the context of facts. Lying about drug use twenty years ago is one thing, lying about body armor allocation and WMDs is something else entirely.

"When Clinton lied nobody died".

[Paul McEnery]

I'm more surprised that the administration said 935 things at all, let alone things that could be falsified.

[Cyke]

"When Clinton lied nobody died".

As it pertains to the here and now, what does Clinton have to do with this? I doubt this is as simple as basic partisanship between administrations.

[gary bolt]

As it pertains to the here and now, what does Clinton have to do with this? I doubt this is as simple as basic partisanship between administrations.

Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. Bush lied to start a war that has cost thousands of people their lives. Why isn't anyone calling for his impeachment?

[Cyke]

Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. Bush lied to start a war that has cost thousands of people their lives. Why isn't anyone calling for his impeachment?

Because, frankly, the political reasons behind all that were unfeasible, and the Democrats wouldn't want a situation similar to Clinton's to apply to Bush, in that Clinton actually grew in popularity and appeal as a result of the impeachment.

But I digress: again, we're talking about the here and now, not Clinton or other-Bush or Reagan or Carter or Nixon. If the study cites the other presidents, then sure, we'll talk about them. The logic of, 'he did it, so I can do it, too' doesn't work on this sort of scale.

[Shellhead]

If you say so.

So you're saying that OOPS the Bush Administration made 935 unintentionally inaccurate statements? I find that unbelievable. You seem too intelligent and cynical to give Bush a free pass 935 times.

[Ray R.]

Because, frankly, the political reasons behind all that were unfeasible, and the Democrats wouldn't want a situation similar to Clinton's to apply to Bush, in that Clinton actually grew in popularity and appeal as a result of the impeachment.

That's very, very debatable. And feasibility and political will are completely different animals.

But I digress: again, we're talking about the here and now, not Clinton or other-Bush or Reagan or Carter or Nixon. If the study cites the other presidents, then sure, we'll talk about them. The logic of, 'he did it, so I can do it, too' doesn't work on this sort of scale.

You're missing the point. Presidents lie. Some Presidents lie more than others. And some lies are worse lies than others.

Quantifying the number of lies is a silly exercise, particularly as a post-mortem to a destructive and deadly conflict.

[Paul McEnery]

You know, there's something that's been bugging me for a while now, and that's the way people flip out over the word "lie", whether it's stated outright or just implied.

Seems to me, as someone who's heard confession (even in the limited Anglican sense of spilling the beans over a glass of sherry), that there's any number of ways to lie.

You got your obvious White House spokesman lies of commission. And you got your obvious White House spokesman lies of omission. And then you got your obvious White House spokesman lies of distraction.

But there's a couple of ways to lie that people tend to overlook, or make excuses for.

The first we all know all too well, and that's lying to yourself. That kind of living in bad faith is probably necessary to get anything done at all, but still, there's a time and a place for it. When it's political, and it's a matter of picking sides and rationalizing the fuck out of it, we call it ideology. And sure, tribal loyalty is important for maintaining human relationships. Still lying, though.

But the second is the cover up option, and that's failure to do due diligence. Which, in the financial sector, is frequently illegal; at least, if you're selling your diligence, it is.

And in this sense, the claim that this administration simply failed to do due diligence in no way lets them off the hook, because that's still a lie of omission. It was possible to fact find, and at best they didn't bother, because the facts might conflict with the ideology (a second lie of omission).

Of course, it's utter bollocks to chalk everything up to negligent ignorance -- as if that were any excuse in the first place -- since the ideology itself that informed the PNAC was never more than a rationalization.

At root, there's just our old friend the Will to Power. And nothing wrong with that, in itself. It's just that when you first tell yourself the lie of ideology to rationalize your will to power, and secondly tell yourself the lie of omission that is confirmation bias, then you're already on route to betraying not only the country but yourself.

The truth, as they say, is not in you.

As for the emotional fit people throw when the word "lie" falls on the table, well, that beats the hell out of me. You can't open your mouth without lying in some way or another, and that's just the bleak reality of the limits of communication. Perhaps there's some residual fear that Nobodaddy will punish you for being bad.

Or more like the residual fear that you're a "bad person", whatever that might be. Because being considered a "bad person", or having to consider yourself a "bad person" -- or perhaps even, in the case of this administration, even considering someone else a "bad person" -- seems to be worse than asking yourself where the truth lies.

As it were.

[Serik]

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

The NY Times -- the senior member of the "bomb Iraq" chorus -- neglected that aspect in its admittedly brief coverage of the study. Surprised?

Next time an administration pushes for a war, let's hope the congress, media, and, most of all, the public doesn't take the justifications at face value. The president's lies and misleading statement only make up half the equation; the country's willingness to swallow and indeed perpetuate such statements makes up the rest. And frankly the second half of that equation scares me more than the first...

[Winslow]

Because, frankly, the political reasons behind all that were unfeasible, and the Democrats wouldn't want a situation similar to Clinton's to apply to Bush, in that Clinton actually grew in popularity and appeal as a result of the impeachment.

I don't think so.

I think it's a simple as this: No politician is going to take out another politician for lying to the public. It would open a whole can of worms politically, and probably (ultimately) undermine rule of law. Politicians lie about each other all the frickin' time - watch the negative smear TV commercials.

Clinton lied to the courts (different animal). It's a prosecutable offense.

[Valmore]

Want to hear a funny story:

"False" doesn't always mean "lie."

"False" generally means "wrong."

And no journalist can ever get into the heads of the administration and prove that they "lied." Just that they were "wrong."

We can say they lied all we want, but until something more concrete actually surfaces, all we have here are 935 "wrong" statements about Iraq.

[Michael P]

Want to hear a funny story:

"False" doesn't always mean "lie."

"False" generally means "wrong."

And no journalist can ever get into the heads of the administration and prove that they "lied." Just that they were "wrong."

We can say they lied all we want, but until something more concrete actually surfaces, all we have here are 935 "wrong" statements about Iraq.

So they're not liars, just incompetent. Good to know.

[Shellhead]

Want to hear a funny story:

"False" doesn't always mean "lie."

"False" generally means "wrong."

And no journalist can ever get into the heads of the administration and prove that they "lied." Just that they were "wrong."

We can say they lied all we want, but until something more concrete actually surfaces, all we have here are 935 "wrong" statements about Iraq.

If Cheney accidentally shot 935 people in the face, is it still just as much an oops the 900th time as it was the first time? Sure, that's a silly analogy, what happened in Iraq is far worse than 935 hunting accidents would be. We've got nearly 4,000 dead Americans, lots more dead Iraqis (at least 30,000 according to the Bush Administration), and not much to show for it.

[Paul McEnery]

Want to hear a funny story:

"False" doesn't always mean "lie."

"False" generally means "wrong."

And no journalist can ever get into the heads of the administration and prove that they "lied." Just that they were "wrong."

We can say they lied all we want, but until something more concrete actually surfaces, all we have here are 935 "wrong" statements about Iraq.

I direct you to the prior intent, the failure in appropriate due diligence, the insistence on confirmation bias, the evasion of genuine investigation of both the facts and genuine discussion of the issues at hand, and the willful and consistent presentation of false information, even in the teeth of known counter-examples.

One might as reasonably insist that the tobacco industry sincerely believed that smoking was a health tonic.

[Cyke]

That's very, very debatable. And feasibility and political will are completely different animals.

The Democrats either didn't or wouldn't handle any sort of repercussions about it. Their promise to punish Bush in some form or way was a very considerable reason why they retook Congress in 06, after all.

You're missing the point. Presidents lie. Some Presidents lie more than others. And some lies are worse lies than others.

Quantifying the number of lies is a silly exercise, particularly as a post-mortem to a destructive and deadly conflict.

I don't think it's silly. Like I said before, quantifying it might shed some light as to the severity of the lies. If the Administration can think they can get away with one lie, and that makes them confident enough to do it again and again and again and again, then a pattern of maneuverability emerges, and when that pattern is discovered, then there's a strong case that can be used against them.


I don't think so.

I think it's a simple as this: No politician is going to take out another politician for lying to the public. It would open a whole can of worms politically, and probably (ultimately) undermine rule of law. Politicians lie about each other all the frickin' time - watch the negative smear TV commercials.

Clinton lied to the courts (different animal). It's a prosecutable offense.

The thing is, though, in a negative smear TV commercial, it's usually one politician vs another, or a politician vs. an entire party. But's almost never a concentrated effort. We certainly haven't seen many concentrated efforts like we did during the Clinton scandal. Quite a few voters thought we'd see that happen once the Democrats gained control, but that didn't quite pan out.

But I digress: if a pattern is forged in through these findings, if they're taken seriously and investigated by the courts (and, admittedly, that's a gigantic IF that probably won't happen), then these false statements could eventually turn out to be illegal offenses themselves, such as Halliburton's practices.

[Valmore]

So they're not liars, just incompetent. Good to know.

Nah, they're both. We just only have proof of their incompetence, not so much of their lying. We know they're incompetent and the proof is everywhere. Lying? We suspect it, but we still can't prove it.

I direct you to the prior intent, the failure in appropriate due diligence, the insistence on confirmation bias, the evasion of genuine investigation of both the facts and genuine discussion of the issues at hand, and the willful and consistent presentation of false information, even in the teeth of known counter-examples.

One might as reasonably insist that the tobacco industry sincerely believed that smoking was a health tonic.

And I direct you to the fact that there's still no hard evidence to show they "lied." The fact is, if this group had proof they "lied," why use the candy-coated word "false" in the first place? Heck, it just plays right into this simple argument:

"We believed they had weapons of mass distruction. However, that turned out to be false."

Sorry, but this isn't news and it isn't new. It's yet another rehash of, "Gee, we suspect they lied, but we still don't have any proof. However, we can make a nice little story of how their statements were false and rile up the people some more."

[Dreadstar]

So you're saying that OOPS the Bush Administration made 935 unintentionally inaccurate statements? I find that unbelievable. You seem too intelligent and cynical to give Bush a free pass 935 times.

Nope. I'm saying it isn't either 0 or 935. Duh.

[Dreadstar]

...
And in this sense, the claim that this administration simply failed to do due diligence in no way lets them off the hook, because that's still a lie of omission. It was possible to fact find, and at best they didn't bother, because the facts might conflict with the ideology (a second lie of omission)....


And, quite frankly, failing due diligence is just as damning as intentionally misleading, considering it's the highest rung up the executive ladder.

[Dreadstar]

Nah, they're both. We just only have proof of their incompetence, not so much of their lying. We know they're incompetent and the proof is everywhere. Lying? We suspect it, but we still can't prove it.

Oh, I suspect we can prove a great many of them.

Again, not binary.

[Paul McEnery]

Nah, they're both. We just only have proof of their incompetence, not so much of their lying. We know they're incompetent and the proof is everywhere. Lying? We suspect it, but we still can't prove it.



And I direct you to the fact that there's still no hard evidence to show they "lied." The fact is, if this group had proof they "lied," why use the candy-coated word "false" in the first place? Heck, it just plays right into this simple argument:

"We believed they had weapons of mass distruction. However, that turned out to be false."

Sorry, but this isn't news and it isn't new. It's yet another rehash of, "Gee, we suspect they lied, but we still don't have any proof. However, we can make a nice little story of how their statements were false and rile up the people some more."

Well of course it isn't news.

Although I bet it's still news to some people, God help us.

But help me out here, because I'm really not getting where you're coming from. What's the hangup on the word "lie"? Which usage of the word do you think doesn't cover this situation? And why do you think the other usages don't apply?

[mattx110]

Want to hear a funny story:

"False" doesn't always mean "lie."

"False" generally means "wrong."

And no journalist can ever get into the heads of the administration and prove that they "lied." Just that they were "wrong."

We can say they lied all we want, but until something more concrete actually surfaces, all we have here are 935 "wrong" statements about Iraq.
umm... the facts point to them actively lying.

The war being pencilled into a calender before 9/11 occurs. The Plame-Wilson affair. Dick Cheney's statements while under the previous Bush administration acknowledging the obvious risks of war with Iraq. Having too many people trying to greet us as liberators wasn't one of the risks....

The proof doesn't seem to matter. Didn't Kucinich move for an impeachment already? Nothing happened. The senate is still authorising whatever Bush wants with stupid "but we're gonna need a timetable be the end of the next deadline you blow off please".

The answers are obvious and I'm assuming this neo-con movement or whatever it is knows exactly who it's enemies are and how to prevent the creation of more (ie: education, social reform to promote equality).

We can be told "Our intelligence was good intelligence" or "sorry, but we need to deal with where we are now instead of playing the blame game", but those aren't American traits. We don't forgive and forget. We come back and bomb you 15 years later, not wait till the war with no end in sight is over to figure out why it was started and put the blame on who deserves it. I think I'm about to go into a complex mixed metaphor that is indecipherable to any but Richard Belzer so I'm gonna shut up now.

But the problem isn't catching them in a lie. Or proving that they did. It's having some form of accountability that just doesn't seem to be coming on it's own, or with a referendum congress that decided it didn't mind the war so bad after being voted in.

[Valmore]

Oh, I suspect we can prove a great many of them.

Again, not binary.

Then why haven't they proven it? Why are we still getting fluff stories about "false statements"? A false statement isn't always a lie - a statement can also be proven retroactively as false. So saying, "Iraq has weapons" only turned out to be false after proven so, that doesn't mean they lied.

Well of course it isn't news.

Although I bet it's still news to some people, God help us.

But help me out here, because I'm really not getting where you're coming from. What's the hangup on the word "lie"? Which usage of the word do you think doesn't cover this situation? And why do you think the other usages don't apply?

Look, we've never caught the guy in a lie. The evidence we have can also be interpreted as incompetence and bad intel and etc. It's not concrete enough, and that's a problem.

Do I believe this administration is full of liars? Hell yes. But the one thing they've been somewhat good at is being able to make it so that anything that could be a lie could also be shown as something else.

I want hard evidence, not theories.

[Paul McEnery]

Then why haven't they proven it? Why are we still getting fluff stories about "false statements"? A false statement isn't always a lie - a statement can also be proven retroactively as false. So saying, "Iraq has weapons" only turned out to be false after proven so, that doesn't mean they lied.



Look, we've never caught the guy in a lie. The evidence we have can also be interpreted as incompetence and bad intel and etc. It's not concrete enough, and that's a problem.

Do I believe this administration is full of liars? Hell yes. But the one thing they've been somewhat good at is being able to make it so that anything that could be a lie could also be shown as something else.

I want hard evidence, not theories.

Well this is the bit that's baffling to me.

Here's what it looks like from my POV.

We know -- because it's right there in the policy documents -- that PNAC wanted to had every intention of invading Iraq for geopolitical reasons.

Shortly after 9/11, there were all sorts of calls to invade Iraq on the back of it. For reasons that had nothing to do with PNAC's geopolitics, on the face of it. That's the first piece of lying.

We know now that there were no WMDs. But we knew it then, too. We had the receipts. I knew that, and who the fuck am I? Some out of work journo in my bathrobe. It took the work of about 30 minutes to cross the t's and dot the i's on that one. So that's the second piece of lying.

And we might as well add in that there was no worry about WMDs until the US brought it up, and forced the inspections. For which we all knew there were no real grounds (though of course no country in the UN wanted to be caught with its pants down, so on the inspections went). And just when the inspections seemed to find nothing, but the timetable for invasion was being fucked with, they called the inspections off. Which they then blamed on Saddam kicking him out. That's a pretty hefty third piece of lying.

We know now that Saddam had no connection to 9/11 and Al Qaeda. But we knew that then, too. So that's the fourth bit of lying.

Then there's the lies they told about costs on the war, which were many; and on which they were called at the time.

I mean, none of this is exactly covert, is it?

If some guy was fucking with your personal life at this level, I don't think you'd wait until you could get probable cause from a judge on this. Not that I think you'd have any difficulty, mind; not in a reasonable world, any way. You'd just go round the guy's house and settle it.

[Abomination]

Look, we've never caught the guy in a lie. The evidence we have can also be interpreted as incompetence and bad intel and etc. It's not concrete enough, and that's a problem.

Do I believe this administration is full of liars? Hell yes. But the one thing they've been somewhat good at is being able to make it so that anything that could be a lie could also be shown as something else.

I want hard evidence, not theories.

The same thing could be said of Dan Rather and he was out of a job. And he only did it once, and then apologized.

Double fucking standard.

[Samurai]

The same thing could be said of Dan Rather and he was out of a job. And he only did it once, and then apologized.

Double fucking standard.

Apologized? He still says the story was "fake but true" and he currently has a lawsuit against SEE-BS over his firing.

[Shellhead]

The same thing could be said of Dan Rather and he was out of a job. And he only did it once, and then apologized.

Double fucking standard.

Rather is held to a different and higher standard than politicians. We expect a certain amount of dishonesty from politicians in hopes that they will at least be competent and effective. We expect our media to be accurate and reliable, and the second they forfeit that, we have no reason to pay attention to them. Of course, I'm not counting Fox News or al-Jazeera as media for purposes of this discussion, because they aren't selling credibility, they are selling all the news that their narrow fanbases want to hear, true or otherwise.

[rick]

Apologized? He still says the story was "fake but true" and he currently has a lawsuit against SEE-BS over his firing.


Actually what Rather says is that the story that Bush didn't do all of his National Guard time was true, which the evidence beyond the disputed paperwork seems to prove.

[Nick Soapdish]

Then why haven't they proven it? Why are we still getting fluff stories about "false statements"? A false statement isn't always a lie - a statement can also be proven retroactively as false. So saying, "Iraq has weapons" only turned out to be false after proven so, that doesn't mean they lied.


We do have memos and statements saying that the administration had intel casting serious doubts upon these claims if not disproving them outright.

What I don't think that we have proof of is whether anybody important actually read any of those memos or intel reports. It may be possible that they were able to discourage any facts contrary to their opinions from filtering up so that they wouldn't have to face this question.

[mattx110]

We do have memos and statements saying that the administration had intel casting serious doubts upon these claims if not disproving them outright.

What I don't think that we have proof of is whether anybody important actually read any of those memos or intel reports. It may be possible that they were able to discourage any facts contrary to their opinions from filtering up so that they wouldn't have to face this question.
Read up on the Wilson-Plame-Wilson thing. The level of arrogance, ignorance and incompetence for the administration to commission Wilson to validate obviously forged documents that were being used in support of the war and then have lower-downs not bother to report his findings to the white house while in the planning stages of a war would be so immense that Bush wouldn't be able to get to the White House by himself and would be too stubborn to ask for directions from the secret service and VP who refuse to tell him where he is anyway and they'd all be living under a big rock because they couldn't coordinate movers because haliburton got the job and spent all the money on whores.


About that overly complex metaphor ....


Oh, and nobody since has bothered to find out where the forged document that was used to tie Saddam to WMD attempts came from or how we got it in the first place.

[Abomination]

Rather is held to a different and higher standard than politicians. We expect a certain amount of dishonesty from politicians in hopes that they will at least be competent and effective. We expect our media to be accurate and reliable, and the second they forfeit that, we have no reason to pay attention to them. Of course, I'm not counting Fox News or al-Jazeera as media for purposes of this discussion, because they aren't selling credibility, they are selling all the news that their narrow fanbases want to hear, true or otherwise.


I would agree with your point about politicians if it were in the context of running for election. But I would disagree when it comes to a sitting president attempting to steer the country towards war.

The people that vounteer for our armed services deserve that much. The POTUS should only put them in harms way when there is no other course of action.

[Abomination]

Apologized? He still says the story was "fake but true" and he currently has a lawsuit against SEE-BS over his firing.

Despite what he is saying now, Rather did apologize on the CBS news and said that his source was wrong.
And Bush and his cronies have done it 935 times. And have never apologized. And never will.

And thousands have perished.

[Michael P]

Another important distinction: Dan Rather has never gotten anyone killed.

Well, except for all those hobos. But that was an isolated incident.

[Winslow]

The real moral of the story is when is congress gonna grow a pair and keep the renegade Executive Branch in check.

Congress doesn't want to do it because of partisanship, we don't want to handcuff the Presidency because "our guy" might be in office next.

[Dreadstar]

No, y'know what, I EDIT this because I just don't need to do it.

Just carry on.

[Samurai]

This is one of those rare cases where you would actually have to live in america to get this Wes.
A good group of people HATE her, you actually have to type it in caps to get it across.
You haven't seen the sheer HATE she generates in some people. Almost all conservatives, but even some normal, not incredibly political people just dislike her. They don't even have a reason why (It's because her pr campaign is shit) but they just don't like her. Think of how a really angry liberal feels about Bush, thats how they react to Hilary. And keep in mind, Bush has actually done things, she hasn't yet.
It's not new, there were the stories about Rove having a playbook against her, salivating at the chance to use it if she ran for president, this thing has been building.
I got my theories on why, but whoever the republicans pick, if hilary is the pick, it's going to be the nastiest election ever, and it's going to turn them out.

It's is for a reason... because she was "co-President, 2-fer-1" in the most blatantly corrupt and self-serving Presidency in our lifetimes. She (and Bill) were an embarrassment for the nation, an almost irreparable blow to the prestige of the White House and office of the Presidency. Your comparison to how some people feel about Bush is apt. (And I don't personally think Bush has done much to anger the people that hate him either, but some on the left seem to hate him with a visceral passion, which is how many feel about the Clintons)

[pariah-1972]

It's is for a reason... because she was "co-President, 2-fer-1" in the most blatantly corrupt and self-serving Presidency in our lifetimes. She (and Bill) were an embarrassment for the nation, an almost irreparable blow to the prestige of the White House and office of the Presidency. Your comparison to how some people feel about Bush is apt. (And I don't personally think Bush has done much to anger the people that hate him either, but some on the left seem to hate him with a visceral passion, which is how many feel about the Clintons)Bush hasn't done much to anger people?
what planet do you live on again? when you said blatantly corrupt and self serving i could have swore you were talking about the Dubya presidency
...

[Winslow]

. . . .And I don't personally think Bush has done much to anger the people that hate him either . . . .

I guess your baiting again, but this is really unbelievable.

[Puma]

It's is for a reason... because she was "co-President, 2-fer-1" in the most blatantly corrupt and self-serving Presidency in our lifetimes. She (and Bill) were an embarrassment for the nation, an almost irreparable blow to the prestige of the White House and office of the Presidency. Your comparison to how some people feel about Bush is apt. (And I don't personally think Bush has done much to anger the people that hate him either, but some on the left seem to hate him with a visceral passion, which is how many feel about the Clintons)

*shakes head* replace Clinton with Bush and Cheney and you might be a bit closer to reality.

[The Mutt]

... And I don't personally think Bush has done much to anger the people that hate him either...

Allow me to refresh you memory with just a few things that have happened on Bush's watch:


1. Walter Reed outpatient treatment
2. Fired US attorneys
3. Scooter Libby/Plamegate
4. Iraq: lack of preparation for occupation, looting, including the National Museum, too few troops, lack of training, lack of equipment, lack of securing loose Iraqi munitions, disbanding the Iraqi army, banning the Baathists, the CPA, Paul Bremer, losing tons of money literally, lack of international inclusion in reconstruction and security, weak Constitution, formation of sectarian parties, weak government
5. Afghanistan and the resurgent Taliban and opium production
6. Iran and saber rattling
7. North Korea, ditching the 1994 agreement because of dubious uranium program, the plutonium program which led to a fizzled first nuclear test, and something like a return to the 1994 agreement
8. Osama bin Laden, where are you? Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and terrorism
9. Civilian contractors
10. The Military Commissions Act: torture, indefinite detention, the end of habeas corpus, and kangaroo courts
11. Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, the destruction of New Orleans, and the aftermath
12. NSA wiretapping
13. SWIFT surveillance of financial transactions
14. Black prisons and extraordinary rendition
15. Homeland Security: white elephant (organization), black hole (money)
16. K Street Lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, North Marianas
17. Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and the CIA follies
18. Duke Cunningham
19. Tom Delay
20. Mark Foley
21. Cheney and Energy Policy
22. Tax cuts for the wealthiest
23. Global warming: refusal to join Kyoto, denial of manmade origin, continued reliance on fossil and carbon based fuels, little movement on CAFE standards and conservation, political interference in scientific reports (Good guys: Hansen, Peltz; bad guys: Cooney, Deutsch), listening to Michael Crichton
24. Terri Schiavo
25. Big budget deficits and vastly increased national debt
26. The stacking of the federal judiciary
27. Medicare
28. Medicare Part D
29. Healthcare (in general)
30. Cooked intelligence and the Office of Strategic Plans/ Doug Feith
31. 2000 Presidential election
32. 2004 Presidential election
33. Attempts to torpedo the 911 Commission
34. Failure to implement 911 recommendations
35. Marginalization of the UN; John Bolton
36. Preventive war doctrine
37. Loss of US reputation internationally
38. No serious attempt to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians
39. Underfunding of basic research
40. Alberto Gonzales
41. FDA: drug testing
42. EPA: mercury levels for coal plants
43. Porter Goss and the gutting of the CIA
44. Militarization of intelligence
45. Rampant cronyism
46. Signing statements
47. Unilateral Executive doctrine
48. Overuse and abuse of the National Guard and Reserves; posse comitatus
49. Increasing unpreparedness of US ground forces (Army and Marines)
50. US balance of trade deficit
51. 2005 Grassley Bankruptcy bill
52. Mexican cross border trucking and safety concerns
53. Karl Rove’s security clearance and no firing of Libby co-conspirators
54. Detention of families for immigration violations; ICE raids
55. Dubai Ports deal
56. The Patriot Act; the Patriot Act extension
57. Attempts to privatize Social Security
58. The War on Science
59. David Safavian, former head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
60. Presidential adviser Claude Allen stealing from Target
61. Bush casually admits about lying about decision to fire Rumsfeld
62. Armstrong Williams and paid propagandists
63. Decimation of the Labor Department
64. Net neutrality and media policies
65. Backing Israel while it destroyed Lebanon
66. Presidential Daily Brief 8/01: Bin Laden determined to attack in US
67. EPA chief Christie Todd Whitman declares Ground Zero safe for cleanup
68. Sago mining disaster hearings and MHSA’s David Dye who walked out of the hearings
69. Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court
70. Vetoing stem cell research
71. Attack on Plan B contraception, staffing Women’s Health positions with religious conservatives: Dr. Eric Keroack at Health and Human Services who thought birth control demeaning to women and Dr. David Hager at FDA who tried to keep Plan B prescription only. His wife contended in divorce proceedings that he had repeatedly sodomized her without her consent.
72. Clear Skies Act and Healthy Forest Restoration Act
73. Missile defense shield that doesn’t work; withdrawal from ABM Treaty
74. Leandro Aragoncillo naturalized Filipino-American in Cheney’s office (previously Gore’s) accused of spying for the Philippines and possibly France, pled guilty to unlawfully possessing secret US government documents
75. Defunding overseas AIDS programs that promoted condom use for prevention.
76. Call for a constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman.
77. Opening up Bristol Bay, the last pristine large-scale salmon fishery in the world, to oil drilling
78. Accusation that Clintons trashed the White House before leaving, including stealing the Ws from keyboards
79. Gannon/Guckert a working male prostitute in the White House press corps
80. Native American trust funds and the Trust Responsibility to Indian Country
81. Selling creationist materials at the Grand Canyon gift shop claiming it was 6000 years old
82. Banning photographing return of coffins of slain American soldiers
83. False military reporting: Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch
84. AIPAC espionage scandal; former DOD employee Lawrence Franklin pled guilty to passing information on Iran to Israel through two AIPAC employees
85. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram
86. Asserted right to open US mail

http://gotv.blogspot.com/2007/03/incomplete-list-of-bush-era-scandals.html

[Samurai]

Some of those things I agree are scandals, some are lies/inaccurate, and some are policies I support, so I'd hardly call a scandal (like John Bolton in the UN, the Patriot Act, supporting Israel, and conservative appointees to the Supreme Court.) The very fact that it lists some of these things, as well as both Presidential elections, shows the list is insanely biased. And I bet a true Clinton-hater (I'm a mere padawan) could come up with a list for him even longer, and far more self-serving.

By the way, it's not "bait" to state my own personal opinion, which I did. It might have been baitish to state that it is 100% FACT that Clinton was more corrupt than Bush, and it is futile to attempt to try and prove otherwise. The problem is, none of you are saying "It's my opinion that Bush is more corrupt than Clinton," you are stating it as though it were some kind of fact. Which it isn't.

[Tom]

No, it really is a fact.

I agree with one thing, though. It's futile to debate it with you.

[Puma]

It's is for a reason... because she was "co-President, 2-fer-1" in the most blatantly corrupt and self-serving Presidency in our lifetimes. She (and Bill) were an embarrassment for the nation, an almost irreparable blow to the prestige of the White House and office of the Presidency. Your comparison to how some people feel about Bush is apt. (And I don't personally think Bush has done much to anger the people that hate him either, but some on the left seem to hate him with a visceral passion, which is how many feel about the Clintons)

I fail to see you limiting your 'opinion' to scandals. The Mutt's response demonstrates the myriad of policies, scandals, events, and actions of the current administration that would lead many people to hate it as much as certain conservatives hate the Clintons. It is my opinion that Bush and company have done far greater damaged to the office of the president, and the view of the rest of the world towards the US, than anything the Clintons ever did.

But as Tom stated so correctly, it is pointless to argue with you so I shall go back to simply reading this thread.

[gary bolt]

(And I don't personally think Bush has done much to anger the people that hate him either, but some on the left seem to hate him with a visceral passion, which is how many feel about the Clintons)

Funny stuff, Samurai. We don't get to vote but there are a fair number of us outside the US who HATE bush too. For me it stems from his disregard for human life.

[Shellhead]

Funny stuff, Samurai. We don't get to vote but there are a fair number of us outside the US who HATE bush too. For me it stems from his disregard for human life.

I bet there are literally millions of people in Iraq alone who have perfectly good reasons to hate Bush. After all, he killed their friends and family members and wrecked their infrastructure for phony reasons.

[rick]

It's is for a reason... because she was "co-President, 2-fer-1" in the most blatantly corrupt and self-serving Presidency in our lifetimes. She (and Bill) were an embarrassment for the nation, an almost irreparable blow to the prestige of the White House and office of the Presidency. Your comparison to how some people feel about Bush is apt. (And I don't personally think Bush has done much to anger the people that hate him either, but some on the left seem to hate him with a visceral passion, which is how many feel about the Clintons)

Funny how that corrupt and self-serving president managed to leave us a nation with the greatest economic windfall in its history, with the largest period of positive growth during the entire history of the nation, while lowering taxes on the poor and middle class.

That bastard.

[Tages]

Well, I think Sam's allright. He'd be getting far less poo flung his way if he kept to the same style but posted in favour of Dems.

He's quite intelligent, reasonable and informed compared to some of the armchair war criminals posting at lgf or the kooks at Democratic Underground.

Theodore Kaczynski is sane compared to some of the shit I've seen on LGF.

[Michael P]

Allow me to refresh you memory with just a few things that have happened on Bush's watch:

19. Tom Delay
20. Mark Foley


I don't think you can blame Bush for either of these. However, you left off his complete failure to stop the atrocities in Darfur and the attempt to go back on his campaign promise not to bury nuclear waste in Nevada, so I guess it's a wash.

Actually, I think you forgot his bungling of the early 2001 China/spy submarine crisis, so that puts it one-up.

[The Mutt]

I don't think you can blame Bush for either of these. However, you left off his complete failure to stop the atrocities in Darfur and the attempt to go back on his campaign promise not to bury nuclear waste in Nevada, so I guess it's a wash.

Actually, I think you forgot his bungling of the early 2001 China/spy submarine crisis, so that puts it one-up.

Yeah, some of the things on the list were iffy, but I thought it better not to make my own edits to somebody else's list.

But honestly, isn't shredding the Constitution and looting the Treasury enough?

[Wesley Dodds]

This is one of those rare cases where you would actually have to live in america to get this Wes.
A good group of people HATE her, you actually have to type it in caps to get it across.

Yeah, I know about it. Clinton hatred is FAMOUS.

I just don't know whether it would actually hurt her campaign. Yes, the Hillary haters will turn out to vote against her. But the Hillary haters are generally the same people that have contempt for John McCain. And they would rather keep control of the Republican party than win the election.

It's no different from Goldwater: a choice, not an echo. Of course, Goldwater would be too liberal for them now. Amazing at it sounds, they would be prepared to let Hillary Clinton to win rather than lose control. Ann Coulter just said as much.

[Titan76]

Some of those things I agree are scandals, some are lies/inaccurate, and some are policies I support, so I'd hardly call a scandal (like John Bolton in the UN, the Patriot Act, supporting Israel, and conservative appointees to the Supreme Court.) The very fact that it lists some of these things, as well as both Presidential elections, shows the list is insanely biased. And I bet a true Clinton-hater (I'm a mere padawan) could come up with a list for him even longer, and far more self-serving.

By the way, it's not "bait" to state my own personal opinion, which I did. It might have been baitish to state that it is 100% FACT that Clinton was more corrupt than Bush, and it is futile to attempt to try and prove otherwise. The problem is, none of you are saying "It's my opinion that Bush is more corrupt than Clinton," you are stating it as though it were some kind of fact. Which it isn't.
Your personal opinion however is also very biased as well. I for one am no Bill Clinton lover myself and agree he was also a corrupt President(really what President wasn't) however it doesn't take a genius to know that Bush has done more harm and shame to this country then Clinton did.

[Titan76]

Funny how that corrupt and self-serving president managed to leave us a nation with the greatest economic windfall in its history, with the largest period of positive growth during the entire history of the nation, while lowering taxes on the poor and middle class.

That bastard.
Even with all that growth he still didn't really lower the Nation's debt and did over spend at times. But he was still better at the economy then Bush is.

[Nitmo]

I'll be honest up front and say I don't know about ALL of these but I will reply to what I do know, and to be able to do it in one post, I'll snip the rest

2. Fired US attorneys > see # 40

3. Scooter Libby/Plamegate > see # 53

4. Iraq: the CPA, >oh no! an accountant!

Paul Bremer, Didn't he replace Hans "I didn't see any bombs where they told me I could look" Blix?

5. Afghanistan and the resurgent Taliban and opium production > I haven't really heard about a resurgen Taliban

6. Iran and saber rattling > Isn't Iran doing most of the saber-rattling?

7. North Korea > tricky situation since their missiles ARE capable of reaching US targets

8. Osama bin Laden, where are you? Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and terrorism> on this, I agree

9. Civilian contractors> done after every war, try again

10: some bad, much else overblown

11. Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, the destruction of New Orleans, and the aftermath> not much you can do to keep order when half the city's police force leaves. ANd when everything you do is criticized...

12. NSA wiretapping> weren't warrants issued? I'm not clear on this.

15. Homeland Security: white elephant (organization), black hole (money)>and what would you do if your country was demanding you make them safer?

16. K Street Lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, North Marianas> I thought this was tied to the Plame incident, please correct me if I'm wrong.


18. Duke Cunningham
19. Tom Delay
20. Mark Foley> I'm just gonna name names of people who did bad things while someone I didn't like was in office.

22. Tax cuts for the wealthiest> when?

23. Global warming> there IS science that says it's a natural phenomenon

24. Terri Schiavo> there should have been NO govt. involvement on this one, except for a judge.

25. Big budget deficits and vastly increased national debt> who do we owe?

26. The stacking of the federal judiciary> nominating judges they like is part of the executive branch checks and balances

27. Medicare
28. Medicare Part D> inform me please
29. Healthcare sucked when he GOT to office.
31. 2000 Presidential election
32. 2004 Presidential election> we didn't want him to win, it's not fair!!! /whine

33. Attempts to torpedo the 911 Commission> how?

34. Failure to implement 911 recommendations
35. Marginalization of the UN; > the problem with the UN is that they expect America to just go along with whatever they say, but don't think they have to return ANY of that. And they expect the US to lead in any and all world troubles. Where is France in the Darfur mess?

37. Loss of US reputation internationally see #35

38. No serious attempt to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians> hmm, mass evacuations and the establishment of a Palestinian state counts for nothing?

39. Underfunding of basic research> of what?
40. Alberto Gonzales > is this list-padding or is this Gonzalez being nominated for Attorney General? Because I thought nominees for things like that is part of the President's job.

41. FDA: drug testing> Vioxx is the only thing I can think of, but don't most pharmaceuticals eventually have negative side effects?

44. Militarization of intelligence> huh?

45. Rampant cronyism> Doesn't everybody have a few cronies when they're in a position of power?

46. Signing statements> oooh, the pen is mightier than the sword!

48. Overuse and abuse of the National Guard and Reserves; posse comitatus
49. Increasing unpreparedness of US ground forces (Army and Marines)
>recovering from demilitarization during previous administration

52. Mexican cross border trucking and safety concerns> but a fence is stupid!

53. Karl Rove’s security clearance and no firing of Libby co-conspirators I believe this is more list-padding, see previous question.

54. Detention of families for immigration violations; ICE raids> wait, I thought we were trying to keep potential threats down.

55. Dubai Ports deal> This was only "bad" because it was from a middle-eastern country. And Republicans are the racist ones....

56. The Patriot Act; the Patriot Act extension> see #15

57. Attempts to privatize Social Security>how dare he do something different to try and save it.

58. The War on Science> they deserved it, hiding those weapons of mass information!

60. Presidential adviser Claude Allen stealing from Target >:confused:

61. Bush casually admits about lying about decision to fire Rumsfeld> but Rumsfeld WAS fired

65. Backing Israel while it destroyed Lebanon >Israel isn't allowed to defend itself?

66. Presidential Daily Brief 8/01: Bin Laden determined to attack in US> see #8

68. Sago mining disaster hearings and MHSA’s David Dye who walked out of the hearings> Mostly media-inflated fuck-up of media.

69. Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court> list padding, see #26

70. Vetoing stem cell research> is this part of the "War on Science"?

71. Attack on Plan B contraception, >This may be their way of encouraging individual responsibility (albeit backwards)

72. Clear Skies Act and Healthy Forest Restoration Act> Care to elaborate?

never heard of a Phillipino spy

75. Defunding overseas AIDS programs that promoted condom use for prevention. >condoms don't always work against AIDS

76. Call for a constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman.> I agree

77. Opening up Bristol Bay, the last pristine large-scale salmon fishery in the world, to oil drilling> Agreed


79. Gannon/Guckert a working male prostitute in the White House press corps >Village Voice, right?


81. Selling creationist materials at the Grand Canyon gift shop claiming it was 6000 years old> is this official govt shops?

82. Banning photographing return of coffins of slain American soldiers> whose privacy should NOT be respected, eh?

83. False military reporting: Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch> I read in SPORTS ILLUSTRATED that Tillman was killed the way they said he was. Jessica Lynch was aother media-fed fiasco.

84. AIPAC espionage scandal> we don't share intel with allies?

85. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram >dealt with, list-padding, never heard of it.

86. Asserted right to open US mail> note: 'asserted', meaning they had the right in the first place.

and it's not even your list, c'mon, be original

[Wesley Dodds]

33. Attempts to torpedo the 911 Commission> how?


Torpedo's too strong a word. Anyway...

- They initially refused to create a public commission

- They didn't give it enough funding or time

- They appointed Henry Kissinger to head the commission

- They frequently invoked executive privilege to deny the commission access to witnesses and documents and set bizarre conditions on testimony (Bush wouldn't testify without Cheney in the room, wouldn't testify under oath and wouldn't allow them to record or transcribe his testimony)

Of course, it's not like this was just the White House -- the FAA and the CIA were also less than perfectly cooperative.

[Nitmo]

Torpedo's too strong a word. Anyway...

- They initially refused to create a public commission

- They didn't give it enough funding or time

- They appointed Henry Kissinger to head the commission

- They frequently invoked executive privilege to deny the commission access to witnesses and documents and set bizarre conditions on testimony (Bush wouldn't testify without Cheney in the room, wouldn't testify under oath and wouldn't allow them to record or transcribe his testimony)

Of course, it's not like this was just the White House -- the FAA and the CIA were also less than perfectly cooperative.

The only way I could even think of to justify that is that they didn't want to dwell on the mess-up, just move forward to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Not much, but the actions are mostly inexcusable (The bit about Bush not testifying w/o Cheney is reminiscent of the Ramsey parents)

[Nick Soapdish]

I'll be honest up front and say I don't know about ALL of these but I will reply to what I do know, and to be able to do it in one post, I'll snip the rest

2. Fired US attorneys > see # 40

3. Scooter Libby/Plamegate > see # 53


So if he appoints somebody to do a job and they do it badly and he keeps them on and doesn't offer any criticism, he's in the clear because it's not on his hands?


4. Iraq: the CPA, >oh no! an accountant!

Paul Bremer, Didn't he replace Hans "I didn't see any bombs where they told me I could look" Blix?


No.

Hans Blix couldn't find the WMDs that we said were there, but that we couldn't tell him where they were even though we knew exactly where they were. And (at the end for the last couple months), he was reporting that Iraq was finally cooperating fully and that he still couldn't find the weapons.

Paul Bremer was the provisional is the fuckup that told all of the Ba'athists (and everybody that was in the previous government was required to be in the party) that they couldn't be a part of the new government, dismantled the previous army, and then was surprised when a lot of trained and armed Iraqis were upset about the direction that the government was going in.

He was also around to "encourage" the Iraqi government to sign over lucrative oil concessions to American companies and for


5. Afghanistan and the resurgent Taliban and opium production > I haven't really heard about a resurgen Taliban


It's there.

It's been in the news since 2006 at least and was a cover article for Newsweek in the last few months.

They've also been making significant progress in Pakistan - mostly in the tribal areas.


9. Civilian contractors> done after every war, try again


Not in the first Gulf War.

Halliburton is completely new and there hasn't been a corporation with its kind of military influence prior.


10: some bad, much else overblown


Overblown?! Which parts?

We held an American citizen in prison for three years without charging him with anything. We've held hundreds of non-US citizens in Gitmo for the same, many of which we've admitted are totally innocent, but that we can't let go now because they've been in contact with possible al-Qaeda (among the people that might not have been innocent) and they might be upset with us about it.


11. Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, the destruction of New Orleans, and the aftermath> not much you can do to keep order when half the city's police force leaves. ANd when everything you do is criticized...


It's the part about "everything is going great" that was a bit of a problem. Because according to the 24/7 news coverage, it obviously wasn't.


12. NSA wiretapping> weren't warrants issued? I'm not clear on this.


No. That's the controversy.


15. Homeland Security: white elephant (organization), black hole (money)>and what would you do if your country was demanding you make them safer?


Try not to panic?


16. K Street Lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, North Marianas> I thought this was tied to the Plame incident, please correct me if I'm wrong.


You're wrong.

The problem there is that he's been paying lots of money (mostly to Republicans) to get bills passed, including one that seems to virtually legalize underage prostitution in the North Marianas.


18. Duke Cunningham
19. Tom Delay
20. Mark Foley> I'm just gonna name names of people who did bad things while someone I didn't like was in office.


I kinda agree with you there.

But they're also members of his party and he's supposedly the leader of that party. Part of it is the fault of the Republican Congress that was aware of some of those problems, but hoped that they'd go away on their own.


22. Tax cuts for the wealthiest> when?


Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fstories%2F2004% 2F08%2F16%2Fpolitics%2Fmain636398.shtml&ei=i2mlR6nfCYPKeov7xYkD&usg=AFQjCNHSFnotsK2xTRocEeSU3AZcZSokRg&sig2=Ck9zkkmtZlRMdIvuaDHVaw)


23. Global warming> there IS science that says it's a natural phenomenon


Not much. The bulk of the scientific evidence is that it's anthropogenic.

The evidence that it's natural is just looking back in history and showing that it's happened before.

Or from cooked books, such as Henrik Svensmark who cites the evidence linking sun's rays and warming up to 1980 and then ignores it afterwards because it doesn't match any more.


24. Terri Schiavo> there should have been NO govt. involvement on this one, except for a judge.


And yet this was the crisis to get him out of vacation.


25. Big budget deficits and vastly increased national debt> who do we owe?


China mostly.

Isn't huge budget deficits bad enough, especially compared to what he promised?

I'm too lazy to go through the rest of the list, but most of your objections to it are similarly flawed. Maybe somebody else will tackle another third.

Oh, and I agree on #26, but #69 isn't padding. Except maybe as cronyism, but she was clearly nowhere close to the most qualified candidate. Even the conservatives hated her. And his office was particularly horrible about cronyism in Iraq, appointing everybody over there based on their views on abortion, global warming and other neocon hot topics rather than stuff like expertise (like Jay Hallen, the 24-year old poly sci student that didn't even follow the stock market getting sent to fix Iraq's). Or Deutsch, the NASA spokesman that didn't understand anything about how science worked.

[Wesley Dodds]

The only way I could even think of to justify that is that they didn't want to dwell on the mess-up, just move forward to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Not much, but the actions are mostly inexcusable (The bit about Bush not testifying w/o Cheney is reminiscent of the Ramsey parents)

Even if they didn't want to dwell on it, it was necessary to find out how it happened so steps could be taken to make sure it wouldn't happen in the future.

[Nitmo]

So if he appoints somebody to do a job and they do it badly and he keeps them on and doesn't offer any criticism, he's in the clear because it's not on his hands?

>to whom are we referring? all of them? either way, you're right. I don't get as mcuh political news as many here do, so I only go wit what I know, and ask you to fill in the blanks, just as you're doing, and I thank you for it.

Hans Blix couldn't find the WMDs that we said were there, but that we couldn't tell him where they were even though we knew exactly where they were. And (at the end for the last couple months), he was reporting that Iraq was finally cooperating fully and that he still couldn't find the weapons.

>maybe it's late and I'm not getting it, but that first sentence made very little sense to me.

Paul Bremer was the provisional is the fuckup that told all of the Ba'athists (and everybody that was in the previous government was required to be in the party) that they couldn't be a part of the new government, dismantled the previous army, and then was surprised when a lot of trained and armed Iraqis were upset about the direction that the government was going in.

>The moves I agree with, we were going for regime change, with the same govt and military behind it, it's just a figurehead change. (like Cuba)

He was also around to "encourage" the Iraqi government to sign over lucrative oil concessions to American companies and for

>>keep going...

It's there.

It's been in the news since 2006 at least and was a cover article for Newsweek in the last few months.

They've also been making significant progress in Pakistan - mostly in the tribal areas.

>>Well, it's not like we're having to do this all on our own or anything, oh, wait....

Not in the first Gulf War.

Halliburton is completely new and there hasn't been a corporation with its kind of military influence prior.

>>bullshit. I've personally met guys who worked for private companies in Kuwait after the first Gulf War

Overblown?! Which parts?

>>mostly the 'mistreatment of prisoners' The Quran defiling and such...

We held an American citizen in prison for three years without charging him with anything. We've held hundreds of non-US citizens in Gitmo for the same, many of which we've admitted are totally innocent, but that we can't let go now because they've been in contact with possible al-Qaeda (among the people that might not have been innocent) and they might be upset with us about it.

>>the man should be in jail, but not charging him was wrong. So what would you do to fix the second situation you describe?

It's the part about "everything is going great" that was a bit of a problem. Because according to the 24/7 news coverage, it obviously wasn't.

>>just trying to be positive, maybe?

No. That's the controversy.

>>They were only done on US-to-other-country calls, bt still shady in my book.

Try not to panic?

>>and create something to appease the public?


The problem there is that he's been paying lots of money (mostly to Republicans) to get bills passed, including one that seems to virtually legalize underage prostitution in the North Marianas.

>>I'm assuming you mean Abramoff, and where is North Marianas?

I kinda agree with you there.

But they're also members of his party and he's supposedly the leader of that party. Part of it is the fault of the Republican Congress that was aware of some of those problems, but hoped that they'd go away on their own.

>>shame on the President for not knowing what his party members are doing all the time.

Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fstories%2F2004% 2F08%2F16%2Fpolitics%2Fmain636398.shtml&ei=i2mlR6nfCYPKeov7xYkD&usg=AFQjCNHSFnotsK2xTRocEeSU3AZcZSokRg&sig2=Ck9zkkmtZlRMdIvuaDHVaw)

>>rock on, thanks. But aren't all tax-cuts skewed this way? They do pay a disproportionate amount in comparison with the average joe. (usually up to 40%)

Not much. The bulk of the scientific evidence is that it's anthropogenic.

>ooh, I just learned a new word (no snark)

The evidence that it's natural is just looking back in history and showing that it's happened before.

Or from cooked books, such as Henrik Svensmark who cites the evidence linking sun's rays and warming up to 1980 and then ignores it afterwards because it doesn't match any more.

>>wait, it's happened before? and life survived? WE ARE DOOMED!!!

And yet this was the crisis to get him out of vacation.

>>made me want to :rolleyes:

China mostly.

Isn't huge budget deficits bad enough, especially compared to what he promised?

>>Is this a National debt or trade deficit? If they're one and the same there's just even more list-padding here.


I'm too lazy to go through the rest of the list, but most of your objections to it are similarly flawed. Maybe somebody else will tackle another third.

>>I'll agree that I'm not the most informed person, but some of these are matters of opinion.

Oh, and I agree on #26, but #69 isn't padding. Except maybe as cronyism, but she was clearly nowhere close to the most qualified candidate. Even the conservatives hated her. And his office was particularly horrible about cronyism in Iraq, appointing everybody over there based on their views on abortion, global warming and other neocon hot topics rather than stuff like expertise. Or Deutsch, the NASA spokesman that didn't understand anything about how science worked.

>>Her nomination perplexed me as well, no judicial experience jsut made me wonder what he was thinking, or who he may have owed a favor to.

>>I'm not saying that Bush isn't a bad president, I'm just saying he isn't as bad as you may think.

[Nick Soapdish]

So if he appoints somebody to do a job and they do it badly and he keeps them on and doesn't offer any criticism, he's in the clear because it's not on his hands?

>to whom are we referring? all of them? either way, you're right. I don't get as mcuh political news as many here do, so I only go wit what I know, and ask you to fill in the blanks, just as you're doing, and I thank you for it.


I think you were just referring to two, but yes, both of them.

He even commuted Libby's sentence.


Hans Blix couldn't find the WMDs that we said were there, but that we couldn't tell him where they were even though we knew exactly where they were. And (at the end for the last couple months), he was reporting that Iraq was finally cooperating fully and that he still couldn't find the weapons.

>maybe it's late and I'm not getting it, but that first sentence made very little sense to me.


It didn't to me either.

We told Hans Blix that we knew that there were WMDs in Iraq. We had solid intel on it and we knew exactly where they were. But we couldn't tell him about it.


>The moves I agree with, we were going for regime change, with the same govt and military behind it, it's just a figurehead change. (like Cuba)


All you need to do is remove the top guys or people that were doing more than "just following orders". That's still a lot of people and they should be tried. But you can't punish everybody that's remotely attached.

Otherwise it leaves a lot of people unemployed and taking away their best means of employment. Coincidentally, a lot of these people have access to lots of guns so they decided to do something about their dissatisfaction.

Meanwhile, that decision removed everybody that had any experience at government from the government.

It led to a lot of problems within the new government and a lot of dissatisfaction from other people (even the ones that weren't forced out).

One of the key strategies behind the surge has been to reverse those decisions. Personally, I thought that it was too late to do any real good, but it seems to be helping a bit.


He was also around to "encourage" the Iraqi government to sign over lucrative oil concessions to American companies and for

>>keep going...


Oops. I got lost on that sentence. I was going to talk about the huge graft and corruption in that provisional government that he set up by junking all of the old government. Nearly $9 billion dollars just went missing.


It's there.

It's been in the news since 2006 at least and was a cover article for Newsweek in the last few months.

They've also been making significant progress in Pakistan - mostly in the tribal areas.

>>Well, it's not like we're having to do this all on our own or anything, oh, wait....


We aren't on our own in Afghanistan. And if we didn't squander our good will by manufacturing a conflict in Iraq and trying to push the rest of the world into following our lead. Then deciding to send the majority of our forces there, maybe things could run a bit more smoothly elsewhere.


Halliburton is completely new and there hasn't been a corporation with its kind of military influence prior.

>>bullshit. I've personally met guys who worked for private companies in Kuwait after the first Gulf War


Wrong argument.

I didn't say that there weren't private contractors before. Just not nearly to this extent. Private contractors make up about a quarter of our forces in Iraq. And with the structuring of the contract process so that one company is the only company possibly able to do the project and then giving them no-bid contracts on it is just a bit of a problem. At least judging from the phantom costs that keep cropping up.


Overblown?! Which parts?

>>mostly the 'mistreatment of prisoners' The Quran defiling and such...


The defilement of the Koran doesn't bother me much. But that's small potatoes compared to the rest of the stuff that we've done.

And maybe Rumsfeld is just full of it, but he argued that the material had to remain classified because if they knew all of what we'd be doing, they'd never forgive us. (Neither one would surprise me. Rumsfeld was obviously incompetent and shouldn't have ever been allowed to speak in public.)


We held an American citizen in prison for three years without charging him with anything. We've held hundreds of non-US citizens in Gitmo for the same, many of which we've admitted are totally innocent, but that we can't let go now because they've been in contact with possible al-Qaeda (among the people that might not have been innocent) and they might be upset with us about it.

>>the man should be in jail, but not charging him was wrong. So what would you do to fix the second situation you describe?


First, make sure that it doesn't happen again and use a little fucking judgment when it comes to the "round up the usual suspects".

Second, the main problem is how we've been treating them there, not the few dozen possible threats out of hundreds of prisoners. Honestly, I think that if we fuck up and lock up a guy for 5 years for no reason, we pretty much deserve what we get. We can't just keep mistreating him because we think he'll be upset about being mistreated.

They still aren't guilty of anything.


It's the part about "everything is going great" that was a bit of a problem. Because according to the 24/7 news coverage, it obviously wasn't.

>>just trying to be positive, maybe?


Except that we weren't doing anything. Brown just sat on his ass for about a day while the 6:00 news was talking about the deteriorating conditions in the Superdome.


No. That's the controversy.

>>They were only done on US-to-other-country calls, bt still shady in my book.


They weren't only done on other country calls and even so, we were still spying on American citizens.

The courts have ruled that they needed warrants and you're moving the goalposts.


Try not to panic?

>>and create something to appease the public?


Ah, the reason behind the terror levels? That's to keep the public feeling "safe".


>>shame on the President for not knowing what his party members are doing all the time.


Shame on him for not doing anything about it when he did find out.


Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fstories%2F2004% 2F08%2F16%2Fpolitics%2Fmain636398.shtml&ei=i2mlR6nfCYPKeov7xYkD&usg=AFQjCNHSFnotsK2xTRocEeSU3AZcZSokRg&sig2=Ck9zkkmtZlRMdIvuaDHVaw)

>>rock on, thanks. But aren't all tax-cuts skewed this way? They do pay a disproportionate amount in comparison with the average joe. (usually up to 40%)


No.

And saying "everybody else does it" isn't arguing that it's ok.


The evidence that it's natural is just looking back in history and showing that it's happened before.

>>wait, it's happened before? and life survived? WE ARE DOOMED!!!


Yeah, but the economy went to hell the last few times it happened.

That's the argument. It's not that we aren't going to survive. It's that there is going to be a lot of disruption, just like the previous times that we've gone through climate change.



China mostly.

Isn't huge budget deficits bad enough, especially compared to what he promised?

>>Is this a National debt or trade deficit? If they're one and the same there's just even more list-padding here.


Both.

China's been funding our national debt by lending us money. And yes, we still have that growing trade deficit with them.


>>I'll agree that I'm not the most informed person, but some of these are matters of opinion.


Some are. But I think that most of the objections that you raised were simply misinformed. You might have still disagreed if you'd known the entirety of the facts or been referring to the right sequence of events, but that didn't seem to be the case.


>>I'm not saying that Bush isn't a bad president, I'm just saying he isn't as bad as you may think.

His presidency has the most corrupt administration of my lifetime. And he's chosen the least competent administration of my lifetime as well.

I'm not familiar enough with the administrations of Harding, Grant, Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, Pierce and Fillmore to really compare them. All of their accomplishments as I've heard them pale in comparison to Dubya's, but I haven't had nearly the same kind of exposure to the events and pratfalls of their administrations.

[Drew Van T.]

However, you left off his complete failure to stop the atrocities in Darfur

What, by invading it? In light of everything else the administration did abroad, their military self-restraint in Africa can't be considered a failure.

In light of the atrocities that went on uninhibited, it can't be called any sort of success, either, but in that respect the admin. only mimics the entire rest of the world, and if there is any guilt to be had, it is equally distributed.

The bankruptcy of liberal interventionism with military means that go beyond Peacekeeping (a bankruptcy which Bush has greatly accelerated by appropriating this ideology in Afghanistan and Iraq) means that in Darfur there were no radical solutions available for us to apply. Darfur is a tragedy largely beyond our control.

[Samurai]

Not in the first Gulf War.

Halliburton is completely new and there hasn't been a corporation with its kind of military influence prior.



So many problems with the list, I wasn't going to waste time disputing each one. But I had to point out this false response. "Halliburton" has been around since at least the 1st Gulf War, it was a major supplier to the US military under Clinton in Bosnia, and portions of the company have been helping the US military since WW2!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton

1990s

* Following the end of the Gulf War, the Pentagon, led by then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, paid Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root Services over $8.5 million to study the use of private military forces with American soldiers in combat zones.[8]
* In the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait in 1991, Halliburton crews helped bring 320 burning oil wells under control.
* In the Balkans conflict in the 1990s, Kellogg Brown-Root (KBR) supported U.S. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Hungary with food, laundry, transportation and other lifecycle management services.

http://www.halliburton.com/Default.aspx?navid=402&pageid=714
http://www.halliburton.com/Default.aspx?navid=404&pageid=721

Achievements & Landmarks

Halliburton's history is marked by impressive achievements and the creation of enduring infrastructure landmarks.

U.S. Space Program
The Company's involvement with the nation's space program spans almost its entire history: In 1961, Brown & Root was hired as the architectural engineer for NASA's Johnson Space Center. Brown & Root-Northrup later received the Medal of Freedom for devising the ingenious makeshift carbon dioxide removal system that helped rescue the Apollo 13 astronauts.

Military Support
Halliburton's history includes a rich heritage of military support. During World War II, Brown & Root built the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station and a series of warships for the U.S. Government.

In the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait in 1991, Halliburton crews helped bring 320 burning oil wells under control. In addition, Brown & Root assessed and repaired damaged public buildings in Kuwait.

As a result of the Company's outstanding performance in Kuwait, the U.S. Army awarded Halliburton a major contract for worldwide logistics support planning - the first such U.S. military contract with a civilian group. In the Balkans conflict in the 1990s, KBR supported U.S. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, Croatia and Hungary with food, laundry, transportation and other lifecycle management services.


Indispensable Products & Infrastructure
Through our core energy services business, Halliburton and our predecessor companies have patented hundreds of products and technologies, achieved many milestones and recorded countless industry "firsts." In addition, the technologies and processes the Company supplied to our customers resulted in the manufacture of indispensable products, from plastics and paper to auto parts to medical supplies. With our E&C expertise, we built critical roads and bridges to connect communities, and dams to provide power and create recreational areas. In these ways, Halliburton helped shape life in the 20th century.

[Titan76]

So many problems with the list, I wasn't going to waste time disputing each one. But I had to point out this false response. "Halliburton" has been around since at least the 1st Gulf War, it was a major supplier to the US military under Clinton in Bosnia, and portions of the company have been helping the US military since WW2!

That is right but most of the people at Halliburton are assholes.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-10.htm

[Samurai]

[QUOTE=Samurai;6278639]So many problems with the list, I wasn't going to waste time disputing each one. But I had to point out this false response. "Halliburton" has been around since at least the 1st Gulf War, it was a major supplier to the US military under Clinton in Bosnia, and portions of the company have been helping the US military since WW2!

That is right but most of the people at Halliburton are assholes.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-10.htm

Possibly, but Common Dreams is an incredibly biased source and I don't trust what they say without independent verification.

[Titan76]

I'll be honest up front and say I don't know about ALL of these but I will reply to what I do know, and to be able to do it in one post, I'll snip the rest

2. Fired US attorneys > see # 40
40. Alberto Gonzales > is this list-padding or is this Gonzalez being nominated for Attorney General? Because I thought nominees for things like that is part of the President's job.
Did you not watch/read any of the news stories about this? Hell there was a huge thread on here about this topic.

3. Scooter Libby/Plamegate > see # 53
53. Karl Rove’s security clearance and no firing of Libby co-conspirators I believe this is more list-padding, see previous question.
The whole thing was overblown a lot I admit but when Bush says that he wants to know who link her name so he can fire them and when it turns out that it may have been him and his people things are not looking to good for him.

5. Afghanistan and the resurgent Taliban and opium production > I haven't really heard about a resurgen Taliban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801614.html
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iKpd6VcITU3Rcw6UloOTPSaByQlw

9. Civilian contractors> done after every war, try again
Have the Civilian contractors done the jobs they were paid to do though? I think not.

11. Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, the destruction of New Orleans, and the aftermath> not much you can do to keep order when half the city's police force leaves.
Why couldn't we send in the army or national Guard?
ANd when everything you do is criticized...
Tell me has the city been fully re-built yet two and half years later?

25. Big budget deficits and vastly increased national debt> who do we owe?
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
and
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-28-federal-budget_N.htm

27. Medicare
28. Medicare Part D> inform me please
29. Healthcare sucked when he GOT to office.
see link above.
31. 2000 Presidential election
32. 2004 Presidential election> we didn't want him to win, it's not fair!!! /whine
I think its the fact that many fill he didn't win the first time.
35. Marginalization of the UN; > the problem with the UN is that they expect America to just go along with whatever they say, but don't think they have to return ANY of that. And they expect the US to lead in any and all world troubles. Where is France in the Darfur mess?
The only part I disagree on is this. The US is the world's lone Super Power, so it makes sense for other countries to look to us to led weather it be military or diplomacy.

37. Loss of US reputation internationally see #35
What we have done in Iraqi hasn't help.

38. No serious attempt to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians> hmm, mass evacuations and the establishment of a Palestinian state counts for nothing?
There is still no establish Palestinian state, only talks of one. And have you not read recent news about Palestine?


48. Overuse and abuse of the National Guard and Reserves; posse comitatus
49. Increasing unpreparedness of US ground forces (Army and Marines)
>recovering from demilitarization during previous administration
BULL SHIT!! I mean just that BULL SHIT! Yes during the Clinton years he made a lot of stupid cuts to the military but when a President goes around campaigning during for his second term telling people the troops have every thing they need and says we don't need to increase the size of the army and marines he is pulling bull shit out of his ass.

That and when your Secretary of Defense gets ask by the soldiers "where's our armor,etc." and when he tells them "You go to war with the army you have and not the army you want" is very much fuck up when the Defense Dept. gets $450 Billion a year plus another $150-$240 Billion for the war yet some how they CAN'T give our soldiers everything they NEED?

52. Mexican cross border trucking and safety concerns> but a fence is stupid!
Yes it is stupid because do you how easy it is to build bombs that are capable of blowing the dam thing up? That and there is NOT enough Border Agents or even National Guard troops to patrol the dam thing 24/7.

Or you know they could just build tunnels to go under the thing like they did when California built its wall.

54. Detention of families for immigration violations; ICE raids> wait, I thought we were trying to keep potential threats down.
:rolleyes:

57. Attempts to privatize Social Security>how dare he do something different to try and save it.
privatize won't fix it.

65. Backing Israel while it destroyed Lebanon >Israel isn't allowed to defend itself?
Yes they do but Israel went overboard in Lebanon and now has made the station worse.

75. Defunding overseas AIDS programs that promoted condom use for prevention. >condoms don't always work against AIDS
But they do work.

76. Call for a constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman.> I agree

77. Opening up Bristol Bay, the last pristine large-scale salmon fishery in the world, to oil drilling> Agreed
Agree with Bush or with the poster?

82. Banning photographing return of coffins of slain American soldiers> whose privacy should NOT be respected, eh?
They didn't take pictures of their dead bodies. Only of the caskets and the flag on them and some of the navy dropping the caskets into the ocean. You don't believe in Freedom of the Press?

83. False military reporting: Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch> I read in SPORTS ILLUSTRATED that Tillman was killed the way they said he was. Jessica Lynch was aother media-fed fiasco.
The first reports were that Tillman died in action but the real reports were that he died because of friendly fire.

Lynch's case was only a media fiasco because of what the Pentagon said about how she was capture and it turn out not to be true.

85. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram >dealt with, list-padding, never heard of it.
Do you honestly believe six people were the only ones to blame for Abu Ghraib?

[Titan76]

Possibly, but Common Dreams is an incredibly biased source and I don't trust what they say without independent verification.
http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/536
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35234-2004Nov8.html
http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multipage/documents/03633501.asp
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LEO20050805&articleId=806
http://www.mondovista.com/halliburton.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-28-halliburton_x.htm

[Nick Soapdish]

So many problems with the list, I wasn't going to waste time disputing each one. But I had to point out this false response. "Halliburton" has been around since at least the 1st Gulf War, it was a major supplier to the US military under Clinton in Bosnia, and portions of the company have been helping the US military since WW2!


You're right. I misspoke.

I meant their level of involvement, not their actual existence and that wasn't at all what I said.

Blackwater would've been correct however.


65. Backing Israel while it destroyed Lebanon >Israel isn't allowed to defend itself?


Tell it to Turkey. They're facing the same sort of problems that Israel is with Hezbollah, but it's with forces based in Iraq. But no, they aren't allowed to "defend" themselves by invading the neighboring country that's harboring terrorists.


BULL SHIT!! I mean just that BULL SHIT! Yes during the Clinton years he made a lot of stupid cuts to the military but when a President goes around campaigning during for his second term telling people the troops have every thing they need and says we don't need to increase the size of the army and marines he is pulling bull shit out of his ass.

That and when your Secretary of Defense gets ask by the soldiers "where's our armor,etc." and when he tells them "You go to war with the army you have and not the army you want" is very much fuck up when the Defense Dept. gets $450 Billion a year plus another $150-$240 Billion for the war yet some how they CAN'T give our soldiers everything they NEED?


Not to mention that the previous president and his secretary of defense boasted of cutting military spending by 25-50%. (Bush I and Cheney for those of you not keeping track).

[LtMarvel]

It's is for a reason... because she was "co-President, 2-fer-1" in the most blatantly corrupt and self-serving Presidency in our lifetimes. She (and Bill) were an embarrassment for the nation, an almost irreparable blow to the prestige of the White House and office of the Presidency. Your comparison to how some people feel about Bush is apt. (And I don't personally think Bush has done much to anger the people that hate him either, but some on the left seem to hate him with a visceral passion, which is how many feel about the Clintons)
Only if your lifetime is 1993-2000.

Case for Reagan administration: More people working for Reagan spent more days in jails than any other administration. (clarify: Total jail days is the record.)

Case for the current adminstration: the President repeatidly ignore laws or opts to illegally change them. President already pardoned one administrative official. Lots of wrongdoing by underlings.

Case for Clinton administration: was investigated for everything under the sun, including events that happened before he was President or even ran for President. The investigation cleared Clinton of all wrongdoing except for lying under oath in a civil case. That case was dismissed by the judge based on the plaintiffs evidence/presentation of the facts alone (iow, that case had no merit whatsoever).

[Chris Nowlin]

Only 935?

That number seems sort of low.

They must mean only the recorded lies that are 100% refutable. And ignore anything that resembles a gray area.

Also, if they told very similar lies over and over again, I assume those were all just counted as one lie.

[Shellhead]

I guess this just goes to show that 935 wrongs still don't make a right.

[J Dog]

Let me guess: a bunch of them had to involve caring about the enviroment.