"They are the Most Crooked, Lying Bunch..."

[Mr. Average]

After the weekends worldwide peace protests conveyed the central theme of the Bush administrations sinister, planned deceitful nature, I propose a thread to provide some balance to the rhetoric and the slander. So I present some recent facts for your edification and review:

1. Senator Kerry released a statement that he was being endorsed by 'unnamed foreign leaders'. He refuses to divulge the names of the leaders who, as he says it, want to see Bush defeated and Kerry empowered as the Commander in Chief of the United States. However, three independent world organizations have publically endorsed Kerry as the best alternative to George W Bush. They are:
- Al Jazeera, the extremist Islamic media machine, and;
- The North Korean Communist government and represive regime threatening the world with nuclear attacks, and;
- the newly elected Socialist leadership of Spain.

With friends like that, who needs enemies. Kerry went on record late last week imploring foreign leaders to not publically endorse him, and said that he would fail to recognize any such endorsement. The ploy back-fired.

More to follow. Many are waiting for the TV advertisement endorsing John Kerry that ends with the statement "This is Osama Bin Laden, and I endorse this ad" (an editorial slip, I know, but sadly humourous).

2. Senator Kerry has taken a lot of heat for voting to empower Mr. Bush to go to war against Iraq (see below), but then voting against the aid for our troops once they were on foreign and hostile soil and fighting for a coalition-based cause. In a recent quote, and in an attempt to short-circuit his politically damaging voting record, he is directly quoted as saying "I did vote for the aid for our troops in Iraq. Right before I voted against it". How Clintonesque. He clearly has the manual and the videotape from the master of deceit, purgery, and verbal gymnastics to support a lie.

3. Try to envision this: In protest after returning from the Vietnam War, he takes other veterans medals (some who were severely disfigured by the war) and casts them over the White House fence, while keeping his own medals safe and secure...just in case they might come in handy someday. Visionary leadership.

4. Intermission. In Isreal, Muslim extremists gunned down an islamic student as he walked along the street, mistaking him for an Isreali student whom they targeted to kill. To the grief stricken family, they have stated that the dead muslim is a Martyr to the cause. Unfortunatley, the family (and I would suppose the corpse) do not see it quite the same way. The point is made to illustrate the obsurd justifications (on both sides) for murder in the Middle East. The only language that is heard is Power. In your face Power. "Are you talkin' to me???" power. If the United States will be successful in protecting our soil against future heinous attacks on the homeland, then the language is Power. If you believe that gentle diplomacy works, read the history, and read the papers, and re-read this item #4.

5. My favorite: A commentary with transcript. Either close our eyes and plug your ears and say "Auntie Em, Auntie Em!...there's no place like home"...or read the facts and face the music.
Commentary: "Bush Lied about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction" In order to lie, one must know something is true and argue that it is false, or vice versa, for purposes of deceit. Congressional Democrats had access to all of the exact same intelligence reports Bush did.Thus, for Bush to have known hat there were no WMD's, they too would have concurred and known that there were none. Why then did almost all of them (including Senator Kerry) vote for Public Law 107-243, which empowered Bush to "use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in dealing with Iraq...if they knew there were no WMD's? Also:

"Bush lied about an imminent Iragi threat to trick Congress. Bush did NOT SAY (at the time) that Saddam was an imminent threat; he said we could not wait until the threat became imminent. The Democrats and John Kerry heard the speeches and have the transcripts. During the Senate hearings on 107-243, Secretary of State Colin Powell, responding to a direct query from Senator John Kerry, said Bush was prepared to take action in Iraq with or without the UN's Security Councils blessings if Saddam continued violating UN resolutions (which, of course, he did). Kerry said (and directly from the transcript) "I understand". A few minutes later, Powell said the major problem was Saddam needed to be disarmed. Kerry concurred, "I agree. I agree completely!"

Hey, Bush is no saint. Nor was his dad. Nor was Clinton. Nor was Nixon. Nor was Thatcher. And neither Blair nor dozens of other world leaders fit the bill with a personal trait of uncompromised integrity. But gosh, there needs to be a little reason injected into the rhetoric that the Democrats are using to unseat the current leader, who, at the very least, has pulled a page from the Reagan book of international leadership and demonstarted that if you attack us where we live and where are people are expecting safe haven, we will reconcile the attacks with the power and might accorded a super power who has demonstrated incredible benevolence worldwide under BOTH democratic and republican administrations. And the job market is returning, and economic indices are beginning to rise. There is an old saying, it takes money to make money. George cannot be cited for thriftyness, but if the investment pays off with a strong economy and a record-low jobless index in the next year, then maybe, just maybe, he has some leadership skills that we all seem to work so hard to belittle, de-recognize, and ignore.

[selfmademug]

Let the gnashing of teeth begin.

Mr. A. knows I respectfully and vehemently disagree. But I've sworn off politics on this board, at least for a bit, cause there's too much upset in my life right now without mixing it up with you (mostly) very lovely people. Mr. A. also knows I include him in that last description!

Where is the emoticon for "freaked out"?

[laughingcrow]

Explain how someone being a socialist makes them as good as an enemy.

[BlueChair]

The reason Al Jazeera, and the North Korean and Spanish governments want Kerry to win is because Bush has horrible foreign policy. I don't think it has anything to do with Kerry having ties to terrorists.

[HungupStrungup]

. . . And the job market is returning, and economic indices are beginning to rise. There is an old saying, it takes money to make money. George cannot be cited for thriftyness, but if the investment pays off with a strong economy and a record-low jobless index in the next year, then maybe, just maybe, he has some leadership skills that we all seem to work so hard to belittle, de-recognize, and ignore.

And if pigs begin to fly, I'll be staying indoors from now on.

[bobster]

The reason Al Jazeera, and the North Korean and Spanish governments want Kerry to win is because Bush has horrible foreign policy. I don't think it has anything to do with Kerry having ties to terrorists.

Well, actually, I would think that North Korea (well, it's semi-insane horror-film buff leader that is) probably WANTS us to have a horrible foreign policy, so I'd leave them out of it.

Also, I wouldn't assume that Al Jazerra is some kind of direct mouthpiece for Al Quaida, Hamas, etc -- well at least any more than Fox News is a direct mouthpiece of the white supremacist groups.

That crazy, radical leftist John McLaughlin (the surprisingly thoughtful, old-school conservative, host of "The McLaughlin Group") about a year ago conducted a very respectful interview with a big-wig from Al Jazerra. McLaughlin seemed at pains to help the man point out that the Arab network is fairly mainstream. Depicting it as, basically, the equivalent of CNN. It allows voices that we would consider to be wacko on -- along with far more mainstream people and even Bush Administration members like Condie Rice. Obviously, they've done things that have upset us and I've heard some things about individual programs that are disturbing -- but always at one remove. I'm not saying they're "good" -- I'm just saying I wouldn't assume they're part of this "evil".

That's all I'm going to say now. Otherwise, like wonderful Ms. SMM, I'm going to recuse myself from this one henceforth. I'm moving this week and moving and long, discursive political (or religious, or political-relgious)arguments simply don't mix! But go, Kerry, anyway! (But if he says anything else stupid this week, remember, I WAS a Deaniac, even if I actually voted for Edwards....)

[noiseradio]

Al Jazeera and North Korea just might have other motives than an informedand considered disagreement wiht the current administration's policies. Dontcha think?

[Tim(e)]

If the United States will be successful in protecting our soil against future heinous attacks on the homeland, then the language is Power. If you believe that gentle diplomacy works, read the history, and read the papers, and re-read this item #4.

And be aware that since the invasions of Afghanistan and more particularly Iraq, terrorist activity has increased significantly.

Now, I too am bailing out of this can of worms

[so lacklustre]

As you will have gathered from some of my previous posts I am not a good debater particularly on politics but I'll have a go, but no doubt someone will blow my points apart (so to speak).

1. I believe that Sweden are the kind of nation that follow the 'gentle diplomacy' route. They may have had the odd political assassination but as far as I know they have not been subjected to any acts of mass terrorism.

2. For decades British Governments tried to resolve the 'Irish Problem' by fighting fire with fire and yet continuous terrorist atrocities continued not just in N.I. but across the British mainland. However slow, painful and fitful (and yes, currently stalled) progress has been made since the different factions decided to sit round a table (or different tables in different rooms?) and start the long process of 'gentle diplomacy'.

It is ironic that after the threat from Irish terrorists seems to have waned after many years that we bring upon ourselves the possible dangers of terrorism on a (relatively) new front.

[bobster]

I know I said I'd stay out, but So Lacklustre's point is made even stronger by the example of Israel. They've certainly used the language of power and terrorists hardly ever bother them, right?

Okay, that's really it! I'm not even lurking here anymore! No, I mean it!

[Mr. Average]

It is certainly anyone and everyones prerogative to abstain from commenting. I abstain from commenting on many of the subjects that begin threads because I am either ill-informed or I don't have a strong opinion. But to cast dispersions as a way to discredit the original post without addressing a single item in the original post with either a strong editorial, a gut feeling, or a fact is, in my opinion, a bit silly. I began the thread to give some equal time to another, reasonable line of thinking. If you think it unreasonable, then say so, but at least offer a substantive argument. My original post is replete with substance, and a few clearly identifiiable editorial comments.

Regarding the excellent challenge to the implication that an endorsement from a socialist group is tantamount to an evil endorsement...you make an excellent point. I simply listed the three groups who have publically stated that they would like new leadership in the United States, specifically commenting on the end of the Bush II era. In general, the American view of socialism is that it is less desirable then the current form of government that Americans enjoy. It would be irresponsible of me to take a stand within this thread as to the pro's and con's of socialism, and I don't think I am nearly as qualified to do so as many others on this board. It simply is included with the others because it has happened, and, it represents something that the average American, the guy on the street, fears more than desires as an alternative to our current scheme of government.

[pip_52]

And be aware that since the invasions of Afghanistan and more particularly Iraq, terrorist activity has increased significantly.

It seems as though violence nearly always begats more violence. Unless you aim to completely annilhilate all of your enemies . . .

[so lacklustre]

I may be thick, but which respondent are you calling silly, if any?

[pophead2k]

I'm sitll waiting for Reagan's trickle down economy from the 80s to trickle down on me......

Seriously though, all I know by way of empirical evidence is that during the Clinton administration, I had more disposable income and I wasn't terrified of losing my job. My girlfriend (with a college degree) can't even get a job at a coffee house right now in New Orleans. In all honesty, Mr. A., I hope you are right and I am wrong. I hope that Bush's economic policies bring us low unemployment AND tax relief AND spending power. But until it happens, I'll continue to do everything in my power to give someone else a chance to right this ship.

[laughingcrow]

A lot of the 'lie' accusations that are being thrown about by the opposition parties of most of the 'coalition' governments seem to be there to pander to public opinion, which is understandably, appalled at the badly-organised invasion/liberation of Iraq.

If it had been the conservative or democratic parties in power, I don't doubt exactly the same outcome would have occurred. An over-the-top reaction played out on a media stage to make everyone watching at home feel safe...in my opinion, that type of reaction (as a lot of people have pointed out) isn't always the right one. I'm not saying that Al Qaeda's funding wasn't damaged, and that 'we' didn't learn alot about it's infrastucture. I'm not saying that a ruthless dictator shouldn't have been deposed. I just think a little more diplomacy should have been used, and a few more clear objectives for what to do after Hussein was out, been arranged.

I watched a Panorama last night, and the editor of Al Quds, whom had met Bin Laden many times in his role as a reporter, said that Bin Laden had spoken of his goal being to get a US post in the arabic states. From there they could build a large recruitment point for Al Qaeda.
With no real plan for Iraq's self-government after Hussein fell, the 'police state' that has to be there has created a real local animosity...and Al Qaeda's recruitment has boomed.

[Tim(e)]

It is certainly anyone and everyones prerogative to abstain from commenting. I abstain from commenting on many of the subjects that begin threads because I am either ill-informed or I don't have a strong opinion. But to cast dispersions as a way to discredit the original post without addressing a single item in the original post with either a strong editorial, a gut feeling, or a fact is, in my opinion, a bit silly. I began the thread to give some equal time to another, reasonable line of thinking. If you think it unreasonable, then say so, but at least offer a substantive argument. My original post is replete with substance, and a few clearly identifiiable editorial comments.

Ok, since my comment regarding increased terrorist activity apparently has little or no value, then I will point to the commentary of others whose status might afford them some credibility:

Bush has made us less safe, says counter-terrorism expert
The Bush doctrine has been turned on its head

Now, I too really am out of here (well, until the next time at least )

[Poppet]

just here to say, me too, to pophead2k's remark re: the economy here.

it stinks. i try really hard to not think about it because, i do have a job. but the threat of it disappearing is very real. and then where would i be? i live near Boston. it's horrid finding work here. most everyone i know who is outta work is: quite recently outta work, and actively looking, or, has ben out for a while and has stopped looking. my friends work in cafes, create web sites under the table, etc. etc.

i'm all for somebody else taking over. go kerry!

[BlueChair]

Bush seems pretty good at brainwashing his followers. What's the deal?

[King of Confidence]

And if pigs begin to fly, I'll be staying indoors from now on.

Or carrying an umbrella at all times.

______


Mr. Average, do we need to start calling you Freeper Dan?

1. …Many are waiting for the TV advertisement endorsing John Kerry that ends with the statement "This is Osama Bin Laden, and I endorse this ad" (an editorial slip, I know, but sadly humourous).

If you say so. The larger question is, what has the US done to its reputation in the world, and it’s ability to act effectively in future world hot spots, by effectively shelving its traditional alliances, and, as Poland’s President Kwasnievski put it, "taking them for a ride"?

2. …In a recent quote, and in an attempt to short-circuit his politically damaging voting record, he is directly quoted as saying "I did vote for the aid for our troops in Iraq. Right before I voted against it". How Clintonesque. …

I haven’t heard this direct quote, and I read a lot of political coverage. You say you’re putting up "facts." Can you provide a source and context? (Freeper comment boards don’t count.)

3. Try to envision this: In protest after returning from the Vietnam War, he takes other veterans medals (some who were severely disfigured by the war) and casts them over the White House fence, while keeping his own medals safe and secure...just in case they might come in handy someday. Visionary leadership.

Again, source and context, please.

4. Intermission. In Isreal, Muslim extremists gunned down an islamic student as he walked along the street, mistaking him for an Isreali student whom they targeted to kill. To the grief stricken family, they have stated that the dead muslim is a Martyr to the cause. Unfortunatley, the family (and I would suppose the corpse) do not see it quite the same way. ….

I’m not at all qualified to comment on this, but Arab and Middle Eastern society, and its moral universe, seems broken and chaotic, no question. How it got that way might yield some clues for helping it, but beating the shit out of it to show it who’s boss isn’t going to do it.

Juan Cole is a professor of history at the Univ. of Michigan. You might check out his site for some better informed comment on the Middle East. http://www.juancole.com/

5. My favorite … "Bush Lied about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction" In order to lie, one must know something is true and argue that it is false, or vice versa, for purposes of deceit. Congressional Democrats had access to all of the exact same intelligence reports Bush did.

All Clinton lied about, ultimately, was a blow job. Bush and his administration deliberately and systematically created, by their rhetoric, an atmosphere of imminent threat, even if (and I doubt this) they did not technically "lie" according to your narrow definition. It was this that Congress acted on, with many Democrats, right or wrong, going along. Would Kerry be better off politically, now, to have voted against it? Sure. (If he had, would it matter to you? No) But it’s been well documented that the National Intelligence Estimate that you refer to Congressional Democrats having access to was shaped according to Dick Cheney’s wishes, and filtered out data that did not accord with the administration’s settled decision to take us to war (made, it now appears, even before 9/11). http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

Maybe that’s not a lie according to your definition.

…the current leader, who, at the very least, has pulled a page from the Reagan book of international leadership and demonstarted that if you attack us where we live and where are people are expecting safe haven, we will reconcile the attacks with the power and might accorded a super power who has demonstrated incredible benevolence worldwide under BOTH democratic and republican administrations.

No, it’s a fuckin’ tar baby, Dan, that’s all. No US interest was served by attacking Iraq. None. If you wanted to go on about responding with our power and might about Afghanistan, fine, no one is arguing it, not even Dennis Kucinich. We did it and I’m glad we did. (How we could then drop it for the last two years is beyond me.)

It doesn’t hold in Iraq. Saddam was a bad man, and no one wishes he were still here. But that country was a hornet’s nest. We just went in a kicked it to shit, and now the rest of the world is going, "you assholes, you’re getting us all stung, what the fuck’dya go and do that for?" It’s hard to argue with them.

From the standpoint of a tax-paying citizen, who sees future decades of my money going down the drain of that stupid country so that Bush and his oil cronies can get theirs – no. It’s fucking unacceptable.

And the job market is returning, and economic indices are beginning to rise. There is an old saying, it takes money to make money. George cannot be cited for thriftyness, but if the investment pays off with a strong economy and a record-low jobless index in the next year, then maybe, just maybe, he has some leadership skills that we all seem to work so hard to belittle, de-recognize, and ignore.

It’s not like I expect to change your mind – you seem to have gotten the dial stuck on "Spew" and just let all this fly. Still, like Pophead2K, I would be terrified to lose my job, I’m skeptical about my and the country’s future, AND I DIDN’T FEEL THIS WAY FOUR YEARS AGO. And there are A LOT of people like me, Dan. A lot more than you think, and they’re not all liberals, either.

Man. And I was so disciplined about not jumping in on the Passion of the Christ thread.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com
http://www.dneiwert.blogspot.com

Edited for a corrected url. And while I'm at it:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/

and

http://www.johnkerry.com/

[Pov]

Frankly, I'm incredulous that anyone can get so worked up over either of the candidates. While Kerry is an unknown, it has become abundantly clear to me that W. Bush is not one of the great presidents, and is probably not even up to the level of the second rate ones. From what I've seen of him so far, Kerry doesn't seem to have the potential to be one of the great ones, either. In short, I'm not very impressed with either of them. Bush has got to be one of the worst - if not the worst - public speakers ever elected to the Presidency. I cringe every time I see him on TV - not because of his policies, per se, but rather because he is just so horrible at addressing the nation.

As far as Iraq goes, I doubt that Bush intentionally lied, but I do think he ignored or downplayed significant questions about the reliability of the intelligence reports he was receiving. He had tunnel vision about going into Iraq. Now that we are there, and there are no WMDs, I think he deserves all the blame for everything that goes wrong. Why? Because he is the Commander in Chief and the President, and he was the person that took us to war. As the sign on Truman's desk used to say "The buck stops here." OTOH, if things go well at the end of the day, and there is a stable, democratic, pro-western government in Iraq, then he should get the credit for the same reason.

[noiseradio]

Something I keep thinking is that you can't have it both ways. (This is for people who don't agree that Bush is a capable leader and don't like his policies). If Bush is an idiot, how is he so deft at brainwashing people? He can't be an incompetent boob and also be a cunning strategist who is manipulating the masses Machiavelli-style. I'm not taking either position here, and I think my criticisms of the administration are well-documented. But it doesn't make sense to me how he's characterized by his opponents. Which is it? Fiendish brainwasher or ignorant dope?

[pophead2k]

Good point Noise. I think he is an incompetent LEADER, not a nincompoop or a drooling idiot. There is something Machiavellian about all administrations, but Bush's seems to be more nefarious than others. It seems to me like Clinton covered a lot of stuff up AFTER it happened. Bush, Reagan, etal. like to cover their nasty stuff up in advance, because they know its nasty. It is a longstanding literary tradition to have the clown be the brains behind the evil.

[HungupStrungup]

It is certainly anyone and everyones prerogative to abstain from commenting. I abstain from commenting on many of the subjects that begin threads because I am either ill-informed or I don't have a strong opinion. But to cast dispersions as a way to discredit the original post without addressing a single item in the original post with either a strong editorial, a gut feeling, or a fact is, in my opinion, a bit silly. I began the thread to give some equal time to another, reasonable line of thinking. If you think it unreasonable, then say so, but at least offer a substantive argument. My original post is replete with substance, and a few clearly identifiiable editorial comments.

I'm sure Mr.A felt my response was one of the silly ones. Although I did not cast any dispersions [sic], neither did I respond point by point either. There are a couple of reasons that I answered in the manner I did, one of which is that only four hours elapsed between his first post and the one quoted above, and I have a life. I did begin to frame a response, but then I questioned whether it made any sense to debate issues with anyone who says I present some recent facts for your edification and review and then follows that preface with a scant few facts, stated in the most slanted of ways, mixed with unproven assertions, bordering on the slanderous, and administration spin of the most transparent sort.

I offer just a couple of examples:

Senator Kerry has taken a lot of heat for voting to empower Mr. Bush to go to war against Iraq (see below), but then voting against the aid for our troops once they were on foreign and hostile soil and fighting for a coalition-based cause. In a recent quote, and in an attempt to short-circuit his politically damaging voting record, he is directly quoted as saying "I did vote for the aid for our troops in Iraq. Right before I voted against it". How Clintonesque. He clearly has the manual and the videotape from the master of deceit, purgery, and verbal gymnastics to support a lie.

What the hell is a coalition-based cause anyway? This was a US effort, and only the British provided anything but a token force. The Bush administration put together their "coalition of the willing" out of desperation, to appear as though a substantial number of nations were with us and actually helping. Bush 41 was able to muster real support, but W's not his father.

If anyone was "against the aid for our troops once they were on foreign and hostile soil," I think it's the commander in chief who put them there, where they could count on the stalwart assistance of Iceland, Latvia, Romania and Palau.

In a recent quote, and in an attempt to short-circuit his politically damaging voting record, he is directly quoted as saying . . .[sic] What's wrong with "Recently he said. . . ."?

Yes, Senator Kerry could have done better than "I voted for it, then I voted against it," but the fact is that votes in parliamentary matters often seem contradictory. One can vote one way on various amendments and rules attached to pieces of legislation, and an apparently different way once the final bill is cleared for passage. Kerry's explanation makes sense to me, that he was for giving the troops all that they needed, whether it was $87 billion or even more; but he proposed some one-year reductions in the tax cuts for the wealthy as an offset. Without that, he though it was a bad bill and voted against it, all the while knowing it was going to pass. It was never his intention to deny the troops in harm's way anything they need to defend themselves. It's the Defense Department and the White House who bear that burden.

You can disagree with the vote, but surely you can do better than "How Clintonesque." I won't even dignify the "master of deceit, purgery, and verbal gymnastics" part, given the candor of the current occupant of the Oval Office and his cronies.

and

In protest after returning from the Vietnam War, he takes other veterans medals (some who were severely disfigured by the war) and casts them over the White House fence, while keeping his own medals safe and secure...just in case they might come in handy someday. Visionary leadership.

There's no more factual way to state this? Your verb "takes" makes it sound as if he overpowered disabled veterans and pried the medals from their fingers!

[Mr. Average]

I am sorry that many missed the Kerry quote about voting for, then voting against the aid. It was well publicized in print and on most of the major news networks, including CNN. I do not have a specific reference.

My point has been made. I am disenchanted with Mr. Bush. I think he has made a number of errors but in an effort to lead. He is at times a bumbling fool, and at times a great leader. I know that the utterance of the second half of that last sentence infuriates many. It is, however, a reasonable line of thinking. It is an educated line of thinking as well, based on the Congressional record (which no one wants to address from the original post).

But it seems so disingenuine to me to say "I hate Bush" ipso facto "I want Kerry". It reminds me of playground politics during recess at St. Helens elementary school. If the merits of Senator Kerry are so profound as to make him a suitable candidate to lead this nation during one of the most tumultuos times in our country's history, then cite the reasons. But instead, the thread is about discrediting my replay of Kerrys statements and actions.

Why Kerry?

Oh, and by the way. I have been unemployed for 5 months. I work 10-12 hours daily seeking gainful employment. I have a life. I am in process of raising to beautiful souls to young adulthood, and my wife always knows that my marital fidelity is inshakable, as is my faith. I am not a mean-spirited demagogue, nor am I easily brain-washed. I think that covers the majority of the slurs. Now, what about the candidate? Can ANYONE SAY ANYTHING about Kerry as a proven Leader, or shall we continue to mud wrestle in the pseudointellectual pleasuredome where, God-forbid, anyone will ever feel that it is noble to support and try to work with the current administration.

[RedShoes]

Why Kerry?

Because he's the only one who has a shot at actually booting Bush out of office?

The #1 goal for a lot of people is simply getting rid of Bush. And as usual, the presidential election will be about voiting in the lesser of two evils. This is nothing new.