The Liberals’ Creed

[Gonz]

I'm getting nothing but regurgitated pap written by professional, agenda driven liars, served by milktoast socialist junkies. I want original idea's & arguments. I can get their half-truths at any of a dozen websites specializing it constipation. It's boring.

 

[charliekola]

I'm getting nothing but regurgitated pap written by professional, agenda driven liars, served by milktoast socialist junkies. I want original idea's & arguments. I can get their half-truths at any of a dozen websites specializing it constipation. It's boring.

I love it, the genius that spouts shit like RayGun brought down communism, won't even debate the facts.

Well, I'll start you off with just the Top Ten:

THE LIST:

After I finished writing a 300-page book detailing a wide assortment of George W. Bush lies—scores of deceptions, if not many more (I haven’t counted)—my publisher requested that I produce a top-ten list of Bush lies. It would be good for marketing, I was told. In my mind, the "top" lies numbered far more than ten. And after all, the book has fourteen chapters. A list of ten would have to leave out entire swaths of this work, including sections on such important subjects as global warming, missile defense, environmental standards, Bush’s failed energy plan, and Afghanistan reconstruction. It also would have to rely upon a false equivalency in order to provide a full flavor of the book. One could easily argue that the ten most significant lies of the Bush presidency all related to his campaign for war in Iraq. But such a list would not be much good from a sales perspective, for the point of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception is to show that Bush has lied his way through most serious policy matters (as well as through his bid for the presidency). Thus, I’m forced, as I brutally boil down 120,000 words to ten bullet items, to rely upon lies that represent larger body of lies. So here is a painfully constructed list—arranged in quasi-chronological order--that demonstrates the severity and range of Bush’s serial lying but that only skims the surface. For the complete picture—as well as for all the details that support the below accusations—please read the book.

10. "I have been very candid about my past." Bush said this during a press conference a few days before Election Day 2000. He was then in the middle of media firestorm that followed the revelation that he had once been arrested for drunken driving. Of course, this statement was untrue. He uttered it while he was trying to explain why he had not been "candid" about his arrest record. And during the campaign, he had not been "candid" about other significant matters, including what seemed to be a missing year in his National Guard service (which did not jibe with what he wrote about his service in his autobiography) and his apparent (though unacknowledged) shift from supporting abortion rights in the late-1970s to opposing them in the 1990s. He also was not "candid" about the tax plans he had pushed while governor of Texas. He always referred to them as "tax cuts" and did not mention that his major tax proposal included both tax cuts for property owners and an increase in the sales tax and the creation of a new business tax.

9. "I’m a uniter not a divider." This was a Bush catchphrase, a mantra. It was shorthand for his claim that he engaged in positive, not negative, politics and could heal a political culture ripped apart by the bitter ideological and partisan combat of the Clinton years. Yet during the 2000 presidential campaign and the Florida fracas, Bush and his lieutenants engaged in down-and-dirty and divisive political maneuvers. Just ask Senator John McCain, Bush’s main Republican opponent, whose record on veterans affairs was falsely attacked by a Bush surrogate and who was accused falsely by the Bush campaign of opposing research for breast cancer. As president-elect, Bush nominated one of the most divisive ideologues in Washington, former Senator John Ashcroft, to be attorney general. During a pre-inauguration interview, Bush acknowledged that he expected Ashcroft to be a lightning rod. But would-be uniters-not-dividers do not shove lightning rods up the backsides of their opponents. Another example: during the 2002 congressional campaign, Bush accused Democrats—who differed with him on employment rules for the new Department of Homeland Security—of sacrificing national security for their own petty purposes. He did this to help elect Republicans to office. Such a move was well within his rights as a political player, but not the action of a fellow who cares more about uniting than dividing.

8. "My plan unlocks the door to the middle class of millions of hard-working Americans." All the available slots of this top-ten list could be filled by statements Bush made to sell his tax cuts at various points—on the campaign trail, in 2001 (for the first major tax-cuts battle), and in 2003 (for the second major tax-cuts battle). But I chose an assertion from 2001 that echoed statements from the campaign trail, that would be reprised in 2003, and that represented the best-sounding argument for his tax cuts. Bush frequently claimed his tax cuts would help low- and middle-income Americans, and in 2000 and 2001 he often spoke of a mythical single-mom waitress, making $22,000 or so, who would be guided into the middle-class by his tax cuts. The point was to make it seem as if he truly cared for hard-pressed Americans and that his tax cuts did indeed embody his promise of "compassionate conservatism." (By the way, I am not placing on this list Bush’s claim that he is a "compassionate conservative." That’s a rather relative term more suitable for judgment than truth-based evaluation.) But when the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche reviewed his tax plan for Time magazine during the 2000 campaign, it found that his beloved waitress would receive no reduction in her taxes. Zippo. In 2001, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that this waitress might gain $200 from Bush’s tax cuts if she managed to pull in $25,000 a year. But such a sum would not place her on the highway to the middle class. In fact, about 12 million low- and moderate-income families received no tax relief from Bush’s 2001 tax cuts (and millions of families were left out of his 2003 package). His plan unlocked few doors. Instead, about 45 percent of the 2001 package was slated to go to the top 1 percent of income earners. In 2003, Citizens for Tax Justice calculated that individuals earning between $16,000 and $29,000 would net about $99 from Bush’s proposed tax cuts. Again, not an amount that would cover the entrance fee for a middle-class life.

7. "This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research." That was what Bush said during an August 9, 2001, speech, announcing his decision to permit the federal funding of stem cell research that only used stem cells lines that existed before his speech. Bush was presenting his policy as a Solomon-like compromise. Religious right leaders and the Catholic Church were opposed to all stem cell research because it uses cells extracted from five-day old blastocysts (or embryos) in a process that destroys the embryos. (These embryos usually are leftovers created by in vitro fertilization at fertility clinics and no longer needed by the couples for which they were produced). But many prominent Republican donors and patient advocacy groups supported stem cell research, noting that scientists believed that studying stem cells (which have the potential to grow into any one of the more than 200 different types of human cells) could lead to treatments for Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other terrible diseases. In his speech, Bush said that 60 stem cell lines already existed—"where the life and death decision has already been made"--and that these lines could support a vital and vibrant research effort. Consequently, he said, federally funding could be limited to underwriting research that employed only these lines. Bush was trying to have it both ways. He could appease his social conservative supporters by saying no to any federal support for new stem cell lines, and he could claim to support research that might potentially help millions of people. There was one problem. The 60 pre-existing lines did not exist. The number was closer to a dozen—if that—an amount that experts in the field did not consider sufficient for research purposes. And when scientists and media reports convincingly discredited Bush’s count—which Bush might have initially assumed to be correct—the Bush administration kept repeating its untruthful position. Sticking to the 60-lines fantasy (or lie) permitted Bush to avoid making an explicit decision to curtail stem cell research. But in effect that was what he had done without admitting it.

6. "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th." Bush said this in November 2002, as he appointed Henry Kissinger to be chairman of an independent 9/11 commission that Bush had orignially opposed. (Kissinger lasted two weeks in the job.) But Bush has not encouraged the uncovering of every detail. His administration did not turn over information to the congressional 9/11 inquiry about intelligence warnings the White House reviewed before 9/11. The administration also refused to say whether certain pre-9/11 intelligence warnings—including a July 2001 report noting that Osama bin Laden was poised to launch a "spectacular" attack "designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests"—were shared with Bush and what he did in response, if he had received them. Moreover, the administration claimed that Bush’s awareness of these warnings (not the warnings themselves) was classified information—an argument unprecedented in the modern history of national security secrets. Bush also refused to let the congressional inquiry release the portion of its final report that concerned connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi citizens or officials. By resorting to such secrecy—which happened to keep hidden information that might be embarrassing or inconvenient for the Bush administration--Bush made it impossible for investigators to "uncover every detail" and for the nation to "learn every lesson."

5. "[We are] taking every possible step to protect our country from danger." Bush said that a month after 9/11, and he has repeated that vow several times since then, including at the start of his recent month-long vacation at his Texas ranch. Every possible step? A reassuring line, but it is not true. Two years after the attacks, there still is no plan for enhanced security at the nation’s thousands of chemical plants. (Over a hundred of them handle chemicals that if released could threaten a million or so Americans.) According to the General Accounting Office, the Bush administration has not even "comprehensively assessed the chemical industry’s vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks." In October 2002, Tom Ridge, Bush’s chief homeland security official, said that voluntary regulations for the chemical industry would not suffice, but that is the policy the administration has been slowly pursuing. And less-than-everything has been the approach in other critical areas. A recent report from a Council on Foreign Relations task force—headed up by former Republican Senator Warren Rudman—says that not enough has been done to improve the abilities of first responders and that their basic needs will be underfunded by $100 billion over the next five years. The nation’s ports have asked for $1 billion to beef up security; the Bush administration has announced grants of $300 million. Various reports note that the federal government has not done all that is necessary to improve its biodefense capabilities. The administration has opposed efforts to mandate the screening of commercial cargo carried by passenger aircraft. (Most of this sort of cargo is not currently screened—creating one large security loophole.) So "every possible step" has not been taken.

4. "I first got to know Ken [Lay in 1994]." As the Enron scandal reached the White House in early 2002, Bush uttered this remark, claiming he had nothing to do with Lay until after winning the 1994 Texas gubernatorial election. It was an apparent and clumsy effort to diminish his relationship with the now-disgraced Enron chief. But in1994, Lay and Enron had been leading contributors to Bush’s campaign. And Lay—long a patron of Bush’s father—had worked with Bush in political settings prior to 1994. In a pre-scandal interview, Lay noted he had been "very close to George W." for years before1994. (In the mid-1980s, Bush’s oil venture was in a partnership with Enron.) Bush also claimed that his administration had been of absolutely no help to Enron. That might have been true during the scam-based company’s final days. But in the months preceding that, the Bush administration had assisted Enron in a variety of ways. This included appointing individuals recommended by Lay as top energy regulators and opposing wholesale price caps on electricity during the California energy crisis, a move that came after Lay (whose electricity-selling company was using manipulative tactics to gouge California) urged the White House to block price caps.

3. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." These two Bush remarks go hand in hand, even though the first was said on March 17, 2003, two days before Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, and the other came during a November 7, 2002, press conference. Together they represented his argument for war: Hussein possessed actual weapons of mass destruction and at any moment could hand them to his supposed partners in al Qaeda. That is why Hussein was an immediate threat to the United States and had to be taken out quickly. But neither of these assertions were truthful. There has been much media debate over all this. But the postwar statements of Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of the CIA, provide the most compelling proof. He has been conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, and he has told reporters that the intelligence on Hussein’s WMDs was full of caveats and qualifiers and based mostly on inferential or circumstantial evidence. In other words, it was not no-doubt material. He also has said that prewar intelligence reports did not contain evidence of links between Hussein and al Qaeda. The best information to date indicates that the prewar intelligence did not leave "no doubt" about WMDs and did not support Bush’s claim that Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda. Bush’s primary reason for war was founded on falsehoods

2. "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush issued this triumphant remark in late May 2003, while being interviewed by a Polish television reporter. He was referring to two tractor-trailers obtained by U.S. forces in Iraq. The CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded these vehicles were mobile bio-weapons plants. Yet they had found not a trace of biological agents on either. (And no bio-weapon facility could be scrubbed completely clean.) In subsequent weeks, it turned out that State Department analysts and even DIA engineering experts—as well as outside experts—did not accept the CIA and DIA conclusion, and some of these doubters believed the explanation of Iraqis who claimed the trucks were built to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. Whichever side might be ultimately right about the trailers, this all-important piece of evidence was hotly contested. It was hardly solid enough to support Bush’s we-found-them declaration or to justify a war.

1. "It’s time to restore honor and dignity to the White House." Bush said that many a time during the 2000 presidential campaign, and in at least one ad pledged to "return honor and integrity" to the Oval Office. See above--and read the book.

Probably because deep thought is beyond his grasp...

 

[Gonz]

There are no facts to debate. You lose.

 

[samcurry]

I love it, the genius that spouts shit like RayGun brought down communism, won't even debate the facts.



Probably because deep thought is beyond his grasp...[/QUOTE]

charlie watch this. that is a personal attack.

And for anyone in this debate. Please remember that arguing the post is fine, BUT NO personal attacks. I have been pretty tame in letting you guys post your thoughts. But like it says in the description of this forum personal attacks will not be tolerated.

 

[charliekola]

No gonz, you loose.
By being unable to adress the issues at hand, that were asked for by one of your believers...

2. "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush issued this triumphant remark in late May 2003, while being interviewed by a Polish television reporter. He was referring to two tractor-trailers obtained by U.S. forces in Iraq. The CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded these vehicles were mobile bio-weapons plants. Yet they had found not a trace of biological agents on either. (And no bio-weapon facility could be scrubbed completely clean.) In subsequent weeks, it turned out that State Department analysts and even DIA engineering experts—as well as outside experts—did not accept the CIA and DIA conclusion, and some of these doubters believed the explanation of Iraqis who claimed the trucks were built to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. Whichever side might be ultimately right about the trailers, this all-important piece of evidence was hotly contested. It was hardly solid enough to support Bush’s we-found-them declaration or to justify a war.

Nothing but facts.

 

[Gonz]

Dig back....we've found many WMDs or information relating to their programs. I've sourced most of the information in this forum. Start digging.

 

[charliekola]

as I have seen you post, the burdon of proof is on the poster.
Now, prove that we found anything other than something RayGun sold them.

 

[Gonz]

It matter not where, when nor how they received pre-1992

 

[RoyalWickedness]

You ask for the lies of Bush and when someone lists them you are not interested.....Go figure!

It never ceases to amaze me. I would love for someone to enlighten me as to exactly why it is that any time one of these mindless sychophants is faced with an argument based on the hard, cold facts that they so vehemently purport to hold dear, the immediate response is either:

"You're just making this a personal attack!"
"That's not worthy of a response.'"
"Liberal media at work again."

Come on, if you want to have an argument, have it! If you want to hear your own views repeated back to you verbatim, buy a parrot. But, if you're going to spout off about how much "integrity" you think this (p)Resident has and how morally upright and superior to us lowly mortals he is, then you had better be prepared to rebut my hard, cold, facts with some of your own.

I posted Mr. Corn's list as a general outline intended to make my point and get you involved in actually researching these claims on your own. If you think they are invalid, feel free to post any sources that you can find to back up your response. What are you afraid of? Go ahead, pick them apart. Go get Mr. Corn's book and review his sources. Read the articles upon which these assertions are based. Go find your own. Try to find some that refute the evidence. Come back here and let's talk about it. Maybe if your research is as extensive and convincing as Mr. Corn's (not to mention about a dozen other authors who have published similar tomes), you will change my mind. Perhaps, through hard work and independent thought, you can win your very first convert! Give me just ONE irrefutable source that will prove to me that Mr. Bush is anything other than a lying hypocrite.

 

[Gonz]

I began answering them...then I realized most were nothing of substance, so I quit before laughing myself hoarse.

 

[shainaloves]

I just wanted to say I agree with Gonz that Lieberman and Miller are good Democrats... good Democrats pretending to be Republicans!

 

[charliekola]

I began answering them...then I realized most were nothing of substance, so I quit before laughing myself hoarse.

Because you can't. Just admit it and accept it.

It goes in easier.

 

[charliekola]

It never ceases to amaze me. I would love for someone to enlighten me as to exactly why it is that any time one of these mindless sychophants is faced with an argument based on the hard, cold facts that they so vehemently purport to hold dear, the immediate response is either:

"You're just making this a personal attack!"
"That's not worthy of a response.'"
"Liberal media at work again."

Come on, if you want to have an argument, have it! If you want to hear your own views repeated back to you verbatim, buy a parrot. But, if you're going to spout off about how much "integrity" you think this (p)Resident has and how morally upright and superior to us lowly mortals he is, then you had better be prepared to rebut my hard, cold, facts with some of your own.

I posted Mr. Corn's list as a general outline intended to make my point and get you involved in actually researching these claims on your own. If you think they are invalid, feel free to post any sources that you can find to back up your response. What are you afraid of? Go ahead, pick them apart. Go get Mr. Corn's book and review his sources. Read the articles upon which these assertions are based. Go find your own. Try to find some that refute the evidence. Come back here and let's talk about it. Maybe if your research is as extensive and convincing as Mr. Corn's (not to mention about a dozen other authors who have published similar tomes), you will change my mind. Perhaps, through hard work and independent thought, you can win your very first convert! Give me just ONE irrefutable source that will prove to me that Mr. Bush is anything other than a lying hypocrite.

Damn, she was right.

 

[samcurry]

one more time. if this is a gang bag to make yourselves feel better for being a dem or rep stop it. Im growing very weary from both sides. agrue the points and stop going after the poster.......

 

[Thulsa Doom]

for real. when did this place suddenly become an oasis for ringers and extremist loonies just looking to score points? has there been some rallying of the troops on both sides behind the scenes the past few weeks or so?

 

[shainaloves]

Re: The Liberals’ Creed

Here's a quote from this article:

President Bush expressed his desire to pursue a policy of isolationism when he declared his opposition to nation building during his election campaign in 2000.


I believe one instance of him claiming isolationism regarding nation building had the rough quote of "I would never use the US Military to have nation-building operations."

As we pass by Afghanistan and run to Iraq, we can remember as the Bush Administration has slowly placed its justification for war from a threat, to a chance to liberate the people under a dictator. This claim directly violates his campaign promise of 2000. This is a lie.

Comments?

 

[shainaloves]

Re: The Liberals’ Creed

Ah! I found it. Here is a debate transcript:

BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html

 

[Leslie]

Re: The Liberals’ Creed

I think you're misinterpreting what nation-building referred to m'dear.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

RW,

Nomally I don't repond to outdated Cut/Paste hack jobs by people trying to sell their book to the jerry springer crowd. There is so little of this based on the reality of politics its just plain silly, and you buy into it.

Did you even read it, or did you just see the title and thought you had a winner?

10. "I have been very candid about my past."

He had no reason to reveal he was AWOL simply because it simply isn't true. This is an issue created by the left.

Abortion is an issue that with maturity and wisdom people will move to the right on. Even Norma McCorvey (do you know who that is?) is against abortion.

Lets talk about 'being candid about your past', release the records Mr. Kerry.

9. "I’m a uniter not a divider."

subjective.

You have to be working with reasonable people that are willing to work together. The left is not willing, in fact they had every intention of causing rifts at every opportunity.

The memo in short say's: What is good for America is bad for us. We will cause as much rift and partisanship as we can. We will destroy this country to reagain power

8. "My plan unlocks the door to the middle class of millions of hard-working Americans."

subjective point.

Currently the economy is growing like gangbusters. Never in Americas history have there been more people, %-wise or otherwise, that have achieved the American dream of owning their own home. (spin that) Las Vegas has more people throwing away more money than ever before.

Jobs rates. growth, you simply cant dispute it.

I'm middle class, I cant keep up with current economic boom. I have expanded yet I am still running full speed. I have to refuse new clients or they have to wait 4-6 months.

For the third time, tax reduction has revived the economy.

7. "This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research."

If you can read this sentence, it says "allows us to explore", Which is being done, new methods of obtaining stems cells are being developed. Did you know the placenta is full of stem cells? Some people these days have them stored after a child's birth.

So the process goes forward.

6. "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th."

"We" does not necessarily mean you will. It does how ever pertain to the intelligence community and military. I think the 9/11 commission is hack-job but much will be gained from the facts.

5. "[We are] taking every possible step to protect our country from danger."

"Possible Step" would be the operative portion of this statement. The resources are limited, thus things are handled on a prioretry basis. Since this blog was written many things have been covered, many more need to implimented, sorry but its a big-ass country with enourmous assets to cover.

It is being done.

4. "I first got to know Ken [Lay in 1994]."

This is just silly. Show me a personal relationship.

Contibutions are usually handled by a check in the mail or hand delivered to the local office (more modern times by transfer).

My father knew Reagan long before he was a Govener. I met him a dozen times or more. I sat in his Chair in his office in Sacramento, he once wished a me a happy birthday, If you would of asked him in 1982 if he knew me, he would have said no. Me? I say I knew him. (kinda like Lay did)

How many people have pictures taken when they meet someone important? They do it as proof of an asscosiation of someone great, It doesnt mean they know each other. show me pisture of them shaking hands maybe having dinner together.

3. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

You can try to spin this however you want, but all you will end up doing is making yourself look ignorant. Because only a fool would fail to see the reality of Saddam’s actions. He had WMDs in 1988. We know this because he used them on his own people. He, at the very least, had plans to develop nuclear weapons in 1991. We know because inspector David Kay found the documentary evidence. In 1995 we found biological fermentation equipment—17 tons of it which has been destroyed and buried in the desert. In 1997 we found further documentary evidence of current chemical/biological activities

*insert 5 pages of quotes from democrats stateing the samething from 1992-2003 here*

2. "We found the weapons of mass destruction."

Which was retracted once it was found to not be so. Since then we have found quite a few things that a reasonable person will recognize as being exactly the type of threats we have been worried about. There is much more to be accounted for.

More will be revealed.

1. "It’s time to restore honor and dignity to the White House."

The Honor has been returned.

You just dont want to see it.

"I did not have sex with that woman" - - lied to the American people and a grand jury, he was going to 'ride it 'til the wheels fell off'. But he got caught. that is lying They are liars, no question about it.

Clintonista's had scandel after scandel and refused to cooperate time after time. We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records that she had control of.

 

[shainaloves]

Re: The Liberals’ Creed

http://www.thebluestate.com/article12-30-03religious.htm

...on February 15, 2000, during a presidential debate in South Carolina, Bush promised, "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum."


http://www.ctj.org/html/bush0800.htm

Most of the proposed tax cuts would go to upper-income taxpayers, with 43 percent of the tax cuts targeted to the top one percent.

Lie.
Dicuss.