Latest Bush Ads AGAIN Distort the Truth and Flat-Out Lie

[arsbanned]

"Imminent Threat"

"WMD!"

"DANGER"

"WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE UNLESS WE ATTACK IRAQ"

 

[SuperTool]

don't forget the "Terrists"

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: conjur


Kerry voted to give the President authorization to go to war. That was a negotiating tactic to try and get Saddam to fully cooperate with the inspectors and provide proof that he had fully disarmed. It was not meant as the go-ahead to invade... .

Oh so now its "I voted for it, but I didn't mean it." I'll try and remember that.

 

[Kappo]

omg! you mean *gasp* that *gasp gasp* someone, anyone doesn't tell the truth in political campaigns?!?!?!?!?!

Where the hell have you been for the last 100 years.

 

[Summitdrinker]

isn't much of Bush's whole life a lie?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Summitdrinker
isn't much of Bush's whole life a lie?

Only if you believe in the propaganda you are spoon fed.

Just as much of Kerry?s life has been all about building a political career... If you believe the propaganda that's freely available to you.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Kappo
omg! you mean *gasp* that *gasp gasp* someone, anyone doesn't tell the truth in political campaigns?!?!?!?!?!

Where the hell have you been for the last 100 years.

And yet, people support these "men" and promote them as leaders.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Bush told the intelligence services to look for a reason to invade Iraq only a few days after 9/11, and so they did. He wasn't really deceived by them, he didn't care what the reason was as long as he could attack.

 

[AEB]

Big surprise? no, there was an article in my local paper about this. BOTH parties ad;s have been full of lies, if you expect any politician to be honest with you then i have a bridge in VA i can sell you. Seriously tho both canidates take something that may have a small bit of truth and totally disort it

We should know bush's ad cant be real becasue kerry has never taken a firm stance on anything.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: AEB
Big surprise? no, there was an article in my local paper about this. BOTH parties ad;s have been full of lies, if you expect any politician to be honest with you then i have a bridge in VA i can sell you. Seriously tho both canidates take something that may have a small bit of truth and totally disort it

We should know bush's ad cant be real becasue kerry has never taken a firm stance on anything.

Yet another lie.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Kappo
omg! you mean *gasp* that *gasp gasp* someone, anyone doesn't tell the truth in political campaigns?!?!?!?!?!

Where the hell have you been for the last 100 years.

Nice logic there.

So if the terrorists attack again we should just ignore them, 'cause that's what they do- they murder innocent civilians! So what's the point in addressing the issue? They're just doing what they've always been doing. :roll:

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: Helenihi
factcheck.org is an interesting website. It also lists lies in Kerry and anti-Bush ads as well. But I'm sure there's a certain element out there that will pretend that part of the website doesn't exist, or that its somehow biased when it comes to those articles, but unbiased about the Bush ones.

The sad thing is, there should be no need for a factcheck.org. But since there is and there are so many lies from both sides, perhaps they should stop ads alltogether and have bi-weekly debates from now until November. Funny how you can't lie in an ad about your competitors product, like Wendy's saying that Micky D's are made from dog meat. There are regulations against that kind of distortion. However, this same fair practice does not and probably will never extend to campain ads. Nice country we live in.

Put both of their asses in a REAL spotlight for a few hours every month and let the cream rise to the top.

 

[conjur]

I'm all for multiple debates.

Start them NOW!

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: leeboy

Originally posted by: Helenihi
factcheck.org is an interesting website. It also lists lies in Kerry and anti-Bush ads as well. But I'm sure there's a certain element out there that will pretend that part of the website doesn't exist, or that its somehow biased when it comes to those articles, but unbiased about the Bush ones.

The sad thing is, there should be no need for a factcheck.org. But since there is and there are so many lies from both sides, perhaps they should stop ads alltogether and have bi-weekly debates from now until November. Funny how you can't lie in an ad about your competitors product, like Wendy's saying that Micky D's are made from dog meat. There are regulations against that kind of distortion. However, this same fair practice does not and probably will never extend to campain ads. Nice country we live in.

Put both of their asses in a REAL spotlight for a few hours every month and let the cream rise to the top.

Cream? Hah! In this case it will be trying to dredge up the lighter of the sludges that sit on the bottom of the barrel.

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm all for multiple debates.

Start them NOW!

Hell, if they put some sort of Reality TV spin on the thing, people would tune in en mass. Let Jeff Probst be the moderator one week, Al Franken the next, Rush the following, Jon Stewart, Dennis Miller, Bill Maher.... that would be a freaking hoot!

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: leeboy

Originally posted by: Helenihi
factcheck.org is an interesting website. It also lists lies in Kerry and anti-Bush ads as well. But I'm sure there's a certain element out there that will pretend that part of the website doesn't exist, or that its somehow biased when it comes to those articles, but unbiased about the Bush ones.

The sad thing is, there should be no need for a factcheck.org. But since there is and there are so many lies from both sides, perhaps they should stop ads alltogether and have bi-weekly debates from now until November. Funny how you can't lie in an ad about your competitors product, like Wendy's saying that Micky D's are made from dog meat. There are regulations against that kind of distortion. However, this same fair practice does not and probably will never extend to campain ads. Nice country we live in.

Put both of their asses in a REAL spotlight for a few hours every month and let the cream rise to the top.

Cream? Hah! In this case it will be trying to dredge up the lighter of the sludges that sit on the bottom of the barrel.

That's the beauty of the concept. There will be no hiding from who the both really are. I think come November, we would all be ready to vote Nadar

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm all for multiple debates.

Start them NOW!

Hell Yeah!! And not the eviscerated, tightly constrained pseudo "photo ops" we've had recently, but REAL DEBATES. You know, the kind where the two debating parties can actually address each other, challenge each other, and must respond to each other in a non-scripted format.

With such a real debate, neither candidate could simply waltz through on simple pre-scripted replies.

Bush would be SO exposed.

Let's do it!

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm all for multiple debates.

Start them NOW!

Hell Yeah!! And not the eviscerated, tightly constrained pseudo "photo ops" we've had recently, but REAL DEBATES. You know, the kind where the two debating parties can actually address each other, challenge each other, and must respond to each other in a non-scripted format.

With such a real debate, neither candidate could simply waltz through on simple pre-scripted replies.

Bush would be SO exposed.

Let's do it!

In Bush's case, would Cheney have to be present?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm all for multiple debates.

Start them NOW!

Hell Yeah!! And not the eviscerated, tightly constrained pseudo "photo ops" we've had recently, but REAL DEBATES. You know, the kind where the two debating parties can actually address each other, challenge each other, and must respond to each other in a non-scripted format.

With such a real debate, neither candidate could simply waltz through on simple pre-scripted replies.

Bush would be SO exposed.

Let's do it!

In Bush's case, would Cheney have to be present?

lozina, you know you can't pull out your Dick on network TV.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm all for multiple debates.

Start them NOW!

Hell Yeah!! And not the eviscerated, tightly constrained pseudo "photo ops" we've had recently, but REAL DEBATES. You know, the kind where the two debating parties can actually address each other, challenge each other, and must respond to each other in a non-scripted format.

With such a real debate, neither candidate could simply waltz through on simple pre-scripted replies.

Bush would be SO exposed.

Let's do it!

In Bush's case, would Cheney have to be present?

lozina, you know you can't pull out your Dick on network TV.

:laugh: :laugh:

You bastard!! I have soup on my keyboard now!!!!!!

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Kappo
omg! you mean *gasp* that *gasp gasp* someone, anyone doesn't tell the truth in political campaigns?!?!?!?!?!

Where the hell have you been for the last 100 years.

Nice logic there.

So if the terrorists attack again we should just ignore them, 'cause that's what they do- they murder innocent civilians! So what's the point in addressing the issue? They're just doing what they've always been doing. :roll:

Actually, you can "address the issue" as much as you want. You sure won't do anything about it. I haven't ever heard anyone say "wow those negative ads on television sure are nice! I wish we had MORE!". No one likes them. They come from both parties. Always have, always will.

And N0c,

You suggesting that we just shouldnt vote? Since every single election I have ever been witness to has had these types of ads, again from both sides, does that mean no one should vote for anyone? Or should we form a dictatorship and stop elections altogether simply because of the ads on television?

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Helenihi
The CIA didn't tell Bush that the case for WMD in Iraq was "A Slam Dunk?"

Can you show me where the CIA said this? I'm not saying you are wrong, I just seem to have missed hearing it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Helenihi
The CIA didn't tell Bush that the case for WMD in Iraq was "A Slam Dunk?"

Can you show me where the CIA said this? I'm not saying you are wrong, I just seem to have missed hearing it.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/tenet.tm/

But Tenet wouldn't confirm whether he told President Bush before the war that evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons-of-mass-destruction arsenal was a "slam dunk," as reported in Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack. The panel last week sent Tenet the several-hundred-page report -- minus its conclusions -- for a declassification review

Woodward had unprecedented access to an administration in the making of his book. Also, the Bush administration has actually recommended people to read the book (not sure why, it certainly shows the feuding going on between Powell, the pragmatist, and Rumsfeld, the neocon chickenhawk)

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Kappo
omg! you mean *gasp* that *gasp gasp* someone, anyone doesn't tell the truth in political campaigns?!?!?!?!?!

Where the hell have you been for the last 100 years.

Nice logic there.

So if the terrorists attack again we should just ignore them, 'cause that's what they do- they murder innocent civilians! So what's the point in addressing the issue? They're just doing what they've always been doing. :roll:

Actually, you can "address the issue" as much as you want. You sure won't do anything about it. I haven't ever heard anyone say "wow those negative ads on television sure are nice! I wish we had MORE!". No one likes them. They come from both parties. Always have, always will.

The point is, if you are just complacent and don't voice your disaproval, then of course nothing will be done. If people were like you and just joked "*gasp* DDT a harmful chemical that may has environmental side effects and health hazards? Where the hell have you been for the last 30 years"
then maybe we'd still be using DDT today.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Helenihi
The CIA didn't tell Bush that the case for WMD in Iraq was "A Slam Dunk?"

Can you show me where the CIA said this? I'm not saying you are wrong, I just seem to have missed hearing it.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/tenet.tm/

But Tenet wouldn't confirm whether he told President Bush before the war that evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons-of-mass-destruction arsenal was a "slam dunk," as reported in Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack. The panel last week sent Tenet the several-hundred-page report -- minus its conclusions -- for a declassification review

Woodward had unprecedented access to an administration in the making of his book. Also, the Bush administration has actually recommended people to read the book (not sure why, it certainly shows the feuding going on between Powell, the pragmatist, and Rumsfeld, the neocon chickenhawk)

So it was in information that a book author was allowed to read, but is too sensitive for the Senate Intelligence Committee to read?

Wow.