• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Seattle Times: Bush's high crimes against the nation

Bowfinger

Lifer
Here is an interesting column from Friday's Seattle Times:
Bush's high crimes against the nation

George W. Bush has knowingly deceived the American people on the two overriding policy issues of his presidency ? the invasion of Iraq and the deep tax cuts.

Other presidents have lied. Only Bush has repeatedly duped Congress and the public to thwart their exercise of informed consent.

He is the first president to use propaganda as the main weapon in selling his policies. Bush's unprecedented pattern of deception may constitute an impeachable offense.

[ ... ]

Before the U.S. invasion, the strong consensus based on intelligence community information held that there were only negligible Iraqi ties with al-Qaida, no nuclear weapons program of any consequence, and limited chemical and biological weapons programs at most.

[ ... ]

The experience with the massive tax cuts for families and individuals in both 2001 and 2003 makes patently clear how Bush used the same unscrupulous tactics over time. Moreover, the level of the deception is staggering, as indicated by Bush's 2003 proposal to eliminate taxes on taxable corporate dividends.

Joel Friedman and Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out: "The group with incomes over $1 million ? which consists of about 226,000 tax filers in 2003 ? would receive roughly as much in benefits as the 127 million tax filers with income below $140,000. Stated another way, the top 0.2 percent of tax filers would receive nearly as much from the tax cut as the bottom 95 percent of filers combined."

Claiming that the 127 million tax filers with incomes of under $140,000 are the big winners when 226,000 of the richest tax filers benefit nearly as much is surely world-class policy deception.

[ ... ]
Another voice in the rising chorus against Bush's dishonesty. If this catches on, Bush-lite may join poppa Bush as a one-term president.

Fun to read if you have issues with the Bush administration. A complete waste of time if you're an unabased Bush apologist.

 
It's high time the american press start seriously questioning BUSH. The softballs they throw and limp-dick non-confrontational tone they take with him is undemocratic.

Media Gives Bush a Free Pass
Why americans and press forgive Liar Bush and not Liar Clinton?

The answer is that humans are hard-wired to believe their leaders, especially during times of anxiety and fear. Psychological studies show people are apt to identify with those who make them feel more powerful, says Keating, who studies charisma and leadership. In that sense, we're less likely to criticize a leader if it would make us feel worse about ourselves at a time when we already feel vulnerable. If you doubt Americans feel insecure, consider the duct tape fiasco earlier this year, when the new Department of Homeland Security advised citizens to stock tape and plastic sheeting to seal their homes in case of biological or chemical attacks.

When we're stressed, we also block out more complex thoughts and instead focus on easily assimilated information. It's as though our cognitive reasoning abilities fall asleep and our emotions take over. "Studies show that during those times they are more likely to process information that they have received on a very superficial level," Keating says. Not only are we more apt to support our leaders, then, but we're also not really discerning what we're being told.

The best evidence that the public doesn't make rational judgments during troubled periods is its acceptance of the administration's implication of a link between al-Qaida and Saddam. Though Bush administration officials never provided concrete evidence Saddam was behind the 9/11, they mentioned the two in the same breath often enough for most Americans to believe that there was a legitimate connection. It's almost as though it was a subliminal message -- and if it was, it worked. In a February CNN-Time poll, 76 percent of those surveyed felt Saddam provided aid to al-Qaida and 72 percent thought he was "personally involved" in the September attacks. This misconception served to bolster Bush's contention that Saddam was an immediate threat to the United States. At the end of June, a U.N. group charged with monitoring al-Qaida reported that so far it hadn't found evidence connecting the terrorist group to Saddam's regime.

The tactic of creating a menace to rally the populace around a cause isn't new. "This is the oldest trick in the book for politicians," Keating says, "even if they don't know how it works."

See my sig ...democray or not it does'nt matter.
 
He is the first president to use propaganda as the main weapon in selling his policies.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Another lame ass demoidiot who wants to impeach the president for using "propaganda" to get his tax cut passed. If it wasn't so pathertic it would be funny.

I'm sure you were mesmerized.
 
UQ, can I have the data on the percentages of propagand used by Presidents as opposed to other means used by them. I'm curious so see for myself if Bush was the first to pass the 50% mark and how he compares to the others.
 
Walter Williams is a professor emeritus at the Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, and author of the forthcoming book, "Reaganism and the Death of Representative Democracy."
 
Originally posted by: burnedout
Walter Williams is a professor emeritus at the Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, and author of the forthcoming book, "Reaganism and the Death of Representative Democracy."
And?
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: burnedout
Walter Williams is a professor emeritus at the Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, and author of the forthcoming book, "Reaganism and the Death of Representative Democracy."
And?
Believe me, Mr. Bowfinger, if I have to explain, you nevertheless still would not understand.

 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: burnedout
Walter Williams is a professor emeritus at the Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, and author of the forthcoming book, "Reaganism and the Death of Representative Democracy."
And?

Exactly, if you want to read a preview of what this book might contain I suggest you look here<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/1THE_REAGAN_YEARs.htm">THE REAGAN YEARS:
A Statistical Overview of the 1980s </a>
 
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: burnedout
Walter Williams is a professor emeritus at the Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, and author of the forthcoming book, "Reaganism and the Death of Representative Democracy."
And?
Believe me, Mr. Bowfinger, if I have to explain, you nevertheless still would not understand.
Kind of a cop-out answer, don't you think? Can you offer a persuasive explanation of how you think this is significant, or are you limited to knee-jerk character attacks of anyone you disagree with? You don't even know what the book says. All you have is a title.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: burnedout
Walter Williams is a professor emeritus at the Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, and author of the forthcoming book, "Reaganism and the Death of Representative Democracy."
And?

Exactly, if you want to read a preview of what this book might contain I suggest you look here<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/1THE_REAGAN_YEARs.htm">THE REAGAN YEARS:
A Statistical Overview of the 1980s </a>
I don't know anything about the guy's credentials, but it looks like he did his homework. Interesting site. Thanks for the link.
 
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
He is the first president to use propaganda as the main weapon in selling his policies.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Another lame ass demoidiot who wants to impeach the president for using "propaganda" to get his tax cut passed. If it wasn't so pathertic it would be funny.

I'm sure you were mesmerized.

I didn't see anything about impeachment for propaganda. Where is that bit?

You are making statements that you can't back up with facts. You appear to be talking out of your ass. As usual.

 
I see nothing persuasive about what you said there. Nothing at all. He acted in Iraq according to what he knew at the time. He was nipping the problem at the bud. I also don't see the problem with taxes. They are using the same skewed statistics that democrats always use. What you posted there (about taxes) means nothing at all. Those people with over 1 million dollars in income MAKE MORE!!! Thus they PAY MORE!!! When taxes get cut, theirs get cut more. What's the big deal? Everyone is getting a cut. I suggest you do some research on the subject before you reply because on the tax issue, I am right.
 
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
He is the first president to use propaganda as the main weapon in selling his policies.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Another lame ass demoidiot who wants to impeach the president for using "propaganda" to get his tax cut passed. If it wasn't so pathertic it would be funny.

I'm sure you were mesmerized.

I didn't see anything about impeachment for propaganda. Where is that bit?

You are making statements that you can't back up with facts. You appear to be talking out of your ass. As usual.

As usual you fail to understand plain English. Time to fire whoever's reading to you again?

 
I agree on Iraq but extending the deceitful "pattern of behavior" label to his tax policy triggered a red flag. Williams (who I believe has a column on WND, too) says
Claiming that the 127 million tax filers with incomes of under $140,000 are the big winners when 226,000 of the richest tax filers benefit nearly as much is surely world-class policy deception.
The phrase "big winners" equates to what statements he actually made...? I recall Bush stating his rate cuts would benefit everyone and that's about it. Nothing foul there...?
 
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
He is the first president to use propaganda as the main weapon in selling his policies.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Another lame ass demoidiot who wants to impeach the president for using "propaganda" to get his tax cut passed. If it wasn't so pathertic it would be funny.

I'm sure you were mesmerized.

I didn't see anything about impeachment for propaganda. Where is that bit?

You are making statements that you can't back up with facts. You appear to be talking out of your ass. As usual.

As usual you fail to understand plain English. Time to fire whoever's reading to you again?

I think you'tr the one having trouble reading the article. If you could be impeached for mere propaganda Bush would have been in jail faster than you could say "Patriot Act" or "Iraqi Freedom". As prpagand is part of the problem but the real offenses are fraudulent claims, deception, and manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data.

Now is it that tough for you to come up with something coherent to say? Or is the only defense you can make about these claims some weakass name-calling towards the writer?

 
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
He is the first president to use propaganda as the main weapon in selling his policies.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Another lame ass demoidiot who wants to impeach the president for using "propaganda" to get his tax cut passed. If it wasn't so pathertic it would be funny.

I'm sure you were mesmerized.

I didn't see anything about impeachment for propaganda. Where is that bit?

You are making statements that you can't back up with facts. You appear to be talking out of your ass. As usual.

As usual you fail to understand plain English. Time to fire whoever's reading to you again?

I think you'tr the one having trouble reading the article. If you could be impeached for mere propaganda Bush would have been in jail faster than you could say "Patriot Act" or "Iraqi Freedom". As prpagand is part of the problem but the real offenses are fraudulent claims, deception, and manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data.

Now is it that tough for you to come up with something coherent to say? Or is the only defense you can make about these claims some weakass name-calling towards the writer?

Read the article again stupid. He clearly says that Bush used propaganda to pass his tax cuts and that propaganda is part of a pattern of deception that he wants him impeached for. I'm always surprised at how dense you are but less so as time goes on.

 
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
He is the first president to use propaganda as the main weapon in selling his policies.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Another lame ass demoidiot who wants to impeach the president for using "propaganda" to get his tax cut passed. If it wasn't so pathertic it would be funny.

I'm sure you were mesmerized.

I didn't see anything about impeachment for propaganda. Where is that bit?

You are making statements that you can't back up with facts. You appear to be talking out of your ass. As usual.

As usual you fail to understand plain English. Time to fire whoever's reading to you again?

I think you'tr the one having trouble reading the article. If you could be impeached for mere propaganda Bush would have been in jail faster than you could say "Patriot Act" or "Iraqi Freedom". As prpagand is part of the problem but the real offenses are fraudulent claims, deception, and manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data.

Now is it that tough for you to come up with something coherent to say? Or is the only defense you can make about these claims some weakass name-calling towards the writer?

Read the article again stupid. He clearly says that Bush used propaganda to pass his tax cuts and that propaganda is part of a pattern of deception that he wants him impeached for. I'm always surprised at how dense you are but less so as time goes on.
Exactly. He thinks Bush-lite should be impeached for his pattern of deceiving Americans and Congress to "thwart their excercise of informed consent." Bush's propaganda is one part of his pattern of deception.
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
He is the first president to use propaganda as the main weapon in selling his policies.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Another lame ass demoidiot who wants to impeach the president for using "propaganda" to get his tax cut passed. If it wasn't so pathertic it would be funny.

I'm sure you were mesmerized.

I didn't see anything about impeachment for propaganda. Where is that bit?

You are making statements that you can't back up with facts. You appear to be talking out of your ass. As usual.

As usual you fail to understand plain English. Time to fire whoever's reading to you again?

I think you'tr the one having trouble reading the article. If you could be impeached for mere propaganda Bush would have been in jail faster than you could say "Patriot Act" or "Iraqi Freedom". As prpagand is part of the problem but the real offenses are fraudulent claims, deception, and manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data.

Now is it that tough for you to come up with something coherent to say? Or is the only defense you can make about these claims some weakass name-calling towards the writer?

Read the article again stupid. He clearly says that Bush used propaganda to pass his tax cuts and that propaganda is part of a pattern of deception that he wants him impeached for. I'm always surprised at how dense you are but less so as time goes on.
Exactly. He thinks Bush-lite should be impeached for his pattern of deceiving Americans and Congress to "thwart their excercise of informed consent." Bush's propaganda is one part of his pattern of deception.

The fact that he even brought it up wrt impeachment just proves that he's another shrill moron.

 
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
The fact that he even brought it up wrt impeachment just proves that he's another shrill moron.
Because anyone who disagrees with you is a shrill moron?

 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
The fact that he even brought it up wrt impeachment just proves that he's another shrill moron.
Because anyone who disagrees with you is a shrill moron?

There is no offense Shrubby could commit that UQ would see as impeachable. He could rape UQ's mom right in front of him and anyone calling for accountability would be labeled a "shrill moron". He can't seem to reason anything out so insults are his only recourse.



 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
The fact that he even brought it up wrt impeachment just proves that he's another shrill moron.
Because anyone who disagrees with you is a shrill moron?

No because this "propaganda", which most intelligent people call political rhetoric, is used to pass or defeat every piece of controversial legislation that comes down the pike. It doesn't matter if it's tax cuts, Senate confirmations or health care. If we impeached every person who did it, D.C. would be a ghost town. Hmmmmm . . .

There is no offense Shrubby could commit that UQ would see as impeachable. He could rape UQ's mom right in front of him and anyone calling for accountability would be labeled a "shrill moron". He can't seem to reason anything out so insults are his only recourse.

What exactly is your contribution here? Piggybacking other people's posts to make some inane comment or to ask some obtuse question? If you ever had an original thought both your brain cells would die and your head would probably explode. As to the mom comment, you can go fsck yourself.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
UQ, can I have the data on the percentages of propagand used by Presidents as opposed to other means used by them. I'm curious so see for myself if Bush was the first to pass the 50% mark and how he compares to the others.

Where the Hell's my data, damn it.
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Zebo
Exactly, if you want to read a preview of what this book might contain I suggest you look here<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/1THE_REAGAN_YEARs.htm">THE REAGAN YEARS:
A Statistical Overview of the 1980s </a>
I don't know anything about the guy's credentials, but it looks like he did his homework. Interesting site. Thanks for the link.

Great link.

Going up to the top page :
Welcome to the web site that stands up for liberalism. More than ever before, opponents of liberalism are broadcasting pseudo-science, demagogic politics, crank economics, and think-tank propaganda in easily parrotted sound bites. This site is a gateway to an entire arsenal of liberal studies, statistics and state-of-the-art arguments that refute their myths. Form your own opinions from credible sources such as mainstream scholars and the National Academy of Sciences, and benefit from a more complete picture than you normally find on the mass market.

Nice to see a source of well researched liberal arguments. Even nicer to see a liberal in the U.S. with enough backbone to not run from the label.
 
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
No because this "propaganda", which most intelligent people call political rhetoric, is used to pass or defeat every piece of controversial legislation that comes down the pike. It doesn't matter if it's tax cuts, Senate confirmations or health care. If we impeached every person who did it, D.C. would be a ghost town. Hmmmmm . . .
But you keep fudging the point so you can refute it. Williams is NOT saying Bush should be impeached because of propaganda as you keep repeating. He is saying (and I quote again) Bush-lite should be impeached for his pattern of deceiving Americans and Congress to "thwart their excercise of informed consent." Bush's propaganda is only one part of this pattern of deception.

Do you have a thoughtful reply to what Williams actually said, or will you continue to call him a "shrill moron" based on your misrepresentation of his position?
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
No because this "propaganda", which most intelligent people call political rhetoric, is used to pass or defeat every piece of controversial legislation that comes down the pike. It doesn't matter if it's tax cuts, Senate confirmations or health care. If we impeached every person who did it, D.C. would be a ghost town. Hmmmmm . . .
But you keep fudging the point so you can refute it. Williams is NOT saying Bush should be impeached because of propaganda as you keep repeating. He is saying (and I quote again) Bush-lite should be impeached for his pattern of deceiving Americans and Congress to "thwart their excercise of informed consent." Bush's propaganda is only one part of this pattern of deception.

Do you have a thoughtful reply to what Williams actually said, or will you continue to call him a "shrill moron" based on your misrepresentation of his position?

I'm fudgng nothing. Quote:

He is the first president to use propaganda as the main weapon in selling his policies. Bush's unprecedented pattern of deception may constitute an impeachable offense.

To date, only the deception in Iraq has brought forth the "I" word. The case for impeachment is materially strengthened, however, when Iraq is combined with Bush's 2001 and 2003 propaganda campaigns to convince the public that tax filers with lower levels of income benefited more from his tax cuts than the nation's richest families.

The first sentence first paragraph is clearly revisionist history or outright idiocy. I already gave examples. You choose. Second paragraph, second sentence states that the same "propaganda" materially strenghthens an impeachment case. Pure BS by a shrill moron. Propaganda, or more correctly political rhetoric, is not a high crime or misdemeanor. How many Presidents could we have impeached for that? If he wants to push for an investigation into the whole Iraq affair and an impeachment process based on that fine. But when you start railing that the rhetoric used to pass a tax cut is part of an impeacment process then you are in the "shrill moron" category.



 
Back
Top