The lies of Bush are catching up with him.

[KlatooBNikto]

Those are:

1. He did not win the 2000 or the 2004 elections. Nor did his
chosen mouthpieces like Chambliss, Saxby or Coleman.Every election that consolidated his power was tainted.

2. 9/11 was not executed by Arab terrorists.

3. Saddam Hussein did not have any WMD's.He did not pose any threats
imminent or otherwise to the US or any other country. He may have
been a dictator but he kept order and provided for the essential
needs of his people.

4. There were no connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

5.Al Qaeda, like Osama Bin Laden, is an asset created by the CIA
for disinformation purposes.

6.The number of casualties we have sustained in Iraq are an order of
magnitude greater than what we have been led to believe.

7.This administration has replaced and quite possibly surpassed the
late unlamented Soviet Union as the greatest purveyor of
propaganda on the planet.

8.Its policies are slowly but surely bankrupting this country.

9.It is only a matter of time before Democracy comes to the Middle
East.When that happens, it will be violently anti-American. The leaders of those democratic movements from Egypt, to Saudi Arabia to Pakistan will be independent men not beholden to our corporate oligarchy.

[libhill]

1. I wish you were right

But nothing seems to stick to these assholes, and too many dumb ass Americans worship the ground Shrub walks on -

[Deja Q]

2. I must debate this.

1. 2000 is correct. Nobody worth a damn contested 2004, he immediately conceded instead. Only months later did his corporate wife start whinging.

2. Saudis are not arabs? Osama is not an arab? Where'd they come frm then, Poland?

3. True. The US also helped him out during the 1980s, as we did Afghanistan, to kill the kommies. It's amazing how often we make friends out of future enemies.

4. Also true.

5. Proof? While it's very odd OBL's family and friends were given safe passage out of the US by US officials right after 9/11, this doesn't mean he's a CIA operative.

6. But it's only just started. Nobody cares; especially as the 'latest' news is the same old thing. Apathy induction.

7. We've only just begun. But it's impossible to fool all of the people all of the time, despite the other fact that there's a sucker born every minute.

8. That's slowly but surely started 25 years ago, with no 8 year reprieve worth mentioning.

9. Quite possibly. It's been claimed that before 9/11, the US wanted to build a pipeline in Afghanistan and its leaders refused.

Dunno. It's all talk. But the worst is yet to come.

[neebob]

4. Theresa has never whinged to my knowledge. nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. I love reading your post.

This is a jewel... "Saudis are not Arabs? Osama is not an Arab? Where'd they come from then, Poland?"

:thumbsup:

[blm]

12. If Kerry isn't worth a damn, who is?

If the man who investigated and exposed more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history isn't "worth a damn" to you, then who is? Please set a standard for us, so we can have a point of reference.

Kerry didn't only go up against BushInc he was also up against 90% of the broadcast media who was doing their best to protect Bush and deny Kerry's work and campaign issues.


ANY candidate would have faced that same obstacle. Could they have risen above all the distortions? Could any of them win all 3 debates as decisively as Kerry so not even the mediawhores could spin it away from them? Possibly. Kerry DID. He HAD to. It was his only opportunity to be seen unfiltered.

[libhill]

16. The problem I had

with Kerry and his team, is that they never really went on the attack, never even made a serious effort to counter the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush - Dem's have been making that mistake for years, and it needs to stop - there is sooo much that could be thrown in the faces of the Rethugs, but the Dem's just won't use it to their advantage. The American public doesn't care about issues, all they respond to is rhetoric and negative campaigning.

[blm]

34. They counted on the legitimate press reports to break through the clutter

of the BS.

It didn't. Broadcast cable made sure that the legitimate reports correcting the lies were ignored. Kerry's team failed to recognize the power of the GOP controlled cable news dirt patrol. As if they thought that truth would win out.

Hopefully that will be exposed before the next election.

[sandnsea]

15. #2

One of those things where some people making bizarre accusations that can't be proven hurt more than help.

Kind of like the people who screamed stolen election in 2004, without any proof. Which Teresa has never said publicly either, but has supported election reform because she doesn't trust the equipment. Just as the other Democrats have introduced legislationn to fix the voting problems.

Proof, Bush didn't have it on the WMD. The left doesn't have it on 9/11 MIHOP theories. And nobody has it on stolen elections, to date. It would be nice if we all would adopt legal standards of proof in making political claims.

[KlatooBNikto]

23. With any other administration, I would agree with you.This administration

on the other hand, has gone out of its way to stonewall all investigations. Cheney has "advised" Tom Daschle to not initiate any Senate investigations on 9/11, not once but twice. They were particularly careful not to testify under oath to a handpicked commission on 9/11 that ignored almost all the questions raised by the mothers and widows of 9/11.

i am not sure that this gang deserves a presumption of innocence when it would not even allow prisoners the right to have an attorney present or to hear the charges under which they are held.

[sandnsea]

30. ask the questions

without jumping to sensationalist conclusions, that's all I'm saying.

[BillZBubb]

41. Your suggestion reveals why we always lose.

The Repugs IMMEDIATELY go for the most negative conclusion. They let the media play out their accusations. They force the Democrats to try to explain the facts, which get drowned out.

Just "asking" doesn't cut it. It's soft, it's weak, it's symptomatic of the Democrats. The media won't follow through. They will report on statements made, but not questions asked. You have to make a definitive assertion to get heard.

We Democrats like to have all the facts first. We don't want to make anybody not trust or like us because we don't have the evidence. Meanwhile we get our ASSES KICKED over and over and over by those who know how to move the voters.

To succeed we must ALWAYS draw the most negative conclusion on any issue when confronting the Pugs. Force them to explain all the details--details that people won't listen to. Part of what we stay will stick no matter what.

[sandnsea]

42. No, Republicans state the facts

And lets low level surrogates ask leading questions about what the conclusion might be. Then the candidates only repeat the facts, which reinforces the crazy-ass conclusion.

You will never hear a Republican Party candidate or Party representative repeat the crazy conclusions put out by their surrogates.

[unblock]

26. regarding #1, the original post didn't mention kerry. why did you?

the original post said that it was a bush lie that bush won the 2004 election.

in taking the opportunity to complain about kerry, are you agreeing with the original post that "bush won 2004" was a "bush lie" or are you disagreeing?

and how did you then get to insult teresa as "corporate"? how does this tie back in to any "bush lies"?

[DemonFighterLives]

3. You mean adding up

There is nothing in the country now that shows the lies are catching up to him. Most of the blind followers still believe he is one tough cowboy. Until the media wakes up and does it's job, nothing will stick.
I appreciate the list though.

[libhill]

5. Awww, geez

How can you compare an illegal war,initiated with falsehoods, the deaths of both U.S. troops and innocent Iraqis, the rape of our civil liberties, a stolen election, and numerous other minor atrocities, to what Clinton did? I mean, Clinton got a blow job, which affected no one but himself and his wife - oh, the horror! One really must set ones priorities----

[peekaloo]

6. critical mass.......gonna be a bumpy ride.

[tuvor]

7. Your number 2 is making me wonder what I've missed. n/t

[KlatooBNikto]

8. You have missed nothing .You have swallowed the Bush Psyops.

[tuvor]

10. You mean Arabs had nothing to do with it?

Don't be vague. Enlighten me.

[KlatooBNikto]

13. The only evidence we have so far are what Ashcroft put out. I do not

accept them as the truth.Until we have an independent and impartial investigation, we should accept nothing that this gang puts out.

[Lone Pawn]

14. *sigh* If they were willing to do that, why didn't they

'capture' their plant OBL in June and 'find' Iraqi WMD in September? Both would have given them incredible political capital, and both would have been much easier to pull off than a ridiculously complex, ridiculously hard-to-keep-under-wraps conspiracy involving thousands of compliants and no leaks. Including, of course, the few defectors like Pearle, who exposed all sorts of corruption and incompetence, but denounced such idiocy as ridiculous.

[KlatooBNikto]

18. Read the PNAC document to understand why a spectacular incident

had to be created to get the American population behind them politically.Everything flows from that concept.

[libhill]

19. They used the phrase

"Another Pearl Harbor" for a reason, you know.

[KlatooBNikto]

21. Correct.

[Lone Pawn]

24. The question was why they didn't do those *after* 9/11.

Bush was looking weak in the '04 election, and traditional allies are falling away. A few victories would have greatly pumped up the...

...you know what? Never mind. I just realized that there's no way you'll drop out of your little conspiracy-theorist world. Just recognize that more people than you think have read the documents--and understand them a hell of a lot better than you. 'Everything' does not flow from that line. That was more or less a throw-away line. They said "We need to do X,Y, and Z. But, realistically, Americans won't want that unless there is an attack." That PH line was factual truth. Americans *wouldn't* accept radical change save an attack. But whatever. You'll cherry-pick a dozen coincidences and ignore a million more, and call it a cohesive theory of proof. Just like the Republicans did with Ruby Ridge and Waco and Clinton Killing People. :banghead:

[tuvor]

25. That doen't mean that it's a lie that Arabs executed the attack. n/t

[KlatooBNikto]

28. As I said there is no independent evidence that they did. All the

"evidence" has originated from Ashcroft's Justice Dept. And, you know what he is also part of the PNAC. Nice coincidence?

[tuvor]

32. You haven't backed off from calling it a lie.

If you know it to be a lie, some proof is all I'm asking for.

All you're showing me is absence of proof at best. That's not the same thing.

[Laurab]

43. Do you know it is not a lie

do you have proof? Just asking because something sure is fishy about the whole thing, and the obvious coverup. Perhaps it's a lie, perhaps it's not, but I'm not sure we've seen proof either way.

[Greylyn58]

9. I only hope that you are right

that will be a wonderful thing.

[Lone Pawn]

17. You hope that the world will explode with anti-Americanism?

Jeez.

[libhill]

20. Like

It hasn't already?

[Greylyn58]

22. No....I was agreeing that Bush's lies were

catching up to him. If I misstated my response I apologize.

[BamaBecky]

27. #2 so true.......and even people here at DU don't know it...n/t

[tuvor]

29. Some proof would be nice.

I don't seem to be getting any from the OP.

[BamaBecky]

31. www.karlschwarz.com..........for starters.......n/t

[Lone Pawn]

35. Wow, largely unsourced material with dubious and/or biased sources mixed

in, compiled together by a guy without the slightest idea of what 'page layout' means and hasn't touched the main page since November...certainly a source worthy of such a ridiculously brash claim!

[BamaBecky]

38. unsourced, biased, dubious......go do your homework!!!.....you are

lazy and want people to spoon feed you......clueless

[SeveneightyWhoa]

39. Oh, shut up.

Not believing in ridiculous conspiracy theories with no evidence to actually back them up doesn't make one "lazy", "clueless", or spoon-fed.

[BamaBecky]

45. Stay clueless

Don't do your homework. Keep throwing dirt. The cabal counts on nuts like you. see my post number # 44

you can apologize after you do your homework.

[Lone Pawn]

36. "So true?" You know? Give me proof. And not just a link to some tinfoil

hat homepage. I mean proof nobody could possibly dispute. I mean proof that would hold an once of water, because when you're fighting reality, the burden of proof is on you.

[BamaBecky]

37. Dubious, tinfoil, biased......HaHaHaHa......you guys have a lot of.

reading and studying to do........pleanty of proof....go do your homework!

[SeveneightyWhoa]

40. Please give some evidence..

..as to the assertion that Arabs were not responsible for 9/11.

If it wasn't al Qaeda -- who was it? Who flew those planes? I'd suggest you stop attacking people for not subscribing to your unsubstantiated notions.

[BamaBecky]

44. I suggest the uninformed stop attacking me. Go read Karl's articles

on www.karlschwarz.com "Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble", all six parts. I think that's the best place to start....concerning the posters # 2 assertion. As far as 9/11 being and inside job, Victor Thorn's book "911 on Trial The World Trade Center Collapse". While you are reading, just remember this one thing.....follow the money......the money paid to the Pakistani INS............ the money on the UNMIK flight to Turkmenistan. Now go get busy.

[Arugula Latte]

33. Hey, didn't you read the NYT?

Bush is "impish" and full of fun these days. How dare you focus on anything else?

:eyes: