More Republican Dishonesty

[bevin]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050424/ap_on_go_co/senate_filibusters

Here we have a leadership Republican...

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was telling conservatives on Sunday that judges deserve "respect, not retaliation no matter how they rule," and he defended his effort to strip Democrats of their ability to block votes on President Bush's court nominees.

---

talking about a serious issue

Quote:

---

Frist also said that the Democrats' filibuster against Bush's nominees was the first time ever that "a judicial nominee with majority support had been denied an up-or-down vote.

---

and simply lying

Quote:

---

Republicans held a Senate majority for six of President Clintons eight years in office and frequently prevented votes on his court appointments by bottling them up in the committee, knowing the nominees would be confirmed if allowed to go to a vote by the full Senate.

One nominee, Richard Paez, a district court judge when he was nominated, waited more than four years before being confirmed to the appeals court.

---

I don't mind honest debate, but why has lying to the American public become a way of life for Republican politicians?

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Sounds like you are grasping at straws...

[there buster]

Quote:

---

why has lying to the American public become a way of life

---

Because perjury is not a crime for a President the left loves.

Besides, I thought everybody lies about sex, er, politics?

[Jeannieb43]

"When Bill Clinton lied, nobody died."

I think Dubya's lies are horrific. Bill C's lies were only to save his family from embarrassment. Totally different, IMHO.

[Dr. Shane]

If you think President Clinton lied to protect his family from embarrassment you missed about two years of news broadcast.

President Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones for sexual harrassment. He not only was accused of asking for oral sex from a subordinate but was accused of threatening her with the loss of employment if she told anyone. That is textbook sexual harrassment.

President Bill Clinton being impreached was a victory for the rule of law. The reason Clinton tried to hide his affair with Monica was because it established a pattern that Paula Jones' lawyers were able to use against him. President Bill Clinton was held to the same standard as any CEO in America would have been had they done the same thing with their subordinates. The only difference is that Bill Clinton was able to use politics to get off with just a slap on the hands by a judge for contempt of court.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I think Dubya's lies are horrific.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I am guessing you refer to the lies that got us into war with Iraq. The radical left believes those were lies. The mainstream left accepts that it was bad intelligence. However the Micheal-Moore/Moveon.org wing of the Democratic Party refuses to concede that Bush honestly believed the intelligence he recieved from the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I think Dubya's lies are horrific.

---

Perhaps you could cite one?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think Dubya's lies are horrific.

---

Perhaps you could cite one?

---

I will give you five....With references...

[:"blue"]The Bush Record: Top 5 Scandals

Scandal #1: Misleading the Nation Into War

In his public speeches leading up the war with Iraq, President Bush insisted that Iraq was developing an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that included biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. No evidence of such programs has been found. According to chief weapons inspector David Kay, "we were almost all wrong," about the Iraqi weapons threat.1 [/] Contrary to Shane's assertion that it was "misinformation", I remember political speaches where the whole administration stated that they "knew where the WMD are"...And NPR did a audio mon-tage [sp] on the administrations slow but sure retreat from this stance. [:"blue"]

Scandal #2: Lying to the Nation During the State of the Union

During his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush claimed, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In March 2002, both the CIA and State Department learned that evidence linking Iraq to the African nation of Niger was unfounded. In October 2002, CIA Director Tenet personally intervened with Condoleezza Rice's deputy National Security Advisor to have the charge removed from Bush's speech to the nation. Rice herself was sent a memo debunking the claim. In January 2003, just days before Bush uttered the false charge in his State of the Union, CIA officials again tried to remove the language, but the White House insisted it remain -- with officials arguing that they had received the information from British sources.2

Scandal #3: Exposing a Covert CIA Agent for Revenge

Ambassador Joseph Wilson publicly disclosed in July 2003 that he had investigated and debunked intelligence linking Iraqi nuclear ambitions to the African nation of Niger. Wilson's investigation concluded in March 2002, nearly a year before Bush made the assertion in his State of the Union address that Iraq sought uranium in Africa. Days after Wilson went public, columnist Robert Novak revealed that his wife was a CIA operative.

The Washington Post reported that "a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." President Bush later told reporters: "I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official...I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is." He claimed he had ordered his staff to "cooperate fully" in the investigation of the leak.3

Scandal #4: Halliburton and Dick Cheney

As the Iraq war began in March 2003, the Pentagon awarded Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), the construction wing of Halliburton, a no-bid contract to help rebuild Iraqi oil fields and conduct "operation of facilities and distribution of products." The initial deal was thought to be worth as much as $7 billion. In postwar Iraq, Halliburton is the largest private contractor, with potential deals totaling over $11 billion.4

While Vice President Cheney served as chairman and chief executive of Halliburton, the company acquired two subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., which had signed contracts to sell oil production equipment to Iraq under the oil-for-food program for more than $73 million.5

The military investigated Halliburton and found that it overcharged for gas it imported into Iraq from Kuwait by as much as $61 million. In March 2003, the Pentagon announced it would withhold nearly $300 million in payments to Halliburton due to the company's overcharging on food contracts. "Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company disagreed with the decision and hoped to persuade the Pentagon to drop its plans."6

In his retirement package from Halliburton, Cheney was granted deferred compensation that paid out his salary from 1999 over a five-year period and his bonus from that year in 2001. Following his departure from Halliburton, Cheney retained possession of 433,333 options of Halliburton stock. The Cheneys announced they were committing the options to three charities. The Congressional Research Service released a report saying that federal ethics laws consider both Cheney's deferred compensation and his unexercised stock options as a lingering financial interest in the company.7

Scandal #5: Lying About Medicare Costs and Threatening Whistleblowers

The Bush Administration relied upon the Medicare drug plan's alleged $400 billion pricetag to win over skeptical conservatives in Congress. Within weeks of the bills passage, however, the White House admitted it had underestimated the cost by $135 billion (35 percent). Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster was threatened with losing his job if he told Congress the true cost. "We can't let that out," Foster recalls Medicare chief Tom Scully telling him. Scully was quoted in June 2003 as saying that he would only release the analysis "if I feel like it."8

Bush said on January 30, 2004, that he first learned of the higher estimates in mid-January. "The president is always very clear with the American people in the decisions that we are making and very upfront with them about the information that we have," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters.

But the New York Time reported that Bush spokesman Trent Duffy "said no White House official had instructed Mr. Foster or Mr. Scully to withhold information from Congress. But Mr. Duffy acknowledged that the actuary's cost estimates had been sent to White House officials, including Doug Badger, a special assistant to President Bush who negotiated with Congress on the Medicare bill."9

Sources: 1Washington Post, 8/10/03; Kay Testimony, 1/28/04; 2Bush State of the Union, 1/28/03; Time, 7/21/03 Issue; Hadley/Bartlett Gaggle, 7/22/03; New York Times, 7/13/03; Washington Post, 7/20/03; National Public Radio, 6/19/03; 3Washington Post, 9/28/03; Bush Media Availability, 10/7/03; 4Los Angeles Times, 5/7/03; Washington Post, 2/10/04; 5Washington Post, 6/23/01; Petroleum Economist, 6/93; 6Associated Press, 2/9/04; Reuters, 2/23/04; Associated Press, 3/17/04; 7"Income: Type and amount," Schedule A, Standard Form 278, Richard B. Cheney Personal Financial Disclosure, May 15, 2002; May 15, 2003; White House Press Release, 4/13/01; Washington Post, 9/26/03; 8Boston Globe, 1/30/04; Los Angeles Times, 1/31/04; New York Times, 3/14/04; Wall Street Journal, 3/15/04; AP, 6/26/03; 9Los Angeles Times, 1/31/04; New York Times, 3/20/04

[/]

[there buster]

Neil stated on another thread that he would no longer be responding to me. I have honored his wishes, and hope he will do so, too.

[Dr. Shane]

Neil's list is just left-wing rhetoric.

Are you familar with the cult followers that all committed suicide when they drank kool-aid together? The cult leader instructed his followers to drink it and they all just followed his lead. Well there are a lot of idealouges out there on both the left and the right that do the same thing. These are what Bill O'Reilly refers to as kool-aid drinkers. They just mindlessly follow whatever their extreamist leaders are saying. I think it is a good description.

Neil's ramblings reveal just such type of behavior. It is just a regurgitation of what extreame leftests are saying. And the odd thing is that these are the same people that got upset about unfounded accusations were made against Clinton. Then when a Republican gets into office they do the same thing that they criticized others for doing. I believe Jesus used the word hypocrits to describe such people.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Neil's list is just left-wing rhetoric.

---

"left-wing rhetoric", eh?

And the newspapers who broke the stories don't mean a thing, do they?

So, it's all about boogie men that the liberals are dreaming up? And when the facts are presented, you attack me...

Gentlemen, your messages are pieces of work that is truely amazing.

When you are ready to really debate issues, post your messages ...Otherwise, you can be ashamed of yourselves for putting up strawmen arguements. In the mean time, the claim of Republican Dishonesty still stands...

[Neil D]

Rice changed terrorism report

Julian Borger

Saturday April 23, 2005

The Guardian

A state department report which showed an increase in terrorism incidents around the world in 2004 was altered to strip it of its pessimistic statistics, it emerged yesterday.

The country-by-country report, Patterns of Global Terrorism, has come out every year since 1986, accompanied by statistical tables.

This year's edition showed a big increase, from 172 significant terrorist attacks in 2003 to 655 in 2004.

Much of the increase took place in Iraq, contradicting recent Pentagon claims that the insurgency there is waning.

Article continues

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, ordered the report to be withdrawn and a new one issued minus the statistics.

A Democratic congressman, Henry Waxman, has written an angry letter about the change to Cameron Hume, the state department's inspector general, arguing that Ms Rice's decision "denies the public access to important information about the incidence of terrorism".

Mr Waxman said: "There appears to be a pattern in the administration's approach to terrorism data: favourable facts are revealed while unfavourable facts are suppressed."

Ms Rice's spokesman, Richard Boucher, denied the change was politically inspired and said Ms Rice had decided the statistics would be better handled by the national counter-terrorism centre.

However, intelligence officials said there were no immediate plans to publish the figures.

The Guardian, a british newspaper

[Dr. Shane]

Look at your sources, Brother Neil. Do you expect anyone that isn't a kool-aid drinker to take you seriously?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Look at your sources, Brother Neil. Do you expect anyone that isn't a kool-aid drinker to take you seriously?

---

You have a problem with the following sources????

[:"blue"]

Sources: 1Washington Post, 8/10/03; Kay Testimony, 1/28/04; 2Bush State of the Union, 1/28/03; Time, 7/21/03 Issue; Hadley/Bartlett Gaggle, 7/22/03; New York Times, 7/13/03; Washington Post, 7/20/03; National Public Radio, 6/19/03; 3Washington Post, 9/28/03; Bush Media Availability, 10/7/03; 4Los Angeles Times, 5/7/03; Washington Post, 2/10/04; 5Washington Post, 6/23/01; Petroleum Economist, 6/93; 6Associated Press, 2/9/04; Reuters, 2/23/04; Associated Press, 3/17/04; 7"Income: Type and amount," Schedule A, Standard Form 278, Richard B. Cheney Personal Financial Disclosure, May 15, 2002; May 15, 2003; White House Press Release, 4/13/01; Washington Post, 9/26/03; 8Boston Globe, 1/30/04; Los Angeles Times, 1/31/04; New York Times, 3/14/04; Wall Street Journal, 3/15/04; AP, 6/26/03; 9Los Angeles Times, 1/31/04; New York Times, 3/20/04 [/]

Why would anyone have problems with Cheney Personal Financial Disclosure??? or the State of the Union???? I can understand the LA Times and Time, but when multiples news organisations are reporting the stories?????

These scandels are facts and the outrageous raping of the american people's trust.

[Dr. Shane]

It is the spin, Brother Neil. You have to get away from the kool-aid table.

You know I use to listen to idealouges too and now when I listen to them I can see right through them. You use the State of the Union as a source yet what he only reported what he was told. And you can't see the spin? The left-wing wackos spin you like a top any you just say, faster faster. What flavor of kool-aid is it today?

[Neil D]

I suppose that what you are refering to is this passage that I copied-

[:"blue"]During his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush claimed, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In March 2002, both the CIA and State Department learned that evidence linking Iraq to the African nation of Niger was unfounded. In October 2002, CIA Director Tenet personally intervened with Condoleezza Rice's deputy National Security Advisor to have the charge removed from Bush's speech to the nation. Rice herself was sent a memo debunking the claim. In January 2003, just days before Bush uttered the false charge in his State of the Union, CIA officials again tried to remove the language, but the White House insisted it remain -- with officials arguing that they had received the information from British sources.2 [/]

IOWs, Shane, Bush is not responsible for what he says in his State of the Union address....

Sorry, Shane, like Ken Lay, he is the CEO, and as such, he is responsible for the course of the company...Even if he is breaking the law to do it....

[Dr. Shane]

If you weren't such a kool-aid drinker you would know that the Brittish government still stands by their story - which our CIA believes is false. Not everything is black and white. Be hesitant before you accuse others and end up bearing false witness yourself.

[Neil D]

All I am doing, Shane, is attempting to understand.

According to WELL Documented sources, Bush, at the time he was giving his STATE OF THE UNION address, knew that what he was telling the American people, was confirmed to be NOT true by both the STate Department and the CIA.

And what you are saying is that the BRitish MI5 says it IS true.

Either he doesn't trust the intelligence services of either the State Department or the CIA [and they are NOT under the same umbrella] or Bush was confused as to the truth of the matter, but he sold it to the American people as if it were true....

Either way, it is a reckless policy to make decisions of this magatude without solid information...Which goes to show that either Bush is a outright liar, or an incompetant fool at the helm of the mightiest nation on Earth....Either way, it is a scary thought....

Now, what were you saying about being a kool-aid drinker?

[Neil D]

Are you directing the question to me [mockingly placing my hands on my hips] or to Shane? [i think it more apppropriate to him, dontcha think? ]

[Neil D]

Of course, while Shane is centering his "thesis" on 'Scandals #1 & 2, we have not discussed the other odious scandles.

[:"red"] Scandal #3: Exposing a Covert CIA Agent for Revenge [/]

In some circles, this is a treasonous act. It is in mine.

[:"red"]Scandal #4: Halliburton and Dick Cheney [/]

Just who does Dick Cheney represent??? Doesn't he work for the American people and not just Halliburton????

[:"red"] Scandal #5: Lying About Medicare Costs and Threatening Whistleblowers [/]

Oh, now here is a whopping scandel that would have cost the taxpayers an additional $135 billion to the $400 billion projected. IOWs it was underestimated and underreported by 35 percent. Not only did the Administration UNDERESTIMATED, but they sought to fire any whistle blower who told the truth about it. They attempted to cover up thier mistakes....

Oooohh, that isn't very Christian of Mr. Bush, now is it?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Neil stated on another thread that he would no longer be responding to me. I have honored his wishes, and hope he will do so, too.

---

Oh, while you can not have a pleasent conversation with me, I will from time to time quote you as it suits me...You have my permission to do the same....And the only reason that I will not have a conversation with you, is because you get nasty in your posts. And I feel that I just don't want to deal with that nastiness....Now, if you ever decide to be more pleasent in your posting to me, I will respond in kind.

[Dr. Shane]

On one hand you claim that Bush shouldn't have believed the CIA (which is obviosuly true) and then you say he should have. Fact is that we have not walked in his shoes. We know Bush was recieving different information from different sources. Would have I said what Bush said? Given the knowledge I have, I have to conclude that I wouldn't have. However I am humble enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. I cannot, in good conscience, boldly claim that he lied regarding the issue, since the Brittish claimed the story was true and still stand by their claim. In actuallity, none of us know for sure if it was true or not.

We need to be much slower to accuse other people of lying. Especially when we don't know the whole story. There is no semen on a blue dress here.

[Dr. Shane]

Have you seen a list of the Clinton scandels? I have. And of all the scandels only one of them amounted to something. Do you know why? More than likely because he was only guilty of one of them. His political enemies stirred the pot a lot to cause him trouble. Now the political enemies of President Bush at doing the same thing. And I am OK with that. Let the accusations be made and let investigations take place. If there be a true scandel it will be discovered and justice will be served. If there is no scandel, nothing will come of it. So far nothing has come of the accusations. I am a little more cautious before I jump on a bandwagon of accusations.

[there buster]

I am content to let others decide who is nasty.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Fact is that we have not walked in his shoes. We know Bush was recieving different information from different sources. Would have I said what Bush said? Given the knowledge I have, I have to conclude that I wouldn't have. However I am humble enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. I cannot, in good conscience, boldly claim that he lied regarding the issue, since the Brittish claimed the story was true and still stand by their claim. [snip] We need to be much slower to accuse other people of lying. Especially when we don't know the whole story. There is no semen on a blue dress here.

---

Technically, no, there is no seman on a blue dress...But actions do speak louder than words. I have given 5 clear irrefutable evidences that Bush and his administration is lying to the public, scandelizing John Q. Public, STEALING from the public, and all you can do is praise the man's christianity and how you can relate to him.

You said that given the circumstances EVEN you would NOT have said what HE did...You see, even your conscience tells you that he is less than what you have claimed him to be and yet you still give him the benefit of the doubt. It would be nice to have the public censor this president. But the republican PR machine is kepting that from happening....With most republicans like Delay and seeking to keep power to themselves, it's no wonder that they can pull the wool over the public's eyes....

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Since he accused you being a 'cool aid' drinker, I was just wondering about your taste! (red or blue, pun intended)

Not sure of what he is talking about...I see nothing wrong with 'cool aid', weak or hard!

---

cool aid is nothing more than sugar water with coloring in it. Frankly, I don't like the stuff.

So, when it comes to my political tastes, I will go with clear water [!], as I like to go with what works and is fair to all. With this adminstration, I see more to complain about than to praise, as they are favoring the businesses and screwing the little man entirely. As of late, with my postings, I guess that makes me a blue cool aid drinker...But concidering that I grew up republian and as I get older, I see more in the democratic values that I favor, it's a wonder that I don't explode from the conflictedness I get from time to time....