October 18th, 2004
I ask, What Liberal Media? If it exists, please point it out… I’m desperately seeking the liberal counterpart to F(au)x News and can’t find any trace of one.
Here’s a clear example of something that should’ve had more traction in the media (from the third presidential debate):
KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.
Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, “Where is Osama bin Laden? ” [Bush] said, “I don’t know. I don’t really think about him very much. I’m not that concerned.”
We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.
SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?
BUSH: Gosh, I just don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. It’s kind of one of those exaggerations.
HOWEVER!
We all know that, in fact, Mr. Bush was OUTRIGHT lying! (Surprise, surprise. Right!?) Well, let’s just think for one second what would have happened if Mr. Kerry had been the one caught in a BLATANT lie like Mr. Bush was.
- Rush and his clones in talk radio would’ve talked themselves to dehydration
- F(au)x News would’ve immediately gone into their SPECIAL ALERT mode
- We would’ve seen all the brand-loyal Republicans beating us all over the head with it
BUT NO! Mr. Bush is caught in a blatant lie and there’s hardly any mention of it. By the way, for those that are not familiar with Mr. Bush’s quote, here it is:
Question: But don’t you believe that the threat that Bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
Of course, every time there’s an attack on our troops in Iraq we hear how the Iraqi insurgents are now increasingly linked to Al Queda and how their local leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is affiliated with Bin Laden. The question must be asked, if Bin Landen had been captured in Afghanistan during the war, and if we had still gone into Iraq, would our troops be seen the same level of resistence that they’re witnessing in Iraq?
—————————————
K.I.A. in Iraq 1101 — regrettably, when I posted the figure about a month and a half ago the count was 932.
October 13th, 2004
There’s something remarkable going on in the “true” conservative wing of the Republican party, and not many are paying attention.
Here are some notable developments of late: President Eisenhower’s son endorsed Mr. Kerry; Mr. Patrick Buchanan, in his latest book, essentially argues that the Republican party has been hijacked; and now, Mr. Bob Barr, of Clinton Impeachment fame, is debating whom he’ll vote for in the upcoming election:
“Now we have the election of 2004. For the first time in my voting life, the choice in the race for president isn’t so clear And, among true conservatives, I’m not alone.
What’s making the contest so difficult? It’s certainly not that both candidates are so conservative that we have a choice of riches. It’s not even that John Kerry is sort of right wing compared to George W. Bush. The incumbent clearly is the more “conservative” of the two.
But the concerns for many conservative voters — concerns that may cause them not to vote for Mr. Bush on Nov. 2 — fall generally into three categories: fiscal, physical (as in the physical security of our nation) and freedom (as in protecting our civil liberties).
When Bush became president Jan. 20, 2001, he inherited an enviable fiscal situation. Congress, then controlled by his own party, had — through discipline and tough votes — whittled down decades of deficit spending under presidents of both parties, so that annual deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars had been transformed to a series of real and projected surpluses. The heavy lifting had been done. All Bush had to do was resist the urge to spend, and he had to exert some pressure on Congress to resist its natural impulses to do the same. Had he done that, he might have gone down in history as the most fiscally conservative president in modern times.”
[...]
“The oft-repeated mantra that “the terrorists made us spend more” rings hollow, especially to those who actually understand that increases in nondefense discretionary spending are not the inevitable result of fighting terrorists. It also irritates many conservatives, whether or not they support the war in Iraq, that so much of defense spending is being poured into the black hole of Iraq’s internal security, while the security of our own borders goes wanting.” [October 12, 2004]
Mr. Barr concludes with:
“Hmmm. Who’s the Libertarian candidate again?”
————————————————-
You may read the full post at: http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=564
October 6th, 2004
True to party line, many Republicans are relying on the “Trial Lawyer” attack line. I’ve already come across comments like, “It’s lawyers like Edwards that make me sick.”
Well, it’s irresponsible lying men, like Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, that have lead our nation into a war under false pretenses. A war that has cost thousands of lives; a war that has cost the hard fought respect of many nations and peoples around the world; a war that has cost billions of dollars to the American people. When placed on a scale, I would rather have an honorable lawyer, like Mr. Edwards, that’s fought for the wrongly injured, as a vice president; rather than the current vice president, whom continues to lie about connections between Al Queda and Iraq simply to justify what is increasingly seen as the wrong war.
October 5th, 2004
In spite of what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are saying at their well orchestrated rallies, I’ve begun to get the sense that the Bush/Cheney ticket’s heart is not in it. Here’s what I mean. During the VP debate there were various moments where Mr. Cheney simply refused to retort or to elaborate on a point; and, in those moments, I sort of got the distinct impression, Hey, this guy’s heart is not in it… he’s just giving up and is not fighting back. In the other hand, Mr. Edwards just kept on going right at Mr. Cheney. Man, Mr. Edwards was relentless.
Do Bush/Cheney simply figure, Hey, we’ve created such a mess that it might just be easier to leave it to someone else to clean up.
October 5th, 2004
During The Vice Presidential Debate, Cheney Said The First Time He Met Edwards Was At The Debate That Night.
During the first vice presidential debate, Vice President Cheney said:
“In my capacity as vice president, I am the president of the senate, the presiding officer, I’m in the senate most tuesdays in session. The first time I met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.”
HOWEVER!
Cheney Thanked Edwards At the National Prayer Breakfast.
Addressing the National Prayer Breakfast, Cheney said:
“Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I honored to be with you all this morning.”
[FDCH Political Transcripts, Cheney Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, 2/1/01]
—————————————
The question then becomes, what other lies have Bush/Cheney told us?
