We need an ad campaign that asks "Is George Bush an alien?" with cool cuts to grainy UFO images and toothless farmers talking about strange lights at night over the Crawford ranch.

These would be just as honest as the MAF crap, and probably just as effective.

Not that I want to defend this group, because they are awful, but Gray Davis is one of the most despicable people in the Democratic Party, and he deserved everything he got. The fact that Arnie won the governor's seat is unfortunate, but Davis got his just dessert.

But the Swift Boat guys had "truth" in their name, therefore we must believe them.

Steve Benen: It's an effective page from the far-right playbook.

That's the page called "The Big Lie" and it's right out of the Nazi playbook.

It requires a suspension of belief that makes I.D. look Darwinish to disbelieve in WMD.

Am I the only one who remembers MoveOn not being able to air certain ads because their factual accuracy was questioned?

Why will the MSM run lies like this, but question ads from the left side of the spectrum?

Yeah, but there's a big difference between this and the Swift Boat lies.

The Swift Boar lies weren't ALREADY refuted by the MSM, and by essentially all politicians, and in the eyes of the public, BEFORE they even launched their fabrications.

Now the public already knows that those WMD don't exist -- even Bush acknowledges THAT, for Christ's sake.

So where are they going with this crazyass shit? This is obviously meant for a very narrow, carefully targetted audience of screaming loonies.

It's like playing "whack-a-mole" discussing anything with these nutbars nazi repukes. They say something. You say "That's a lie". They change what they are saying to ANOTHER lie. You say, "That's a lie." They go back to saying the FIRST lie, and so it goes. They CYCLE through the lies, and you have to keep hitting them, one after another.

ugh,

Remember Xmas in Cambodia? How can you forget?

John F. Kerry had EVERY SINGLE fact wrong. Some ephinany!

Aren't there standards for truthtelling in advertising? Or do they not apply to political ads?

If no, they certainly should. Someone needs to come up with satire counter-ads to be run in the same markets, quick. Nothing would get more attention than countering outrageous lies with outrageous humor.

Am I the only one who remembers MoveOn not being able to air certain ads because their factual accuracy was questioned?

Another lie. WHACK

There is no even-handed approach here, because the nazi nutbar repukes are the liars, and the Dems are not.

The Dems are not lying.

Or at the very least some ads made up of recent Bush clips where he "takes responsibility" for the problems with pre-war intelligence.

I certainly don't blame the rnc for doing this sort of thing. The gross stupidity of the American public is the equivalent of an "attractive nuisance". Republican leaders would be fools themselves for not taking advantage of American stupidity.

Well, except for the fact that the republican leadership has acted for the last 30 years to ensure the existence of a idiotic electorate... That fact makes it just like an echo chamber...

The correct response, if one is to look at least at Karl Rove's successes, is to attack the messenger. Refuting the facts of the allegations fuels newspaper coverage.

Who are the individuals connected with this group? Do any of them have criminal records?

There obviously is a link to Bush and the RNC, and if not, assert one.

Follow the money. Can any of it be associated with KKK or pro-Nazi sentiment? Ask this question loudly and often.

Does anyone associated with the group have a history of mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, or bankruptcy?

Which advertising agency produced the commercials? What are its associations?

What stations are accepting the commercials? Can at least one be found that will refuse blatantly false claims?

Produce counter-ads, emphasizing the sleazy background of the group. Again, if the background isn't sleazy, say so anyway.

Frame the debate around the credibility of the right-wing front group that purchased the spots.

Nazis, huh? Don't have an argument, so you liberulz resort to Godwinning THREE times in ten posts?

Of course, your denials of Saddam's WMD just proves he has them. All you have to do is have someone argue the Democrat side on TV, and the public will know you're lying.

There's the truth side, and there's the Democrat side.

frankly0

The MSM is your problem. Their credibility is in the toilet. They said the SBVs were wrong. These are the frauds that brought us Dan Rather and TANG. You just knew the SBVs had to have some credibility.

If you are going to send money to Moveon.org how can you bitch about Move forward? Not only are you hypocrites but you are exceedingly stupid hypocrites. Moveon.org has been a disaster since day one. I suspect they get more financial support for the RNC than the DNC.

I love the bit about "newly found Iraqi documents" proving that there were WMDs. So, we can't find the physically real, provable WMDs, but these documents "prove" that they are there.

Because, after all, documents can't be, uh, forged or anything.

Nothing would get more attention than countering outrageous lies with outrageous humor.

Absolutely 100% correct.

This is the old Nazi technique of the Big Lie. The bigger the lie, the more likely people are to believe it.

Saddam had no WMD. Saying that he did is a big lie, and right out of the Nazi-commie-dictator-1984 playbook.

You fascist nazi nutbars stop lying, and we will stop calling you nazis. That goes for you, tbrosz, you nazi.

Shouting louder doesn't make you any less wrong. Liberal.

Of course, your denials of Saddam's WMD just proves he has them.

C'mon, tbrosz. That's just weak.

Even Bush's boys have acknowledged that there were no WMD. Is MAF calling them liars, too?

There's a real disconnect going on when MAF takes two groups of people saying the same thing,/i>, and calls half of them liars while maintaining the other half is telling the truth.

Could you explain to me how that works?

December 28, 2005

CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Bush didn't lie!

On Nov. 20, the Tribune began an inquest: We set out to assess the Bush administration's arguments for war in Iraq. We have weighed each of those nine arguments against the findings of subsequent official investigations by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee and others. . . . After reassessing the administration's nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege.

Read the whole thing.

Looks like Move Forward is doing even better than Steve is Reporting

MJ,

have you been channeling Dan Rather?

"Saddam had no WMD" is just a THEORY. And we all know that theories aren't facts.

The science is still out on this one, folks. Move along, nothing to see here.

This is the old Nazi technique of the Big Lie.

But really, given how no one in a position of responsibility can POSSIBLY get behind this lie, it's really the Wee Lie.

It's going nowhere. It's all Black Helicopter. They should hand out tin foil hats for proper viewing, like the dork glasses for 3D movies.

This one may well backfire bigtime. I think a solid majority of the public is aware that no WMD was ever found, and that no ties to al Qaeda were ever confirmed. What these ads will do is get the public talking about all of this again, thus leading to even the most dimwitted discovering that Bush lied to them.

That won't go over well for Bush or his more vocal Congressional supporters. Indeed, it may well help drive Bush's approval ratings below 30%--Nixon territory--and make calls for impeachment nigh unto irresistible.

Man, scary stuff, real Nazi stuff. Its a propaganda machine. Why are people even listening for a moment?

"We are only putting the jews/gypies/homos into camps because they have no place to live. They are comfortable there. Trust us."

I think orgs like this have hit upon a human weakness, the need to believe aside from all evidence to the contrary.

This group is pretty brazen. Its TV ad (Windows media player) refers to "documents" "reported" by CNS (Conservative News Service, run by ancient liar Brent Bozell.)

The ad implies that the "documents" can be seen at moveamericaforward.org, but they can't. If you search "anthrax" at cnsnews.com, you'll find the "documents" in one of a series of stories published in October 2004; yes, just before the last election.

By now, of course, the "cover-up" they're alleging, by persons "willing to undermine support for the war on terrorism to selfishly advance their shameless political ambitions," would have to involve higher-ups in the Bush administration, wouldn't it? Yet for some reason, that doesn't seem to bother the Moveamericaforwards. As I said, pretty brazen.

Oh, FWIW: the Abdul Qader Jassim mentioned in the story at least used to be an Iraqi general. He was identified as such in an unrelated Reuters story late last year.

frankly0,

That audience of screaming loonies isn't narrow, nor need it be carefully targeted. The PR bruises suffered by the GOP this year have only demoralized their supporters, not turned them. There is still no significantly rising support for the Democratic party replacing GOP discouragement.

Thus any election in the near future is entirely spinnable at this point.

MICKEY KAUS: John Murtha saved Bush's presidency!

By Mickey Kaus
Updated Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2005, at 4:44 AM ET

Charlie Cook (in his weekly email) has identified the person responsible for Bush's bounceback. It's the same figure credited by J.Po a few weeks ago. But Cook puts the case with exceptional clarity:

While few, if any, would question the right of Rep. John Murtha ... to call for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, or say he was acting for reasons of political expediency rather than principle, in retrospect, his move might have been strategically helpful to the president.

Prior to Murtha's well-publicized speech advocating an early withdrawal, the spotlight had been on the Bush administration's use of intelligence that led to the decision to go to war, with some questioning whether the administration either lied, fabricated or exaggerated evidence used to justify the United States' action.

Murtha's speech changed the debate, away from whether we should have invaded Iraq and whether the use of intelligence to make that decision was flawed toward the more problematic issue of "what do we do now?"

We are what, 4 years removed from the decision to go to war and you still want to have that debate? Well Yes! Since you have nothing to offer except retreat and defeat there's nothing else for you talk about. BORRRRRRRIIIIINNNGG!

"I hold in my hand a list of known Communists in the American Government!"

There are no documents, just like Joe McCartney had no list.

So, the only question of journalistic interest should be, "who are these guys telling these lies? Who are they working for? How did they get airtime? Where the heck did they get this big pile of money from?"

That's newsworthy. The lies themselves aren't--it's where those lies come from and why they won't die even though they've been proven false.

rdw: On Nov. 20, the Tribune began an inquest: We set out to assess the Bush administration's arguments for war in Iraq. We have weighed each of those nine arguments against the findings of subsequent official investigations by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee and others. . . . After reassessing the administration's nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege.

Since there has been no findings on the issue of whether the administration misled the country with regard to the war, this is simply a flat out lie.

Typical for both you and the Tribune, rdw.

And you are still lying about Kerry, I see.

Well, Move Forward simply confirms what we've known all along: conservatives SOP is to lie, lie, lie.

Wall Street Journal Fails to Set Record Straight

I reviewed the WSJ article and in similar fashion to the Swift Boat coverage, the journalists are carefull not to contradict MoveAmerica Forward. While the WSJ authors raise issues, they refuse to call a spade a spade and fail to put forward the consensus belief that what the group is offering is falsehoods. This type of he said/she said coverage is what makes such groups potentially effective.

The Wall Street Journal fails the public in this story in failing to highlight the fact that not only is the Bush Administration not making these claims but the facts simply dont support their position. Instead the WSJ includes lengthy uncontradicted quotes that appear to give their false claims legitimacy.

e.g.
"The White House has really done a poor job of getting the message out, which is why we've had to step into the breach," says California-based Republican political strategist Sal Russo, one of the group's three founders. "They should do a better job of coordinating with those willing to get out and tell the story. We shouldn't be the only ones out here fighting."

The Wall Street Journal should do a better job of getting out and telling the real story - that this group is spewing mendacious and revisionist history. The Wall Street Journal in this article fails to do so.

Chicago Tribune Reports Circulation and Readership Results

Sunday Circulation Up in 3rd Quarter; Improved Daily and Sunday Circulation Over Prior Periods

The newspaper also reported that readership of the Chicago Tribune among adults in the market remained stable at approximately 1.8 million weekday readers and 2.7 million Sunday readers.*

I think your focus on WMDs ran its course two years ago. This editorial will of course be cited on all the blogs as well as Foxnews and TalkRadio. It will not be cited in the NYTs, ABC or on Air America. At least 35M listeners will be exposed to this editorial. There might be 145 readers who are aware of Move Forward.

Your hair is on fire. You can't win.

I reviewed the WSJ article and in similar fashion to the Swift Boat coverage, the journalists are carefull not to contradict MoveAmerica Forward.

I did the same thing and there is not one mention that this is disputed, let alone an outright lie.

When did Rupert buy the WSJ?

wishIwuz2,

Why do I think that this move can't possibly work?

Simply because NO ONE in a position responsibility can back up these claims -- no significant politician, no media outlet, nobody that anybody with half a mind would listen to. And, unlike the Swift Boat lies, such people, including Bush himself, cannot avoid the issue. They can't simply say, oh we have no idea whether the claims of WMDs is true or not -- they are by their position required to have something to say about the issue.

Suffice it to say, such things count.

(On the other hand, Republican politicians could easily refuse comment on the Swift Boat lies, because they did NOT have to know anything about them. They could simply let those lies take their merry course, affecting not to care.)

Now I don't know how many people might be taken in by such a campaign. I'm sure if you love Rush Limbaugh, you are ripe for the cretin harvest here. But it's not going to win any elections, that's for damn sure. It's just the nutjob on nutjob mindfuck.

The ad says that you can view the documents at the website. Try to find them. I sure couldn't.
Surprise?

Move Forward America is using a strategy that has been used very effectively by a left-wing organization - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA, however, is more effective at the strategy. They create a controversial ad and schedule it for a single TV ad spot. The TV station then refuses to run it at all and PETA screams that it is being censored. The MSM picks up the story and PETA runs the ad on its web site where it gains far more attention that it would have otherwise. Where PETA is more effective is that it doesn't have to pay for the TV spot because the ad isn't accepted by the TV station.

From the linked WSJ article:

ndeed, Ms. Morgan says she is baffled that the White House no longer makes the case that Mr. Hussein had WMDs. The White House dropped the claims after a variety of investigators found no evidence to substantiate them. But Ms. Morgan says her ads are justified, based on documents given to her in Iraq by an Iraqi general she identified as Abdul Qader Jassim, and on information from U.S. officials involved in the hunt for weapons there. She believes Mr. Hussein possessed WMDs, and that those weapons remain in Iraq today. It couldn't be ascertained that Mr. Jassim is a general and he couldn't be reached for comment.

Look, idiots, you want to demonstrate that there are WMD in Iraq?

FUCKING PRODUCE THEM!

Really, does "Put up or shut up" mean nothing to these cretins, not even 2 1/2 years AFTER we have invaded Iraq, and have full access to EVERYTHING in Iraq, and would richly reward anyone who would prove WMD exist?

How delusional can these people be?

Really, do we have to have this argument? I feel like a fool even stooping to try to refute it.

Advocate,

Did you even link to their website? I hardly think the Chicago Tribune is a tool of Move Forward and in any event they don't dispute the lack of WMDs. They are clear GWB did not lie.

The fatal problem for you isn't Move Forward but publications realizing they have to guard their credibility or go the way of CBS News and the NYT's. In his age of the internet and search engines stupid MSM lies are exposed almost immediately. Two points to consider about Dan Rather. It was less than 2 hours there were serious credible doubts on the story. Within 12 it was proven a pathetically inept fraud. Wihtin 24 it was a global story getting 500x's the exposure as a fraud it could ever have received if it was honest.

Few newspapars cannot afford to light their hair on fire. They have to deal with facts or they will deal with ridicule and lost business.

rdw, you're simultaneously arguing that the "WMD argument ran its course" and yet at the same time push forward the WMD-lies of a bunch of right-wing shills.

Also, I find it consistently amusing how when you're given a scratch, you devolve into a raving lunatic. It's pretty amusing how your side has to retreat to repeating the same set of bull that had already been disproven years ago in order to bolster your case. When you stop mindlessly defending Bush on Iraq, give us a call. Till then, no one wants to hear your lunatic rantings. You were far more entertaining when you were claiming that "Titanic" was great storytelling and how no one was going to watch a movie with gay characters.

I think maybe RDW should have read the very first paragraph of the Tribune editorial. The one that goes like this:

Did President Bush intentionally mislead this nation and its allies into war? Or is it his critics who have misled Americans, recasting history to discredit him and his policies? If your responses are reflexive and self-assured, read on.(emphasis mine)

The editorial -- because that's what it is, a clearly marked editorial and not a news story -- isn't exactly exculpatory for the Bushies:

In measuring risks to this country, the administration relied on the same intelligence agencies, in the U.S. and overseas, that failed to anticipate Sept. 11, 2001. We now know that the White House explained some but not enough of the ambiguities embedded in those agencies' conclusions. By not stressing what wasn't known as much as what was, the White House wound up exaggerating allegations that proved dead wrong.

alcoholism, drug abuse, or bankruptcy?
Besides the president?

Dan Rather, Dan Rather, hair on fire, SBV are honest and not completely full of shit.

Why does everyone here think I'm a moronic nutcase?

Here's the portion of the Chicago Tribune editorial relevant to WMD:

Biological and chemical weapons

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

The Bush administration said Iraq had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Officials trumpeted reports from U.S. and foreign spy agencies, including an October 2002 CIA assessment: "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions."

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

Many, although not all, of the Bush administration's assertions about weapons of mass destruction have proven flat-out wrong. What illicit weaponry searchers uncovered didn't begin to square with the magnitude of the toxic armory U.S. officials had described before the war.

THE VERDICT

There was no need for the administration to rely on risky intelligence to chronicle many of Iraq's other sins. In putting so much emphasis on illicit weaponry, the White House advanced its most provocative, least verifiable case for war when others would have sufficed.

PLease explain to me rdw, how THIS editorial backs up the delusions of these people at Move America Forward? Why even bring this editorial up as though it supports them rather than undermines them?

As I said, NO media outlet of any significance will back up these crackpot conspiracy theorists.

Oh, and an editorial from a newspaper with a large readership--rock solid support for my insane ramblings.

This is utter bullshit. In a way, these boils on the backside of democracy are worse than the Swifties...It seems that the sole purpose of the MA-F'ers is to push right-wing agenda items.

More background information on MAF, courtesy of various sources:

The website "www.moveamericaforward.com" is run by a PR firm out of San Francisco. Russo Marsh & Rogers is a political public relations firm (actually, admitted political consultants) with strong ties to the GOP. Sal Russo, a principle in Russo Marsh & Rogers, is listed on the MAF site as the 'Chief Strategist'.

Listed on the the Russo Marsh & Rogers website are other campaigns it claims to have performed work for, boasting of clients "ranging from County Supervisor to President of the United States", also the campaigns of Alfonse D'Amato and George Pataki.

So while it's reported that there is no direct contact between the MA-F'ers and the RNC (or operating as independent from the Republican Party establishment, as written in the NYT article), I doubt that the Chinese wall is working with any degree of integrity.

'Scuse...WSJ, not NYT, as I cited earlier.

Ah, Wootten The Witless has returned - Hope the transfer from Fairmount to Friends will help settle your feverish mind. Glad to see that they let you keep your Schaife laptop.

Enjoy the therapy. There is a rumor that they have hired Frau Bleucher for acting out role playing. She might become your "Schatzie".

rdw

You and the Trib are spinng pretty hard here. let's lok at some quotes:

"But by stripping its rhetoric about Iraq and Al Qaeda of the ambiguity in the intel data, the White House exaggerated this argument for war."

Not sure how exagerration is substantially different from lie.

And more:

"There was no need for the administration to rely on risky intelligence to chronicle many of Iraq's other sins. In putting so much emphasis on illicit weaponry, the White House advanced its most provocative, least verifiable case for war when others would have sufficed."

"The drumbeat of White House warnings before the war made Iraq's terror activities sound more ambitious than subsequent evidence has proven. Based on what we know today, the argument that Hussein was able to foment global terror against this country and its interests was exaggerated."

"No compelling evidence ties Iraq to Sept. 11, 2001, as the White House implied. Nor is there proof linking Al Qaeda in a significant way to the final years of Hussein's regime. By stripping its rhetoric of the ambiguity present in the intel data, the White House exaggerated this argument for war."

Lots of exagerations for an Amdinistration that was not engaged in a pattern of misleading the public. And that's just the summary. If you go into the individual articles, you can find examples of the Administration being caught saying one thing while ignorining stronger counter evidence or speaking out of both sides of its mouth in an apparent attempt to provide cover for their more outraeous statements.

And, frankly, a lot of this is puff. They declare that Bush was right that Iraq couldn't be as a risk. That's a matter of opinion, not of fact, but they treat it so.

Read, next time rdw.

this is stupid.

there were no wmds.

bush said so.

on national tv.

like, three weeks ago.

isn't he in charge of all this?

The truth of the allegations is utterly irrelevant -- simply by making them, and making them a subject of discussion (again), they move the goalposts -- and thus the center of the playing field.
Polls between August and election day of 2004 had large numbers (I think it might have been a majority, but don't remember and too lazy to google) saying that there was something funny about Kerry's war record... Was he exaggerating? A war criminal? Totally lying? Didn't matter -- his cred, and one of the major selling points of his candidacy were still damaged.
These ads do not necessarily need actually to convince anyone of their truth -- fools who fall for obvious nonsense like this are just the icing. The cake is that they need only further muddy the waters, and reduce what had, up til now, been a steady drop in the numbers of people willing to believe that Saddam had WMDs and not only ties to AQ, but direct invovlement in 9/11.
Thus they will have done their job.

John F. Kerry had EVERY SINGLE fact wrong. Some ephinany! Posted by: rdw

There's the truth side, and there's the Democrat side. Posted by: fake tbrosz

Black is white and up is down DAMMMITTTT!!!!

U stupid liburulz!!

Waahhh! I want my mom!

It's spelled e-p-i-p-h-a-n-y

This mistake is doubly pathetic given that the Feast of Epiphany is less than 10 days from now, too. So sad.

derek g: Why will the MSM run lies like this, but question ads from the left side of the spectrum?

Because the MainStream Media is comprised of a handful of giant corporations, whose ultra-rich owners, CEOs and upper management support the Bush neo-fascist corporate-feudalist agenda of transferring taxation from capital to labor and deregulating their industry so they can gobble up more and more newspapers, TV stations and radio stations and use them to propagandize the public into voting for Bush and Bush-like Republicans who will enact that agenda.

It's not really even a question of "why do the mainstream media support Bush?" The mainstream media is part of the neo-fascist corporate-feudalist aristocracy, America's ruling class, and Bush works for them. Through their propaganda -- bullhorning pro-Bush information and disinformation alike, and suppressing information or advocacy that would undermine Bush's political power -- they are simply enabling him to do the work they pay him to do.

Newly found Iraqi documents show that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction...

Maybe Assrocket can check the kerning to see if these documents could have been produced with an old version of Microsoft Write.

Shorter rdw:

The "MSM" is only to be trusted when it reports facts friendly to the Bush Administration.

I just love how this yo-yo first raves about the so-called "MSM" lacking credibility and then citing a newspaper editorial to bolster his case. You're slipping, rdw. Back to PowerLame for more talking points pronto!

let's see. move forward's argument boils down to this: the bush administration conspired to conceal from the american people the very evidence that they were right in the first place to invade iraq. bush himself was at the center of the conspiracy designed brilliantly to lower support for the war. do i have this right, rdw? i mean who else could have acted to keep this info from the american people? yup, it's an argument with traction. perhaps dick cheney will believe it.

rdw, you're simultaneously arguing that the "WMD argument ran its course" and yet at the same time push forward the WMD-lies of a bunch of right-wing shills.

I am not supporting these commercials. I don't have a problem with them but I think the money can be better spent. My argument is that WMDs are a waste of time. If in mid-2006 WMDs are a campaign issue your party is in deep trouble. Just today we see a campaign to prove Saddam had them and a bigger effort to show GWB never lied about them. People are not voting for Bush in 2006 anyway and they're certainly not going to vote for any based on what happened in 2002.

Even if Bush lied in 2002 what are the Democratic Senators going to use as a campaign theme, "Vote for me, I'm a sap?" Most Americans understand the Senate is a co-equal branch branch of govt. They do not report to the President. Do they really wish to act as if they do? And if so would you really vote for them?

The website "www.moveamericaforward.com" is run by a PR firm out of San Francisco.

Bill O'Reilly wouldn't care if Move America Forward is destroyed by terrorists.

kevin,

I did read. I'll repeat

. . After reassessing the administration's nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege.

Can't get much clearer than that!!! Your hair is on fire.

I've also read of the Upper Wiggelsbury Buggery Society's report that they've found WMD in Iraq. But, I don't tend to believe them.

The American Liars Club is probably being funded, as are all the other propaganda, by the American taxpayers.

How many media, journalists and associations are receiving such funds? How much has been given to Republican campaigns?

mudwall

I have no idea what you're talking about. I am not defending Move Forward nor do I much care about them nor do I thnk they are spending their money wisely.

My point has been that the MSM is inept and the fact they might target them or Kevin mention them on his blog (I never heard of them before) gives them a biggr audience.

The example is of a few weeks ago after Murtha, Dean and Kerry melted down. The RNC put out it's best commercial of the last two years in retreat and defeat. It was so good they didn't spend a dime on advertising. Within 5 days Joe Klein, Jonathan Alter and a small army of DNC shrills were screaming 'Uncle' and GWB gained 10 points in the polls.

Fools like Dean and kerry still assume the MSM will protect them by screening out their nonsense. Not only are those days long gone but now the alternative media can make so much noise they had to cover the add. Tim Russert would rather lose a few fingers but he had no choice.

John Kerry LIED about EVERY SINGLE aspect of Xmas in Cambodia. The MSM tried to cover it up and they got their heads handed to them as well as the thrill of watching their guy lose. MSM credibility ratings are at ALL TIME LOWS!

THERE's a reason for that!

gregory,

I did not wrote the post you are responding to. It should be rather obvious.

John Kerry LIED about EVERY SINGLE aspect of Xmas in Cambodia. The MSM tried to cover it up and they got their heads handed to them as well as the thrill of watching their guy lose. MSM credibility ratings are at ALL TIME LOWS!

Seig HEIL, KOMMARAD!!

Arbeit macht frei!!!

I see that you are a good representative of the Fourth Reich, the Bush Administration.

Another lie from the Nazi Representative, rdw.

rdw wrote: Even if Bush lied in 2002 what are the Democratic Senators going to use as a campaign theme, "Vote for me, I'm a sap?" Most Americans understand the Senate is a co-equal branch branch of govt. They do not report to the President. Do they really wish to act as if they do? And if so would you really vote for them?

When it comes to the 2006 elections, I am a single-issue voter. I have a simple litmus test.

If a candidate for the House or Senate will go on record demanding the impeachment of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, then he or she gets my vote.

If a candidate -- of any political party -- is unwilling to call for the impeachment of Cheney and Bush, then I regard him or her as acquiescing in and enabling the establishment of a corrupt, criminal dictatorship and the destruction of the American republic, and he or she will not get my vote.

Unlike rdw, I am not a Democratic campaign strategist who worries about what Democrats need to do to win elections. I am just a citizen and a voter, and all that I can tell the Democrats, or the Republicans or the Greens or the Libertarians for that matter, is what they need to do to win my vote.

constantine,

Thank you much. I spell as well as GWB speaks. I actually did try to look it up and could not find it. Normally I am not that far off.

The point stands. Kerry was too stupid to check his own logs which showed he wasn't near Cambodia on Xmas eve. That wasn't the big problem. The big problem was the claim he was listening to President Nixon on Xmas Eve in '68 and the fact he told the story so many times over 20 years with not one MSM shrill catching the obvious lie.

This does not reach the level of pathetic. How was it possible for them to miss it? Did they listen even once?

Boots Day on December 28, 2005 at 1:56 PM:

Bill O'Reilly wouldn't care if Move America Forward is destroyed by terrorists.

Actually, I think he later added the qualifier "the liberal, homo part" of San Francisco...No wonder BO is a regular recipient of Keith Olbermann's 'Worst Person in the World' award

It doesn't matter if Kerry was in Cambodia, near Cambodia or not.

What does matter is that Bush went AWOL from his TANG unit.

Why do Nazi trolls like rdw follow a coward who went AWOL?

Should deserters be shot?

Is there a statute of limitations on desertion in time of war?

You might want to read this link before you ride that Cambodia hobbyhorse any harder, rdw. You're starting to embarrass yourself.

http://tinyurl.com/9u6ca

rdw on December 28, 2005 at 2:10 PM:

MSM credibility ratings are at ALL TIME LOWS! THERE's a reason for that!

Reason, thy name is Fox News Channel...

Secular,

You are a beautiful thing. I am conservative. You are Karl Rove's best shot at a durable majority. I pray you are influential and every Democrat campaigns on impeach Bush.

Liberals have been proving since 1968 you cannot win a national election running on the left. Bill Clinton proved it again in 1992 and more dramatically in 1994. After running as a centrist and leading as a lefty he lost 55 house seats and 7 Senate seats.

John Kerry's most famous campaign theme was "I voted for it before I voted agasint it". The reason he voted against it is because he was afraid of Dean on his left and he panicked.

Please, please run on impeachment. You'll get crushed.

Po'd

It mattered last November. Can you say "President Kerry"? I think not!

Go Dan Rather!

rdw: I am conservative.

Actually, you are an ignorant idiot.

grape,

I am a big fan of Fox but their audience is small compared to talk radio, especially Rush. I think the credit goes to bloggers and search engines. Fox gets much of it's material for the bloggers.

Dan Rather is still babbling away if not for Powerline and a few others. Think about how quickly that story was destroyed. They had the people that wrote the software for the two most popular word processing programs identify it as a probable fraud within 12 hours. They had a document authentication expert, with more credibility than the 3 'experts' CBS hired identify it was a probable fraud within 2 hours.

There has been at least 4 occasions when the NYTs came out with an anti-Bush editorial and before the paper was actually delivered it was all over the internet that the NYTs had taken the exact opposite position when Bill Clinton was President. Before anyone had the paper in their hands the editorial board was getting trashed. They were home sleeping and 1M people knew before they did. By the end of the day 30M people knew they were talking out of their ass. Only 1M buy the paper in the 1st place and less than 1/2 bother with the editoral page

More recently with the NSA story within 24 hours we knew Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had on the advice of their Justice departments had taken the identical position as GWB AND approved warrantless searches. Jamie Gorelick had another senior moment when after saying GWB was a criminal she got to watch herself on videotape testifying to Congress it was legal when Clinton did it.

Nah, Give Fox a ton of credit. But it's search engines and the internet.

SecularAnimist,

rdw: I am conservative.

Actually, you are an ignorant idiot.

Its hardly as if they two categories are incompatible.

mnensyne,

I can't link to that site. If you have a point make it. Since Kerry's campaign staff even admitted he got the story wrong I can't imagine why you'd dispute it.

BTW: It's on tape. We know exactly what he said and it's not possible he was accurate.

Mnemosyne wrote:
You might want to read this link before you ride that Cambodia hobbyhorse any harder, rdw. You're starting to embarrass yourself.
http://tinyurl.com/9u6ca

What's disturbing about this, to me, is that it's a right-wing pattern of attack, and it seems to work.
Make up a TON of lies, and attack your opponent by claiming they lie. Then, as your lies get whittled away with the truth, keep focusing on what's left, until there's at least one thing about which people remain convinced there's a "lie" (evidence or not), and allow your brain-damaged minions to repeat ad infinitum. All the while, making sure no one pays attention to the fact that YOU lied in making the accusations.
Happened to Gore, Kerry and others.
And, I'd bet it keeps working. Man, the right-wing will yet drag us all down.

rdw is not interested in policy made ad hoc out of muddy facts or in mere politics. He is interested in finding evidence of something more timeless. Over and over he tells us his power unit is great, the greatest in the world and, no doubt, the greatest ever known to man, and how all others are failures. Prestige and power are his only interests. His team is a monolith of righteousness. He doesn’t want to establish a good policy track record as in normal politics but to reiterate his single message of the establishment of right-ness as a form of predestination.

Again:
He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also -- since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself -- unshakeably certain of being in the right. Orwell, Notes on Nationalism, 1945

secular, cmdicely

1992: Dems 57 Senators 267 Congressmen
2005: Dems 44 Senators 202 Congressmen

Yes, you have it correct. It's the conservatives who are ignorant. You've got it all figured out.

Also, RDW, having read the quote from Kerry about being in Cambodia, he does not say that Nixon was President in 1968, at all. He said, later in the paragraph that Nixon denied that Americans were in Vietnam, but not when. There is nothing to your assertion about him claiming to be listening to Nixon (as President) that Christmas, so do stop repeating it without proof.

YOU lied in making the accusations.
Happened to Gore, Kerry and others.
And, I'd bet it keeps working. Man, the right-wing will yet drag us all down.

I call it the "whack-a-mole" strategy. You just keep talking, and say whatever you want. It's all lies, but while your opponent is saying "EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT JUST MADE IS A LIE" you say more lies.

He's knocking down your lies, but you are still lying.

Just remember: Bush was AWOL, and has not accounted for his lack of attendance at drills for 19 months.

Mike B,

Gore lied and got caught. Kerry lied and got caught. GWB was honest and Rather got caught. Clinton lied and got caught by a dress. Your party has to understand search engines. The blogs have far more research power than the MSM. If they lie they will get caught. The MSM can no longer protect them.

There is hope. Harry Reid is learning. After his brilliant one-liner about killing the patriot act started making the rounds, thanks to videotape, Harry knew he could not lie his way out of that one. The story about not having English class as a lad was more than pathetic but the lessor of two evils. That'll make a campaign commerical in the future.

mike b,

I know it's hard so I'll help you. Kerry said he had his life altering epiphany in Cambodia one Xmas Eve while listening to Dick Nixon announce the US was not in Cambodia.

You know how life altering epiphany's are. You tend to remember them. He did not say it was 1968. But I think it safe to assume this major event happened when he was stationed in Vietnam. And since the only time he was serving in SE Asia in December was 1968 it's rather safe to assume this epiphany occured Xmas Eve 1968. it could not have been 1967 or 1969, 1970, 1971, etc.

The man was caught in a lie. His campaign staff eventually admitted it.

POed,

Maybe Bush was AWOL. But now that Dan Rather blew the story it doesn't matter. I think not but I know it's not worth arguing about. The story lives because of Dan Rather.

rdw on December 28, 2005 at 2:35 PM:

It mattered last November.

So you think that lying and smearing in order to win is A-Ok. Nice to see you supporting Christian and American values in such a positive manner.

I will disagree with Mnemosyne on one point, however; you're beyond embarassing yourself. You passed 'starting' a while ago. I do think that Secular Animist nailed it, though...you come across as uninformed and kinda dumb.

Merry Fiskmas!

rdw on December 28, 2005 at 2:50 PM:

I am a big fan of Fox but their audience is small compared to talk radio, especially Rush.

Fox News and Limbaugh fan? Whoda thunk it? I see you like your news spoon-fed and partisan-flavored. Or should I say port-i-san flavored?

I think the credit goes to bloggers and search engines. Fox gets much of it's material for the bloggers.

You mean from bloggers? If so, then no wonder why its research and fact-checking are such crap. That's just downright lazy on Fox's part.

Dan Rather is still babbling away if not for Powerline and a few others.

Sorry, your creative use of grammar has totally thrown me off. Are you an example of the typical Rush listener?

Think about how quickly that story was destroyed.

Smeared, yes. Completely disproven, no.

They had...(medium-sized partisan ramble)...legal when Clinton did it.

See, you made a number of errors with the partisan ramble you wrote. 1) You cited no sources for your information, 2) You are trying to duck the issue of the MA-Fer's neocon-wet-dreams-as-advertising tactics by throwing out alleged transgressions as distractors, and 3) Justify the morality present actions by comparing them to past actions. Two wrongs don't make a right, boyo...

Nah, Give Fox a ton of credit.

Nah. Unless you mean 'give them a ton of credit' for many of the lies and manufactured controversies they've entered into the public consciousness.

But it's search engines and the internet.

No, those are the tools, you twit. It still takes people to use or misuse those tools.

Gore lied and got caught.

What did Gore lie about?

bellumregio,

I've explained the course of American exceptionalism under GWB many, many times. If Bill Clinton is lucky enough to regain the WH he will enter world vastly different than the one he led us in. 8 years and no apology tours makes all the difference.

GWB has essentially collapsed global liberalism as I would define it to include our democratic party, Canada, Old Europe and the UN. The single best example is Kyoto. It is stone cold dead and will be replaced by the Asian Pacific Partnetship. You cannot miss the symbolism of the shift from the Altantic to the Pacific from Old Europe to Asia.

Clinton friends Arafat, Barak, Schroeder, Blair and Chirac will be gone. NATO is a shell but we have new security agreements with South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Malasia, India and Pakistan. The biggest change of course is that the Clintonian embrace of terrorist like Arafat can never again happen.

At least Holly wood will be happy to see Bill. They're getting their asses kicked.

Pardon:

3) Justify the morality of present actions by comparing them to past actions.

See, rdw? It's pretty easy to admit fault rapidly and correct a mistake. Too bad your fearless leader Dubya seems to be incapable of doing the same.

rdw, enough of your nonsense. We've listened to you endorse bush's specious reasons for invading iraq. We've listened to you mindlessly lash out at your moral betters like Murtha and Kerry when they lay the facts out on the table in Iraq, and we've listened to you mindlessly defend Bush's incompetence. Finally, you have had the gall to challenge the honesty of the most morally upright politicians such as Gore, Dean, Murtha, and Kerry while you praise the law-breaking, lying, torture-endorsing moral defectives of the White House. For you to even attempt to claim to have credibility on these issues exposes you as a huge joke. You're nothing but a gullible pawn and mindless follower of hate-filled PR-campaigns by bush-worshipping shills.

What was Murtha's sin? He made Bush look bad, and it sent moral defectives such as yourself into a mindless rage because you saw your idol GW Bush besmirched. This pathetic Bush-worshipping claptrap from you blathering abused-children is getting ridiculous. When you lash out at your moral superiors such as Murtha, it only exposes you as a mindless repeater of talking points.

boots,

I forget my Gore history but at the time of the 2000 elections hehad been pretty well getting slimed by the talk shows for his serial exaggerations and dumb stories. Inventing the internet is one and I now that's not what he said but he did give himself far too much credit. He talked about his Mom singing Union some song to him when he was very young but the song wasn't written until he was 17. There is an entire series of these embellishments.

rdw, you forgot to diss France in your usual ramble posted at 3:39 PM. Do you save time by just cutting and pasting that shit?

I forget my Gore history but at the time of the 2000 elections hehad been pretty well getting slimed by the talk shows for his serial exaggerations and dumb stories.

So it shouldn't be too hard for you to come up with something he said that was a lie.

Inventing the internet is one and I now that's not what he said

...which turned to be to case for every one of these "embellishments." Either Gore never said it, or what he said turned out to be true. For every single one.

but he did give himself far too much credit. He talked about his Mom singing Union some song to him when he was very young but the song wasn't written until he was 17.

It was a joke. An obvious joke. The audience laughed when he said it.

There is an entire series of these embellishments.

And every time Rush or O'Reilly (or you) repeated one of them, they were lying more than Gore ever did.

"Hey Kids, let's us invade Syria!"

F-You winger.

Sincerely,
The General

PS: Ask the NSA if they have any ideas where the WMDs went. Then tell Israel that you think it could be Syria. I'm sure they would have never caught that themselves, and they certainly wouldn't have done anything about it until now. They have a long history of respect for Syrian borders after all.

Make sure to ride in some Iraqi police convoys while youre over there.

rdw, Gore was by far the most honest, most qualified presidential candidate of our time. That you need to lash out at him with the mindless repetition of the right-wing hate claims that Gore was dishonest only outs you as a man lacking in anyt sort of moral rectitude. Why was Gore painted as dishonest? Because he had the temerity to run against Bush for the presidency. I'm sorry that Gore opposed your precious idol during an election and beat him. That doesn't justify your unhinged lashing out at him based on a bunch of talking-points pushed as a piece of slimy filth like Karl Rove. You should be disassociating yourself from Karl Rove's filth, not repeating it. What are you going to tell your grandkids at the end of your life? "I repeated everything Karl Rove told me to say" ? What kind of life is that?

rdw on December 28, 2005 at 3:39 PM:

I've explained the course of American exceptionalism under GWB many, many times.

Yes you have. Incoherently. Many times.

If Bill Clinton is lucky enough to regain the WH...(more mental masturbation with a half a stick of delusion thrown in for flavor)...can never again happen.

The likelyhood of Bill Clinton ever getting elected president again is about as strong as Dubya getting elected president again, unless you are proposing a revocation of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution...

They're getting their asses kicked.

Actually, Syriana, Good Night and Good Luck, and Brokeback Mountain are doing suprisingly well. The only thing that seems to be getting its ass kicked recently is...You...Look forward to the next change in your storyline and unsupported assertation of fact, you Limbaugh fanboy you!

constantine,

I've not labored to defend the move into Iraq. You have me confused with someone else.

Murtha is a political hack and not an exceptionally bright one. Again this gets to the power of the internet and search engines. He DID in fact call for an immediate pull out and the MSM was lying when they said he just turned on Bush. He turned a long time ago. He is a whack job. The simple bastard in one interview said he's recommending we redeploy troops out of Iraq and suggested one spot to station them would be Okinawa.

The man is a buffoon. Okinawa is 9,000 miles away. Even worse is the twit doesn't know we're reducing our presence in Okinawa as a way of improving relations with the Japanese which by the way has been very successful. The Japanese do not like having American troops on their soil as a WWII reminder. So we are removing them and recreating our relationhip as peers. GWB is pushing hard for a seat on the security council for Japan and for a change to their Constitution to allow more defense spending and a shift to offensive capabilities. The USA-Japan-UK-AUST will form by far the most powerful Naval compact in History. Our relationship with Japan has never been better. Then this fool come along and tried to tell Japan they're taking our troops. He's a moron.

Murtha, like the rest of the liberal world, thinks France and Germany are allies. They're not to be trusted. We have far more in common with Japan, South Korea, India, Indonesia, atc. The French and Germans don't have a Navy. The Japanese can actually function as allies.

He is a whack job.

Once again, the child lashes out at his moral superior merely because someone criticized his father.

Grow the hell up, rdw. You're like every other mindless right-winger. In 2002, you would be frothing at the mouth about Tom Daschle because the right-wing hate squad told you to. When Richard Clarke dared call bull on Bush's policies, you were thrown into a fit of rage because the right-wingers told you to. You'll lash out with mindless rage at whomever the right-wing boogeyman of the day is, merely because that person had the temerity to criticze Bush in public. Spare us your mindless blather.

grape,

I'm glad you realize Slick willie will never be President. You have a phd in stating the obvious. If he gets back it's as Hillary's mate.

Syrianna is a loser and Goodnite, Good luck was a bigger loser. Brokeback will be lucky to do as well as Syrianna. Syrianna dropped 50% it's 2nd week and from 5th to 12th last week. Goodnight didn't crack the top 90 of 2005. Ticket sales were running down 7% and that's with huge hits in Star Wars and Harry Potter.

The likelyhood of Bill Clinton ever getting elected president again is about as strong as Dubya getting elected president again, unless you are proposing a revocation of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution...

Bill Clinton himself has said the limit should be replaced with a two-consecutive-term limit.

constantine,

Look it up. Murtha recommended we redeploy troop to Okinawa in reserve if we needed them in Iraq. that's stupid on every level. I know we're reducing troops in Okinawa as part of a diplomatic effort. How is it that fool doesn't? Also why not look up the distance between Okinawa and Iraq. It was a dumb suggestion.

constantine,

Gore was a dick. The man was raised as a prince in a Washington Luxury Hotel with room service going to private schools in limo's his entire life. Like Teddy Kennedy is inherited every job and every dime he ever had.

rdw, you really don't have anything better to do with your time, do you? That;s pretty sad, but to be expected from someone who posts with such fury as you. I guess I'd be bitter if I had to spend the holidays alone as well. Sorry to hear that.

boots,

Gore has an long list of lies and exaggerations. It wasn't the RNC that killed him. It was the MSM. He did lie about the internet. It was a DoD project and had been in existance long before he became a Senator.

rdw,

my point is simple. it takes a humongous leap of logic to believe there is a conspiracy by anyone at this point in time to conceal wmd in iraq. no one except a certified crackpot would believe it. on the other hand the swift boat incidents happened nearly four decades ago in a remote corner of the world with only a relative handful of witnesses. as it happens, i believe kerry's version of events but there was enough time and distance to create a controversy by a few opportunists and professional liars. you can't say the same about iraq. you complain about the ineptitude of the msm -- as if it were a monolith -- but if you go back you'd see voices of doubt about the intelligence that led up to the war and the decision to fight in the first place, most notably by knight ridder newspapers. the idea of a free press is to create a marketplace of ideas. some will get it right, others wrong. some will parrot the party line, others will challenge. in the end, hopefully the truth will emerge from the debate. and in the internet era, with its incredible access to huge numbers of outlets and opinions it affords, the idea of a monolithic maninstream media is outdated.

Bill Clinton himself has said the limit should be replaced with a two-consecutive-term limit.

It'll never happen. There's no support for it and it's very hard and expensive to amend the constitution. The only way to get 75% of the states to vote for it would be if there was a very popular republican who wanted to stick around.

Gore was a dick.

Once again, the man lashes out at his moral betters for having the temerity to be a better man than Bush. You're really off the wall, aren't you? You lack the moral backbone to condemn Bush, but you lash out at those who've consistently proven themselves to be better men in every way imaginable-- once against proving the adage that Democrats view their country as an adult views his parents, while Republicans view their country as a child views his parents. You're going to die knowing that the moral choices you made in life were to mindlessly repeat the hate from Karl Rove at every opportunity... your live is lived from boogey man to boogey man. In a few months, we'll have to listened to your unhinged rants about the next politicians that comes in the crosshairs of the right-wing hate brigade.

rdw lashes out, because he is just another bitter, right wing blowhard ZERO of a man who could only wish to accomplish in life what Gore or Kerry has, alas he never will. Poor sap.

Boy.
I have to say that rdw and his ilk have made me take Barnum's Hypothesis on the Temporal Distribution of Human Intelligence a lot more seriously.
It may actually rise to the level of being a theory, in the scientific sense.

k